Litespeed

Thankyou, that is appreciated. I never want to make those with greater qualifications or any, think I am deriding their knowledge or experience. I am just looking at it from a I treated bystander perspective. What I see I do not like. I agree cracks happen but this is a still major safety issue. Given the number of effected airframes with even low hours been detected, my argument stands. All should be grounded for inspection regardless of hours. They claim only a half day to inspect- so just do it. No crack- no problem, check again in 500 cycles. To wait till it is a Boeing mandated cycle number is asking for trouble and a number derived at by profit not safety. It is not my intent to flame every aircraft with a crack. But when the manufacturer has a big reputation for been dodgy, non compliance and fraudulent paperwork, fake parts etc. The concern is warranted. Yes, parts can be repaired, but I still contend the special nature if the part, its shape and the placement of the cracked fastener make a proper repair difficult. It is not a flat simple surface.

We need to see the criminal negligence in all of this. Forgetting the dead and talking purely poor corporate practice allows the culpable to get off. They get paid huge sums and know the decisions they make can kill. They knew of the potential for a safety after profit culture could lead to failure. They actively sought as a management group and some engineers to ignore the required best practice, choose to hide the functions of MCAS from pilots, airlines and regulators to ensure pilot training and fundamental safety were ignored for profit. A perfect example is the indicator light for MCAS activation was a high cost option. They charged something like $50,000 just to tell the pilot it was on. This demonstrates clearly they have chosen to not just downgrade safety but monetised it. This goes far beyond mere negligence and even criminal negligence. At the least it is negligent manslaughter for those complicit. I would in American parlance think it is really negligent homicide with hundreds of counts. Mass negligent homicide as the participants illegally conspired and this was a potential outcome. For Boeing as a entity just like in human terms it is guilty and must be treated as such. The ability of a society to sanction humans or corporates is fundamental. We can not blame the workers in general of Boeing and to dissolve the company would be unjust punishment on those not actively involved, and the broader local economies etc. But the need for punishment and deterrence is the same. You can not really jail a corporate entity but you can take control and ownership of its shares, management etc. The state becomes the owner and the victims families get a share. The shareholders have gambled on a company that lost betting against peoples lives. Deterence must penalise them. Lots of people have died because a group at Boeing were involved in a criminal conspiracy that lead to the foreseeable death of hundreds of people. Long jail sentences are required and a suitably punitive approach to the company.

I never ever claimed to be a Lame or anything. Never would but that does not discount my opinion nor my concerns. I do however have a science background and two eyeballs. How can the part be repaired to its pre cracked strength and also be sure it will not crack again? The fundamental answer is ....it can't without replacing the part with one that is new and proven to specs. It is not a skin or even a spar- they can be repaired in some cases. The pickle fork shown and many hundred others have been shown to not be up to the task they were designed and installed for. It is 1 major load point of only 4 in the lower part of the fork. No simple drill stop technique and a patch with new fastener will work. It is a substantial monolithic part. It is no simple bracket. For those that know more, please demonstrate.

I suggested if it is cracked, it needs replacement. If it is not cracked, it needs very regular inspection. The normal repair method does not suit the part at all. It is not a skin crack in one of thousand s if rivets. It is one of four. Its design does not allow for a patch. If that seems unfair or not normal practice, I suggest a crash course in physics is needed. Would any seriously use a aircraft that had 25% failure of your spar/ landing gear connection to the airframe on one lower side? Would you accept the word of your builder? After they are caught lying about their next model? Would you accept their cheap fix assurances? When the complexity of the parts indicate that as not a standard fix? Some will say, but that's normal practice or be reasonable. They need to take off their pilot hat or vested interests. The public needs to be safe and insular " we know best " thinking is why we are in this Boeing mess.

