https://www.nytimes.com/2022/0...rn-boeing-crash.html

Kinda quiet lately, maybe ‘deafening’ so? The above is a fresh article, a few comments linked. With at least one of the boxes in Washington, info should come out soon. The idea is inside 30 days from the crash. Yes, may not be as open as average coming from China.

^^^
People that don’t subscribe, cannot read at the link.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
^^^
People that don’t subscribe, cannot read at the link.

Reader View works.

For us not in the know: “READER VIEW” is a free program that fits many different operating systems. And eliminates pop ups and sign in to read the articles if so marked with a written page symbol .

https://add0n.com/chrome-reader-view.html

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
^^^
People that don’t subscribe, cannot read at the link.

Reader View works.

I added the extension to Chrome. It still gets blocked by the pay wall.

Works with Firefox.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
^^^
People that don’t subscribe, cannot read at the link.

Reader View works.

I added the extension to Chrome. It still gets blocked by the pay wall.

I'm using Reader View in the Safari browser on a Mac. It's not an added extension, it's built into Safari. If Reader View is enabled for a web page, there are three horizontal lines at the left of the address window at the top of the page; I just click on them and see the web page contents without any ads.

I haven't tried it with Chrome or other browsers.

readerview in Brave,
Right mouse click the article,
scroll down to Reader view
click,

Article will open.

As far as the pilot suicide angle, it's happened

Germanwings 9525

Air Disaster of course did the Jack story on Alaska airlines where maintenance wasn't done often enough and a buck of grease not being applied caused a jack to rust, stick then break.

They also did one where a TWA pilot popped a leading edge flap fuse in order to increase speed and when the FO put it back in, caused a leading edge flap to jam break and put it into a deadly spin, they recovered, but clearly it was a pilot doing something he shouldn't have.

great show, interesting to watch and learn...

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:
Something was causing the plane to pitch nose down and keep it there--

The pilot or co-pilot.

You called it...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...ck-box-suggests.html

"Chinese plane crash that killed 132 people in March ‘was caused intentionally by someone in the cockpit’, data from the black boxes suggests

Boeing 737-800 from Kunming to Guangzhou crashed in Guangxi mountains
A blackbox was found after the China Eastern jet crashed killing 132 people
Data from it claims to show someone in the cockpit intentionally crashed the jet "

Exactly what I said, minus the larynx karate chop.

Figured that wasn't a failure, but hard to imagine someone doing that.

I was watching "Air Disasters" recently and they said that Cockpit Video Recorders are the next step to solving this type of accident.

For the Pilots here, who is fighting the Video Recorders ?

When I was a Train Operator, a lot of the Operators didn't like the Video Recorders. I figured that I did my job by the book, so if anything the Video would show I was in the right.

Now there is an answer, my initial thought was it was loaded with Uighurs and deliberately crashed into the ground as part of a way to hurt a US company economically. Needle has not moved much on that.

quote:

Originally posted by TomV:
I was watching "Air Disasters" recently and they said that Cockpit Video Recorders are the next step to solving this type of accident.

For the Pilots here, who is fighting the Video Recorders ?

When I was a Train Operator, a lot of the Operators didn't like the Video Recorders. I figured that I did my job by the book, so if anything the Video would show I was in the right.

There is no conceivable scenario where cockpit video will improve safety or be used to the benefit of pilots. An incredible amount of data is streamed live from the aircraft to the ground, plus the onboard data and voice recorders.

In the event of a crash, the video will eventually leak out. No pilot wants his family to be watching him die. It would also be terrible for public confidence in flying, which we know is incredibly safe but people react disproportionately to spectacular video.

Aviation has been, and continues to be, a very punitive environment. Even with improvements such as the ASAP program, careers are in jeopardy every moment. There is no perfect flight. Though there is a pilot shortage right now, it is very cyclical (just look back 20 months...) and companies would love to have a way to sack pilots in down turns. There is no way cockpit video wouldn't be used against pilots regardless of any assurances.

The only good about cockpit video cameras is they make good hat racks.

Should the FAA, CAAC, etc mandate that there has to be 2 persons in the cockpit at any given time to prevent this from happening? Any time a pilot steps out of the cockpit, there has to be another or two crew members to be in the cockpit in addition to the remaining pilot?

Governors could be placed on flight controls which would not allow this type of maneuver. I don't have to be a pilot to know there is no circumstance in which a commercial aircraft needs to point straight down.

How many incidents like this have happened? I can think of three (four?) committed by crew members out of how many other crew members and in what percentage of all other flights around the world?

Saying that something must be done to make it impossible for anyone else to ever do something similar isn’t much different from saying something must be done to make it impossible for someone to use a gun to commit mass murder.
(And if you believe that the former would be possible and the gun thing not, think again: Eliminating all gun ownership would be a good start—and that’s why many people advocate that.)

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Governors could be placed on flight controls which would not allow this type of maneuver. I don't have to be a pilot to know there is no circumstance in which a commercial aircraft needs to point straight down.

The Airbus philosophy is that the plane knows what's an appropriate maneuver and the pilot can input to a certain degree to prevent unsafe actions whereas Boeing's philosophy is that the pilot is the final decision maker.

Both have pros and cons.

My guess is that the First Officer was responsible. He had over 10k hours as a captain and he had been demoted to the right seat in favor of a less experienced pilot.

quote:

Originally posted by saigonsmuggler:
Should the FAA, CAAC, etc mandate that there has to be 2 persons in the cockpit at any given time to prevent this from happening? Any time a pilot steps out of the cockpit, there has to be another or two crew members to be in the cockpit in addition to the remaining pilot?

Pretty sure that's already an FAA regulation.

And I know that after the deliberate crash of Germanwing flight 9525, they slso mandated a minimum of two crew members in the cockpit, at least on Lufthansa. Not sure if that was an EU regulation too.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Saying that something must be done to make it impossible for anyone else to ever do something similar isn’t much different from saying something must be done to make it impossible for someone to use a gun to commit mass murder.
(And if you believe that the former would be possible and the gun thing not, think again: Eliminating all gun ownership would be a good start—and that’s why many people advocate that.)

But, one of the uses of firearms is to kill people. Is that one of the uses of commercial aircraft? You're stretching awfully far to make your argument. I don't really see the point.

There is no reason ever to point a commercial aircraft straight down and auger it into the ground. Come on. Tell me otherwise. It's not abstract principle or civil liberties we're talking about here. Make a better argument, or just let me have my opinion.

I suppose you'll tell me a pilot has a "right" to pull a stunt like this. Ridculous.