Back to Squawk list
  • 20

How Boeing’s Responsibility in a Deadly Crash ‘Got Buried’

After a Boeing 737 crashed near Amsterdam more than a decade ago, the Dutch investigators focused blame on the pilots for failing to react properly when an automated system malfunctioned and caused the plane to plummet into a field, killing nine people. ( 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Not sure the byline fits the accident. The flight crew were oblivious as to how the auto throttle system functioned? In fact, with three of them in the cockpit, the PF, who was new failed to act quickly when he realized the autothrottle system failed, when reached, to maintain the selected target speed. SOP’s should have dictated that the PNF call out any speed deviation! It’s not good enough to program the the PF you have to ascertain that the damn thing engages and works whether it is altitude hold, preselect or airspeed capture? Training, training training, if you get a shaker below 1000’ disconnect everything and go around because you are all not in the loop!
So you didn't read the article?

The left system was what was used for the 'single sensor hot mess' to malfunction. EVEN if the right system was 'FLYING THE PLANE', the left system was in control of the auto-throttles. AND that fact was NOT MENTIONED in the manual anywhere.

Using a single sensor to determine if the plane is 'safe' when there are ALREADY TWO SENSORS IN THE PLANE is just lazy. Criminally culpable I'd say. At least in the MAX crashes, there really was only one sensor, according to all I've read. A second sensor was a pricey option many carriers avoided.

So, you still want to flog the corpses of those dead pilots some more?
I read and comprehend just fine. The analogy is that whether you have one, two or three sensors, someone has to monitor and fly the aircraft? It’s getting a little old saying we should have two sensors or two of this or two of that when the reality is failure of the crew to recognize a system failure and effect recovery. Which in all these scenarios was within the capabilities of a fully trained, operational crew! Your second paragraph is bang on, Dir of Flt ops and VP of Flt ops should be held accountable for accepting an aircraft into a commercial operation with less than ideal instrumentation and warning systems. Even old relics like the DC8 had comparators, standby instrument clusters, even VOR navs built into the RTU‘s!
"Your second paragraph is bang on"

My idea is that Boeing should not be able to sell a plane with half of a safety system, and be able to charge tens of thousands of dollars to get the rest of the system.

Had the planes involved had the entire 'system' installed, I wonder if any passengers would have died. If the pilots had had the entire 'training', that Boeing refused to require, would anyone have died.

If it's 'safety related', it SHOULD NOT BE AN OPTION! EVER111

Boeing needs to be introduced to their primary purpose for being in existence: PROVIDING SAFE AIRPLANES FOR THEIR CUSTOMERS CUSTOMERS TO BE ABLE TO RETURN, ALIVE, TO THEIR FAMILIES!

Shareholder returns are NOT the primary reason Boeing exists.

If that's what the Boeing board thinks, I would rather crawl through broken glass than EVER board another Boeing airplane.
Greg S 6
"Shareholder returns are NOT the primary reason Boeing exists."

The shareholders might not agree with this. By the way, another name for shareholder is "owner".
I believe before one makes a statement, there must be some system design experience. L or R and then cross sensor design is the general philosophy. This makes the system more fault tolerant. Using only one side for all current functions could lead to a failure mode that is more difficult to detect.
indy2001 8
The cause of the accident was due more to the pilots' over-reliance on technology, not the technology itself. Three pilots (in a 2-person cockpit) ignored accurate airspeed and altitude readouts, ending in a situation from which they should have taken over control and aborted the approach in accordance with their airline's express policy. They didn't and unfortunately paid the price. Trying to add a third accident to the MAX situation is ridiculous.
Greg S 4
"...was due *more* to the pilots' over-reliance on technology...". Did you read the accident report? Where does it say that?

No. It was due more to their failure to execute a go-around. And it isn't a pilot training issue, the flight crew were completely aware they should have gone around fairly early in the approach. Over-reliance on automation is probably a industry-wide phenomenon, but very hard to pin down. The Asiana air SFO crash is the canonical example; not only were they well-trained, they had a great deal of 777 experience.

"...Trying to add a third accident to the MAX situation is ridiculous..." No. It is very important to find commonalities in these accidents. That's how you improve the hardware, software, and pilotware.
btweston -1
chalet 1
Once again, too much reliance on computers and not enough manual flying including throttles causing another fatal accident.
There will be more of it to come, not to mention autonomous a/c in the near future.
boeing threatened to sue someone.
what a surprise.
engineering design by lawfare.
Greg S 1
Sadly, the comments on these Boeing headlines have become so predictable. The Boeing apologists scream "the pilots, the pilots, and maybe the airline too!". The Boeing haters shout "Boeing bad, Boeing bad".

The apologists and the haters are both willfully blind, and should be ignored.
What I find interesting is that in 2009 the investigators trusted Boeing and the NTSB, almost implicitly.
Greg S 4
Don't confuse the NTSB with the FAA. Totally different organizations, totally different reputations.
Jim Davis 1
And totally different mandated missions.
It's a good article. It is always easy to blame the dead pilots. It's expensive to have to re-engineer plane parts, and is very expensive to have to stop them all from flying. It's depressing that profit is more important than safety, but profit is more important than a whole lot of things in the business community these days. Sad...
stratofan -3
Instead of parroting this article from the New York Slimes, (where it originated, by the way.) The poster should have viewed the episode of 'Why planes crash' on the Weather Channel. The 'swiss cheese' factor was clearly in play in this incident. Pilot error, unfamiliarity with proper use of equipment, AND weather was a huge factor. Not to mention touchdown long down the runway. Again, newsfeed sells on fresh, and in this case, exhumed graves.
Can we be adults here and not resort to name calling. I grew out of somewhere around 5th grade.
btweston 1
New York Slimes. Wow.

One day, when you get to high school, you’ll look back and laugh at how silly you were.
Your reply is interesting, considering that it took a dim light on the 'official reportage', and you want us to rely on 'The Weather Channel'? They being, of course, such a known expert on aviation.
bentwing60 -1
Could they match your accolades?
Don Quixote -2
Jeez is every aviation related headline about Boeing now? You guys never take a break.
btweston 2
No, it isn’t.

Ever wonder why people openly mock you on this web site?
bentwing60 -2
Same reason only a select few do you!
Enough is ENOUGH !!!!!!!!!
Boeing made mistakes, but expecting them or any aircraft manufacturer to be perfect is unrealistic. The airplanes are not perfect, and never will be. The pilots are there for a reason. Over-reliance on automation will lead to more accidents. The pilots must monitor the systems and take over when problems arise. That’s what they are there for.
Will the engineers who signed-off on the design of MCAS be dismissed?

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

Roy Hunte 12
Don't worry, he's pissed he didn't get the day off either. He's a big troll, never posts anything but negative comments.
isardriver 1
ah, hahaha

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]


계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!
이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..