4 ms·

Notice how 5/6 reasons the accident report contains are "crew screwed up"

js2 6y ago
That's a "you're holding it wrong" argument. There are always human factors, no matter how well trained. So while the errors these pilots made shouldn't have happened if they were better trained, at least one of the errors, fighting over who was controlling the plane w/o realizing it, is impossible in a Boeing cockpit.
- NikolaeVarius 6y ago
  No its not. The point of these reports is to get to the "primary causes" of the accident and include design decisions that contribute to an accident. These are trained pilots who did not follow their training. They didn't follow procedures that were in place for these types of events. They did not follow cockpit management procedures. They didnt know how to properly deal with stall conditions, a fundamental piloting skill. They managed to crash a airplane that was flying perfectly fine. I don't understand the fixation on the sidestick. Its not like they just tossed it in there. Thousands of engineer hours were spent creating the systems to manage control inputs. It may have been a contributing factor, but the sidestick isn't even mentioned in the proposed improvements section. This was pilot failure.
  - js2 6y ago
    That's fair. Thank you for elaborating.
- gecko 6y ago
  The thing is, in all aircraft (very much including this Airbus), there are procedures you're supposed to follow for certain failure conditions. They're generally in something called the Quick Reference Handbook, or QRH, but there are also simple flows that crews are supposed to be trained for. One thing that is key in this situation is to announce "my plane" if you are the one flying...which never happened. The Airbus also has a button to mark sidestick priority, removing the other pilot's inputs entirely. That also was not used. No, one part of this (holding the stick full back) could not happen on a Boeing, but the rest of it sure could. The thing that personally scares me is not Airbus' take on how to fly planes, but rather Boeing's current take on the 737MAX where things are physical controls, kinda, somewhat, unless they aren't and become fly-by-wire. That's the issue with the MAX: if they'd been willing to train pilots for the new dynamics, rather than try to mask it with MCAS, it'd be fine. If it were fully fly-by-wire like an Airbus, it'd be fine. But the halfway house confused everybody on board.
  - js2 6y ago
    Oh, I agree. My original comment way up thread was based on my perception of the Airbus cockpit to the pre-Max Boeing cockpit. Since the 737 Max incidents, my perception has changed and my preference now is to fly Antonov. :-)
AniseAbyss 6y ago
Because humans screw up all the time. They are the weakest link. You can have the best damn plane and it only takes one guy or gal to drive it into the ground.

js2 6y ago

That's a "you're holding it wrong" argument. There are always human factors, no matter how well trained. So while the errors these pilots made shouldn't have happened if they were better trained, at least one of the errors, fighting over who was controlling the plane w/o realizing it, is impossible in a Boeing cockpit.

NikolaeVarius 6y ago
No its not. The point of these reports is to get to the "primary causes" of the accident and include design decisions that contribute to an accident. These are trained pilots who did not follow their training. They didn't follow procedures that were in place for these types of events. They did not follow cockpit management procedures. They didnt know how to properly deal with stall conditions, a fundamental piloting skill. They managed to crash a airplane that was flying perfectly fine. I don't understand the fixation on the sidestick. Its not like they just tossed it in there. Thousands of engineer hours were spent creating the systems to manage control inputs. It may have been a contributing factor, but the sidestick isn't even mentioned in the proposed improvements section. This was pilot failure.
- js2 6y ago
  That's fair. Thank you for elaborating.
gecko 6y ago
The thing is, in all aircraft (very much including this Airbus), there are procedures you're supposed to follow for certain failure conditions. They're generally in something called the Quick Reference Handbook, or QRH, but there are also simple flows that crews are supposed to be trained for. One thing that is key in this situation is to announce "my plane" if you are the one flying...which never happened. The Airbus also has a button to mark sidestick priority, removing the other pilot's inputs entirely. That also was not used. No, one part of this (holding the stick full back) could not happen on a Boeing, but the rest of it sure could. The thing that personally scares me is not Airbus' take on how to fly planes, but rather Boeing's current take on the 737MAX where things are physical controls, kinda, somewhat, unless they aren't and become fly-by-wire. That's the issue with the MAX: if they'd been willing to train pilots for the new dynamics, rather than try to mask it with MCAS, it'd be fine. If it were fully fly-by-wire like an Airbus, it'd be fine. But the halfway house confused everybody on board.
- js2 6y ago
  Oh, I agree. My original comment way up thread was based on my perception of the Airbus cockpit to the pre-Max Boeing cockpit. Since the 737 Max incidents, my perception has changed and my preference now is to fly Antonov. :-)

AniseAbyss 6y ago

Because humans screw up all the time. They are the weakest link. You can have the best damn plane and it only takes one guy or gal to drive it into the ground.