Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ukranian Airlines Flight PS752 Crash (See mod note/warning in post 270)

Options
12467…11

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 17,015 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Dreadful incident, it does look like an accidental shooting down


  • Options
    #93
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,853 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    wandererz wrote: »
    Please forgive me but the term potential immediately conveys conspiracy theory to me.

    The official statements released are what should be gone by until & otherwise disproved.

    Those are: a failure of a relatively new & recently maintained aircraft.

    Again: until otherwise disproved.

    I don't think anyone is going to agree with you there.


  • Options
    #94
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    I find it odd that Iran refuses to give the black boxes to anyone, but then again, these planes are built to be able to fly on one engine. Is it normal for the plane to stop transmitting data when the engine malfunctioned?

    =-=

    Times.com reports that witnesses say that the plane went towards the field, as opposed the residential area, so I'm guessing the pilot was trying to land. This to me means that the pilot had some control of the plane, as opposed to a fall from the sky?


  • Options
    #95
    wandererz
    Registered Users Posts: 2,530 ✭✭✭wandererz


    Fritzbox wrote: »
    In other words, it's a "bash Boeing" thread which you are looking for, and not a conspiracy thread?

    No. Approximately 522 people have lost their lives in 14 months in 3 events.

    The first two resulted in denials all the way to the top of the organisation until proved wrong. Now another one with 179 deaths.

    Added to that, there are now issues surfacing about wiring on the Max series.

    It seems to be a corporate culture of expediency, covering things up & forgetting about crew & passengers in order to maximise profit.

    It's taken them this long to stop manufacture of the Max series. It should have happened months ago until a clear path was established & certifications obtained.

    That being said, it reduces confidence in the 737-800's & other models recently manufactured.


  • Options
    #96
    Polar101
    Registered Users Posts: 3,771 ✭✭✭Polar101


    cnocbui wrote: »

    Looking at the Daily Mail article...

    Not the best way to start a credible article.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Fritzbox
    Registered Users Posts: 489 ✭✭Fritzbox


    wandererz wrote: »
    No. Approximately 522 people have lost their lives in 14 months in 3 events.

    The first two resulted in denials all the way to the top of the organisation until proved wrong. Now another one with 179 deaths.

    Added to that, there are now issues surfacing about wiring on the Max series.

    It seems to be a corporate culture of expediency, covering things up & forgetting about crew & passengers in order to maximise profit.

    It's taken them this long to stop manufacture of the Max series. It should have happened months ago until a clear path was established & certifications obtained.

    You're talking about the 737 MAX, which has been grounded. Yesterday's aircraft loss in Tehran was a 737 800, an "NG", thousands of which have been flying for the last 20 years without too much scandalous adoo...

    BTW, Airbus are in the business of producing planes to "maximise profit" too you know.


  • Options
    #98
    wandererz
    Registered Users Posts: 2,530 ✭✭✭wandererz


    Fritzbox wrote: »
    You're talking about the 737 MAX, which has been grounded. Yesterday's aircraft loss in Tehran was a 737 800, an "NG", thousands of which have been flying for the last 20 years without too much scandalous adoo...

    BTW, Airbus are in the business of producing planes to "maximise profit" too you know.

    Posts 3 & 4 mentioned the MAX. Of course the Max has been grounded, so it's not possible for the Max to have been involved. It's a moot point so I did not bother responding to that.

    The 800 may have been flying for a considerable period of time but that does not negate lapses in QA being introduced into recently manufactured aircraft. Corporate culture in one part of the organisation can drift down to others.
    Fritzbox wrote: »
    BTW, Airbus are in the business of producing planes to "maximise profit" too you know.

    Every manufacturer is in the business of maximising profits. The problem occurs when things are intentionally hidden or brushed under the covers as has occurred here.

    If the issues with the Max are now surfacing, what other issues were brushed under the covers with previous models?

    The analogy with NASA was that they tendered for the cheapest parts, cheapest manufacturers, cheapest everything to build a rocket, stick a person on the top of it & hope to hell he survived.

    Well, here we are in the 21st century & almost into 2020 Boeing couldn't even get a rocket to the ISS. They blamed it on an incorrect clock for Petes sake. Where was the QA there?

