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.
Yet you said "more likely a pilot error issue". Sounds pretty much like blame to me considering as you say: "No real data or facts have been released as of yet"
Not at all if you stay in context. The majority of aviation incidents is human or pilot error. If we are going to make assumptions based upon no clear evidence of the current incident then human error is more likely than mechanical error.
Here is my issue with blaming the design or the machine. If this were only a design issue, and may well be one, then I would expect to see more of these issues reported.
Now someone else posted that there is feature that automatically adjusts for the pilot in stall conditions, but the pilots didn't know it existed. Hmmmmm. Whose fault is that human or machine? Human and it could go back as far as Boeing. It might be that some pilots remembered it and others didn't? I kind of doubt that. More likely that some understood it and others thought that they did.
Going back to basic troubleshooting. Do the fishbone. Policies and procedures? Human?
It's ok to have more than one reason for a root cause. Whats not ok is to give a free pass because we dont want to offend pilots, ground crew or instructors.
In this case we dont know if it was mechanical, electrical, design and construction or human error.
As I said before I was responding to the chicken littles who have suddenly become aviation experts and who are condemning a company and aircraft based upon emotions.
Folks, Boeing outsources a lot of it's NEW parts from other countries.... Take the 787 Dreamliner....a minimum of 8 places provide separate new body parts so they can be assembled at Boeing (or where ever) (see link below to a PDF file that provides a quick case overview of the battery problem) . Boeing has to have very strict rules enforced, even when pieces of the plane are built in different countries. They lost that with the Dreamliner....they must also adhere to the following, no matter where the parts are built:
Section 802, Public Law No. 108-136 and DFARS209.270 require CSIs (Critical Safety Items)
Absolutely true, but any down turn of business for Boeing is the potential up turn for China. Once again China siting safety as the cause for grounding Boeing is as ridiculous as China requesting an embargo on anyone for human rights violations. China is among the absolute worst violators of safety protocols.
A downturn for Boeing is an opportunity for Airbus.
Speculation on my part, China may view this as an opportunity to reopen negotiations on back or future orders, given the size of their market.
Or it may be a bit of muscle flexing relative to the Trump trade thing.
Without China, Boeing and 150,000 jobs are in serious trouble.
But cars have many order of magnitude lower bars for safety, maintenance, and operator training. the standard for commercial aviation is WAY higher. Cars to airliners are apples to oranges.
Two jets crashing under these circumstances close together is not the same as two cars somewhere hitting a tree.
More about the shennanigans Boeing has apparently played... They wanted to get a fuel-efficient next-gen jet. They decided to retrofit 737 for cost efficiency. The larger engines required them to move the wing and engine position on fuselage in order to get sufficient ground clearance. Moving wing position changed aerodynamics and made the thing harder to handle under certain stall-risk situations, so they put in a brand new automated system (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System - MCAS) that was to mitigate this by automatically forcing nose down if stall detected - without clear communication and training to pilots.
That's the answer right there to "would a company like Boeing put people at risk for sake of profits."
So prelim reports suggest the new MCAS system that literally pilots flying the thing didn't even know existed apparently may have been feeding in false information from angle of attack sensors, causing the nose to drop unexpectedly - which pilots didn't react properly to, because again they didn't even know the damn thing existed in the first place...
I was going to post this but didn’t have time. For all of you who are saying the 737 has been around forever, etc., this redesign was significant enough to almost consider it a new aircraft.
Public bullying on the 737 without any evidence... when have we done that before... its a safety issue where safety isn't even an issue... 300+ 737 flying around without problems for a while now... if it was a new aircraft, it wouldn't be called a 737 still... the technology is newer, the pilots aren't... that seems to be the problem...
No one wants to get on one of these planes until there are some answers about why they are falling from the sky. Maybe it's an irrational fear, but it is a real concern. The FAA is protecting the stock market not people at this point.
Not at all if you stay in context. The majority of aviation incidents is human or pilot error. If we are going to make assumptions based upon no clear evidence of the current incident then human error is more likely than mechanical error.
Here is my issue with blaming the design or the machine. If this were only a design issue, and may well be one, then I would expect to see more of these issues reported.
Now someone else posted that there is feature that automatically adjusts for the pilot in stall conditions, but the pilots didn't know it existed. Hmmmmm. Whose fault is that human or machine? Human and it could go back as far as Boeing. It might be that some pilots remembered it and others didn't? I kind of doubt that. More likely that some understood it and others thought that they did.
Going back to basic troubleshooting. Do the fishbone. Policies and procedures? Human?
It's ok to have more than one reason for a root cause. Whats not ok is to give a free pass because we dont want to offend pilots, ground crew or instructors.
In this case we dont know if it was mechanical, electrical, design and construction or human error.
As I said before I was responding to the chicken littles who have suddenly become aviation experts and who are condemning a company and aircraft based upon emotions.
You are right. Most accidents are pilot error and this from a pilot who has been flying since 1978. I had two incidents that were not attributed to pilot error.
I was taught aviate, navigate, communicate. In that order. If you suspect something is wrong, first fly the airplane, get it stabilized. Once stabilized, then troubleshoot the problem. Once you know the problem, communicate with the ground. That is why the water landing on the Hudson was successful. The captain flew the plane first.
No one wants to get on one of these planes until there are some answers about why they are falling from the sky. Maybe it's an irrational fear, but it is a real concern. The FAA is protecting the stock market not people at this point.
They are protecting the stock market by not acting like freaked out idiots? Okay... there was a car accident... ban cars until we figure out what is the problem... its a safety issue... every year there are car-related deaths, obviously we need foam padding around all cars... inside and out...
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.
