You're afraid because the media and society have conditioned you to be. It's virtually impossible to get a non biased factual report on anything, not just politics. The fact is the 737 Max, and commercial aircraft in general, are exceedingly safe when operated and maintained by highly trained and experienced professionals. Unfortunately there are parts of the world where training and experience is hard to come by, and so aircraft have to be designed and operated with that in mind. Boeing obviously miscalculated the risks and abilities of some underdeveloped countries to operate their aircraft safely, and it didn't help that bad management and poor engineering allowed critical flaws to develop that were not caught by the FAA whose oversight was clearly lacking. Rest assured the Max will now be arguably the safest aircraft out there as it's been scrutinized with a fine tooth comb, and everyone is now aware of its faults in the unlikely event they reoccur.

(Written on 2020年 12月 04日)(Permalink)

That's a pretty bad analogy for two reasons: first, AOA systems are not high failure rate items, so while what you say may be true if they don't fail then it's not much of an issue. Second, even if they do fail repairing and/or replacing them is a fairly quick and easy process, not like changing an engine which is a long and involved process.

(Written on 2020年 11月 15日)(Permalink)

It's worse than a joke, it's inaccurate and misleading. The author purports to be a commercial pilot but doesn't seem to understand aircraft certification, especially as it relates to the Max and MCAS. And I don't know what their airline experience supposedly is, but AOA sensors don't just fail at the drop of a hat. In over 3 years of flying the 737, Classic NG and Max I don't ever recall having an AOA failure. And it's not like it's some obscure part that's impossible to find, so the notion that the Max will be 400 times more maintenance intensive is just laughable. If that was the case no airline in their right mind would operate them. Just goes to show you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet!

(Written on 2020年 11月 15日)(Permalink)

On what grounds? We can argue till the cows come home about whether it's ethical to keep the money, but the fact is the gov gave them the money essentially no strings attached. Maybe it's just 20/20 hindsight, but they (gov) could've very easily put conditions on the funds such as revenue or demand, so that if it turned out they really didn't need the money they would have to give it, or at least some of it back. You can't just put the toothpaste back in the tube and change the rules after the fact.

(Written on 2020年 11月 13日)(Permalink)

Is there a little man in the little boat?

(Written on 2020年 11月 06日)(Permalink)

All SWA aircraft have vests, they do plenty of over-water flights to places in the Caribbean and such. Not all have life rafts though, which are required for certain extended over-water flights such as part of the Gulf of Mexico and AR routes in the Atlantic. Hawaii requires all of the above, as well as ETOPS certification for each individual aircraft and crew. There are special dispatch and maintenance requirements for each flight as well.

(Written on 2020年 11月 06日)(Permalink)

Let's be honest, this happens anytime the government passes out money. Remember the infamous "we have to pass the bill to find out what's in the bill"? Well it's no wonder money goes to places it's not needed, and doesn't get to the places it is. I guess I'm a little happy they're going after them, but the reality is it's not a drop in the bucket, it's a drop in the ocean.

(Written on 2020年 10月 21日)(Permalink)

How though? Are doctors gonna run up and down the aisle on random flights waving containers around to collect air samples? In order to get a valid result from a test you need repeatable conditions and a control to establish a baseline. It’s funny how people will blindly follow “science” when it supports their perspective, but when it challenges it they all of a sudden need more testing or further proof, or if they really don’t want to accept it just attack it as “junk science”.

(Written on 2020年 10月 21日)(Permalink)

But everyone, with a few minor exceptions, is wearing a mask at the airport. And since masks are so effective the risk should be minimal right? Plus airports are generally somewhat spacious and have constant airflow which helps mitigate spread. Let’s be honest, when you consider the risk of getting COVID, and then the risk of getting seriously sick or dying from COVID, driving to and from the airport most likely remains the most dangerous part of your journey.

(Written on 2020年 10月 17日)(Permalink)

Well, that is quite ironic. If you believe death from covid is lurking around every corner you really shouldn't be going anywhere. Though I must point out a large percentage of infections are occurring within families in their homes, and also in people who claim they "always" wear a mask.

(Written on 2020年 10月 16日)(Permalink)