Jump to content

Boeing, Alaska Air, 737 Max9's and statistics


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Georgealbert said:


So you do not believe the NTSB statement?

 

Where did I talk about the final report?

 

The OP was about the empty seats,I answered that with facts and the Dunning Kruger crowds will not want to believe.

I wasn’t trying to counteract you or anyone else. I was just merely stating the process. 😊

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, sorry, your post got caught up in a couple of other posts, and looking again my comment was a bit too strong to your reply.

 

Yes agree, final report is not out yet, but do not think it will take long, as the 737 max has been cleared to fly again.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/boeing-737-max-9-flights-223612630.html#:~:text=Boeing 737 Max 9 jets,grounded 737 Max 9 jets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, novacova said:

I highly doubt it. For one, an airline is not going to risk losing millions in a law suit and fines and loss of revenue due to a maintenance issue of a plane that can be swapped out.

 

A pilot is not going knowingly fly a faulty aircraft, they want to get home just as everyone else.

 

Its illegal to knowingly fly a faulty passenger aircraft.

Many decades ago when I was in the RAF, in the back section of the Form 700 (the aircraft logbook) was a section of the aircraft faults.

 

If the faults were written in green ink (green lined) the aircraft was flyable, but the performance was limited to the next service, a certain amount of flying hours etc, depending on the fault.

 

If the faults were written in red ink (red lined) the aircraft was grounded until the fault was repaired, and was not up on the board as available.

 

I had always thought that civilian aircraft were subject to similar regulations, but it seems more and more nowadays, that some things are more important than safety, such as profit.

 

Personally If I couldn't fix the problem  I certainly would not sign off on the job. My supervisor , or his supervisor, or perhaps HIS supervisor would have to make that decision.

 

Perhaps the airline did not have a spare aircraft, either locally or near enough to be called in to replace the unserviceable (IMHO) aircraft.

 

The good news is that they (belatedly) traced the fault and it went back as far as either faulty manufacture by Boeing or the sub contractor who supplied the door, or not enough thought went into the servicing instructions.

 

Alaska were lucky that nobody was seriously injured or killed, or that the aircraft didn't crash, and that they had a top notch flight and cabin crew on board.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Many decades ago when I was in the RAF, in the back section of the Form 700 (the aircraft logbook) was a section of the aircraft faults.

 

If the faults were written in green ink (green lined) the aircraft was flyable, but the performance was limited to the next service, a certain amount of flying hours etc, depending on the fault.

 

If the faults were written in red ink (red lined) the aircraft was grounded until the fault was repaired, and was not up on the board as available.

 

I had always thought that civilian aircraft were subject to similar regulations, but it seems more and more nowadays, that some things are more important than safety, such as profit.

 

Personally If I couldn't fix the problem I certainly would not sign off on the job. My supervisor , or his supervisor, or perhaps HIS supervisor would have to make that decision.

 

Perhaps the airline did not have a spare aircraft, either locally or near enough to be called in to replace the unserviceable (IMHO) aircraft.

 

The good news is that they (belatedly) traced the fault and it went back as far as either faulty manufacture by Boeing or the sub contractor who supplied the door, or not enough thought went into the servicing instructions.

 

Alaska were lucky that nobody was seriously injured or killed, or that the aircraft didn't crash, and that they had a top notch flight and cabin crew on board.


Yes, fully agree, think the bottom is profits for the airlines.

 

FAA and Boeing, both do not have a great record with the 737 max.

 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/how-boeing-and-the-faa-created-the-737-max-catastrophe

 

https://aviationsourcenews.com/analysis/boeing-the-faa-a-love-hate-relationship/#google_vignette

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


  • Topics

  • Latest posts...

    1. 20

      Foreigners brawl on Patong Beach sparks criticism of Thai laws

    2. 20

      Foreigners brawl on Patong Beach sparks criticism of Thai laws

    3. 0

      The Subtle Shift from Boyfriend to ‘Useful Assistant’ in Thailand

    4. 49

      Abortion - the last electoral dance

    5. 68

      How to stop the Boats.

    6. 20

      Foreigners brawl on Patong Beach sparks criticism of Thai laws

    7. 2,399

      Thailand to tax residents’ foreign income irrespective of remittance

  • Popular in The Pub


×
×
  • Create New...