Page 5 of 5

Re: Boeing 737

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2020 1:02 am
by Ian C. Kuzushi
grzegorz wrote:Glad to see that Boeing is going down.

Thank you whistleblowers.

I know active military in naval activation who will never fly Boeing. Basically the cooperate culture chose production over safety and we can see the results.

A Boeing from Tehran to Ukraine just went down. We don't know what happened yet but Boeings seem to be going down left and right.


I don't see the connection to this thread as it was likely shot down by accident.

But, I am glad to see that the more info that comes out, the more ridiculous the racist bullshit pedaled earlier in this thread is shown to be the bs it was.

It would be pretty nuts if the Boeing crashed by sheer "chance," though! I hope then get shut down just like I think VW should be banned for their horrible crimes against America.

Re: Boeing 737

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 12:00 am
by grzegorz
The more I read the more it seems that the new Boeing factory in South Carolina is where production goals became more important than safety.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/world/11 ... -787-plant

Re: Boeing 737

PostPosted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:47 am
by Trick
Well the latest was shot down

Re: Boeing 737

PostPosted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 11:08 am
by grzegorz
True but despite that over here more and more emails and information has been coming out that Boeing chose production over safety and we are seeing the results as their CEO is tossed out and company has lost the public's confidence.

In the emails the employees themselves say they would never fly their families on a Super Max.

It's the Amazon model. Numbers are everything.

Glad to see that the Iranians take responsibility unlike the Russians.

[email protected]#$ Boeing.

Oh! And [email protected]#$ Trump and his fake ass reality TV war re-election campaign strategy which led to this.

Re: Boeing 737

PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:54 am
by klonk
It's back, just don't call it Max. ::) Some system improvements and some added pilot training and ground maintenance checks.

https://www.npr.org/2020/11/18/93608091 ... er-service

Re: Boeing 737

PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2020 10:04 am
by Bao
Oh, saw that. Will never enter a plane named "737 -7" or "737 -8". The problem is that only 737 will be shown on passenger information and 737 is one of the most common Boeing models. So... :-\

Re: Boeing 737

PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:04 am
by Ian C. Kuzushi
klonk wrote:It's back, just don't call it Max. ::) Some system improvements and some added pilot training and ground maintenance checks.

https://www.npr.org/2020/11/18/93608091 ... er-service


No bueno. I am not confident in the minimal steps they are taking. I'll be looking up what model I am buying tickets for if I ever get to fly again.

Re: Boeing 737

PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2020 5:13 pm
by klonk
It wasn't a smart move to change the thrust axis to hang fatter engines on. Boeing underestimated the impact that would have on pilot reactions, and autopilot reactions. An analogous problem occurred with the Lake amphibious airplane. On that one, the engine is too high above the centerline of the airplane instead of too low. After some crashes pointed that out, pilots got a special training ride to fly it.

Special pilot training for problem-child airplanes works wonders. The Mitsubishi MU-2 used to be a pilot killer, not due to thrust axis problems but wing loading above what pilots were used to. A similar problem occurred with the WW-II era B-26.

The answer in each case, above, has been a good thorough checkride that shows when and how the plane misbehaves.