Este sitio web utiliza cookies. Al usar y seguir navegando por este sitio, estás aceptando su uso.
Descartar
¿Sabías que el rastreo de vuelos de FlightAware se sostiene gracias a los anuncios?
Puedes ayudarnos a que FlightAware siga siendo gratuito permitiendo que aparezcan los anuncios de FlightAware.com. Trabajamos arduamente para que nuestros anuncios sean discretos y de interés para el rubro a fin de crear una experiencia positiva. Es rápido y fácil whitelist ads en FlightAware o por favor considera acceder a nuestras cuentas premium.
Descartar
Back to Squawk list
  • 17

Ethiopia refuses to send black box from crashed Boeing 737 Max 8 to US for analysis

Enviado
 
Ethiopia Aims to Send 737 Black Boxes to Europe in Snub to United States (www.fliegerfaust.com) Más...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


nasdisco
Chris B 8
I hear France is getting them.
shenghaohan
Shenghao Han 4
It is very clear they don’t trust Boeing with the data, but you can not say Ethiopia Airlines trying to pin the accident to mechanical issue.
Yes if the main cause of an accident is mechanical/computer failure, it helps them if they trying to get insurance claims, or trying to sue Boeing/ asking for compensation. But they should also know if there is a way to disable a malfunctioning computer system, the main cause of accident will always pined to pilot error...
kbeller44
Kyle Beller 2
I don’t think the black boxes would be going to Boeing it sent to the U.S. That being said... apparently the FAA allows Boeing to “self-certify” it’s own aircraft....
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 3
The gall, giving the finger to the US!!! It's very wrong of me to say this, but I can't resist, 1985...
chalet
chalet 5
On June 26, 1988 Air France's very first Airbus 320 crashed during an airshow in Alsace, France when trying to make a low and slow pass in front of several thousand spectators. The pilot, one of the most experienced of the airline tried to spool up the engines to gain altitude but the damn computers overruled him and it crashed. This marked the things to come due to Airbus and now Boeing stubborn quirkness to overcompute the hell out of airliners arguing that it will enhance safety. Yeah, right.
kbeller44
Kyle Beller 6
commercial aircraft are becoming increasingly more safe. certainly since 1988. Humans make mistakes at a MUCH higher rate than the automation that replaces it.
Henry123
Henry Matias 2
Absolutely and soon there will be only one pilot in the cockpit and that’s only because it will make passengers feel bettter cause he won’t be doing anything else. Not to mention eventually it will be pilotless.

Henry123
Henry Matias 2
It has created safety, if pilots were still flying the planes, it would be like 30+ years ago, constant Crashes. Why do you think it’s so safe to fly now. Thousands of aircraft in the air daily and a couple of crashes.
When all the cars totally drive themselves it will be the same thing. No more accidents. You just have to have back safe back ups when the automation fails.
btweston
btweston 3
If the computer hadn’t overruled the pilot and he had increased the angle of attack he would have stalled and hit the ground even harder.

That plane didn’t crash. It flew into the ground.
Henry123
Henry Matias 1
If he had turned off the system feeding the wrong data to the plane control systems, this would not have happened. What the manufacturer needs to implement is a more robust system that clearly when one system fails, another takes over. This can only be done with more sensors that show facts that will overide current system when failed to not allow it to send wrong message to computer. How about an alert rather then a full flight control takeover. Pilot would have a chance to check other systems first before plane takes over itself.
bbabis
Bill Babis 7
Even though it is most likely so, Etheopia absolutely wants this to be a plane problem and not an airline or pilot problem. It’s a shame that the mistrust is there. The Egypt Air fliight that NTSB ruled a sucide that Egypt wanted ruled an aircraft issue is probably in the thought processes.
TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff 5
Even if it is related to the MCAS system, it would also be a crew failure. Given the almost unprecedented publicity around the Lion Air crash, how would the pilots of a 737 MAX not have paid attention to the issue and how to deal with it should they be faced with it?
bbabis
Bill Babis 4
I agree entirely. I have so many questions about what the crews did or didn't do in these two accidents.
conradbooze
conrad booze 1
Independent analysis of the recorder data, Boing has a lot to lose.
spbking
Stuart Fountain -5
If the UK gets them I see no problem, however EASA definitely should not as it is closely aligned with Airbus through the EU.
tyketto
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the accident or the analysis of what has happened so ANY technologies related to MCAS that ANY aircraft manufacturer produces could be developed to not have this problem.

