24 ms·

I’d love to see those people who accused the airline and crew of being incompetent to apologize in the light of these reports. It was shameful to see Boeing ac

I’d love to see those people who accused the airline and crew of being incompetent to apologize in the light of these reports. It was shameful to see Boeing actively encouraging that narrative behind the scenes. Especially considering it plays on racist stereotypes equating „Africa“ with bad training/bad safety record/…. The idea of „dingy third world airline“ was ridiculous on its face, considering how bad a fit flying the most modern airliner is with it. And it was also contradicted by the factual record of Ethopian being a competent airline on par with any in Europe or North America. Their safety rating is better than easyjet, Ryanair, Spirit, WOW, and Southwest: https://www.airlineratings.com/safety-rating-tool/ https://www.airlineratings.com/safety-rating-tool/

watwat1 8y ago
You’re right. Africa is clearly a haven of technological innovation and progress.
drsim 8y ago
While I agree with your sentiment on stereotypes, looking at the link your comment seems misleading. The airlines you mention score lower on 'Safety Rating' due to lack of IOSA certification. "Registering for IOSA certification and auditing is not mandatory therefore an airline that does not have IOSA certification may have either failed the IOSA audit or alternatively chosen not to participate." For a budget airline I can see them not participating for cost reasons. Does this make them less safe?
- matt4077 8y ago
  Safety incidents in air travel are thankfully low. Therefore, it is impossible to find meaningful differences in that primary data alone. You have to find some proxies, and certification schemes seem at least defensible in that regard. In any case, not being a „budget“ airline that has to cut such costs would seem to fit rather well with my argument that Ethopian is not some gravel-airstrip bush operation flying leftover Sowiet machinery.
  - drsim 8y ago
    Agreed, it's clear that a proxy is needed. Also that Ethiopian is not a sub-par operation. My issue is that a 'safety rating' based on an optional certification is being used to compare airlines as more/less safe. Why not stick to what I believe to be the universal measures of EU allowed, FAA endorsed and ICAO country audit.
    - matt4077 8y ago
      The libertarian answer would be that government requirements mere represent a necessary minimum. In any case, it would seem irrefutable that no matter the requirements, there is always room to go above & beyond, and to have such efforts certified by a third party to maximize their use for PR purposes. In a wild application of signaling theory, certification may even be a useful signal without regard to the actual substance of that certification, as long as it is expensive. Just like a peacock shows his abundance of resources by wasting some of them on jazzy plumage.[0] I think you’re sort of sympathizing with the airlines here, who are somewhat pressured into spending that, from their perspective, is wasteful: after all, they know they are doing all that stuff they are getting certified for. I would say (a) don’t anthromorphize corporations—they may be people, but not ones deserving sympathy. And, (b), certification schemes are one of the many often disregarded frictional costs of a market economy. They are unnecessary only in a mythical benevolent economic system that has so far eluded us. [0] also a good reason to justify flying only with airlines that offer free peanuts.
  - airstrike 8y ago
    > not some gravel-airstrip bush operation flying leftover Sowiet machinery. just wanted to say I appreciate the imagery. this is exactly how I interpreted US media to be framing Ethiopian
- milgrim 8y ago
  I can also see them to be less safe for cost reasons. Getting the certification would have helped to alleviate this concern.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
devmunchies 8y ago
>Their safety rating is better was better. sucks cause its not even their fault.
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
  Excuse me, no. This incident was decidedly not their fault. The blame lies 100% with Boing. This event doesn’t not count toward their safety rating.
  - raverbashing 8y ago
    Some ratings count events regardless of whose fault it is unfortunately.
    - keketi 8y ago
      The airline chose to trust the safety of Boeing's planes. They deserve a greater than zero amount of blame if it turns out that it was a poor choice.
      - raverbashing 8y ago
        Yes but assigning responsibility is a complex process, it would make the issue more complex, even if it is a systemic issue with the equipment.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
golergka 8y ago
> It was shameful to see Boeing actively encouraging that narrative behind the scenes. Is it shameful because we suspect that it was an intentional lie on their behalf, or is it shameful even if it was honest opinion of these Boeing representatives at the time?
- FactolSarin 8y ago
  Either. Deeply seated racist beliefs are often honestly held, but that doesn't make them less shameful.
  - golergka 8y ago
    Why do you think that racism would be the only reason to hold such a belief in this particular situation?
  - wycy 8y ago
    I think in this case it probably wasn't meant to be racism on Boeing's part--Boeing just has a history of immediately blaming the pilots for every crash. Latent racism may have helped some people believe it was the pilots' fault, but I wouldn't ascribe the actual racism part to Boeing in this case.
    - sokoloff 8y ago
      Pilot error is the leading cause of airplane crashes. If someone offers you an even money wager that pays you if the next crash will have pilot error as a significant cause, take the wager. I am at least twice as likely to kill my airplane than my airplane is to kill me.
      - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
        How many accidents blamed on "pilot error" are a result of the pilot not being given enough information to make the right decision, or given the wrong information? I'm not saying that pilots are completely faultless but if they're making mistakes we should look to improve the systems and procedures that allow them to make the right decisions, not start pointing fingers.
throwaway29875 8y ago
