Boeing 737 Max design error

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 6:12:29 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

On 11/05/2019 00:33, whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 12:03:53 PM UTC-7, Mike Perkins wrote:

I don't understand your point. The issue is whether Boeing is criminally
negligent. If this was a non-US company there would be calls for their
extradition.

Well, no; there's an approval process for planes, and they went through that
process and got certified. The investigations are still under way, with
no claim of wrongdoing coming from the investigators.

They self certified and the FAA were in bed with them. Not a proper
independent certification that the thing was truly airworthy. I hope
that the truth will eventually be told. I doubt if any international
aviation authority will take FAA certification at face value after this.

If so, then what will they do? Demand that all Boeing planes be
certified by each foreign authority? Seems unlikely. Having some
foreign observers with the FAA might be a good idea though.

'They' to be extradited: who, exactly, would those persons be?

Civil responsibility remains, but only violation of certification would
cause a legal (criminal) offense for the manufacturer. The current situation
is unfortunate, and the (rather spectacular) loss of two aircraft is tragic, but
not criminal, unless some information comes to light about a party to an
identifiable violation of an operational, maintenance, or materials-and-craftsmanship
norm is found. There will be recertification with a new specification,
hopefully soon.

I think a case for negligence in the design and implementation of the
MCAS system and its lack of documentation in the as released plane and
flight manuals would be compelling. I also expect Boeing will be able to
employ expensive fat slimy lawyers to get them off the hook though.

It also appears on the face of it that their remedial procedure did not
work either since by the time the crew have reacted the plane is already
descending too fast & too steep for them to move the manual trim wheels.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

I wonder if there have ever been other crashes where runaway trim happened
so suddenly and forcefully that the pilots were not able to recover via
the manual trim process on 737 or other planes? That raises questions
about safety and certification of at least all 737s no? Since it's
called "runaway trim", you would assume that it means that the trim
motor can respond to a short, stuck switch, etc and go to full trim
in one direction or the other. Question is, how many seconds does
that take? Because it looks like if it goes nose down, airspeed
increases, within some short period airspeed will
have reached the point where the manual trim can't be used. Boeing
had instructions in the manual about how to deal with that, but
that process wasn't reassuring, it would have required the plane to
be put into an even steeper dive. And if any of this happens at 5K
feet, good luck with that. Even at higher altitude, if you don't
get this right within seconds, looks like the chances of survival
are slim. So, I wonder if there have been other incidents? Or is
runaway trim where it really does go full trim, so rare and that's
why we haven't heard about it before?

 

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 9:11:51 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:1b9cc817-2b24-4f20-b534-
ee2c3f3fe6e5@googlegroups.com:

If so, then what will they do? Demand that all Boeing planes be
certified by each foreign authority? Seems unlikely. Having some
foreign observers with the FAA might be a good idea though.


Self certification through a regulating authority is nothing new.

Underwriters Laboratories have had it for decades. Most major makers
of nearly any product you can name self certify their UL compliance and
place the mark of said certification.

Until and unless they have a major failure that would indictate being
due to an element the UL labs would scrutinize heavily, that company
loses its self cert capacity.

You guys are so far behind the process. It is really amazing the
gossip spew these accidents have caused.

No one here said this was anything new. But it sure looks like something
went badly wrong with MCAS and the FAA. And it leads to the question of
what else got certified by that process that should not have, which could
be in any other planes, not just the 737 Max. Boeing came up with a
totally flawed, stupid design. This wasn't some unexpected component
failure or similar, it was a total, stunning design failure.
Somehow Boeing allowed that to happen
and to go into production. FAA somehow certified it. And even in 2017
Boeing didn't wake up when they learned that the disagree lights, if
installed, did not work unless the aircraft also had the AOA display
option. So there was a warning light in some of those planes that
did nothing. They never informed the operators. All major failures that
need to be fully investigated so we find out what exactly went wrong and fix
it.

