advertisement


Would you fly on this plane?

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.
 
Only the Americans (quelle surprise) refusing to ground a Boing plane. If it was Airbus they would have grounded every plane and possible variant.

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

Your exaggeration adds little.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Safer than any car I drive, and much safer than cycling in a city.
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
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.
 
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.
 
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

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
"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.

I concede that point, I was being lazy.
 


advertisement


Back
Top