189 possibly dead in Indonesian plane crash.

[PSOL]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-indonesia-crash/indonesia-plane-with-189-on-board-crashes-after-asking-to-return-to-base-idUSKCN1N307E

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The regulator that said this plane was safe better get a whuppin’.

[Santander]

The regulator that said this plane was safe better get a whuppin’.

You know literally nothing and can't read.

[PSOL]

The regulator that said this plane was safe better get a whuppin’.

You know literally nothing and can't read.

It is common knowledge that Indonesian regulators turn a blind eye for a pretty penny. I highly suspect then that the crash was due to a doctored bill of safety. Speaking of which...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-indonesia-crash-flight/indonesian-aircraft-was-new-fell-out-of-a-clear-sky-minutes-after-take-off-idUSKCN1N31YG

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yep, regulators okayed a crummy plane.

[Santander]

Once again demonstrating your complete inability to ing READ.

[PSOL]

Once again demonstrating your complete inability to ing READ.

There is a reason planes don’t crash by airliners in developed countries, regulations against poor planes and punishment against bribery are much more enforced. A technical issue, one that brought down this plane, wouldn’t fly with current rule of law.

 Indonesia has a corruption problem, thus regulators can okay a faulty aircraft at the right price.

[Santander]

Once again demonstrating your complete inability to ing READ.

There is a reason planes don’t crash by airliners in developed countries, regulations against poor planes and punishment against bribery are much more enforced. A technical issue, one that brought down this plane, wouldn’t fly with current rule of law.

 Indonesia has a corruption problem, thus regulators can okay a faulty aircraft at the right price.

You do realize you are talking to a f**king pilot, right? And one who can actually read English, too.

AVIATION REGULATORS DO NOT APPROVE INDIVIDUAL NON-EXPERIMENTAL, NON-PROTOTYPE AIRFRAMES. THE PLANE WAS A BRAND NEW AIRFRAME THAT WAS SO NEW IT WAS NEVER EVEN SCHEDULED FOR A HEAVY CHECK. YOU WOULD KNOW THAT IF YOU READ THE ARTICLE.

Boeing may have delivered a bad plane with manufacturing defects. The early 787s had problems. But that has nothing to do with the Indonesian authorities. In fact, if any regulatory authority is at fault in such a case (which is not the case here), it would be the FAA.

The airline's maintenance staff may not have spotted a technical fault, or the pilots may have made errors, both of which could've been caused by a poor safety culture at the airline, which could've in turn been caused by relatively poor regulation. But one thing is absolutely sure - at no point did anyone in any Indonesian regulatory authority "okay" this specific plane to fly, other than issuing standard registration for an approved aircraft type. The assertion that some sort of regulatory bureaucrat "signed off" on this plane's maintenance for profit is so ludicrous and so far detached from how things actually work that I actually have to consider it a personal insult that I have to share a biological species with the person who made it.

[PSOL]

Alright I fold, I was unaware of the current state of Indonesian airline quality nor what a regulatory approval of airlines entails. I’m just going by the article.

In my defense I was going by my gut on what regulators do when there is an issue arriving with the first ride. Nowhere does it talk about not having individual checkups.

[PSOL]

Alright I fold, I was unaware of the current state of Indonesian airline quality nor what a regulatory approval of airlines entails. I’m just going by the article.

In my defense I was going by my gut on what regulators do when there is an issue arriving with the first ride. Nowhere does it talk about not having individual checkups.

Word of advice, don't go by your gut if you have no f#cking idea about what your talking about.
Also, read the article. The Plane was 2 months old. Brand New. Does that sound like the sort of plane which would have safety problems?

Again I had no clue, I thought that the inspection on the first issue would have been more intensive.

[Santander]

Boeing may have delivered a bad plane with manufacturing defects. The early 787s had problems. But that has nothing to do with the Indonesian authorities. In fact, if any regulatory authority is at fault in such a case (which is not the case here), it would be the FAA.

Santander proven correct again...