For all the MAGAt Trumpeteers and Lie-brul socialists to post their wearisome screeds.
The board admins are not responsible for any items posted from Biker's FaceBook feed.
Anyone posting Ben Garrison political cartoons gets a three-day vacation.
AnalHamster wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:34 pm
About what specifically, welchin' biker?
Not welching, I never do. I really believe pilot error was the primary cause
Time delay welchin', you've lost the bet and you know you have, you're just hoping I'll forget about it in the year or so the final reports usually take. Not gonna happen, this thread will be page one as long as it takes. The AOA sensor was faulty, fact. MCAS engaged repeatedly causing aggressive dives, fact. Even if, contrary to the reports, the pilots didn't follow the correct procedures - which they did - the established facts already establish that a faulty sensor and MCAS were a major factor in the crash, the thing you bet against and lost.
I'm adding "I'm a welchy welcher" to the baghdad bob avatar you're getting with a Welsh backdrop. Probably best you keep welchin' for a while, I'm pretty busy right now so it'll take me some time to fire up the photoshop.
Claims of Shoddy Production Draw Scrutiny to a Second Boeing Jet
Faulty parts have been installed in planes. Tools and metal shavings have routinely been left inside jets, often near electrical systems. Aircraft have taken test flights with debris in an engine and a tail, risking failure.
Employees have found a ladder and a string of lights left inside the tails of planes, near the gears of the horizontal stabilizer. “It could have locked up the gears,” Mr. Mester said.
DandyDon wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 6:40 pmClaims of Shoddy Production Draw Scrutiny to a Second Boeing Jet
Faulty parts have been installed in planes. Tools and metal shavings have routinely been left inside jets, often near electrical systems. Aircraft have taken test flights with debris in an engine and a tail, risking failure.
Employees have found a ladder and a string of lights left inside the tails of planes, near the gears of the horizontal stabilizer. “It could have locked up the gears,” Mr. Mester said.
What do you expect from dimwitted South Carolina employees? Dumbest move they made was moving some production to SC and its illiterate workforce
Did you read TFA? You'll get no argument from me on the intelligence of the average SC yokel, but it seems the problems were being found and reported, but were swept under the rug by lower management so production appeared to stay on pace to satisfy upper management.
Biker wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 11:29 pm
This is CNN
And your point is? CNN is correct - those aircraft were not designed to have to fly long with low fuel. Its because of the CG of the aircraft, and the fact that you should NEVER be running a commercial passenger jet that low on fuel. Thats part of the reason why they dump the fuel when they have to make a "controlled crash" landing - less fire, and the aircraft doesnt fly as it normally does with the CG off.
There are other variables - is it 'heavy', what is the cargo, how its loaded, ect.
Biker wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 11:29 pm
This is CNN
And your point is? CNN is correct - those aircraft were not designed to have to fly long with low fuel. Its because of the CG of the aircraft, and the fact that you should NEVER be running a commercial passenger jet that low on fuel. Thats part of the reason why they dump the fuel when they have to make a "controlled crash" landing - less fire, and the aircraft doesnt fly as it normally does with the CG off.
There are other variables - is it 'heavy', what is the cargo, how its loaded, ect.
Pretty sure Biker is employing the "no shit Sherlock" offensive at CNN for stating the obvious.
stumpin wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:09 pm
Did Biker concede defeat on the Boeing debacle yet?
Before the final report? Why would I?
US aviation officials think a bird strike was factor in 737 Max crash
Published Tue, May 21 2019 8:34 AM EDTUpdated Tue, May 21 2019 1:09 PM EDT
U.S. aviation officials believe a bird strike may have led to the deadly crash of an Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 Max in March, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Boeing shares rose after the report Tuesday, gaining 1.2% by midday.
The fast-selling Boeing 737 Max airplanes have been grounded since shortly after that accident, which came less than five months after a similar crash in Indonesia. Together, the two crashes killed 346 people...........
Ethiopian Airlines has said, however, that a preliminary crash investigation report showed "no evidence of any foreign object damage" such as a bird strike, to the sensor.
Sounds like more lawyering going on. It still doesn't explain why it allowed dependency on one sensor.
Oh, and:
Canada, Disregarding FAA, Insists on Simulator Training for 737
Transport Minister Marc Garneau said on Wednesday that the planes would be grounded “for as long as it takes” and pilots should experience the fixes Boeing is devising in simulators instead of relying only on more basic, computer-based ground training.
