The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Boeing Hits the Tarmac Again!

Apparently the fuselage is assembled at a sub. That may be some small grace that Boeing received, although they have every bit as much to manage their Tier 1 subcontractor as they do their own facilities.
 
NotHardUp1 said:
Apparently the fuselage is assembled at a sub. That may be some small grace that Boeing received, although they have every bit as much to manage their Tier 1 subcontractor as they do their own facilities.
Click to expand...
You’d think there would be inspection coding on all bolts that’s done by someone that’s not the installer. We color code mark parts for inspection.

IMG_2812.png
 
Alistair said:
You’d think there would be inspection coding on all bolts that’s done by someone that’s not the installer. We color code mark parts for inspection.
Click to expand...
Even back when I worked production decades ago, it bothered me that Operations workers were allowed to be Quality inspectors. It's a conflict of interest.

All the more when aviation companies are allowed to do FAA work by proxy. What could possibly go wrong?
 
Part of the FAA "Diversity and Inclusion" hiring plan, which states "diversity is integral to achieving FAA's mission of ensuring safe and efficient travel", seeks to actively recruits workers who "suffer severe intellectual" disabilities including psychiatric problems and other mental and physical conditions as well as hearing and vision problems, missing extremities, partial and complete paralysis and epilepsy. How these hiring goals are integral to ensure safe and efficient travel is left unstated.
 
^ What's that supposed to mean to us, that clever people at higher levels hire (or "are forced to hire") stupid people to run the company at lower levels?
 
Latimer said:
Part of the FAA "Diversity and Inclusion" hiring plan, which states "diversity is integral to achieving FAA's mission of ensuring safe and efficient travel", seeks to actively recruits workers who "suffer severe intellectual" disabilities including psychiatric problems and other mental and physical conditions as well as hearing and vision problems, missing extremities, partial and complete paralysis and epilepsy. How these hiring goals are integral to ensure safe and efficient travel is left unstated.
Click to expand...

If political correctness stopped planes falling out of the sky, then the hiring plan might contain the seeds of a good idea.
 
Latimer said:
Part of the FAA "Diversity and Inclusion" hiring plan, which states "diversity is integral to achieving FAA's mission of ensuring safe and efficient travel", seeks to actively recruits workers who "suffer severe intellectual" disabilities including psychiatric problems and other mental and physical conditions as well as hearing and vision problems, missing extremities, partial and complete paralysis and epilepsy. How these hiring goals are integral to ensure safe and efficient travel is left unstated.
Click to expand...
Maybe they are mostly posted to executive managerial roles, where they can do the least harm?
 
Hey! It’s a Boeing. The wheel fell off

IMG_1745.png
 
A more typical cause of Boeing crashes, pilot error:

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cx20p2x9093t BBC article, July 12, 2025

Cockpit recorder reveals a pilot turned of the engines (via the fuel feeds) unintentionally, possibly causing 260 deaths.

Pilot error is the most common cause of crashes.
 
NotHardUp1 said:
A more typical cause of Boeing crashes, pilot error:

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cx20p2x9093t BBC article, July 12, 2025

Cockpit recorder reveals a pilot turned of the engines (via the fuel feeds) unintentionally, possibly causing 260 deaths.

Pilot error is the most common cause of crashes.
Click to expand...

I didn't hear that they'd established "unintentionally" yet.
 
NotHardUp1 said:
A more typical cause of Boeing crashes, pilot error:

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cx20p2x9093t BBC article, July 12, 2025

Cockpit recorder reveals a pilot turned of the engines (via the fuel feeds) unintentionally, possibly causing 260 deaths.

Pilot error is the most common cause of crashes.
Click to expand...

Since it has so much computer control inbuilt, one might wonder why it doesn't override such instructions - or at least ask "are you sure you want to do that?" - when the automation must "know" it's a fatal move.
 
unloadonme said:
I didn't hear that they'd established "unintentionally" yet.
Click to expand...
It may be speculative, but the cockpit recorder quoted in the article reported, "why did you cut off? The other replied he did not do so."

So, yes, it is not determined it was unintentional. It may have been a deliberate act of the pilot, as a suicide act, or terrorism.

What is almost certain is that they were turned off by one pilot, who either did not remember or was not aware, or he denied it dishonestly.

According to the authorities, the switches are designed in such a way to not be able to be switched off accidentally.

It is shaping up to be a highly contentious investigation, reminiscent of the EgyptAir 990 a few years ago when the NTSB was contradicted by the Egyptian government, obviously embarrassed by the spectre of a pilot who sabotaged the flight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990

It takes a long time for a final report, so we may not get it for a year or more, and there may never be absolute proof of whatever. But, the fact those switches were off can only be a pilot's action. Either they didn't do a pre-flight check that would have placed the switches on, or confirmed them on, or one actually turned them off.

Will be interesting to learn if a simulator reveals that they could take off with them off or not, would enough fuel be in the lines to get off the ground before running dry. Seems unlikely, but no idea.

In almost every imaginable scenario, the airline, and possibly the Indian government, stands to be embarrassed.
 
pigface said:
Since it has so much computer control inbuilt, one might wonder why it doesn't override such instructions - or at least ask "are you sure you want to do that?" - when the automation must "know" it's a fatal move.
Click to expand...
When I worked on that C-130 contract, we had an FAA engineer assigned to our work, and he conveyed that the complexity of the cockpit is raising the question of whether or not a human CAN keep up with all of it reliably. Of course, millions of modern flights suggests it is.

Pilots themselves repeatedly voice resistance to automation taking away their ability to control and act, especially in crises. The possible variables are so huge, they just don't trust software to always "know" what is safe or unsafe.

In this case, yes, if the switches were off and the throttle was being engaged to move the plane, you'd think there would at least be an alarm. On the other hand, this is such a fundamental pre-flight check, it seems incredible that any pilot could overlook it. Likewise, if the plane is in motion, on the ground or in flight, and the fuel was shut off, again you'd think it would trigger an alarm.

The findings are sad. Imagine losing a loved one to such an error and dealing with the anger arising from knowing it was such a needless death.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top