A comment on the crack.... That component shown only has four fasteners in that area to take the loads. 1 of 4 are cracked. It is not just, drill a crack stop hole and replace the fastener repair. The crack is 25% of the load ability of that area. This has failed in less than 30% of life cycle. That is a inherent failure of the part in poss 5% of the aircraft at this few cycles. How many will fail by 90000? A very large number could be expected. I agree it is very worrying this was not detected in normal inspections. Boeing must be spewing they did not have more paint spilled around, it would have covered the crack. Could we really expect a repair to resolve this, I think that is very wishful thinking. Total replacement with new pickle forks that are fully tested and actually built to certification not bodge parts are needed. No new pickle- then they can get forked.

It could be said current Qantas safety is more a matter of the legacy of the engineers that still get to work on them, most servicing is done elsewhere. Another factor is the relatively high pilot standard, go to jetstar and the pilots pay and experience tends to drop. Also the fleet in quite young and works in a high regulated environment. Modern jets are far safer per mile than older ones. If a airline running modern gear is not far safer than its older fleet brethren, the something is very wrong. Qantas is not immune from a crash, lots of near misses. A combination of luck, our relatively empty skies, long air times per cycle and few big airports all help. The fact they closed the airline to force in increased profits but slam any safety talk by engineers, speaks volumes for their culture. For some, Qantas could choose paper airplanes and still would refuse to see it as anything but the safest. The exact culture that has driven Boeing is alive and well in Qantas at all levels. Profit at any cost.

Its all well and fine to day the Boeing engineers are great and know what they are doing. But they are not in control, the bosses are. They have been proved untrustworthy with actions of over 15 years of fraud and building non compliant aircraft. Even today Boeing is betting on hiding stuff will still get them through. Qantas has form for safety last, profit first. You can bet the US would be much harder on a Airbus in this situation. They would say it is not certified and not flying. The Ng was never legally certified due to massive fraud that was swept under the carpet. What else is the design hiding? On a strict legal case the 737 ng would be permanently grounded as it never met certification. All ng production had fraudulent paperwork and non compliant parts fitted- major safety items. But no way will USA act on that.

Yes, the poor pilots are responsible if they do not follow their training. The other crew stuffed up not telling about the issue and also how they dealt with it. But that crew even though they became overwhelmed after a long fight for control did not make a cascade of fundamental errors. The cascade was already in place from the moment it left the factory and they self certified. Unfortunately this crew was not perfect on the day. If it takes a perfect crew to fly it and not die when fundamental baked in flaws start cascading, it aint safe for anything but a lawnbench. The Ethiopian pilots never really had a chance even on a perfect day. We are yet to see that investigation. We can jump up an down about substandard safety in other countries and training standards but that is Boeings target, they didn't even train them or tell them about MCAS because that's what Boeing wanted. It ain't a witch hunt when wee can see a smoking gun in Boeings hand.

If anything the sensor is just the tip of the Iceberg. Using a single sensor setup and no visual indicator of failure causing the MCA's to activate is negligent. The indicator light was a high cost option to indicate a problem with the system. That a light was considered a need then changed to a expensive option speaks volumes for profit over any safety expense . How many pilots were fully informed and trained to deal with the changes of a Max 8- answer is simply none. Even the test pilots were kept out of the loop in development. The mcas information is a few lines that do nothing to illuminate the pilot out of a 1600 page manual. They even wanted that kept out of the manual as it would indicate a need to train. The whole max 8 project was a exercise in getting big profits and purposely disregarding safety and legal certification. They are criminally negligent, and must be treated to the full extent of the law. That's at least manslaughter times 350? . This was a easily foreseeable result of their actions on a corporate and also individual level. Dependant on the law of the land prosecuted in, it should be the USA. It could easily be murder second degree- actions that a reasonable person would consider lead to ones death. The company deserves to have its liberty taken away as well. Shareholders must also be held accountable by losing their shares. They have gambled in the market and hitched their shares to a criminal enterprise. Live by the corporate sword, die by the corporate sword. The poor families of the dead should be given ownership of Boeing. Imagine how that would change corporate culture.

When the first Max 8 went down, I checked on the 737 ng and made the bold claim they were also a safety problem waiting to fail.( on HBA forum) I was shouted down as anti american and biased. The Neo was never ever legally certified, as fraud on parts was endemic also paperwork. Under strict law the neo should be grounded pernamently and chopped up. The same with the max 8. Never happen

I reckon their pickle problem will leave them forked.

