Todos
← Back to Squawk list
How Boeing’s Responsibility in a Deadly Crash ‘Got Buried’
After a Boeing 737 crashed near Amsterdam more than a decade ago, the Dutch investigators focused blame on the pilots for failing to react properly when an automated system malfunctioned and caused the plane to plummet into a field, killing nine people. (www.msn.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Not sure the byline fits the accident. The flight crew were oblivious as to how the auto throttle system functioned? In fact, with three of them in the cockpit, the PF, who was new failed to act quickly when he realized the autothrottle system failed, when reached, to maintain the selected target speed. SOP’s should have dictated that the PNF call out any speed deviation! It’s not good enough to program the automation........as the PF you have to ascertain that the damn thing engages and works whether it is altitude hold, preselect or airspeed capture? Training, training training, if you get a shaker below 1000’ disconnect everything and go around because you are all not in the loop!
So you didn't read the article?
The left system was what was used for the 'single sensor hot mess' to malfunction. EVEN if the right system was 'FLYING THE PLANE', the left system was in control of the auto-throttles. AND that fact was NOT MENTIONED in the manual anywhere.
Using a single sensor to determine if the plane is 'safe' when there are ALREADY TWO SENSORS IN THE PLANE is just lazy. Criminally culpable I'd say. At least in the MAX crashes, there really was only one sensor, according to all I've read. A second sensor was a pricey option many carriers avoided.
So, you still want to flog the corpses of those dead pilots some more?
The left system was what was used for the 'single sensor hot mess' to malfunction. EVEN if the right system was 'FLYING THE PLANE', the left system was in control of the auto-throttles. AND that fact was NOT MENTIONED in the manual anywhere.
Using a single sensor to determine if the plane is 'safe' when there are ALREADY TWO SENSORS IN THE PLANE is just lazy. Criminally culpable I'd say. At least in the MAX crashes, there really was only one sensor, according to all I've read. A second sensor was a pricey option many carriers avoided.
So, you still want to flog the corpses of those dead pilots some more?
I read and comprehend just fine. The analogy is that whether you have one, two or three sensors, someone has to monitor and fly the aircraft? It’s getting a little old saying we should have two sensors or two of this or two of that when the reality is failure of the crew to recognize a system failure and effect recovery. Which in all these scenarios was within the capabilities of a fully trained, operational crew! Your second paragraph is bang on, Dir of Flt ops and VP of Flt ops should be held accountable for accepting an aircraft into a commercial operation with less than ideal instrumentation and warning systems. Even old relics like the DC8 had comparators, standby instrument clusters, even VOR navs built into the RTU‘s!
"Your second paragraph is bang on"
My idea is that Boeing should not be able to sell a plane with half of a safety system, and be able to charge tens of thousands of dollars to get the rest of the system.
Had the planes involved had the entire 'system' installed, I wonder if any passengers would have died. If the pilots had had the entire 'training', that Boeing refused to require, would anyone have died.
If it's 'safety related', it SHOULD NOT BE AN OPTION! EVER111
Boeing needs to be introduced to their primary purpose for being in existence: PROVIDING SAFE AIRPLANES FOR THEIR CUSTOMERS CUSTOMERS TO BE ABLE TO RETURN, ALIVE, TO THEIR FAMILIES!
Shareholder returns are NOT the primary reason Boeing exists.
If that's what the Boeing board thinks, I would rather crawl through broken glass than EVER board another Boeing airplane.
My idea is that Boeing should not be able to sell a plane with half of a safety system, and be able to charge tens of thousands of dollars to get the rest of the system.
Had the planes involved had the entire 'system' installed, I wonder if any passengers would have died. If the pilots had had the entire 'training', that Boeing refused to require, would anyone have died.
If it's 'safety related', it SHOULD NOT BE AN OPTION! EVER111
Boeing needs to be introduced to their primary purpose for being in existence: PROVIDING SAFE AIRPLANES FOR THEIR CUSTOMERS CUSTOMERS TO BE ABLE TO RETURN, ALIVE, TO THEIR FAMILIES!
Shareholder returns are NOT the primary reason Boeing exists.
If that's what the Boeing board thinks, I would rather crawl through broken glass than EVER board another Boeing airplane.
"Shareholder returns are NOT the primary reason Boeing exists."
The shareholders might not agree with this. By the way, another name for shareholder is "owner".
The shareholders might not agree with this. By the way, another name for shareholder is "owner".
I believe before one makes a statement, there must be some system design experience. L or R and then cross sensor design is the general philosophy. This makes the system more fault tolerant. Using only one side for all current functions could lead to a failure mode that is more difficult to detect.