Boeing in 'safety cover-up' - Documentary on Al Jazeera
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe they outsource in China ?
OMG (shock/horror
) I wonder if shoddy workmanship in the Airbus systems is the cause?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing in 'safety cover-up'
@411A
I find your posts in this thread insulting, abusive and maybe even red neckish racist. Any debate has its rules as defined by the Topic of the thread starter - in this case "Boeing in 'safety cover-up'" Instead of discussing your position regarding the Topic in a rational, intelligent and succinct manner, you throw mud and try to drag a totally uninvolved party, namely Airbus Industries, into the debate. If you need advise and guidance as to how to conduct a civilised discussion, the WWW can be of great help in refining your etiquette.
As for my position on the Topic (yes, I watched the clip from the "terrorist's TV station), I find it inappropriate for Boeing lawyers to draw up responses (heavily deducted, revised or otherwise) on behalf of any investigative US authority. This is not arm's length but not even fingernail length. When connecting the dots, it comes as no great deal of surprise that both investigations were ordered to shut down. I am absolutely freightened by the corporate reach into all levels of government. The recent behavior of certain WA lawmakers is just an example of the company's power and reach.
Regards,
Jerry B.
I find your posts in this thread insulting, abusive and maybe even red neckish racist. Any debate has its rules as defined by the Topic of the thread starter - in this case "Boeing in 'safety cover-up'" Instead of discussing your position regarding the Topic in a rational, intelligent and succinct manner, you throw mud and try to drag a totally uninvolved party, namely Airbus Industries, into the debate. If you need advise and guidance as to how to conduct a civilised discussion, the WWW can be of great help in refining your etiquette.
As for my position on the Topic (yes, I watched the clip from the "terrorist's TV station), I find it inappropriate for Boeing lawyers to draw up responses (heavily deducted, revised or otherwise) on behalf of any investigative US authority. This is not arm's length but not even fingernail length. When connecting the dots, it comes as no great deal of surprise that both investigations were ordered to shut down. I am absolutely freightened by the corporate reach into all levels of government. The recent behavior of certain WA lawmakers is just an example of the company's power and reach.
Regards,
Jerry B.
Last edited by Jerry B.; 23rd Dec 2010 at 06:34. Reason: Minor editorial changes
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find your posts in this threat insulting, abusive and maybe even red neckish racist.
Poor darlings...
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Al Jazzera... the voice of truth, justice, reason, and accuracy in media. or er the world according to Garp
?
Think about it. Let's turn the time back and assume the three set of crewmembers involved in the three accidents operated their aircraft in a responsible manner and didn't crash their jets. At the end of the day, do you think this show whoud have still been aired?
The boys at Boeing have bigger problems with the 787. The Einsteins with their MBAs hanging on their office walls thought that outsourcing the parts would be the best method to control design and manufacturing costs of their new electric jet. Ooops... so much for those MBA degrees in Business Management boys and girls
. Keep up the good work
as I'm sure the shareholders are really happy the direction that Boeing is going.
?Think about it. Let's turn the time back and assume the three set of crewmembers involved in the three accidents operated their aircraft in a responsible manner and didn't crash their jets. At the end of the day, do you think this show whoud have still been aired?
The boys at Boeing have bigger problems with the 787. The Einsteins with their MBAs hanging on their office walls thought that outsourcing the parts would be the best method to control design and manufacturing costs of their new electric jet. Ooops... so much for those MBA degrees in Business Management boys and girls
. Keep up the good work as I'm sure the shareholders are really happy the direction that Boeing is going.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't care if it was Al Jazeera or Pinoccio that were reporting this.
If I see an on camera deposition of the FAA's Chief Safety and Technical Advisor, who has just lodged a sworn affidavit drafted by Boeing's legal council, stating that he has not seen sufficient data or information to determine that there was an unsafe condition, the alarm bells start screaming.
If I then hear and see the same FAA guy admitting on camera that he has never accessed the FAA's own Service Difficulties Reporting Database (or ordered somebody else to do so), it is difficult for me to see anything other than a cover-up.
