Boeing 737-Max. Another one down.

[firth1974 2,659]

3 hours ago, midlifecrisis said:

 

In large part I blame the sirline company and the pilot. The pilot has the final say if it is safe to fly. In the latest incident and in 1988, airline companies seemed to put profit over the safety of their passengers and crew. 

 

Are you sure about this?

i still haven’t seen or heard any evidence that UIA, or any other airline, were informed beforehand that ballistic missiles had already been fired at Iraq! If they haven’t been informed, then no reason to suspend flights. People seem to keep quoting the FAA warning US airlines not to fly in that area over that particular moment in time. Did they know something the rest of the world didn’t know? If so, why didn’t they relay any kind of message to other airlines, as quite a few European operators were already to and from Tehran at that moment in time!

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

40 minutes ago, firth1974 said:

Are you sure about this?

i still haven’t seen or heard any evidence that UIA, or any other airline, were informed beforehand that ballistic missiles had already been fired at Iraq! If they haven’t been informed, then no reason to suspend flights. People seem to keep quoting the FAA warning US airlines not to fly in that area over that particular moment in time. Did they know something the rest of the world didn’t know? If so, why didn’t they relay any kind of message to other airlines, as quite a few European operators were already to and from Tehran at that moment in time!

The USA was warned in advance by the Swiss. The Iraqis were warned. Western Nations knew. This was not a surprise attack. 

There is a long list of downed civilian flights going back to the 1930s. 

So, why did they fly? According to Forbes, the airline was already on the verge of bankruptcy.

"The deadly incident is the first in the Ukrainian airline’s 27-year history, and comes as the company hovers on the verge of bankruptcy. UIA reported net losses of $100 million in 2018, a whopping 800% increase on 2017, and spent last year implementing a new strategy and cutting costs to stay afloat."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/katyagorchinskaya/2020/01/15/can-ukraine-international-airlines-survive-irans-fatal-plane-downing/#329061211722

 

Edited January 17, 2020 by midlifecrisis

[awesum4 2,333]

11 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

 

Before I get into the nitty-gritty, it's important to note the downing of  Iran Air 655 in July , 1988,   came in the wake of the Stark incident.  About a year earlier,  in May, 1987, the USS Stark had been attacked in neutral waters by a Iraqi jet that mistook it for an Iranian oil tanker.  Two missiles hit the Stark,  killing 37 sailors and wounding 21.  This caused huge public outrage in the U.S. and prompted some major policy changes within in the U.S. government and Navy.  A court of inquiry recommended the court martial of the Stark's captain and chief executive officer, both career Navy men, for failing to defend their ship.  The top Navy brass chose not to court martial them, but they were reprimanded and forced to resign.  

The two officers had been accused of delaying defensive action too long as they attempted to determine if the plane was military and had hostile intentions.  The Navy sent a clear message to all its captains that defending their ships and the lives of U.S. personnel were their primary duties.   

On the technical side, the radar of the Stark's anti-missile system had failed to pick up the two missiles attacking it.  This exposed weaknesses in the naval radar used to defend many U.S. warships at the time.  

It was against this background the USS Vincennes had been ordered into the Persian Gulf as part of Operation Good Will to protect U.S. vessels that were escorting Kuwati oil tankers during the "Tanker War" phase of the Iran-Iraq War.

This could get complicated and very lengthy.  Some of the  accounts of the incident that appeared in the mainstream media weren't accurate. You can find the best and most complete account here.  The USS Vincennes was one of the first Navy warships to be equipped with the Aegis integrated naval defense and weapons system.  The commander of the Vincennes was thought to be under "secret" orders to test the system as thoroughly as possible under actual combat conditions.  He also had very firm orders to protect the billion-dollar Aegis system as well as the ships which were being escorted.

But to answer your question-  no, he was not reprimanded for his actions in connection with the downing of Iran Air 655.  The official report felt he had ordered the shooting down of Iran Air  655 on the basis of faulty information from his crew.

There was a design flaw in the display function of the Aegis system that had to do with the tracking numbers assigned to aircraft which the system detected.   For a long time investigators were mystified as to how the 18-man crew that manned the Aegis system could have mistaken the Airbus for a military  jet.  For over a decade, the Navy felt the most plausible explanation was a mass psychological factor called "scenario fulfillment."  However,  other information emerged after 2000 that indicated the screens of the Aegis system were confusing and may have displayed the wrong information.  

