patrick.net

WookieMan says

Jesus christ, Sully fucked up bigly.

Our aviation expert knows more than Sullenberger and everyone else. I read Sullenberger's book (did you?).

In the book, this super-competent pilot explained how he made it a point to know the geography and "lay of the land" of the places he flew in and out of. This was beyond expectation of airline pilots. He already knew the river would be an option to put down an 80-ton glider with fuel if runways weren't an option. He even knew the locations of the bridges. He did not fuck up, but your remark is kind of a fuck-up.

HeadSet says

Why is that "stupid?" An IFR equipped C172 was designed to do exactly that, and you never would have passed your Instrument Check unless you were able to safety demonstrate that.

This is true.

Part of operating the small plane is having a constant awareness of where to put the plane down in case of an emergency. A fire could happen in a multi-engine, but the most commonly expected emergency that would create a need to put the plane down would be an engine failure. We are forever scanning the ground for options, - it's a part of VFR flying. Being in California there's some flying over mountain ranges, - what to do? Well, some spots will be "less worse" than others, - like a ridge line. (But if the mountain is completely forested not so many such options).

Twin engine planes can operate with an engine out. If we're flying in real instrument conditions, we cannot see the ground. We cannot see where to safely put the plane down in an emergency. If the conditions are near IFR minimums, not enough altitude to deal with a single-engine plane's engine failure. In a twin, not a problem with one engine failure.

(Thank goodness Sullenberger wasn't flying in the clouds, - but probably the geese would also not fly in the clouds for the same reason, that they cannot visually navigate).

The worst part for an engine failure is on departure (Sullenberge). Not enough altitude to turn back to land on the runway. This is why it's important to be familiar with the geography near the airport, to already have a plan where to put the plane down if necessary. I flew into many airports that were new and strange to me. A standard VFR procedure for uncontrolled fields is to fly directly over the center of the runway at a safe altitude above the pattern altitude, to look at the windsock AND be scouting the area around the runway for places to put the plane down if necessary. You can do this at controlled fields also.

Looking back, one of the stupid things I did in my youth was instrument departures in a single engine plane.

San Jose is in a valley that's covered with a low overcast of Coastal Fog most summer mornings. There's an IFR procedure called "IFR to VRF over the top". You get an IFR clearance to fly by instruments till you're over the fog, then the IFR flight plan is ended and you're flying VFR above the fog. From above the fog you can use the mountain tops, compass, etc to visually navigate till you have flown to the Central Valley where there's no such fog. It was legal then (1980's) (maybe still legal now?, - I've been out of it for a long time so I don't know). These IFR departures in a single-engine plane were legal, but reckless.

B.A.C.A.H. says

Looking back, one of the stupid things I did in my youth was instrument departures in a single engine plane.

True, twin engine gives redundancy, but when have you heard of and engine failure in flight? I know of slop where someone has run out of gas, but true engine failures are rare. As you know, those Lycoming and Continental engines are built to aviation standards and have dual ignition systems, etc. General aviation planes also go through 100 hour inspections and you run an engine check, including testing the mags, right before takeoff. We have a different opinion of flying IMC in a single engine IFR equipped plane.

>>B.A.C.A.H. says

There's an IFR procedure called "IFR to VRF over the top". You get an IFR clearance to fly by instruments till you're over the fog, then the IFR flight plan is ended and you're flying VFR above the fog.

I do not remember "VRF," but I do remember "VFR on Top" where one could cancel IFR once you flew out of IMC. Mountains around here top out below 6,000 ft so we would not be as familiar with something like VRF. Of course, it is much more fun to fly VMC so I would typically only fly when the weather is good.

HeadSet says

True, twin engine gives redundancy, but when have you heard of and engine failure in flight?

Agreed.

Flying a single engine in IFR with a low ceiling is the same kind of reckless as not wearing a seat belt while driving a car.
Get away with it nearly all the time.

HeadSet says

I do not remember "VRF,

It's a typo, bro.

B.A.C.A.H. says

HeadSet says

I do not remember "VRF,

It's a typo, bro.