I'm really surprised they didn't go ahead and blame the pilot's "ethnic culture" like the did with Asiana 214 [1] 1. https://www.cnbc.com/id/100869966 https://www.cnbc.com/id/100869966
- CaptainZapp 8y ago
  I'm extremely critical with Boeing's responses in general and the smearing and throwing pilots and airlines under the bus. But in that case they had a point. Seniority is super important in Asian culture. You just! don't! criticize! your! superiors! period. That's extremely diametral for resources management and crew communication in a cockpit. The first officer may tend to say nothing, even if he believes the plane should pull up in order not to offend the senior person. That said, Asian airlines learned from this and put a lot of effort to rectify this issue. That's absolutely no excuse for Boeing's despicable behavior on those last two crashes.
  - dralley 8y ago
    The actual vocabulary used when speaking to superiors in many asian languages also tends to be more verbose and subdued in meaning, as opposed to sharp and concise.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dagaci 8y ago
It actually seems to be normal practice to quickly allocate blame, even when its quite clear that little if any investigation has actually taken place. One of the effects of allocating blame is that large swathes of the general public will "switch off" and not ask questions of their politicians, who in turn apply little pressure to improve or advocate for improved standards (which big business and comfortable institutions see as too much government interference). I can't recall any such incident where it wasn't implied that the it was the pilots fault, implying incompetence. The fact that most of us may have inherent and often unconscious racial biases (black and white and other actually display the exactly the same biases) just makes this play damage control that much easier.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >It actually seems to be normal practice to quickly allocate blame, even when its quite clear that little if any investigation has actually taken place. Readers would do well to remember this also applies to all the people who were 100% sure it was MCAS related before the wreckage even stopped smoldering.
  - JshWright 8y ago
    I don't think anyone claimed to be 100% certain that was the cause (feel free to correct me if that's wrong). Given the obvious similarities between the two incidents (same phase of flight, same apparent pitch control problems, known issue that would result in that behavior, etc), I don't think it was unreasonable for people to point out the likely connection.
  - peteradio 8y ago
    No points for being correct? Why play the game then!!
  - sseth 8y ago
    However since Boeing is a multi-billion dollar corporation perfectly capable of defending itself, I think it is best if HN readers focus on defending the dead pilots who unfortunately are not in the same position. I am pretty sure any mistaken criticism of Boeing will be swiftly responded to and corrected at HN or elsewhere by Boeing's PR lackeys.
losvedir 8y ago
I've never seen anyone blame the crew, as it was recognized from the start that this was probably MCAS. I've seen, and personally believe, that a more experienced crew could have saved the flight, but that's different from calling this crew incompetent. I wish the article was clearer on what procedures were followed that didn't work. Did the crew follow the runaway stab trim checklist? If so, then that's really bad for Boeing, but I can't find anything specific yet.
- windexh8er 8y ago
  > I've seen, and personally believe, that a more experienced crew could have saved the flight, but that's different from calling this crew incompetent. I think this jump is unfair. It's easy to say this but the reality of the matter is that all public information we have points to a system that should have been redundant wasn't, a system that was in place (MCAS) was not as well known or understood as it should have been to pilots, and we also know Boeing (just like Volkswagen) made an explicit choice to cheat with the explicit goal of profits. Except in this case Boeing's choice directly led to hundreds of immediate deaths. This last point is why I, personally, think your comment is unfair. You're dismissing Boeing's mistakes but accepting all of the pilot's. Someone at Boeing in executive ranks, like Volkswagen, needs to go to prison if they are found guilty of neglect. As should the employees of the FAA who approved flightworthiness.
CaptainZapp 8y ago
Totally agree. Some of the sentiments expressed here was borderline racist. (badly trained, overworked cluelless third world pilots not even capable to follow a checklist). One of the worst smear jobs was actually by the New York Times accusing the captain of the Ethiopian plane not having trained in a 787-MAX simulator. Hello? Wasn't that the whole sales pitch that the plane requires no training at all for certified 787 pilots? In addition the MCAS crash scenario was neither part of the manuals nor of simulator training. Great smear job, NYT! I'm sure Boeing will thank you with a ton of ads. This[1] fascinating piece outlines what happened to a US pilot who felt uncomfortable with the minimal training provided and wanted additional simulator training or at least an instructor on his first flight. Spoiler: It was not a great carreer move. If I sound angry as hell, I am. That Boeing didn't ground the plane after the Lion Air crash (they were busy smearing the airline an the pilots instead) is nothing short of criminal. What a disgusting company! [1] https://qz.com/1584233/boeing-737-max-what-happened-when-one-us-pilot-asked-for-more-training/ https://qz.com/1584233/boeing-737-max-what-happened-when-one...
- swiley 8y ago
  You really shouldn’t ever trust the NYT. They haven’t been trustworthy for a while.
  - matt4077 8y ago
    Their report merely states that a simulator was available, and that the crew did not train it it. It even includes the fact that Boeing did not consider such training necessary. How is it untrustworthy to report these uncontested facts? You are drawing a conclusion that the article does not make, namely that the lack of simulator use was the singular cause of the accident. It takes some gall to accuse the Times of a false conclusion that happens entirely in your head.
    - CaptainZapp 8y ago
