you know if you do that the wind will shift and you will never make it.

Am I calculating this right? Falling 31,000 feet in one minute is basically flying downward at 350 mph. That sounds more like 'flying into the ground' than 'falling', but I'm a biologist not a pilot.

A couple times recently on my Sunday rides, I've experienced winds blowing from the Southeast while heading that direction, only to encounter winds blowing from the Northwest on the return. It seems monstrously unfair to me.

Come to Va, story of my life.

Same in Texas.

Same.

It’s gusting way too hard to ride. 36 gusts are enough to push me into a car.

What I call the Omnidirectional Headwind. Drains all the fun out of a ride.

Well one is part and parcel of crimes against humanity, and the other is Mobil1.

Editing: Read rest of thread, glad you landed on what you did.

In that vein, am I off-base noting that, for the 737-MAX issue, the crashes were all third-/developing-world airlines and not US/ western Europe/ other developed nation airlines? Not to necessarily excuse Boeing, but the pattern of where those failures occurred made me wonder if it was a problem in all situations, or if it was only a problem with potentially lesser-trained pilots and lesser-maintained planes, or even lesser-specced planes as I recall might have been a thing.

I don't know about any of that, but this crash was not a MAX. Ignore me if you already knew that.

The crash in Colorado Springs was a nose in, but not from 30,000 feet.

I won't ignore you; I was aware and meant this as a separate question in a similar vein of the "multifactorial failures" which were never really addressed with those crashes, which puzzled me.

I believe that Boeing admitted it was a design issue with the Max. There is a trial going on in Fort Worth against a Boeing test pilot who apparently covered it up knowing that it was not safe.

Boeing ex-pilot's trial starts on fraud charges over 737 Max - ABC News (go.com)

When it comes to the max, the main issue was the system that caused both of those crashes, no one knew the system existed. I think for one of the crashes the airspeed sensor was blocked and caused the system to continue to fire. Basically with the Max, it has larger engines which causes a center of gravity issue. Boeing installed a trim system to keep the plane from stalling at slower airspeeds. It’s active during take off and landing. No one knew the system was on board or how it worked. So in the case with the airspeed being blocked on take off system started firing. With no airspeed data the system thought the plane was too slow and started aggressively pushing the nose down. I don’t think the pilots had time to react.

I need to look at the details of the second crash. Unfortunately, I think in the first case the result would have been same over here. The crash happened like 10 seconds after the system was activated. Kicking the autopilot off wouldn’t have mattered. You would still be fighting the plane all the way to the ground.

The system is fixed now. It’s redundant where before it was not and we are trained to deactivate it if need be.

The Max is a lot of fun to fly.

It was addressed. All came down to software, and not being redundant. Every airplane has multiple pitot static systems. This is where the airplane gets data, airspeed, pressure altitude, temperature and so on. When the system was first implemented it was only tied to one pitot static system. If that system went offline then the MAX system didn’t no what the airplane was doing. It’s now tied to all the pitot static systems as well as other safety nets. Plus now we know the system is there and how to counter it if need be.

I just read that John Travolta is now certified to fly a 737.

Thanks for the extra details; I knew about the sensor but wasn't clear if it was part of a larger thing that explained why it hadn't happened in developed countries, but I guess it was just random.

For the part I quoted though, I'm genuinely curious - what makes an airliner fun to fly? They're obviously not the sports cars of the sky that fighters or stunt planes are, so I would have thought that one would fly mostly like another, much like I'd imagine one tractor trailer would drive like another across brands. With larger engines on a narrow body, is the MAX like a muscle car of the genre?

The only one that I've found as genuinely much better is the Dreamliner; having been in business class helped of course but I genuinely think the greater pressurization made me a lot less miserable.

Mainly it’s just new. I mean in my career every plane I have flown has been older than me. The MAX still has a new plane smell to it. The avionics are nicer. The controls feel stiffer, more responsive but that might be in my head.

The 737 in general is a pretty amazing plane. We can climb to 30,000 holding 300 indicated. I’m sure the other larger aircraft can do that too but the 145 most certainly could not.

All it takes is about 30 grand…….. You just have to rent the sim.

I mean you have to have your other ratings but any ATP pilot can get a type rating in anything if they want to pay for it.

We had a couple pilots at the regional who paid for an airbus type rating thinking it would help them get hired. I mean it might look good on resume I guess, but if you don’t have any time in it, kind of useless.


I really want a B-25 type on my certificate. My uncle flew those in WW2 and I have always wanted to fly one once. The type would be more for the experience once I had it, I wouldn’t be able to really use it.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...b94df6e1a2.png


Anybody do cycle cross? Would this be suitable? If not why? I am completely ignorant of all things cycle cross.

I thought he has been for a while.

This evening will be interesting. Already had tornadoes north of us from the same storm system.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...cea818ecf8.jpg

Stay safe! I am feeling incredibly guilty that I am up in Boulder and AG is down in Austin alone; two tornados already in the greater metro area. :eek:

Without having looked at that one, my understanding is that gravel bikes are generally geometered for stability while cross bikes are responsive and twitchy. I wouldn't want to keep a cross bike stable on a long gravel ride, and wouldn't want to try to force a gravel bike around a cross course. I believe that is a very nice gravel bike, but I wouldn't want to take it on a cross race.

Gravel bikes are NOT "trendy cross bikes".