Boeing 737 Max 8 | Page 10 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Boeing 737 Max 8

J_F said:
not realated to the Max
but that 737-800 downing in Iran is pretty awful

just a guess
but I figure a heat seeker found it's signature
Click to expand...
Iran is holding the black boxes and says they arent releasing them. I was shocked at the number of canadians on that flight. :(

EDIT:

Holy crap, almost the entire plane lived in Canada. It will be interesting to see how Twinkletoes responds.

toronto.citynews.ca

138 passengers on plane that crashed in Iran were connecting to Canada: Trudeau

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says a total of 138 passengers aboard the plane that crashed outside Tehran were connecting to Canada. The Ukraine International Airlines Boeing 737-800, bound for Kyiv, crashed shortly after taking off from the Iranian capital, killing all 176 people on board...
toronto.citynews.ca toronto.citynews.ca
 
  • Like
Reactions: J_F
Talking to an Iranian friend early yesterday morning that has been talking to friends in Iran (and knew someone on the plane). He said eyewitness reports saw the plane on fire (which is also now being reported) on the way down. He also said the pilot on the way down flew away form a more populated area. He had formed no opinions on what happened.

For me... given that the plane was climbing normally and then contact was lost abruptly (around 8000 feet) seems to rule out an engine problem. Given the timing with the missile launches, my amateur conclusion (being a regular Mayday viewer) is that it was shot down by Iran by mistake. AA missile battery sees a plane climbing fast, assumes it is returning US plane from an air strike, makes an executive decision and fires. Catches an engine and it goes from there.

I don't think it was on purpose, it would make no sense to do that, even for Iran.
 
backmarkerducati said:
Talking to an Iranian friend early yesterday morning that has been talking to friends in Iran (and knew someone on the plane). He said eyewitness reports saw the plane on fire (which is also now being reported) on the way down. He also said the pilot on the way down flew away form a more populated area. He had formed no opinions on what happened.

For me... given that the plane was climbing normally and then contact was lost abruptly (around 8000 feet) seems to rule out an engine problem. Given the timing with the missile launches, my amateur conclusion (being a regular Mayday viewer) is that it was shot down by Iran by mistake. AA missile battery sees a plane climbing fast, assumes it is returning US plane from an air strike, makes an executive decision and fires. Catches an engine and it goes from there.

I don't think it was on purpose, it would make no sense to do that, even for Iran.
Click to expand...
Iranian TV broadcast a video (bad quality) which shows what may be the plane descending and it looks like it is on fire. The released video starts ~30 seconds before impact so it missed the precipitating event.

Edit:

Reasonably confirmed that iranian sam downed the plane. No need to make the boeing thread even more tragic with this incident, boeing had nothing to do with these deaths.

www.cp24.com

Intelligence says Iranian missile downed airliner, perhaps by mistake: Trudeau

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says intelligence from multiple sources indicates that an Iranian missile downed the Ukraine International Airlines flight that crashed near Tehran on Wednesday.
www.cp24.com www.cp24.com

Edit 2:
New york times posted a video of the initial impact. They say they have authenticated it. Tragic.

www.google.com

Video Shows Ukrainian Plane Being Hit Over Iran (Published 2020)

The New York Times has obtained video of the moment a Ukrainian airliner was hit minutes after takeoff from Tehran.
www.google.com www.google.com
 
Last edited:
Not nearly as catastrophic a flaw, but just another car in the "do they even bother with qc?" train. This time on the NG. At certain runways, all six primary displays go black when doing ILS approach. To get them back you need to select a different runway. Apparently they have fixed it, but crap like this should get caught in a rigorous software qc process before it ever gets put on a plane.

boingboing.net

Trying to land on some runways causes the Boeing 737's control screens to go black | Boing Boing

The Boeing 737 Next Generation has a gnarly bug: on instrument approach to seven specific runways, the six cockpit display units used to guide the pilots to their landing go suddenly black and they…
boingboing.net
 
And Boeing is criticizing that as being unprofessional. Perhaps ... but someone wrote that for a reason. YES, I am all too familiar with being in a position in control of the design of a mechanical gizmocontraption (not an airplane) and being unable to please everyone.
 
