← Back to Squawk list

17

Ethiopian crash pilots repeatedly attempted recovery

5년 전 제출됨

Preliminary findings from the Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 Max 8 crash inquiry reveal that the crew was unable to control the aircraft despite repeatedly performing required recovery procedures. (www.flightglobal.com) 기타...

19 멤버 코멘트

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

JMARTINSON 5년 전 5

Lots of complaining about how the FAA is in too tight with Boeing.

No complaining about the airline owners being in charge of the crash investigation.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report

ALLAN LEEDY 5년 전 1

Which of these conflicts of interest do you think has killed more people to date?

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report

Larry Toler 5년 전 1

The airlines themselves. They buy what they can afford or want to buy.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report

jhakunti 5년 전 0

I suppose you are right im that airlines ought not buy fhe max8 to avoid all of this controversy. Everyone should just buy airbus and the cs300 so that way no mcas failure no pilot error.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report

jbermo 5년 전 6

This accident may prove as a benchmark for future air transport design philosophy. . . either design airplanes with more and better automation, or design airplanes that depend more on pilot skill. All will eventually go either one direction or the other. . . I fear, however, that airplane designs that lean toward more dependence on pilot skill went out the window with the flight engineer.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report

ToddBaldwin3 5년 전 3

Doesn't the basic design of the aircraft need to be stable in the first place? It seems to me, that if you need a software correction to compensate for a pitch up tendency, there's a deeper design issue. Or do I have the whole concept wrong about the reasons for the MCAS in the first place?

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report

jhakunti 5년 전 1

Yes you are correct. The max8 is a horrible and flawed design.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report

jbermo 5년 전 1

"Doesn't the basic design of the aircraft need to be stable in the first place?" . . . Not anymore, since modern technological abilities can allow for inherent instability. Although designed for a different purpose, a good example is the F-16.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report

ToddBaldwin3 5년 전 2

First, I need to add the caveat that this is all based on the assumption that the software is the problem.

You are absolutely correct about the F-16, especially the comment about the purpose of the aircraft. The F-16 was specifically designed with inherent instability. The airframe and the software were designed together, with the express purpose of being highly maneuverable. The software was not a compensation for a design change that introduced certain aerodynamic instabilities.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report

jhakunti 5년 전 0

F-16 has had a very high amount of crashes, so has the max8.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report

bbabis 5년 전 3

The argument of automation vs pilot skill is a false argument. Automation does not relieve a pilot of their duties or make them any easier. In fact, it makes them harder. A pilot always must know how to basically fly the aircraft plus what to do when any automation fails or malfunctions. The more the automation, the more one needs to know. The facts are, that pilots who become too dependent on automation are sorry pilots when that automation fails.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report

jbermo 5년 전 0

. . . "The more the automation, the more one needs to know" - and we are trending toward more and more of it - perhaps to a future point beyond human capability - at the advent of autonomous commercial aviation.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report

jbermo 5년 전 1

Would be interesting to tally aviation accidents from now onwards . . . Pilot-induced vs automation-induced. . . . Perhaps Ethiopian would tick both boxes.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report

Cansojr 5년 전 3

No matter how dire a situation, professional pilots will fight for recovery to the bitter end. You don't hear boo hoo and throw their hands in the air resigned to their fate...NEVER. A pro will try everything in the book or an idea he might have heard. These people will always fight it to the end. Aviate, Navigate and Communicate.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report

Raul Pinon jr 5년 전 2

Unfortunately, it doesn’t mean much to me when a pilot tells me they have thousands of hours flying a computer program. Flying is a perishable skill!

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report

Larry Toler 5년 전 3

Great comment! I'm a former flight attendant and Air Transportation Specialist (basically a ground based loadmaster) for the USAF. I'm no pilot but I know a bit about flying. The glass cockpit is awesome and the instruments are a lot easier to read. CAT III has been around before I was born. There is such a thing as too much automation. These pilots were trying to do their jobs. I was always told just fly the plane, don't let the plane fly you. Unfortunately, these two crews had no choice in the matter.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report

bbabis 5년 전 2

They certainly did have a choice. Anyone flying that equipment should be very familiar with runaway trim procedures, which these crashes were when you remove all the MCAS smoke being blown around. You don't care what's causing the runaway. You just turn the electric system off, trim manually, and fly the plane. The Lion Air crew never did it and this crew turned the system back on which sealed their fate.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report

ToddBaldwin3 5년 전 2

Absolutely. This was noted in the investigation of Asiana 214. While both pilots were fairly high time pilots, their time spent actually flying the aircraft was much smaller.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report

Cansojr 5년 전 2

Excellent observation.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report

로그인

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..

종료