Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
29 Jul 19
13:23
Joined:
Date Joined:
25 Jun 06
...says "My family won't fly on a 737 Max."
Ryanair says "Let's buy 210 or them".
Although the sneaky ****s are apparently rebranding them so you'll fly on on of them, but not know it's one.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/travel/9511371/ryanair-rebranded-boeing-737-max-jets/
If you want to risk flying one an "737-8200", you are flying on an 737 Max.
Apparently the BA group are also buying them which is a bit crap, they are harder to avoid flying on. I cetainly don't want to go on one.
Ryanair says "Let's buy 210 or them".
Although the sneaky ****s are apparently rebranding them so you'll fly on on of them, but not know it's one.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/travel/9511371/ryanair-rebranded-boeing-737-max-jets/
If you want to risk flying one an "737-8200", you are flying on an 737 Max.
Apparently the BA group are also buying them which is a bit crap, they are harder to avoid flying on. I cetainly don't want to go on one.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 27
|
By:
i think ba owner iag have only signed a letter of intent so should be able to cancel the order easily. that's the simple part .......
 amazingly, testing has revealed a potentially very serious problem with the previous upgrade to the 737, known as the 737ng and there are 7000 of them currently in service. the second article i link says 'The record provides that it is a relatively safe airplane. But a runaway stabilizer is a well known electrical malfunction that could by chance happen on any of those flights. The changes from the 737 Classic to the 737 NG make it more difficult, if not impossible, for the pilots to recover from such a situation:' 'It is pure luck that no NG crash has yet been caused by a runaway stabilizer incident. It is quite astonishing that these issues only now become evident. The 737 NG was certified by the FAA in 1997. Why is the FAA only now looking into this?' these three groups have lots of articles on this ongoing catastrophe, it is sobering stuff. with regard to the max boeing are still intent on fixing a hardware problem with software, thank god for outsourced $9 an hour computer programmers. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/engineers-say-boeing-pushed-to-limit-safety-testing-in-race-to-certify-planes-including-737-max/ https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/05/boeing-737-max-crash-reveals-a-severe-problem-with-older-boeing-737-ngs.html https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/07/737-max-may-stay-grounded-into-2020-why-does-boeing-ceo-muilenburg-still-have-a-job.html many other related articles on each site on this, i wouldnt recommend reading them prior to flying. ultimately, i imagine the airlines will get the blame for the two crashes (easy to blame lion air as they have a poor safety record, ethiopian are pretty good apparently but one of the pilots wasnt that experienced). boeing are extremely well connected politically and it didnt take long for these representatives to start shifting the blame. |
|
By:
Any system that is wired to a single sensor that is safety critical such that if any part of the chain fails it might lead to a crash is imho just not safe. I said that before but it's just common sense. No amount of p1ssing around in software can take away the fact that if it jams, fails, or gives readings that are significantly in error, with no other info to go on the software will act as if the reading its getting are correct, and given its automatically ****ing around with trying to keep the plane level, it just shouts out that it's inherently got "dangerous" designed in. The FAA should demand that at a minimum two sensors should be used and the system and code should be reviewed by good external people to agree its now bulletproof. And if it can't trust the sensors it should just switch off the autocontrol and give an alarm to the crew it's full manual mode.
|
|
By:
they have had two sensors on it all along, the tight feckers chose not to use the second one. so many reports but i think one of the seattle times ones says south west airlines thought they had bought a plane with two in use then discovered only one was in use. they opted to pay to get the second one used too.
|
|
By:
if you are full time at faa you will soon fall behind industry developments so you need to stay close to the industry. at first they let the boeing employees who were doing faa certification work act autonomously but at some point their independence was compromised and boeing management put the employees doing the regulatory work under pressure to agree with their cost cutting measures. those who stayed independent and resisted were threatened and i think i read at least one who stood his ground was sacked not long after.
a litany of c0ck ups for sure, some of which look like school boy errors. |
|
By:
PS there is a panorama on this tonight which is where I get the opening quote from, so heads up anyone interested in it.
|
|
By:
Programme called
"Killer PLANES"  |
|
By:
Won't bother the lefties on here. None of them can afford to fly.
|
|
By:
Many factors involved , pilots need to be able to deal with unpredictable stuff
most people can’t do that , many pilots today can’t do that Not the right stuff |
|
By:
Won't bother the lefties on here. None of them can afford to fly.
now that's what i like  |
|
By:
"Not the right stuff"
Stupid comment of the day award goes to ... |
|
By:
Programme called
"Killer PLANES" Imso Lucky  I wonder if this plane will ever live this down.. It is a massive financial disaster for Boeing though even worse for the people who died r.i.p. |
|
By:
People who book a flight on Boeing aircraft will be asking that it is not a 737 MAX
or was one, in case they retitle it. |
|
By:
Those airlines buying up Boeing 737 MAX aircraft cheap should issue passengers with a parachute
|
|
By:
and free life assurance for their loved ones, in case they don't make it to their destination imo
|
|
By:
pILOT SAYS ITS A KRAP PLANE
|
|
By:
Not American pilots , foreign pilots crashed that’s all you need to know
not the right stuff |
|
By:
The Americans assumed the foreigners would be competent , that’s a mistake
|
|
By:
this is now so bad for boeing that hopefully they wont be able to shift the blame onto the airlines.
|
|
By:
jesus lfc have you even read the news? Clearly you don't know what the latest developments are. You're about 6 months behind.
|
|
By:
Read and catchup. Its possible, even with limited mental capabilities. I know I read it somewhere.
|
|
By:
he's just fishing, you should know that by now
 |
|
By:
The Americans assumed the foreigners would be competent , that’s a mistake
Yes, and in other walks of life much closer to home we're beginning to realise that is the case as well. |
|
By:
The Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot is a system designed to take control of a commercial aircraft away from the pilot or flight crew in the event of a hijacking. If implemented, the system would allow the craft to automatically guide itself to a landing at a designated airstrip. The "uninterruptible" autopilot would be activated either by pilots, via onboard sensors, or remotely by radio or satellite links from government agencies if terrorists attempt to gain control of a flight deck.
Both Boeing and Honeywell have contributed significantly to the introduction of digital autopilot technology into the civil aviation sector. A patent for the system was awarded to Boeing in 2006. Honeywell has also been developing a system with Airbus and a prototype has been tested on small aircraft. In 2013, a 16-seater Jetstream airliner became the first passenger plane to fly unmanned across UK civilian airspace. However, Britain's Civil Aviation Authority says there is no remote control system currently available that could cope with navigating the country's crowded skies. According to a spokesman, "there are companies working on it, but the technology doesn't exist in a practical or usable form yet." There have been claims that the technology has been secretly fitted to some commercial airliners. Some have blamed it for the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, whose cause is unknown as of 2018. According to Bob Mann, an airline industry consultant, there is no evidence that the Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot has ever been used in a commercial airliner. Safety concerns, including the possibility that such a system could be hacked, have prevented its roll-out. |
|
By:
Seems they got problems with another type of 737
Cracking on wings found on 50 planes Quality control DOWN the pan  |
|
By:
That sounds a good idea PokerDane
The problem it not necessary to take control of the plane away from the pilot when it is NOT being hijacked… This is very bad news for all on board...since nobody is flying the plane |
|
By:
I would think the more complex we make a system...the more room for error
Since we have to account for so many conditions...and combination of conditions I do not think the old bi planes had this problem....although they had a few others |
|
By:
We could go back to airships
oh no...the 'Hindenberg' blew up landing in New Jersey The latest theory for that, blames St Elmo's Fire, a natural electrical discharge that can occur under certain weather conditions in the earth's atmosphere |