Airliners.net

Revelatiotn wrote:

Raiden wrote:

You cannot be serious. It is the exact opposite: his asylum seeking creates a conflict of interest that entirely pulls every drop of his credibility rug right under his legs. Going down this route might help him get his green card if his sob-story gets sympathy with ICE (good luck with that) but Boeing will not go anywhere else but in a deeper ditch if they dare hang their MAX coats on an asylum con.

Interesting point of view yet we read the reason why the ex-employees ST and WaPo engage with are credible is because they aren't being paid by Boeing and don't have to lie to protect their career..

If Boeing is paying any of these then they aren't getting their money's worth. No company, no airline is perfect and complaint free. But if Boeing hangs its coat on routine and frivolous complaints it better be more selective. Because so far all these complaints (both the latest asylum one as well as the earlier pre-crash complaint by pilots in WAPO), mention that the FAA were alerted or were busy conducting audits... but then that the same FAA closed these complaints within a month or something. That's pretty damning of the FAA if there is any merit in the complaints. So if Boeing's management strategy is to throw mud, spread and circulate the blame around in all directions hoping something sticks, then most of it will still end up landing and sticking on top of FAA's head. Not exactly something that helps Boeing's case... while it awaits FAA's mercy on its grounded fleet.

Raiden wrote:

Indeed.

His ulterior motive is already openly declared: a US green card. If he had been a pure hearted whistle-blower whose only motivation is to help assist the investigation then logic dictates he would have chosen for France (the place in charge of the crash investigation), not the US and especially not to Seattle of all places. That's a dubious choice.

When was the last time a whistleblower got a green card from the US? I don't recall the Egyptair 990 whistleblower got a green card, despite his asylum request?

Revelation wrote:

rheinwaldner wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Your argument above was "Flights" do not represent "different things" yet now you assert that they do represent different things?!?

A sufficient lot of flights are the denominator. They are not different.

Read what you wrote.

The logic reads as flights are flights, but Habsheim flights are different.

1. In my calculation I used hundreds of thousand of flights as the denominator (and I even mentioned this sample size in my earlier reply to you).This was not the case with the A320 at the time of Habsheim. Deliveries started only 3 months before so the operative A320 fleet was only a couple. -> do you think that is a sufficient sample size?

2. As mentioned, it was one isolated case vs 2 identical MAX cases

3. In my calculation I looked at the following ratio:
-> the global benchmark 2011-2017 was about one crash every 33 million flights because of a system failure
-> MAX until now had one crash every 0.125 million flights because of a system failure (2 out of ~250k)

That means that Λ system of the MAX (system failure rate leading to a crash) is 260 times worse than the global average.

For the A320 we would have to say:
-> The day after Habsheim, the A320 had 0 crashes per million flights because of a system failure (0 out of whatever)

So you can't do the same calculation for Habsheim simply because there was no system failure. How could you overlook that? I explained this three times to you already.

What a waste of time to read this thread, only 5-10% are on topic!
The rest is repeating arguments written to often to be still discussed!

rheinwaldner wrote:

For the A320 we would have to say:
-> The day after Habsheim, the A320 had 0 crashes per million flights because of a system failure (0 out of whatever)

So you can't do the same calculation for Habsheim simply because there was no system failure. How could you overlook that? I explained this three times to you already.

So flights are no longer flights, they are flights without a system failure.

You make a crafted exclusion for A320 but none for MAX which gets compared to all flights of all aircraft ever, ones who have had defects eliminated out over time, be they due to system failures, poor design, inadequate training material, pilot ego, whatever..

Yes, you've said the same thing three times, you keep treating the A320 differently by carving out a protected niche for it.

sciing wrote:

What a waste of time to read this thread, only 5-10% are on topic!
The rest is repeating arguments written to often to be still discussed!

How right you are. I think the last on topic post goes back to page 2.

Since this post is number 155 in the thread, that means that at least the last 55 consecutive posts have been off topic.

MODS: lock up this worthless thread.

rheinwaldner wrote:

That means that Λ system of the MAX (system failure rate leading to a crash) is 260 times worse than the global average.