Basically,  the display led the crew to believe the ascending Iran Air 655 was a descending Iranian military plane much farther away.  There were also mistakes regarding time zones and air speed vs ground speed when identifying Iran Air 655, which had taken off from an airport used for both civilian and military flights.

The U.S. government issued a NOTAM (Notice to Airmen) warning airlines that operated flights that crossed the Persian Gulf.  The need to respond to messages from U.S. military vessels was emphasized. It's crazy the Iranian government allowed a civilian flight to take off when a naval battle was raging directly under its flight path.  It's almost as if they wanted it shot down

At that time, Iran was using human-wave suicide attacks in its land battles with Iraq.  Ten of thousands of "matyrs," mostly civilians,  were used in these attacks.    A version of the "swarm" suicide attack was also tried by groups of Iranian gunboats.  Suicide attacks were a big part of Iran's strategy.  Some observers believed Iran was trying to manipulate the U.S. into attacking a civilian flight as this would put pressure on the U.S. to stop its tanker escort missions. Two hundred ninety "martyrs" is nothing to the Iranian government in this connection.   The Iranians were getting their asses kicked at this point in the Iran-Iraq War and needed either a miracle to turn the tide or an excuse for seeking a cease-fire.  

The shooting down of Flight 655 didn't provide the mullahs with a miracle as the U.S. continued esorting tankers and attacking Revolutionary Guards' unit.  It did give the Iranian government an excuse for a cease-fire.

Evil

Thanks for that extra detail EP.  

It certainly seems stupid to fly civilian and military aircraft from the same airport, especially during a conflict.

[jacko 8,814]

3 hours ago, awesum4 said:

Thanks for that extra detail EP.  

It certainly seems stupid to fly civilian and military aircraft from the same airport, especially during a conflict.

Very common in the 3rd world to share facilities.... pretty common in the Middle East.

But to blame a pilot is the most astoundingly crazy thing I have read. The pressure is on the pilot to fly the plane. Very much moreso if the airline has financial issues. He has 250 people behind him wanting to get somewhere. The 3 instances I can think of it seems very little analysis of the target was made, namely height, climb or descent and direction, or even count the number of engines. I expect behind the scenes there is now some technology being investigated to stop this, barn door principle. It appears these deadly weapons are both designed and being used without this awful possibility being considered. IE, the people shooting them off lack training and see little outside their sphere of kill or be killed!

Even if the aircraft squawked 'I am an airbus A320 going to Manchester' you just know the military would have their weapons doing something similar. 

 

Edited January 17, 2020 by jacko

[nkped 1,208]

On 1/18/2020 at 3:52 AM, jacko said:

Very common in the 3rd world to share facilities.... pretty common in the Middle East.

But to blame a pilot is the most astoundingly crazy thing I have read. The pressure is on the pilot to fly the plane. Very much moreso if the airline has financial issues. He has 250 people behind him wanting to get somewhere. The 3 instances I can think of it seems very little analysis of the target was made, namely height, climb or descent and direction, or even count the number of engines. I expect behind the scenes there is now some technology being investigated to stop this, barn door principle. It appears these deadly weapons are both designed and being used without this awful possibility being considered. IE, the people shooting them off lack training and see little outside their sphere of kill or be killed!

Even if the aircraft squawked 'I am an airbus A320 going to Manchester' you just know the military would have their weapons doing something similar. 

 

It's not unknown to share facilities in the U.S.  One is Honolulu International/Hickam AFB.  A number of Air Reserve or Air National Guard squadrons at civilian airports.

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

12 hours ago, nkped said:

It's not unknown to share facilities in the U.S.  One is Honolulu International/Hickam AFB.  A number of Air Reserve or Air National Guard squadrons at civilian airports.

When I first shipped out after training in late 1969, I took a MAC flight from Travis AFB to Hickam. These were commercial airline companies, under contract, flying military personel and dependents to duty stations. I was headed for Schofield Barracks. Many got on subsequent commercial airlines and headed for Guam, the PI etc.

They call them Space-A now if I recall, for space available. In my day it was a booked flight, orders were cut. I am not sure what they use now.

In Fresno, Ca. Next door to the airport is an air NG unit. The day I flew out of there the NG was sending fighter jets up using FAT runways. Watched them from the waiting area.

