Bad writing - worse editing... Or maybe it was one of those AI written articles and the algorithm hadn't included rules in that discipline. In any case, there are increasing numbers of "pieces of journalism" in all sources that are missing vital grammatical articles or in which there are serious extrapolations of the story (data) that are somewhere between ludicrous and dangerous. (Disclaimer: this post was not edited for content, veracity or validity, or any other reasonable measure of value and therefore shall contain the prefatory trigraph "IMO".)

(Written on 09/24/2021)(Permalink)

I agree with those who think it's not a big deal. On a plane like that there are likely uncountable engineering and build !#@%-ups that dwarf any QA problems of that sort. We hope they are found in test - but not always. I had a PM who kept a couple of bottles of hard stuff in his desk - for medicinal purposes only - and we never had issues with what we built over 40+ years of total success in a program that had access requirements far beyond this. It's likely a plant to cause just this kind of front-page splash.

(Written on 09/24/2021)(Permalink)

+1

(Written on 07/16/2021)(Permalink)

LM, Boeing, and Northrup Grumman (the big 3) merged because of the intense pressure to adopt solutions that no single supplier could meet. (IMHO, I don't think the big 3 are running American aerospace into the ground as much as Wall St.) I joined Lockheed when we were a unsophisticated aerospace company and had a bunch of aerospace engineers in top management. Lockheed went bankrupt. Although the engineers knew fancy arithmetic, they didn't know modern finance. (I'm being a bit silly/naive here but we were so small I would see the eventual president of the whole company - Vance Coffman - walking through the halls and call him by name, and, I recall him knowing my name.) I don't pretend to know how to solve the problem(s) but aerospace economics are far more complicated than a simplistic "break them up" solution. For every problem like this there is simple solution which is completely wrong and likely more harmful than the original state.

(Written on 07/16/2021)(Permalink)

A complex piece of aeronautical equipment designed by a congressional committee to satisfy their respective constituencies. Doomed to this fate from the beginning. We're not talking requirements creep here, we're talking requirements explosions on a thermonuclear scale. Compare with another company product - SR-71 - that was a point design with no more than 10 customer contacts. I was going to say you could count them on 2 hands and IIRC it was a 1-hand customer count. And, they were competent aerospace experts not political weasels. As a former Lockheed employee in another, very distant arm of the company I never wanted to get close to this as the politics were just too stinky and sticky. I have friends who worked on the F22 and then the F35 who said they tried to solve/avoid on the F35 some of the problems they had on the F22. For one, a lot of the electronics boxes on the F22 was designed using active components (ICs, etc.) that were on sundown lists before the plane flew. Swit

(Written on 07/16/2021)(Permalink)

As a pilot I am responsible for the safe outcome of the flight. In this case, what does that mean? The FAA is typical in its ambiguity and they would likely think a pilot "shooting" an unruly passenger is going too far. Or, would they? "Yes" and "No", it all depends, as lawyers tend to say. The problem is lawyers think they have the solution in any "after the fact" opinion. Then there's the court of public opinion as witnessed by the press. It's tough and I don't know what I would do with an unruly passenger but being former Army I tend to the disciplinarian mindset. The FAA having "strong penalties" or any other "after-the-fact" penalty is not much of a deterrence to a mentally incapacitated or stressed person. They have lost the capacity to weigh/balance actions with consequences - by definition. I think I favor the "strong male passenger" approach as minimizing collateral damage but by definition there could easily be collateral damage in any use of force - lethal or non-

(Written on 06/18/2021)(Permalink)

He reported a Cessna in sight which was crossing his path but there's nothing to indicate he ever saw the metroliner which might have been almost straight-on to his line of sight and maybe hard to see. In fact, all indications (radar) are that he approached the ML and was turning with his blind side to that AC and ran right over him as the metroliner on final was around 115 to 125 kt but the SR22 was considerably faster at 145+kt. The lower structural longerons of the metroliner firmly attached to the wing box kept it from collapsing although if he had done a go-around it might have folded up. So, where ignorance is bliss, tis folly to be wise. I was discussing this with a former USAF heavy equipment operator (B52 pilot for the unknowing) and he said he was impressed with the technological advances of the SR22 but it would likely be a handful for the arrogant or the ignorant VLT (very low time) pilot. He will have to do a lot of splainin' to the FAA and my guess is he'll be in real

(Written on 05/14/2021)(Permalink)

Maybe you're jumping to the conclusion that pilots are getting it ahead of those you mention. But, assuming that there is a small class of pilots who are also healthcare workers or elderly then the statement is still true. My #1 son is a front-line EMT and transporting (multiple) covid-19 patients every day; I want him to get it before I do and I am in the elderly class/category - and still flying. I gave him the last of my 3M N95 masks because there weren't any and he was going around with a t-shirt sleeve around his face because the administration-on-duty couldn't seem to get their act together. I have a really high interest in seeing healthcare workers get the vaccine real soon now.

(Written on 12/18/2020)(Permalink)

There is nothing more unusual about the FAA's advice on this vaccine than any other. The FAA has a requirement the the pilot must take into account the effect of starting, continuing,etc.,any medication and recommends, but can't force, a pilot to wait to assess effects. And, since it is patently illegal to take anything like this that the FAA hasn't approved then it's only wise to stay on their good side by waiting so if you have a run-in with them they can't add that to the complaint. As far as fainting after the injection - now, watch out for a war story - back in the day, the Army used to administer most vaccinations using a pressure gun because it was quicker, more sanitary, etc.,etc.,etc. Sometimes they would administer 2 or 3 at a time and and as we left the building there were several trainees sprawled out on the ground in various states of consciousness. I don't know why but it happened all the time for various reasons. And since many people faint at the sight of a needle m

(Written on 12/18/2020)(Permalink)

According to a Senior AME on an EAA Webinar what Jasper Buck says below is correct. The FAA will only weigh in on C-19 vaccine if there is indications of population-wide adverse events but unless and until that time their (the FAA) policy is that a pilot is obliged to wait a sufficient amount of time before flying to assure no adverse effects of any vaccine, drug, treatment, etc., etc.,etc. So, this is just the unknowing informing the ignorant or what we called in the Army just another worthless/mindless rumor to keep people occupied.

(Written on 12/11/2020)(Permalink)