Seems obvious now. I was thinking it was something I did not know about that happed to be on some California SIDs.

https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/airbus-beats-boeing-deliveries-2024

From the top comment: "What a shocker, customers don't like it when you kill them for profit.
Apparently it's not a sustainable business model."

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/boeing-braces-turbulence-ahead-back-back-senate-hearings-crisis-confidence-worsens

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/spirit-aerosystems-whistleblower-dies-sudden-104147528.html

Second Boeing whistleblower dies in less than two months

Another whistleblower who publicly spoke out about safety issues with Boeing planes has died, less than two months after fellow whistleblower John Barnett died from a gunshot wound police have yet to finish investigating.

Joshua Dean, a former quality auditor at Boeing supplier Spirit AeroSystems and one of the first to allege wilful ignorance of manufacturing defects on the notorious 737 MAX, died after a “short and sudden illness”, the Seattle Times reports.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/second-boeing-whistleblower-dies-in-less-than-two-months/ar-AA1o0rED

Boeing Investigated Over Falsified Plane Records

The FAA is investigating Boeing for omitting mandatory inspections and for falsifying records. And this after Boeing informed the FAA about a "misconduct" at its factory in South Carolina building the 787 Dreamliner.

"The company voluntarily informed us in April that it may not have completed required inspections to confirm adequate bonding and grounding where the wings join the fuselage on certain 787 Dreamliner airplanes," the FAA said in a statement. According to the agency, "Boeing is reinspecting all 787 airplanes still within the production system and must also create a plan to address the in-service fleet."

Boeing continues to build airplanes with parts that do not meet specifications and this is a major safety issue. Are these planes safe to fly? Here Boeing is blaming their employees and lying to the FAA. The future does not look good for Boeing.

https://www.rt.com/news/597176-boeing-investigated-falsified-plane-records/

I love hit pieces that people eat up. The object that goes damn near the speed of sound 5,000 times a day is unsafe.... Has hard landings and turbulence. But, hey, it's just going to fall apart.

Understand marketing folks. Doesn't have to be all cocky. It can be negative towards a competitor. People can be in a bad place and bought off. True whistleblowers get the job done without anyone knowing their identity. There's dozens of things I could bring up against my former employer or clients. Guess what? No one would know it was me.

Just because an attention whore dissatisfied with their employer makes a claim, doesn't mean the planes aren't safe and/or they're telling the truth. Given Boeings size there should be hundreds if not thousands blowing the whistle if it was that bad. It's not. Disgruntled employees likely and they didn't get the attention and off'd themselves. We all know those types. It's a personality. Attention seekers. Lawsuit seekers. No one bought in, they're low on money and killed themselves.

WookieMan says

"I love hit pieces that people eat up. The object that goes damn near the speed of sound 5,000
times a day is unsafe.... Has hard landings and turbulence. But, hey, it's just going to fall apart."

Well, if you are paying attention they are falling apart. Look at China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDDiB1dOGgs

Investigators found pieces from the plane seven miles away - that is the plane was disintegrating before the nosedive.

WookieMan says

Understand marketing folks. Doesn't have to be all cocky. It can be negative towards a competitor. People can be in a bad place and bought off. True whistleblowers get the job done without anyone knowing their identity. There's dozens of things I could bring up against my former employer or clients. Guess what? No one would know it was me.

Have you ever done it?

I have.

This guy better get a food taster, a brake inspector, and a squad of former Gurkhas

It's only a problem if you can't eliminate the whistle blowers faster than they crop up. Was Boeing incompetence supposed to be a puzzle piece in some Globalist false flag atrocity? Why mobilize the assassin militias this assiduously?

.

Notice there is no diversity among the Boeing whistleblowers. They are all white men, and they appear to be at least 40 years of age.

https://nypost.com/2024/05/04/us-news/boeing-faces-10-more-whistleblowers-after-two-die/

,

UkraineIsTotallyFucked says

For the record -- for what that is even worth -- I don't think that Boeing execs or mgmt offed the whistleblowers. I think Deep State fucks with interest in not seeing Boeing go down did. Remember, Boeing is big in Deep State defense and aerospace shit as well.

Or, they simply don't want investigators seriously digging into Boeing's biz. Yeah, that's more likely.

AD says

.