Keep the religion, makes it interesting and politics are religion are always bad bedfellows. And the public get screwed. To remove the ability to discuss the unholy alliance is a disservice to any hangar bar talk. It is also fun, sticking it to the sky fairy believers.

It is easy to think your worth that much money, when your a narcicist or sociopathic. Both tend to be part of modern CEO thinking.

Things that Qantas embody. Makes safety a marketing issue. Export all maintenance and safety to other countries. But the cheapest possible aircraft version, fly with the cheapest possible crew. Claim Aussie battler status. Get great deals on tax and rarely pay any. Create divisions to offshore responsibility and costs. Pay the biggest airline CEO wage in world whilst screwing staff and ripping flyers. Cry poor at every opportunity. Claim any issue about safety just scaremongering. Sound familiar?

Things that Qantas embody. Makes safety a marketing issue. Export all maintenance and safety to other countries. But the cheapest possible aircraft version, fly with the cheapest possible crew. Claim Aussie battler status. Get great deals on tax and rarely pay any. Create divisions to offshore responsibility and costs. Pay the biggest airline CEO wage in world whilst screwing staff and ripping flyers. Cry poor at every opportunity. Claim any issue about safety just scaremongering. Sound familiar? You can bet, they have claimed any need to ground planes for inspection and repair would be to disadvantage them financially. They probably even claim a cracked Qantas is safer than another aircraft without cracks, because Qantas is always safe. They should be grounded. 33 of 76 aircraft are the be inspected over months. Yet they already have 3 found to be cracked. 3 of how many checked? 3 maybe? I really doubt only 3 in the fleet are effected. On the fact 3 have failed well before 1/3 of lifespan would indicate a very high failure rate by 90,000. Cycles. You can bet they have not fully inspected all 33 in the first batch. Of note is Qantas has claimed the pickle fork is not a flight item and carry no flight loads? Bullshite, they would not have it just for parking loads. Or do they think it is a tow hook? How about a new test rig, use the cracked pickle. Seat all Qantas board and their family on fork. Test repeated cycles to 90,000 over a mine shaft. Would they think that is fine? Casa should get some balls and do their job. The job is not making airlines money.

They should be grounded, no exception. If it cracks at a third of life cycle something is seriously wrong. Bugger Boeing and shareholders this is a critical safety issue. If you think otherwise- let me come over and makes some cracks in your spar. That should be fine.

You can throw the seat out of the window if you like. Don't think it helps though.

Welcome back mate. Good to hear your are getting better. Take your time, enjoy life and do what you want. Forget the turkeys. Fly like a eagle. Cheers

It is a standard operating procedure when testing to keep it dirty, ie gear down for the first flights. Just in case the gear system fails. All very normal. Gear problems on new machines are common, so they make sure all other systems work as expected. Then next flight they test the gear.

Don't give the buggers ideas

Don't forget a lot of four seaters are marginal with four on board. Add full fuel and your over the limit for weight. A Cherokee 140 should be avoided for anything but two up. They are gutless at best. .I would only consider one for flying flat areas in cool weather. And only if basically free, they are often abused, overworked and costs are huge for the performance. Climb is more feet per hour than minute. Just Don't. Unless you absolutely need four seats all the time, do yourself a big favour and hire when taking family. Rarely will you need the seats.

Looks a much better version. Like the 50 HP.

With a hybrid drive running a powerful small two stroke with big brushless generator, gives range the batteries can't alone. You could drink a lot if tinnies before needing a refill. So best add flying esky mods.

I am with the cheers fellas brigade, have a bow. They have proven the ability to make a man carrying drone. Others have tried few are actually successful. Yes, it might seem a tad risky but all big steps in technology often are. CASA should celebrate local innovation and make a small class to suit such things.

Ouch, My old Alfas rang sodium exhaust valves, never ever heard of them having a issue. The price could be worse. My mate who builds Old school BMW M5 engines they are $ 400 each and you need 12, so $4800 just for exhaust side. And they are only going to get dearer.