Unsurprisingly, it's an old airframe (built 1994), operated by a state-owned African carrier: rarely a recipe for good maintenance. It's quite unlikely that Boeing is in any way to blame for this.<p><a href="https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/387749" rel="nofollow">https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/387749</a>
Can the BBC reign in its news headline writers and reverse a fairly recent (5-10 years?) policy of juicing up what was 'unbiased' news? But in fact, I have a rose-tinted view of the BBC so I should just reign in my reactions instead.
Sigh, something that would be much less likely to even make it to HN if not for the fact that everyone is hungry to find the next thread to post their pre-canned “damn MBAs!!” rant on. It’s not a Max.
<a href="https://avherald.com/h?article=51867a11" rel="nofollow">https://avherald.com/h?article=51867a11</a><p><i>> the crew rejected takeoff due to a hydraulic defect but veered left off the runway. The aircraft came to a stop on soft ground next to the Presidential Pavillion (about 2000 meters/6000 feet down the runway), the left wing briefly caught fire. All occupants evacuated via slides</i>
I have a question on manifold about Boeing's troubles:<p><a href="https://manifold.markets/VitorBosshard/number-of-major-incidents-involving" rel="nofollow">https://manifold.markets/VitorBosshard/number-of-major-incid...</a><p>I'm only counting incidents where Boeing is at fault, this one might still be bad maintenance or other operator error.
skid off runway. 10 people injured.<p>not what people consider normally an airliner crash: a plane falling out of air hitting groind or sea hard in a fireball, killing alk/most etc