Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15703
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: How Boeing’s Responsibility in a Deadly Crash ‘Got Buried’

Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:22 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Has aviation training sunk to the point that we do not teach, and do not expect, pilots to be aware of their energy state (airspeed and altitude) and correct gross deviations?


I don’t think that should be the take away from either this accident, the SFO accident, or the MCAS accidents. While a good pilot should have been able to prevent those accidents, does that mean an average pilot would ? The data suggests that some average pilots are struggling with priorities in information being thrown at them, not necessarily with flying.

I don’t think it’s really acceptable these days when we use automation in so many ways not to have automation to help out with the priorities.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
That we expect the airplane to save the crew?


That comment reminds me what people use to say when wearing seatbelts or helmets were made compulsory. I’m a good driver, I’ll never crash, I don’t need a seatbelt.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
This crew even added thrust, let the throttles come back to idle and DID NOTHING to correct the situation by disconnecting the A/T system.


I explained that earlier, the FO was PF, he increased thrust, the CN took over and during the hand over thrust was brought back to IDLE by the aircraft. Need to keep this in context that this was a late cabin ready for landing report, training flight, glide slope from above, late landing checklist.

There have been so many threads on here about how the Boeing is superior to anything else because the pilots have feedback from the controls, and the throttles move. This accident like the SFO and MCAS accident highlight the flaw with that argument, unless you are aware of what the aircraft is doing, those moving control columns and throttles are just ornaments.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8728
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: How Boeing’s Responsibility in a Deadly Crash ‘Got Buried’

Wed Jan 22, 2020 2:41 pm

WIederling wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
Are you saying coders are better than pilots?


The thing with software is that you can fix it afterwards ( at least that is the perception
by management and they work with that concept. ) in an easy way. "Just update
I do that on my desktop computer all the time ".

With everything today being diffused by software/computer stuff
the "Mythical Man Month" bible has expanded its reach.


Having several threads for same root cause issue is a problem.

In 2013 MAX SIMs were crashing and planes in SIMs were crashing.
How would SIM test pilots know whether it is the bottom dollar SIM (or) or badly designed and authored MCAS?

Was there an attempt to fix MCAS before EIS of before JT/ET crashes. Probably no.

Conclusion: Management changed too many variables making it difficult to everyone.
All posts are just opinions.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5106
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: How Boeing’s Responsibility in a Deadly Crash ‘Got Buried’

Wed Jan 22, 2020 3:07 pm

Jetty wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Again, the crew mishandles a pretty obvious autothrottle failure and it is Boeing’s fault. The RA displayed incorrectly, the A/T showed “RETARD” indicating it thought it was within landing parameters, all missed by three “experienced” crew.

The NYT isn’t an engineering document.

GF

More than one factor can be at fault, and mostly is when anything serious happens. Regardless on how many blame you can put on the pilots, why make it a habit to rely on 1 sensor when there are more available? Because they kept updating a plane from the 60’s instead of using state of the art design and technology because it was cheaper? The NG might already have been a generation too much. That’s where Boeing’s responsibility comes into play.

The Pilots relied on One sensor since they didn't even Have AOA indication on their EHSI's Had they had AOA indication? Then it's iikelyv they would have seen the malfunction and the difference between the Capt's and the FO's AOA indication and cut out the Stabilizer trim altogether. Why do you think it didn't occur at any of the US carriers or any of the established 737 carriers around the world? It's because they bought the Max airplanes with indication to look like their Older 737 -700.-800 and -900 aircraft which had AOA as standard equipment. AOA might well have been optional on the Max but that was flawed thinking by a greedy arrogant VP who was trying to make his Bones and wound up Making his Bones on someone Else's Graves. If the FAA want's to Do something? They should go back and find that Particular Idiot and Ban him for LIFE from ever heading a program,

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos