Well actually, if you exclude the 100, 200, 200C, 300, 400, and 500 series aircraft all that’s left is the NG and Max. So in effect the article did identify the models affected. They could’ve been redundant and mentioned the AD doesn’t apply to earlier model aircraft, but then that would be redundant.

(Written on 26.02.2021)(Permalink)

Not that it matters but do we know they landed overweight? In any case an engine exploded leaving them with only one, and from passenger accounts the failed engine was on fire all the way to the ground. So I'd say landing overweight would be a perfectly reasonable action! Airliners are required by certification to be able to land safely at max structural takeoff weight. Depending on conditions that may result in overheated brakes and/or blown tires. Landing above max landing weight just requires an inspection unless there was a hard landing or damage to previously mentioned brakes and tires.

(Written on 21.02.2021)(Permalink)

You must've had a really bad experience! I flew it for just shy of 10 years, and while my back is still recovering I loved flying it. It was well built, Part 25 certified vs Part 23 like a lot of competitors so the systems redundancy and stuff was nice. The runway performance wasn't the best but the dual mains and robust brakes meant stopping was never an issue even when wet/contaminated and I don't recall ever being brake energy limited like the 60. If you flew it at FL430 or 450 the fuel burn was relatively low if you flew it at .78 vs trying to max it out at .80, and if you slowed to LRC was still .75 or .76 so you could extend the range a bit. I didn't spend a lot of time riding in the back but seated I thought it was comfortable though not overly spacious. You don't need a stand up cabin when the designed mission profile is under 2 hour legs. It had its quirks but no major issues with reliability. I will say the early 45s with -AR engines and no APU made life a little less comforta

(Written on 12.02.2021)(Permalink)

There is/was only one model left, the 70/75 which is just cosmetic and some technology updates to the 40/45. Still great airplanes, just not competitive price-wise with offerings from Cessna and Embraer.

(Written on 11.02.2021)(Permalink)

I don't disagree, but I think a big part of the equation is the desire to eliminate the human(s). The system will become completely automated and the only time a human will intervene is if the system alerts or there is a special need that can't be served by the automation. Facial recognition might turn out to be the limit most people won't go beyond, but remember people also took issue with programs like precheck and Global Entry because of the extra data they were volunteering to the gov. But in time as the technology becomes more widespread, and especially if there is a noticeable benefit in terms of shorter wait times and less close contact, there's no doubt it will become at least tolerated if not widely accepted.

(Written on 06.02.2021)(Permalink)

You can take the Hooligan out of England...

(Written on 06.02.2021)(Permalink)

In order for a human to verify your ID (driver's license, passport, etc) they have to touch it. Right now when checking luggage at the airline counter they check your ID, and then of course TSA has to check it as well. This would eliminate those touch points. Boarding is mostly touchless these days, pretty much every airline has mobile boarding passes. With facial recog you wouldn't even need that it would just scan your face at the gate. So there is some benefit for those who want to minimize physical contact as much as possible. And lets face it the less you have to interact with airline employees the better! I do agree in terms of the airlines they are looking for any and all ways to reduce headcount and therefore expenses, and automating the travel process as much as possible is one way to do that.

(Written on 05.02.2021)(Permalink)

Sigh. Did you not read the very next sentence after burned out lightbulb? “Unairworthy, unless replaced or properly deferred according to procedure”. I didn’t want to go into a dissertation on inoperative equipment, I was merely pointing out that in the eyes of the FAA an aircraft is either airworthy or unairworthy, there is no in between. Not everyone here posses the laundry list of credentials you profess to have, so I try to keep it simple but informative. Piss on me i guess for trying. I’m quite sure I don’t know as much as you, and that’s just fine with me. My list isn’t as long or distinguished: ATP B737 LR45 SA227. Flight Instructor. Humble First Officer.

(Written on 31.01.2021)(Permalink)

It appears to be a simple missed inspection of some bolts, not an everyday occurrence but can and does happen. When it comes to airplanes and the FAA there are no levels of serious. Even the most mundane check must be done or the airplane is unairworthy. Light bulb burned out? Unairworthy, unless replaced or properly deferred according to procedure. So when an airline discovers even a minor discrepancy they can face big penalties from the FAA if they fail to disclose it and knowingly operate an "unairworthy" airplane.

(Written on 29.01.2021)(Permalink)

Mr Hardy, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

(Written on 29.01.2021)(Permalink)