Originally Posted by
MechEngr
" the aircraft system designers were not involved in the event"
There was enough information and sensor inputs and enough computational power to avoid the type of accident. UAVs can land themselves - perhaps there needs to be a pilot cut-out switch controlled by the airplane computer.
The brainpower failure in PIA 8303 was from one pilot believing a go-around was the right move and cleaning up and the other one feeling like he could stick the landing. Seems like the computer should have been the tie-breaker.
Having the landing gear in the down position would have avoided a lot of unpleasantries. There was nothing in the design of the aircraft that would have led the occupant pulling flying pay to not know that once the gear has been dropped and raised again in flight, it might be good for noise abatement at least and utility of the plane to dangle the Dunlops once more. Thereafter, they drove a perfectly serviceable at planet earth amidst the noise of repetitive and multiple warnings. After the grind n' go, both engines were dutifully obliging in drooling mobil jet 2 over downtown, and then it got quiet, until it wasn't.
I crawl over broken glass to defend defensible positions of HMI, P-I-T-L stuff, but sometimes, just sometimes, it is just head shakin' makin'.
Aviation should not require an A grade performance at all times, however, it should avoid having F-troop in the office; the walk on freight would probably appreciate airlines and regulators avoiding the latter.
