PERB In Need of Banner

Would you fly a 737 Max 8 tomorrow?

Would you fly a 737 Max 8 tomorrow?

  • Yes, no problem. Don't buy into the hysteria.

    Votes: 29 53.7%
  • Reluctantly (e.g. only if changing my ticket was too hard)

    Votes: 10 18.5%
  • No way. Any inconvenience is better than risking a death trap.

    Votes: 15 27.8%

  • Total voters
    54
  • Poll closed .
A

Andrew69913

Good back story here. Boeing sacrificing thoroughness and safety so as not to lose out to the competitor Airbus.

https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/the-world-pulls-the-andon-cord-on-the-737-max/
Boeing has no worries about Airbus as far as competition is concerned. Have you compared sales lately? Airbus still hasn't recovered from the A380 debacle. If there were half as many Airbus as there are Boeings in the sky, then Airbus might make the news more often as well. All of these companies are the same when it comes to "thoroughness and safety", whether those regulations come from EASA, TC, FAA, or wherever. All of the major regulatory authorities are pretty much identical when it comes to flight safety. I work for them...I know. As for sticking with what works? Companies want cheaper more efficient aircraft, customers want cheaper tickets, this doesn't happen without constant improvement and innovation.
 

jgg

In the air again.
Apr 14, 2015
2,664
776
113
Varies now
Interesting that Ethiopia and Ethiopian Airlines is refusing to send the FDR and the CVR to the US for analysis. The NTSB used to be the preeminent accident investigation organization and the FAA the best regulatory body. But, Trump claims to have improved air safety since he came to office. No one trusts the US anymore. Obama tweeted condolences. Trump tweeted planes are to complicated...like he would know.

Safety has and should always supersede economics. After this we will see fewer airlines, at the least.
 

clu

Active member
Oct 3, 2010
1,270
14
38
Vancouver
A

Andrew69913

The NTSB still are the preeminent accident investigation organization in the world. Nobody has the experience or qualified personnel they have......not even close. They have NEVER showed anything but impartiality in their investigations and have employees from just about everywhere you can imagine. For Ethiopian Airlines to suggest otherwise is ridiculous and suggests they have something they don't want us to know.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

clu

Active member
Oct 3, 2010
1,270
14
38
Vancouver
The NTSB still are the preeminent accident investigation organization in the world. Nobody has the experience or qualified personnel they have......not even close. They have NEVER showed anything but impartiality in their investigations and have employees from just about everywhere you can imagine. For Ethiopian Airlines to suggest otherwise is ridiculous and suggests they have something they don't want us to know.
I know I'm risking taking this in a political direction but given how many other US government agencies have gone "off mission" under Trump to become stooges for the industries they formerly regulated (e.g. EPA), I could see them being worried even if it's not earned in the NTSB's case. It may just be that they saw Europe taking the situation more seriously by grounding the planes when the FAA (I know not the NTSB) didn't.
 
A

Andrew69913

I know I'm risking taking this in a political direction but given how many other US government agencies have gone "off mission" under Trump to become stooges for the industries they formerly regulated (e.g. EPA), I could see them being worried even if it's not earned in the NTSB's case. It may just be that they saw Europe taking the situation more seriously by grounding the planes when the FAA (I know not the NTSB) didn't.
I understand....but if there is such as "beyond reproach" I believe the NTSB is as close as you can get. Even Russia calls on them for help lol.
 
A

Andrew69913

Ok..now they are saying the FAA are to blame in their releasing of the approved service bulletin. That the government shut down led to a delay in release of this service bulletin, however, the airlines were all made aware of the trending data with respect to the performance of the MCAS system. Perhaps the pilots were not as well informed by their airline as we were previously led to believe. Either way...it is obvious this was a known problem...a fix was in the works...regulatory authorities and airlines were made aware of it. It will be interesting to see where the axe falls.
 

jgg

In the air again.
Apr 14, 2015
2,664
776
113
Varies now

Loudenboomer

New member
Jan 21, 2010
11
2
3
I'm a pilot. I'd ride on one operated by a North American or European airline.

