A blast would not have to be very large... to rupture the hull of... by David Soucie

A blast would not have to be very large... to rupture the hull of that aircraft.

David Soucie

Image Embed Code

Categorized in : Top News

Boeing is clearly committed to making the 737 MAX 8 safe again, while it doesn't answer all the questions about why it wasn't addressed before it was put into service.

The FAA has very little, if anything, to do with the actual manufacture of the aircraft once it's been approved to be manufactured, the FAA needs to be looked at.

I've never said that it's unsafe to fly a particular model of aircraft, but in this case, I'm going to have to go there, i would watch for that aircraft. I'm so sorry to say that.

The training that was recommended by Boeing after the Lion Air accident, there's no way for me to know whether the airline I'm on or the pilot that's flying had that training or not, if there was a way for me to know that, then I would most definitely get on that airplane.

What's most peculiar to me is the fact that they didn't declare an emergency. They just simply said,' We're going back', but when I look at the track of the aircraft after that, the aircraft made a very steep dive after that which is not typical of what they would've done.

On a forensic investigation, which is what's going on in France, you don't use the process of elimination and say, well, it must be a flap, you have to have forensic proof, which is the samples from the paint, from the metal, to tie it specifically to the aircraft. That's what they're waiting for, and that's what they mean by 100% conclusive.

It was a controlled descent, and there was something that had gone wrong that he had no control over or he would have controlled it.

If it had crashed in the way that we think it did, which is to run out of fuel and hit the water and break up into pieces, there would be pieces somewhere.