Wondering if the same mishap is behind it again.
edit: actually, how did that happen? The apostrophes show up correctly, they’re just all preceded by a  that doesn’t seem to represent anything?
C2 in ISO 8859-1 is ””. U+0092 is the control code Private Use 2 in Unicode, and 92 is the same in ISO 8859-1. However, the standard Western Windows code page 1252 extends ISO 8859-1 by assigning “’” (right single quotation mark) to 92.
HTML5/WHATWG requires an ISO 8859-1 charset declaration to be interpreted as Windows-1252 (https://blog.whatwg.org/the-road-to-html-5-character-encodin...), hence the displayed result is “Â’”.
The original Windows-1252 content must have previously been converted to UTF-8 under the assumption that the source is ISO 8859-1, i.e. mapping 92 to U+0092 (Private Use 2) instead of to U+2019 (Right Single Quotation Mark). The resulting UTF-8 encoding was placed in the web page, which however is declared as ISO 8859-1.
(It also says this happened to Boeing in 2018 and they ignored it, of course)
I'm actually serious, it seems to me they resist these kind of short-term helpers that would save lots of injuries.
But, fucking hell, apparently Boeing "engineers" are so dumb they never learned about Murphy's law.
QA engineer's first check was, what happens if I try and retract the wheels while the plane is sitting on the ground and not moving. Oops.
Google says front wheel is about 1.68m. High but not crazy high. Plane body and people fall at same speed and it would be slower than actual freefall since the plane is vaguely balance-ish on rear wheels
I'm sure the reporting is right but feels counterintuitive to me
Yeah I'm pulling all that out my ass but I bet I'm closer than anyone around here wants me to be. However mundane and stupid you think ground ops are at an airport triple that and you'll be in the ballpark.
He's now an estate agent. Must have been the concussion.
This one even better: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1510091&...
https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1twkg45/lufthansa...
Video: https://x.com/flightradar24/status/2062510866981924920?s=20
While slowly-failing gear could have collapsed anyway just then, the obvious question is whether the nose gear had just been serviced. By mechanics who (say) forgot to re-install the bolts holding everything together.
How insane do you want to sound?
"Yeah, let's sabotage a competitor's plane, I'm sure it won't cause a major scandal and millions of dollars of lawsuits if one of them falls out of the sky and kills ~300 people, and they caught us as the cause...".
What the hell dictionary are you using where you're asking if the word "reasonable" could apply to this idea? Is your hovercraft full of eels?
Even with the MAX and the recent (last ~2 years) spate of incidents, flying is safer now than it ever has been, and certainly safer than it has been over its lifetime.
0. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/world-air-pas...
There have been many other safety defects and scandals swept under the rug, but they rarely make the news because they're detailed and complicated and corporate "news" isn't interested. Also, US presidents have defended them and US regulators run PR interference for them too.
The biggest one is the fact that unknowable 737 NG -6xx/-7xx/-8xx/-9xx structural fuselage elements including bear straps manufactured grossly out of spec by subcontractor Ducommun, declared "airworthy", and pounded into place on the Boeing fuselage assembly line on orders of management present greater risks of fuselage breakup during severe turbulence, runway overruns, and hard landings. There have already been fuselage breakups of NG airframes that 737 Classic aircraft survived more intact in similar circumstances. Most worryingly, there has been extensive retaliation against whistleblowers.
https://christinenegroni.com/boeing-workers-warn-of-737-ng-s...
Edit: Although maybe that's not the most parsimonious explanation.