      My bad. It was me drawing the conclusion. And granted: That was mainly from the headlines, which were also picked up by other publications. I would remove my comment, but that kills the flow of the thread so I let it stand and apologise for my making the unfounded comment. I was under the impression (probably not unreasonable if you look at Boeing's reaction in the last few weeks) that the company was actively smearing the pilots and using their press connections to actively do that. Mea culpa!
sokoloff 8y ago
I am one of those people. If in fact the stab trim cutout switches were set to cutout early in the incident sequence, as required by the memory items on the checklist, I will absolutely retract my criticism of the crew and the blame falls much more squarely/exclusively on Boeing. I’ll make it a point to retract and apologize on all three forums where I made those comments (two tech and one aviation). I don’t read the minister’s comments today as unequivocally stating that.
- JshWright 8y ago
  Shouldn't that be the other way around? You're the one making the claim that the pilots acted inappropriately. Now you're saying you require evidence contradicting your claim before you retract it?
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    IMO, no. There is a released fact (via photographs) that the jackscrew on the stab trim was run to the extreme. That's strong evidence to suggest that the non-normal checklist for stab trim runaway was not correctly followed. The aviation minister's comment today does not carry weight in excess of the photographic, factual evidence, IMO. There are too many "loopholes" that she could be exploiting without leaving her statement technically incorrect. The good thing, such as it is, is that the facts are almost surely going to emerge here. The CVR transcript, FDR dump, and analysis of whether there's a mechanism for the electric trim to run even with the stab trim cutout switches in cutout and whether that can exceed the crew's ability to stop and reverse the trim setting manually will be telling. I do admit that the minister has greater access to that information than you or I do at this time. It is possible, but not decided, that she's had time to review all that information, knows with certainty the crew is blameless, and has chosen to not make a specific enough statement to support that for any number of valid reasons.
    - JshWright 8y ago
      The explanation put forward (which seems reasonable) is that the cutouts were disengaged because the aerodynamic forces were stronger than could be overcome by the manual control, so they had to turn the electrics back on in an attempt to move it (which allowed the MCAS to continue pushing the stabilizer to the extreme)
duxup 8y ago
I don't know about formal accusations and it is always dangerous to disagree with someone's view of "those people who"..... but speculation about pilot error has high rate of being generally accurate.
sseth 8y ago
Agreed. After the Lion Air crash, Boeing basically asserted the plane was perfectly safe, and that the pilots should have followed the runaway trim process - this means turning off the electric motor which moves the trim, and having the pilots move it manually using a wheel provided for the purpose. Boeing has tried to imply that in the midst of an emergency which looks very different from a runaway trim, pilots should have followed this procedure and this was in some way their fault. The Ethiopian Airlines crash has shown that Boeing was being disingenous. The problem is that turning off the trim motors at this stage of the flight leaves the pilots unable to move the trim fast enough manually before they crash and they are forced to switch on the electric trim - which again allows the MCAS to kick in. When pilots who are fully informed of MCAS still were unable to control the plane following Boeing's procedures then imagine the plight of the Lion Air pilots who recovered from the fault 26 times before crashing but had no idea anything called MCAS even existed. An honest admission by Boeing after the first crash would have prevented the second crash and the loss of further lives.
- DuskStar 8y ago
  There's a major difference between the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes though - altitude and incident duration. Things that are recoverable from 5000' AGL might not be from 1000' AGL. Speed is life, and altitude is life insurance after all. From my reading, the Lion Air pilots could have disabled electronic trim anytime after those 26 recoveries and been fine. But the Ethiopian Airlines pilots only had 1000' of altitude to recover in, and that wasn't enough. Which leads to the question of why MCAS was triggering at 1000' AGL, since it isn't supposed to activate when flaps are deployed... I don't think MCAS is going to end up being the sole hardware issue on that flight.
  - cmurf 8y ago
    Could have disable it, but didn't? We don't actually know yet whether they did or when they did, and if they did if it was already too late. Critically we don't know their mental state, as we don't have transcripts yet. If the pilots are reactive or even panicked at the unexpected uncommanded pitch behavior, they may have been doomed right from that moment. The previous flight, Lion Air 34, the pilots likewise did not immediately cutoff autotrim. We have no transcript from that flight either. None of these pilots have been told of, or simulator trained, an MCAS upset scenario. Startle factor is relevant and can cause total cockpit breakdown. The 737 PCU design flaw and subsequent accidents show this. Can problem specific training mitigate crashes? Sure. How would these pilots have received MCAS upset training when they don't even know MCAS exists and the simulators didn't have such an failure option? And should they now be required to have such training? Including simulator training? As for why MCAS is triggered below 1500' AGL in the Ethiopian Airlines case, that is a very good question. I have not seen the altitude above which MCAS is supposed to apply, and I haven't discovered how that trigger altitude is determined, radar altimeter? Most of the facts we still don't know.
OnuRC 8y ago
Ryanair doesn't have a single crash with fatalities in their history and they're worse? They fly more frequently yet they're safer. That safety rating seems not that reliable.

