boeing 737 max 8

What does make the world turn?
User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11308
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by landrew » Sat Apr 06, 2019 1:53 am

For as long as I live, I'll never be a passenger on a plane with a pilot who thinks a deliberate spin is a good idea.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28041
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by scrmbldggs » Sat Apr 06, 2019 2:01 am

:-P
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19357
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Apr 06, 2019 3:47 am

landrew wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 1:53 am
For as long as I live, I'll never be a passenger on a plane with a pilot who thinks a deliberate spin is a good idea.
OK...........what would you do then if on reaching destination there is a total cloud cover from 5K to 15K AGL and you have an electrical short that takes out all your instruments. Yes....you have turn and slip and magnetic compass but thats it. Your alternate airport is also socked in. You have 30 minutes of fuel left.

Go=====>

and ..........whats wrong with a spin? Again: its a totally controlled maneuver that "absolutely" prevents going into a death spiral.

You remind me of another comment our IP made: we could teach monkeys to fly, but most of you need fewer bananas. Then they stare at the monkey who just screwed up.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11308
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by landrew » Sat Apr 06, 2019 4:09 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 3:47 am
landrew wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 1:53 am
For as long as I live, I'll never be a passenger on a plane with a pilot who thinks a deliberate spin is a good idea.
OK...........what would you do then if on reaching destination there is a total cloud cover from 5K to 15K AGL and you have an electrical short that takes out all your instruments. Yes....you have turn and slip and magnetic compass but thats it. Your alternate airport is also socked in. You have 30 minutes of fuel left.

Go=====>

and ..........whats wrong with a spin? Again: its a totally controlled maneuver that "absolutely" prevents going into a death spiral.

You remind me of another comment our IP made: we could teach monkeys to fly, but most of you need fewer bananas. Then they stare at the monkey who just screwed up.
Just grow a pair and admit you said something stupid.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19357
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Apr 06, 2019 4:33 am

What would you do?...............besides confirm what stump the dummy is all about?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11308
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by landrew » Sat Apr 06, 2019 5:29 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 4:33 am
What would you do?...............besides confirm what stump the dummy is all about?
I don't keep doubling down when I'm wrong.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19357
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Apr 06, 2019 5:44 am

Landrew: you aren't making any sense. What would you do? I assume you would try to fly a steady downward flight path until you got through the clouds and could see the ground? I suppose that does work from time to time but the significant risk is the wings start a slight turn and a slight correction then starts a yo-yo process as the compass is bouncing around with a lot of lag ultimately showing you are turning one way or the other that may not coincide with what the turn and slip was showing...........and too easily you find yourself in a death spiral. Or.....you would fly straight and level in the clear hoping for an opening along the way before you run out of fuel?

Pilots who pass the Stump the Dummy test would do a quick spin through the clouds, on seeking the ground, they would recover..........and then go land the airplane.

What would you do Landrew? Take the risk because you aren't comfortable actually flying the airplane....or do the quick simple and stable spin maneuver?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11308
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by landrew » Sat Apr 06, 2019 3:14 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 5:44 am
Landrew: you aren't making any sense. What would you do? I assume you would try to fly a steady downward flight path until you got through the clouds and could see the ground? I suppose that does work from time to time but the significant risk is the wings start a slight turn and a slight correction then starts a yo-yo process as the compass is bouncing around with a lot of lag ultimately showing you are turning one way or the other that may not coincide with what the turn and slip was showing...........and too easily you find yourself in a death spiral. Or.....you would fly straight and level in the clear hoping for an opening along the way before you run out of fuel?

Pilots who pass the Stump the Dummy test would do a quick spin through the clouds, on seeking the ground, they would recover..........and then go land the airplane.

What would you do Landrew? Take the risk because you aren't comfortable actually flying the airplane....or do the quick simple and stable spin maneuver?
Are you really sticking to this story? Do you know any pilots? I think if they were honest, they would all find your prescription for getting out of cloud ridiculous, and downright dangerous.

This point has taken us far off-topic, and only so because once again, you are showing us how you'll go to any lengths to avoid admitting you were wrong. How does anyone learn anything in life when they believe they are "never wrong?"

I'm sure you won't read this, but it contains a lot of useful information about dealing with clouds in VFR:
https://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2 ... -into-imc/
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19357
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Apr 06, 2019 9:08 pm

the issue is not clouds in vfr.