 

[piglet]

On 13/05/2019 1:55 pm, trader4@optonline.net wrote:

I wonder if there have ever been other crashes where runaway trim happened
so suddenly and forcefully that the pilots were not able to recover via
the manual trim process on 737 or other planes? That raises questions
about safety and certification of at least all 737s no? Since it's
called "runaway trim", you would assume that it means that the trim
motor can respond to a short, stuck switch, etc and go to full trim
in one direction or the other. Question is, how many seconds does
that take? Because it looks like if it goes nose down, airspeed
increases, within some short period airspeed will
have reached the point where the manual trim can't be used. Boeing
had instructions in the manual about how to deal with that, but
that process wasn't reassuring, it would have required the plane to
be put into an even steeper dive. And if any of this happens at 5K
feet, good luck with that. Even at higher altitude, if you don't
get this right within seconds, looks like the chances of survival
are slim. So, I wonder if there have been other incidents? Or is
runaway trim where it really does go full trim, so rare and that's
why we haven't heard about it before?

Sabena flight 548 in 1961 was believed to be runaway trim and is why
there are now two series connected trim motor disconnect switches. One
theory was that their one disconnect switch had welded closed and
prevented isolating an upstream fault.

piglet

 

[Banders]

On 05/11/2019 12:30 PM, trader4@optonline.net wrote:

On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 1:37:04 PM UTC-4, Banders wrote:
On 05/11/2019 06:48 AM, trader4@optonline.net wrote:

"Yes, great idea. McDonald Douglas used that idea in the DC-10.
Instead of a jackscrew to drive the flaps, they used a hydraulic
PISTON. Which of course is what we actually call it.

Is it? I don't know, but cylinder sounds right to me.

Sure, as long as you want a hydraulic failure to result in a crash?
Hello? DC-10, O'Hare, 1979?

Let me help you:

"I don't know, but cylinder sounds right to me."
is my response to your emphatic
"they used a hydraulic PISTON. Which of course is what we actually call it."

In 1979 a DC-10 full of passengers taking off from O'Hare had an
engine fall off, which in turn damaged the hydraulic lines in
the wing. The flaps retracted. Guess what happened next. "

It was leading edge slats, on one side, not flaps.

Correct, but still the same point, a piston with hydraulic failure,
retracted the control surface, resulting in a disaster.

Air loads retracted the slats. Fixed by adding hydraulic fuses.

The airplane had "no
agree" lights for the slats, but the lights didn't work because
the electrical system was also torn out along with the hydraulics.
The pilots would have had a fair chance of saving the plane if the
lights had been able to tell them something. You want to replace
electrical circuits with something better too?

BS. That aircraft was at a low speed, without the leading edge,
they were doomed, it stalled.

Left wing stalled, because the crew slowed to what they thought was the
appropriate speed. They could have retracted the right wing slats and
held a slightly greater speed instead.

And regardless, it shows the extreme disadvantage to using pistons.
You think maybe that's why jackscrews are prefered? The part about
agree lights and electrica things not working is pure BS.

Overruled. You're an argumentative know-nothing.

 

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 4:37:20 PM UTC-4, Banders wrote:

On 05/11/2019 12:30 PM, trader4@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 1:37:04 PM UTC-4, Banders wrote:
On 05/11/2019 06:48 AM, trader4@optonline.net wrote:

"Yes, great idea. McDonald Douglas used that idea in the DC-10.
Instead of a jackscrew to drive the flaps, they used a hydraulic
PISTON. Which of course is what we actually call it.

Is it? I don't know, but cylinder sounds right to me.

Sure, as long as you want a hydraulic failure to result in a crash?
Hello? DC-10, O'Hare, 1979?

Let me help you:

"I don't know, but cylinder sounds right to me."
is my response to your emphatic
"they used a hydraulic PISTON. Which of course is what we actually call it."

In 1979 a DC-10 full of passengers taking off from O'Hare had an
engine fall off, which in turn damaged the hydraulic lines in
the wing. The flaps retracted. Guess what happened next. "

It was leading edge slats, on one side, not flaps.

Correct, but still the same point, a piston with hydraulic failure,
retracted the control surface, resulting in a disaster.

Air loads retracted the slats. Fixed by adding hydraulic fuses.

Did your buddy DL talk about hydraulic fuses? No, he wanted the
horizontal stabilizer driven by a simple piston, so it could be instantly
cutoff and freed to solve a mostly non-existent problem. Sylvia had
to explain to him that would leave the control surface flapping in
the wind.....

The airplane had "no
agree" lights for the slats, but the lights didn't work because
the electrical system was also torn out along with the hydraulics.
The pilots would have had a fair chance of saving the plane if the
lights had been able to tell them something. You want to replace
electrical circuits with something better too?