    The world looking at them and.... pfffft

    BMW got so much flack for engine & component failures over the years. But it didn't result in mass deaths, mainly inconvenience.
    Planes falling out of the sky & hundreds of people losing their lives on a regular basis & within a short time frame though, that's a point for consideration.


  • Options
    #99
    Kevski
    Registered Users Posts: 937 ✭✭✭Kevski


    wandererz wrote: »
    Posts 3 & 4 mentioned the MAX. Of course the Max has been grounded, so it's not possible for the Max to have been involved. It's a moot point so I did not bother responding to that.

    The 800 may have been flying for a considerable period of time but that does not negate lapses in QA being introduced into recently manufactured aircraft. Corporate culture in one part of the organisation can drift down to others.



    Every manufacturer is in the business of maximising profits. The problem occurs when things are intentionally hidden or brushed under the covers as has occurred here.

    If the issues with the Max are now surfacing, what other issues were brushed under the covers with previous models?

    The analogy with NASA was that they tendered for the cheapest parts, cheapest manufacturers, cheapest everything to build a rocket, stick a person on the top of it & hope to hell he survived.

    Well, here we are in the 21st century & almost into 2020 Boeing couldn't even get a rocket to the ISS. They blamed it on an incorrect clock for Petes sake. Where was the QA there?

    The world looking at them and.... pfffft

    This thread is about the UIA flight that crashed. You claim that you’re not Boeing bashing yet here you are complaining about 737 MAX and Boeing not sending rockets to ISS...


  • Options
    #100
    josip
    Registered Users Posts: 13,668 ✭✭✭✭josip


    The wording of Daily Mail articles usually leaves something to be desired, but they always have a very good gallery of photos which can be interpreted independently of the text.


  • Options
    #101
    wandererz
    Registered Users Posts: 2,530 ✭✭✭wandererz


    Kevski wrote: »
    This thread is about the UIA flight that crashed. You claim that you’re not Boeing bashing yet here you are complaining about 737 MAX and Boeing not sending rockets to ISS...

    I was the one who started this thread about the flight that crashed.
    I was not Boeing bashing but perhaps I am. Considering what's come to light about their corporate culture, it's easy to see it as Boeing bashing.

    It's about safety & transparency.
    That rocket was designed to carry human beings. It failed to get from A to B.

    It's the same organisation. Granted that they are different divisions, but corporate culture permeates. Mistakes & cover ups gravitate across divisions of the same organisation.

    People learn what works & how to bypass the system & pretty soon it becomes normality. Until people start dying.

    Passengers mostly don't have a clue what aircraft type or manufacturer they are flying with. Their only thought is to get to their destinations & in between have a lousy (or great) meal and /or drink.

    However, when aircraft manufacturers are exposed for the methods employed at passengers expense & disregard then things start to get noticed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Kevski
    Registered Users Posts: 937 ✭✭✭Kevski


    wandererz wrote: »
    I was the one who started this thread about the flight that crashed.
    I was not Boeing bashing but perhaps I am. Considering what's come to light about their corporate culture, it's easy to see it as Boeing bashing.

    It's about safety & transparency.
    That rocket was designed to carry human beings. It failed to get from A to B.

    It's the same organisation. Granted that they are different divisions, but corporate culture permeates. Mistakes & cover ups gravitate across divisions of the same organisation.

    People learn what works & how to bypass the system & pretty soon it becomes normality. Until people start dying.

    Correct me if I’m wrong but are you saying that the UIA flight crashed due to Boeing’s corporate culture and people within the organisation bypassing the system? If so, is there even a single grain of evidence to back up that claim?


  • Options
    #103
    California Dreamer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,517 ✭✭✭California Dreamer


    Wanderez, It’s a good thing that the NTSB, Boeing, his holiness the pope, Allah, Bono, Waldo and the tooth fairy have you on board to point fingers, lay blame and ultimately pass judgement on this crash. 🙄🙄🙄


  • Options
    #104
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    MH17 was still burning when the news it was shot down was released. The Americans would of been very quick to tell the world it was shot down. Themselves and many others would of known very soon if it was.

    A ruptured engine could easily of blown fragments into the aircraft piercing the skin. Seems strange a missile exploding next to the plane an only a engine catches fire.

    Does UIA receive inflight service messages? The Ukrainians were quick off the mark with engine failure, can't see why they would be covering for Iran especially with their Russian connections.