Still can't read to save your life.........literally. Well.....I hope you are not in charge if such a scenario ever comes up.

I'll be reducing my response to your posts. just too silly.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11308
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by landrew » Sat Apr 06, 2019 9:45 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 9:08 pm
the issue is not clouds in vfr.

Still can't read to save your life.........literally. Well.....I hope you are not in charge if such a scenario ever comes up.

I'll be reducing my response to your posts. just too silly.
And so goes the Daffy Duck rampage...
All because he's too embarrassed to admit that he said something dumb.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19357
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Apr 06, 2019 9:46 pm

what would you do?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13190
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Apr 06, 2019 10:55 pm

You know, this is quite ironic. I am not a pilot and I have no special knowledge of aircraft engineering or operation. But I do get the very strong impression from what both landrew and Bobbo are posting that both are correct, and a little thought on their part would show them that the other one is also correct. But it is a habitual argumentative rut they have both landed in that stops them pausing to think.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19357
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Apr 06, 2019 11:01 pm

I'm open: how is landrew correct?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13190
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Apr 06, 2019 11:10 pm

Up to you, Bobbo, to think about it. As I said, I am no expert, and my opinion here would not be good. Ask me about scuba diving and I will give you an expert view. I am suggesting, though, that you (and landrew) both use your brains and entertain the possibility that the other may not actually be wrong.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19357
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:39 am

Well lance, that is landrew stoopid and irresponsible and self centered and lazy if not just a refusal to admit you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.

In short: an easy to understand hypo is given to landrew and he refuses to answer it instead attacking me for even asking it.

So, I'll ask you again: how can landrew be right, when he won't even try to answer the question?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13190
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sun Apr 07, 2019 3:43 am

You can lead a horse to water.......

But also, you can lead a Bobbo to good sense, but you cannot make him think.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19357
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Apr 07, 2019 4:10 am

Well Lance........that doesn't make any sense.

Its really coming home to me how "certain people" can't or absolutely refuse to deal with admitting to their own mistakes, bad reasoning, misspeaks or what have you.

You simply won't answer direct questions. You make a declarative statement like "landrew is right" and when asked to explain it, or give an example, you resort to all sorts of subtrefuge and diversion. I don't know why you do that. I don't know why you do that and then continue to make the same types of declarations, and I accept at face value that you think you have the higher ground? Just plain silly.

All is ego.

The DEEPER POINT, that I think is fairly evident with landrew and the spin hypothetical is that landrew never even tried to answer the question and immediately went with the fallacy of arguing from ignorance and lack of personal authority then rapidly to ab hominem attacks. Thats all right in front of you. THEN.......you come along and say that landrew is not all wrong and that both of us are right.

Simply not true................but whether true or not.........you pull the same nonsense when asked to state what in the scenario landrew got right? .......... and you don't do it.

Oh.......ha, ha...I dithered: DEEPER POINT: to be a better pilot, landrew should become comfortable with entering into and recovering from the stable flight condition known as spin. He is obviously uncomfortable with unusually airplane attitudes which is very common and not an issue....unless you happen to find yourself in such a circumstance. To be a competent pilot, landrew should at least acknowledge his limitations........so as to avoid being in such circumstances.

Practically nothing is correct in landrews postings on this subject..............and neither are yours.

Prove me wrong and actually respond on point.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11308
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by landrew » Sun Apr 07, 2019 4:31 pm

This documentary has shifted my confidence in Boeing slightly.

I watched it, on the look-out for possible bias or hidden agendas, but it seems to be a fairly honest endeavor, pointing out some significant problems with the way Boeing is building airplanes. Of course it focused on the negatives, using statements from disgruntled employees, but Boeing was unwilling to discuss some of these concerns, cutting short an interview, and issuing a slanderous characterization against the documentary makers. I try to take all this with a grain of salt.

Boeing has been changing their business plan significantly in recent years, probably due to increased competition from Airbus and other factors. After their merger with McDonnell Douglas, they appear to have adopted many of their leaner business practices. This is likely a blend of good and bad, because although the latest Boeing airliners are much more economical and therefore a reasonable response to increased competition, it appears that there may be greater safety concerns, something vehemently denied by Boeing, and borne out by very favorable safety figures over-all over the last few decades.

Personally, I think it's "growing pains" (for lack of a stronger term) for a period of significant change in the airline industry.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11308
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by landrew » Sun Apr 07, 2019 5:27 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 4:10 am
Well Lance........that doesn't make any sense.

