Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
And then there's this: "They coached the pilots on how to use certain controls." Ok, is it just me, or isn't what you want them to do? Show them how to NOT crash the plane?
Amazing how you go from an expert political analyst, to a infectious diseases expert, back to political expert and now an expert FAA investigator. My God you are amazing!And then there's this: "They coached the pilots on how to use certain controls." Ok, is it just me, or isn't what you want them to do? Show them how to NOT crash the plane?
Yes, and then you want them to do that for every other pilot also but they did not do that. They claimed it wasnt necessary. You also want redundancy built in so there is far less of a chance of there being a problem. They didn't want to pay for that either.
Amazing how you go from an expert political analyst, to a infectious diseases expert, back to political expert and now an expert FAA investigator. My God you are amazing!And then there's this: "They coached the pilots on how to use certain controls." Ok, is it just me, or isn't what you want them to do? Show them how to NOT crash the plane?
Yes, and then you want them to do that for every other pilot also but they did not do that. They claimed it wasnt necessary. You also want redundancy built in so there is far less of a chance of there being a problem. They didn't want to pay for that either.
Amazing how you go from an expert political analyst, to a infectious diseases expert, back to political expert and now an expert FAA investigator. My God you are amazing!And then there's this: "They coached the pilots on how to use certain controls." Ok, is it just me, or isn't what you want them to do? Show them how to NOT crash the plane?
Yes, and then you want them to do that for every other pilot also but they did not do that. They claimed it wasnt necessary. You also want redundancy built in so there is far less of a chance of there being a problem. They didn't want to pay for that either.
I like to read. I've followed this from the beginning. Try it some time.
Amazing how you go from an expert political analyst, to a infectious diseases expert, back to political expert and now an expert FAA investigator. My God you are amazing!And then there's this: "They coached the pilots on how to use certain controls." Ok, is it just me, or isn't what you want them to do? Show them how to NOT crash the plane?
Yes, and then you want them to do that for every other pilot also but they did not do that. They claimed it wasnt necessary. You also want redundancy built in so there is far less of a chance of there being a problem. They didn't want to pay for that either.
I like to read. I've followed this from the beginning. Try it some time.
No, you are a fascist America hater. Just like the OP
ANYTHING that hurts America makes you drool with joy
That would be called training then, would it not? Except it wasn't.And then there's this: "They coached the pilots on how to use certain controls." Ok, is it just me, or isn't what you want them to do? Show them how to NOT crash the plane?
A simulator test was conducted as part of the FAA's efforts to ensure that the aircraft could be made safe to fly again. The test was designed to see how quickly pilots could react to the faulty software.
In its report on Friday, the Senate committee said that based on "corroborated whistleblower information and testimony during interviews of FAA staff", it concluded that FAA and Boeing officials involved in the test had "established a pre-determined outcome to reaffirm a long-held human factor assumption related to pilot reaction time".
"Boeing officials inappropriately coached test pilots in the MCAS simulator testing contrary to testing protocol," it said. "It appears, in this instance, FAA and Boeing were attempting to cover up important information that may have contributed to the 737 Max tragedies."
The report cited a whistleblower who claimed that Boeing officials prompted test pilots to use a particular control immediately before an exercise.
It comes after the FAA last month cleared Boeing's 737 Max plane to fly again. It said existing aircraft would need to be modified before going back into service, with changes to their design, while pilots would need retraining.
737 Max: Boeing 'inappropriately coached' pilots in test after crashes
US Senate investigators find problems with tests conducted in the wake of two deadly crashes.www.bbc.com
I'm feeling good about those planes right about now.
Amazing how you go from an expert political analyst, to a infectious diseases expert, back to political expert and now an expert FAA investigator. My God you are amazing!And then there's this: "They coached the pilots on how to use certain controls." Ok, is it just me, or isn't what you want them to do? Show them how to NOT crash the plane?
Yes, and then you want them to do that for every other pilot also but they did not do that. They claimed it wasnt necessary. You also want redundancy built in so there is far less of a chance of there being a problem. They didn't want to pay for that either.
I like to read. I've followed this from the beginning. Try it some time.
No, you are a fascist America hater. Just like the OP
ANYTHING that hurts America makes you drool with joy
Oh gee. Sully is an aircraft engineer now. That’s like asking that moron Lebron James to engineer the structure of an arena. STFU.Are you telling me a country heavily invested in Airbus would throw out some bullshit about another countries aircraft? No way.The BBC as your source for information on Boeing ???
Let me let you in on a secret......
That's like relying on China for advice on human rights.
The BBC is Far Radical Left Journalism and their objective is to harm America in any way possible.
They have been pushing out stories to try and harm Boeing (AND HELP AIRBUS) for decades.
You people are so fucking gullible no wonder you end up under dictators every time.
TOTAL HORSE SHIT
NEXT
It's well documented everywhere. Sully Sullenberger called the Max highly flawed and never should have been approved. He called them aircraft designed to kill people.
