Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Airbus Commander

Interesting Documentary On the 737NG

Recommended Posts

I find it hard to believe a single media outlet, much less Al Jazeera as that single news outlet. It's entirely possible, but until I see someone else look into it and show proof of their information, I can't accept it fully.What I don't understand is the beginning of the video, where they point out the three crashes. They're questioning why three aircraft split apart upon impact.This 744 rolled into a drainage ditch and ended up crumpling the entire nose.Saudi2.jpgIf something comes in at or above landing speed and hits the ground abnormally, I'd be surprised if it didn't split further, but I didn't watch too much farther to see if they explained what happened to each of the flights....and don't forget the actual meaning behind the name PPRune.


Kyle Rodgers

Share this post


Link to post

The film has got a lot of misleading and incorrect information in it. Unfortunately, poor journalistic practices such as that, then cast doubt on all the information in the film and this does nothing to assist the people who may genuinely be reporting legitimate concerns.Some falsehoods in the film include incorrectly reporting the causes and effects of the three 737 NG crashes featured in the film. For example, the Turkish 737 crash at Schiphol did not occur when the aircraft 'overshot the runway' as the film states, it was caused when it undershot the runway after the crew failed to monitor the autopilot and autothrottle properly. Thus the crash was completely due to a crew error and nothing to do with the structural integrity of the aircraft. so to use it in the film is nothing short of cheap scaremongering and frankly, I think it is remarkable that the NG actually stayed as intact as it did in that crash.Furthermore, the Schiphol crash is compared to the well-known test crash of a B707 in the Mojave Desert conducted some years ago. Quite apart from the fact that there is little point in comparing two different aircraft in a crash - frankly they might just have well used footage of a Spitfire crash for all the relevance it had - the film makes several deliberate errors in relation to this test footage in an attempt to support its assertion, notably, claiming that the 707 crash test was intended to test the structural integrity of the aircraft in an impact. This is completely untrue, it was in fact a test designed to deliberately rip open the fuel tanks so that a prototype fuel additive which would supposedly 'gel' aviation fuel on shock impact to prevent it misting into an inflammable vapour, could be tested (a test which it failed incidentally). The really dodgy part however, is that the film then claims the 707 impacted at a much higher speed than the 737 which crashed at Schiphol, this is deliberately misleading, because whilst the 707 was flying at a higher speed, it did not impact at a higher speed than the Schiphol 737, which was in a stalled condition when it slammed into the ground, so the 737's forward speed was slower, but its vertical impact speed was in fact much higher than that of the 707. It is deliberately falsifying 'evidence' such as this in order to support claims which throws doubt on all the other evidence, since if they can make that up, how do we know they aren't making other stuff up? In short, it is an example of very poor reportage which shoots itself in the &@($* as far as credibility is concerned.Couple inaccuracies and fact twisting such as this with the deliberately emotive 'thriller type' music the film uses and its carefully cherry-picked quotes, many of which are taken out of context, and you have more examples of what I regard as extremely manipulative and shoddy reporting. I used to work as a reporter, and if anyone I had employed would have gone about reporting in that way, I'd have been having some serious words with them for indulging in that kind of deliberate attempt to put a slant on the facts. If they do indeed have evidence which supports the film's assertions, why not use that instead of simply making up stuff?All of this does not mean those Boeing workers do not have a legitimate claim, they may indeed have one for all I know, but I certainly would not regard this film as a genuinely bipartisan attempt to convey those concerns, it's nothing short of deliberately manipulative, and in many places, downright untrue, and that does those people no favours at all.Al


Alan Bradbury

Check out my youtube flight sim videos: Here

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with Al, that article is garbage. The NG has an amazing safety record - pretty much every accident one's ever been involved in had nothing to do with the aircraft itself, all pilot error/fatigue etc. Runway overruns, stalls on approach, diving it into the water thinking it's on autopilot when it isn't etc...


Ryan Maziarz
devteam.jpg

For fastest support, please submit a ticket at http://support.precisionmanuals.com

Share this post


Link to post
Guest wims

So the part about that company producing parts by hand while they should have been made by a CNC machine was false as well?

