Thoughts on the Boeing tragedies. technically.

I prefer a clear understanding , rather than guessing at what someone means .

That's me .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

lol

your layers of provisoes annoy me lol (that is my issue)your lack of understanding is not my guess(that is your issue)...but as simple as you wish to make things...

socialism is not just an economic system, it is a moral principal that binds builds and maintains community's which make up the greater whole of nations.

those who undermine socialism by enforcing capitalism kill the core fabric that holds community's together as a cultural core upon which is the only possible base for a true mixed market economy.

imagine a farmer saying "rain will be the death of our business"
it is a joke
socio-ecconomic politics tends to have the larger quantity of lies believed without question.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Socialism , is about those in power dictating to the masses what they will do and say .

Where did this morality of socialism being superior to capitalism come from ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

lol

being simple and clear and direct ?
no
hedging to try and not put forward an opinion.
only to be able to project at negating an opinion.
personality ?

anywho ...

what is a non supposed democracy ?
...
you think i didnt know what you meant when i decided to ask you

answer = "supposed box tick" "im waiting to undermine my emotional bias that i have just layered"...
lol
we all have our issues
there for the grace of god go et-all

 

So you think that socialism is better than capitalism ?

I Disagree .

 

you have missed my point and seem to have missed the nature of the concept

your desire to assert your opposition to a single word by asserting a narrative around it is very un scientific.

i am talking political science and you are talking political religion

i shall leave it there.

 

Political science fine , but don't give me this higher than though BS . Because of your education .

I find at times these people get stuck in their " education " , therefore lack the ability , to really think .

 

why do they not get a small board of astronauts to run it from the CEO position ?
more degrees than a compass, ridiculously smart, adaptable good with pressure.

 

I don't know of course , but a great idea .

 

No.

Socialism holds the tenet that economy should be owned and regulated by the community.

Capitalism, by contrast, holds the tenet that the economy should be owned and regulated by those individuals that have the money to buy and sell.

 

Disagree

The community is regulated by a higher government in Socialist countries . A dictator comes about . Which dictates the economy .

 

The BEST political system , takes the best of both philosophies , then combines them .

 

well you two, the question in the Op being about the technical airflow problem of one particular plane, model, the so-called "socialist" regimes had yet to show the kind of excellence that emerged in the "west" on air safety. They of course worked with the handicap of the disruptions they suffered in the war years.
Interesting that in a government managed endeavour, spaceflight, the US is now allowing itself the luxury to fund competing builders.
Boeing being one of the runners. Again, with their crew capsule Starliner work being stymied by their computer control system error. (safe landing though)
May be Boeing should stick to "cutting bending the metal"? get help from the other Seattle giant, Starbucks, no, I mean Bill Gates.

 

No. The government is the community.

No dictator here.

You can make up any story you want, doesn't make it true.

 

some airline company just ordered airbuss instead of boeing
100 of them
now all the passengers realise the new flash air-buss that doesn't have a "we mostly dont crash" rating & has a "we dont crash" rating.
the Global depression that has now wiped out a lot of peoples ability to afford an air ticket...
the shift away from poisoning the planet as a pass time by flying in planes everywhere...

if i was paying 30 million per year to a CEO
i would expect these questions should have been answered around 2 years ago
or they would have been out of a job around 1.5 years ago.
and the board would probably be asked to all re-apply for their jobs

meanwhile i would be making friends with astronauts, wining & dining them to see who wanted to join a management board.

old world corporate dogma trying to cope with modern technology & the modern world
doesn't really work
sales & advertising PR advisers don't solve such problems either.

how much do NFL cheerleaders get paid ?
why pay someone in a suit millions per year to be a cheer leader of corporate advertising & promotion statements designed by sales & marketing people ?

its like the management are all climate change deniers controlling the scientists doing the work
maybe that is part of the problem

 

Boeing going down to fast, twice, Airbus to slow, at least twice.
The video of the recent Karachi crash has an eerie similarity to the 1988 Paris "fly-in" into the woods.
Nose too high, too slow. Computer issues in all 4 cases?
Amazing that there was no spin.

 

↑

From DaveC426913 ; from his post#94

Explain what you mean .

 

You wonder how many commercial Aircraft can be flown without electronic technology .

 

Not eerie.

"Nose too high, too slow." That is a stall condition.

Aside from catastrophic loss of critical parts of the plane, there aren't a lot of ways left for a plane to crash on take off except for a stall.

In other words, if a crashing plane is not literally missing parts, then the cause is gonna be due to stall.

The things that can precipitate a stall condition, on the other hand, are myriad, but you can't tell which except by forensic analysis.



Also, in 1988, planes didn't have pilot override computer-control.

 

In 1988, the pilot tried to show a slow flyby, and the computer interpreted it as an attempt to land, and flew the airbus into the woods.
Often a pilot not being able to reach the landing side will try to stretch the glide by holding the nose up, which will not work, and then plunk or spin in. I have seen it.
the benefit is slow speed at touch down.if you are not too high, that is perhaps why some survived in Karachi.
The parallel:
both Boeing and Airbus tragedies involved low airspeed, perceived or real angle of attack at some point.