Translation: I like to read media bullshit and then repeat it as fact because I am a willing supporter of fake BS.Amazing how you go from an expert political analyst, to a infectious diseases expert, back to political expert and now an expert FAA investigator. My God you are amazing!And then there's this: "They coached the pilots on how to use certain controls." Ok, is it just me, or isn't what you want them to do? Show them how to NOT crash the plane?
Yes, and then you want them to do that for every other pilot also but they did not do that. They claimed it wasnt necessary. You also want redundancy built in so there is far less of a chance of there being a problem. They didn't want to pay for that either.
I like to read. I've followed this from the beginning. Try it some time.
Fake. Smaller government does mean less regulation. And that's good. It's regulation that caused the problems.There's big cost savings for the airlines if the various models of an aircraft type all fly the same way ... just because a pilot is certified to fly A320's doesn't mean they can climb into a 747 ... not without 6 months of expensive training to get certified on the 747 ... ah, but once certified on the 747, the pilot can fly all the models of 747, they all fly the same ...
Unfortunately, the 737 MAX doesn't fly like all the rest of the 737 fleet ... so a software fix was installed to make the 737 MAX fly just like the rest ... well, obviously that software fix didn't work so now the airlines will have to spend the money to certify their pilots on the 737 MAX it seems ...
The big mistake was that Boeing engineers thought that if the software fix started to misbehave ... the pilots could disengage it and shallow out their climb as a matter of routine ... I've heard it said that when the software fix did misbehave, the cockpit lit up like a Christmas tree with alarms and buzzers going off every which way ... and in these two crashes, the pilots were unable to isolate the problem in time with catastrophic results ...
The question is whether the FAA perform due diligence in certifying the 737 MAX to begin with ... without checking the assumptions made ... and whether this certification was because of an all too cozy relationship between Boeing and the FAA ...
Smaller government means more "rubber stamping" the safety protocols ... and less regulations means Boeing doesn't need to insure safety ... buyer beware ... "those passengers knew the risks they were taking, let them die" -- Airplane (1980) ...
Concise and absolutely true. I would not change a word of this statement.There are people at the FAA that should be fired and people at Boeing that should be in prison.
The term "smaller government" has been improperly conflated.Fake. Smaller government does mean less regulation. And that's good. It's regulation that caused the problems.There's big cost savings for the airlines if the various models of an aircraft type all fly the same way ... just because a pilot is certified to fly A320's doesn't mean they can climb into a 747 ... not without 6 months of expensive training to get certified on the 747 ... ah, but once certified on the 747, the pilot can fly all the models of 747, they all fly the same ...
Unfortunately, the 737 MAX doesn't fly like all the rest of the 737 fleet ... so a software fix was installed to make the 737 MAX fly just like the rest ... well, obviously that software fix didn't work so now the airlines will have to spend the money to certify their pilots on the 737 MAX it seems ...
The big mistake was that Boeing engineers thought that if the software fix started to misbehave ... the pilots could disengage it and shallow out their climb as a matter of routine ... I've heard it said that when the software fix did misbehave, the cockpit lit up like a Christmas tree with alarms and buzzers going off every which way ... and in these two crashes, the pilots were unable to isolate the problem in time with catastrophic results ...
The question is whether the FAA perform due diligence in certifying the 737 MAX to begin with ... without checking the assumptions made ... and whether this certification was because of an all too cozy relationship between Boeing and the FAA ...
Smaller government means more "rubber stamping" the safety protocols ... and less regulations means Boeing doesn't need to insure safety ... buyer beware ... "those passengers knew the risks they were taking, let them die" -- Airplane (1980) ...
Oh gee. Sully is an aircraft engineer now. That’s like asking that moron Lebron James to engineer the structure of an arena. STFU.Are you telling me a country heavily invested in Airbus would throw out some bullshit about another countries aircraft? No way.The BBC as your source for information on Boeing ???
Let me let you in on a secret......
That's like relying on China for advice on human rights.
The BBC is Far Radical Left Journalism and their objective is to harm America in any way possible.
They have been pushing out stories to try and harm Boeing (AND HELP AIRBUS) for decades.
You people are so fucking gullible no wonder you end up under dictators every time.
TOTAL HORSE SHIT
NEXT
It's well documented everywhere. Sully Sullenberger called the Max highly flawed and never should have been approved. He called them aircraft designed to kill people.
The term "smaller government" has been improperly conflated.
We want LIMITED government. Big difference.
I didn't know the FAA was the government. Learn something everyday.The term "smaller government" has been improperly conflated.
We want LIMITED government. Big difference.
Explain please ... if you want the FAA to be "limited" in their oversight responsibilities ... then they won't perform an exhaustive review of Boeing's engineering ... planes will crash ...
Or do you want the FAA to go through everything before certification by hiring many more engineers themselves? ... so planes will crash less often ...
Sounds hypocritical ...
