|
MrYenko posted:Re: that 787 article; Did they get a change to the TC, or did they just start building noncompliant aircraft and then strong arm the FAA into accepting it because there were tails on the delivery ramp? The Seattle Times report is unclear. quote:By then Boeing had already built about 40 sets of wings without the foil. Were the wings attached to fuselages or not? I see it as an academic point. Either way, the pressure is there to approve the change because planes won’t fly on‐time without those wings.
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 02:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 10:04 |
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:its an mcas joke Yes, and also Back to the Future because I’m imagining 787s getting struck by lightning and leaving two trails of fire. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AM5EYO5wWMA&t=81s
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 02:21
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The Seattle Times report is unclear. The 787 ought to be grounded.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 05:55
|
|
|
It's starting to sound like we should be asking which Boeing planes should be allowed to fly instead of which should be grounded
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 06:21
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:It's starting to sound like we should be asking which Boeing planes should be allowed to fly instead of which should be grounded Should ban everything newer than: -Introduction of 737MAX -Introduction of 787 -Merger with McDonnell Douglas -Whenever it was that the shareholder theory of value really caught on -First test runs of Wright R-3350
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 06:47
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Should ban everything newer than: Pretty sure three and four are the same event.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 06:56
|
|
|
747s only 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 07:16
|
|
|
Time to retool for 377 Stratocruisers
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 07:35
|
|
|
The 787 is the Dreamliner, as everybody knows. But TIL that the Airbus A350's nickname is the Eyeliner.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 09:11
|
|
|
I will continue to let everyone know that the 787 seats block comfortable foot position with where they bolt to the floor (and I'm on record in this thread that legroom is never an issue to me - except on 787s) and the Communist window shading that enforce the same thing on every window can both gently caress off and die in a fire
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 09:34
|
|
|
simplefish posted:I will continue to let everyone know that the 787 seats block comfortable foot position with where they bolt to the floor (and I'm on record in this thread that legroom is never an issue to me - except on 787s) and the Communist window shading that enforce the same thing on every window can both gently caress off and die in a fire I'm not sure it's a 787 problem or a Qantas 787 problem but premium economy sure does have a lot less legroom than on the 380. Oh and yeah I agree about the window shades, I like to look outside even if it is nighttime, that's why I book the window seat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 10:02
|
|
|
Boeing: installs larger windows in 787 Airlines: tHeSe WiNdOwS aRe LeTtInG tOo MuCh LiGhT iN!
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 10:07
|
|
|
simplefish posted:I will continue to let everyone know that the 787 seats block comfortable foot position with where they bolt to the floor (and I'm on record in this thread that legroom is never an issue to me - except on 787s) and the Communist window shading that enforce the same thing on every window can both gently caress off and die in a fire the window thing is good since it cuts down on idiots keeping their windows open on long haul overnight flights the 787 is a great airplane from a passenger perspective but the A350 is just as good, and although it's astonishing that i am saying this, appears to not have been designed by idiots
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 14:32
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:the window thing is good since it cuts down on idiots keeping their windows open on long haul overnight flights I'll sacrifice window control just for this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 16:05
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:the window thing is good since it cuts down on idiots keeping their windows open on long haul overnight flights subtle shade being thrown
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 18:13
|
|
|
lol if you don’t use one of those eye mask things and/or drape a piece of clothing over your face
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 22:54
|
|
|
Being able to look out the window is really really helpful when you have small kids who need to be kept entertained.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 03:50
|
|
|
Bobby Digital posted:747s only gently caress it; bring back the DC-10.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 04:57
|
|
|
man the funny thing is Boeing had to redesign a bunch of access doors to the fuel tanks on the 737MAX because they weren't electrically bonded properly right around the same time they would have been pulling this poo poo
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 15:22
|
|
|
PainterofCrap posted:gently caress it; bring back the DC-10. Help out an ignorant person here. I don't understand. The 737 Max wasn't exactly a clean sheet design, right? So what's the problem? Kelly Johnson designed the SR-71 over a long weekend with an abacus and a tape measure. These guys have HAL 9000 units and can't keep a brand new plane from committing suicide. Also, what's the deal with the black box? Why don't they make the whol
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 15:34
|
|
|
the problem is that it wasn't a clean sheet design, it was an attempt to shoehorn 2010s technolgy in a 1960s airplane edit: if anything a clean sheet design is easier because you're not constraining your different parameters in weird ways
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 17:48
|
|
|
The 737 MAXX issues are entirely due to emergent symptoms due to incompletely-understood system interaction, which is 100% due to stacking systems on systems in order to meet arbitrary certification standards. The MAXX would have legitimately been a safer airplane with the new pitch characteristics due to the new engines, and no other changes than it ended up being with systems strapped on top of systems to make it fly like something it isn’t. (Please note that I am NOT trying to excuse Boeing here.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:Help out an ignorant person here. I don't understand. The 737 Max wasn't exactly a clean sheet design, right? So what's the problem? Kelly Johnson designed the SR-71 over a long weekend with an abacus and a tape measure. These guys have HAL 9000 units and can't keep a brand new plane from committing suicide. The problem is exactly that it's not a clean sheet design. They should have stopped making 737 variants a long time ago in favor of designing a whole new airplane, but that would require that the pilots be retrained and rated for the new type. Airlines are extremely stingy and don't want to pay for that. So instead Boeing tries to cram as much new technology as possible into a frame that the FAA still considers technically an original 737 and then they can say oh look, it's a plane that's just as good as a brand new Airbus but you don't have to retrain your pilots so it's better. Boeing has been exploring replacements for the 737 since the 80s, but they always come back to just upgrading the same old airframe again and again because 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 18:06
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:The 737 MAXX issues are entirely due to emergent symptoms due to incompletely-understood system interaction, which is 100% due to stacking systems on systems in order to meet arbitrary certification standards. The MAXX would have legitimately been a safer airplane with the new pitch characteristics due to the new engines, and no other changes than it ended up being with systems strapped on top of systems to make it fly like something it isn’t. That type certificate tho Edit: sagebrush says it in more detail
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 19:05
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:Help out an ignorant person here. I don't understand. The 737 Max wasn't exactly a clean sheet design, right? So what's the problem? Kelly Johnson designed the SR-71 over a long weekend with an abacus and a tape measure. These guys have HAL 9000 units and can't keep a brand new plane from committing suicide. I don't think you would have been satisfied with the SR-71's safety characteristics as an airline passenger.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 00:46
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:I don't think you would have been satisfied with the SR-71's safety characteristics as an airline passenger. I don't know, that's a lot of time cut off the flight...