It's not coincidental that both of the accidents occurred on aircraft operated by airlines in the developing world. Not only are standards of training and safety considerably more lax (the co-pilot in the Ethiopian airlines crash had only 200 hours FFS! In Canada that's barely enough to get a job flying daytime sightseeing tours in a Cessna 172!) but there is a strong culture of "face" (i.e. The captain is God and the co-pilot must not do anything to contradict him or make him look bad) that is not conducive to safe aircraft operations.

There very likely is some sort of issue with the 737MAX 8 aircraft, but based on the evidence presented so far it's something that a correctly trained and experienced crew should be able to deal with quite easily.
 

80watts

Well-known member
May 20, 2004
3,247
1,182
113
Victoria
Years ago a airplane landed on a highway (Manitoba or Ontario), that plane lost all its engines. It was able to land because it could glide. Most planes designed today, are not made to glide. it needs a powerplant/engine to push it through the air and generate lift on its wings. If you need to know more search stall airplane.

If you have been in a nice new car, and seen all the electronic gadgets in them, well the same goes for your engine electronics too. In the past to measure something you had a analog meter that gave a pretty good indication of what was being measured. Nowadays the meter could be something else. for temperature its a thermo-couple (which has to be calibrated). this thermo-couple might not be where you think its gonna be. An oil temperature gauge, could be on the outside of the oil pan, not in the oil itself. Its an indirect way of measuring to save money on time, design, and maintenance.

Planes are no different. the meters are inputs for computer programs (which means the analog is converted to digital by some means). The program (algorithm) takes digital inputs; puts it through its logic centers and comes out with a response. If a digital meter fails and that is crucial to the program, it can adversely affect the output the program is responsible for. The response for all these system is either P, PI, PID control, depending on the set point or parameters you need. Bad input can mean really bad output from a controller.... This is bad enough on stationary systems, let alone an airplane moving through the air.

The crash could be a variety of parameters; to make the plane go wonky after takeoff.

Whatever it is, Boeing sure fucked up somewhere, cause they usually are better than this ...

Just to note my college physic teacher told me that elevators have a safety factor of 10. Meaning that if the weights says 2000 lbs, it is tested for 20,000 lbs. I think he mentioned the safety factor for planes was between 1 and 3.
 

MB Mod

Moderator
Sep 17, 2017
3,271
14,512
113
Years ago a airplane landed on a highway (Manitoba or Ontario), that plane lost all its engines. It was able to land because it could glide. Most planes designed today, are not made to glide. it needs a powerplant/engine to push it through the air and generate lift on its wings. If you need to know more search stall airplane.

If you have been in a nice new car, and seen all the electronic gadgets in them, well the same goes for your engine electronics too. In the past to measure something you had a analog meter that gave a pretty good indication of what was being measured. Nowadays the meter could be something else. for temperature its a thermo-couple (which has to be calibrated). this thermo-couple might not be where you think its gonna be. An oil temperature gauge, could be on the outside of the oil pan, not in the oil itself. Its an indirect way of measuring to save money on time, design, and maintenance.

Planes are no different. the meters are inputs for computer programs (which means the analog is converted to digital by some means). The program (algorithm) takes digital inputs; puts it through its logic centers and comes out with a response. If a digital meter fails and that is crucial to the program, it can adversely affect the output the program is responsible for. The response for all these system is either P, PI, PID control, depending on the set point or parameters you need. Bad input can mean really bad output from a controller.... This is bad enough on stationary systems, let alone an airplane moving through the air.

The crash could be a variety of parameters; to make the plane go wonky after takeoff.

Whatever it is, Boeing sure fucked up somewhere, cause they usually are better than this ...

Just to note my college physic teacher told me that elevators have a safety factor of 10. Meaning that if the weights says 2000 lbs, it is tested for 20,000 lbs. I think he mentioned the safety factor for planes was between 1 and 3.

If you’re referring to the Gimli glider, aircraft that landed on an old runway being used as a racetrack, that was 100% human error. They miscalculated the amount of fuel onboard and ran out.
 