Because the plane was built in the U.S., the FAA will be the first agency to decide what new training and software changes are needed. Other nations, including Canada, have the authority to keep the plane grounded in their countries.
U.S. aviation officials think a bird strike is the likely culprit in what led to erroneous sensor data fed to the anti-stall system in the Ethiopian crash, the person said
Cant blame everything on lawyering. Regardless, there still seems to be many questions to be answered before we jump to conclusions
I found a more recent CNN article that indicated Canada, at least, may be more flexible on training than they said in April:
Following the FAA meeting, Canada's director general of civil aviation, Nicholas Robinson, said his agency Transport Canada wants to see Boeing's final training proposal before deciding on whether simulator training should be required.
U.S. aviation officials think a bird strike is the likely culprit in what led to erroneous sensor data fed to the anti-stall system in the Ethiopian crash, the person said
Cant blame everything on lawyering. Regardless, there still seems to be many questions to be answered before we jump to conclusions
I found a more recent CNN article that indicated Canada, at least, may be more flexible on training than they said in April:
Following the FAA meeting, Canada's director general of civil aviation, Nicholas Robinson, said his agency Transport Canada wants to see Boeing's final training proposal before deciding on whether simulator training should be required.
U.S. aviation officials think a bird strike is the likely culprit in what led to erroneous sensor data fed to the anti-stall system in the Ethiopian crash, the person said
Cant blame everything on lawyering. Regardless, there still seems to be many questions to be answered before we jump to conclusions
You understand the bird strike theory is that it may have caused damage to the sensor, which then triggered MCAS which killed everyone? Aka you losing the bet.
FSchmertz wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:12 pm
And the findings of crash investigations usually find multiple factors contributed to the accident.
Yep, but wouldnt a bird strike represent the biggest factor?
Um, a plane crashes pretty much because a bird struck a shitty little sensor that was pretty much critical for some reason?
Yeah, no, not agreeing that will turn out to be "the biggest factor".
You didnt read the article then. OK
Its literally the first bullet point
U.S. aviation officials believe a bird strike may have caused a Boeing 737 Max to crash in March.
U.S. aviation officials think a bird strike is the likely culprit in what led to erroneous sensor data fed to the anti-stall system in the Ethiopian crash, the person said.
Yeah, to me that sounds like "a factor" as per the title
a bird strike was factor
Why was a system that appears so critical dependent on only one of two sensors?
And the software fix apparently is now going to monitor both sensors, with disagreement shutting off MCAS and alerting the pilots.
As I mentioned, the investigation is going to cite multiple likely contributors to the crashes, but I doubt a bird strike will be considered "the main factor." Especially since there were two crashes.
Last edited by FSchmertz on Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:40 pm, edited 4 times in total.
AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 1:58 am
Pretty simple, faulty sensor data causing MCAS to repeatedly activate sending the plane into repeated dives to correct non existent stalls was a major factor in both crashes. One month avatar with the crash investigation report being decisive, null and void if no cause determined.
Faulty sensor, not damaged sensor caused by external factors. Youve blamed Boeing the entire time.
"Faulty sensor data", you pathetic welcher. The cause of the data being faulty is not specified, your evidence free bird strike speculation theory would not change your loss. All sensors fail from time to time, boeing installed a kamikaze system with a single fallible sensor as the only point of failure and compounded the problem by failing to recognise the need for training, or even notification, to escape from kamikaze mode. Even if they had told the customers they needed to do simulator training on faulty MCAS situations, the simulators could not simulate it.
MCAS caused the crashes, and my wording is welchproof. You welch if you're gonna welch, but when I draw up the articles of imwelchment for presentation to the forum, you are going to be universally reviled as a welcher. Sad.
AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 1:58 am
Pretty simple, faulty sensor data causing MCAS to repeatedly activate sending the plane into repeated dives to correct non existent stalls was a major factor in both crashes. One month avatar with the crash investigation report being decisive, null and void if no cause determined.
Faulty sensor, not damaged sensor caused by external factors. Youve blamed Boeing the entire time.
"Faulty sensor data", you pathetic welcher. The cause of the data being faulty is not specified, your evidence free bird strike speculation theory would not change your loss. All sensors fail from time to time, boeing installed a kamikaze system with a single fallible sensor as the only point of failure and compounded the problem by failing to recognise the need for training, or even notification, to escape from kamikaze mode. Even if they had told the customers they needed to do simulator training on faulty MCAS situations, the simulators could not simulate it.
