IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New My conjecture.
There's a lot to review here, but I believe the facts will point to pilot error. There's been an over-reliance on automated systems in all aircraft for about the past decade. ATP's (commercial air transport pilots) have, almost across the board, lost their stick and rudder skills. In a lot of cases, they're more IT Help Desk technicians than pilots (trying to debug sophisticated auto-fly systems instead of turning the damned things off and actually flying the airplane).

The investigations have barely begun on both these incidents, but I think it's fair to criticize Boeing for this particular system (and its apparently bad sensors that rank right up there with Airbus pitot tube sensors - see Air France 447, for example).

The bottom line, though, remains that bad software/sensors/processors/etc. should not be allowed to take an airplane out of the sky. Boeing implements that idea, Airbus does not. It's up to flight crews to trust their own stick and rudder skills over the software. My money on this latest example of an air disaster is that, like the Lion Air pilots before them, these pilots did not simply switch the automatic stall prevention system off and hand fly the aircraft. If they trained on Airbus aircraft before checking out in the Boeings, you can easily forgive them for that. On an Airbus there is no method of turning off such automated systems, hence no need to train for how to do so.

I don't want to sound like a complete Boeing apologizer here. There most likey/definitely is a design flaw in the auto-no-stall system, as there are in a whole host of automated systems. But, I think it fair to cut Boeing a little slack here because at least, if properly trained, the pilots could turn the automated systems off and hand fly the aircraft. Note that this is no guarantee of safe flight however! A lot (most?) of the commercial jockeys today are products of a society which has been infected with IT broadly and who, consequently, are more inclined to solve the "virtual" problems all the way into the ground rather than solve the "actual" problem of getting the aircraft back on the ground safely.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New I take your point
The bottom line, though, remains that bad software/sensors/processors/etc. should not be allowed to take an airplane out of the sky.
…and of course have no technical chops here at all, but it seems to me that Boeing in turn would do well to go the extra frequent flyer mile to make certain that its aircraft don’t ship with bad software/sensors/processors/etc.

cordially,
New No argument there.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New It might not matter at all anymore.
It would seem the 737-Max is going the way of the DC10 anyway.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New There's an eyewitness to crash from very-near-by:

"The plane was already on fire when it crashed to the ground. The crash caused a big explosion," said witness Tegegn Dechasa at the site, littered with passenger belongings, human remains, and airplane parts.
"The plane was in flames in its rear side shortly before the crash. The plane was swerving erratically before the crash."
Farmer Sisay Gemechu, said: "The plane seemed to be aiming to land at a nearby level open field, but crashed before reaching there."



I saw a clip of this witness talking--and yes too: all in this field of After-crash procedures are justifiably wary of Most 'eye-witness' reports--but he gave a pretty-much simplest-sequential story in minimal words; he'd have to be severely disturbed to have just made it up..

So.. ... we wait for an indubitably STRANGE sequence of events as may only become convincing IF... those black-boxes have been so armored as to sustain a Drill-in at 'est. 400+ km/hr' (way-fast at the max altitude it ever reached, pre-crash.)

Y.P.B. in spades ..so many genuine Humanitarians: key people amongst such a rare breed (amongst The Whole Damn Human Race)--to quote Mark Twain, in a posthumous work.. ;-/ :-/

Flight Aware is at least populated with actual pilots; doubtless there are many other such sites. Wonder which One? ..is the most incisive as well as al-punte informative (??)

oTpy
Expand Edited by Ashton March 12, 2019, 05:36:32 PM EDT
     I’ll defer to mmoffitt here, but this seems like something Boeing - (rcareaga) - (6)
         it would seem that this constitutes ~some 'General-limitation'... FLAG - (Ashton)
         My conjecture. - (mmoffitt) - (4)
             I take your point - (rcareaga) - (3)
                 No argument there. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                 It might not matter at all anymore. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                     There's an eyewitness to crash from very-near-by: - (Ashton)

And to the tune of a billion dollars I supplied to the DOE some tasty little nuggets of alien technology... and as one might expect I've been HARASSED for YEARS!
152 ms