Trying to attribute blame won't help. You need to identify the root causes of an accident and address all of them. Poor crew competence doesn't mean the plane wasn't/isn't flawed because it is - both factors came together to cause this crash (they aren't mutually exclusive). Crew competence needs to be addressed, but that is hard to measure and will take time. Fixing the plane can be done demonstrably and relatively quickly. In terms of politics, I think the authorities would find it hard to justify themselves if MAX wasn't grounded and it happened again. I think it's been a quite some time since a specific model of plane crashed twice in short succession due to the same fault.

(Written on 2019年 09月 22日)(Permalink)

I totally agree with you that the crew should have been able to deal with the situation. My post was primarily a response to indy2001 saying criticism of Boeing was excessive, which I don't think it is.

(Written on 2019年 09月 21日)(Permalink)

"... the most fundamental way to prevent such tragic accidents..." I respectfully disagree. A single point failure that results in multiple faults, causing 2 crashes for exactly the same reason in the space of months is clearly a serious design flaw. Yes the crews performance was below par, but no pilot is on their A-game all the time - building a plane that requires that they always are is not the way to do things, and that's the fundamental flaw. The second crew perhaps have little excuse for screwing up, given the publicity of the first crash; however I'd argue that crashing a plane to draw attention to every 'gotcha' would result in a lot of wreckages; again, I agree the pilots should have done better, but that doesn't mean the primary root cause isn't the plane, because it is.

(Written on 2019年 09月 20日)(Permalink)

Are those carriers dodgy? Yeah probably, but the MAX wasn't grounded for no reason either.

(Written on 2019年 09月 20日)(Permalink)

Not that simple. While what you says is all true, Boeing never the less built a system that results in difficult to manage scenario following a single point of failure. Should the crews been able to deal with the situation anyway? Maybe. Bit I think the results speak for themselves: If a specific model of plane crashes multiple times for exactly the same reason, something's not right with the plane.

(Written on 2019年 09月 20日)(Permalink)

The criticism isn't excessive. I don't think the crew should be let off the hook (especially the Ethiopian crew), but just because something should be within their capability doesn't mean it's actually easy to deal with. They were presented with a simultaneous runaway trim and instrument issues, all because of a single point of failure. Safety is achieved by having multiple layers, so that's not adequate IMO. Ultimately, the results speak for themselves: If a specific model of plane crashes multiple times for exactly the same reason, something's not right with the plane.

(Written on 2019年 09月 20日)(Permalink)

I direct your attention to Turkey. A European country, a NATO member, a republic, secular and supposedly democratic state. It is now run by a tyrant who has redefined the boundaries of the law to imprison his political opponents and cement his power. It is for all intents and purposes, Turkey is now a dictatorship. Is the law allowing facial recognition bad? I don't know. But be cautious of viewing the law a universally good. Your liberty may one day hinge on you or others breaking it.

(Written on 2019年 04月 26日)(Permalink)