watwat1 8y ago

You’re right. Africa is clearly a haven of technological innovation and progress.

drsim 8y ago

While I agree with your sentiment on stereotypes, looking at the link your comment seems misleading. The airlines you mention score lower on 'Safety Rating' due to lack of IOSA certification. "Registering for IOSA certification and auditing is not mandatory therefore an airline that does not have IOSA certification may have either failed the IOSA audit or alternatively chosen not to participate." For a budget airline I can see them not participating for cost reasons. Does this make them less safe?

matt4077 8y ago
Safety incidents in air travel are thankfully low. Therefore, it is impossible to find meaningful differences in that primary data alone. You have to find some proxies, and certification schemes seem at least defensible in that regard. In any case, not being a „budget“ airline that has to cut such costs would seem to fit rather well with my argument that Ethopian is not some gravel-airstrip bush operation flying leftover Sowiet machinery.
- drsim 8y ago
  Agreed, it's clear that a proxy is needed. Also that Ethiopian is not a sub-par operation. My issue is that a 'safety rating' based on an optional certification is being used to compare airlines as more/less safe. Why not stick to what I believe to be the universal measures of EU allowed, FAA endorsed and ICAO country audit.
  - matt4077 8y ago
    The libertarian answer would be that government requirements mere represent a necessary minimum. In any case, it would seem irrefutable that no matter the requirements, there is always room to go above & beyond, and to have such efforts certified by a third party to maximize their use for PR purposes. In a wild application of signaling theory, certification may even be a useful signal without regard to the actual substance of that certification, as long as it is expensive. Just like a peacock shows his abundance of resources by wasting some of them on jazzy plumage.[0] I think you’re sort of sympathizing with the airlines here, who are somewhat pressured into spending that, from their perspective, is wasteful: after all, they know they are doing all that stuff they are getting certified for. I would say (a) don’t anthromorphize corporations—they may be people, but not ones deserving sympathy. And, (b), certification schemes are one of the many often disregarded frictional costs of a market economy. They are unnecessary only in a mythical benevolent economic system that has so far eluded us. [0] also a good reason to justify flying only with airlines that offer free peanuts.
- airstrike 8y ago
  > not some gravel-airstrip bush operation flying leftover Sowiet machinery. just wanted to say I appreciate the imagery. this is exactly how I interpreted US media to be framing Ethiopian
milgrim 8y ago
I can also see them to be less safe for cost reasons. Getting the certification would have helped to alleviate this concern.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

