131–140 of 347 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the preliminary report contains data showing that electric trim was re-engaged.
Why are you dismissing the data the report contains indicating that the flight crew was unable to trim manually, that the column forces were incredibly high, and that the captain repeatedly indicated he could not maintain elevator trim without the co-pilot's aid, then? Your responses have been incredibly selective about which parts of the report you take as gospel and which you handwave away as "speculation". From wh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, people are speculating this and like the previous speculation they're probably wrong.
> At 05:40:35, the First-Officer called out “stab trim cut-out” two times. Captain agreed and First- Officer confirmed stab trim cut-out. > At 05:41:46, the Captain asked the First-Officer if the trim is functional. The First-Officer has replied that the trim was not working and asked if he could try it manually. The Captain told him to try. At 05:41:54, the First-Officer replied that it is not working. I guess the F…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, people are speculating this and like the previous speculation they're probably wrong.
> At 05:40:35, the First-Officer called out “stab trim cut-out” two times. Captain agreed and First- Officer confirmed stab trim cut-out. > At 05:41:46, the Captain asked the First-Officer if the trim is functional. The First-Officer has replied that the trim was not working and asked if he could try it manually. The Captain told him to try. At 05:41:54, the First-Officer replied that it is not working. I guess the F…
Until someone sits down and calculates the torque needed to manually trim it's all just speculation.
I was just trying to read up a little about sings of sociopath. It seems to me that a big chunk of major corporate big brash could be considered extreme versions of sociopath.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you dismissing the data the report contains indicating that the flight crew was unable to trim manually, that the column forces were incredibly high, and that the captain repeatedly indicated he could not maintain elevator trim without the co-pilot's aid, then? Your responses have been incredibly selective about which parts of the report you take as gospel and which you handwave away as "speculation". From wh…
>Why are you dismissing the data the report contains indicating that the flight crew was unable to trim manually, that the column forces were incredibly high Where is that data in the report?
> At 05:41:30, the Captain requested the First-Officer to pitch up with him and the First-Officer acknowledged.
> At 05:43:04, the Captain asked the First Officer to pitch up together and said that pitch is not enough.
Take a look at the chart of control column position deflections. They're jolting around like crazy at +10 to +15 aft starting immediately at the first big MCAS trim event through to the end of the recording. That's because the stabilizer mis-trim is exerting considerable force on the elevator. The captain wasn't calling for aid on the column for shits and giggles.
Any PR pro worth their rate would have him and senior management very publicly flying only on 737 Max flights when they comeback online. Assurances alone are going to mean a very rocky road back for this plane.
They did that. Doesn't prove a thing. https://www.airlineratings.com/news/boeing-ceo-muilenburg-ab...
Allowing the company to produce a plane, equipped with a non-redundant system with control over the vertical attitude of the plane, and doing so in a way that intentionally minimizes the perceived impact and required training to operate a plane with this system is the true mistake here.
This is a failure of the both the FAA, Boeing, and pretty much every player along the chain.
The root problem seems to be FAA not having qualified engineers to thoroughly test the planes Boeing makes. Boeing pays better, so it hires the best engineers. FAA pays less so it gets second-grade engineers. And we all pay by flying in unsafe planes.
Through WW2 and the proliferating age of defense contractors, the government (mostly defense department, but also civilian agencies) stood almost on equal footing with contractors in their ability to design, scope, and evaluate big projects.
You would see scientists and in-house advisers at these departments able to expertly evaluate proposals/designs by contractors with sufficient background knowledge and tools to do so. They even worked closely with contractors to lay out the requirements and designs for systems, or products.
But, through the decades, a couple factors eroded this equal footing of the government / regulatory experts:
-- Shrinking of government budgets for (or unwillingness of the public to stomach) the ranks of Washington "bureaucrats" who represented this expert class of people (what harm is there in cutting "fat" from public servants who don't seem to produce anything tangible?)
-- More attractive pay, career potential, prestige, etc. of working in the private sector
-- Political distaste for being seen as working too closely with contractors
So what happened is that gradually but surely, government lost the tools to do these things themselves, and by sheer need to still have things approved, shifted the work onto industry.
What can you do when industry comes to you with new complicated designs for things, and you have no one who can assess (and no budget to pay for assessments of) whether those designs are safe? You ask the person proposing to critique themselves, and in many cases, they seem to know more than you anyway.
Of course, what in part probably led to our current situation.
As a society, my question is, how do we make it possible to choose to do these things in the way that produces the right outcome? For a start, I think we need to stop asking everyone to make uninformed votes about things we don't understand, yet rely on every day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's called Regulatory Capture, and it happens to all regulatory agencies sooner or later. They become primarily concerned with the interests of the companies they're regulating, rather than the public interest they're in theory tasked with working for. Unfortunately, that is just how a regulated society works.
How do you arrive at such a conclusion? Have you researched regulatory agencies in EU? For example they just blocked a meeger between two massive train manufacturer. Your argument sounds like a weak libertarian talking point.