  • Options
    #105
    fritzelly
    Registered Users Posts: 17,307 ✭✭✭✭fritzelly


    wandererz wrote: »
    I was the one who started this thread about the flight that crashed.


    I thought this wasnt the conspiracy thread?


  • Options
    #106
    wandererz
    Registered Users Posts: 2,530 ✭✭✭wandererz


    Kevski wrote: »
    Correct me if I’m wrong but are you saying that the UIA flight crashed due to Boeing’s corporate culture and people within the organisation bypassing the system? If so, is there even a single grain of evidence to back up that claim?

    Yes, you are wrong.

    I'm saying that considering everything that's come to light out of the Max saga, confidence has been reduced.
    As has happened with other companies in the past they adopted a deniability model until questioned & proved wrong.

    I am saying that I don't believe that one passenger aircraft division of the same company is different from another in its culture, methodology and day to day operations.
    They are not islands unto themselves, otherwise they would not be able to pass technical research onto each other.

    The only thing that will dictate why the UIA flight crashed will be the ultimate investigative report.


  • Options
    #107
    fritzelly
    Registered Users Posts: 17,307 ✭✭✭✭fritzelly


    wandererz wrote: »
    The only thing that will dictate why the UIA flight crashed will be the ultimate investigative report.

    So instead of throwing unsubstantiated claims out there then why not follow your own advice and wait for the official report


  • Options
    #108
    Fritzbox
    Registered Users Posts: 489 ✭✭Fritzbox


    wandererz wrote: »
    The only thing that will dictate why the UIA flight crashed will be the ultimate investigative report.

    Well indeed, why not wait until the report is released - and desist from propagandizing and Boeing bashing in the meantime?


  • Options
    #109
    wandererz
    Registered Users Posts: 2,530 ✭✭✭wandererz


    California Dreamer wrote: »
    Wanderez, It’s a good thing that the NTSB, Boeing, his holiness the pope, Allah, Bono, Waldo and the tooth fairy have you on board to point fingers, lay blame and ultimately pass judgement on this crash. ������

    I'm not passing judgement.
    The original post was based on reports that it was mechanical failure. I base what I say on that rather than conspiracies or heresay.

    Now, look at it this way:
    Someone will come along saying that it was blown up by a missile so could not function as a cause of "mechanical failure". So let's blame Boeing.

    Words & intent can always be manipulated.


  • Options
    #110
    wandererz
    Registered Users Posts: 2,530 ✭✭✭wandererz


    Fritzbox wrote: »
    Well indeed, why not wait until the report is released - and desist from propagandizing and Boeing bashing in the meantime?

    OK. No problem.

    Is everyone else on this thread going to do similar?


  • Options
    #111
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,853 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    wandererz wrote: »
    I'm not passing judgement.
    The original post was based on reports that it was mechanical failure.

    At the time you posted this thread, there was absolutely and utterly nothing at all suggesting mechanical failure on the link you posted considering it was minutes after it happened.

    You decided to blame Boeing yourself.

    In fact, the article as it existed at that time implied it was a bomb. Because its the Daily Mail and hence hysterical.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Kevski
    Registered Users Posts: 937 ✭✭✭Kevski


    wandererz wrote: »
    Yes, you are wrong.

    I'm saying that considering everything that's come to light out of the Max saga, confidence has been reduced.
    As has happened with other companies in the past they adopted a deniability model until questioned & proved wrong.

    I am saying that I don't believe that one passenger aircraft division of the same company is different from another in its culture, methodology and day to day operations.
    They are not islands unto themselves, otherwise they would not be able to pass technical research onto each other.

    The only thing that will dictate why the UIA flight crashed will be the ultimate investigative report.

    I don’t get why the 737 MAX issues would reduce confidence in the 737 NG. The 737 NG has been flying for over 20 years with over 7,000 aircraft being built and there have been very few accidents. It’s proven itself to be exceptionally safe so I can’t see the need to go on about the 737 MAX issues in relation to an incident that it wasn’t involved in.


  • Options
    #113
    wandererz
    Registered Users Posts: 2,530 ✭✭✭wandererz


    L1011 wrote: »
    At the time you posted this thread, there was absolutely and utterly nothing at all suggesting mechanical failure on the link you posted considering it was minutes after it happened.

