71–80 of 188 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> blaming the presumably foreign maintenance crew The same happened with MCAS, the pro-Boeing argument was that if those were American pilots it would have been fine.
As a matter of fact, the same issue did occur to US-based-airlines, and the pilots did catch it. That does not however answer the question of whether they just got lucky, or were more skilled, though there are some indications that it may have been skill.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a matter of fact, the same issue did occur to US-based-airlines, and the pilots did catch it. That does not however answer the question of whether they just got lucky, or were more skilled, though there are some indications that it may have been skill.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a matter of fact, the same issue did occur to US-based-airlines, and the pilots did catch it. That does not however answer the question of whether they just got lucky, or were more skilled, though there are some indications that it may have been skill.
> That does not however answer the question of whether they just got lucky, or were more skilled, though there are some indications that it may have been skill. What a load of bullcrap. Full stop. The crews of the two crashed 737Max were also well trained, skilled professionals. That the US-based crews decided to re-engage the auto-pilot, and with that action, by sheer luck, managed to bypass the fatal MCAS issues, s…
This is like Tesla claiming that all crashes due to autopilot failures are driver faults because they are not properly trained... it is supposed to be a car driveable with a regular car license! If you need extra train to drive it properly, be explicit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a matter of fact, the same issue did occur to US-based-airlines, and the pilots did catch it. That does not however answer the question of whether they just got lucky, or were more skilled, though there are some indications that it may have been skill.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Did you verify the 35 sources it used or are we now supposed to just trust everything on the internet if an LLM prints it now?
Until then, the AI generated one is much better sourced than the "US pilots are superior and would have handled MCAS" claim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a matter of fact, the same issue did occur to US-based-airlines, and the pilots did catch it. That does not however answer the question of whether they just got lucky, or were more skilled, though there are some indications that it may have been skill.
> That does not however answer the question of whether they just got lucky, or were more skilled, though there are some indications that it may have been skill. What a load of bullcrap. Full stop. The crews of the two crashed 737Max were also well trained, skilled professionals. That the US-based crews decided to re-engage the auto-pilot, and with that action, by sheer luck, managed to bypass the fatal MCAS issues, s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they paid extra for the redundant AOA sensor. There was no redundancy AOA sensor option for MCAS. All the planes were built with two AOA sensors, with the original MCAS implementation only using data from 1 sensor.
Correct. And you could pay for the MCAS to use both sensors which all US airlines did. Edit: I was misremembering. Both sensors were enabled on all planes and MCAS only used one at a time on all planes. What was disabled, unless paid for, was software which displayed to the pilots that the 2 sensors were disagreeing, which would immediately have alerted them to what may have been wrong. > According to Bjorn Fehrm, Ae…