Share this post


Link to post
The film has got a lot of misleading and incorrect information in it. Unfortunately, poor journalistic practices such as that
Media with misleading/incorrect information... say it aint so!!! :(

|Ryan Butterworth|

| i7 4790K@4.4GHz | 32GB RAM | EVGA GTX 1080Ti | ASUS Z97-Pro | 1TB 860 Evo | 500GB 840 Evo Win10 Pro | 1TB Samsung 7200rpm | Seasonic X750W |

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe I won't be purchasing the PMDG 737NG afterall... just kidding.On a more serious note, and speaking from a civil engineering background (we do structures!), that seems like a pretty legitimate problem to me. However, I would say if it's true as they claim, then they did a weak job of supporting their argument. They didn't attribute the problem with the straps to any of those three crashes other than claiming that the planes involved broke up at the locations of the straps. From what I could see, those plains DID NOT break up where the straps were located. The straps are located primarily at the doors, as they themselves claimed in the beginning of the video. Those planes look to have broke up between the doors, indicating that the locations where straps are installed (per their claims) are the stronger parts.Regardless of whether or not they can attribute existing crashes to the straps, they seem to have a strong argument against the Ducommon Aerostructures (the company making the straps). Producing the components by hand when you're claiming to be making them by CNC is unnacceptable and ridiculous. I'm sorry, but CNC really is spectacular and you just can't do a better job by hand! If the claims are true, I don't know why a company like Boeing would let this smaller subcontractor put them at such high risk.Attributing existing crashes to the straps only weakens their argument if the straps were not actually the cause of the crash. If the Ducommon Aerostructures actually is making the parts by hand, then that's the argument they need to pursue. Twisting information regarding previous incidents is only going to ruin their credit.


Corey Meeks

Download: FSXMark11 Benchmark and post results here

Share this post


Link to post
So the part about that company producing parts by hand while they should have been made by a CNC machine was false as well?
Nope, never said that was false, the truth is I simply don't know for sure, but even if I was inclined to believe it, the bogus misdirection they included in the film has made me severely doubt the veracity of any of the content of it, because it doesn't make a proper investigation. As I said, if there is evidence of malpractices or production failings, then there is no need to dress it up with made up nonsense along the lines of clumsily trying to make crashes which had nothing to do with the alleged issue look like they are some kind of proof of it. If the film's assertion really is true then that in itself is dramatic enough without throwing in some cheap thrill crash footage in an attempt to try and sex it up.Find and show us the evidence, and if you can't, then it simply isn't a factual documentary. It is perfectly possible to do that too: Several B737 NGs have been retired and scrapped, you can see one being cut up in this month's issue of Airliner World in fact, so why not nip down to that breakers, rip the interior off that one and have a look at the fuselage bracing and get a picture of it instead of pointlessly tearing down a Classic in a boneyard for no readily apparent reason? If they had put their money where their mouth was and done that, I'd have a bit more of a chance of believing the allegation, because it would be irrefutably on show. That's what a proper respectable investigative journo would have done. You don't have to be Woodward or Bernstein to know that it is a fundamental principle of reporting to check and confirm beyond doubt the authenticity of your info. Showing us some guy loading boxes into a car that supposedly have evidence in them isn't proof, those boxes could have had his porno magazine collection in them for all we know.The film itself includes the oft-quoted statistic that a B737 takes off or lands somewhere in the world every five seconds, and that being the case, if the NG is such a death trap, how come the streets aren't littered with burning 737 NG wreckage? My guess is that it might be because the Boeing 737 is statistically the safest airliner in service, which is a fact they rather conveniently appear to have forgotten to include in the film, along with a few others which might have made it more worthy of taking seriously.Al

Alan Bradbury

Check out my youtube flight sim videos: Here

Share this post


Link to post

Well said Al. It sucks, because the claim, if true, is a very big problem. However, the inclusion of extra nonsense to make it suitable for a TV audience completely discredits whatever claims they have made. I'm sorry, but it's the plaintiff's responsiblity to prove their argument beyond a shadow of a doubt. If they can't, then too bad - life goes on... sucks being the plaintiff. In the meantime, it looks like you're going to have to wait for a plane to drop out of the sky to pick back up on your argument.


Corey Meeks

Download: FSXMark11 Benchmark and post results here

Share this post


Link to post

I'm personally going to cut open the PMDG 737NG when it is released. If it really does simulate everything, then it should have some dodgy stringers inside it. Then we'll see if PMDG are as good as they say they are LOLAl


Alan Bradbury

Check out my youtube flight sim videos: Here

Share this post


Link to post

The biggest fault with the NG is the bloody cockpit is too small! Not enough room to stretch out!Jack C

Share this post


Link to post
×
×
  • Create New...