Originally Posted by
Lord Farringdon
...grandfathering certifications arising from real airframe crash testing against the newer composite material constructions, the safety of which I understand is determined more by computer modelling.
Someone up mentioned A32x being built strong(er). I personally could imagine the computer modelling of that design era already enabled designs with better load-transfer capabilities, less prone to break up. The real life evidence does not support that view, the 737 which is well comparable in terms of structural weight is a lifesaver too (multiple Asian land short accidents, all of the overruns and this one
worth a link.
Originally Posted by
dr dre
... the Captain had a total of about 3000hrs and 6 years flying and for the FO about 600hrs and only 1 year of professional flying, ...(my delete - FD) ... deride as “button pushing children of the magenta”. I think they’ve disproved that now.
Now you've spoiled it.
There is still a chance for a claim to appear later, they should have stayed on the ground past the V1, like true airmen would, saving the day more heroically.
Originally Posted by
tdracer
Flight, the question remains, is the simple fact that both events have happened with the same engine type meaningful or is it a statistical fluke? Does it point to some a deeper issue with the CFM56-5 bird strike abilities? Do the bird strike cert requirements need to be toughed up? Not to slight Sully or this Russian crew - but had their luck been a bit worse we could easily be looking at several hundred fatalities.
If the MAX has taught us anything, it's that certified isn't necessarily the same as safe.
People like us live (you) and die (me) with science, technology and true meanings. A respectful suggestion about proper wording here is the MAX had been mis-certified.
I guess the tail-mounted engines have a bit of geometrical protection, so statistic would leave the wing-mounted, underslung to compare. I cannot make the split of CFM-5 and IAE 2500 unfortunately. So for what it is worth
at 2008/2009, when the US Airways and
Ryanair (clickable) accidents happened, there had been 3700 A32x manufactured. Today, there are 9000.
After (avg 6000 A/C / 2 eng options * 5 sectors * 10 years * 365 * 2 tkof-ldg)
110 million movements a case appears again.
A case where we do not really know just yet what and when actually struck, by all means even what happened to the other engine is not clear. Was it really damaged or just not producing enough thrust to keep the A/C airborne on a hot day? (that is a scary thought!). It is not known.
Suggesting right now there is a statistical pattern, warranting a technical review particular to -5 CFM, based on a case of 1 occurrence (beyond spec) and one unknown is something of a stretch. And not really
your class at all. Hope you do not mind:
if it was up to me I'd be taking a good, hard look at the -5 bird strike resistance...
if it was up to me, I'd be sending
tdracer out of his retirement with a Cat o' Nine and a branding iron to RR, make them excel again.
The sooner we get back to business as usual, the better.