Comments by "afcgeo" (@afcgeo882) on "CBS Evening News" channel.

  1. Maddiee K well... it does and it doesn’t. The engine is not made by Boeing, but it is unique to the MAX.
    4
  2. And a lawyer!
    4
  3. Planes are so complex, it’s impossible for the FAA to check every system for every scenario. Simply impossible. That has to be on the manufacturer. You don’t see any agency checking cars, and they’re a lot simpler and a lot deadlier.
    3
  4. Christopher o neal don’t be stupid like most commenters. Do you know how many 787s are flying each day and without any incidents?
    2
  5. @ShyToad nothing is random about an engine overheating. They’re designed not to, correct? It’s not a FOD ingestion.
    2
  6. Armando Sturzenegger how many SSJ-100s are still flying at Interjet out of how many they own? Hint: only 4 out of 22 are operational due to parts shortage and engine problems.
    2
  7. Octane sort of, but sort of not. It’s both, actually. Engines being mounted so far forward compared to the NG or Classic required different software for flight surface controls. However, this system wasn’t properly developed, integrated or trained on. It relies on a single external sensor to be triggered. A sensor proven to fail rather often (Airbus’ system uses 3 sensors) and it takes over 5 times from the pilot. Excessive. It’s a complex issue, like most air crashes.
    2
  8. Sisco Saber well, first off, for designing the MCAS system as persistent as it is, simply so they can stick the engines they wanted onto the plane. Second, for not training operators on the MCAS system they installed. In fact, some operators weren’t even told about it.
    2
  9. They know how to handle the situation... They’re trained to land with both engines out.
    2
  10. ....Said Rolls-Royce?
    2
  11. Eroisha Crasto airplane crashes are very precedented, my dear. They happen every year. Considering that there are less than 10 major aircraft manufacturers, with most planes being either Boeing, Airbus or Cessna, they do involve the three quite often.
    2
  12. Christopher o neal lol You booked yourself from one safe Boeing onto another safe Boeing. SMH Have a great flight!
    1
  13. Makes sense. You’re a white nationalist.
    1
  14. So Trump is right... we’re number 1!
    1
  15. William Stephens the 737? LOL Yeah, okay. HAHAHA!!!
    1
  16. Joe pechie well... not entirely accurate. Their design is safe, if operated correctly. When operated like a MAX, it’s been flown safely for hundreds or thousands of hours. However, when NG pilots fly it like an NG in emergency situations, they end up crashing. Training is the culprit. not the design. Or rather lack thereof.
    1
  17. Jonathan Martin they were not the last. Most countries in the world never even released any bans. The EU, Canada, UK and a few Asian countries did, but that’s all. The world is MUCH bigger than that.
    1
  18. There are no faulty parts.
    1
  19. Tran Vo nothing is mounted “high up”, you idiot. The engines are mounted at the same height, but forward of the leading edge because they are larger than the NG engines, which could be mounted completely under the wing due to a flattened bottom edge. The Leap 1 is too big for that and had to be moved forward for ground clearance.
    1
  20.  @tranvo1846  I never even talked about plane engines and the people who designed the software and the engineers may have absolutely nothing to do with those people's deaths. Right now, it's looking like Boeing played only a small part in this. That's evidence-based though, not simple rants like the ones coming from you. By the way, I am a former AIr Force aircraft maintainer on C-141s and C-17s, so I know a little bit about it. I'm also certified in aerospace education. What about you? What's your background?
    1
  21. jay storm you can’t net the same when your arena holds 1/15th the fans, can you?
    1
  22. Eroisha Crasto that’s not what I said. The NHTSA regulates automobile safety, but they don’t do it by inspecting cars. They do it simply by legislation and mandates of recalls.
    1
  23. Cedric John Llorente it’s actually more complex than the 747.
    1
  24. Cedric John Llorente I think you’re under the impression that the FAA just sits there and reads schematics for 4.5 years. Not even close to how that works. It’s Boeing that kept updating and changing their systems and putting together paperwork. Planes aren’t something an inspector can just physically comb through and who can possibly predict everything? Especially in this case, where the plane is perfectly fine, the FAA can’t certify Boeing’s training programs and marketing techniques.
    1
  25. Cedric John Llorente WRONG! The airlines do not inspect anything for air worthiness. They don’t have the money or time to do that. Even foreign aviation regulatory agencies rubber stamp everything. The EASA approved it, the Canadians approved it, China approved it and the UAE approved it. The aircraft are put into service upon delivery. Stop commenting when you don’t know anything on the subject. You’re only spreading lies.
    1
  26. Actually, those plans add state police and detectives to patrol.
    1
  27. Cops are always the ones that don’t follow laws and direction, and the first ones that require others to follow their laws and directions.
    1
  28. A 737 Captain has a channel on here and explains the difference between the MAX and all previous versions well. Basically, when you throttle up a 737, the immediate response is the nose pitches up. This is increased on the MAX because the engines are so far in front of leading edges. The MCAS is supposed to trim it automatically, but on previous versions there was no need to. If you don’t know about it, you would push the stick down as you throttle up.
    1
  29. Geto Dacul Why? Airbus has the exact same issues.
    1
  30. MEIERSEGGSTRAßE RESEARCH INSTITUTE they’re not grounded for being faulty. They are grounded out of caution, while investigations proceed.
    1
  31. Qpilled Anon Rehabilitated What rights are those? lol
    1
  32. Ruzzian bot
    1
  33. That doesn’t mean he’s not telling the truth, does it? I’m really not concerned with his employment status. I’m concerned with the subject matter of his statements.
    1
  34. XPLAlN it does not. It makes it questionable, not unreliable, but only if no other similar testimonies were made by others, which were. Don’t quit your day job, thinking you’re a judge.
    1
  35. lee x Sure, but this isn’t LinkedIn. We’re not looking to employ him.
    1
  36. Liquid Luigi do you always comment without reading first?
    1
  37. kaizersolze They are the leaders. It doesn’t say they’re perfect. It’s not even possible to certify everything against anything.
    1
  38. kaizersolze Did YOU read? NOTHING happened during the development of the DC-10. What happened was a bad design of a cargo door by McDonnell-Douglas led to two major accidents in 1972, including the deadliest aviation crash at that time. The FAA failed to act forcefully to demand a change in design, while McDonnell-Douglas decided it was safe. The FAA ended up grounding all DC-10s pending a fix. Reviews if certification and the Ontario and Paris crashes were done. Airworthiness Directives were created. The DC-10 was actually grounded after the Chicago crash, which was found to be caused by faulty maintenance and not poor design. The DC-10 went on to get fixed and ended up with a pretty good safety record, overall. I’ve flown as a passenger on them (Continental) and was a maintainer on them in the Air Force. Cheers!!
    1