BS. That aircraft was at a low speed, without the leading edge,
they were doomed, it stalled.

Left wing stalled, because the crew slowed to what they thought was the
appropriate speed. They could have retracted the right wing slats and
held a slightly greater speed instead.

BS. One engine fell off on the runway and the procedure is certainly not
to slow, it's to climb at V2. That's what they did. Nor did they have
time to do much of anything, it crashed less than a minute after takeoff.

And regardless, it shows the extreme disadvantage to using pistons.
You think maybe that's why jackscrews are prefered? The part about
agree lights and electrica things not working is pure BS.

Overruled. You're an argumentative know-nothing.

With the slats retracted on the failed
engine side, they never had a chance to get to a speed that would have
prevented it from stalling. That's kind of why the slats and flaps are
there to begin with. And the crash investigations showed exactly what
I said, that MD relied on piston actuators, the engine separation
severed hydraulic lines, the slats retracted. Had they been jackscrews
instead, the plane would have flown, because the slats would not have
retracted. That was the whole point, but it obviously went right
over your head.

Next!

 

[Banders]

On 05/13/2019, know-nothing dope trader4 wrote:

BS. That aircraft was at a low speed, without the leading edge,
they were doomed, it stalled.

It already proved itself flyable.

"Flight 191 lifted off about 6,000 feet down the runway, climbed out in
a wings level attitude, and reached an altitude of about 300 feet agl
with its wings still level."

<https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19790525-2>

Left wing stalled, because the crew slowed to what they thought was the
appropriate speed. They could have retracted the right wing slats and
held a slightly greater speed instead.

BS. One engine fell off on the runway and the procedure is certainly not
to slow, it's to climb at V2. That's what they did.

The first officer had followed the flight director and raised the nose
to 14 degrees, which reduced the airspeed from 165 knots (190 mph; 306
km/h) to the takeoff safety airspeed (V2) of 153 knots (176 mph; 283
km/h), the speed at which the aircraft could safely climb after
sustaining an engine failure.[1]:53-54 However, the engine separation
had severed the hydraulic fluid lines that controlled the leading edge
slats on the left wing and locked them in place, causing the outboard
slats (immediately left of the No. 1 engine) to retract under air load.
The retraction of the slats raised the stall speed of the left wing to
approximately 159 knots (183 mph; 294 km/h), 6 knots (6.9 mph; 11 km/h)
higher than the prescribed takeoff safety airspeed (V2) of 153 knots
(176 mph; 283 km/h). As a result, the left wing entered a full
aerodynamic stall.

Since it was no longer possible to abort the takeoff after the loss of
the engine, the crew followed the standard operating procedure for an
"engine out" climb. This procedure is to climb at the takeoff safety
airspeed (V2) and attitude (angle), as directed by the flight director.
The partial electrical power failure (produced by the separation of the
left No. 1 engine) meant that neither the stall warning nor the slat
retraction indicator was operative. The crew, therefore, did not know
that the slats on the left wing were retracting. This retraction
significantly raised the stall speed of the left wing. Thus flying at
the takeoff safety airspeed caused the left wing to stall while the
right wing was still producing lift, so the aircraft banked sharply and
uncontrollably to the left. In simulator recreations held after the
accident it was determined that "had the pilot maintained excess
airspeed the accident may not have occurred."[1]

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191>

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:355dc945-b104-4abf-a04a-0ba051aa59d2@googlegroups.com:

Did your buddy DL talk about hydraulic fuses? No, he wanted the
horizontal stabilizer driven by a simple piston, so it could be
instantly cutoff and freed to solve a mostly non-existent problem.
Sylvia had to explain to him that would leave the control surface
flapping in the wind.....

I suggested "freeing" the cylinder by way of valving.

You are a jerk, plain and simple.

 

[Banders]

On 05/10/2019 05:06 AM, amal banerjee wrote:

It is very easy and convenient to sit in the judgement seat
and blame people for stupidity and incompetence, after they
are dead - hey they cannot defend themselves. But Boeing has a history o - how shall we put it, making unreliable products ? Check this out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_855

Pretty poor communication in that cockpit.
Did the CVR have them speaking English?
"Mine has also toppled, looks fine."? What does *that* mean??
Captain followed the one failed instrument, when there were three others
to crosscheck against. Flight Engineer (Italian?) was the only one who
was on the ball.


