Originally Posted by vilas
Perpignan was the result of wrong maintenance (washing) procedure.
It does not matter, the valid sensor was silently discarded and the other sensors were lying together with already the potential to wrongfully trigger a protection. Whatever the reason, maintenance or anything else, known or still unknown reasons ... a simple tool is needed to inhibit wrongfully activated protections.
Just like the 757 or 767 I am not sure they failed to remove the masking tape from static and it resulted in fatal accident of the non FBW aircraft and Boeing shelled out a hefty sum for faulty design.
What was exactly the faulty design on that Aeroperu 757 ?
You tell me ...
If there are faulty design on B products, is it good enough to keep silent on deficiencies of the A ones ?
As far as 737 is concerned why has Boeing forsaken manufacturing of conventional aeroplanes and switched to FBW you can ask them. 737MAX was launched not because Boeing wanted to but their biggest customer threatened to switch to AB Neo.
And your point is regarding the accident rates of the types ... ?
AF447 I quoted with regret and only because you are fond of closing your eyes to crystal clear evidence of incorrect UAS and stall recovery procedure by the crew to shift the entire blame to the machine
Quote ?
Actually you're the one blaming this crew 100% whatever the type they would have crashed :
AF447 wasn't going any where other than where it went. Put another two in front with same level of competence in a 747 and it will reach the same destination with another 150 Pax to give company.