MCAS caused the crashes, and my wording is welchproof. You welch if you're gonna welch, but when I draw up the articles of imwelchment for presentation to the forum, you are going to be universally reviled as a welcher. Sad.
Now youre being a dishonest cunt. All along, youve blamed this on the incompetence of Boeing and their lack of action in addressing the sensor. If you had any integrity you would acknowledge there is a distinct difference
Yes, I do blame this on the incompetence of Boeing. It's a single fallible sensor feeding a kamikaze system. What difference do you think it makes why the sensor broke? Manufacturing fault, wear and tear, damage from ground equipment, bird strike, what's the difference? These things break for a range of reasons, boeing incompetently designed their plane to kamikaze if one did. They failed to tell the pilots the system was there, told the airlines they didn't need simulators and in any case didn't tell the simulator company how to simulate it. They have to roll out a fix for the existing simulators as well as for their airplane.
If boeing put a little wing release button on the nose to save maintenance time, and a bird then causes the wings to fall off, do you blame a birdstrike? And you've just quoted what I've said all along- faulty sensor data causing MCAS to repeatedly activate sending the plane into repeated dives to correct non existent stalls was a major factor in both crashes. Totally welchproof language. Wriggle away.
AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 1:58 am
Pretty simple, faulty sensor data causing MCAS to repeatedly activate sending the plane into repeated dives to correct non existent stalls was a major factor in both crashes. One month avatar with the crash investigation report being decisive, null and void if no cause determined.
Faulty sensor, not damaged sensor caused by external factors. Youve blamed Boeing the entire time.
"Faulty sensor data", you pathetic welcher. The cause of the data being faulty is not specified, your evidence free bird strike speculation theory would not change your loss. All sensors fail from time to time, boeing installed a kamikaze system with a single fallible sensor as the only point of failure and compounded the problem by failing to recognise the need for training, or even notification, to escape from kamikaze mode. Even if they had told the customers they needed to do simulator training on faulty MCAS situations, the simulators could not simulate it.
MCAS caused the crashes, and my wording is welchproof. You welch if you're gonna welch, but when I draw up the articles of imwelchment for presentation to the forum, you are going to be universally reviled as a welcher. Sad.
Now youre being a dishonest cunt. All along, youve blamed this on the incompetence of Boeing and their lack of action in addressing the sensor. If you had any integrity you would acknowledge there is a distinct difference
AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 1:58 am
Pretty simple, faulty sensor data causing MCAS to repeatedly activate sending the plane into repeated dives to correct non existent stalls was a major factor in both crashes. One month avatar with the crash investigation report being decisive, null and void if no cause determined.
Faulty sensor, not damaged sensor caused by external factors. Youve blamed Boeing the entire time.
"Faulty sensor data", you pathetic welcher. The cause of the data being faulty is not specified, your evidence free bird strike speculation theory would not change your loss. All sensors fail from time to time, boeing installed a kamikaze system with a single fallible sensor as the only point of failure and compounded the problem by failing to recognise the need for training, or even notification, to escape from kamikaze mode. Even if they had told the customers they needed to do simulator training on faulty MCAS situations, the simulators could not simulate it.
MCAS caused the crashes, and my wording is welchproof. You welch if you're gonna welch, but when I draw up the articles of imwelchment for presentation to the forum, you are going to be universally reviled as a welcher. Sad.
Now youre being a dishonest cunt. All along, youve blamed this on the incompetence of Boeing and their lack of action in addressing the sensor. If you had any integrity you would acknowledge there is a distinct difference
Biker wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 1:36 am
FYI...It will come out soon that this accident has nothing to do with 737 Max supposed flaw.
Bet?
Will the 'supposed flaw' also be ruled out in the other crash that happened shortly after takeoff and showed the same rapid changes in altitude?
Sure. Outline the bet. From what I’m hearing it’s either wing flap failure or pilot error
Pretty simple, faulty sensor data causing MCAS to repeatedly activate sending the plane into repeated dives to correct non existent stalls was a major factor in both crashes. One month avatar with the crash investigation report being decisive, null and void if no cause determined.
Do you think the reason for the single point of failure sensor failing is the key issue mr welcher?
AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2019 5:06 pm
Are you dropping your welching claim that the sensor being faulty for any particular reason means you don't lose then mr welcher?
I havent welched and never will. The winner will be determined by the final report's release. Whats so hard to understand?
Your claim that if the sensor had been hit by a bird you're in the clear mr welcher. Could you explain it?