The bigger picture (imho) is Boeing and others make and have made thousands of planes, to hundreds of other designs that did not fall out of the sky. This is the Ford Pinto of aircraft, even the guys building it seemed in on the joke. Except unlike killing production of the pinto which was millions in tooling, this is billions.
 
crankcall said:
The bigger picture (imho) is Boeing and others make and have made thousands of planes, to hundreds of other designs that did not fall out of the sky. This is the Ford Pinto of aircraft, even the guys building it seemed in on the joke. Except unlike killing production of the pinto which was millions in tooling, this is billions.
Click to expand...

The Pinto was susceptible to fires after someone initiated a crash. Boeing created it own crashes.
 
I was initially supportive of Boeing but as the corner cutting and patchwork design...hanging big engines on an airframe not designed for it then trying to do a fly by wire fix for the resultant instability .....

Now thinking that model should be dumped.
 
This mess is still going strong with no light visible at the end of this very long tunnel.

Boeing 737 Max8 Aircraft Crashes and Investigations [Part 6] - Engineering Failures & Disasters - Eng-Tips See post of 17 Jan 2020 04:59. In there is a link to a document ... which I have read. It glosses over the certification issues and minimises the responsibility of the FAA and offers minimal, minor suggestions to improve the process at the FAA. "Everything's fine, here are perhaps some little improvements to your process that might help without costing too much." It reads like it was written by the supervisor that was responsible for the budget cuts to the FAA in the first place. It does not say "We screwed up. We need to change the way we do things." - which is what it needed to say.

The posts following that - and I tend to agree - suggest that the EASA and Transport Canada and other worldwide aircraft certification bodies, probably aren't going to place a whole lot of confidence in this.

If EASA no longer accepts FAA type-approvals because they don't trust the FAA (and at this point, I would consider that to be more likely following this document) then that means any aircraft intended for worldwide sale would have to be approved by the EASA regardless of whether it has an FAA approval or not.

If that happens then it no longer makes any sense for any aircraft manufacturer to seek FAA approval. They might as well seek EASA approval and be done with it ... unless, of course, the FAA decides to no longer accept EASA approval in return, but in view of these circumstances (FAA is under scrutiny, EASA is not), I would say that's unlikely.

If *that* happens then the FAA is done. (And if this document is a true reflection of what the FAA or its overlords think needs to be done, perhaps that's just as well.)
 
I wonder how many other "We're looking out for your best interests" governmental organizations are out there?
 
Lots, but ultimately I don't know how you address this otherwise. I think the problem wasn't so much that it was a government organisation, but that due to budget cuts and what-not, they could not handle what they were responsible for, and cozied up to manufacturers too much. The complexity of modern aircraft makes it exceptionally difficult to declare conformity.

EASA is also a government organisation.
 
It's a given if there are millions or billions to be made there will be lobbyists pushing for slacking off on safety and pushing the limits. Drug testing, electrical devices etc.
 
Another colossal boeing program f-up. Put a fork in them, they are lost and getting closer to the edge of the cliff every day.

amp.cnn.com

Boeing's Starliner spacecraft, built to carry astronauts, faces new safety concerns

Boeing's Starliner spacecraft, which is designed to carry NASA astronauts to the International Space Station, encountered a second, previously undisclosed, software issue during a botched test flight in December.
amp.cnn.com amp.cnn.com

The space agency said Friday that it plans to launch a full-scale safety review of the company's work on Starliner, noting that there were "numerous instances where the Boeing software quality processes either should have or could have uncovered the defects." That review will attempt to determine why the software problems weren't detected during ground tests prior to the launch.

Boeing acknowledged that software issue for the first time in a statement issued hours after Hill's comments. Officials said during a press briefing Friday that — if left undetected — the coding error could have cause the service module to ram into the crew capsule, which could have caused serious damage and sent the spacecraft tumbling off its intended path.

NASA initially hoped Boeing's and SpaceX's new vehicles would be up and running by 2017.

SpaceX's Crew Dragon, however, completed its last major testing milestone in January. The company now appears poised to gain approval from NASA to begin flying astronauts in the coming weeks or months.
 
"Should we run a test of the entire manned rocket launch from start to finish? It will take 25 hours"
"F that, send it".
Kaboom.

Put a fork in them. They have diverged from any culture that values human life over profit.

Boeing says thorough testing would have caught Starliner software problems – Spaceflight Now

spaceflightnow.com

EDIT:
Probably the scariest part is that the official line is they are still deciding whether to send astronauts on the next flight or whether Boeing will have to complete a successful unmanned flight first. How is that even a discussion at this point? At every turn, they show themselves to be incompetent and untrustworthy and just grovel for forgiveness after every *^*&^up.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom