131–138 of 138 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think anyone insinuating that the probability of this happening in US was 0 but the fact remain that the number of crash so far is 0.
The fact is, Greece also has 0 crashes. Your statement doesn't make any sense. What is different about the US? (Other than we had fewer MAX-8 deliveries than the rest of the world)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In all seriousness, i believe the reason why many think the crashes would not have happened in the US is because Southwest and others all ordered the planes with redundant sensors (in the area where it pertains to these crashes) whereas many overseas airlines did not.
It was my understanding that such redundancy for automation purposes did not even exist, and that despite having 2 AoA sensors only one was selected before a flight, with the computer switching the one to be used between each flight. Also Southwest certainly did not have all of the indicators at first, because they added some: https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/southwest-airlines... (note that pretty much nobo…
The design redundancy was the pilot in the loop - ie, in a stab trim situation pilot would follow a memory item. So this meant much less automation protection compared to systems without pilot in loop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"as the pilots could easily interrupt the accident chain" -- No they couldn't! To survive a runaway trim, pilots had to know the rollercoaster maneuver and have enough altitude to aerodynamically relieve airloads off the jackscrew so they could manually trim the plane back. If FAA and many others knew this then they should have instantly communicated it to all boeing max pilots. Instead none of that happened.
This jives with what I've seen from blancolirio, MentourPilot and others sources. The pilots should've had memory items to disable automation control of trim for the duration of the flight rather than all electric control of trim (including yoke-mounted switches), because aerodynamic forces were too large and altitude was too low to manually spin the trim wheels. I do hope Ralph Nader sues the pants off Boeing for mu…
On the MAX's, the switches only kill all electrical input. So those procedures literally didn't apply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't look at your link, but if you're talking about the 737MAX, the OP isn't talking about that, he's talking about the 787. AFAIK, the "teething issues" the 787 had were about some batteries catching fire.
Please click the link
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Truly terrible. And, possibly the pilots could turn the wheel if both collaborated on it - but then, who pulls back the control column to keep the elevator up? Terrible terrible situation.
And how long can you hold it at max effort? Should MAX-8 training include a physical fitness component?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The simple answer is to make the entire C-suite criminally liable - collectively and individually. Because the usual argument is that the C-suite and especially the CEO are personally responsible for the successes of a company. So it's not unreasonable to hold them personally responsible for the failures too - especially when those failures amount to suspected criminal negligence. This is not the same as assuming gui…
I'd recommend using monetary penalties, including clawbacks, for motivational purposes. I suspect jail isn't quite the same level of deterrent as money for people who value those extra 0s on their net worth. Civil litigation is easier to win, too.
These people make tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation, truly obscene amounts of money compared to the workers they manage. Why should they live risk-free lives when the lives of so many people rest on their decisions in the C-suite office, and their decisions are clearly not made with safety in mind, but rather profit?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never quite understood that argument that only little people benefit from jail time and important people do not. Surely if we can put someone in jail for a year for having a forbidden plant in their pocket then we could put someone in jail for - how about a week? Three days? An hour? - for choosing to cut corners on safety and smashing two planes full of people into jelly? The root cause here is "Boeing manageme…
This idea that there's one guy or set of people to be found whose fault it is that you have a systemic problem is so uniquely American. In this case you're proposing to punish the smallest cog in the machine, some middle-manager or executive at Boeing. It would be just as logical to throw every single American in prison for around 45 minutes (~1 person dead in 737 MAX crashes for every million Americans, 80 years (le…
Your argument is like claiming that a taxi company owner should go to jail when one of his drivers rapes a passenger, even if there was no way the owner could have known the driver had this propensity. It's totally nonsensical.
The executives at Boeing are the ones ultimately responsible for the decisions that led to these crashes, because they prioritized profits over safety, and directed their engineers to work towards that end. For that, they should go to jail.
At this rate they're getting a US bailout. I don't recall Boeing positive anything recently. And as much as it fuckin irks me...US better throw them a juicy bailout if necessary. Because one aircraft manufacturer global monopoly would be a epic shitshow. Boeing and Airbus have to walk away from this alive and roughly equal.
There is absolutely a huge need worldwide for large passenger aircraft, however, but the answer is very simple: sell Boeing's assets at fire-sale prices to another (probably foreign) company and let them take over. Perhaps Bombardier would like to massively expand? Or what about Mitsubishi? Or Embraer? Any of those companies could take over Boeing's factories and operations in relatively short order and start building new and safer planes.