Its really coming home to me how "certain people" can't or absolutely refuse to deal with admitting to their own mistakes, bad reasoning, misspeaks or what have you.

Practically nothing is correct in landrews postings on this subject..............and neither are yours.

Prove me wrong and actually respond on point.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13190
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sun Apr 07, 2019 7:43 pm

Bobbo

I did not say landrew was right. I said it looked like both of you were right, but both were too pigheaded to see the others point.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11308
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by landrew » Sun Apr 07, 2019 7:52 pm

landrew wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 4:31 pm
This documentary has shifted my confidence in Boeing slightly.

I watched it, on the look-out for possible bias or hidden agendas, but it seems to be a fairly honest endeavor, pointing out some significant problems with the way Boeing is building airplanes. Of course it focused on the negatives, using statements from disgruntled employees, but Boeing was unwilling to discuss some of these concerns, cutting short an interview, and issuing a slanderous characterization against the documentary makers. I try to take all this with a grain of salt.

Boeing has been changing their business plan significantly in recent years, probably due to increased competition from Airbus and other factors. After their merger with McDonnell Douglas, they appear to have adopted many of their leaner business practices. This is likely a blend of good and bad, because although the latest Boeing airliners are much more economical and therefore a reasonable response to increased competition, it appears that there may be greater safety concerns, something vehemently denied by Boeing, and borne out by very favorable safety figures over-all over the last few decades.

Personally, I think it's "growing pains" (for lack of a stronger term) for a period of significant change in the airline industry.
One point I didn't address in the previous post, that was raised in the documentary, was the possible conflicts of interests between airline executives and the FAA, the US government regulator. Former heads of the FAA are definitely on the gravy train when they retire from government and find themselves working for the airline industry. From the citizenry point of view, it looks like corruption, but it is the system that has given us the result; which is relatively safe and economical air travel. I'm in favor of strict rules and limits on lobbyists, but we do need lobbyists to represent their constituents, regardless of whoever they are; corporate or private. It is a democracy after all, and everyone deserves a voice, albeit an unbalanced one it seems at times.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11308
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by landrew » Sun Apr 07, 2019 7:54 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 7:43 pm
Bobbo

I did not say landrew was right. I said it looked like both of you were right, but both were too pigheaded to see the others point.
Do some research as I did, and see if anyone thinks an intentional spin is a sane remedy for getting a plane out of a cloud.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13190
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sun Apr 07, 2019 8:02 pm

Landrew

That may well be correct. I am not qualified to judge. But I do suggest you look also at Bobbos points and see what he has stated that is good.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11308
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by landrew » Sun Apr 07, 2019 8:14 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 8:02 pm
Landrew

That may well be correct. I am not qualified to judge. But I do suggest you look also at Bobbos points and see what he has stated that is good.
I believe I have, but in all fairness, the latest focus has been on the point where he asserted that a VFR pilot should consider putting an aircraft into an intentional spin in the event of finding yourself in a cloud. As a pilot, I found it to be a reprehensible and irresponsible comment, and I researched the subject to make sure I am correct. I see no such supporting evidence from Bobbo, only a frenetic tantrum and intransigent refusal to give way on this or any point.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19357
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Apr 07, 2019 8:55 pm

No....read the hypo again. YOU ARE NOT IN THE CLOUD. Jeebus...........learn to read atleast the third time you are told you are ABOVE OVERCAST AND NEED TO SAFELY GET THROUGH IT.

Stump the dummy indeed.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11308
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by landrew » Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:42 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 8:55 pm
No....read the hypo again. YOU ARE NOT IN THE CLOUD. Jeebus...........learn to read atleast the third time you are told you are ABOVE OVERCAST AND NEED TO SAFELY GET THROUGH IT.

Stump the dummy indeed.
This is the first I've heard about "above overcast." Pathetic attempt to change the goalposts. But nonetheless, intentionally going into a spin to fall through a cloud deck should nominate you for the Darwin Awards. Possibly even result in you losing your license if someone lodged a complaint.

If you'd read the article I posted, it explains how some VFR pilots have found themselves in such situations, and were helped out of it by carefully following vectors and instructions from Flight Service. You'd have posted something long before now, if you'd found anything that supported using such a ludicrous tactic. You won't.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19357
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:38 am

You can't read, stuck on stupid, your own first impression that cannot change with the proof right in front of you.