For the A320 we would have to say:
-> The day after Habsheim, the A320 had 0 crashes per million flights because of a system failure (0 out of whatever)

So you can't do the same calculation for Habsheim simply because there was no system failure. How could you overlook that? I explained this three times to you already.

The day after the MAX returns to flight with MCAS 2.0 it will have a crash rate of 0 out of whatever.

The crash rate of the MAX with MCAS 1.0 is irrelevant to how safe it will be with MCAS 2.0

morrisond wrote:

rheinwaldner wrote:

That means that Λ system of the MAX (system failure rate leading to a crash) is 260 times worse than the global average.

For the A320 we would have to say:
-> The day after Habsheim, the A320 had 0 crashes per million flights because of a system failure (0 out of whatever)

So you can't do the same calculation for Habsheim simply because there was no system failure. How could you overlook that? I explained this three times to you already.

The day after the MAX returns to flight with MCAS 2.0 it will have a crash rate of 0 out of whatever.

The crash rate of the MAX with MCAS 1.0 is irrelevant to how safe it will be with MCAS 2.0

Fully agreed.

And if in three months a crew is crashing a MAX at an airshow by flying below treetop altitude our dear user Revelation will come one day after and say, that MCAS 2.0 is now worse than MCAS 1.0. Because he is not able to distinguish between things you can compare and things, you can not compare.

Revelation wrote:

So flights are no longer flights, they are flights without a system failure.

Of course. In order to calculate the failure rate of the MAX you have look at crashes because of system failures.

Shall I explain my calculation once more for you? Because you somehow refuse to see the principles behind it.

Revelation wrote:

You make a crafted exclusion for A320 but none for MAX which gets compared to all flights of all aircraft ever, ones who have had defects eliminated out over time, be they due to system failures, poor design, inadequate training material, pilot ego, whatever..

No, I took the overall crash rate, guestimated how many of those were downed by human error and how many by system failure. From this resulted a global crash rate coming from system failures (it is much smaller than the crash rate coming from pilot errors). And this crash causing system failure rate is then compared to the failure rate of the MAX. From this we get the factor 260. Crashes by pilot error are totally exluded, and therefore Habsheim is a meaningless red-herring.

Revelation wrote:

Yes, you've said the same thing three times, you keep treating the A320 differently by carving out a protected niche for it.

No, not at all. If, and only if, notable and repeated A320 crashes would have occured due to system failures, you could compare it to the MAX.

rheinwaldner wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Yes, you've said the same thing three times, you keep treating the A320 differently by carving out a protected niche for it.

No, not at all. If, and only if, notable and repeated A320 crashes would have occured due to system failures, you could compare it to the MAX.

Yet the data you use includes the set of all crashes, due to system failures or other reasons, and data that includes flights after the root cause is found, analyzed and addressed.

You are treating the A320 differently by carving out a protected niche for it.

Frequency and volume of your claims otherwise change nothing.

You even admit you needed to make guesstimates to pass your own internal credibility test.

You are going a long way to tilt the dataset to fit your predetermined conclusion.

SFOtoORD wrote:

Doesn’t absolve Boeing of anything at all, but it seems like Ethiopian needs a serious culture change.

Ethiopian needed a break that would NOT put them in a bad light when it comes to going to Court as any Mis-steps in their maintenance records and flight logs?
Would be picked apart in court to make them look like a bunch of Pikers. they might need to clean up their Log books.

Revelation wrote:

Yet the data you use includes the set of all crashes, due to system failures or other reasons, and data that includes flights after the root cause is found, analyzed and addressed.

The global crash rate over five years is just used to calculate the expectation (= baseline).

Revelation wrote:

You even admit you needed to make guesstimates to pass your own internal credibility test.

Give me your version of the figures I estimated! I will then run the calculation using your estimates. You are free to choose them as you like.

Do me a favor and precisely study failure rate theory up to wikipedia level (especially the Additivity section), then review my calculation and I even encourage you to run the exact same calculation I did for the A320 the day after Habsheim. You are free to estimate the required figures as you like. I strongly feel, that you have no clue about the things I was talking from and you will notice it if you try it with the A320.