Real News. Real Funny.

Comments

  • "It's pilot error that they did not properly recover from when the cargo door blew off, thrust reverser deployed in flight, rudder jammed, autopilot put it into a nose dive"
  • whither_apophis: "It's pilot error that they did not properly recover from when the cargo door blew off, thrust reverser deployed in flight, rudder jammed, autopilot put it into a nose dive"


    I suspect that when his phone rings in the middle of the night the CEO of Boeing he answers with "pilot error"
  • Wow. This is stunning news.

    /This is not stunning news. I'm not a BA investor (except for indexes) but if I had been I would not have sold a single share.
  • Where are the pilot error guys at? Sure this couldn't be Boeing's fault even though they are issuing a farking patch.
  • Held Boeing stock for a good 20 years, until I

    A)  Realized I was old, and no longer had a long term horizon
    B)  Figured the market was going to crash, so I sold all my stocks

    A turned out to be right.  B, yeah, that was 2016, Boeing doubled after that.

    On the other hand, I tracked the stocks I sold with how they did, and came out ahead by selling.

    The moral?  If you try to time the market you might get lucky once in your lifetime.

    I still own FUN, and am enjoying the dividends.  It's done a triple since I bought it some 10-15 years ago.
  • drjekel_mrhyde: Where are the pilot error guys at? Sure this couldn't be Boeing's fault even though they are issuing a farking patch.


    Hey, whaddya call a black guy flying a plane?!  A pilot!  Get it?

    Wait. Hold on.
  • Boeing stock down on the news that Boeing admits their software killed 150 or so people.
  • Is the patch considered 'reboot required'?
  • Screenshot from a patched 737-Max:

    img.fark.netView Full Size
  • drjekel_mrhyde: Where are the pilot error guys at?


    If a phantom patch gets everyone to STFU about this, why not do it. I hope the patch just increases the software version number by 0.1.
  • drjekel_mrhyde: Where are the pilot error guys at? Sure this couldn't be Boeing's fault even though they are issuing a farking patch.


    Wreckage showing the plane's jackscrew was set to dive in addition to flight data demonstrating altitude oscillations and acceleration is keeping them quiet today
  • centrifugal bumblepuppy: Wreckage showing the plane's jackscrew was set to dive in addition to flight data demonstrating altitude oscillations and acceleration is keeping them quiet today


    Biggest question remains: Did the pilots disable electrical trim and revert to manual?
  • mrmopar5287: centrifugal bumblepuppy: Wreckage showing the plane's jackscrew was set to dive in addition to flight data demonstrating altitude oscillations and acceleration is keeping them quiet today

    Biggest question remains: Did the pilots disable electrical trim and revert to manual?


    I want to know if the MCAS even activated since the plane was still below 1,000 feet over the ground and its probable the flaps weren't even retracted yet. (MCAS doesn't activate until flaps are at zero and you are in manual flight.)
  • NemoD: (MCAS doesn't activate until flaps are at zero and you are in manual flight.)


    That assumes there isn't a HUGE glitch where MCAS malfunctions and is active during unexpected flight modes.
  • relaxitsjustme: whither_apophis: "It's pilot error that they did not properly recover from when the cargo door blew off, thrust reverser deployed in flight, rudder jammed, autopilot put it into a nose dive"

    I suspect that when his phone rings in the middle of the night the CEO of Boeing he answers with "pilot error"


    Well, there was QF72, the Airbus A330 that tried to dive into the ground -- oops, I mean "experienced an uncommanded pitch down" -- thanks to... bad angle-of-attack data. I don't remember European countries grounding the A330 until that could be properly investigated and fixed.

    And then that whole AF447 thing, where it turns out the A330/A340 airspeed indicators sometimes just crap out, silently disable the anti-stall protection, and... oh, that was ruled "pilot error" because only some pilots ended up crashing the plane in that situation. No need to ground any planes for something like that.

    Oh, and after Air France overloaded and unbalanced a Concorde on which they'd done shoddy landing-gear maintenance, resulting in it swerving all over the runway and turning into a ball of flaming death, and even their partners at BA basically said "yeah, there's problems with the plane and your maintenance"? France prosecuted a random Continental Airlines mechanic. But hey, they did ground the Concorde fleet, so one out of three ain't bad I guess?

    Oh, and France is where the black boxes from the Ethiopian crash were sent. Wonder what the result of their investigation will be?

