Jump to content

95 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Posted

This is how the press is dishonest. They dont say it but they are implying the 737 returning for an engine problem is somehow unusual and related to the other problems. Airlines return to the airport for engine problems almost 2 times per month and in general about every 3 days

 

On a side note  not I did not know they had un-grounded them

 

Southwest Boeing 737 Max 8 plane makes emergency landing due to reported engine problem

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Sweden
Timeline
Posted
1 hour ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

This is how the press is dishonest. They dont say it but they are implying the 737 returning for an engine problem is somehow unusual and related to the other problems. Airlines return to the airport for engine problems almost 2 times per month and in general about every 3 days

 

On a side note  not I did not know they had un-grounded them

 

Southwest Boeing 737 Max 8 plane makes emergency landing due to reported engine problem

They have not un-grounded them. In the US they're allowed to test and re-position the MAX aircrafts. 





Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Ecuador
Timeline
Posted
2 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Southwest Boeing 737 Max 8 plane makes emergency landing due to reported engine problem

If it's the one in Orlando, it apparently had no passengers, so it might have been a test flight.

06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

Filed: Timeline
Posted
11 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

If it's the one in Orlando, it apparently had no passengers, so it might have been a test flight.

No, it was a repo flight.  They were moving the plane to a short-term storage location.

 

And as NB2 says, terrible reporting, as the engine incident has nothing to do with the MCAS issues.  

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/26/us/boeing-737-max-emergency-landing/index.html

 

Quote

It is not clear if Tuesday's emergency landing was related to suspected problems with the aircraft. An investigation into the crashes focuses on an automated anti-stall system and not engine problems.

Actually, it is VERY clear.  Even Stevie Wonder can see it’s not related.  Ole Reliable, that CNN...

Posted
21 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

No, it was a repo flight.  They were moving the plane to a short-term storage location.

 

And as NB2 says, terrible reporting, as the engine incident has nothing to do with the MCAS issues.  

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/26/us/boeing-737-max-emergency-landing/index.html

 

Actually, it is VERY clear.  Even Stevie Wonder can see it’s not related.  Ole Reliable, that CNN...

Not only that I am sure the pilots were using an abundance of caution I would imagine management had told them to abort if the toilet makes a funny sound when flushing 

 

I bet those guys flying the plane empty thought they had an f15 LOL

Filed: Timeline
Posted
Just now, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Not only that I am sure the pilots were using an abundance of caution I would imagine management had told them to abort if the toilet makes a funny sound when flushing 

 

I bet those guys flying the plane empty thought they had an f15 LOL

If the toilet flushed on an empty plane and I was the pilot, I might beat the plane to the ground...

Posted
1 minute ago, ALFKAD said:

If the toilet flushed on an empty plane and I was the pilot, I might beat the plane to the ground...

I am guessing on a empty flight they have 2 pilots and ????? Surely more than 2

 

It was just an example anyway.  Name some other warning that may occur that would not make you divert but might in a plane with some much attention on it right now 

Filed: Timeline
Posted
2 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I am guessing on a empty flight they have 2 pilots and ????? Surely more than 2

 

It was just an example anyway.  Name some other warning that may occur that would not make you divert but might in a plane with some much attention on it right now 

I knew what you meant, I was playing with you.

 

But typically when a flight is flown like that, it falls under part 91, and only requires the 2 pilots.  Now if anyone rides along, say a couple mechanics or such, then they would have to add a flight attendant. 

Posted
27 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

I knew what you meant, I was playing with you.

 

But typically when a flight is flown like that, it falls under part 91, and only requires the 2 pilots.  Now if anyone rides along, say a couple mechanics or such, then they would have to add a flight attendant. 

Interesting info. Can one of the guys get up and get coffe etc

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Ecuador
Timeline
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Can one of the guys get up and get coffe etc

That's women's work.

[ducks & runs for cover]

And how dare you sexistly presume that the mechanics are male?!

Edited by TBoneTX

06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

Posted
14 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Pretty much.  No different from any other airplane ride, except that there is a little bit more room in a 737 than in a C-172.  :rofl:

It only takes 1 person to fly a C 172..It takes 2 to legally to fly a 737. I was asking if there are only 2 people on the entire plane, can one pilot leave the cockpit for anyy period of time.

Posted
14 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Don’t see why both can’t step into the back and dance together, if they so desire?

Pilot-less cockpit cool 

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...