Rubbish! The preliminary report on the Indonesian accident pointed fingers at airline management, training and engineering departments. It was apparent that certain crew had not being trained properly or were inadequately trained because the crew of the earlier flight, even though they had problems, were able to successfully resolve and to report on them. It was management, training and engineering that failed to make the necessary repairs or notify the requisite actions.

(Written on 2019年 05月 10日)(Permalink)

What about the 747!? That was an innovation that went through extensive certification as did the B777. Boeing lost the plot with the 737 max because of a paranoia about Airbus. Airbus was, and has proven to be, the winner because of this.

(Written on 2019年 05月 10日)(Permalink)

That is a naïve comment; a large portion of QANTAS expenditure is going OUT of Australia to lease/finance, foreign navigation charges and foreign fuel uploads.

(Written on 2019年 05月 10日)(Permalink)

You talk as though the airline is the master. That is far from the case! It should not matter that a customer misses a flight, the airline has been paid and it does not cost the airliner anything for a missed flight unless the customer has already check-in and baggage is on the aircraft so it is completely wrong for the airline to take the position of disciplinarian and "steel" the customer's remaining bookings! Yes it is THEFT!

(Written on 2018年 12月 14日)(Permalink)

If this is not 'tongue-in-cheek' then it is rubbish! Airlines (and hotels) are getting worse for distrusting customers and providing as little as they can get away with and still keep customers. Their ethos is "it does not matter if we lose a customer or two, we have plenty more". There is some truth in the fact that they are protecting themselves from those that have screwed them in the past but it is not right, nor is it fair to paint all their customers with that same brush.

(Written on 2018年 12月 14日)(Permalink)

It was not flying to Jakarta but from Jakarta. The aircraft had arrived the previous day from Bali during which it had experienced problems that were supposedly repaired. That remains to be seen. The accident suggests that the repairs were not made, or were not made correctly, or the problem was not diagnosed correctly. It also puts into question the training of the two crew members

(Written on 2018年 12月 07日)(Permalink)

There are 80 operators of the 737 MAX and, unless I have missed it, none have had the problems that LION Air has had. With Indonesia's air safety record in general and LIOIN Air's record in particular it does not take too much imagination to see where the probable fault lies. If I were LION Air I would quietly co-operate with Boeing and take "one hell of a lot of" advise from people who know how to run an airline safely.

(Written on 2018年 12月 07日)(Permalink)

That doesn't make sense because an aircraft is normally pressurised to a pressure equivalent about 8000' agl so unless Kittila is at a higher elevation the pressure inside the aircraft should have been less than the ambient.

(Written on 2018年 10月 19日)(Permalink)

that should read, …over the Atlantic and on over Europe and Asia.

(Written on 2018年 10月 19日)(Permalink)

It's the other way round Colin; SQ22 is the outbound flight flying the Pacific route and the return flight SQ21 departs over the Atlantic and on over and Asia Europe.

(Written on 2018年 10月 19日)(Permalink)