    (yeah, it sucks we don't have an FAA director because Orange Julius wanted his private-jet pilot to run that and got shouted down, but don't anybody think for a minute that Airbus and/or Europe are shining beacons of wonderful perfect safety procedures, 'k?)
  • ubernostrum: relaxitsjustme: whither_apophis: "It's pilot error that they did not properly recover from when the cargo door blew off, thrust reverser deployed in flight, rudder jammed, autopilot put it into a nose dive"

    I suspect that when his phone rings in the middle of the night the CEO of Boeing he answers with "pilot error"

    Well, there was QF72, the Airbus A330 that tried to dive into the ground -- oops, I mean "experienced an uncommanded pitch down" -- thanks to... bad angle-of-attack data. I don't remember European countries grounding the A330 until that could be properly investigated and fixed.

    And then that whole AF447 thing, where it turns out the A330/A340 airspeed indicators sometimes just crap out, silently disable the anti-stall protection, and... oh, that was ruled "pilot error" because only some pilots ended up crashing the plane in that situation. No need to ground any planes for something like that.

    Oh, and after Air France overloaded and unbalanced a Concorde on which they'd done shoddy landing-gear maintenance, resulting in it swerving all over the runway and turning into a ball of flaming death, and even their partners at BA basically said "yeah, there's problems with the plane and your maintenance"? France prosecuted a random Continental Airlines mechanic. But hey, they did ground the Concorde fleet, so one out of three ain't bad I guess?

    Oh, and France is where the black boxes from the Ethiopian crash were sent. Wonder what the result of their investigation will be?

    (yeah, it sucks we don't have an FAA director because Orange Julius wanted his private-jet pilot to run that and got shouted down, but don't anybody think for a minute that Airbus and/or Europe are shining beacons of wonderful perfect safety procedures, 'k?)


    You're a good example why the black boxes wouldn't be sent to USA.
  • Ketchuponsteak: You're a good example why the black boxes wouldn't be sent to USA.


    Mostly I don't trust anybody right now. We don't have a functioning government, and Europe doesn't have a great track record.

    And when you dig into it, it turns out basically everyone and everything in aviation is corrupt, and the industry has a great safety record in spite of that.

    I also think that if we'd had the kind of pervasive social-media-driven narratives in 2009 that we have today, the A330 would have been grounded, because its AoA and airspeed sensor issues were really similar to what people allege is happening with the 737 MAX.
  • mrmopar5287: NemoD: (MCAS doesn't activate until flaps are at zero and you are in manual flight.)

    That assumes there isn't a HUGE glitch where MCAS malfunctions and is active during unexpected flight modes.


    Yeah that would be a lot more serious than just "We assumed the pilots would know what to do without retraining or modifying the manual so we didn't make the system redundant" which is what they're fixing in with this new patch. We'll know soon enough when the black boxes are analyzed.
  • ubernostrum: Ketchuponsteak: You're a good example why the black boxes wouldn't be sent to USA.

    Mostly I don't trust anybody right now. We don't have a functioning government, and Europe doesn't have a great track record.

    And when you dig into it, it turns out basically everyone and everything in aviation is corrupt, and the industry has a great safety record in spite of that.

    I also think that if we'd had the kind of pervasive social-media-driven narratives in 2009 that we have today, the A330 would have been grounded, because its AoA and airspeed sensor issues were really similar to what people allege is happening with the 737 MAX.


    Which A330 incident are you talking about? Surely not the one that was farking pilot error?
  • Ketchuponsteak: Which A330 incident are you talking about? Surely not the one that was farking pilot error?


    If you'd actually read my original comment instead of just making a drive-by sneer at it, you might know the answer to this question.
  • ubernostrum: Ketchuponsteak: Which A330 incident are you talking about? Surely not the one that was farking pilot error?

    If you'd actually read my original comment instead of just making a drive-by sneer at it, you might know the answer to this question.


    You could clarify which incident you were on about. The airshow one was software farking up, the Air France one was 100% pilot error, with the plane doing anything it could to warn and save them, yet they still managed to stall.
  • Ketchuponsteak: You could clarify which incident you were on about. The airshow one was software farking up, the Air France one was 100% pilot error, with the plane doing anything it could to warn and save them, yet they still managed to stall.


    None of the examples I mentioned were the air show crash.

    QF72 in October 2008 was an emergency landing with 119 casualties after multiple instances of uncommanded pitch down, traced to faulty software corrupting angle-of-attack data, triggering the flight computer to act against a (nonexistent) stall risk. This is precisely the type of problem being alleged with Boeing's MCAS, with the only difference being a question of whether the issue is in software or in the AoA sensor hardware. The worldwide A330 fleet was not grounded despite an incident with similar-seeming root cause only a few months later (QF71 in December 2008).

    AF447, June 2009, was the worst outcome of a more general problem with the A330/A340 pitot tubes, resulting in at least a dozen known incidents in which airspeed data may have been inaccurate and the aircraft may have been operating in alternate law unbeknownst to the crew. AF447's crew certainly compounded the error, but the original comment I replied to was cracking jokes about Boeing trying to whitewash everything as "pilot error", and I think it's fair to call out Airbus on that one; the Airbus control layout certainly didn't help, as evidenced by the record of wildly incompatible inputs from the two pilots. And especially since one identified factor in AF447's crash was the lack of any clear indication to the crew that airspeed measurements had become inconsistent; Boeing has been getting tarred and feathered in the media this week for not making an AoA-disagreement warning standard and prominent on the 737 MAX.

    AF447 also came only six months after the second A330 AoA incident. Yet European aviation agencies still did not rush to ground the A330 or to condemn Airbus for dragging its feet in identifying the problems and rolling out solutions.

    Meanwhile, France in particular has a bit of a nasty history of playing "pin the crash on the American" when investigating aviation incidents, which is also fair to point out when someone suggests a need for a neutral country to conduct the investigation.

    Of course, you're just here to sneer at anything that doesn't fit your preconceived narrative, so I don't know why I'm bothering to explain all this to you.
  • ubernostrum: Ketchuponsteak: You could clarify which incident you were on about. The airshow one was software farking up, the Air France one was 100% pilot error, with the plane doing anything it could to warn and save them, yet they still managed to stall.

    None of the examples I mentioned were the air show crash.

    QF72 in October 2008 was an emergency landing with 119 casualties after multiple instances of uncommanded pitch down, traced to faulty software corrupting angle-of-attack data, triggering the flight computer to act against a (nonexistent) stall risk. This is precisely the type of problem being alleged with Boeing's MCAS, with the only difference being a question of whether the issue is in software or in the AoA sensor hardware. The worldwide A330 fleet was not grounded despite an incident with similar-seeming root cause only a few months later (QF71 in December 2008).

    AF447, June 2009, was the worst outcome of a more general problem with the A330/A340 pitot tubes, resulting in at least a dozen known incidents in which airspeed data may have been inaccurate and the aircraft may have been operating in alternate law unbeknownst to the crew. AF447's crew certainly compounded the error, but the original comment I replied to was cracking jokes about Boeing trying to whitewash everything as "pilot error", and I think it's fair to call out Airbus on that one; the Airbus control layout certainly didn't help, as evidenced by the record of wildly incompatible inputs from the two pilots. And especially since one identified factor in AF447's crash was the lack of any clear indication to the crew that airspeed measurements had become inconsistent; Boeing has been getting tarred and feathered in the media this week for not making an AoA-disagreement warning standard and prominent on the 737 MAX.

    AF447 also came only six months after the second A330 AoA incident. Yet European aviation agencies still did not rush to ground the A330 or to condemn Airbus for dragging its feet in iden ...


    I don't memorise plane crashes, so I was unsure whether you where talking about the airshow, which was totally a software error, or the AF447, which was 100% pilot error.

    At AF447 the pilots have a visiual horizon that tells them the nose is pointing upwards, they have a vocal speech saying "Stall! Stall! Stall!", constantly. They had the controls shaking indicating a stall. And ffs., they were flying straight up.

    The solution I've heard, would be that the pilot and co-pilots controls would not be able to contradict each other. But FFS. I'm not a pilot, when the indicator shows how you're flying straight up, the controls are shaking and there's a voice yelling at you about a stall. I could probably have figured that out.

    They had minutes. The Airbus can fly right at the limit, for a long time.

    I don't know, what is the solution, that the computer just decides "OK, these guys can't take a hint", and just take control. But we don't like that either, as per that airshow, do we?


    Anyways, I am still fine, and understand, why the blackboxes goes to France. They know their shiat, and are impartial. It's not like the FAA can't review the data either you know.
  • I have a little hobby trading account (my real retirement is a mix of stock index and bond index funds)
    I bought into BA, 20 shares at 373, after the initial drop..

    I'm hoping to be ok
  • Load 4 of 4 newer comments
  •  

This thread is closed to new comments.