Just like?! They aren't comparable... resolving the housing crisis doesn't involve any loans by a bank to a private sector company AFAIK.

(Written on 2020年 02月 05日)(Permalink)

P.S.: Did they reposition the engines on the -10 to where you think they belong to make a safe design?

(Written on 2020年 02月 05日)(Permalink)

I did read all of it. I focused on the data that shows what happened on that flight and the penultimate flight, not the media’s interpretation. And I didn’t find pilots struggling with the controls, or fighting a futile tug of war against MCAS, or that they were confused by numerous simultaneous warnings and alarms, or that MCAS acted so rapidly that they didn’t have time to figure out what was going on. Actually, they successfully countered the stab trim runaway more than two dozen times, quite easily, without even mentioning a runaway even once. That’s because they had never even heard of it, never mind practising the recovery procedure in a simulator—as has been mandatory since the 1960s. Thus they simply didn’t know how to shut off the powered trim system and when control was handed over to the FO (who was a terrible airman as training records show) he barely made any attempt to counter the runaway trim. The Captain, who had his head buried in ops manuals, didn’t notice the FO’s fai

(Written on 2020年 02月 05日)(Permalink)

How did you determine “would not cause landing or takeoff issues?” Is there enough rotation for take off without the risk of a tailstrike?

(Written on 2020年 02月 05日)(Permalink)

I didn’t make an assertion, I asked where the official indictments of MCAS are. I did assert that the media’s reports don’t count, and I still do—after all they are still claiming MCAS is an anti-stall system and that it wrests control away from the pilots and pushes the airplane into a nose dive.

(Written on 2020年 02月 05日)(Permalink)

It worked out very well. Do you know of any competent aviation agency that thinks engine placement or MCAS caused the two crashes? Reports by news reporters with close to zero competence in aviation obviously don’t count, nor do those “aviation experts” they trotted out to support the gross speculation that they published as fact. Try actually reading the official investigation reports and understanding the airplane’s recorded data to come to your conclusions rather than relying on the media’s distorted interpretation of them and the illogical verdict.

(Written on 2020年 01月 31日)(Permalink)

Because your last line is illogical. These are axial flow engines, so the thrust angle is zero relative to the spin axis. To create something else would introduce technology not used on commercial airplanes to date, and would defeat your intent to keep risk low. Besides, the placement of the engines was not the cause of the two MAX crashes, not even indirectly.

(Written on 2020年 01月 31日)(Permalink)

It is still an advanage for baggage handling; efficient airlines that need quick turnaround times at the gate count on it.

(Written on 2020年 01月 31日)(Permalink)

Aside from not being engineers, they apparently also weren’t aware that the length of the landing gear on the 737 enables baggage to be un/loaded without the use of airport equipment, an advantage the airline operators would not want to give up. Besides, where is the official document that says that the position of the engines or even MCAS caused the two crashes? Media “reports” don’t count.

(Written on 2020年 01月 31日)(Permalink)

The pilot had an Instrument Rating... but was he current for IFR flying? The weather cetainly was not VFR and his SVFR clearance was not valid beyond the airport envoronment.

(Written on 2020年 01月 31日)(Permalink)