Look what happened here.

Airline horror as airport worker is killed by being sucked into plane engine

<https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/627531/man-died-sucked-jet-engine>

"A pilot misinterpreted a signal and switched on the plane's engine."

Same story - defective flight instruments. This time the
pilots had thousands of hours of flight time, and one of them was an Air Force veteran.

Yes, it is the same story. Because gyro instrument failures are
expected, nothing uncommon about them. While attitude indicators are
vacuum or +pressure powered, the turn-&-bank indicator is electrical, so
there will almost surely be at least one instrument left if things go
really bad. Captain Kukar should have been able to fly with no attitude
indicators, just a turn-&-bank indicator.

I was a young boy (about 5 years old) when this happened,
living in Kolkata India, and I vividly remember that fateful
night when friends, relatives started arriving late at night
at a house a short walk away from where we lived. Apparently,
the head of the household had perished that evening in the crash.

That time also, all charges against Boeing, Rockwell Collins
etc., were summarily dismissed by the Federal judge -- citing pilot error. Exciting, isn't it ?

Would it have been different with an Indian judge?

 

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 1:49:41 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:355dc945-b104-4abf-a04a-0ba051aa59d2@googlegroups.com:

Did your buddy DL talk about hydraulic fuses? No, he wanted the
horizontal stabilizer driven by a simple piston, so it could be
instantly cutoff and freed to solve a mostly non-existent problem.
Sylvia had to explain to him that would leave the control surface
flapping in the wind.....


I suggested "freeing" the cylinder by way of valving.

You are a jerk, plain and simple.

After you "free it", then like Sylvia said, the control surface would be
left flapping in the wind. And I don't recall any mention of valving.
If you think it's such a great idea, contact Boeing, I'm sure they will
be happy to redesign the 737 fleet.

 

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 1:01:24 AM UTC-4, Banders wrote:

On 05/13/2019, know-nothing dope trader4 wrote:


BS. That aircraft was at a low speed, without the leading edge,
they were doomed, it stalled.

It already proved itself flyable.

"Flight 191 lifted off about 6,000 feet down the runway, climbed out in
a wings level attitude, and reached an altitude of about 300 feet agl
with its wings still level."

No shit Sherlock. That was with the leading edge slats deployed.
Then with the hydraulic lines damaged, the system bled out, the slats
retracted and it crashed. From rotation to impact was 50 seconds.

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19790525-2

Left wing stalled, because the crew slowed to what they thought was the
appropriate speed. They could have retracted the right wing slats and
held a slightly greater speed instead.

BS. One engine fell off on the runway and the procedure is certainly not
to slow, it's to climb at V2. That's what they did.

The first officer had followed the flight director and raised the nose
to 14 degrees, which reduced the airspeed from 165 knots (190 mph; 306
km/h) to the takeoff safety airspeed (V2) of 153 knots (176 mph; 283
km/h), the speed at which the aircraft could safely climb after
sustaining an engine failure.[1]:53-54 However, the engine separation
had severed the hydraulic fluid lines that controlled the leading edge
slats on the left wing and locked them in place, causing the outboard
slats (immediately left of the No. 1 engine) to retract under air load.
The retraction of the slats raised the stall speed of the left wing to
approximately 159 knots (183 mph; 294 km/h), 6 knots (6.9 mph; 11 km/h)
higher than the prescribed takeoff safety airspeed (V2) of 153 knots
(176 mph; 283 km/h). As a result, the left wing entered a full
aerodynamic stall.

Since it was no longer possible to abort the takeoff after the loss of
the engine, the crew followed the standard operating procedure for an
"engine out" climb. This procedure is to climb at the takeoff safety
airspeed (V2) and attitude (angle), as directed by the flight director.
The partial electrical power failure (produced by the separation of the
left No. 1 engine) meant that neither the stall warning nor the slat
retraction indicator was operative. The crew, therefore, did not know
that the slats on the left wing were retracting. This retraction
significantly raised the stall speed of the left wing. Thus flying at
the takeoff safety airspeed caused the left wing to stall while the
right wing was still producing lift, so the aircraft banked sharply and
uncontrollably to the left. In simulator recreations held after the
accident it was determined that "had the pilot maintained excess
airspeed the accident may not have occurred."[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191

Thanks for telling me what I told you. You implied that the pilot
deliberately reduced the speed, committing some kind of error.
In fact, he simply followed the engine out takeoff procedure,
which is what I told you.

What's incredible here is that you accuse me of being argumentative?
I simply stated that this DC-10 crash is an example of what happens
when you have a simple piston design, like DL proposed for the trim
on the 737. It's absolutely correct, if that DC-10 had used a jackscrew
for the slats, the plane would have flown. And that was over with
several days ago. Yet here you are,
arguing the minutia, that has nothing to do with it. Meanwhile, you
have nothing to say to DL about the silly idea of his piston cutter-offer
design, which would leave the horizontal stabilizer flapping in the
wind, as Sylvia pointed out. Or all his other BS, like saying that
all large aircraft use piston actuated flaps, when in fact most,
including the 737s use jackscrews. Or that the B1 bomber has had
many crashes caused by fly-by-wire, yet he can't produce a single
example. No, not a word about any of that.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 14/05/2019 8:25 pm, Banders wrote:

Look what happened here.

Airline horror as airport worker is killed by being sucked into plane
engine

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/627531/man-died-sucked-jet-engine

"A pilot misinterpreted a signal and switched on the plane's engine."

Seems a bit questionable to me. It's not as if the engines start
instantly, and they have the rotating spiral on the front to show when
they're turning.

I dare say someone was sucked in, but I'd say the explanation will turn
out to be more than just that the pilot started the engine when not
expected to.

Sylvia

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:715ce4a1-5818-4c59-b961-3bc451ea3891@googlegroups.com:

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 1:49:41 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:355dc945-b104-4abf-a04a-0ba051aa59d2@googlegroups.com:

Did your buddy DL talk about hydraulic fuses? No, he wanted
the horizontal stabilizer driven by a simple piston, so it
could be instantly cutoff and freed to solve a mostly
non-existent problem.
Sylvia had to explain to him that would leave the control
surface
flapping in the wind.....


I suggested "freeing" the cylinder by way of valving.

You are a jerk, plain and simple.

After you "free it", then like Sylvia said, the control surface
would be left flapping in the wind.

NO, it would not! The rate at which it moves can be controlled in
hardware by the valving, and no it does not nor would not "flap in
the wind".

Damn boy. Learn to read. Not connected would be "free to flap".

Opened valving would be "free to return to normal before re-
engaging control assist" in a controlled rate and manner.

And I don't recall any
mention of valving.

Nice backpedal... not.

Like I said, you never read the entire thread, and you still
refuse to believe even that fact.

If you think it's such a great idea, contact
Boeing, I'm sure they will be happy to redesign the 737 fleet.

Oh boy! You're a real mature Usenet poster now! NOT!

Grow up, you retarded piece of shit.

 

[Banders]

know-nothing at 05/14/2019 03:59 AM:

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 1:01:24 AM UTC-4, Banders wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191

Thanks for telling me what I told you. You implied that the pilot
deliberately reduced the speed, committing some kind of error.

I didn't imply it.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191#Inadequate_speed>

In fact, he simply followed the engine out takeoff procedure, which
is what I told you.

"the procedure is certainly not to slow, it's to climb at V2."

That's you, not understanding that slowing doesn't mean that you're not
climbing. And you are still too dishonest to accept that the pilot
slowed to V2.

What's incredible here is that you accuse me of being argumentative?
I simply stated that this DC-10 crash is an example of what happens
when you have a simple piston design,

"BS. One engine fell off on the runway and the procedure is certainly
not to slow, it's to climb at V2. That's what they did."

"The part about agree lights and electrica things not working is pure BS."

Do you just make stuff up to win? I also gave you a link to a
thunderstorm diagram after you scoffed at the idea that any wind shear
on this planet could stall a 300mph plane, and you had no comment. You
simply moved the goalpost and continued arguing.

 

[Banders]

On 05/14/2019 06:29 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 14/05/2019 8:25 pm, Banders wrote:

Look what happened here.

Airline horror as airport worker is killed by being sucked into plane
engine

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/627531/man-died-sucked-jet-engine

"A pilot misinterpreted a signal and switched on the plane's engine."


Seems a bit questionable to me. It's not as if the engines start
instantly, and they have the rotating spiral on the front to show when
they're turning.

Even birds know that.