Notice there is no diversity among the Boeing whistleblowers. They are all white men, and they appear to be at least 40 years of age.

https://nypost.com/2024/05/04/us-news/boeing-faces-10-more-whistleblowers-after-two-die/

,

Could that just be an outcome of how the old guard are the only ones who know their shit enough these days to even be whistleblowers in the first place?

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-sales-tumble-company-gets-151533286.html

The_Deplorable says

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-sales-tumble-company-gets-151533286.html

Well, duh! I say. I mean, nobody needed to post this on the Predictions thread to see the coming.

I guess what we should bey on is when the bailout comes and for how much.

Hindu SW is dirt cheap but poor quality.
Americans are stupid to get their SW made by people who think “A monkey can fly without wings and also carry mountain” they don’t need air planes.

For Hindu:
🐒 > ✈️

There's an incident reported today (June 13) about a Southwest 737 MAX spontaneously going into a Dutch Roll.

B.A.C.A.H. says

"There's an incident reported today (June 13) about a Southwest 737 MAX
spontaneously going into a Dutch Roll."

Boeing 737 Max Jet Grounded After 'Dutch Roll'
A Boeing passenger jet has been grounded after experiencing a rare "Dutch roll" while in flight
from Phoenix to Oakland. While at 32,000 feet, the year-old Southwest Airlines 737 Max 8
experienced the issue, which involves "tail-wagging" and the aircraft rocking side-to-side...

https://www.newsweek.com/boeing-737-southwest-grounded-dutch-roll-1912503

Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 Max sustains 'substantial' damage from "Dutch roll" incident.

In short, the 737 Max has another stability problem.

According to the Federal Aviation Administration, the plane sustained "substantial" damage to its tail section as a result of the maneuver, although it was able to complete the flight. The damage was only discovered during a post-flight inspection. The rudder’s standby power control unit (PCU) was damaged. The standby PCU is a backup system in case the main rudder power unit becomes inoperable.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/southwest-airlines-boeing-737-max-154528552.html

Boeing Investigates Another Quality Problem On Undelivered 787s

Boeing is investigating a new quality problem with its 787 Dreamliner after discovering that hundreds of fasteners have been incorrectly installed on the fuselages of these jets...

The latest problem was discovered at the South Carolina plant where the 787’s lightweight carbon-composite skin is attached to skeletal supports inside the fuselage sections called longerons. In a nutshell, the affected fasteners had been torqued from the wrong side, using the head instead of the associated nut.

https://www.oann.com/business/exclusive-boeing-investigates-quality-problem-on-undelivered-787s-sources-say/

In this morning's news, a 737 MAX pitched up and down after takeoff from an airport in Hawaii. Sound familiar?

We were told those penny-pinching design problems were fixed by now.

B.A.C.A.H. says

In this morning's news, a 737 MAX pitched up and down after takeoff from an airport in Hawaii. Sound familiar?

Didn't crash. Training is a thing, it worked. Only reason this shit gets reported is because everyone has a computer with them. All these reports are basic issues that happen everyday in aviation. The door situation was bad, but I generally put more blame on Alaskan Airline for that and maintenance. It had already been in service and to keep reputation they blamed it on the manufacturer. They likely never inspected a non-functioning door and that's on them.

I was part of the Tikata airbag recall. Sure Nissan put it in the car, but I was informed and fixed it. One door on many planes. One airbag and the recall replacement was free. People should be up in arms with Cessna and Piper.... https://www.cliffordlaw.com/aviation-accidents-and-incidents/#:~:text=Which%20airplanes%20crash%20the%20most,crashes%20than%20any%20other%20aircraft.

No one will build a thing anymore if attacked like this. Or it's a corporate attack. Airbus being the prime suspect. This is done all the time in any industry. Was hanging out with another family last night. Grown ass man. 47. He won't fly because of shit like this. It's literally the safest form of transportation. No one even got hurt in the door incident besides someone that was lawsuit horny likely. "Trauma."

This is clearly a short onslaught of Boeing stock. Someone convince me otherwise. 1,000's of their planes are in the air daily.