Make up your own mind and watch the relevant section beginning at 43:40 of the linked video. On a wing and a prayer - PEOPLE AND POWER - Al Jazeera English
@411A
You will never drag me down to your level. All you do with posts like that is to expose your level of sophistication and thus lose any respect on here.
Regards,
Jerrry B.
If I see an on camera deposition of the FAA's Chief Safety and Technical Advisor, who has just lodged a sworn affidavit drafted by Boeing's legal council, stating that he has not seen sufficient data or information to determine that there was an unsafe condition, the alarm bells start screaming.
If I then hear and see the same FAA guy admitting on camera that he has never accessed the FAA's own Service Difficulties Reporting Database (or ordered somebody else to do so), it is difficult for me to see anything other than a cover-up.
Make up your own mind and watch the relevant section beginning at 43:40 of the linked video. On a wing and a prayer - PEOPLE AND POWER - Al Jazeera English
@411A
You will never drag me down to your level. All you do with posts like that is to expose your level of sophistication and thus lose any respect on here.
Regards,
Jerrry B.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jcjeant
This statement is a non sequitur to the referenced link. Yes Airbus/EASA required two Goodrich and one Thales BA type probe on Airbus aircraft in 2009 in reaction to the AF447 accident. The link you referenced states Airbus concern over common mode faults to the pitot probes causing identical but erroneous airspeed input to the flight control system. I would bet that this can still happen in the Goodrich-Thales combination as well as the Goodrich-Goodrich pair. Remember two identical but erroneous inputs can lead the computers astray in an Airbus.
Now gentlemen, please go back to your Boeing "dogfight".
Seem's the Eurolanders are not happy with the new Goodrich "pitot" fridges ...
Now gentlemen, please go back to your Boeing "dogfight".
I don't care if it was Al Jazeera or Pinoccio that were reporting this.
If I see an on camera deposition of the FAA's Chief Safety and Technical Advisor, who has just lodged a sworn affidavit drafted by Boeing's legal council, stating that he has not seen sufficient data or information to determine that there was an unsafe condition, the alarm bells start screaming.
If I then hear and see the same FAA guy admitting on camera that he has never accessed the FAA's own Service Difficulties Reporting Database (or ordered somebody else to do so), it is difficult for me to see anything other than a cover-up.
Make up your own mind and watch the relevant section beginning at 43:40 of the linked video. On a wing and a prayer - PEOPLE AND POWER - Al Jazeera English
If I see an on camera deposition of the FAA's Chief Safety and Technical Advisor, who has just lodged a sworn affidavit drafted by Boeing's legal council, stating that he has not seen sufficient data or information to determine that there was an unsafe condition, the alarm bells start screaming.
If I then hear and see the same FAA guy admitting on camera that he has never accessed the FAA's own Service Difficulties Reporting Database (or ordered somebody else to do so), it is difficult for me to see anything other than a cover-up.
Make up your own mind and watch the relevant section beginning at 43:40 of the linked video. On a wing and a prayer - PEOPLE AND POWER - Al Jazeera English
However, the video has a purpose which is to attract viewers and as such solicits and edits opinions to serve this purpose. OTOH, discussion of available facts in forums like this may bring out different opinions among experts.
I found so many inaccuracies and streches in the video that I lost faith in it as a source of unbiased facts and conclusions.
The evidence presented does not support a claim of an unsafe aircraft.
The so called SDR (service difficulty reports) are woefully inadequate to assess the nature, causes and effects of a problem. The most that I could ever decipher from reading these kind of reports is that they are more like "snags" indicating numerous "minor" discrepencies requiring follow up (repair etc.) up by the airline. In order to assess a safety problem against the regulations one needs to scan those very few reports in the required reporting data base to the FAA under "Continued Airworthiness" agreements.
We have already disputed as irrelevant the reports of fuselage breakups in a crash landing. As far as I can see no data has been presented about cracks in the fuselage requiring repairs emanating from a direct cause of this problem (corrosion is common)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Again we must understand what this video teach us.
