1. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

Would you fly on this plane?

Discussion in 'off topic' started by Rack Kit, Mar 13, 2019.

  1. Rack Kit

    Rack Kit pfm Member

  2. stevec67

    stevec67 pfm Member

    Safer than any car I drive, and much safer than cycling in a city.
     
  3. cutting42

    cutting42 Heading to Fish Hacker Erg \o/

    Nope, no way, clearly something wrong. Only the Americans (quelle surprise) refusing to ground a Boing plane. If it was Airbus they would have grounded every plane and possible variant. To be clear Boeing themselves are usually very good as rectifying this stuff

    Read the thread on the pprune forum if you are interested.
     
  4. cutting42

    cutting42 Heading to Fish Hacker Erg \o/

    True but I fly a lot and whilst I am not bothered by general flying I will not knowingly increase my personal risk if it is within my control.
     
  5. sean99

    sean99 pfm Member

  6. avole

    avole The wise never post on Internet forums

  7. Wilson

    Wilson _

    Incorrect. As I type this, no country in North America has grounded them.

    Your exaggeration adds little.
     
  8. avole

    avole The wise never post on Internet forums

    Not an exaggeration at all, but a conditional sentence. Note the use of the word IF. He is not saying the Airbus has ever been banned in the US at all.

    Here’s another :

    If Boeing had fixed the problem , the aircraft not be banned in Europe and Asia.

    You’ve misunderstood.
     
    ian r and cutting42 like this.
  9. linnfomaniac83

    linnfomaniac83 I bet you can’t wheelie a unicycle!

    I’m not a nervous flyer but no, two down in six months is too many without a firm explanation of why and evidence of an effective fix.

    I was in Alicante airport waiting for a very delayed flight when the news broke of the first one going down and it really played on my mind. It’s not that I was nervous of flying on the 737-800 that I was due to fly on, I just felt really saddened for all those people who had not long before being waiting in an airport, blissfully unaware of their fate.
     
  10. linnfomaniac83

    linnfomaniac83 I bet you can’t wheelie a unicycle!

    Probably, but if two examples of a new model of car of which tens of thousands more exist were to randomly explode, killing their occupants, would you want to drive one?

    You’d certainly hear about it and it would certainly be bad publicity for the manufacturer, and it’s almost certain that sales would be put on hold and a recall issued.
     
  11. Wilson

    Wilson _

    Avole,

    Fair point. Should have stated:

    "Only the Americans (quelle surprise) refusing to ground a Boing plane."

    "Incorrect. As I type this, no country in North America has grounded a Boing (sic) plane ."

    My point, directed at Cutting42; why clam that only America has refused to ground the aircraft in question when this is not the case. The plane is still flying in Canada and Mexico.
     
  12. davidsrsb

    davidsrsb pfm Member

    It does seem that a single sensor is allowed to control a safety critical system. Even making both AOA sensors visible to the crew is not a proper fix, there should be 3 to allow a vote
     
  13. avole

    avole The wise never post on Internet forums

    Hi Jonathan,

    I think he fell into the same trap we all do. For many on this side of the pond, North America means the U.S.A. That Canada and Mexico are excluded by us is a compliment - they’re far too civilised to be confused with the US :)
     
  14. stevec67

    stevec67 pfm Member

    If this were a car and it were put on hold and recalled, that's the right thing to do if circumstances dictate. That's for the regulatory authorities, be they CAA, dvla, or whoever. That will take it out of circulation until it's fixed. Until then I'll get in one if it pulls up as a taxi. It's minimal exposure. I'd think twice before I bought one and used it every day though, you're right.
     
    linnfomaniac83 likes this.
  15. Bart

    Bart pfm Member

    No, not until it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that the plane is 'safe' and I will be the judge of that in my own sweet time so don't ask me to define it. My life, my decision.
     
  16. Tarzan

    Tarzan pfm Member

    No, as l have to have 'several' stiff drinks to get me on the tube of death.:confused:
     
    Snufkin likes this.
  17. CHE

    CHE pfm Member

    And that is a major part of the problem which Boeing won't want to address. The MAX is certified on 'grandfather' rights, which means that the original AoA sensor architecture must remain, or else a total re-certification. It's about money as usual.

    As to the OP, no chance of flying as the UK CAA has grounded them - highly sensible in my view. As a former aircraft engineer I would wait until a report was out stating reasons for the crashes before I chose to board.

    CHE
     
    ian r likes this.
  18. Mullardman

    Mullardman Moderately extreme...

    It's all in Boeing's statement yesterday that they have 'Complete confidence in the airworthiness etc.. blah..' of the 737Max-8. How the hell can they iuntil they know what happened?

    The second crashed plane clearly nose dived near vertically into the ground. Engine failure, mid air break up, a bomb, etc., would all have resulted in a wider debris field and'/or a less vertical fall. This is obvious to anyone with even a laymen's knowledge.
    The plane was being controlled by something. Either a rogue control system, or a suicidal pilot. My money's on the former.
     
    ian r and linnfomaniac83 like this.
  19. Paul R

    Paul R pfm Member

    The FAA state there is no evidence of a systemic aeroplane fault, so objectively there is no case for grounding. The rest of the world is grounding for subjective reasons. To reduce public worry. Both positions may have validity.

    I'm not convinced that three sensors and a vote helps, what if you fly into a cloud and two sensors ice up in agreement? This is a secondary system, why not sanity check the sensor reading all the time? Both against history, you know the aircraft has to take off and when it does it goes through predictable accelerations, pitch angles and angles of attack, and against right now, the throttle, pitch, control column, trim. Numbers don't look right you flag a warning and the pilots execute a check list to determine safe actions.

    I'm more concerned about pilot competence. When qualified pilots fly serviceable air liners into the ground, that bothers me. Lion Air qualifies (albeit with mitigating factors), the Amazon Air crash the other week, an air liner leaving Moscow last year, a couple of Boeings failing to land in Russia in recent years, the Air France into the South Atlantic some years ago. Probably more , I don't follow closely.
     
  20. cutting42

    cutting42 Heading to Fish Hacker Erg \o/

    I concede that point, I was being lazy.
     
    Wilson likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice