|
Originally Posted by jsloan
(Post 31060861)
.....
A quick Google search shows about 4.5 million worldwide deaths due to injury in 2017 (the last year with data on the chart I used). The number of fatalities in airline crashes is orders of magnitude smaller than that, regardless of the specific airframe. ....... Cardiovascular diseases 31.8% Cancers 17.08% (snip) Road incidents 2.22% Kidney disease 2.2% Tuberculosis 2.12% HIV/AIDS 1.71% Suicide 1.42% Malaria 1.11% Homicide 0.72% Terrorism 0.06% (in 2016) Natural disasters 0.02 It is amazing how concerned the nation is about terrorism and natural disasters, yet Road Events have a much higher mortality. Never mind Heart (Cardiovascular) disease. But yes, it is a "massive" singe event death count that gets the news. What is that Spock* said: you humans see a single death as tragedy and mass deaths as statistic. *paraphrasing Spock from memory from original Star Trek |
Originally Posted by EmailKid
(Post 31060917)
What is that Spock* said: you humans see a single death as tragedy and mass deaths as statistic.
*paraphrasing Spock from memory from original Star Trek The tragedy/statistic quote is often attributed to Stalin. See? Facts. I can do facts. :D :D :D |
When the DC 10s were falling out of the sky back around 1979 the news coverage was a lot less with no 24 hour news cycle and no internet like today. The problems once identified were like poorly designed cargo door latches and short cut maintenance procedures. There were far more airplane accidents back then. Untied had to rely on 747s to pick up the traffic to Hawaii.
MCAS and the overall design of the MAX remain a point of debate. Why have the MAX "feel" like the NG if it could cause the nose to pitch down and increase the risk of death? Remove MCAS and certify MAX to fly as a MAX and train pilots to fly the MAX without all the "feel" ad ons. |
Originally Posted by BF263533
(Post 31061381)
Remove MCAS and certify MAX to fly as a MAX and train pilots to fly the MAX without all the "feel" ad ons.
|
Originally Posted by EmailKid
(Post 31060851)
Gotta disagree .....
IMHO you represent (not picking on you, just kind of follow up to the example) the educated public. Ignorant flying public will soon forget this, if they ever knew about it @:-) When visiting my friend in Dallas, he said he didn't notice that there aren't any MAX aircraft directly over his house - he lives about two miles southeast of DAL's 31L and if the wind blows out of the north the left engine is directly over the house. When I asked if he heard of the crashes, it was news to him. A lot of people don't read FT and don't watch the evening news, so if it's not in their newsfeed @:-) What at I have found amazing about this whole sorry scenario is people who never knew what Boeing was, let alone an airplane model consistently now know this particular model and have decided it is a death trap (right y or wrongly).
Originally Posted by BF263533
(Post 31061381)
Why have the MAX "feel" like the NG if it could cause the nose to pitch down and increase the risk of death?
Remove MCAS and certify MAX to fly as a MAX and train pilots to fly the MAX without all the "feel" ad ons. |
Originally Posted by VegasGambler
(Post 31061679)
This is a great point. Regardless if how good MCAS is, it can be switched off. If the plane can't be certified as safe without it then it shouldn't be certified at all.
You can turn off the transponder in flight, but you can't certify an airliner without one. |
Originally Posted by mduell
(Post 31063635)
This "logic" does not in any way reflect how contemporary certification works, nor make any sense.
You can turn off the transponder in flight, but you can't certify an airliner without one. |
Brief quote from a long article in Aviation Week and Space Technology:
The FAA is targeting May 23 for a meeting of global regulators to discuss its analysis of the MCAS changes, the agency confirmed first to Aviation Week (see page 24). While that gathering will be part of a concerted effort to build global consensus, it will have no bearing on when the FAA clears the MAX for U.S. operations. Progress on the updates suggests a late May or early June approval. |
Originally Posted by DenverBrian
(Post 31063740)
I've never heard of a transponder being on or off resulting in a crash killing everyone on board.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gol_Tr...os_Flight_1907 The transponder on the Embraer Legacy 600 business jet was accidentally turned off so TCAS didn't give either airplane a warning prior to the collision. The Legacy landed safely; the 737's 154 passengers and crew were lost. |
Originally Posted by DenverBrian
(Post 31063740)
I've never heard of a transponder being on or off resulting in a crash killing everyone on board.
Originally Posted by LarryJ
(Post 31064165)
I don't intend to be argumentative, but it has happened. Took down a B737-800.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gol_Tr...os_Flight_1907 The transponder on the Embraer Legacy 600 business jet was accidentally turned off so TCAS didn't give either airplane a warning prior to the collision. The Legacy landed safely; the 737's 154 passengers and crew were lost. |
Originally Posted by LarryJ
(Post 31064165)
I don't intend to be argumentative, but it has happened. Took down a B737-800.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gol_Tr...os_Flight_1907 The transponder on the Embraer Legacy 600 business jet was accidentally turned off so TCAS didn't give either airplane a warning prior to the collision. The Legacy landed safely; the 737's 154 passengers and crew were lost. ...the NTSB determined that both flight crews acted properly and were placed on a collision course by ATC, deeming the Legacy pilots' disabling of their TCAS system to be only a contributing factor rather than a direct cause. |
Originally Posted by DenverBrian
(Post 31064660)
Boy, you guys are twisting in pretzels to justify stuff. From the article you quoted:
Originally Posted by DenverBrian
(Post 31063740)
I've never heard of a transponder being on or off resulting in a crash killing everyone on board.
|
Originally Posted by FlyngSvyr
(Post 31064691)
Not sure what "stuff" you think they are trying to justify. You made a statement
and they were obliged to educate you :) |
Originally Posted by DenverBrian
(Post 31064708)
By providing two examples of the transponder per se NOT causing planes to fly into the ground, killing all aboard. @:-)
So again, I will point out that you made a statement and 2 posters were obliged to educate you with 2 examples. I don't think there is any ulterior motive other than to enlighten. |
Originally Posted by DenverBrian
(Post 31064708)
By providing two examples of the transponder per se NOT causing planes to fly into the ground, killing all aboard. @:-)
That’s fine. You’re entitled to your opinion. However, there are other participants in this forum that are interested in factual discussion, perhaps because we plan to fly on the MAX in the future. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 9:11 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.