Originally Posted by
Loose rivets
This is utterly meaningless. Statistics based on two incidents . . . well, just isn't.
The following is based on years of strong feelings about ETOPS and indeed, very inexperienced P2's.
I coined the phrase years ago, randomness comes in lumps. Also, given the two AoA sensor failures were of a disparate nature, having two failures so close together was bizarre bad luck. Yes, I know the fact that one item failing and causing such chaos is the prime issue, but that core failure in each case was because of a third-party manufacturer's design (or refurb company's quality control) in the first accident, and perhaps an 'Act of God' in the second. However, I'm not so sure about that. The unit is mechanically complex and at first glance, robust. But as we've seen, it has frailties; certain vulnerabilities that make the continued use of it very questionable. Use the output of two? Still open to a statistical lump, but so is flying over water with one engine out.
And that would bring me to having one experienced pilot and a kid out of school as the total means of controlling all this wondrous technology. What is incredible is the historic wellbeing of the only really competent soul on board - specifically where the P2 is very inexperienced. I suppose having the captain out of the loop leaves a situation much like the worst ETOPS scenario. The numbers favour success but really don't make much allowance for the lumpiness of statistics.
Yes of course it was meaningless. It was a response to the equally meaningless point that the MAX hadn't crashed for nearly two years.