Originally Posted by
bill fly
That post from Under Duress is unfortunately typical of what can get postulated after an accident / incident and reminds me of the criticism directed at Sullenberger and crew because it was demonstrated that a pre briefed crew, after some practice attempts could react within seconds and land the aircraft on a runway (see the documentary “Sully”). This without any time for recognition, analysis or decision. They were trained dogs performing in the sim and just about hacking it.
We should remember that lots of folk look in here - you can be sure that Boeing does too - engineers and legal team.
Any sensible suggestions will at least be taken on board - any condemnation of crew actions seen as vindication of their insistence on the suitability of the stab runaway drill for a different and complex failure.
Valid points, but I just read an equally convincing argument stating exactly the opposite. It was posted in a thread which is somehow in the Tech Log forum, but IMO worth cross posting (with due acknowledgement).
Originally Posted by Water pilot
I doubt there is going to be much in the way of legal arguments on this one, Boeing does not want to be anywhere near a jury. You can talk about the pilot's actions all that you want to, but ultimately you have two aircraft that were pointed to the ground at low altitude by a flight control system that was not disclosed to the pilots and that was (according to media reports) significantly different than the certification documentation described. Add in the cosy relationship with the FAA along with the whistleblower report and this is not something that goes to trial if Boeing has any competent lawyers left.
I am not a lawyer, but I don't think you ever want to be in a civil trial where the jury is wondering why the executives are not in jail yet.