What's new

China Plane Crashes With 132 On Board; No Sign Of Survivors, Says Report

. .
So you are saying that despite literally thousands of pilots worldwide certified on the 737 (variants) and the jet is still to complex to fly.
Did I say that?
Correct, there will be thousands, but accidents also happen due to pilot errors, engineering issues, weather, etc.
Where there is some issue of human understanding of system OR engineering glitch involves manufacturers upon findings/advice of safety boards, accordingly update/modify them to be more simple and user-friendly.

Have you researched into cockpits of airliners of the old days when there was a need for a flight engineer and see how many dials and levers there were?
To some extent, I have very basic ideas but am not a master. Here in bold is what I try to express in my last post of one sentence BUT you are so 'professional' that you made paragraphs out of it. Be concise.
Don't answer just for a sake of saying something but comprehend and communicate effectively.
Here in bold same notation expressed by you - systems modified to be more user-friendly with less fatigue, errors, and crew.
For example, if you operated the systems with DOS and now with Windows, you could understand easily what I tried to express.

At which point of so called 'logic' from people who know next to zilch about aviation that their arguments entered the absurdity zone? If you guys are willing to speculate about pilot suicides or mechanical errors, then why are you guys so afraid of maintenance, bird strike, or even pilot error?
Irrelevant and twisting of words to satisfy your 'professional' ego.
 
.
So is jumping to conclusion just to hit on Boeing and US. But I guess since it is US then it is fine to jump to any conclusion.


Noooo...??? Really...???
It goes both ways - the airline has had a fairly good safety record but it is also likely this was pilot error.

However, the max was blamed on pilot error as well. Those making comments on the aircraft being complex or faulty are reaching conclusions as are you trying to state that the Chinese cannot operate complex aircraft.

The F-16 was killing USAF pilots and GD was blaming it on pilot error until that wire chaffing issue was discovered. But since the Chinese have a constant bone to pick with us and you are constantly in counter trolling mode with them it does no favors to the 134 dead
 
.
I can't believe the stupidity of many of the posts on this thread. First, pending completion of an investigation, no one knows what happened. It could be pilot error or a mechanical issue. However, the 737-800 is a solid aircraft with a good reputation, so I doubt it's a structural issue. Aside, from the Airbus 320 family, thousands of the type are being flown. Second, stop conflating the 737-800 with 737 MAX,
 
.
I can't believe the stupidity of many of the posts on this thread. First, pending completion of an investigation, no one knows what happened. It could be pilot error or a mechanical issue. However, the 737-800 is a solid aircraft with a good reputation, so I doubt it's a structural issue. Aside, from the Airbus 320 family, thousands of the type are being flown. Second, stop conflating the 737-800 with 737 MAX,
I still believe in “If its not boeing I am not going”.
All we know right now is that it nose dived into the ground which points to a catastrophic failure or CFIT.
A lot of things have to go wrong mechanically or massive disorientation or deliberate action has to occur for this to happen.

Repeating that this airline has a fairly decent safety record
 
.
Tragic. My heart goes out to all the families who lost their loved ones.
 
. .
Really sad to hear about this, rest in peace to all the poor souls.
 
. .
I just want China to send some of the Boeing executives to death row or jail, fine those greedy mf's so much that they understand why playing with lives should have severe consequences.
 
.
I just want China to send some of the Boeing executives to death row or jail, fine those greedy mf's so much that they understand why playing with lives should have severe consequences.
How do we know it was a mechanical fault or otherwise?
 
. .
Did I say that?
You do not have to. No one does. The point is to indict obliquely.

To some extent, I have very basic ideas but am not a master. Here in bold is what I try to express in my last post of one sentence BUT you are so 'professional' that you made paragraphs out of it. Be concise.
Don't answer just for a sake of saying something but comprehend and communicate effectively.
I need no lecture from anyone here on being concise about complex issues that the ignorant here love to bloviate their hearts out. I have explained complex technical subjects about aviation without using a single math equation and managed using analogies that lay people can understand. Most of the time, I received hostile reactions, about 9 out of 10 instances. That tells me what I need to know about the mentality of most people here, that they participate more to be hostile than to learn, and usually, the paragraphs that you sneered at are, to be blunt about it, the most dumb-ed down versions I can think up. Just one level up and you will need to enroll in a class.

For example, I used to teach Aircraft Battle Damage Repair (ABDR) when I was on the F-111. Depending on the damages to its flight controls system, I can make a jet fly again using a broomstick and alum from a six-pack of soda, and I explained how in this forum yrs ago. See if you can find it. You think it is easy to come up with an explanation for interested lay people without using any paragraphs? If you want Hawkings to be concise about physics, he would say "Physics works, so STFU.", but if you want the lay versions of what he knows, be ready to put up with a lot of paragraphs.

Five-nines of the people here are intellectually lazy, and I say that kindly. Too angry to do anything else but vent their spleens at US whenever there is a chance. Despite the wonderful invention call the 'internet' they will not even take some time to use the keywords search to verify if what I say is true. Why? Because they are terrified of having their beliefs even in doubts, let alone proved wrong. The horror of it.

Here in bold same notation expressed by you - systems modified to be more user-friendly with less fatigue, errors, and crew.
For example, if you operated the systems with DOS and now with Windows, you could understand easily what I tried to express.
DOS to Windows is not possible unless there was a accommodating change in technology. Let us not get too much in-depth here, lest we end up with paragraphs. :rolleyes:

 
.
I still believe in “If its not boeing I am not going”.
All we know right now is that it nose dived into the ground which points to a catastrophic failure or CFIT.
A lot of things have to go wrong mechanically or massive disorientation or deliberate action has to occur for this to happen.

Repeating that this airline has a fairly decent safety record


Let me know if you still believe in "If it's not Boeing I'm not going" when you've watched "Downfall" on Netflix. Depicts a pretty interesting and sad picture of how Boeing prioritized profits and shareholders over safety. The 737 MAX with its flawed design where the MCAS system was in use to compensate for it, all because Boeing was not willing to come up with a new design from the ground up to compete with the Airbus A320 Neo, instead it relied on a decades old design and system, stretching it to its limits. We saw how that destroyed the lives of people from Lion Air and Ethiopian Air. To be quite frank, right now we have no clue as to what caused this crash in China to happen, but I am quite skeptical of Boeings safety standards. They used to be the golden standard, but their reputation took a nosedive (no pun intended). Then again, we've had crashes happen in Pakistan as well, but that was due to pilots not being trained properly or having fake certificates.....sigh, Boeing isn't all that bad when you compare it to PIA (Pakistan International Airlines) from a management point of view.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom