Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They cut corners with the 737 max. The 777 should be OK to fly.
Did I say that?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.
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.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?
Irrelevant and twisting of words to satisfy your 'professional' ego.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?
It goes both ways - the airline has had a fairly good safety record but it is also likely this was pilot error.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...???
I still believe in “If its not boeing I am not going”.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,
Sorry found out that it was fakethis looks like CGI
How do we know it was a mechanical fault or otherwise?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.
You do not have to. No one does. The point is to indict obliquely.Did I say that?
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.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.
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.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.
New Recruit
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