devmunchies 8y ago

>Their safety rating is better was better. sucks cause its not even their fault.

TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
Excuse me, no. This incident was decidedly not their fault. The blame lies 100% with Boing. This event doesn’t not count toward their safety rating.
- raverbashing 8y ago
  Some ratings count events regardless of whose fault it is unfortunately.
  - keketi 8y ago
    The airline chose to trust the safety of Boeing's planes. They deserve a greater than zero amount of blame if it turns out that it was a poor choice.
    - raverbashing 8y ago
      Yes but assigning responsibility is a complex process, it would make the issue more complex, even if it is a systemic issue with the equipment.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

golergka 8y ago

> It was shameful to see Boeing actively encouraging that narrative behind the scenes. Is it shameful because we suspect that it was an intentional lie on their behalf, or is it shameful even if it was honest opinion of these Boeing representatives at the time?

FactolSarin 8y ago
Either. Deeply seated racist beliefs are often honestly held, but that doesn't make them less shameful.
- golergka 8y ago
  Why do you think that racism would be the only reason to hold such a belief in this particular situation?
- wycy 8y ago
  I think in this case it probably wasn't meant to be racism on Boeing's part--Boeing just has a history of immediately blaming the pilots for every crash. Latent racism may have helped some people believe it was the pilots' fault, but I wouldn't ascribe the actual racism part to Boeing in this case.
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    Pilot error is the leading cause of airplane crashes. If someone offers you an even money wager that pays you if the next crash will have pilot error as a significant cause, take the wager. I am at least twice as likely to kill my airplane than my airplane is to kill me.
    - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
      How many accidents blamed on "pilot error" are a result of the pilot not being given enough information to make the right decision, or given the wrong information? I'm not saying that pilots are completely faultless but if they're making mistakes we should look to improve the systems and procedures that allow them to make the right decisions, not start pointing fingers.

throwaway29875 8y ago

I'm really surprised they didn't go ahead and blame the pilot's "ethnic culture" like the did with Asiana 214 [1] 1. https://www.cnbc.com/id/100869966 https://www.cnbc.com/id/100869966

CaptainZapp 8y ago
I'm extremely critical with Boeing's responses in general and the smearing and throwing pilots and airlines under the bus. But in that case they had a point. Seniority is super important in Asian culture. You just! don't! criticize! your! superiors! period. That's extremely diametral for resources management and crew communication in a cockpit. The first officer may tend to say nothing, even if he believes the plane should pull up in order not to offend the senior person. That said, Asian airlines learned from this and put a lot of effort to rectify this issue. That's absolutely no excuse for Boeing's despicable behavior on those last two crashes.
- dralley 8y ago
  The actual vocabulary used when speaking to superiors in many asian languages also tends to be more verbose and subdued in meaning, as opposed to sharp and concise.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

dagaci 8y ago

It actually seems to be normal practice to quickly allocate blame, even when its quite clear that little if any investigation has actually taken place. One of the effects of allocating blame is that large swathes of the general public will "switch off" and not ask questions of their politicians, who in turn apply little pressure to improve or advocate for improved standards (which big business and comfortable institutions see as too much government interference). I can't recall any such incident where it wasn't implied that the it was the pilots fault, implying incompetence. The fact that most of us may have inherent and often unconscious racial biases (black and white and other actually display the exactly the same biases) just makes this play damage control that much easier.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
>It actually seems to be normal practice to quickly allocate blame, even when its quite clear that little if any investigation has actually taken place. Readers would do well to remember this also applies to all the people who were 100% sure it was MCAS related before the wreckage even stopped smoldering.
- JshWright 8y ago
  I don't think anyone claimed to be 100% certain that was the cause (feel free to correct me if that's wrong). Given the obvious similarities between the two incidents (same phase of flight, same apparent pitch control problems, known issue that would result in that behavior, etc), I don't think it was unreasonable for people to point out the likely connection.
- peteradio 8y ago
  No points for being correct? Why play the game then!!
- sseth 8y ago
  However since Boeing is a multi-billion dollar corporation perfectly capable of defending itself, I think it is best if HN readers focus on defending the dead pilots who unfortunately are not in the same position. I am pretty sure any mistaken criticism of Boeing will be swiftly responded to and corrected at HN or elsewhere by Boeing's PR lackeys.

