I was on that plane a few weeks earlier when it had the exact same issue. In this case the crew figured out the ambiguous warning, and correctly descended and returned. Subsequently I have followed the incident closely, and agree that if the crew had reacted properly, and if ground engineering has not ignored a suggestion to make the relevant check, there would not have been a crash. That time. But with the alert system was definitely an issue, which had been reported several times, and which was subsequently redesigned.

(Written on 09/21/2020)(Permalink)

'Dickson has noted the United States has an “unprecedented” aviation safety record; the United States has reported just one fatality in a U.S. passenger airline accident since 2009.' That's true, but he is misapplying the truth to minimise the results of the safety oversights. Only one, eh? Essentially foreign lives don't count.

(Written on 08/10/2020)(Permalink)

Don't need 500 words. "Political regulatory body vs impartial investigative one." I understand the difference and the NTSB is indeed an excellent body and a model. I particularly admire their "just the facts" attitude. But outside the USA they are no longer trusted as they were, probably for the wrong reasons. The key word is "perception"; Boeing's stand is not helping.

(Written on 02/10/2020)(Permalink)

Sure. If it had been an EU thing I might have agreed, but this is Dutch. The reputations of the NTSB and the FAA are involved because the perception is that Boeing they let Boeing leverage the trust in them to support their commercial objectives at the expense of safety of design and accuracy of opinion, and that this process started well before the current round of MAX incidents.

(Written on 02/10/2020)(Permalink)

For some countries I'd agree, but this was the (moderately paid) Dutch parliament who, being Dutch, hate spending money without cause. They now feel that the trust placed in Boeing and the NTSB for the report should be reviewed. If I were Boeing I'd take it seriously and co-operate. KLM is heavily and increasingly invested in Boeing, at the moment, and wants to continue. The parent company likes Airbus; wouldn't take much of a push at the moment, and this could be sorted very simply since there is likely little connection with the MAX problems. It's a simple matter of trust.

(Written on 02/10/2020)(Permalink)

What I find interesting is that in 2009 the investigators trusted Boeing and the NTSB, almost implicitly.

(Written on 01/21/2020)(Permalink)

But sometimes it's amazing. My favourite was a Lancaster bomber over the city of Lancaster in 2003. Google Earth for Lancaster 52 20 10.87N 0 11 43.34W, then wind back to 2013. You could also try this link. 52 20 10.87N 0 11 43.34W.

(Written on 12/31/2019)(Permalink)

Sure. I was making the point that lightning on a fishing pole is about a different material. And in fact, the both Airbus and Boeing did address the issue when the planes were designed, in particular the end cap insulators which prevent conduction into the wing space. Boeing then removing these and other measures is the concern. I really hope they know what they are doing.

(Written on 12/13/2019)(Permalink)

There is a difference between graphite (pencil lead), carbon fibre (as used in fishing poles etc), and carbon fibre composites. The materials used in aerospace are composites and they are very much less conductive than conventional aircraft alloys. This means that they can generate much more heat for a given strike. They also suffer more structural changes which can weaken them. I was glad to see that Boeing and Airbus designs seemed to acknowledge this and it worries me to see it removed.

(Written on 12/13/2019)(Permalink)

Aircraft are always level and never bump around, and there is lots of room in a cockpit to avoid bumping the cup, so why not place the coffee on a table? Oh wait a minute, I'm thinking of a conference room. Doing that in a cockpit sounds a like an accident waiting to happen!

(Written on 09/13/2019)(Permalink)