Dangerous American aircraft blacklisted globally

[jimboston]

Does anyone here work for the Aviation Administration and/or know anything about airline safety protocols?

I’m not saying this was right or justified... but it’s seems likeSOP when a pilot is expecting a crash landing.

If you'd been interested in finding out the answer to this, you could literally have just read the article I posted:

“There are special fuel-dumping procedures for aircraft operating into and out of any major U.S. airport. These procedures call for fuel to be dumped over designated unpopulated areas, typically at higher altitudes so the fuel atomizes and disperses before it reaches the ground,” officials said in a statement.

An example of an unpopulated area would be an ocean, said Douglas Moss, aviation consultant and a retired United Airlines pilot.

If you weren't interested in finding out the answer but rather just making excuses for the American company, you could just spray a load of speculation at the wall and see what sticks.

I did read the article and basically it said what I said... and that they weren’t calling it pilot error yet until they finish investigating.

Pilots are people too, and they can make mistakes.

The way you present it, it’s intentional.

So maybe an accident or maybe the right call in the moment... we’ll find out.

... but continue to bash America and Americans... and ignore Iran shooting down a passenger plane.

[riskllama]

Iranian anti-aircraft personnel are people too, and can also make mistakes.

[jimboston]

Iranian anti-aircraft personnel are people too, and can also make mistakes.

Well yes, but the consequences seem to be more dire.

Regardless I was pointing out mrswdk’ s interest in blowing American flaws and failures out of proportion and ignoring the flaws and failures of countries like Iran and China.

[GoranZ]

Why every Airplane issue lately revolves around Boeing?

That's an interesting claim. Care to provide statistics?

Google it... The number of articles related to Boeing issues are 3 to 4 times more than the number of articles related to Airbus issues.

If we observe the Incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities since 2010 we can notice that Airbus has only 6 incidents but Boeing has whooping 13.

I guess its no longer a claim now

[jimboston]

6 versus 13 out of a pool of 50

based on an arbitrary start date of “2010’

without factoring in # or planes in service, # of flights, # of flight hours, etc.

also cause of accident... for example getting shot down by Iranian military.
How does that reflect of the quality (or lack thereof) of a Boeing aircraft?

Do you know. anything about statistics? Without more data the info you show is not as statistically significant as you would make it seem.

That all said, the issues (though unrelated to Boeing) do seem to involve Boeing a lot recently.
Obviously the recently confirmed issue with their new plane would be one reason.

I think your statement is correct but the implication isn’t necessarily so...

[mrswdk]

This thread's turned into quite the quim magnet, huh

[GoranZ]

This thread's turned into quite the quim magnet, huh

Americans are struggling to defend their 'pride', Boeing.
Its not working for them but they are still refusing to accept the reality.

6 versus 13 out of a pool of 50

based on an arbitrary start date of “2010’

10 year period should be fair enough. I did say lately after all

without factoring in # or planes in service, # of flights, # of flight hours, etc.

also cause of accident... for example getting shot down by Iranian military.
How does that reflect of the quality (or lack thereof) of a Boeing aircraft?

Do you know. anything about statistics? Without more data the info you show is not as statistically significant as you would make it seem.

Overkill, I would have wasted few hours of research and the outcome would still be the same.

That all said, the issues (though unrelated to Boeing) do seem to involve Boeing a lot recently.
Obviously the recently confirmed issue with their new plane would be one reason.

I think your statement is correct but the implication isn’t necessarily so...

I said... issues revolve around Boeing, not that airplane manufacturers are responsible for all issues.

[jusplay4fun]

Yes, you missed my point: I was referring to: Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752.

As usual, you missed the point I made. I was talking about the Iranians downing a Ukrainian plane. My comments were about one specific flight and that you tried to use that as part of your narrative that Boeing = Bad and therefore that USA = Bad. Again, you over-simplify the analysis and show lack of understanding to support your false narrative.

You try to twist facts to fit your narrative and this has been occurring for a long time. You got called on your using of statistics to mislead, deceive, and obfuscate. Try again. Here, and in the other related thread.

https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/posting.php?mode=quote&f=8&p=5134219

I will concede that 1) Boeing erred on rushing the 737 MAX to production and sales and 2) those two crashes resulted in the grounding (imposed by President Trump) of this airplane. The grounding was warranted. NOW why not turn your attention to the Russian airplanes?

Let me again cite stats:

Well-known and popular commercial aircraft have been involved in far more fatal accidents than the Boeing 737 Max 8. The 3,065 fatalities onboard the Tupolev Tu-154 are more than any of the 47 aircraft models Quartz analyzed. But commercial staples from Boeing, the 737-200 and 747-200, rank second and third on the list, with 2,910 and 1,664 fatalities respectively.

https://qz.com/1571820/deaths-on-the-boeing-737-max-8-vs-other-commercial-aircraft/

I will cite this, again, since Goranz chooses to totally ignore these crashes. And he does not factor those things that Jim and I have raised. So Goranz AGAIN misses the point and fails to offer cogent arguments.

JP4Fun

GoranZ wrote:
jusplay4fun wrote:
Imagine THAT; this Boeing plane was not downed by Boeing mistake(s) in its construction or design. What brings it down? An Iranian missile. THAT never happens RIGHT? It must be a Boeing ERROR...! Say it ain't so.

MH17 Boeing, PS752 again Boeing even the missing MH370 is Boeing. Nosediving JT610 and ET302 are also Boeings.

For the last few years everyone is talking about these 5 plane crashes. So yes it's Boeing!

[jusplay4fun]

Jim, if you read the several threads in this Off-Topics Forum, you will see that Goranz has been spouting anti-Boeing and anti-American comments for sometime. He will to try to make America, and Boeing, as an "extension" of the USA of America, look BAD any chance he gets.

Jim, you see through his very biased perspective and you point out his narrow look at statistics, without regard to the factors you named: # of airplanes actually flying, # of hours in the air, and more. He begrudgingly admits that an airplane shot out of the sky by Iranian missiles is some incidental or tangential issue that impact the numbers he cites. What about the other 37 incidents that he fails to account for? Russian airplanes has a more egregious safety record, but he totally ignores that manufacturer. I offer statistics that dispute his narrative and he misses the point.

The 3,065 fatalities onboard the Tupolev Tu-154 are more than any of the 47 aircraft models Quartz analyzed.

Please see: https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=229979&p=5134253#p5134253

This reminds me of another self-assumed intellect, who would start NEW threads when he was losing arguments in a thread that was already started. He chooses to ignore arguments there and must feel the need to offer weak, or at best, non-cogent arguments. It is all part of a small minority of anti-American and anti-Western Europe individuals here on CC offering poor rhetorical arguments.

JP4F

6 versus 13 out of a pool of 50

based on an arbitrary start date of “2010’

without factoring in # or planes in service, # of flights, # of flight hours, etc.

also cause of accident... for example getting shot down by Iranian military.
How does that reflect of the quality (or lack thereof) of a Boeing aircraft?

Do you know. anything about statistics? Without more data the info you show is not as statistically significant as you would make it seem.

That all said, the issues (though unrelated to Boeing) do seem to involve Boeing a lot recently.
Obviously the recently confirmed issue with their new plane would be one reason.

I think your statement is correct but the implication isn’t necessarily so...

[jusplay4fun]

NOTE that OVERALL, Boeing and Airbus, have good safety records. The 737 Max is NOT good, but does not, for now, alter the overall picture:

Safety and quality

Both aircraft manufacturers have good safety records on recently manufactured aircraft and generally, both firms have a positive reputation of delivering well-engineered and high-quality products.[71][72] By convention, both companies tend to avoid safety comparisons when selling their aircraft to airlines or comparisons on product quality. Most aircraft dominating the companies' current sales, the Boeing 737-NG and Airbus A320 families and both companies' wide-body offerings, have good safety records. Older model aircraft such as the Boeing 707, Boeing 727, Boeing 737-100/-200, Boeing 747-100/SP/200/300, Airbus A300, and Airbus A310, which were respectively first flown during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, have had higher rates of fatal accidents.[73] According to Airbus's John Leahy, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problems will not cause customers to switch airplane suppliers.[74] The grounding of the Boeing 737 MAX following two high-profile crashes is also unlikely to significantly benefit Airbus at least short-term, as both the 737 MAX and A320neo production lines have backlogs of several years and changing manufacturers requires significant crew training.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_between_Airbus_and_Boeing#Safety_and_quality

JP4F

[jusplay4fun]

You really blew that one out of proportion

EXACTLY. NO one hospitalized. No serious injuries. PERIOD.