losvedir 8y ago

I've never seen anyone blame the crew, as it was recognized from the start that this was probably MCAS. I've seen, and personally believe, that a more experienced crew could have saved the flight, but that's different from calling this crew incompetent. I wish the article was clearer on what procedures were followed that didn't work. Did the crew follow the runaway stab trim checklist? If so, then that's really bad for Boeing, but I can't find anything specific yet.

windexh8er 8y ago
> I've seen, and personally believe, that a more experienced crew could have saved the flight, but that's different from calling this crew incompetent. I think this jump is unfair. It's easy to say this but the reality of the matter is that all public information we have points to a system that should have been redundant wasn't, a system that was in place (MCAS) was not as well known or understood as it should have been to pilots, and we also know Boeing (just like Volkswagen) made an explicit choice to cheat with the explicit goal of profits. Except in this case Boeing's choice directly led to hundreds of immediate deaths. This last point is why I, personally, think your comment is unfair. You're dismissing Boeing's mistakes but accepting all of the pilot's. Someone at Boeing in executive ranks, like Volkswagen, needs to go to prison if they are found guilty of neglect. As should the employees of the FAA who approved flightworthiness.

CaptainZapp 8y ago

Totally agree. Some of the sentiments expressed here was borderline racist. (badly trained, overworked cluelless third world pilots not even capable to follow a checklist). One of the worst smear jobs was actually by the New York Times accusing the captain of the Ethiopian plane not having trained in a 787-MAX simulator. Hello? Wasn't that the whole sales pitch that the plane requires no training at all for certified 787 pilots? In addition the MCAS crash scenario was neither part of the manuals nor of simulator training. Great smear job, NYT! I'm sure Boeing will thank you with a ton of ads. This[1] fascinating piece outlines what happened to a US pilot who felt uncomfortable with the minimal training provided and wanted additional simulator training or at least an instructor on his first flight. Spoiler: It was not a great carreer move. If I sound angry as hell, I am. That Boeing didn't ground the plane after the Lion Air crash (they were busy smearing the airline an the pilots instead) is nothing short of criminal. What a disgusting company! [1] https://qz.com/1584233/boeing-737-max-what-happened-when-one-us-pilot-asked-for-more-training/ https://qz.com/1584233/boeing-737-max-what-happened-when-one...

swiley 8y ago
You really shouldn’t ever trust the NYT. They haven’t been trustworthy for a while.
- matt4077 8y ago
  Their report merely states that a simulator was available, and that the crew did not train it it. It even includes the fact that Boeing did not consider such training necessary. How is it untrustworthy to report these uncontested facts? You are drawing a conclusion that the article does not make, namely that the lack of simulator use was the singular cause of the accident. It takes some gall to accuse the Times of a false conclusion that happens entirely in your head.
  - CaptainZapp 8y ago
    My bad. It was me drawing the conclusion. And granted: That was mainly from the headlines, which were also picked up by other publications. I would remove my comment, but that kills the flow of the thread so I let it stand and apologise for my making the unfounded comment. I was under the impression (probably not unreasonable if you look at Boeing's reaction in the last few weeks) that the company was actively smearing the pilots and using their press connections to actively do that. Mea culpa!

sokoloff 8y ago

I am one of those people. If in fact the stab trim cutout switches were set to cutout early in the incident sequence, as required by the memory items on the checklist, I will absolutely retract my criticism of the crew and the blame falls much more squarely/exclusively on Boeing. I’ll make it a point to retract and apologize on all three forums where I made those comments (two tech and one aviation). I don’t read the minister’s comments today as unequivocally stating that.