Lance can never answer a direct question.

Quite similar you two.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

psychiatry is a scam
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1647
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:23 am
Custom Title: eugenics never stopped

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by psychiatry is a scam » Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:48 am

no one here is at fault for those crashes -
why is it so important to treat anyone who says/types anything as an enemy ???

anyway I have been often told that flying is safer than driving a car ..
just realized flying has nothing to do with driving a car . and saying it is safer - considering all the insane sheet that goes on with cars -
really isn't saying much . kind of like saying stalin was worse than hitler

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19357
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Apr 08, 2019 2:10 am

1. First mention of "spin": "Ah yes: "The most difficult manuever in aviation: the 180 Degree turn to abort the mission and go back home. Yep, turn and bank will work if you go to it early while it is still coasting from straight and level. Wait too long and you could still get into a death spiral. The other thing to do is go into a controled stall and spin and recover from the spin when you break out of the clouds........assuming the clouds bottom out above ground level. I never {!#%@} up and went into a cloud during vfr clearance. why didn't you avoid the cloud first? Your last line is unclear..........a level 180 is exactly what computers can do." Page 3 half way down.

2. Second mention of "spin": "..... that did set up my hypo of using a spin to penetrate cloud cover. That only comes up when "you lose all instruments" which is very very rare. With total cloud coverage with a cieling above ground level........of course you would just do a wings level descent, a procedure any even low time pilot should be able to do. I was in the mindset though of "lost all your instruments" because that is when that type of scenario is raised and relevant: not very often.



3. Third mention of "spin": "......The spin to safely penetrate a cloud cover is ONLY FOR when you have lost all your other instruments. Its one of about 10 "stump the dummy" posers our Instructor Pilots used to quiz us with when we were down for weather. It is predicated on there being space below the clouds to recover.......and it is used to reinforce that a spin is "a controlled condition" whereas other orientations such as "the death spiral" are not. Turn and slip with compass heading.....as said would last for some time just as you enter the cloud....but I don't know how long it would last for stable flight conditions as there is too much variability, time lag, and as you note precision in the opposite direction. "

So....at first mention the context was entering into a cloud but every mention of it thereafter was to penetrate cloud cover. ///// Still: most cloud covers are fairly minimum and I would think turn and slip/compass would work for several thousand feet. I am curious what real time testing would show? Skilled pilots, those comfortable doing a spin, could read a compass better than an unskilled pilot and perhaps maintain wings level a bit longer. So many variables. For sure: early in cloud penetration if you have a near horizontal wing orientation which would still make stall and spin entry pretty easy. Even it your started the pull up with a 20Degree bank, the aircraft would still stall and with a nice rudder kick you'd go right into a spin. With those same 20 Degrees of Bank trying to fly wings level with the ball and turn/compass: probably not.

Have fun.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19357
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Apr 08, 2019 2:14 am

PIAS: Yes: in almost every crash, fault can be liberally found.

It is important so that you can LEARN from the experience and avoid its repetition.

Flying is safer than cars per mile travelled. I agree its not saying much as even if it were more dangerous than cars (trains/boats?) it would be taken for the time savings. ................ and this weekend South West had flights to San Diego cheaper than the gas you'd use in a car. Such a good deal!

Stalin was worse than Hitler. He won.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13190
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Apr 08, 2019 2:20 am

Actually, the idea that cars are horrendously dangerous is a bit misleading, and relates more to the bulldust coming from the news media than from reality.

Cars have been getting safer and safer over the years. When I was a kid, there were about 800 car accident fatalities each year here in NZ. Today, with about 5 times as many cars, it is down to about 350.

Cars once were horribly dangerous, and they are still a hazard, of course, but all ratings of danger are relative, and relative to what once was, they are incredibly "safe".

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19357
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Apr 08, 2019 5:18 am

Who said horrendously dangerous?

You ought to copy and paste what made your knee jerk. If you read it....you could even post relevantly.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

psychiatry is a scam
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1647
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:23 am
Custom Title: eugenics never stopped

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by psychiatry is a scam » Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:20 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Mon Apr 08, 2019 2:20 am
Actually, the idea that cars are horrendously dangerous is a bit misleading, and relates more to the bulldust coming from the news media than from reality.

Cars have been getting safer and safer over the years. When I was a kid, there were about 800 car accident fatalities each year here in NZ. Today, with about 5 times as many cars, it is down to about 350.

