Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was working OPS back in the early 90's on A320's before Airbus had the software sorted and I knew of a few episodes that would have been as fatal as the Maxes the public and even most pilots never knew about. A few A320's did drill it into the dirt tripped up by not knowing every quirk built into the algorithms. A nasty one was one pilot disconnecting the autopilot while the PNF (pilot not flying) left his on. If you put a target into the system 100ft underground it would take you there. The airline I worked at finally went with all the magic on normally and all the "magic" off below 10,000ft on approach.....
Boeings problem with the Maxes is assuming all the pilots around the world would know what to do with a runaway stab and a few had the problem and got out of it in the USA. A 28 year old Captn and a 200 hour copilot didn't. Pilots were used to stab trim going off with autopilot disconnect, leaving it hooked up with a mind of its own in the Max is obviously a mistake. Boeing will solve it.
It was not a pilot error in either crash, judging from the footage. The pilot of the Ethiopian flight was very experienced.
They said it was software bugs, maybe combined with faulty sensors. For instance, they showed erroneous value readouts jumping wildly between positive and negative values.
Anyway, there already is a threat dedicated to that suspicious plane, so...
I wonder why SpaceX or Blue Origin haven't ventured in to this market. It would be a good motivator for the current manufacturers to start re-evaluating their current processes/products.
I guess Boeing and Airbus already offer what is in demand. After all, there is a lot of feedback from airlines that enters into the development of new planes.
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,694 posts, read 58,012,579 times
Reputation: 46171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
It was not a pilot error in either crash, judging from the footage. The pilot of the Ethiopian flight was very experienced.
They said it was software bugs, maybe combined with faulty sensors. For instance, they showed erroneous value readouts jumping wildly between positive and negative values.
Anyway, there already is a threat dedicated to that suspicious plane, so...
How much 737 flight time did this 28 YO Captain have? (I have been seeking to find that data.)
Pilot error can be attributed to a crash IF the pilot did not think (or know) to disengage the software control and manually fly the plane.
8000 is TOTAL hours... probably heavily loaded with GA since he was only age 28 and likely capped at 1200/hrs yr during commercial yrs (says 10 yrs @ EA) started age 18...
He was an experienced pilot and the fault lies with Boeing, it's that simple, really.
Yesterday they said that the plane's licensing process was very shady. The FAA basically let Boeing itself do the tests and evaluations. And some of those were not as strict as they should be according to regulations.
There seem to be suspicious connections between Boeing and FAA leadership, with people switching between the two.
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,694 posts, read 58,012,579 times
Reputation: 46171
I will wait for the results of investigation, and expect it will be a pilot error in not knowing or being able to correct a software malfunction (difficult in a 'Time-out' situation).
Aircraft manufacturer will share culpability in system design, and training.
It is very sad and tragic.
Another similarity.
Lion Air Pilot age 30
Ethiopian Air age 28
While I had a technical career, but not the lives of 200 people in my hand... I was required to serve 12,000 hrs apprenticeship, but didn't really know my trade for another 20,000 hrs, so ... I prefer experience in the cockpit.
I'm sure the pilots were adequately trained, and they faced very difficult and time limited decisions. 'Experience' brought a different result the night before (Lion Air). That plane should have stayed on the ground.
There was a TV program some time ago, it was about flight accidents around the world. Many of the pilots involved in crashes were much more experienced, yet they made fatal errors as well. So, I would not say that age is the decisive factor.
The FAA would not have grounded those planes in the US if it were not for a problem with the plane because pilots in the US have enough Boeing training I suppose.
Basically the FAA rescued Boeing with the grounding because if another fatal accident happens with that plane, it would seriously damage the company, much more so than has already happened.
The trouble with having the FAA do certs on fly by wire aircraft began in the nineties with the 777, the technology was beyond the ability of the FAA's assessment capability, so, in lieu of the regular cert procedures taking place, Boeing was allowed to "designate" some of it's own engineers and QA personnel to perform the testing with FAA reps there to insure the stated procedures were followed as written.
It wasn't all that bad until some of those designated employees began to squawk about getting pressured from the manufacturing/QA bosses. The Seattle Times did an entire story on the way the airplane was certified in that manner and the biggest surprise was that the FAA had been stuck in the past in terms of understanding the new technology. Boeing, isn't all that fond of taking too big a risk when developing the future aircraft. But--ever since Phil Condit ran the place into less than stellar profit levels the focus has been on shareholder value, not a good idea for a company known more for it's engineering expertise than it's ability to make money.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
