The fact that you come on here using a slur against the handicapped says a lot more about you than the people watching Newsmax.

(Written on 15-01-2021)(Permalink)

The actual "no-fly list" is a federal program maintained by the gov. No one on that list can fly on any airline. Individual airlines can deny transport to people they deem "disruptive", and so far they haven't been sharing those denied with other airlines. There are arguments on both sides and it certainly opens up a can of worms.

(Written on 14-01-2021)(Permalink)

Can you document that any were? Cause if they were it sure wasn't reported by the mainstream media. And no sane person is condoning the Capitol riot, but it's perfectly fair to point out the hypocrisy that many on the "left" were literally cheering on and encouraging BLM/Antifa riots.

(Written on 11-01-2021)(Permalink)

You obviously do not read; he was saying one side has been rioting for 9 months now and so far haven't been placed on any no-fly lists. If rioting is bad then rioting is bad. It can't only be bad when one particular ideology does it.

(Written on 11-01-2021)(Permalink)

I've never really understood the speed trim function's purpose. I'm accelerating to clean up after takeoff, and it wants to trim nose up? Dafuq?

(Written on 11-01-2021)(Permalink)

Are you daft, man? This whole fiasco happened because MCAS was never intended to operate the way it did before the grounding. It was only supposed to activate once, with limited control over the trim, per occurrence. Instead those protections were designed out for some unknown reason allowing MCAS to continually activate and run the trim to full nose down. The new software restores the original design limitations, as well as updates the system to require both AOA inputs to agree before it will activate. To suggest otherwise is pure intellectual dishonesty and/or a complete misunderstanding of how MCAS works.

(Written on 11-01-2021)(Permalink)

The problem is there can obviously be a disconnect between "data" and actual performance. From what I understand the need for MCAS was driven by a requirement for control force gradient to be similar on the Max vs NG. When approaching stall AOA the amount of force on the elevator had to increase at a minimum value to make it harder to further increase AOA. Flight test data showed the Max did not achieve this requirement, and so MCAS was designed and implemented. The problem appears to be that while computer lines of code showed a deficiency, in real world flight the difference in feel to the pilots was not enough to be noticed. Now you can't fault the engineers on this one, not for creating MCAS I mean. They operate in a black and white world where either the design meets specs or it doesn't. So in essence they were forced to "fix" a problem that didn't really exist.

(Written on 11-01-2021)(Permalink)

Manufacturers can only afford to build what they can sell to recoup their investment. Until there is enough demand from airlines for a new clean sheet aircraft Boeing can't afford to lay out the literally billions of dollars in design costs. Right now it's far cheaper for airlines to keep flying 737s, you have parts commonality, less training demands for pilots and mechanics, etc. And since fuel prices are still relatively low there isn't a high demand for new ultra fuel efficient planes just yet.

(Written on 08-01-2021)(Permalink)

Considering the poor reputation in general that Ryanair has the Max should be the least of your worries!

(Written on 02-01-2021)(Permalink)

Not sure if serious or trolling...

(Written on 02-01-2021)(Permalink)