safetypee
Investigators don’t have the authority (in law) to mandate design changes, but they do have the mandate, even the duty, in the pursuit of accident prevention, to make recommendations, and that’s what the Brazilian authorities for the investigation have done, so no criticism to them.
Actually they have made one specific recommendation, and it appears the Taiwanese authorities had already made that very similar recommendation :
DO NOT STOP the RETARD callout before ALL thrust leverS are fully retarded
What could justify that the BEA does not take up this recommendation in its behalf ?
They feel the need to comment on many points but meticulously avoid to address this specific issue (?) That’s where I DO BLAME the BEA.
By their recommendations, they would have the power to put pressure on certification agencies, regulator agencies and manufacturers.
I’m afraid you put things more complicated than they are :
A simple modification of the RETARD callout logic has not much to see with an hypothetic and probable overcomplicated engineering fix …
Just one more question.
In reference to Bacolod, Taipei, Congonhas … how would you answer the following statement ?
To not cancel the RETARD callout at the time one thrust reverser was selected would have :
- Prevented these accidents.
- Helped to prevent these accidents.
- Had no effect.
- Been a nuisance.