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 00:48
|
|
|
x-posting from the OHSA thread https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmD5H47ALhk  Apparently the helo guy wasn't familiar with jump ops during a jamboree and just didn't know not to fly under a jump lane???
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 00:57
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:The problem is exactly that it's not a clean sheet design. They should have stopped making 737 variants a long time ago in favor of designing a whole new airplane, but that would require that the pilots be retrained and rated for the new type. Airlines are extremely stingy and don't want to pay for that I don’t go looking for them in the wild, but I’m surprised I haven’t seen more neoliberal columnists arguing that pilot certification is the real monster that killed all those people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 01:03
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:Apparently the helo guy wasn't familiar with jump ops during a jamboree and just didn't know not to fly under a jump lane???
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 01:06
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I don’t go looking for them in the wild, but I’m surprised I haven’t seen more neoliberal columnists arguing that pilot certification is the real monster that killed all those people. I recall a couple of posters around the time of the Ethiopian crash who were arguing that it was the result of terrible third world pilot training standards and not Boeing's fault at all, because a bunch of American pilots experienced runaway trim issues in the 737max but were able to get the plane under control.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 01:16
|
|
|
NYT magazine ran a article on that premise a few months ago. It was really bad. Human factors research demonstrated the futility of expecting people to execute perfectly to avoid the airplane killing you like sixty years ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 01:24
|
|
|
It can be true that American pilots have better training and higher experience requirements for the job, and also that the airplane is unsafe to fly
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 01:44
|
|
|
RE the whole type certificate... Is it a case of Boeing marketing it to the airlines saying "See how much we can save you with this aircraft" or the Airlines going to Boeing saying "We have a shitload of 737s and don't want to retrain everyone. Sell us an aircraft where we don't have to!" I realize Boeing is ultimately responsible for what they build and should be held to account, but should any blame go to airlines for pushing Boeing to fill a niche which shouldn't be filled even if it technically could?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 01:45
|
|
|
a patagonian cavy posted:It can be true that American pilots have better training and higher experience requirements for the job, and also that the airplane is unsafe to fly
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 01:48
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Is it a case of Boeing marketing it to the airlines saying "See how much we can save you with this aircraft" or the Airlines going to Boeing saying "We have a shitload of 737s and don't want to retrain everyone. Sell us an aircraft where we don't have to!" Boeing started talking about a clean sheet successor to the 737 and the airlines were like “eh, if we have to retrain our pilots anyway, we might as well go with Airbus’ A320neo…” PCjr sidecar posted:NYT magazine ran a article on that premise a few months ago. It was really bad. Human factors research demonstrated the futility of expecting people to execute perfectly to avoid the airplane killing you like sixty years ago. I don’t mean that the columnists would blame it on pilot error. I mean that they would blame it on the “red tape” of type certification itself. If the FAA didn’t require pilots to be trained in particular models of airplane, there would be no financial pressure to hack up a sixties design and MCAS.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 02:00
|
|
|
Boeing was responding to consumer demand particularly from Southwest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 02:30
|
|
|
a patagonian cavy posted:It can be true that American pilots have better training and higher experience requirements for the job, and also that the airplane is unsafe to fly It can also be true that a number of foreign airlines hire pilots who are barely competent who can’t do anything beyond fly a bus, and when the automated systems do something they don’t expect they will kill everybody. And fixing the specific issue with the 737MAX doesn’t do anything to fix that particular contribution to the crashes. See also AF447, AirAsia 8501.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 02:50
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:x-posting from the OHSA thread A helicopter, much like a lathe is made up of large spinny bits. They also share an identical lust for human blood, this victim just saw the predator first and lives to fly another day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 03:19
|
|
|
Jump ops are usually not defined or charted well (if at all) other than “jumping in the vicinity” e: For example, if you were just transitioning this area all there is to notify you that there might be parachutists is that small little parachute icon next to the airport’s icon. It doesn’t tell you that the jump zone is southwest of the field, or the frequency the jump ship is broadcasting on, or that they jump from up to 17,000ft.  Or here, that has frequent jump ops from 17,000 and below and isn’t charted at all. 
e.pilot fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Dec 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 03:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 10:04 |
|
|
e.pilot posted:Jump ops are usually not defined or charted well (if at all) other than “jumping in the vicinity” Check the description on the video. It's looks like a "parachute from helicopters" event, but I don't know the slang, and everybody should have been in the same page about jump zones. This is third hand commenting: the video description that breaks down what happened is second hand.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 06:07
|
|
