Ethiopian Airlines flight crashes, all 157 on board killed, including 18 Canadians

cincybearcat

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Isn't the promise of a software upgrade kind of equivalent to them admitting there may be some problem with the plane?

No. 

In incident investigation you identify corrective actions. Some related to the incident , some of things you now see that didn’t cause the incident but could cause an incident, and some as extra layers of protection because you just can’t afford another incident of any kind.

So - could it be them admitting their was an issue? Maybe. But not certainly yet.

Right, that's why I say "may be some problem with the plane."

And the answer is still no. 

PJ_Soul

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Isn't the promise of a software upgrade kind of equivalent to them admitting there may be some problem with the plane?

No. 

In incident investigation you identify corrective actions. Some related to the incident , some of things you now see that didn’t cause the incident but could cause an incident, and some as extra layers of protection because you just can’t afford another incident of any kind.

So - could it be them admitting their was an issue? Maybe. But not certainly yet.

Right, that's why I say "may be some problem with the plane."

And the answer is still no. 

I'm not sure the investigators will see it that way if they find that the plane had faults. I.e. Boeing doing this could be looked as fast acknowledgment that they may have found issues with the planes' software after two crashes but kept insisting there was no problem....

Meltdown99

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

Nothing better than hopping in my Jeep and taking a road trip...much better than sitting in noisy congested airports...by the way...it was on landing when the pilot had to take off again.  I think a plane trying to land should not have other planes on the runway...just my opinion...don't you.  I mean comparing planes leaving their gates to a plane landing is silly...big difference between landing and taxiing to the runway...

Not that big a difference. It's just a different version of "shit happened and we all have to accommodate it."

Whatever...LMFAO

cincybearcat

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Isn't the promise of a software upgrade kind of equivalent to them admitting there may be some problem with the plane?

No. 

In incident investigation you identify corrective actions. Some related to the incident , some of things you now see that didn’t cause the incident but could cause an incident, and some as extra layers of protection because you just can’t afford another incident of any kind.

So - could it be them admitting their was an issue? Maybe. But not certainly yet.

Right, that's why I say "may be some problem with the plane."

And the answer is still no. 

I'm not sure the investigators will see it that way if they find that the plane had faults. I.e. Boeing doing this could be looked as fast acknowledgment that they may have found issues with the planes' software after two crashes but kept insisting there was no problem....

Im not saying it won’t end up one way or the other. Just that an action on Boeing’s part doesn’t mean they are accepting blame due to a fault with the planes at this point. 

PJ_Soul

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

Nothing better than hopping in my Jeep and taking a road trip...much better than sitting in noisy congested airports...by the way...it was on landing when the pilot had to take off again.  I think a plane trying to land should not have other planes on the runway...just my opinion...don't you.  I mean comparing planes leaving their gates to a plane landing is silly...big difference between landing and taxiing to the runway...

Not that big a difference. It's just a different version of "shit happened and we all have to accommodate it."

Whatever...LMFAO

I have no idea what you're finding funny here.

tempo_n_groove

Europe, China, Russia and Australia have all grounded this airplane.

The US and Canada are the only countries still allowing this plane to fly.

PJ_Soul

tempo_n_groove said:

Europe, China, Russia and Australia have all grounded this airplane.

The US and Canada are the only countries still allowing this plane to fly.

I wish we knew for sure if the others are all overreacting or if Canada and the US are under-reacting. I suppose it's best to err on the side of caution when it comes to air travel. It's a bit weird that these two are so resistant ... I guess it's either simply about the financial impact (but if that is actually a factor that is heinous), or they truly feel that everyone else is overreacting. Anyway, they can pretty much only use these planes domestically now, Canada-U.S. and vice versa... I wonder how they are going to handle all the passengers who decide they won't get in these planes? I think a lot of people are checking and not booking if the flight uses this plane.... I dunno, I suppose that if I trust them with my life the rest of the time, I should trust them with it on this issue too.

tempo_n_groove

PJ_Soul said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Europe, China, Russia and Australia have all grounded this airplane.

The US and Canada are the only countries still allowing this plane to fly.

I wish we knew for sure if the others are all overreacting or if Canada and the US are under-reacting. I suppose it's best to err on the side of caution when it comes to air travel. It's a bit weird that these two are so resistant ... I guess it's either simply about the financial impact (but if that is actually a factor that is heinous), or they truly feel that everyone else is overreacting. Anyway, they can pretty much only use these planes domestically now, Canada-U.S. and vice versa... I wonder how they are going to handle all the passengers who decide they won't get in these planes? I think a lot of people are checking and not booking if the flight uses this plane.... I dunno, I suppose that if I trust them with my life the rest of the time, I should trust them with it on this issue too.