Cars once were horribly dangerous, and they are still a hazard, of course, but all ratings of danger are relative, and relative to what once was, they are incredibly "safe".
I guess your perspective and reality in NZ is not the same as mine in the insane hellholes that the major cities in the USA have become.
the term insane sheet probably does not apply to life in NZ ; as much as it applies here .

oh I keep forgetting - should look up LULZ - people maliciously try to start arguments online .
it has been going on since aol , when kids would bait and mess with adults

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11308
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by landrew » Mon Apr 08, 2019 2:31 pm

Not only do cars speed by each other and solid objects just a few feet away, but any damned fool can drive a car.
Most airlines have high standards for the pilots they employ, keeping the damned fool quotient low. There's also a lot more open space in the sky, and a lot fewer things to collide with. A drunken fool could fly for years without hitting anything (except the ground).

Cars may have become a lot safer, but the drivers haven't. You can easily die in a car through no fault of your car or yourself, if some damned fool runs into you. Small planes crash more often than airliners because some small planes are flown by damned fools. There's nothing to stop a plane owner from taking a spin in his own plane when he's drunk. There's also a lot less scrutiny on keeping small planes airworthy, it's basically up to the owner.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13190
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Apr 08, 2019 8:18 pm

I do not think the number of car accidents has dropped. But fatalities have.. That is to a large part due to improved car technology.

A few years back, I was driving down the open road at the speed limit. An idiot pulled out of a side road right in front of me. I automatically slammed on my brakes and then tried to steer around the idiot. Much to my surprise, I succeeded. The only reason was because my car had computer braking systems. The older brakes would have seen me slam into the idiots car and kill him and his two passengers.

Lower fatalities translates to higher safety. Sure, there are still plenty of idiot drivers. But fewer deaths due to better technology.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19357
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Apr 08, 2019 10:17 pm

Don't forget road design...........with maintenance to be hoped for.

There is a positive correlation between death and injury and highway speeds. We are an impatient species.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13190
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Apr 08, 2019 11:00 pm

Yes, highway design is important. The Auckland Harbour Bridge had a terrible death toll. Then the powers that be set up a movable crash barrier system, and the death toll fell 90% overnight. No more head on collisions from crossing the center line.

There is, indeed, a correlation between higher death toll with more speed. But there is also a correlation between safer car design and lower death toll. NZ had a 10% drop in fatalities, which lasted, when wearing seat belts was made compulsory.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19357
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Apr 08, 2019 11:02 pm

why the but? Can't hold two even non conflicting ideas in your mind at the same time?????
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11308
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by landrew » Mon Apr 08, 2019 11:13 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Mon Apr 08, 2019 8:18 pm
I do not think the number of car accidents has dropped. But fatalities have.. That is to a large part due to improved car technology.

A few years back, I was driving down the open road at the speed limit. An idiot pulled out of a side road right in front of me. I automatically slammed on my brakes and then tried to steer around the idiot. Much to my surprise, I succeeded. The only reason was because my car had computer braking systems. The older brakes would have seen me slam into the idiots car and kill him and his two passengers.

Lower fatalities translates to higher safety. Sure, there are still plenty of idiot drivers. But fewer deaths due to better technology.
I don't think I said anything about the number of car accidents being lower, but cars are built safer all the time. A hundred years ago, you could die easily in a 10 MPH crash; plate-glass windshields could break and slice you to ribbons, you could be impaled by knobs on the dash, and seat-belts were barely a concept. New safety features are being developed all the time.

But it's the human factor that counts. I've been driving on public roads for decades, and I've never been responsible for causing an accident. Partly luck to be sure, but it helps to have a keen sense of self-preservation. I had a similar situation to yours, where someone was stopped at an intersection to which I was approaching. I had a sense that the other driver may not have seen me approaching, so I slowed my speed by about 25%. Sure enough, the other driver pulled out into my path, then stopped as she saw me approaching, and I skidded to a stop just a foot or two from the other vehicle. I said nothing, but pointed emphatically at the stop sign behind her. She shouted "I know!" in a very humiliated way and then drove off.

Computers and well-designed systems can help safety, but there's no substitute for a human being in a crisis situation.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11308
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: boeing 737 max 8

Post by landrew » Mon Apr 08, 2019 11:18 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Mon Apr 08, 2019 11:02 pm
why the but? Can't hold two even non conflicting ideas in your mind at the same time?????
Image
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.