"Fresno Yosemite International Airport (IATA: FAT, ICAO: KFAT, FAA LID:FAT), formerly known as Fresno Air Terminal, is a joint civil-military publicairport located in eastern Fresno, in Fresno County, California. It is home to Fresno Air National Guard Base and the 144th Fighter Wing (144 FW) of theCalifornia Air National Guard."

https://flyfresno.com/military-operations-2/

So it is correct about shared facilities. Many other and different examples.

Edited January 20, 2020 by midlifecrisis

[yorta2 693]

21 hours ago, midlifecrisis said:

So it is correct about shared facilities. Many other and different examples.

Thailand too. I have often watched take-offs and landings of fighters of the Royal Thai Air Force, which are stationed right there, opposite the runways at Ubon Ratchathani airport.

[MrMango 671]

1 hour ago, yorta2 said:

Thailand too. I have often watched take-offs and landings of fighters of the Royal Thai Air Force, which are stationed right there, opposite the runways at Ubon Ratchathani airport.

Interesting, you in Ubon? My Thai wife is from close to Ubon and we are building a house there.

[jacko 8,814]

2 hours ago, yorta2 said:

Thailand too. I have often watched take-offs and landings of fighters of the Royal Thai Air Force, which are stationed right there, opposite the runways at Ubon Ratchathani airport.

How about UTP?

[yorta2 693]

Is UTP still a military airfield, or just one used by military on occasion?

[Evil Penevil 7,628]

It's a joint military and civilian airport under the control of the Royal Thai Navy.  It's the home base for the RTN's First Air Wing.

You can find more information here (Link).

Evil   

[yorta2 693]

2 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

It's a joint military and civilian airport under the control of the Royal Thai Navy.  It's the home base for the RTN's First Air Wing.

You can find more information here (Link).

Evil   

Thanks. I wasn't sure. I landed there back in 1967 and 68 a couple of times and now, although obviously still governed by Thai Navy, I don't think they have any fixed wing aircraft (yet), and so might only operate helos there at times. I'm sure it would/could still function as a military base, if required. I haven't been to the airport since its transition, so was just wondering.

[yorta2 693]

4 hours ago, MrMango said:

Interesting, you in Ubon? My Thai wife is from close to Ubon and we are building a house there.

My Thai 'wife' lives in Sisaket, so we use Ubon for air services and commute, as necessary. I like the city and, back in my time as an academic, I had a short visit to the University to share some information on aircraft engineering (an engineered visit and a cushy one, with fringe benefits?). I am impressed with the Boeing 747 in the grounds there now, and am further impressed as to how they transported it to the site and reassembled it.

[MrMango 671]

50 minutes ago, yorta2 said:

My Thai 'wife' lives in Sisaket, so we use Ubon for air services and commute, as necessary. I like the city and, back in my time as an academic, I had a short visit to the University to share some information on aircraft engineering (an engineered visit and a cushy one, with fringe benefits?). I am impressed with the Boeing 747 in the grounds there now, and am further impressed as to how they transported it to the site and reassembled it.

My Ti Wifes home is Amanat Charoen where she is building her retirement house.

I am amazed how the area has changed over the last 15 years from a small rice village to urban. 

[sailingbill 1,032]

I know we are straying here but visited my Thai Girlfriend in Nom Phong, asked where are the Buffalos?. They were every my last visit. no one owned a car or a tractor. Now the Buffalos are gone and everyone owns a Kabota tractor.   They family has given up on farming except 50 bags of rice for the extended family. The kids own trucks for transport business.

 

[nkped 1,208]

4 hours ago, sailingbill said:

I know we are straying here but visited my Thai Girlfriend in Nom Phong, asked where are the Buffalos?. They were every my last visit. no one owned a car or a tractor. Now the Buffalos are gone and everyone owns a Kabota tractor.   They family has given up on farming except 50 bags of rice for the extended family. The kids own trucks for transport business.

 

They use grain combines for harvesting now, somewhat small ones but certainly recognizable as such to a farm kid from the midwest.

Edited January 21, 2020 by nkped

[nkped 1,208]

7 hours ago, yorta2 said:

Thanks. I wasn't sure. I landed there back in 1967 and 68 a couple of times and now, although obviously still governed by Thai Navy, I don't think they have any fixed wing aircraft (yet), and so might only operate helos there at times. I'm sure it would/could still function as a military base, if required. I haven't been to the airport since its transition, so was just wondering.