It teaches us that a specification has been reached between the manufacturer and the regulator for manufacture the B737 NG
This agreement allows the manufacturer to produce aircraft that meet the safety standards in force and provides the regulatory body to issue a certificate of compliance.
This video shows that Boeing has not respected this agreement and in more .. Boeing wants to hide this thing and that the regulator does not seem to care
Again we must understand what this video teach us.
It teaches us that a specification has been reached between the manufacturer and the regulator for manufacture the B737 NG
This agreement allows the manufacturer to produce aircraft that meet the safety standards in force and provides the regulatory body to issue a certificate of compliance.
This video shows that Boeing has not respected this agreement and in more .. Boeing wants to hide this thing and that the regulator does not seem to care
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This video shows that Boeing has not respected this agreement and in more .. Boeing wants to hide this thing and that the regulator does not seem to care
To repeat...the Eurolander nitwits will believe anything that is shoved under their (collective) noses, regardless of its source.
I'm beginning to think that the Marshal Plan was not all that successful, after all.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C'mon, do tell. Do you have a portrait of John Wayne in your bedchamber?
However...I do have an autographed photo of General (later, President) Eisenhower, that was provided by a close relative.
And, I personally met Howard Hughes at one time...does that count?
Howard arrived at the front door of our house, followed by...Donald Douglas..Senior.
Moderator
First up, folk, please do keep to the reasonable boundaries of courtesy.
Do note that some (and 411A would be amongst the first to put his hand up) are adept at stirring the pot a little ... and others are equally adept at rising to the bait.
Now I don't claim to know more than a few folk by their usernames so I apologise if I have omitted some in the following comment by my ignorance - folk such as lomapaseo and mad (flt) scientist are experienced engineers with many years experience in aircraft OEM employment - their "oil on troubled waters" comments are commended to the readership.
With the caveat that I haven't seen the documentary (and don't intend to as most of this genre are a tad sensationalist, a bit short on other than superficial fact, are intended for the general viewing market and, generally, are a tad boring to Industry engineering folk), the reality is that
(a) any OEM (aircraft, automobile, washing machine, push bikes, pens and pencils, etc....) has problems with design/materials/manufacture to a greater or lesser extent. (FYI my background includes aircraft, truck, bus, building infrastructure OEM work)
(b) where the market, alone, is the arbiter, those whose products are significantly inferior .. fail.
(c) where there is prescribed regulatory oversight (such as aircraft), the output standard generally is fine and such problems as arise are addressed appropriately sooner or later. Those who are consistently recalcitrant risk the lifting of their TCs, significant financial or other regulatory penalty, etc...
(d) some of the previous comments indicate that the doco was concerned with such things as parts rework - fact of life in any area of manufacturing - if you were to be worried about this, you wouldn't get out of bed in the morning. Note that this doesn't mean that ALL defective parts are reworked .. however, it would be silly to scrap parts with minor defects which are amenable to rework while still retaining strength and reliability requirements.
(e) if we are to be worried about the effect on aircraft of flying into the ground .. then I would suggest that that is a bit on the conservative side. Aircraft are neither intended nor designed for such non-aerial activities. However, aircraft are designed to withstand a reasonable impact of a controlled nature (ie forced landing) with a reasonable probability of occupant survival. If, however, the impact is well outside these boundaries then it is reasonable to expect that the ground will win .. every time.
(f) if we are concerned with inappropriate practices within an OEM, such things do go on from time to time - I have no specific information regarding the present subject so I can only comment in a general way. That such things occur is unacceptable and, from my observations in a lengthy career in manufacturing and maintenance .. the naughty folk eventually get caught out and brought to account.
(g) whether we like it not, docos near invariably approach the subject with an editorial agenda. I have experience of at least one such animal relating to an aircraft/OEM vendetta and I can only observe that the doco was biassed to the point of being very unreasonable. To the public viewer, however, the material was presented as pure Gospel. Fortunately, the public viewer tends to forget all this in a short time frame, the advertisers are happy and we all get on with life.