My cousin fly's them. He said it's really easy to avoid any problems with that system. There is some sort of stick thing on the floor that moves back and forth and all you have to do is slap it and it shuts off. He sent me a video once but I don't have time to try to find it right now.

He said the crashes in other parts of the world were due to lack of training.

That being said I've been trying to get him to retire early due to DEI and all of the other problems with Boeing. He's making 500K/year for a while now and has plenty of money. Our uncle who was also an airline pilot retired early during the covid shit.

just_passing_through says

He said the crashes in other parts of the world were due to lack of training.

FAA is one of the few government agencies that does a pretty good job. Even for a drone it's somewhat difficult to get a license. I was fine, but could totally see how 90% of people I know wouldn't pass for a toy.

American trained pilots are some of the best when you throw in military. I have zero concern flying with any airline in North America. You're more at risk driving to the airport. I think the door incident was an outlier and is on Alaska Airlines.

just_passing_through says

"He said the crashes in other parts of the world were due to lack of training."

This is impossible.

Impossible because Boeing did not inform the airlines and the pilots that the 737 MAX was
unstable. Boeing did not even mention this in the pilot manual. So, how did you expect
the airlines to train their pilots about a problem they know nothing about?

It was Boeing's responsibility to provide such pilot training but they decided to save money
and kept this a secret. That is why they were found liable for the crashes.

The_Deplorable says

Impossible because Boeing did not inform the airlines and the pilots that the 737 MAX was
unstable. Boeing did not even mention this in the pilot manual. So, how did you expect
the airlines to train their pilots about a problem they know nothing about?

Read up on the subject. Not what corporate news media puts out. Watch some videos from some of the most respected crash analyst that are pilots. Pretty sure I've already posted on it in this thread. Being held liable doesn't mean they weren't poorly trained pilots though. This is legal stuff because the insurance companies on the planes/airlines didn't want to pay out a couple billion dollars for the planes and families. They had to find anything to blame Boeing. Legal and insurance 101. They blame the pilots, no one flies their airlines.

Was it an issue? I guess for poorly trained pilots, but not from data from non-news people to get click bait articles and what I've read. There are procedures to take basic control of the plane though even if you didn't know MCAS was part of the plane. We had more delivered here in the US and were flying before being grounded. 0 crashes. There weren't many in service so US pilots had an exponentially higher chance of crashing. They didn't. Basic math and stats.

Just because you fly a big jet doesn't mean you're good at it even in different and older 737 models. General aviation is where most crashes happen, but overseas they simply have a poor track record outside of maybe Europe. It's like any industry and then throw in a language barrier and different level of basic training, not just on a specific plane and we got this situation.

You don't have to believe me, I don't care. This is a legal issue because of poor piloting. US pilots have attested to this that flew the MAX before grounding. I'm not sure what incentive they'd have to defend Boeing OR keep flying their planes if they didn't trust them. "Whistle blowers" were disgruntled employees or thought they had an opportunity to make money. We don't hear about it, but a Walmart employee probably kills themselves weekly.

Fact is it's the safest mode of transportation. Don't fly on one if you're scared. I definitely won't fly shit foreign airlines though knowing the process here and how it lacks in other countries. And yes, you have to believe this user is an actual pilot, but this is a detailed explanation how to stop MCAS. It was pilot error and insurance companies not wanting to pay. No one on this thread has proven otherwise. https://www.quora.com/Why-would-Boeing-ever-install-an-MCAS-system-in-the-737-Max-8-that-disallows-the-pilot-to-override-it

I can post more links to pilots talking or shooting videos on the topics if you want. 99% of my flights are on 737's. It freaked me out a touch until I researched it. It's media bull shit besides the door issue, but it was a strange configuration for the model.

TL:DR - Classic media overhype to get clicks that know nothing about a topic or researched it. Big company, big clicks/views and media revenue.

The_Deplorable says

Impossible because Boeing did not inform the airlines and the pilots that the 737 MAX was
unstable. Boeing did not even mention this in the pilot manual. So, how did you expect
the airlines to train their pilots about a problem they know nothing about?

WookieMan says

There are procedures to take basic control of the plane

The World's Leading Authority on aviation has spoken, Deplorable.

WookieMan, thanks for the link.