Sylvia Else wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net:
You fail to get my meaning. I do not care about the judgements of people whom will never affect my life. That is pretty much Usenet et al. And that is certainly any made by that fat ass.
It is very easy and convenient to sit in the judgement seat and blame people for stupidity and incompetence, after they are dead - hey they cannot defend themselves. But Boeing has a history o - how shall we put it, making unreliable products ? Check this out:
Same story - defective flight instruments. This time the pilots had thousands of hours of flight time, and one of them was an Air Force veteran.
I was a young boy (about 5 years old) when this happened, living in Kolkata India, and I vividly remember that fateful night when friends, relatives started arriving late at night at a house a short walk away from where we lived. Apparently, the head of the household had perished that evening in the crash.
That time also, all charges against Boeing, Rockwell Collins etc., were summarily dismissed by the Federal judge -- citing pilot error. Exciting, isn't it ?
It speaks volumes when you have to go back almost 50 years to try to cite an example of what you claim is faulty product. Any system is subject to failure, so far man has been incapable of finding a way around it. So what do we do? For critical systems we make them redundant. If you read that accident report, it sounds like the attitude indicator on the pilot's side failed. They still had one working on the co-pilots side and a third one in center. The flight engineer was even telling the pilots to use the center one. And it looks like from what is there that there was poor communication among the flight crew to resolve the problem. The initiating incident was the failure of the attitude indicator on the pilot's side. But the pilots are supposed to be able to handle that and sadly it looks like they screwed up and that's why the cause is attributed to pilot error.
Bear in mind that at least some of those making confident statements in this thread have no visible experience of flying aircraft.
"Armchair quarterbacking" is the phrase that springs to mind.
Yes, better to just shut up and leave it all to the experts at Boeing and FAA.
I don't understand your point. The issue is whether Boeing is criminally negligent. If this was a non-US company there would be calls for their extradition.
In the mean time I would expect them to do every they can for the victims' families.
-- Mike Perkins Video Solutions Ltd www.videosolutions.ltd.uk
Well, no; there's an approval process for planes, and they went through that process and got certified. The investigations are still under way, with no claim of wrongdoing coming from the investigators.
'They' to be extradited: who, exactly, would those persons be?
Civil responsibility remains, but only violation of certification would cause a legal (criminal) offense for the manufacturer. The current situation is unfortunate, and the (rather spectacular) loss of two aircraft is tragic, but not criminal, unless some information comes to light about a party to an identifiable violation of an operational, maintenance, or materials-and-craftsmanship norm is found. There will be recertification with a new specification, hopefully soon.
I've never been convinced that thousands of hours sitting in the cockpit of functioning aircraft is much of a guide to ability.
All the same, being dead is not automatically exculpatory. Even the limited information released from the Ethiopian investigation raises some serious questions.
Sylvia.
amal banerjee wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
Nice job of jabbing at Boeing, and then lumping in Rockwell Collins. Who was it then?
If an engine goes down, are you going to start deriding General Electric?
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in news:e60fade8-1fb5-4e7c-9315- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
Certainly no decision made by an overtly obese fat f*ck like you.
You can't even manage your weight.
That part isn't true. Companies and individuals have been criminally charged for things that had nothing to do with certification. For example if we find out that some engineers pointed out that MCAS was a bad and extremely dangerous design, but were overruled by management because they were concerned only with profit and getting it out the door, then there is a potential case there, regardless of the fact that MCAS passed FAA certification. The defense could argue that FAA certifying it lets them off the hook, but it's not clear a jury would see it that way, especially given that FAA relied on Boeing as part of that certification.
We also have what just came out this week, which is that Boeing new that on planes that had the disagree light option, that light did not work unless the aircraft also had the AOA display option. That's right, there was a non-working safety light in those planes and Boeing knew about it in 2017, yet never told the aircraft operators. It was due to a software error. They planned to fix it at some point with a software fix, but obviously it was given little importance.
The current situation
Why did you leave out an identifiable violation of safe, sound aircraft design practices? And if what MCAS is constitutes safe and sound practice at Boeing, what other irresponsible, stupid designs are in other Boeing planes right now? The CEO should go, those shareholders were right. He hasn't accepted that this is a Boeing failure, that they got this very wrong, that their crap design killed people. It's only one attempt at PR spin after another.