Do you remember when the DC9 planes were crashing?  I know I wouldn't have gotten on one.

josevolution

lol this country voted an idiot for president who still has an acting FFA director at the helm its only been two years!

benjs

brianlux said:

benjs said:

brianlux said:

cincybearcat said:

brianlux said:

Meltdown99 said:

If this is any consolation, I have read that the safest time to fly is the time after a major accident, airlines are extra vigilante in maintaining safe fleets.

Better yet, after three major accidents.  My father was an aeronautical engineer and a big part of his job was basically working as a liaison between a major U.S. airline and Boeing.  Every time a major accident occurred he would mention  that it was likely that two more would follow.  He was often correct.

I got tired of the guessing game and took my last flight about 30 years ago.  Yes, I would paddle to Hawaii before I would fly there again.

I’m kinda surprised by your unwillingness to fly. Do you drive a car? 

You have a 1-11million chance of dying on a plane.

1-5000 chance in a car

So true!  Yes, I drive and driving on a freeway in California is like a continuous flirtation with death.  But at least while driving I have the advantage of driving defensively rather than putting my hands in the life of pilots and air controller whom I don't know and who, for all I know,  might be stoned, drunk, sniffing glue, suicidal or sleep deprived.

And secondly, after being on two commercial flights that nearly ended in disaster, I'm not up for pushing my luck at three.

And lastly I've had numerous vivid plane crash dreams.  In the movie, "La Bamba", the Richie Valens character has a plane crash nightmare.  When I saw that scene in the movie, I took it as a sign and swore I would never fly again and since then have not.

But, yes, one's odds are better on a commercial flight than in a car.

Life's too short and travelling's too fulfilling for me. Between business trips and vacation this year, I'm committed to eight flights (and have already taken two). I have a glass of wine or two when I'm aboard, and if I die, I die. 

Good for you, Ben!  Go for it!  I enjoy hearing about people travels, especially when they are good at writing about it or talking about it.  For example, seeing Henry Rollins slide show travel talk was hugely cool!  Vicarious living can be great! 

Beside which, I've been to Italy, Canada, Mexico, the Bahamas, Hawaii twice and drive across the US seven times plus been to all but a few states.  My travel footprint is big  enough for one life time! 

Oh man. I’m embarrassed about my footprint. Think I have to start finding ways to carbon offset (or at least pay for it).

Meltdown99

https://twitter.com/lraitt/status/1105867711358386176

PJ_Soul

They really had no choice. Passengers are unwilling to board them.

brianlux

It's strange to me that the Boeing 737 MAX is having these problems.  The first generation 737's came out in 1966.  My pop worked with that plane a lot in back in the day and it's been a long-time work horse for UAL, Alaska and several other airlines.  Sad to think in this day of high tech that this kind of thing happens. 

Smellyman

This guy is a current 737 (not the Max)  pilot and has loads of interesting videos on planes and how they work etc.

He did a quick livestream discussing the crashes.  Listen to this dude.  He knows his shit.

https://youtu.be/XJwUk5HH4KI

Here is a video on the first Lion Air crash

https://youtu.be/zfQW0upkVus

Smellyman

Just to add I have become a anxiety ridden flyer as I get older, but the Airbus A350 is the go to if I can.  Super quiet, super smooth like you're not even moving.  I will fly that option every time if I could.

oftenreading

Smellyman said:

Just to add I have become a anxiety ridden flyer as I get older, but the Airbus A350 is the go to if I can.  Super quiet, super smooth like you're not even moving.  I will fly that option every time if I could.

So do you actually book trips based on which plane is doing the route, and if so, how do you find that out at the time? I have to say, I book on convenience and cost. 

benjs

oftenreading said:

Smellyman said:

Just to add I have become a anxiety ridden flyer as I get older, but the Airbus A350 is the go to if I can.  Super quiet, super smooth like you're not even moving.  I will fly that option every time if I could.

So do you actually book trips based on which plane is doing the route, and if so, how do you find that out at the time? I have to say, I book on convenience and cost. 

It's really easy to see what planes are used for what flight routes by airlines. I usually just search on Google and it takes two or three results at the most. I think Seatguru might be one of them? Fully agree on the Airbus A350.

tempo_n_groove

Fly Delta if you are so worried.  Safest airline out there.

PJ_Soul

tempo_n_groove said:

Fly Delta if you are so worried.  Safest airline out there.

brianlux

Smellyman said:

Just to add I have become a anxiety ridden flyer as I get older, but the Airbus A350 is the go to if I can.  Super quiet, super smooth like you're not even moving.  I will fly that option every time if I could.

My wife will be taking an Airbus to Alaska this weekend on Alaska Air lines which has one of the best safety records of all airlines.  Those factors will save several of my finger nails while she is flying.