3 ms·

You can take the word 'blame' out of it, but an investigation still has to find the causes of an accident, and if it involved an action, inaction or delayed act

You can take the word 'blame' out of it, but an investigation still has to find the causes of an accident, and if it involved an action, inaction or delayed action by a pilot, the inquiry should consider whether most pilots would have done the same. There are equivalent issues for the equipment. The issue here is not anything technical, but Boeing's alleged pressure on the inquiry. I say alleged, because Boeing should be allowed to, and in fact should be expected to provide a fact-based analysis of the accident. It is ultimately for the investigators and regulators to decide if it is being tendentious and/or manipulative.

_-___________-_ 7y ago
Yes, causes (emphasis on the plural). I really don't see evidence of pressure, and apparently neither did the Dutch investigators. The "whether most pilots would have done the same" is probably where I see the biggest differences between this and the MCAS incidents. Every student pilot knows to monitor their speed, especially in a low-energy situation like approach and landing. Very few student pilots could successfully have recovered from the trim upsets caused by MCAS.