JshWright 8y ago
Shouldn't that be the other way around? You're the one making the claim that the pilots acted inappropriately. Now you're saying you require evidence contradicting your claim before you retract it?
- sokoloff 8y ago
  IMO, no. There is a released fact (via photographs) that the jackscrew on the stab trim was run to the extreme. That's strong evidence to suggest that the non-normal checklist for stab trim runaway was not correctly followed. The aviation minister's comment today does not carry weight in excess of the photographic, factual evidence, IMO. There are too many "loopholes" that she could be exploiting without leaving her statement technically incorrect. The good thing, such as it is, is that the facts are almost surely going to emerge here. The CVR transcript, FDR dump, and analysis of whether there's a mechanism for the electric trim to run even with the stab trim cutout switches in cutout and whether that can exceed the crew's ability to stop and reverse the trim setting manually will be telling. I do admit that the minister has greater access to that information than you or I do at this time. It is possible, but not decided, that she's had time to review all that information, knows with certainty the crew is blameless, and has chosen to not make a specific enough statement to support that for any number of valid reasons.
  - JshWright 8y ago
    The explanation put forward (which seems reasonable) is that the cutouts were disengaged because the aerodynamic forces were stronger than could be overcome by the manual control, so they had to turn the electrics back on in an attempt to move it (which allowed the MCAS to continue pushing the stabilizer to the extreme)

duxup 8y ago

I don't know about formal accusations and it is always dangerous to disagree with someone's view of "those people who"..... but speculation about pilot error has high rate of being generally accurate.

sseth 8y ago

Agreed. After the Lion Air crash, Boeing basically asserted the plane was perfectly safe, and that the pilots should have followed the runaway trim process - this means turning off the electric motor which moves the trim, and having the pilots move it manually using a wheel provided for the purpose. Boeing has tried to imply that in the midst of an emergency which looks very different from a runaway trim, pilots should have followed this procedure and this was in some way their fault. The Ethiopian Airlines crash has shown that Boeing was being disingenous. The problem is that turning off the trim motors at this stage of the flight leaves the pilots unable to move the trim fast enough manually before they crash and they are forced to switch on the electric trim - which again allows the MCAS to kick in. When pilots who are fully informed of MCAS still were unable to control the plane following Boeing's procedures then imagine the plight of the Lion Air pilots who recovered from the fault 26 times before crashing but had no idea anything called MCAS even existed. An honest admission by Boeing after the first crash would have prevented the second crash and the loss of further lives.

DuskStar 8y ago
There's a major difference between the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes though - altitude and incident duration. Things that are recoverable from 5000' AGL might not be from 1000' AGL. Speed is life, and altitude is life insurance after all. From my reading, the Lion Air pilots could have disabled electronic trim anytime after those 26 recoveries and been fine. But the Ethiopian Airlines pilots only had 1000' of altitude to recover in, and that wasn't enough. Which leads to the question of why MCAS was triggering at 1000' AGL, since it isn't supposed to activate when flaps are deployed... I don't think MCAS is going to end up being the sole hardware issue on that flight.
- cmurf 8y ago
  Could have disable it, but didn't? We don't actually know yet whether they did or when they did, and if they did if it was already too late. Critically we don't know their mental state, as we don't have transcripts yet. If the pilots are reactive or even panicked at the unexpected uncommanded pitch behavior, they may have been doomed right from that moment. The previous flight, Lion Air 34, the pilots likewise did not immediately cutoff autotrim. We have no transcript from that flight either. None of these pilots have been told of, or simulator trained, an MCAS upset scenario. Startle factor is relevant and can cause total cockpit breakdown. The 737 PCU design flaw and subsequent accidents show this. Can problem specific training mitigate crashes? Sure. How would these pilots have received MCAS upset training when they don't even know MCAS exists and the simulators didn't have such an failure option? And should they now be required to have such training? Including simulator training? As for why MCAS is triggered below 1500' AGL in the Ethiopian Airlines case, that is a very good question. I have not seen the altitude above which MCAS is supposed to apply, and I haven't discovered how that trigger altitude is determined, radar altimeter? Most of the facts we still don't know.

OnuRC 8y ago

Ryanair doesn't have a single crash with fatalities in their history and they're worse? They fly more frequently yet they're safer. That safety rating seems not that reliable.