Originally posted by Gabriel
View Post
Originally posted by Gabriel
View Post
- An aircraft manufacturer focused on short term stock performance and market capitalization in a 'casino' climate of chaos capitalism.
- An inevitable investment in a new airframe development needed to mount the upcoming ultra-high-bypass turbofans postponed to maximize quarterly profits and short-term stock performance.
- A key competitor who has just released a new airframe development needed to mount the upcoming ultra-high-bypass turbofans, capturing the interest of your long-term customer base.
- A dose of sudden desperation and reactionary rather than strategic leadership.
- A willingness to brush aside your tradition of safety and to corrupt the design and certification processes in order to fast-track a new product and retain market share (despite the documented concerns of your engineers).
Remove ANY of these, and the accidents would have not existed.
Saying these crashes were the result of pilots not applying a simple trim runaway procedure in a scenario that is very unlike a trim runaway is either very naive or very convenient. In any case, it didn't prevent crashes in 2/3's of the known instances of erroneous MCAS activations, and the reason for that is well known, extensively documented human factors that can and must be considered in design of modern aircraft. Once you understand that (and we've had two very stark lessons on this), there is absolutely no point in bringing up the trim runaway procedure here.
Comment