I agree and would defer to you in any case but....

...even if we rule out automation as the cause, automation deemed by Boeing to be needed because they modified the airframe design into one that is inherently unstable, aren't those crashes at least in part to a flawed design? Those pilots hadn't been trained properly but why design a system that entirely ignores the pilot's actions, regardless of STAB settings? Isn't that the case study take away wrt automation in the first gen Max?

In response to this post by B777Fr8Dog

Posted: 10/25/2021 at 9:19PM

Two great Sunday night shows on the History Channel -- EDGEMAN 10/25/2021 6:55PM

Throttles in HOLD at Idle, no one pushed them up - 3 Capts onboard. ** -- B777Fr8Dog 10/25/2021 7:04PM

I've had too many approaches to the back of the boat to fall for that trap. -- EDGEMAN 10/25/2021 9:10PM

Like they say: too many chiefs, not enough Indians ** -- EDGEMAN 10/25/2021 7:07PM

Too much reliance on automation, not enough hand flying** -- B777Fr8Dog 10/25/2021 7:39PM

A lesson Boeing has learned the hard way. ** -- HokieJay 10/25/2021 8:25PM

But the 777 really has a pretty good safety record -- EDGEMAN 10/25/2021 8:40PM

Yep, the SFO accident wasn’t really a plane issue. ** -- B777Fr8Dog 10/25/2021 9:04PM

Agreed. The Max is a case study for future automation. -- HokieJay 10/25/2021 9:03PM

Not really an automation issue if you ask me. Even I would have treated -- B777Fr8Dog 10/25/2021 9:08PM

I agree and would defer to you in any case but.... -- HokieJay 10/25/2021 9:19PM

In this regard, I see your point. Worst part was not documenting in the -- B777Fr8Dog 10/25/2021 9:21PM

Wi tu lo? ** -- ColoVT82 10/25/2021 7:00PM

I agree and would defer to you in any case but....

Insert a Link

Tech Sideline is Presented By:

Our Sponsors