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
You make the most retarded, convoluted observations I have ever seen.
Well... you come in a close second to Donald J. Trump.
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in news:8c9ce028-3472-42f2-b643- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
Absolutely untrue. You need to get off your lazy, fat ass, and read the thread over again. I mentioned it days before your lame ass chimed in.
Gentlepersons, gentlepersons... please remain polite as passengers' attitudes are boing boing bonn.
A screw won't operate in reverse. Just as you can't hammer a screw into a 2x4, air loads won't turn the screw. The jack screw is ideal for trimming.
As Sylvia said, the tailplane can't be left flapping in the wind. It has to be fixed at some position, even if not the ideal one. If you freed the screw, or cylinder, some other type of anchor would have to take over.
Is it? I don't know, but cylinder sounds right to me. If you're sure they're bad though, why not demand screws to drive ailerons?
It was leading edge slats, on one side, not flaps. The airplane had "no agree" lights for the slats, but the lights didn't work because the electrical system was also torn out along with the hydraulics. The pilots would have had a fair chance of saving the plane if the lights had been able to tell them something. You want to replace electrical circuits with something better too?
Obviously suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome, when you bring Trump into a thread about Boeing and the 737 Max.
Nuff said.
Sure, as long as you want a hydraulic failure to result in a crash? Hello? DC-10, O'Hare, 1979?
If you're sure
It's not up to me to demand anything and it would be irrelevant. The fact that most control surfaces in modern aircraft are not driven by pistons is relevant.
Correct, but still the same point, a piston with hydraulic failure, retracted the control surface, resulting in a disaster.
The airplane had "no
BS. That aircraft was at a low speed, without the leading edge, they were doomed, it stalled. And regardless, it shows the extreme disadvantage to using pistons. You think maybe that's why jackscrews are prefered? The part about agree lights and electrica things not working is pure BS.
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news:dcedbb29-526a-43fe-af1d- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
Ooopa Dupa! Putin' on the Ritz...
Or is that "ooompa looompa..."?
H. R. Fukensuk, who's yer friend when Usenet gets rough?
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in news:db5c3393-9005-486e-807e- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
You can never get it right, chump.
Hydraulic motor... Currently turns screw knuckle
Hydraulic cylinder... Could apply selfsame pressure at same or better rate.
What results in a crash?
We have RELIED on hydraulics in airframes for decades, you stupid f*ck.
YOU are an authority on NOTHING.
The only thing you are adept at is shoving calories into your fat face.
On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 10:50:57 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@decadence.org wrote:
Yes, I'm the one that explained that to you. You foolishly thought that hydraulics = pistons.
If the hydraulic system loses pressure and the control surface is driven by your simple piston that you described, then the plane could crash. I keep citing you the example of the DC-10 crash at O'Hare, 1979. If it's driven by a jackscrew, that can't happen. Jackscrews have that advantage. Probably why Boeing chose it and they've worked for 50+ years. Can you use hydraulic pistons? Sure, but it's not just a simple one piston design, for the above reasons. You need two pistons, separate hydraulic systems for redundancy. All that adds complexity and more potential failure points, as Sylvia pointed out to you. She also pointed out that your idea of just cutting off the piston drive makes no sense, because then the control surface, in this case the horizontal stabilizer, would be left flapping in the wind and the crew still needs to be able to move it by HAND. And Boeing, who you above all else here seems to have a lot of faith in, designed it and they aren't going to change what has worked for 50+ years. They will fix MCAS and the planes will be flying again. Assuming the public is willing to get on them. Me? I'm not just worried about the 737 Max, I'm worried that if this could come out of Boeing, God only knows what else is in other planes that we don't know about. There have been plenty of whistle blowers claiming that the aircraft being delivered have all kinds of crap, scraps, parts left laying around in hidden spots. And so far, that CEO hasn't owned up to anything, hasn't admitted that this was a bad design that is not what Boeing should have put into an aircraft. He's pretending it's just a little glitch along the way. Let's just say my faith in Boeing isn't what it was a year ago.
Me? You're the one that claimed the flaps on large aircraft are done with pistons. I showed you links showing the jackscrews on the 737 flaps, videos too.
See, another example of why you have no credibility. You just make things up out of thin air. You keep hurling childish insults, calling me fat, when everyone here knows you don't know anything about my weight or what I look like.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.