Search results

Yeah, we were once prepared for this. And had this happened the names Armstrong and Aldrin would still have been ingrained in every Gen X school kid as much as Washington and Lincoln. Though NASA has always had very conservative estimates for what spacecraft would accomplish. Granted I doubt...

So this has been going on for some time, but does seem to be getting more attention. As usual the 121 operators want to sue and regulate completion out rather than actually compete: Airlines Want to Stop ‘Travel Hack’ JSX From Luring Rich Flyers Away

The difficult thing is that I am just not sure where we are on whether rocketry is an art or a science. We lambast the Boeing 737 Max for a failure rate which would have made it by far and away the most reliable bomber in WW2. Though if you think about it, the Space Shuttle had a 2.8% fatality...

. . . and latest crash: https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/spacex-hoping-launch-starship-farther-third-test-flight-2024-03-14/ So to me as a casual observer this seems bad, but some aver this is par for the course.

So I should not vent about how much I hate Atlantic Aviation? That is no fun.

Rupert Murdoch did not get rich hiring first rate copyeditors.

Or party all night in anticipation of the launch going well? It is a very ambitious and interesting project. Of course, when I first read this I thought of a Beech Starship, because yeah that was cool when I was little.

The plot thickens: Video was deleted by Boeing

I hope that was humorous as well, but in context I am not entirely sure it was a joke. I searched the internet for the comment a discussion thread from ten years ago came up: Old Thread Theory: "I'll throw something else out there. What if the plane never came back to ground but instead kept...

"They were concerned about the safety of their fucking stock price" does pretty much encapsulate it. The issue here is that if a COMAC jet crashed there would be a show trial and an execution, it might not be the responsible party, but heads would roll. In the US nothing will happen.

Granted this poll is now nearly a decade old, but apparently frequent fliers would seem to disagree: https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/256026-poll-87-percent-of-frequent-flyers-unhappy-with-tsa/ It is interesting how much post back there was when the FAA wanted to amend Part 380 Public...

So going back to regularly capture, no I do not think the AFA-CWA is going to support that and neither will the FAA as a result.

I think it is fair to say that Boeing and the FAA are a textbook example of regulatory capture. With no competing American company it is in the interest of the regime to support Boeing and in the interest of Boeing to support the regime.

They just can't get a break: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13174293/United-Boeing-737-Max-Houston-runway-grass.html

The curious question is what part of the US population is supporting this?

What classifications of control arrangements were you thinking?

Anyone every flown into 46U or own a hanger there?

Granted the Max is a fairly tortured design, but much of this seems to be quality control now?

Would be interesting to see if different business jets have very different accident rates. Though it would be hard to compare them.

Not being an engineer, I would have to ask is a few ounces of acetone peroxide could even down an airliner?