(h) bringing irrelevant stuff into docos is standard fare .. especially if it is eye-catching - to wit, the controlled impact demonstration.
(i) drawing agenda-driven conclusions, likewise. It is far more exciting to conclude that there is a conspiracy .. rather than, perhaps, just a rational process which fixes a detected problem.
I could go on .. but, hopefully, you get the basic idea ...
Do note that some (and 411A would be amongst the first to put his hand up) are adept at stirring the pot a little ... and others are equally adept at rising to the bait.
Now I don't claim to know more than a few folk by their usernames so I apologise if I have omitted some in the following comment by my ignorance - folk such as lomapaseo and mad (flt) scientist are experienced engineers with many years experience in aircraft OEM employment - their "oil on troubled waters" comments are commended to the readership.
With the caveat that I haven't seen the documentary (and don't intend to as most of this genre are a tad sensationalist, a bit short on other than superficial fact, are intended for the general viewing market and, generally, are a tad boring to Industry engineering folk), the reality is that
(a) any OEM (aircraft, automobile, washing machine, push bikes, pens and pencils, etc....) has problems with design/materials/manufacture to a greater or lesser extent. (FYI my background includes aircraft, truck, bus, building infrastructure OEM work)
(b) where the market, alone, is the arbiter, those whose products are significantly inferior .. fail.
(c) where there is prescribed regulatory oversight (such as aircraft), the output standard generally is fine and such problems as arise are addressed appropriately sooner or later. Those who are consistently recalcitrant risk the lifting of their TCs, significant financial or other regulatory penalty, etc...
(d) some of the previous comments indicate that the doco was concerned with such things as parts rework - fact of life in any area of manufacturing - if you were to be worried about this, you wouldn't get out of bed in the morning. Note that this doesn't mean that ALL defective parts are reworked .. however, it would be silly to scrap parts with minor defects which are amenable to rework while still retaining strength and reliability requirements.
(e) if we are to be worried about the effect on aircraft of flying into the ground .. then I would suggest that that is a bit on the conservative side. Aircraft are neither intended nor designed for such non-aerial activities. However, aircraft are designed to withstand a reasonable impact of a controlled nature (ie forced landing) with a reasonable probability of occupant survival. If, however, the impact is well outside these boundaries then it is reasonable to expect that the ground will win .. every time.
(f) if we are concerned with inappropriate practices within an OEM, such things do go on from time to time - I have no specific information regarding the present subject so I can only comment in a general way. That such things occur is unacceptable and, from my observations in a lengthy career in manufacturing and maintenance .. the naughty folk eventually get caught out and brought to account.
(g) whether we like it not, docos near invariably approach the subject with an editorial agenda. I have experience of at least one such animal relating to an aircraft/OEM vendetta and I can only observe that the doco was biassed to the point of being very unreasonable. To the public viewer, however, the material was presented as pure Gospel. Fortunately, the public viewer tends to forget all this in a short time frame, the advertisers are happy and we all get on with life.
(h) bringing irrelevant stuff into docos is standard fare .. especially if it is eye-catching - to wit, the controlled impact demonstration.
(i) drawing agenda-driven conclusions, likewise. It is far more exciting to conclude that there is a conspiracy .. rather than, perhaps, just a rational process which fixes a detected problem.
I could go on .. but, hopefully, you get the basic idea ...
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Al Jazeera reports many things. If they report it, it must be true.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
john_tullamarine
Your post leaves me somewhat piqued.
I am flabbergasted as to how anybody can post an opinion on a topic without having watched the central and only supportive evidence that this topic is offering.
Don't get me wrong, but in the society where I grew up, that would mean automatic disqualification. To discredit any evidence prior to its review is WRONG!
To discredit it after review (if warranted) is OK!
