3 ms·

This theory isn't citing the report itself, but independent analysis that's been done on the same data. The Wikipedia article on the topic has a whole section f

by avar 9y ago

This theory isn't citing the report itself, but independent analysis that's been done on the same data. The Wikipedia article on the topic has a whole section for these [1], and a section about this theory in particular [2]. Furthermore. The official accident report for crashes is not always considered the authoritative source for what happened. One good example is EgyptAir Flight 990 which the official report claims is a mechanical failure [3], but which is widely considered to have been pilot suicide. In that case the Egyptian investigative body was thought to be politically motivated. Similarly, it's not at all implausible that the French BEA would be reluctant to make conclusions that could result in the grounding of the entire worldwide Airbus fleet while they're retrofitted with Boeing-style controls while France is the main Airbus manufacturing partner country. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Independent_analyses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Independ... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Sidestick_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Sidestic... 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990

foldr 9y ago
The theory is generally sourced from a popular mechanics article. There's nothing particularly authoritative about that "independent analysis". Goodness knows what you mean by the "same data". No third party has access to all the data recovered from the flight recorders and the wreckage. >conclusions that could result in the grounding of the entire worldwide Airbus fleet Concluding that the sidesticks were a contributing factor would not have resulted in the grounding of the fleet. That only happens in the case of extremely severe and extremely immediate threats to safety. UX tweaks would more likely just be included as recommendations. And in fact the report does make some UX recommendations, IIRC.
- avar 9y ago
  I think PM brought wide attention to it, but it's not like it's just some fringe theory of theirs, see e.g. this CBS report [1] from 2012 (after the PM article was published) with Captain Chesley Sullenberger (of the 2009 Hudson crash fame). Many aviation experts have weighed in on this. Yes they don't have all the data, but they have enough to draw this sort of conclusion, including flight path, status of the plane at any given point, and the cockpit transcripts. And true. Suggesting the fleet would be grounded was hyperbolic on my part. But I stand by my general point. Aside from happened in this accident, you're assuming that anything worthwhile to be learned from a given incident must be covered in the final report, or it must not be worth considering at all. This expects too much of accident investigators, and doesn't account for the sort of institutional blindness that happens when everyone is used to things being done a certain way. Of course that was pilot error, two disconnected joysticks are just how planes are flown! This wasn't the first case of an incident being attributed to Airbus's overdesigned flight controls, QF72 [2]. comes to mind. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=62&v=kERSSRJant0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=62&v=kERSSRJant0 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72
  - foldr 9y ago
    Every Airbus crash gives rise to lots of FUD in the media. Initially, everyone was blaming AF447 on the vertical stabilizer breaking off (http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-air-france-447-crash-theory-now-focused-on-tail-snapping-off-again-2009-6?IR=T http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-air-france-447-...). I guess they thought they had "enough" data then, and of course plenty of "experts" were on hand to lend credence to this particular speculation. But anyway, the accident report says what it says. I see no reason to put more trust in random newspaper/magazine articles that just riff on a standard template for covering Airbus accidents (it was the scary computers what dunnit).
    - avar 9y ago
      Equating initial media speculation not even 3 weeks from the crash when the black box was still at the bottom of the ocean with analysis done after all the data was in by industry experts in flight safety is absurd.
      - foldr 9y ago
        My point regarding the Business Insider article is that lots of pilots and other 'experts' were willing to give quotes to journalists back then, even though they knew nothing really about what had happened. Captain Sullenberger was hired by CBS as an aviation safety expert in 2011. He's expressing an opinion about the sidesticks that many other professional pilots disagree with (see e.g. the endless forum discussions on pprune). You can find pilots who support all kinds of wacky theories of various accidents. Sullenberger has a high profile (deservedly), and can get on TV. The fundamental issues with Sullenberger's claim that the accident would be much less likely in an aircraft with conventional controls are (i) that there have been multiple crashes in such aircraft caused by unrecovered recoverable stalls (e.g. Colgan 3407, Turkish 1951) and (ii) that there is pretty good evidence from the transcript that the PNF was aware of the PFs inputs in any case. This forum post has a good summary: http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=772033&start=50#p11139241 http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=772033&start=...

by avar 9y ago

foldr 9y ago

The theory is generally sourced from a popular mechanics article. There's nothing particularly authoritative about that "independent analysis". Goodness knows what you mean by the "same data". No third party has access to all the data recovered from the flight recorders and the wreckage. >conclusions that could result in the grounding of the entire worldwide Airbus fleet Concluding that the sidesticks were a contributing factor would not have resulted in the grounding of the fleet. That only happens in the case of extremely severe and extremely immediate threats to safety. UX tweaks would more likely just be included as recommendations. And in fact the report does make some UX recommendations, IIRC.

avar 9y ago
I think PM brought wide attention to it, but it's not like it's just some fringe theory of theirs, see e.g. this CBS report [1] from 2012 (after the PM article was published) with Captain Chesley Sullenberger (of the 2009 Hudson crash fame). Many aviation experts have weighed in on this. Yes they don't have all the data, but they have enough to draw this sort of conclusion, including flight path, status of the plane at any given point, and the cockpit transcripts. And true. Suggesting the fleet would be grounded was hyperbolic on my part. But I stand by my general point. Aside from happened in this accident, you're assuming that anything worthwhile to be learned from a given incident must be covered in the final report, or it must not be worth considering at all. This expects too much of accident investigators, and doesn't account for the sort of institutional blindness that happens when everyone is used to things being done a certain way. Of course that was pilot error, two disconnected joysticks are just how planes are flown! This wasn't the first case of an incident being attributed to Airbus's overdesigned flight controls, QF72 [2]. comes to mind. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=62&v=kERSSRJant0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=62&v=kERSSRJant0 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72
- foldr 9y ago
  Every Airbus crash gives rise to lots of FUD in the media. Initially, everyone was blaming AF447 on the vertical stabilizer breaking off (http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-air-france-447-crash-theory-now-focused-on-tail-snapping-off-again-2009-6?IR=T http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-air-france-447-...). I guess they thought they had "enough" data then, and of course plenty of "experts" were on hand to lend credence to this particular speculation. But anyway, the accident report says what it says. I see no reason to put more trust in random newspaper/magazine articles that just riff on a standard template for covering Airbus accidents (it was the scary computers what dunnit).
  - avar 9y ago
    Equating initial media speculation not even 3 weeks from the crash when the black box was still at the bottom of the ocean with analysis done after all the data was in by industry experts in flight safety is absurd.
    - foldr 9y ago
      My point regarding the Business Insider article is that lots of pilots and other 'experts' were willing to give quotes to journalists back then, even though they knew nothing really about what had happened. Captain Sullenberger was hired by CBS as an aviation safety expert in 2011. He's expressing an opinion about the sidesticks that many other professional pilots disagree with (see e.g. the endless forum discussions on pprune). You can find pilots who support all kinds of wacky theories of various accidents. Sullenberger has a high profile (deservedly), and can get on TV. The fundamental issues with Sullenberger's claim that the accident would be much less likely in an aircraft with conventional controls are (i) that there have been multiple crashes in such aircraft caused by unrecovered recoverable stalls (e.g. Colgan 3407, Turkish 1951) and (ii) that there is pretty good evidence from the transcript that the PNF was aware of the PFs inputs in any case. This forum post has a good summary: http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=772033&start=50#p11139241 http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=772033&start=...