Skip to main content

A Shorter Guide to the Ethiopian Air Tragedy and the 737 Max 8

Today I posted a very long and detailed account of what is known and (mainly) unknown about this past weekend’s Ethiopian Airlines tragedy.

Here is a much shorter Q and A guide.

  1. Q. Is this crash related to the Lion Air crash last year?
    A: No one knows. It was the same model of plane, in a similar phase of flight (soon after takeoff). The problem could have been a repeat of the runaway-automation cause of the Lion Air crash. It could be something else. No one knows right now.
      
  2. Q. What’s the most alarming possible reading of events?
    A: That would depend on an absolutely  crucial, but as yet unanswered (as far as I know), aspect of the Lion Air crash.
    There is little doubt that runaway automatic-control software was involved in that crash. For reasons detailed in my long post, the airplane’s software kept trying to push the plane’s nose down. The pilots kept fighting to pull it up. Eventually the pilots lost.
    So it’s evident that the pilots did not over-ride or turn off the aberrant system. Here’s the question that really  matters:
         Did the pilots not know how to turn it off? (Through lack of training or familiarity, etc.)
         Or were they not able to turn it off? (That is, had the override systems failed, so that there was no way to wrest control back?)
    The first explanation would mean a tragic training failure. The second would mean an uncontrollably self-destructive airplane. My assumption is that it’s the first—which would mean that this latest crash comes either from a similar training issue or involves something else. But if there’s even a possibility it’s the second, that is very serious indeed.
  3. Q. What next?
    A: I, purely personally, would not fear getting on a 737 Max 8 if I were scheduled to do so tomorrow. Statistically it’s riskier to get behind the wheel of a car. But that’s just me. (I also willingly fly small airplanes.) A lot of people need to work very hard right now to figure out what has gone on here.


from The Atlantic https://ift.tt/2ETWj9w

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

REPORT: Furious Spike Lee Paces Aisle, Turns Back To Stage...

REPORT: Furious Spike Lee Paces Aisle, Turns Back To Stage... (Top headline, 5th story, link ) Related stories: REVIEW: Hostless Show Starts With Rock & Rolls Off Rails... Actor knocks borders, walls during speech in Spanish... Stage designed to look like Trump hair? 'GREEN BOOK' OVERCOMES BACKLASH, NABS BEST PICTURE... Top Critics Fume... LIST: WINNERS... Advertise here from Drudge Report Feed https://ift.tt/2SUpIKy

Tiny Love Stories: ‘Who Was I to Deprive Him of Joy?’

By Unknown Author from NYT Style https://ift.tt/2UV7YAG

The Ugly History of Dual-Loyalty Charges

When Representative Ilhan Omar recently complained about “the political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country,” many noted accurately that she had deployed a trope—dual loyalty—that had been used against Jews for years. But this accusation has a broader history in the United States, having been used against several religious minorities—including Muslims like Omar. Indeed, many battles over religious freedom have revolved around dual-loyalty claims. [ Read: Ilhan Omar just made it harder to have a nuanced debate about Israel ] In the 19th century, many attacks on Catholics stressed that these immigrants were pawns of a foreign power. In the 1830s, Samuel Morse—then a prominent painter and later the inventor of the telegraph—urged Americans to build “walls” and “gates” to keep out Catholic immigrants, who would always be loyal to Rome. Because these Catholic immigrants were decrepit —“halt, and blind, and naked”—they were easy to co...