The ground traffic pattern has changed since they opened the new terminal.  Before, you would typically taxi past a few military aircraft parked at the north end.  Often, one or two would be US.  Now, you are too far away to tell.

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

Trump thinks that this Boeing problem costs the US economy a half a percentage point in GDP per year. 

[forcebwithu 4,853]

7 hours ago, midlifecrisis said:

Trump thinks that this Boeing problem costs the US economy a half a percentage point in GDP per year. 

Not Trump, but Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-12/mnuchin-says-boeing-woes-could-lop-a-half-point-from-u-s-gdp

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

10 hours ago, forcebwithu said:

Not Trump, but Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-12/mnuchin-says-boeing-woes-could-lop-a-half-point-from-u-s-gdp

Then both. I heard Trump say it. Or else I wouldn't have mentioned his name.

[TheFiend 1,181]

Another bad day for Boeing...... First flight of the 777-9 was supposed to take place today 24th January...... Boeing were all set up for live streaming the momentous occasion.... unfortunately they weren't able to take-off.... too much of tail wind on the runway they were using!!! Viewers watched live streaming video of it just sitting at the end of the runway....

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

4 hours ago, TheFiend said:

Another bad day for Boeing...... First flight of the 777-9 was supposed to take place today 24th January...... Boeing were all set up for live streaming the momentous occasion.... unfortunately they weren't able to take-off.... too much of tail wind on the runway they were using!!! Viewers watched live streaming video of it just sitting at the end of the runway....

Not to mention the satellite they built for Direct TV may blow up:

"There’s “a significant risk” that battery cells aboard Spaceway-1 could burst, DirecTV said in a filing with the U.S. Federal Communications Commission seeking permission to conduct an emergency operation to reduce risks of an accidental explosion.

Spaceway-1, made by Boeing Co. and launched in 2005, provides backup coverage for TV viewers in Alaska. Its operations “have been terminated” and no customers were affected, the company said in the Sunday filing with the FCC. The agency granted the request."

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-01-23/satellite-directv

It's probably just a perception issue which they don't need as this article says the satellite is past its lifespan:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/23/boeing-built-directv-satellite-may-explode-after-damage-to-batteries.html

• DirecTV says satellite “Spaceway-1 suffered a major anomaly that resulted in significant and irreversible thermal damage to its batteries.”
• The large broadcast satellite is owned by AT&T’s DirecTV, was built by Boeing and is operated by Intelsat.
• The satellite is notably several years beyond its intended lifespan, as Boeing told CNBC the incident happened “beyond-contract-life operation.”
• DirecTV plans to discharge the satellite’s remaining fuel before takes it out of orbit, “to reduce the risk of accidental explosion.”

Edited January 25, 2020 by midlifecrisis

[TheFiend 1,181]

Things don't get any better for Boeing..... It has now come out that there is a large number of 787's that have been built with a manufacturing flaw in the horizontal stabiliser...

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-admits-a-new-quality-issue-on-the-787-and-tallies-more-737-max-cancellations/

More quality control issues..... And apparently the issue could be on up to 893 of the 982 that have already been delivered

The 787 is still living up to its' Nightmareliner nickname...

[4wheels 119]

On 9/9/2020 at 5:03 PM, TheFiend said:

Things don't get any better for Boeing..... It has now come out that there is a large number of 787's that have been built with a manufacturing flaw in the horizontal stabiliser...

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-admits-a-new-quality-issue-on-the-787-and-tallies-more-737-max-cancellations/

More quality control issues..... And apparently the issue could be on up to 893 of the 982 that have already been delivered

The 787 is still living up to its' Nightmareliner nickname...

Being a 2nd generation airline retiree, this issue concerns me more.

https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/boeing-pulls-eight-787s-from-service-over-structural-issue/

[4wheels 119]

On 1/24/2020 at 5:57 PM, TheFiend said:

Another bad day for Boeing...... First flight of the 777-9 was supposed to take place today 24th January...... Boeing were all set up for live streaming the momentous occasion.... unfortunately they weren't able to take-off.... too much of tail wind on the runway they were using!!! Viewers watched live streaming video of it just sitting at the end of the runway....

And the follow-up 3 days later that wasn't posted. But I guess some folks expect Boeing to control the wx too.

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/boeing-777x-9-first-flight/index.html