Posted on 04/20/2019 2:59:37 PM PDT by Jonty30
This video explains really well.
I think Boeing is going to take a loss on this plane big time.
Excellent point. . .and don’t forget their ability to conduct routine and complex maintenance and repairs.
Seems I missed the last part where you did point out maintenance and repair. . .apology
Correct. The pilots for both crashed planes made multiple mistakes.
Thanks for the summary. That’s pretty much what we were hearing from the third day. It was a known problem and they had a work-around but not everybody got the memo.
No need to apologize.
The maint and repair is double important so extra mentions.
There was nothing new in the video. We knew from the third day it was a known problem, they had a workaround, but not everybody got the memo.
Posting old news as new news is fake news.
Exactly... which is why there was no point in putting 50 words together to explaining what was in the video. It was just helpful in understanding what was already known because it provided an animation for it.
I don’t need any “help” understanding something I already understand.
Those Planes need to be recalled permanently and Boeing swamp drained.
Tougher to pull over in a 737. ;)
The active angle of attack sensor was sheared off, they think bird strike. If the video doesn’t mention that it’s not worth watching.
That information was from Aviation Week two weeks ago.
The bottom line is that the plane (the MAX) needed to be fully certified, not “recertified”. Recerts when only a minor change was made. They lied and pretended that only a small change had been made (which is why the did’t detail the changes in their manuals or require full training for pilots. Certification takes much longer than to re-certify because they wanted to get the plane into the market. In other words they murdered several hundred people. Signed: a 30+ year aviation engineer (contract and now retired) (many years with Boeing and Airbus).
Plus they ran the engines at 98% of takeoff power, never backed them off.
“Tougher to pull over in a 737. ;) “
The point is a car is not a plane?
The point was that qualified pilots would recognize the problem and take appropriate actions.
Also, don’t fly third-world airlines.
They skimp on pilots, maintenance and purchases.
You don’t know what you are talking about.
The point was that I had a mildly clever comment and had to share. Your assessment of the issues and the crashes is spot on, in my opinion.
SO what’s right????? PLease, enlighten all of us with your brilliance.
But, of course, that isn't enough to conclude that what is presented in the video is a truly accurate statement on the problem. It is just one video and for all we know the case made in the video was developed directly or indirectly by Airbus.
In other words, the case presented in the video may be the gospel truth...or it may not be.
If I managed an investment portfolio which contained a big chuck of Boeing, I would send that video ASAP to my top analyist and ask him to get an opinion from several of the best aerospace engineers who are familiar with this situation.
We don't have that luxury but the stock market will tell us shortly if new dire conclusions have been reached.
If it’s beyond their ability to design and manufacture, it’s beyond their ability to maintain and operate.
So the buyer country contracts with professionals from another country who are best capable of maintaining and operating the aircraft the way they were designed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.