More important, I have avoided in my posts to bite into the debate of whether there is a safety issue or not. What I have highlighted is that in this case, there appears to be an inappropriate relationship between the investigating and investigated parties (FAA/Department of Justice and Boeing). And, by the way, I don't refer to any Al Quaida footage - ah sorry, I meant Al Jazeera footage to substantiate the reasons for my anxiety. I refer to original footage of a video taped court affidavit. This footage is not Al Jazeera's. Of course, if one refuses to watch, one wouldn't and couldn't know, could one?
Same with the FAA investigator - if you don't look for evidence, you can say truthfully and under oath that you have seen no evidence - can't you?? The question is whether actively avoiding to look at any evidence makes it right??
I reserve my right to form an opinion on any poster's contribution on a post by post basis rather than the number of posts made, years of membership, past contributions, number of medals etc. etc.
Maybe, just maybe I have qualifications and experience that will dwarf some of the guys that are held in high esteem by the PPRUNE constabulary?? Then again, maybe not.
I'd rather err on the side of caution.
Merry Christmas to ALL
Regards,
Jerry B.
Your post leaves me somewhat piqued.
I am flabbergasted as to how anybody can post an opinion on a topic without having watched the central and only supportive evidence that this topic is offering.
Don't get me wrong, but in the society where I grew up, that would mean automatic disqualification. To discredit any evidence prior to its review is WRONG!To discredit it after review (if warranted) is OK!
More important, I have avoided in my posts to bite into the debate of whether there is a safety issue or not. What I have highlighted is that in this case, there appears to be an inappropriate relationship between the investigating and investigated parties (FAA/Department of Justice and Boeing). And, by the way, I don't refer to any Al Quaida footage - ah sorry, I meant Al Jazeera footage to substantiate the reasons for my anxiety. I refer to original footage of a video taped court affidavit. This footage is not Al Jazeera's. Of course, if one refuses to watch, one wouldn't and couldn't know, could one?
Same with the FAA investigator - if you don't look for evidence, you can say truthfully and under oath that you have seen no evidence - can't you?? The question is whether actively avoiding to look at any evidence makes it right??
I reserve my right to form an opinion on any poster's contribution on a post by post basis rather than the number of posts made, years of membership, past contributions, number of medals etc. etc.
Maybe, just maybe I have qualifications and experience that will dwarf some of the guys that are held in high esteem by the PPRUNE constabulary?? Then again, maybe not.
I'd rather err on the side of caution.Merry Christmas to ALL
Regards,
Jerry B.
Moderator
Jerry B.
Your post leaves me somewhat piqued.
not intended and, for this, my apologies
how anybody can post an opinion on a topic without having watched the central and only supportive evidence that this topic is offering.
my comments related to the generic subject .. which comes up regularly in the Industry. Specifically, I caveated that comment was not directed at the specific doco
To discredit it after review (if warranted) is OK!
my purpose is not to discredit the doco .. rather to highlight some general observations on docos .. which, possibly, will have some application to the present item
whether there is a safety issue or not
any time that questions relating to design and manufacture arise there is an implied safety consideration. The important matter is for any allegations to be subject to competent audit which, in this sort of instance, is the Regulator. If we are talking about the principal NAAs then we have to start with the premise that the Regulator has a reasonable level of integrity
there appears to be an inappropriate relationship between the investigating and investigated parties
and that may be a relevant observation - I have no way of knowing - however, a TV doco is not the basis for necessary and adequate evidence. If the matter has proceeded to court then one would reasonably presume that folk in appropriate places have instituted audits of material considerations
I refer to original footage of a video taped court affidavit.
such (or similar) was presumed. However, an affidavit doesn't necessarily constitute irrefutable fact .. as most who have been through the divorce courts would opine ...
I reserve my right to form an opinion on any poster's contribution on a post by post basis
a perfectly proper consideration ..
