2 ms·
I'm going to go on a soapbox here and authoritatively state by correlation that fatal accidents from narrow-body jets where pax have survived have only occurred
by o-__-o 7y ago
I'm going to go on a soapbox here and authoritatively state by correlation that fatal accidents from narrow-body jets where pax have survived have only occurred with pilots with extra time. I don't have any raw data to share to back this up, but I have read enough NTSB reports to see this one nugget of information stand out. And if you want to determine a cause, an obvious and likely to be denounced as a red-herring, is the additional time spent learning the aircraft.
Pilots with additional time on the MAX were able to spend more time in the simulator. The previous pilot of LA610 recognized the malfunction and was able to correct. We can't ignore the evidence here. The outcome is very binary. Either we dumb down airplanes so your commander-in-chief can fly one ala an Icon A5 or we continue to keep a minimum of 5000 combined flight time on deck.
- cmurf 7y agoYou keep getting basic facts wrong. A jump pilot on LNI 043 recommended stabilizer trim cutoff, not the flying pilots. That flight also didn't exhibit nearly as aggressive MCAS upset as the crashed flights. The action you credit to LNI 043, is the same action taken by ET302. The MCAS induced mistrim was so quickly severe they could not manually retrim, reenabled electric trim to get assistance to retrim, and in an instant MCAS activated and shoved the nose 20 degrees down. It was so aggressive flight recorder data shows negative G forces. They were literally lifted iff their seats. You have blinders on, fixated on unproven relevance of experience, while being resistant to available facts showing a deadly aircraft design flaw.