• bisq@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    The other issue is the only had one of those angle of attack sensors and should’ve had more redundancy

    • rm_dash_r_star@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You’d think aerospace engineers would have it down to reflex that things need to be fail safe. It’s ironic a system designed to make the plane safer actually crashed the plane. That one should get an award for world’s worst engineering.

      Like any accident it wasn’t just one thing. The maker implemented a safety system that was not fault tolerant, then the airline neglected to train pilots how to deal with a failure of that system. In fact that particular airline didn’t even know the system had been added to their planes. Bad engineering, communication, and training still happens in the industry, but really it’s pretty amazing how safe these machines are overall.

      Pilot error is still the cause of a majority of accidents. A big problem is bad pilots that don’t pass regular exams can slip through the system because of management deficiencies. Like pilots it happens in the medical industry where bad doctors or nurses just get passed on from one hospital to the next. Employers fail to do proper checks on previous job performance.

      • bisq@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        100%. A failure at every possible level. Shame on Boeing for outsourcing the design of the 737-Max. I believe it was contracted to India?

        I’m going to give the pilots a mild pass since I’ve read they’re instructed to ignore their gut and trust the instruments since their instruments are “always right” and their gut can be wrong.

      • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Pretty sure I read while this was new that the design changes were considered minor enough that recertification wasn’t required. So I’d put that on Boeing, too. It’s obvious that airlines aren’t going to recertify on functionally equivalent design, and also obvious that these weren’t equivalent designs.

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      From my understanding of the situation, it did have two sensors but it would act if only one of them said the angle was too high. One of the fixes they added was that it warns the pilot instead of engaging if the two don’t agree.