This is not surprising since Dupont issued a bulletin in March saying not to use this product in aviation fuel based on at least 2 incidents with loss of fuel flow to both engines. Uncertain as to why a special notice on the 737MAX except since none were flying, they may have been missed when the bulletins were originally issued.

(Written on 2020年07月17日)(Permalink)

Could the engine even start with a person there as he would be right against the fan? Could the high pressure compressor still get enough air to start with the fan jammed by the person's body? This is assuming he was missed during pre-flight.

(Written on 2020年07月06日)(Permalink)

First Embraer took Boeing to arbitration, and now Boeing has taken Embraer to arbitration. The report states that so far nothing is known of the reason for Boeing's case except they filed.

(Written on 2020年06月02日)(Permalink)

Not sure why this is newsworthy. Travel vouchers meaning the money will still stay with United, a liability like my gazillion frequent flier miles. How much would it have cost United for advertising by getting a story published?

(Written on 2020年02月25日)(Permalink)

Why is this feed even here as the picture heading the article is from President Bush's 2004 visit?

(Written on 2020年02月17日)(Permalink)

Transonic region from mach 0.75 to mach 1.2, design affected by area rule in that shock waves are reduced by constant area cross section. Wings increase the cross section. The increased upper deck length of the 747-300/400 had the effect of making use of the area rule to gain high mach possibility with reduced drag. Convair 990 has pieces added to take advantage making it the fastest commercial airliner to date. A380 has configuration at wing root to take advantage. I understand it was by chance, not design, that the 747 was able to take advantage another reason the -400 is faster and uses less fuel than the -200. Now don't ask me why the short upper deck on the -8F.

(Written on 2020年02月10日)(Permalink)

First thing I thought of when I read the headline. How could they not account for spills. Spill proof cups and everything, I still end up with spilled liquid due to unexpected turbulence - on the ground. Don't pilots have other accidents too like maybe getting sick during a long flight? Surely they - wait, illness from having eaten the fish, of course, and don't call me Shirley!

(Written on 2020年01月31日)(Permalink)

I remember at the time information was arcing at a windshield heat terminal was identified by the crew. Couple an ignition source with leaking O2 and... Have been curious as to why the A320 nosediving into the Med was brushed under the rug while the MAX investigation info was disseminated daily. Report here is BEA had the info and covered it up under the guise that Egypt was in control of the investigation.

(Written on 2019年12月30日)(Permalink)

Researching the Special Condition A350-900 Airplane; Lightning Protection of Fuel-Tank Structure To Prevent Fuel Tank Vapor Ignition - plus additional exemptions for Airbus due to composite wing construction - use nitrogen gas inverting. Airbus received an exemption from the FAA - Boeing appears to have used the Airbus exemption to reduce their complexity to that of Airbus. Why FAA approved Airbus but now is coming back and saying we shouldn't have allowed Boeing to do that is beyond comprehension. It makes good news for a reporter known to be anti-Boeing and unwilling to research the Federal Register.

(Written on 2019年12月12日)(Permalink)

One needs to look at the timeline. Boeing is the one who determined the parts are unacceptable and notified the FAA. Spirit Aerosystems is the company that tried to get an exemption for supplying parts they had installed being notified after installation they were defective. Spirit's engineers apparently felt the parts, although not meeting spec, were adequate (happens often). They submitted their analysis to Boeing who disagreed and asked Spirit to submit the paperwork that would get the parts removed. It took Spirit from October to February to do something that should have been completed within a day. Yes, Boeing needs to clamp down on their supplier, but if Boeing was only concerned with cost they would have okayed the defective parts like Spirit recommended. Instead they need to replace the defective parts paying customers to do the work, and pay a fine for not cracking the whip on their supplier chain. It is right for Boeing to get the fine, but the problem only was identified by B

(Written on 2019年12月10日)(Permalink)