If there is any difficulty in retrieving information, the boxes seem to come to the manufacturer, with a rep from the airline or aviation authority attending.
Very likely. The NTSB and France’s Bureau of Enquiry and Analysis (BEA) provide the top expertise. I was once told one reason was the US and France are the leading producers of CVRFDRs and both countries have specialized labs just for performing the work.
8 days is More than a week less than 2 weeks, I’m close.
Yeah, but was it Ceconite or Stits?
They should just hang on to them for a couple years. People will forget.
How can you say that when we don't know what caused the crash?
I specifically said it’s just a feeling. Which last time I checked was not even remotely close to a statement of fact.
Go back one page. tldr? Fire damage , might ship to USA for analysis.
It’d have been a neat trick to send them weeks ago when the crash happened only nine days ago.
…he said on post #414 of a thread full of premature speculation.
Water
We don’t know this.
FWIW: If you dig deep enough, you'll find automation and computerization of the industry and aircraft is directly proportional to the increase in safety from the production side to the operational side. And there are mountains of info on that fact. Inversely, what has happened is that with this trend there has been an erosion of the manual skill levels which has been recognized by the FAA, EASA, and ICAO. And from a personal view, I've been around the industry long enough to see this change.
Correlation =/= Casuation.
But wouldn't you rather have the chance to keep the engines running on takeoff despite the projected better industry-wide accident rate if the engineers make the call instead of you?
And the fact that you haven't seen the evidence doesn't mean no one has.
So, present it.
They are? I've never flown an airplane with other than incandescent bulbs on the instrument panel annunciators. J32, CRJ, DC8, DC9, 737, 757, & 767.
MCAS did not make the airplanes unflyable. I was trained in runaway stabilizer events in the CRJ, DC8, DC9, 737, 757, & 767 all before the first MAX flew. The procedure should be familiar to every pilot flying an airplane with powered trim. I've flown the unscheduled MCAS activation three separate times in the MAX simulator and several more runaway stabilizer events in NG simulators since initial training. All you have to do is keep flying, and trimming, the airplane. Doing the runaway stabilizer procedures will stop the MCAS activations but you can fly the airplane indefinitely without doing it, as long as you keep trimming out its inputs. The 737 Speed Trim System trims the stabilizer, in the opposite direction that we want, every single time we accelerate or decelerate while hand flying. It happens so often, you don't even think about it.
Facts not in evidence. We don't know that the automation shut down the engines. I do know of mechanical failures that have shutdown engines or taking the engine to max thrust when it wasn't supposed to. The question should be which system is less likely to do either of those things. Expecting one system to be infallible is not realistic. We need to know which is safer.
I was thinking in terms of design philosophy not the specific cause of this crash. Let me posit that the philosophy ought to be to not task automation with a task a captain wouldn't want the copilot to perform without the captain's knowledge.
Perhaps they did.
You’ll find aviation safety is one of the most studied, researched, and investigated issues around. Every accident is reviewed for correlation and causation at many different levels, which in most cases is actually required by law. So, as I mentioned, there are decades of data that will show how technology advancements have increased safety and, in some cases, it was the accident that led to that advancement. Below is one overview example.
The FAA grounded the fleet when the Ethiopian aircraft's stabilizer was found to be in the full nose-down trim position establishing a definitive link to the Lion Air accident.
That likely means it's not a problem with type design, fuel, etc and was a one-off thing not likely to affect other types or airlines.
Very interesting.This is eerie. Guy takes a video during the previous leg and gets off the plane before the crash. Even the background sounds are spooky. (sorry if previously posted).
One wonders if maintenance got involved after landing to try to fix the AC and passenger entertainment consoles or lighting. Further wondering how the FADEC would respond if the ground test enable switch were accidentally left in the "enable" position during takeoff.
Hopefully the IFE isn't connected to the flight controls.This is eerie. Guy takes a video during the previous leg and gets off the plane before the crash. Even the background sounds are spooky. (sorry if previously posted).
One wonders if maintenance got involved after landing to try to fix the AC and passenger entertainment consoles or lighting. Further wondering how the FADEC would respond if the ground test enable switch were accidentally left in the "enable" position during takeoff.
Too soon?
That would be the incident aircraft, 787-8...
