5 ms·

Boeing Refuses to Cooperate with New Inquiry into Deadly Crash from 2009

34 points by metahost 7y ago

olliej 7y ago
Today in things that are completely unsurprising.
salawat 7y ago
Well... First thing you should do after discovering a bug in software is think about where else the methodology that created the big in the first place may have also been used. This seems a completely valid case to reexamine. The NTSB going on the defensive would not be something I would have expected. Even a cursory retreating of well traveled paths can generally be enlightening as people come and go from an agency.
gus_massa 7y ago
Note that the title only says "Boeing" but the first line of the article says > Boeing and American safety officials refused to cooperate [...]
- kayfox 7y ago
  Also note they are asking for the CEO of Boeing to come to the Netherlands to be questioned by them. "Members of the Dutch parliament wanted to question the Boeing chief executive, David Calhoun, about the company’s possible influence over the original Dutch investigation of the accident, which killed nine people on a Turkish Airlines flight. The National Transportation Safety Board also refused lawmakers’ request to participate."
LorenPechtel 7y ago
And why are they still allowed to fly there after this?
- kayfox 7y ago
  Well, the King of the Netherlands does fly 737s.
doggydogs94 7y ago
Look at the comments in the NYT article. Scroll down to —-Mike—- I’m a pilot. Can someone tell me what Dutch legislators know about air crash investigations? Because this crash was investigated by professionals and a probable cause found. What you at the NYT cited in your “investigation” is perfectly normal. Essentially you found one guy who felt that his findings didn’t carry as much weight has he thought they should have, and his former professor and mentor who agreed. This is going beyond the point of obsession at this point, guys, it really is. There are always disagreements within investigations, and sometimes investigators or entire groups of investigators within an investigation will disagree so vehemently with the findings that they file a dissent. That didn’t happen here. Which tells me a lot. Furthermore, I’m quite familiar with this accident, and the crew was rightfully blamed. They disregarded a SACROSANCT policy among airline crews by not initiating a go-around when they hadn’t achieved a stabilized approach by 1,000 feet. And they knew the radar altimeter was malfunctioning. What’s even worse is that this was a training flight! So they were teaching the new first officer to ignore standard safety practices! What does that tell you?! I am so tired of the Times’ quite deliberate, and very diligent, efforts to misinform the public. I really am! This accident was investigated and blame apportioned appropriately. Ditch legislators have no business sticking their noses in here. Let. It. Be!
- kayfox 7y ago
  There's a distinct difference between the coverage of the New York Times and the Seattle Times. Both a very critical of Boeing, but the NYT seems to have a weekly quota of Boeing articles whereas the Seattle Times only publishes when something new has shown up. I have also noticed quite a few articles from the NYT that only recap what has happened so far and don't actually have anything new in them. Boeing and the MAX seems to be a hot story right now, so I guess I don't blame them, but its tiring to see a new article and think "oh, good, some new info" and then waste time reading it to find out its just more of the same stuff as last week.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  > They disregarded a SACROSANCT policy among airline crews by not initiating a go-around when they hadn’t achieved a stabilized approach by 1,000 feet. I was on a Lufthansa flight that did not have a stabilized approach from 5000 feet all the way down to the runway, right until the left hand wingtip came within a meter or so of brushing the ground to the side of the plane. Then, and only then did they initiate a go-around. Crappiest flight I've ever been one, I sent a message to LH and zero response. It is quite possible this rule is indeed sacrosanct but here you have at least one violation. In case anybody is interested in looking it up, LH2310, 14 Feb.

34 points by metahost 7y ago

Today in things that are completely unsurprising.

Well... First thing you should do after discovering a bug in software is think about where else the methodology that created the big in the first place may have also been used. This seems a completely valid case to reexamine. The NTSB going on the defensive would not be something I would have expected. Even a cursory retreating of well traveled paths can generally be enlightening as people come and go from an agency.

gus_massa 7y ago

Note that the title only says "Boeing" but the first line of the article says > Boeing and American safety officials refused to cooperate [...]

kayfox 7y ago
Also note they are asking for the CEO of Boeing to come to the Netherlands to be questioned by them. "Members of the Dutch parliament wanted to question the Boeing chief executive, David Calhoun, about the company’s possible influence over the original Dutch investigation of the accident, which killed nine people on a Turkish Airlines flight. The National Transportation Safety Board also refused lawmakers’ request to participate."

LorenPechtel 7y ago

And why are they still allowed to fly there after this?

kayfox 7y ago
Well, the King of the Netherlands does fly 737s.

doggydogs94 7y ago

Look at the comments in the NYT article. Scroll down to —-Mike—- I’m a pilot. Can someone tell me what Dutch legislators know about air crash investigations? Because this crash was investigated by professionals and a probable cause found. What you at the NYT cited in your “investigation” is perfectly normal. Essentially you found one guy who felt that his findings didn’t carry as much weight has he thought they should have, and his former professor and mentor who agreed. This is going beyond the point of obsession at this point, guys, it really is. There are always disagreements within investigations, and sometimes investigators or entire groups of investigators within an investigation will disagree so vehemently with the findings that they file a dissent. That didn’t happen here. Which tells me a lot. Furthermore, I’m quite familiar with this accident, and the crew was rightfully blamed. They disregarded a SACROSANCT policy among airline crews by not initiating a go-around when they hadn’t achieved a stabilized approach by 1,000 feet. And they knew the radar altimeter was malfunctioning. What’s even worse is that this was a training flight! So they were teaching the new first officer to ignore standard safety practices! What does that tell you?! I am so tired of the Times’ quite deliberate, and very diligent, efforts to misinform the public. I really am! This accident was investigated and blame apportioned appropriately. Ditch legislators have no business sticking their noses in here. Let. It. Be!

kayfox 7y ago
There's a distinct difference between the coverage of the New York Times and the Seattle Times. Both a very critical of Boeing, but the NYT seems to have a weekly quota of Boeing articles whereas the Seattle Times only publishes when something new has shown up. I have also noticed quite a few articles from the NYT that only recap what has happened so far and don't actually have anything new in them. Boeing and the MAX seems to be a hot story right now, so I guess I don't blame them, but its tiring to see a new article and think "oh, good, some new info" and then waste time reading it to find out its just more of the same stuff as last week.
jacquesm 7y ago
> They disregarded a SACROSANCT policy among airline crews by not initiating a go-around when they hadn’t achieved a stabilized approach by 1,000 feet. I was on a Lufthansa flight that did not have a stabilized approach from 5000 feet all the way down to the runway, right until the left hand wingtip came within a meter or so of brushing the ground to the side of the plane. Then, and only then did they initiate a go-around. Crappiest flight I've ever been one, I sent a message to LH and zero response. It is quite possible this rule is indeed sacrosanct but here you have at least one violation. In case anybody is interested in looking it up, LH2310, 14 Feb.