737 MAX grounded
#471
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,099
I haven't changed a thing. I just keep trying to explain it differently so that people who like make discussions personal might finally understand.
The bottom line is the same. Three crews had nearly identical failures. One crew followed the procedure and landed safely. Two crews did not follow the procedure and didn't. We need to find out why.
The bottom line is the same. Three crews had nearly identical failures. One crew followed the procedure and landed safely. Two crews did not follow the procedure and didn't. We need to find out why.
The one crew that recovered from the design flaw had the advantage of a third pilot in the smart seat. We need to find out why on that as well.
#472
#473
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 854
My problem is that the only thing being addressed is the engineering. The engineering problem is straightforward and is being fixed.
The crew performance issue is being ignored. People are minimizing it because 'Boeing's screw up was so bad'. Both of those airplanes were flyable. We have to find out why two crews were unable to fly them and figure out how to fix that because it applies not only to unintended MCAS activations but to any complex failure that will happen again with any system on any airplane.
We have to be prepared to handle them.
The AF447 crew had a similar problem. Multiple warnings and inaccurate readings confused the crew and distracted them from the information they needed, and was available, which would have allowed them to understand their situation and recover the airplane.
I agree.
#475
#476
So, Until the official reports are out, it's really too soon to speculate on the part of the crew. I don't think anyone is arguing it wasn't a causal factor, just too soon grasshopper.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post