Again, anti-American and specifically, anti-Boeing rhetoric is stated here by a few persons.

And most of the other cited errors made are indeed errors made. Putting in intentional errors in response may make the original errors more apparent.

JP4Fun

Congrats. You really blew that one out of proportion, chicken little.. Not one person had to even go to the horsepittal

Also....American Airlines is a company. Title is very misleading. This was a Delta Airlines problem ( and they tend to have a lot....I won't fly Delta).

Airplane is one word.

Lastly, I rarely see the use of dual adverbs. Very confusing. Maybe you should post in Chinese so you can be more.....literate.

[jimboston]

This thread's turned into quite the quim magnet, huh

Americans are struggling to defend their 'pride', Boeing.
Its not working for them but they are still refusing to accept the reality.

6 versus 13 out of a pool of 50

based on an arbitrary start date of “2010’

10 year period should be fair enough. I did say lately after all

without factoring in # or planes in service, # of flights, # of flight hours, etc.

also cause of accident... for example getting shot down by Iranian military.
How does that reflect of the quality (or lack thereof) of a Boeing aircraft?

Do you know. anything about statistics? Without more data the info you show is not as statistically significant as you would make it seem.

Overkill, I would have wasted few hours of research and the outcome would still be the same.

That all said, the issues (though unrelated to Boeing) do seem to involve Boeing a lot recently.
Obviously the recently confirmed issue with their new plane would be one reason.

I think your statement is correct but the implication isn’t necessarily so...

I said... issues revolve around Boeing, not that airplane manufacturers are responsible for all issues.

Please look up the definition of the word “implication”.

Also, please understand static’s before you start using them.

You stating that your research would yield the same result is not necessarily true.
If you don;t want to do the research (which would pro take way more than a couple hours) that’s fine... but at least yield the point or the possibility that the outcome may be dependent on other factors. (Those I mentioned/though in 10 seconds, and more that you’d want to consider if you were going to get serious.)

[KoolBak]

Boeing = pride? Does walmart = pride too?

Guess I'm a baaaaad american.

[mrswdk]

static’s

[jimboston]

static’s

typo shaming is below you

[GoranZ]

NOTE that OVERALL, Boeing and Airbus, have good safety records. The 737 Max is NOT good, but does not, for now, alter the overall picture:

JP4F

Boeing HAD good safety records, but that is no longer the case

The grounding of the Boeing 737 MAX following two high-profile crashes is also unlikely to significantly benefit Airbus at least short-term,

Airbus recorded 768 orders for 2019 while Boeing record loss of 87 orders in the same timeframe!
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=229979&start=175#p5133971

[jusplay4fun]

Two plane crashes does not a trend make, especially if 1) they are NOT flying and 2) proper repairs and fixes are underway. It is not a done deal, contrary to the picture you try to paint. Life is not static and neither is this issue. Again, you miss THAT point. Look beyond your nose.

Further, you ignore the other data. Again, you paint a FALSE NARRATIVE. With that, I will say that I need to post NO MORE here.

JP4Fun

NOTE that OVERALL, Boeing and Airbus, have good safety records. The 737 Max is NOT good, but does not, for now, alter the overall picture:

JP4F

Boeing HAD good safety records, but that is no longer the case

The grounding of the Boeing 737 MAX following two high-profile crashes is also unlikely to significantly benefit Airbus at least short-term,

Airbus recorded 768 orders for 2019 while Boeing record loss of 87 orders in the same timeframe!
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=229979&start=175#p5133971

[jusplay4fun]

When they cannot argue with facts and logic, they go low and try innuendo and shaming. I think the ARGUMENT is OVER. Even If I took time to do and find significant research, they would not change their minds, as they are closed-minded, myopic, biased, and therefore not worthy of debate. They cannot even concede a minor point, showing these traits that I already stated.

