Originally Posted by
Lookleft
The cockpit door was absolutely the cause of that accident as it was with the Helios 737 and possibly MH370.
A contributing factor is not a cause. I’m not sure what the reference to Helios and ‘possibly’ MH370 has to do with anything.
If the PIC had been able to reenter the flight deck then the Germanwings accident would not have happened.
It may have influenced the outcome but how is difficult to say. The pilot would still have tried to fly the aircraft into the ground regardless. Hence it is a factor not the root cause. Interestingly, there was no recommendation to change flight deck doors out of the investigation.
It was not a Runaway Stabilizer - it was functioning exactly as it was designed to function.
It was not designed to function (as in activate) with a faulty or loss of AoA input in mind. That was the latent fault in the architecture. Given the pilots lacked the knowledge to determine why the stabiliser trim was running, for all intents and purposes I can see how it may have appeared to have been a runaway stabiliser.
ozaub
It seems strange that some are still defending Boeing and 737 MAX when Boeing and its lawyers have admitted criminal culpability and paid an (initial) fine of nearly $3 billion.
I’m certainly not defending Boeing one way or the other. Seems like a fairly colossal own goal on their part. I understand however, that some of the commercial pressure to launch the MAX came directly from the airlines themselves who wanted a product that required minimal re-training for its pilots. The same methodology championed for accident investigation also applies to the certification process.