Ragoo said:

---

DallasAggie0 said:

---

Well, looks like I was right again. Not surprising.

---

how so? BA stock is still rocking.

---

Oh right, the BA stock. I forget what's important here.

Anyone else slightly alarmed a pilot here would have no concerns about these deathtraps after two of them flew into the ground?

It is not clear at this point whether the pilots purposely reactivated the MCAS' stabilizer control or if the software reactivated on its own after shutdown. While a Wall Street Journal source said that it appeared the pilots turned the system back on in hopes of regaining control over the stabilizers,

DallasAggie0 said:

---

Anyone else slightly alarmed a pilot here would have no concerns about these deathtraps after two of them flew into the ground?

---

No, but then again maybe it is because the FAA requires pilots to have a minimum of 1500 flight hours to be a commercial pilot where as the co-pilot of the Ethiopian Airlines only had 200 making him more of a student than an actual pilot. Why do you think US air carriers have been flying a lot of these aircraft and there have been on crashes? Could it be we have better training, better communication, better maintenance, etc.?

Airplane, dead people and Boeing stock price smack.

This thread delivers!

DallasAggie0 said:

---

Anyone else slightly alarmed a pilot here would have no concerns about these deathtraps after two of them flew into the ground?

---

Someone told me there is a stall warning shutoff switch right be the copilots knee. A more experienced crew would have recognized based on inclination and air speed that the stall warning system was malfunctioning and simply turned it off. It's not good that it's failing, but experienced crews are trained to know what to do. That's the difference between an experienced and trained crew and one that's not.

DallasAggie0 said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

DallasAggie0 said:

---

Well, looks like I was right again. Not surprising.

---

how so? BA stock is still rocking.

---

Oh right, the BA stock. I forget what's important here.

---

stock price is a reflection of owner sentiment and clearly the owners are not concerned with the overall health of the company.

Furthermore, the owners don't seem to be worried about BA being unable to "fix" the issue or at least make it to where less skilled pilots have fewer aviation responsibilities.

Win At Life said:

---

DallasAggie0 said:

---

Anyone else slightly alarmed a pilot here would have no concerns about these deathtraps after two of them flew into the ground?

---

Someone told me there is a stall warning shutoff switch right be the copilots knee. A more experienced crew would have recognized based on inclination and air speed that the stall warning system was malfunctioning and simply turned it off. It's not good that it's failing, but experienced crews are trained to know what to do. That's the difference between an experienced and trained crew and one that's not.

---

Not all planes have them. It's an 80K option you had to request. Those 2 planes did not have the option on the plane.

Obviously, Boeing is now putting them in all the max planes.

Read this article, it is actually unbelievably fascinating!

The cliff notes version is: Boeing tried to fast track a new plane to compete with the 320 Airbus series. But they did not have time to build a new plane and then go thru all of the years of FAA trials that are required for a new plane.

So they basically "modified" a 737 and called it the 737 max and put it in the air.

EXCEPT they really didn't modify anything, they in fact built a new plane. Hence the 737 fly by wire software for the plane was not exactly correct... Now they tested and tested and modified, but it did not go thru the standard FAA certification trials that a new plane goes thru.

Anyway, pretty dang interesting if your into this type of stuff!

https://www.vox.com/business-and-finance/2019/3/29/18281270/737-max-faa-scandal-explained

It's an $80K option for a computer to chime a warning light/bell that two sensors have different values. That might be part of the problem.

aggieforester05 said:

---

It's an $80K option for a computer to chime a warning light/bell that two sensors have different values. That might be part of the problem.

---

It's a bit more complicated than that but given the cost of the aircraft itself an additional 80 k for this safety feature is a drop in the bucket.

TexasAggie_97 said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

It's an $80K option for a computer to chime a warning light/bell that two sensors have different values. That might be part of the problem.

---

It's a bit more complicated than that but given the cost of the aircraft itself an additional 80 k for this safety feature is a drop in the bucket.

---

One would think with implementing a new flight system that would come included but gotta maximize those profits

DallasAggie0 said:

---

TexasAggie_97 said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

It's an $80K option for a computer to chime a warning light/bell that two sensors have different values. That might be part of the problem.

---

It's a bit more complicated than that but given the cost of the aircraft itself an additional 80 k for this safety feature is a drop in the bucket.

---

One would think with implementing a new flight system that would come included but gotta maximize those profits

---

I'd rather live with the occasional errs of capitalism than with the catastrophes socialism and communism create.

They feature cost nothing, the errors and omissions insurance to cover it cost $80k a plane, probably more. General aviation airplanes we routinely bought for 8-10k$ in the seventies cost 100k today and almost all due to the liability insurance on them.

UmustBKidding said:

---

They feature cost nothing, the errors and omissions insurance to cover it cost $80k a plane, probably more. General aviation airplanes we routinely bought for 8-10k$ in the seventies cost 100k today and almost all due to the liability insurance on them.

---

This is not a correct statement.