JP4Fun

static’s

typo shaming is below you

[GoranZ]

Two plane crashes does not a trend make, especially if 1) they are NOT flying and 2) proper repairs and fixes are underway.

Ho do you know the repairs are proper? Do you know something we don't? Care to present it?

It is not a done deal, contrary to the picture you try to paint. Life is not static and neither is this issue. Again, you miss THAT point. Look beyond your nose.

Boeing 737 MAX is no longer in production, no longer flying, no longer has new orders for it. Morbiding times

Further, you ignore the other data.

What other data? There is data we don't know about and only you do? Care to share it?

Again, you paint a FALSE NARRATIVE.

Boeing cheated, they tried to sell old and faulty technology presenting it as top quality and brand new, and when all that is revealed you are trying to get away by blaming others for "FALSE NARRATIVE"? You are funny

[GoranZ]

This thread's turned into quite the quim magnet, huh

Americans are struggling to defend their 'pride', Boeing.
Its not working for them but they are still refusing to accept the reality.

6 versus 13 out of a pool of 50

based on an arbitrary start date of “2010’

10 year period should be fair enough. I did say lately after all

without factoring in # or planes in service, # of flights, # of flight hours, etc.

also cause of accident... for example getting shot down by Iranian military.
How does that reflect of the quality (or lack thereof) of a Boeing aircraft?

Do you know. anything about statistics? Without more data the info you show is not as statistically significant as you would make it seem.

Overkill, I would have wasted few hours of research and the outcome would still be the same.

That all said, the issues (though unrelated to Boeing) do seem to involve Boeing a lot recently.
Obviously the recently confirmed issue with their new plane would be one reason.

I think your statement is correct but the implication isn’t necessarily so...

I said... issues revolve around Boeing, not that airplane manufacturers are responsible for all issues.

Please look up the definition of the word “implication”.

Also, please understand static’s before you start using them.

You stating that your research would yield the same result is not necessarily true.
If you don;t want to do the research (which would pro take way more than a couple hours) that’s fine... but at least yield the point or the possibility that the outcome may be dependent on other factors. (Those I mentioned/though in 10 seconds, and more that you’d want to consider if you were going to get serious.)

The granularity of my research is what it is... But you can make more detailed research and produce different outcome then mine. Then we can talk how "off" I was. I think that's fair

Boeing = pride? Does walmart = pride too?

jusplay4fun is proud of Boeing... IDK about Wallmart tho

[mrswdk]

static’s

typo shaming is below you

I'm not sure that one counts as a typo.

[jimboston]

static’s

typo shaming is below you

I'm not sure that one counts as a typo.

What would you call it then... just a mistake?

I call it a typo because it’s obvious what I meant to type.

[GoranZ]

Jim, if you read the several threads in this Off-Topics Forum, you will see that Goranz has been spouting anti-Boeing and anti-American comments for sometime. He will to try to make America, and Boeing, as an "extension" of the USA of America, look BAD any chance he gets.

Boeing f*uck up big time, FAA also f*uck up as well, and you are offended when we talk against them? Maybe you should direct your anger to them and not towards us.
What is worth I believe that FAA will not let Boeing get away with faulty technology again so we might not see another 737 MAX in the skies

The 3,065 fatalities onboard the Tupolev Tu-154 are more than any of the 47 aircraft models Quartz analyzed.

Tu-154 is over half a century old plane, 737 MAX was promoted as new! Please compare 737 MAX with its contemporary rivals

[mrswdk]

static’s

typo shaming is below you

I'm not sure that one counts as a typo.

What would you call it then... just a mistake?

I call it a typo because it’s obvious what I meant to type.

'My meaning was obvious' will be your epitaph.

[2dimes]

they tried to sell old and faulty technology presenting it as top quality and brand new,

That's comedy gold and pretty much the polar opposite of the 737 Max.