As a semi-recovered aerophobe, 737 Max saga is quite disturbing. The key seems to me, from a legal & moral pov, the failure to require training on a very new feature of the plane. Technologies can have unexpected, tragic results. Failure to tell pilots abt it? V hard to explain.
-
-
Replying to @joshtpm
They should have said more to pilots but also the pilots should have been able to deal with it under ordinary training. United pilots encountered the glitch and were so unconcerned that it wasn’t even recorded as anything of an emergency. They just followed ordinary procedures.
4 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
A redundant reading would be a good but sensor failures occur and are routinely recovered from. Airbus is more automated. Also, remember AF 447? Anti-stall technology has generally made planes safer. This is a confluence of events which should be studied—but include the airline.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
On the contrary, I am not blaming Airbus. Just that anti-stall features aren't a bad idea. The pilots could have easily disabled the trim system—that happens for other reasons as well. The Lion Air flight before the one that crashed had a pilot in jump seat who pointed it out+
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
And inexplicably, Lion Air 610 was allowed to fly again with the faulty sensor, and the incoming pilots not being told of what had happened, and didn't have a pilot who hit the cutout switch. Something that is part of routine training. It's much more than Boeing issues here.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Everything we know about Lion Air is the same. We'll see the details of the other investigation. Commercial airline flying remains incredibly safe exactly because of this—every tragedy triggers massive investigation, discussion response.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.