Lion Air crash: Investigators say plane was 'not airworthy'
1–10 of 46 posts
Re: Lion Air crash: Investigators say plane was 'not airworthy'
#2I like the way the news media tries to point at just one party to blame for any incident, and argues about which party should be to blame, when, like any incident, it was probably caused by tens of coinciding factors, and 'blame' really ought to be apportioned to all parties involved.
Re: Lion Air crash: Investigators say plane was 'not airworthy'
#3I like the way the news media tries to point at just one party to blame for any incident, and argues about which party should be to blame, when, like any incident, it was probably caused by tens of coinciding factors, and 'blame' really ought to be apportioned to all parties involved.
From the article:
> The findings by the National Transport Safety Committee (KNKT) suggest that Lion Air put the plane back into service despite it having had problems on earlier flights.
Seems this implies there are at least two parties involved: airline and aircraft manufacturer.
Re: Lion Air crash: Investigators say plane was 'not airworthy'
#4When I was in Indonesia, about 8 years ago, Lion Air had the ominous badly translated slogan “We make people fly”. They had a bad track record at that time, too.
Edit: Apparently they still do, https://mobile.lionair.co.id/
Re: Lion Air crash: Investigators say plane was 'not airworthy'
#5I like the way the news media tries to point at just one party to blame for any incident, and argues about which party should be to blame, when, like any incident, it was probably caused by tens of coinciding factors, and 'blame' really ought to be apportioned to all parties involved.
From the article: > The findings by the National Transport Safety Committee (KNKT) suggest that Lion Air put the plane back into service despite it having had problems on earlier flights. Seems this implies there are at least two parties involved: airline and aircraft manufacturer.
Let's also not forget the pilot. They are supposed to read the manual so they can respond to a badly behaving auto pilot / guidance system. There is always a pilot override. I guess you can bundle that in to airline blame though (lack of training or bad org structure). But really, this is a new plane and Boeing probably don't have adequate software testing in place for the newly written / ported software.
Re: Lion Air crash: Investigators say plane was 'not airworthy'
#6I like the way the news media tries to point at just one party to blame for any incident, and argues about which party should be to blame, when, like any incident, it was probably caused by tens of coinciding factors, and 'blame' really ought to be apportioned to all parties involved.
From the article: > The findings by the National Transport Safety Committee (KNKT) suggest that Lion Air put the plane back into service despite it having had problems on earlier flights. Seems this implies there are at least two parties involved: airline and aircraft manufacturer.
Not necessarily. Lion Air could be responsible for the problems on earlier flights too (through poor pilot training or maintenance procedures).
Re: Lion Air crash: Investigators say plane was 'not airworthy'
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the article: > The findings by the National Transport Safety Committee (KNKT) suggest that Lion Air put the plane back into service despite it having had problems on earlier flights. Seems this implies there are at least two parties involved: airline and aircraft manufacturer.
Let's also not forget the pilot. They are supposed to read the manual so they can respond to a badly behaving auto pilot / guidance system. There is always a pilot override. I guess you can bundle that in to airline blame though (lack of training or bad org structure). But really, this is a new plane and Boeing probably don't have adequate software testing in place for the newly written / ported software.
No, you need certification to be able to fly eact plane type, which equal to 6 months retraining. For this incident Boeing "forgot" to tell companies do not do what you usually do, as it doing what you do actually worsen the situation. Boeing released emergency notice after that incident, and data from black box showed that the pilot is doing precisely what they are used to do.
Plane it self is legal to fly at that time.
Re: Lion Air crash: Investigators say plane was 'not airworthy'
#8For a time, I instructed airline pilots in simulators. The aircraft I taught had a similar mechanism with a "cutout switch" like this Boeing. Often, even when they knew it was coming, the pilots would fail to immediately shut down the system when given a related emergency situation, similar to this one. After learning more about this crash, I immediately thought of the tens of times I've seen this happen in the simulator. Sometimes, I'd pause it and ask the pilots if they've realized their error, other times, I'd simply let them crash (poor instructing on my part). In a previous post, this opinion was called racism/profiling, however, I maintain that extreme incompetence exists in many SE Asian airlines. The particular airline for which I instructed (in the US) had many low-ability pilots, and the reaction of these Lion Air pilots matches theirs exactly. We need to increase automation and, little by little, continue to remove the pilot from the equation until we have pilotless/single-pilot commercial aircraft. Humans simply aren't meant to "become the machine", which is essentially what we're asking airline pilots to do.
Re: Lion Air crash: Investigators say plane was 'not airworthy'
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's also not forget the pilot. They are supposed to read the manual so they can respond to a badly behaving auto pilot / guidance system. There is always a pilot override. I guess you can bundle that in to airline blame though (lack of training or bad org structure). But really, this is a new plane and Boeing probably don't have adequate software testing in place for the newly written / ported software.
No, you need certification to be able to fly eact plane type, which equal to 6 months retraining. For this incident Boeing "forgot" to tell companies do not do what you usually do, as it doing what you do actually worsen the situation. Boeing released emergency notice after that incident, and data from black box showed that the pilot is doing precisely what they are used to do. Plane it self is legal to fly at that t…
But isn't moving "STAB TRIM" to CUT OUT a memory item even in the 737 NG in the case of a trim runaway?
Re: Lion Air crash: Investigators say plane was 'not airworthy'
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's also not forget the pilot. They are supposed to read the manual so they can respond to a badly behaving auto pilot / guidance system. There is always a pilot override. I guess you can bundle that in to airline blame though (lack of training or bad org structure). But really, this is a new plane and Boeing probably don't have adequate software testing in place for the newly written / ported software.
No, you need certification to be able to fly eact plane type, which equal to 6 months retraining. For this incident Boeing "forgot" to tell companies do not do what you usually do, as it doing what you do actually worsen the situation. Boeing released emergency notice after that incident, and data from black box showed that the pilot is doing precisely what they are used to do. Plane it self is legal to fly at that t…
> do not do what you usually do, as it [...] worsen the situation
This sounds like the worst UI evolution. Could they not have come up with something that's more natural? I don't know anything about controls and procedures for commercial aircraft, but it is so complex that nothing is natural? Like listening to Formula1 team radio where the engineer tells the driver to set some cryptic mode in the steering wheel menu.
I wonder how much of a competitive advantage it would be to make easier/safer to fly commercial aircraft. It would be sad to hear that these are the results of great effort of that goal.