    You decided to blame Boeing yourself.

    There were multiple reports across different news agencies. I selected one rather than everything I read. I left it to people to go & research for themselves.


  • Options
    #114
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,853 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    wandererz wrote: »
    There were multiple reports across different news agencies. I selected one rather than everything I read. I left it to people to go & research for themselves.

    You selected the one that implied it was a bomb?

    When now trying to claim that there were already reports, minutes after the incident, saying it was mechanical issues? That you randomly decided not to link to, instead linking to a thoroughly disreputable source contradicting your own viewpoint? In the belief that it would encourage people to "research for themselves"?

    This story doesn't wash at all.


  • Options
    #115
    wandererz
    Registered Users Posts: 2,530 ✭✭✭wandererz


    L1011 wrote: »
    You selected the one that implied it was a bomb?

    When now trying to claim that there were already reports, minutes after the incident, saying it was mechanical issues?

    This story doesn't wash at all.

    No, I selected one that mentioned that it was mechanical failure.

    As time progressed, the article has been updated & is NOT the original word for word article I linked.


  • Options
    #116
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,853 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    wandererz wrote: »
    No, I selected one that mentioned that it was mechanical failure.

    As time progressed, the article has been updated & is NOT the original word for word article I linked.

    Except it didn't. I have linked to the state of the article at the time you linked to it, thanks to the wonders of an archiving site that has 24 different captures of it today alone.

    I checked before I pointed out that you were bluffing.

    Nobody was saying it was a mechanical failure then because it was incredibly soon after it happened and there was no info.


  • Options
    #117
    wandererz
    Registered Users Posts: 2,530 ✭✭✭wandererz


    L1011 wrote: »
    Except it didn't. I have linked to the state of the article at the time you linked to it, thanks to the wonders of an archiving site that has 24 different captures of it today alone.

    I checked before I pointed out that you were bluffing.

    Nobody was saying it was a mechanical failure then because it was incredibly soon after it happened and there was no info.

    "BNO Media reported the incident on Tuesday night and said Iranian media reported the plane suffered technical problems then went down minutes after take-off in Tehran"

    Did you miss that bit?


  • Options
    #118
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,853 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    wandererz wrote: »
    "BNO Media reported the incident on Tuesday night and said Iranian media reported the plane suffered technical problems then went down minutes after take-off in Tehran" .

    And then implied it was a bomb. No actual reportage.

    You also need to learn that the Daily Mail is basically considered to be the last place you go for aviation content.


  • Options
    #119
    wandererz
    Registered Users Posts: 2,530 ✭✭✭wandererz


    L1011 wrote: »
    And then implied it was a bomb. No actual reportage.

    1+1 = 7
    L1011 wrote: »
    You also need to learn that the Daily Mail is basically considered to be the last place you go for aviation content.

    Almost nobody on this thread is quoting aviation content. It has digressed into a bashing thread.

    At the point in time, it was the best link available that also mentioned Ruhani's Lockerbie thinly veiled threat.

    I did not mention that but kept to what was reported regarding the aircraft mechanics.


  • Options
    #120
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,853 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    wandererz wrote: »
    1+1 = 7

    Says the poster outright blaming Boeing on basically nothing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    PukkaStukka
    Registered Users Posts: 2,157 ✭✭✭PukkaStukka


    wandererz wrote: »
    No. Approximately 522 people have lost their lives in 14 months in 3 events.

    A baseless conflation of yesterday's events with MAX issues and hardly one to base an arbitrary damnation of the 738 which otherwise has a strong proven safety record.
    wandererz wrote: »
    Added to that, there are now issues surfacing about wiring on the Max series.

    It seems to be a corporate culture of expediency, covering things up & forgetting about crew & passengers in order to maximise profit.

    It's taken them this long to stop manufacture of the Max series. It should have happened months ago until a clear path was established & certifications obtained.
    Again, making assumptions that the matters surrounding the MAX are relevent in yesterday's events does not stand up to scrutiny. Should we await your assertion that a production line mistake led to the inadvertent installation of MCAS on yesterday's aircraft??
    wandererz wrote: »
    That being said, it reduces confidence in the 737-800's & other models recently manufactured.
    No it doesn't. All this statement does is add credence to the view expressed that you're on a Boeing bash.


Advertisement