Amerix

Active member
May 7, 2004
171
53
28
If you’re referring to the Gimli glider, aircraft that landed on an old runway being used as a racetrack, that was 100% human error. They miscalculated the amount of fuel onboard and ran out.
That and it was a 747. It was definitely not built to glide, that landing was due to some amazing piloting.
 

Loudenboomer

New member
Jan 21, 2010
11
2
3
Years ago a airplane landed on a highway (Manitoba or Ontario), that plane lost all its engines. It was able to land because it could glide. Most planes designed today, are not made to glide. it needs a powerplant/engine to push it through the air and generate lift on its wings. If you need to know more search stall airplane.
This is not at all true. All airplanes will glide in the event of total engine failure. Any modern airliner will out glide that old 767 by a significant margin.

Planes are no different. the meters are inputs for computer programs (which means the analog is converted to digital by some means). The program (algorithm) takes digital inputs; puts it through its logic centers and comes out with a response. If a digital meter fails and that is crucial to the program, it can adversely affect the output the program is responsible for. The response for all these system is either P, PI, PID control, depending on the set point or parameters you need. Bad input can mean really bad output from a controller.... This is bad enough on stationary systems, let alone an airplane
Airplanes which utilize computer control (all modern airliners and large business jets) have multiple redundancies (often 3 or more) built in. This technology has been in use in production aircraft for 50 years with great success.
 

Loudenboomer

New member
Jan 21, 2010
11
2
3
That and it was a 747. It was definitely not built to glide, that landing was due to some amazing piloting.
767. That incident showed the value of "stick and rudder" flying skills in an emergency, something that is becoming less and less prevalent in modern airline cockpits (especially overseas).

Bob Pearson had a widely varied career (including glider flying). The skills he learned along the way undoubtedly helped to save the day at Gimli.
 

Riza

Filipina MILF
Jun 3, 2013
1,294
1,022
113
Richmond incall
riza.ca
If you’re referring to the Gimli glider, aircraft that landed on an old runway being used as a racetrack, that was 100% human error. They miscalculated the amount of fuel onboard and ran out.
Ground crew were the ones that needed more training and AC making sure all systems worked in the aircraft and air crews are sufficiently trained in new aircraft. (and new measurement of fuel)

 

Deguire

Active member
Aug 23, 2018
107
48
28
Kits
If you’re referring to the Gimli glider, aircraft that landed on an old runway being used as a racetrack, that was 100% human error. They miscalculated the amount of fuel onboard and ran out.
and that was on a new aircraft, a 767, not 747. It was a direct result of Trudeau Pere insisting that Canada go metric, including aviation. Turns out you shouldn't mess with aviation. (I can explain at length if you really want to know.) By sheer good luck, one of the pilots had flown gliders and the other had flown out of Gimli in his RCAF days. It was thought at one point that big jets could not glide to a landing but now we know that Canada specializes in that. In addition to the Gimli Glider, Air Transat ran out of gas on an A330 high over the Atlantic and managed to glide to a landing in the Azores.
 

lostviking

Member
May 5, 2014
159
12
18
victoria
Yes, I would take out some life insurance before flying, thereby making sure my family and a few select friends can throw one hell of a party
 

westwoody

Well-known member
Jun 10, 2004
7,421
6,529
113
Westwood
This is not at all true. All airplanes will glide in the event of total engine failure.
Hang on, all airplanes?

Some are inherently unstable and require computer assistance to fly.
Are those planes able to glide without an engine?
 

Big_Guy_Rye

Pragmatic Pariah
May 7, 2018
944
828
93
Everywhere in BC
Fuck, I'll risk it.

My vacation is set in stone, and paid a lot for a 5-star experience in Cabo this weekend.

If things get cancelled, I have to fight to get my cancellation insurance paid, and I'm fucked for vacation until next year....PLUS, I probably have to max out my credit card to find an alternative vacation spot if I decide to go anywhere.
 
Vancouver Escorts