Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

User Profile

Collapse

Profile Sidebar

Collapse
TeeVee
TeeVee
Senior Member
Last Activity: Today, 03:29
Joined: 2009-03-12
Location: MIA
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
  • Source
Clear All
new posts

  • in which case, i will revert to one of my earlier posts wherein i invited you to be the hero we all know you secretly are and sue the pants off of uncle sam. make a shining example out of all those a-holes at the FAA that never do their jobs.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • i dont disagree with you entirely here. but it's a VERY slippery slope. just look at the EU--they regulate EVERYTHING! every aspect of life and business, to the point where life begins to suck and businesses fail.

    once you determine a failure possibility in any give part of any given machine, how do you determine what is "safe?" say 1:10,000, 1:10,000,000? cuz no matter you do, there will INEVITABLY be a failure at some point. then a guy like Evan comes along and says, "WTF?!?! how could they approve that design KNOWING it would one day fail?

    ETOPS is based upon statistics. but no matter what, at some point, there is a very real possibility (however infinitesimally small), that the remaining engine will fail and some folks are gonna go for a swim--likely their last. then, someone will crawl out from under a rock and yell about twins being inherently unsafe.

    everything fails at some point.

    5 failures in 120,000,000 hours...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • no, my friend, you should file it on behalf of united. make the shareholders happy. be a beacon of justice for all the world to look upon like the golden calf! better yet, buy a share or two and file a shareholder derivative suit.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • ok smart guy, go file the lawsuit. you can file it as "Evan, the concerned aviation enthusiast extraordinaire, Plaintiff"...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • ok, maybe i wasn't clear enough. i think, and i havent done any exhaustive research on the matter, that aviation incident/accident lawsuits against the FAA are few and far between. even money-hungry lawyers try to avoid suing the US government. yes there are 1000's of cases against the US, but there are millions of cases against private entities.

    so here, imo, united could possibly have a claim against the FAA for the loss of the engine and associated expenses. maybe. but likely not. it is not an area of law i am well versed in.

    here is a fairly well written article that puts it all into layman's terms: https://thepointsguy.com/news/why-it...r-the-737-max/

    for those that dont wanna read the whole thing, here is a poignant excerpt

    "At the end of a flight from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, a Varig Boeing 707 made an emergency landing in a field as it approached Orly airport. A cigarette had burned through...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • highly unlikely that anyone will name the FAA. and while I'm not saying some entrepreneurial (read, money hungry) lawyer wont file suit in this case, the damages will be extremely hard to prove. who, aside from united, was hurt here? maybe some kind of horseshit claim for emotional distress, but nothing of substance.

    United likely has a good case against PW, but is suspect those claims will be settled quietly without a lawsuit being filed. i've been wrong before though....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • according to PW: A300, 310, 330, 340, MD11, B747, B767.

    only the PW4000-112 is used exclusively on the 777...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • so the FAA ordered inspections. i guess they learned their ass-kicking lesson with MCAS.


    "Since entering revenue service in 1987, Pratt & Whitney has delivered more than 2,500 PW4000-94 engines that have collectively logged more than 120 million dependable flight hours on commercial aircraft around the world."

    120,000,000 hours and what, 5 failures? none of which resulted in loss of life or hull? that is pretty damn reliable
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • maybe a bit dated, but i'm pretty sure not much has changed:

    https://www.boeing.com/commercial/ae...y/fo01txt.html
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • my friend that flew the 737 for over a decade is fairly adamant that the roll the plane started after ap disconnect, would not have been a snap, though they would've noticed it if they were conscious and doing what they shouldve been doing. the mere fact that the ap disconnected shouldve snapped them to attention. so until the cvr is found and proves me wrong, i'm gonna go with the theory that these two very experienced pilots screwed the pooch in a huge way and were NOT doing what they should've been doing all along. even if they were "pre-occuppied" with weather and talking to atc, on pilot flies, the other does other shit. it's seems clear that neither was doing his job.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • here he goes again... who said anything about IMC? in fact,

    "The superimposed ADS-B-based flight profile with radar weather image at 1438 LT provided by the BMKG indicated that the radar intensity level along the flight profile was not more than 25 dBz9, which means that the flight path did not indicate any significant development of clouds."

    anyway, what is absolutely astonishing is that the report makes no mention of any crew action at all. AP disconnected at 45 degree bank angle. i know we've been through this before, but i still find it hard to believe that two pilots with over 15,000 on-type experience between the two of them didn't notice 1) left throttle lever PHYSICALLY moving and 2) a bank angle of 45 degrees. i mean holy shyte! WTF were they doing up there?...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • You need to really READ the report. unless of course you know more that the people that actually did the investigation. i'm guessing they know more than you and have better powers of reason and deduction, at least when it comes to crash investigation.

    although you maybe more advanced than they when it comes to knowing it all...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • you sir are the poster boy for confirmation bias. incredibly, you completely IGNORE the FACT that the FDR recorded for less than 2 minutes after L engine failure. in that time, the 2 poor slobs did shut down the R engine. but neither you in all your brilliance, nor anyone else on this astral plain can say what happened after the FDR shut down (by piss poor design).

    1250:52 Fan blade breaks off, immediate shut down of L engine
    1251:02 Pilots begin playing musical throttles for several seconds
    1251:16 R engine switched off
    ~1251:23 R throttle set full power (???)
    1251:29 FDR shuts off

    they likely continued to glide, very much alive, for 18 more minutes, and evan is cock-sure that they did nothing during that time. maybe they were playing mahjong or something, eh?

    on another note, what friggin idiot designs an FDR that shuts off when both engines shut off? is it completely insane that the cvr shut off because of the...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • "Eventually, the APU was started, indicating the MC likely later used it in an attempted Auto Turbine Start (ATS-)-assisted airstart (Tab J-181 and DD-15)."

    "The airspeed and later use of the APU suggest that both windmilling and APU-assisted airstarts were attempted (Tab DD-7, Tab J-181)."

    "There is no DFDR data to definitively confirm whether an engine airstart attempt was made (Tab J-36)."

    "There is no DFDR data to validate whether or not a left engine airstart attempt was made; however, the applicable checklists would have directed an airstart attempt (Tab AA-3 to AA-15). Attempts to airstart the left engine would have been aborted by the FADEC due to the damaged N1 (fan RPM) probe (Tab J-35)."

    seems you read a different report.

    there was nothing in the report that said anything about how the switches were after the crash. maybe because there were no switches left...

    ...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Did you read the report? How do you know "no attempt was made to airstart the good engine?"...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • oh right, the same reference you were using in the thread on EX-military pilots being so horrible.

    funny thing is, the congressional report refers to pilots still in the military. so a single report on the junkers crash that used the word "seemed" has now become proof that EX-military pilots flying commercial are more prone to eff up because of all their years in a shit safety culture.

    yeah. Logic 101. too bad i failed that subject....

    i wont excuse all the losses of military aircraft but it's obvious even to a layman like me, that military aircraft are largely different than commercial aircraft. aside from this global 6000 event, your numbers include inherently unstable aircraft, which from what i gather, don't take much to eff up. there are also, i am sure of it, instances like the problems that plagued the f-16 for years, and that the air force denied/covered up until some dead pilot's wife sued the us government. the loss of certain...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • maybe because their failure to 1) choose the right airport 2) successfully relight the good engine was a key part of why they died.

    once both engines were down, there would've been zero vibrations, actually before that as the left engine would've spooled down considerably after it shut itself down. they then would've clearly seen the numerous messages about the left engine failure.

    since there was no cvr (not sure why they wouldn't have that on a military jet), we will never know...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:

No activity results to display
Show More
Working...
X