That doesn't have anything to do with Airbus v. Boeing, as you want it to be.
jbqwik
jbqwik 3
I tend to agree with your assumption as I wouldn't think there's anything proprietary. At least there shouldn't be, but who knows; I can understand if Boeing would prefer direct and immediate access.
Also, we're all just guessing MCAS is involved. That's my guess too, but pointing an arrow directly is premature at this early stage.
Personally, I wonder if there could be a single master switch that would gracefully, yet immediately, remove as many overrides as possible and return critical functions to manual control? Better yet, install optical devices and AI software that interface with the already included warning systems to function much like the latest Air Force CFIT detection.
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 5
Interesting that way back in my Learjet days, we had just that......a little red button on the yoke that you could push with the thumb and it disconnected the A/P, stopped all electic trims and in the event of a bird strike dead on the Teledyne AOA probe (which happened to me) causing erroneous info.....you could just turn off the stall warning switches! But then again, that was an aircraft you had to fly or it would let you know?
jbqwik
jbqwik 4
Exactly. Early automation was a huge boon allowing you to relax a bit, do some things. But it's gone too far now, trying to make a graceful bird out of inherently unstabilized aerodynamics.
jbqwik
jbqwik 2
Let me rephrase my comment: What I meant to say is that now we have software routines that try to fix inherently unstable or flawed design. While that *can* work you better hope the right seat has had in-depth training and real-world manual flying skill.

[This poster has been suspended.]

Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 2
Actually, I agree with jbqwik in as far as automation and therefore software are required in order to make many aircraft flyable. ie; F-117A, B-2 and the B-737 Max 8/9. Although the Boeing issue is more of an fix to an abnormal flight characteristic condition rather than aerodynamic control. I wouldn’t necessarily call the pilot’s “dumb dumb” but I would say not properly trained. My opinion is what we are experiencing is abinitio training at it’s worst and a push button world flight crew with little or no understanding of theory of flight or manual control. Even Neil Armstrong had to land the Lunar module by hand. just look at AF447, Asiana 214 etc.

[This poster has been suspended.]

bbabis
Bill Babis 1
The aircraft that are 100% reliant on computer and software to make them flyable also come with the option to safely eject. (Sarc Font on) Most passengers wouldn't like the crew taking that option in an airliner. (Sarc Off)
bbabis
Bill Babis 2
That little red button could also be an enemy. I had one come apart internally and make contact while trimmed in a descent at redline (normal). The autopilot and yaw damper kicked off and would not reengage. No problem, just hand fly it but I soon found that I had no trim either primary or secondary and the nose was getting very heavy as we slowed. With all motors cut out the stab was basically jammed nose down. I know what it feels like to fight a stab thats wants the nose down with only elevator control like both the Lion Air and Ethiopian crews must have done. Just that instance is a good reason to have two pilots or at least a second set of arms.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
Had a physical jam on one 9 years ago, kept climbing in the 20's until I put it on it's side!!! That was the day I looked down at the ocean and wondered if that day was the day!!!
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 2
One of the greatest airplanes, got 9K in them!!!
spbking
I hope you're correct but the EU will always look after itself first
Henry123
Henry Matias 0
USA , stop thinking the rest of the world is Stupid and can’t be trusted. France is way more advanced in technology then you think. Your media is telling the world daily about yourselves from your President down how disfunctional you are. That’s why you can’t be trusted with those boxes.
bishops90
Brian Bishop -1
The FDR and CVR should remain the property of the manufacturer forever for just such an occasion. It is essential that the mfg be able to interpret the data to discover what happened to the aircraft in the event of a crash or other significant event. The owner of the aircraft, the governmental agencies in the country of ownership, country of accident, and country of mfg should be required to be provided copies of all data as well. Circular transparency and accountability are necessary to get to the actual truth of the matter and prevent political and financial interests from influencing investigations. Others can agree or disagree, but that's my $.02.
jbqwik
jbqwik 1
If I didn't have such an ordinary brain I might understand whatever you have to say. <grin> Just kidding. I think we'd all agree.
Definitely, there are some interesting conjecture to be assumed. For one, Boeing is desperate to find fact asap, and hope to mitigate liability and those seeking damages. For other reasons some players might relish the current situation and hope to prolong the discomfort, eh?
In the interest of due process I think the recorders should be delivered directly to Boeing. I'm sure they'd love to spin the facts but I doubt there's any possible way to do that now.
patpylot
patrick baker 0
is this the smartest response that will yield the answers we all seek, or is this childish behavior at best? THe NTSB absolutely wants those boxes so they can tell us what secrets lie within.
Henry123
Henry Matias -3
The USA would never get those boxes!
Do you think that any USA Government body is trusted after your very own Country does nothing but portrait to the word daily in the media how disfunctional and corrupt it is.
CNN is constantly destroying your image from the very top, Dont know why your President even bothers trying to strengthen that Country at all. Don’t mean to make it political but as soon as I heard, the US was refused the boxes, it was the first thing that came to mind.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff 6
The investigators are getting the cockpit voice recorder and data recorder, and will try to figure out the cause from that. They aren’t getting any high technology that they will reverse-engineer — there is none left from that aircraft. If anyone wants to steal the technology, they are better off examining an intact aircraft, there are enough of them in Europe and elsewhere, and they are all conveniently sitting parked.

[This poster has been suspended.]

LW53
L W 2
Let the grown-ups figure this out, Taylor.

Entrar

¿No tienes cuenta? ¡Regístrate ahora (gratis) para acceder a prestaciones personalizadas, alertas de vuelos, y más!