Esse site utiliza cookies. Ao usá-lo e continuar a navegar, você concorda com isso.
Ignorar
Você sabia que o rastreamento de voos da FlightAware é patrocinado por anúncios?
Você pode nos ajudar a manter o FlightAware gratuito, permitindo anúncios de FlightAware.com. Trabalhamos muito para manter nossa publicidade relevante e discreta para criar uma ótima experiência. É rápido e fácil permitir anúncios no FlightAware ou, caso prefira, considere nossas contas premium.
Ignorar
Back to Squawk list
  • 17

Ethiopian crash pilots repeatedly attempted recovery

Enviado há
 
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) Mais...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 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.
raleedy
ALLAN LEEDY 1
Which of these conflicts of interest do you think has killed more people to date?
xtoler
Larry Toler 1
The airlines themselves. They buy what they can afford or want to buy.
jhakunti
Jayden Hakunti 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.
jbermo
jbermo 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.
ToddBaldwin3
ToddBaldwin3 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?
jhakunti
Jayden Hakunti 1
Yes you are correct. The max8 is a horrible and flawed design.

jbermo
jbermo 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.
ToddBaldwin3
ToddBaldwin3 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.
jhakunti
Jayden Hakunti 0
F-16 has had a very high amount of crashes, so has the max8.
bbabis
Bill Babis 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.
jbermo
jbermo 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.
jbermo
jbermo 1
Would be interesting to tally aviation accidents from now onwards . . . Pilot-induced vs automation-induced. . . . Perhaps Ethiopian would tick both boxes.
Cansojr
Cansojr 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.
Rpmedjr
Raul Pinon jr 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!
xtoler
Larry Toler 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.
bbabis
Bill Babis 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.
ToddBaldwin3
ToddBaldwin3 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.
Cansojr
Cansojr 2
Excellent observation.

Entrar

Não tem uma conta? Registre-se agora (gratuito) para funcionalidades personalizáveis, alertas de vôo e mais!