661–670 of 884 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Allegedly, some of it can be attributed to the extensive use of carbon fiber in the A350s fuselage and wings.
What can be attributed to the carbon fibre?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Flying between states is a pretty clear cut type of interstate commerce. There is also the bit about regulating transport for post. It doesn’t literally explicitly contain regulations regarding air travel, because it did not exist in the 1700s.
>>It doesn’t literally explicitly contain regulations regarding air travel, because it did not exist in the 1700s. If only the founders would have thought of that problem and included a method for which the constitution could be amended to grant additional powers to the federal government should the people and the states desire it... But no it is easier to just invent new powers by continual reinterpretation of the d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Flying is safer by several orders of magnitude. Especially in the US.
Let's do some math, shall we? > In 2007, the National Transportation Safety Board estimated a total of nearly 24 million flight hours. Of these 24 million hours, 6.84 of every 100,000 flight hours yielded an airplane crash, and 1.19 of every 100,000 yielded a fatal crash. https://www.psbr.law/aviation_accident_statistics.html So we have 330M people in the US, of which let's say 100M are driving regularly. How regular…
Is it safer on average to do a long road trip, or fly? Historical crash data on long road trips (excluding commutes, local errands, etc.) probably doesn't exist, but if it did, that would be very preferable. Perhaps people crash more when driving unfamiliar roads, with additional fatigue of long durations, with additional distraction of kids, etc. Or perhaps routine drives are worse because one lets their guard down!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And EASA, which is also politically controlled, will not do it because the US government pressure.
it works the same way the other way around no? airbus planes are still flying in the US even though they are currently eating boeing's lunch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alaskan Airlines is notorious for taking maintenance shortcuts, this is likely not an inherent problem with the airframe but rather this operators SOP. Alaskan Airline flight 261 is one example. > The subsequent investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that inadequate maintenance led to excessive wear and eventual failure of a critical flight control system during flight. Source: ht…
Although I can sympathize with the story, this particular aircraft had been in their hands just a couple months. Its first commercial flight was just a couple weeks back. Maintenance isn't the issue here, clearly.
Interesting timeline. Following the two fatal crashes involving the MCAS system and the 737 Max … The FAA gave Boeing until Dec of 2022 to implement a fix. The fix was to reconfigure the 737 Max with 2 sensors (instead of one) and include an manual shutoff Guess what happened? Boeing didn’t fix anything.. instead they cried to congress that the fix is too expensive and they cannot get it done. So what happens is cong…
Interesting timeline. Following the two fatal crashes involving the MCAS system and the 737 Max … The FAA gave Boeing until Dec of 2022 to implement a fix. The fix was to reconfigure the 737 Max with 2 sensors (instead of one) and include an manual shutoff Guess what happened? Boeing didn’t fix anything.. instead they cried to congress that the fix is too expensive and they cannot get it done. So what happens is cong…
That is pretty concerning. The way how Boeing can get its way simply by threatening to can the entire MAX program (which they'd never actually do) shows that there's a very deep level of integration between the US government and its biggest companies, especially one like Boeing that's often seen as kind of a minor point of national pride. Not only that, but the article mentions that the 737 MAXs got an exemption on p…
At least in China when greed kills people there are consequences for executives: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/24/china-executes...
Chinese system has a huge number of flaws but one thing it gets right is the government stands above corporations.
Corporate control over government is the path to dystopia, it's how the climate situation got out of control, why the drug epidemics keep coming back, why obesity is killing the country, etc. etc.
Occasionally people wake up and fight back for a moment but it's always fleeting because the deck is stacked against the people. The corporates have the money for the research and "lobbying" aka bribes to keep regulation at bay for decades usually.
Corporate greed is all consuming and thus regulation is meant to exist as it's counter-balance. When the corpos are the ones regulating themselves well... you can't be surprised when this is the result.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After seeng your comment, I just went ahead and watched the doc, and I frankly I find myself in a state of rage right now. From my limited understanding, I had this impression this was an engineering failure. And you know, when you have a complicated machine, sometimes shit happens. But it wasn't that at all. Boeing knew clearly what the dangers of MCAS system were, they went to great lengths to completely hide the p…
You have to view all US regulatory goings-on wrt Boeing through the lens of Airbus-Boeing/EU-US trade rivalry (plus China's COMAC as a new entrant). Boeing is the US's largest exporter (defense + civilian), and also the 65th largest US stock overall. Any US regulator action against Boeing would affect all that, plus US stock markets. You have to wonder how independent the FAA head can afford to be from Congressional…
[0]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-737-max-8-grounded-by-mo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's more than two decades ago. People involved must have long left the company. They might even be working for other airlines.
That's not how organizations work. You can't just slowly take out the "bad" people and replace them with "good" people and expect that to fix anything. It's the wrong mental model. Organizations are sticky. They get stuck in a rut, basically. The slow trickle of new people gets indoctrinated into the Company Way (or else selectively ejected), and the people that are able to leave often use it as a lesson of what not…