4 ms·

It's not a transcription of the NTSB report. This is a post on a dedicated and reasonably well-thought-of aviation safety blog. I think it's reasonable to exp

by ajross 3y ago

It's not a transcription of the NTSB report. This is a post on a dedicated and reasonably well-thought-of aviation safety blog. I think it's reasonable to expect some editorializing and be expected to weigh the arguments on their merits. The NTSB is great. They're not the final word on anything in particular.

kortilla 3y ago
It’s an armchair analyst injecting their pet peeves into an otherwise narrated report of what the NTSB found. It’s disingenuous to do a publication the final report and cause of a crash and blend in your own views without big disclaimers that they aren’t supported. It’s no different than the author focusing on the ethnicity or religion of the pilots or even the phases of the moon and planets. There is what the NTSB said, and what the author pulled out of his ass. They are unfortunately blended together and pretty severely conflict in this case.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - kortilla 3y ago
    Him, the topic here is aviation safety and this particular incident. I didn’t add any analysis of the cause of the incident. The author made conclusions up whole cloth.
- spuz 3y ago
  It does seem to me that the author has injected their own theory of the state of mind of the crew, but in what way does this theory conflict with the NTSB's account? I agree that if there was evidence that the state of mind of the crew was a significant factor in the cause of the accident that they would have mentioned it, but this simply means they did not find sufficient evidence for this theory, not that the theory is incorrect.
flaminHotSpeedo 3y ago
The NTSB is great precisely because they deal in facts. This article does not, yet presents speculation as fact, without critical context that the NTSB certainly considered. Facts are important because you can learn from them, speculation about human behavior is sensationalist bullshit because you can't prove it and can't reliably prevent human error in the first place. For example: only a handful of 372's were ever ETOPS certified and I'm pretty sure this plane was not one of them. Should airframes with lower reliability like that even be allowed to operate in areas like Hawaii in the first place? Clearly these pilots weren't prepared to handle the situation, what needs to happen (and what the NTSB aims to do) is to avoid putting any other pilots in the same situation, from a holistic perspective
- ajross 3y ago
  Pretty sure your point about 737-200 ETOPS certification is also not present in the NTSB report. Why is it OK for you to pontificate but not the linked author?
  - flaminHotSpeedo 3y ago
    I meant to have a point that if you grab at tenuous connections every report would speculate to the point of uselessness, but that got lost to a cut and paste mistake while rearranging the comment.
- rob74 3y ago
  Well, in this case it was undeniably human behavior that crashed the plane: if the pilots would have, at any point during the flight except at the very end, realized that they were trying to fly using the damaged engine, and switched to the other engine instead, they probably could have salvaged the situation. So I think a psychological analysis of why this didn't happen is warranted, and the story about another copilot refusing to fly with the pilot because of his disregard for procedures is relevant context, even if the NTSB didn't mention it.
  - prmph 3y ago

by ajross 3y ago

kortilla 3y ago

It’s an armchair analyst injecting their pet peeves into an otherwise narrated report of what the NTSB found. It’s disingenuous to do a publication the final report and cause of a crash and blend in your own views without big disclaimers that they aren’t supported. It’s no different than the author focusing on the ethnicity or religion of the pilots or even the phases of the moon and planets. There is what the NTSB said, and what the author pulled out of his ass. They are unfortunately blended together and pretty severely conflict in this case.

giraffe_lady 3y ago
[flagged]
- kortilla 3y ago
  Him, the topic here is aviation safety and this particular incident. I didn’t add any analysis of the cause of the incident. The author made conclusions up whole cloth.
spuz 3y ago
It does seem to me that the author has injected their own theory of the state of mind of the crew, but in what way does this theory conflict with the NTSB's account? I agree that if there was evidence that the state of mind of the crew was a significant factor in the cause of the accident that they would have mentioned it, but this simply means they did not find sufficient evidence for this theory, not that the theory is incorrect.

flaminHotSpeedo 3y ago

The NTSB is great precisely because they deal in facts. This article does not, yet presents speculation as fact, without critical context that the NTSB certainly considered. Facts are important because you can learn from them, speculation about human behavior is sensationalist bullshit because you can't prove it and can't reliably prevent human error in the first place. For example: only a handful of 372's were ever ETOPS certified and I'm pretty sure this plane was not one of them. Should airframes with lower reliability like that even be allowed to operate in areas like Hawaii in the first place? Clearly these pilots weren't prepared to handle the situation, what needs to happen (and what the NTSB aims to do) is to avoid putting any other pilots in the same situation, from a holistic perspective

ajross 3y ago
Pretty sure your point about 737-200 ETOPS certification is also not present in the NTSB report. Why is it OK for you to pontificate but not the linked author?
- flaminHotSpeedo 3y ago
  I meant to have a point that if you grab at tenuous connections every report would speculate to the point of uselessness, but that got lost to a cut and paste mistake while rearranging the comment.
rob74 3y ago
Well, in this case it was undeniably human behavior that crashed the plane: if the pilots would have, at any point during the flight except at the very end, realized that they were trying to fly using the damaged engine, and switched to the other engine instead, they probably could have salvaged the situation. So I think a psychological analysis of why this didn't happen is warranted, and the story about another copilot refusing to fly with the pilot because of his disregard for procedures is relevant context, even if the NTSB didn't mention it.
- prmph 3y ago