I dare say someone was sucked in, but I'd say the explanation will turn
out to be more than just that the pilot started the engine when not
expected to.

Sylvia

"It is understood efforts are ongoing to remove the body from the engine
of the Airbus."

They can just run water or walnut shells into the running engine to
clean it out. Really.

 

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 2:03:19 PM UTC-4, Banders wrote:

know-nothing at 05/14/2019 03:59 AM:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 1:01:24 AM UTC-4, Banders wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191

Thanks for telling me what I told you. You implied that the pilot
deliberately reduced the speed, committing some kind of error.

I didn't imply it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191#Inadequate_speed

In fact, he simply followed the engine out takeoff procedure, which
is what I told you.

"the procedure is certainly not to slow, it's to climb at V2."

That's you, not understanding that slowing doesn't mean that you're not
climbing. And you are still too dishonest to accept that the pilot
slowed to V2.

I understand exactly what happened. That DC-10 crashed because it used
a hydraulic piston which retracted the slats when the engine that came
off and severed hydraulic lines. If it had used a jackscrew design,
that would not have happened, the slats would not have retracted,
the plane would have FLOWN! THAT was my point. All your doing
is BS nitpicking, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the very clear,
direct and factual point I made. And to top it off, you accuse me of
being argumentative? Now that's a classic! And again, DL has made one
post after another that's factually incorrect and you say NOTHING.
You DL and Bill should go get a room.

 

[Mike Perkins]

On 12/05/2019 03:46, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:5fb4e107-bb61-4cbb-a76b-
efdf8c062623@googlegroups.com:

Obviously suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome, when you
bring
Trump into a thread about Boeing and the 737 Max.

Nuff said.

Nice job, dumbfuck. You are unqualified, unsolicited,
unprofessional, and so full of shit.

Resorting to abuse demonstrates you have no argument. Best give up now
before resorting to more abuse and more lost argument.

 

[Wolf Bagger]

On 2019-05-14 11:23, Banders wrote:

They can just run water or walnut shells into the running engine to
clean it out. Really.

Your comprehension of jet engines seems fairly limited.

 

[Banders]

On 05/14/2019 09:26 PM, Wolf Bagger wrote:

On 2019-05-14 11:23, Banders wrote:

They can just run water or walnut shells into the running engine to
clean it out. Really.

Your comprehension of jet engines seems fairly limited.

Look it up yourself. I have an A&P Certificate.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:b1e8a338-474e-41dc-875b-
8f6758b0549b@googlegroups.com:

All your doing
is BS nitpicking,

When you revert to 90s+ era schoolboy punk grammar, you lose what
little credibility you may have thought you once possessed.

All of YOUR "rofl"s and "libs" and other childish horseshit only
serves to prove that you are unable to answer each citation of your
errors.

IF they had only retracted the slats on the other wing, they would
have been in balance and though not the approved setting for a takeoff,
the plane would most certainly have been able to do so.

They call that hindsight.

But that is technical. I see a different ass in this discussion, and
that ass is you.

 

Banders <snap@mailchute.com> wrote in
news:qbf13l$3gl$1@gioia.aioe.org:

On 05/14/2019 06:29 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 14/05/2019 8:25 pm, Banders wrote:

Look what happened here.

Airline horror as airport worker is killed by being sucked into
plane engine

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/627531/man-died-sucked-
jet-
engine

"A pilot misinterpreted a signal and switched on the plane's
engine."


Seems a bit questionable to me. It's not as if the engines start
instantly, and they have the rotating spiral on the front to show
when they're turning.

Even birds know that.

I dare say someone was sucked in, but I'd say the explanation
will turn out to be more than just that the pilot started the
engine when not expected to.

Sylvia

"It is understood efforts are ongoing to remove the body from the
engine of the Airbus."

They can just run water or walnut shells into the running engine
to clean it out. Really.

Reminds me of the GE facility bird strike test mount.

Ever heard of the "chicken gun"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_gun

They loaned it to the railroad guys once, because they expressed
an interest in knowing how resilient the front windshield on the
engines was.

The correspondence was of a desperate nature asking what they were
doing wrong as the windshields were exploding on impact with each
shot. They were sure they had some setting wrong or such.

The GE jet engine guys answered back...

"One must utilize a thawed chicken."

So I conclude that our aircraft would likely not be able to make
it through a sharknado.