5 ms·

Well we couldn't expect them to blame the former airport hustler who made billions ignoring safety and bribing government investigators now, could we? Nor coul

Well we couldn't expect them to blame the former airport hustler who made billions ignoring safety and bribing government investigators now, could we? Nor could we expect them to blame the pilots for being so poorly trained and under-prepared for a simple runaway trim situation that they allowed aircraft to fly fast enough that any control input would fatally damage the control surfaces, could we? Noooo. We don't let the facts interfere with our opinions here. We just dance to the tune set by our masters in St. Petersburg and destroy the second largest US defence contractor. Because facts are soooo tired. I can't possibly be expected to read and understand complex technical material before having an opinion. Nooo. We don't want that.

simion314 7y ago
So all the faults that Boeing are fixing now are imaginary, you do not absolve Boeing of it's fault because some super pilots would have saved the plane. Maybe you should have followed your advice and read about all the mismanagement of the project and how important details were hidden from the pilots.
cmurf 7y ago
What facts demonstrate the pilots are poorly trained? What facts demonstrate this was a case of simple runaway trim? What facts indicate control surfaces were damaged, let alone related to speed or improper control input? What we do know is MCAS can so rapidly induce mistrim, that it's not possible to recover from at low altitude. No one was informed of or trained on this possible failure vector and it's not at all clear it looks like the kind of runaway trim they are trained for. United 585, US Air 427, Eastwind 517. The facts there are this was the result of PCU malfunction causing rudder reversal. In the case of US Air 427 the pilots pulled back on the yoke the entire time, progressing the stall, and making recovery impossible. But the direct cause of the accident is still Boeing's responsibility, the instigating action that led to the crashes was rudder hardover due to a mechanical defect. Just because pilots may have, with perfect information, been able to recover the plane, does not absolve Boeing's defective design and implementation for MCAS, the deception from the FAA, the lack of documentation about its function and malfunction in the flight manual or training materials, the lack of any procedure for its malfunction that would require additional training. And now they're changing the behavior of MCAS in the case of angle of attack sensor disagreement, such that MCAS is disabled. That's a very clear sign that the previous behavior is inappropriate. And the ensuing change in airplane behavior without MCAS will certainly require additional training, the very thing they sought to avoid.

simion314 7y ago

So all the faults that Boeing are fixing now are imaginary, you do not absolve Boeing of it's fault because some super pilots would have saved the plane. Maybe you should have followed your advice and read about all the mismanagement of the project and how important details were hidden from the pilots.

cmurf 7y ago

What facts demonstrate the pilots are poorly trained? What facts demonstrate this was a case of simple runaway trim? What facts indicate control surfaces were damaged, let alone related to speed or improper control input? What we do know is MCAS can so rapidly induce mistrim, that it's not possible to recover from at low altitude. No one was informed of or trained on this possible failure vector and it's not at all clear it looks like the kind of runaway trim they are trained for. United 585, US Air 427, Eastwind 517. The facts there are this was the result of PCU malfunction causing rudder reversal. In the case of US Air 427 the pilots pulled back on the yoke the entire time, progressing the stall, and making recovery impossible. But the direct cause of the accident is still Boeing's responsibility, the instigating action that led to the crashes was rudder hardover due to a mechanical defect. Just because pilots may have, with perfect information, been able to recover the plane, does not absolve Boeing's defective design and implementation for MCAS, the deception from the FAA, the lack of documentation about its function and malfunction in the flight manual or training materials, the lack of any procedure for its malfunction that would require additional training. And now they're changing the behavior of MCAS in the case of angle of attack sensor disagreement, such that MCAS is disabled. That's a very clear sign that the previous behavior is inappropriate. And the ensuing change in airplane behavior without MCAS will certainly require additional training, the very thing they sought to avoid.