Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Law firm says it's suing Boeing over Asiana crash
I find this ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!! Wasn't any mechanical failure ruled out by the NTSB? That would INCLUDE the Autothrottle, wouldn't it? I'm sorry, but I just don't understand these peoples' mentality. Unless there was a mechanical failure on Boeing's part, you have no case. (news.yahoo.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Every point made is the truth. If we make aircraft and systems absolutely fool proof, then the airlines will figure that they can have absolute fools fly them.
Aircraft today are capable of totally programmed autonomous flights. But what if something with the automation goes wrong such as auto-throttle? Well, we better have a pilot or two on board. What is the use of having the pilots on board if they can't handle the system failure? That is why pilots train. Every training session I've been to for the past 35 years on many aircraft types has been based on recognizing and handling system failures because we know it happens and must plan for it.
The FAA and NTSB both know that evacuation after an accident can be hampered in many ways and the safety rules plan for it. During tests the evacuation must take place with half of the emergency exits and slides blocked or malfunctioning. In this case only 2 of 8 malfunctioned. What happens, a law suit instead of an at-a-boy for Boeing and the system manufacturers? This suit is a pure money grab and has nothing to do with better safety.
Aircraft today are capable of totally programmed autonomous flights. But what if something with the automation goes wrong such as auto-throttle? Well, we better have a pilot or two on board. What is the use of having the pilots on board if they can't handle the system failure? That is why pilots train. Every training session I've been to for the past 35 years on many aircraft types has been based on recognizing and handling system failures because we know it happens and must plan for it.
The FAA and NTSB both know that evacuation after an accident can be hampered in many ways and the safety rules plan for it. During tests the evacuation must take place with half of the emergency exits and slides blocked or malfunctioning. In this case only 2 of 8 malfunctioned. What happens, a law suit instead of an at-a-boy for Boeing and the system manufacturers? This suit is a pure money grab and has nothing to do with better safety.
Wow, what a thought in the first line, ........ fools fly them.....
I abs ditto.
I abs ditto.
Well said bravowren, lawyers just taking advantage of other people's misfortunes, as they smuggle head for the bank depositing another BIG legal win.
And what airspeed is too slow. Ok, if Boeing were to put in an airspeed warning, what about altitude (another warning for that too). Oh wait, it already exists it is called a STALL warning which did happen with the shaker stick. No excuse on this one for 3 people not monitoring speed.
You don't have to understand their mentality. Once you accept that all they are trying to get is money, then it starts to make some sense.FUBAR!
Are they going to sue for pilot error too?
Regarding the auto-throttles malfunctioning, even if the NTSB is indeed able to determine for sure that they were engaged, it still does not relieve the crew of its responsibility to monitor airspeed, a most basic safety requirement in this critical phase of flight.
As far as the slides malfunctioning, are not all bets off on systems functioning as designed when the aircraft is damaged beyond a certain point? Is there a g-limit minimum load that is required by law for the proper functioning of slides (similar to that required for seat restraints)?
I am sick of lawyers appearing on TV saying that it is unconscionable for Boeing not to have had an aural warning for drop in airspeed etc. etc. How dumbed down can we make these aircraft? Commercial aircraft are not like automobiles. Automobiles are steered by amateurs, and require idiot-proof systems to protect the unwashed masses. Passenger aircraft on the other hand are highly specialized tools intended to be used by highly trained professionals.
Like many specialized tools, they can cause serious harm in the wrong hands, ironically, harm to those very persons they are designed to protect. Stop blaming the tool! This culture of transferring blame and not accepting personal responsibility has really gone to far, in big part because of the increasingly inflated monetary awards being handed out in US courts.