3 ms·
> If the FAA does not mandate, at least, this from now on, it will just add to the pile of evidence that they are in Boeing's pocket. I don't see how it's in t
by spuz 3y ago
> If the FAA does not mandate, at least, this from now on, it will just add to the pile of evidence that they are in Boeing's pocket.
I don't see how it's in the interests of Boeing to keep the mandate at 2 hours. If it gets extended, it's likely that in future incidents they will have more evidence of pilot error than they do now since that is the primary cause of accidents (even for Boeing), plus I am sure they can print some nice invoices for the costs of the upgrades to existing fleets.
- hughesjj 3y agoWell, could be, but another possibility: - most pilot errors resulting in an incident occur close to the incident and thus the # of times it's their fault will drop off with longer recording time - the longer recording time may allow for some complaints about the Boeing aircraft or some clunking noises to be identified which could indicate an issue with the aircraft
- DrNosferatu 3y agoThe key concept here is: “clunking noises”. (aka “aircraft defects”) PS: I mean it.
- mulmen 3y agoNot all clunking noises are defects and not all defects make clunking noises.
- DrNosferatu 3y agoFree hint: “metaphor”.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]