Your post leaves me somewhat piqued.
not intended and, for this, my apologies
how anybody can post an opinion on a topic without having watched the central and only supportive evidence that this topic is offering.
my comments related to the generic subject .. which comes up regularly in the Industry. Specifically, I caveated that comment was not directed at the specific doco
To discredit it after review (if warranted) is OK!
my purpose is not to discredit the doco .. rather to highlight some general observations on docos .. which, possibly, will have some application to the present item
whether there is a safety issue or not
any time that questions relating to design and manufacture arise there is an implied safety consideration. The important matter is for any allegations to be subject to competent audit which, in this sort of instance, is the Regulator. If we are talking about the principal NAAs then we have to start with the premise that the Regulator has a reasonable level of integrity
there appears to be an inappropriate relationship between the investigating and investigated parties
and that may be a relevant observation - I have no way of knowing - however, a TV doco is not the basis for necessary and adequate evidence. If the matter has proceeded to court then one would reasonably presume that folk in appropriate places have instituted audits of material considerations
I refer to original footage of a video taped court affidavit.
such (or similar) was presumed. However, an affidavit doesn't necessarily constitute irrefutable fact .. as most who have been through the divorce courts would opine ...
I reserve my right to form an opinion on any poster's contribution on a post by post basis
a perfectly proper consideration ..
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
I actually find this ironic comment from you if I did not know that you have not watched the documentary.
Boeing receives deffectives parts from a subcontractor and those parts not fit for the plane manufacturing.
A service of Boeing is responsible for auditing the subcontractor
The report of this audit shows that the subcontractor fails to comply with the terms of reference for manufacturing.
This report is forwarded to the appropriate people in the direction of Boeing
The answer is "case closed" and nothing happens ....
If the matter has proceeded to court then one would reasonably presume that folk in appropriate places have instituted audits of material considerations
Boeing receives deffectives parts from a subcontractor and those parts not fit for the plane manufacturing.
A service of Boeing is responsible for auditing the subcontractor
The report of this audit shows that the subcontractor fails to comply with the terms of reference for manufacturing.
This report is forwarded to the appropriate people in the direction of Boeing
The answer is "case closed" and nothing happens ....
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Durham
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
folk such as lomapaseo and mad (flt) scientist
Yes you said it they are experienced "engineers". Well I guess where they come from, they get the license to ptactice from a different engineering body than we do here in the UK.
We, UK chartered engineers, swear an oath never to endanger life. Basically this means that you WALK AWAY from an enterprise that is taking serious with the safety of the public. Please note THE PUBLIC.
Calculated risks for enterprises such as the military has another set of rules. Nuclear installations are another example.
It is very clear to me that Boeing employs cheap people. To those who post on this site who have no understanding of what they opine on..HIYA..so glad you are nowhere near me or anything that I use day to day. May you burn in hell.
We, UK chartered engineers, swear an oath never to endanger life. Basically this means that you WALK AWAY from an enterprise that is taking serious with the safety of the public. Please note THE PUBLIC.
Calculated risks for enterprises such as the military has another set of rules. Nuclear installations are another example.
It is very clear to me that Boeing employs cheap people. To those who post on this site who have no understanding of what they opine on..HIYA..so glad you are nowhere near me or anything that I use day to day. May you burn in hell.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engineers in the rest of the world outside the uk are usually persons who have a masters degree in engineering. In the UK most "engineers" are what would be called a mechanic or maintenance personnel in the rest of the world.
Simply two different things, don't confuse them please. Both lompasos and mad (flt) scientist (who has his background in the nick) posts speak for themselves, not only on this topic but all over this site.
By the way, not only boeing employs cheap people, so does airbus. It is what every business does if it can get away with it, mainly it is about saving every penny possible.
Simply two different things, don't confuse them please. Both lompasos and mad (flt) scientist (who has his background in the nick) posts speak for themselves, not only on this topic but all over this site.
By the way, not only boeing employs cheap people, so does airbus. It is what every business does if it can get away with it, mainly it is about saving every penny possible.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is very clear to me that Boeing employs cheap people. To those who post on this site who have no understanding of what they opine on..HIYA..so glad you are nowhere near me or anything that I use day to day. May you burn in hell.
And, from a so-called UK 'chartered engineer', no less...I would guess that the UK educational system is just simply not what it used to be.
