1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Ethiopian Airlines flight to Nairobi crashes with 'no survivors' of 157 people aboard

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Sankari, 11 Mar 2019.

  1. Dis86

    Suspended

    Joined: 23 Dec 2011

    Posts: 28,576

    Location: Northern England

  2. Destination

    Capodecina

    Joined: 31 May 2009

    Posts: 20,886

    It is worrying that people are taking active steps to defeat the software on the plane before it goes wrong, in case it goes wrong.

    The more we hear the more worrying it all seems.

    It seems this plane should never have been certified, if this is the case, Boeing have killed hundreds of people in a mad rush to make profits.
     
  3. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 13 Oct 2006

    Posts: 79,250

    Sign of the times unfortunately and in that respect I do have concerns about things like self driving cars.

    I almost guarantee there was some developer voicing concerns and/or saying the software wasn't ready for the big time yet but was ignored or over-ridden :( and self-certification and other racing to the bottom to enable cost cutting or laziness should never happen with systems like these.
     
  4. lookitsjonno

    Mobster

    Joined: 10 Sep 2003

    Posts: 4,519

    Location: Midlands

    Thankfully as a developer the worst I could do is impact company profits/profile. I shudder the thought of being the poor guy responsible on the git blame for this one :(
     
  5. iamtheoneneo

    Capodecina

    Joined: 15 Mar 2010

    Posts: 10,219

    Location: Bucks

    The report is not out yet. :rolleyes:
     
  6. robj20

    Capodecina

    Joined: 9 Apr 2007

    Posts: 11,111

    As in the company.
     
  7. stockhausen

    Capodecina

    Joined: 30 Jul 2006

    Posts: 12,144

    Incredible as it seems, it may be the case that the FAA sub-contracted the certification work on the Boeing 737 Max
    .
    .
    .
    to
    .
    .
    .
    BOEING!
     
  8. Diddums

    Capodecina

    Joined: 24 Oct 2012

    Posts: 21,390

    Location: London


    The people who, you know, built the aircraft have said it was a technical error, are you really clutching at that one last straw? What happens when the report says it was the aircraft's fault, you're gonna say they "have an agenda", aren't you?
     
  9. iamtheoneneo

    Capodecina

    Joined: 15 Mar 2010

    Posts: 10,219

    Location: Bucks

    The report won't be saying that the aircraft was entirely to blame. It is a bit naive to suggest it will given current aviation standards of accountability.
    The 'agenda' protest certainly won't be coming from me
     
  10. Scania

    Caporegime

    Joined: 25 Nov 2004

    Posts: 25,078

    Location: On the road....

    Are you deliberately trying to make yourself look stupid?

    The only person to raise the question of a supposed ”agenda” was you.
    Hmm....

    The only agenda is they didn’t want this to happen in the first place, nor in the future.
     
    Last edited: 5 Apr 2019
  11. Destination

    Capodecina

    Joined: 31 May 2009

    Posts: 20,886

    On this occasion, is doesn't seem to take much effort to achieve that result ;)
     
  12. NiCkNaMe

    Mobster

    Joined: 17 Jul 2005

    Posts: 3,191

    I'll be actively checking upcoming flights to make sure I'm not flying on one of these going forwards, and would prefer not to fly Boeing given if the report is at damning as it seems to be. Flagrant disregard for life with profits winning out.
     
  13. Slam62

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 3 Jan 2006

    Posts: 8,753

    Location: Monaco

    So they turned off all automated flying systems and didn't know that the one that malfunctioned was still operating anyway. Nice
     
  14. stockhausen

    Capodecina

    Joined: 30 Jul 2006

    Posts: 12,144

    In fairness to Boeing, I suspect that they will now invest a bit more in R&D of safety systems - as will Airbus.

    What I find most incredible is that they may have been in the habit of characterising safety features as "optional, chargeable extras"!
    If Boeing sold cars, presumably the brakes would also be optional, chargeable extras?

    EDITED:
    Well, isn't that dandy?
     
    Last edited: 6 Apr 2019
  15. Destination

    Capodecina

    Joined: 31 May 2009

    Posts: 20,886


    Perhaps not the brakes, but you would probably still have to hand crank the engine to start it.
     
    Last edited: 6 Apr 2019
  16. Orionaut

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 2 Aug 2012

    Posts: 7,813

    Nah



    :cool:

    (There is a peculiar fault I come across from time to time where cars simply will not start exhibiting no compression (Like none at all), typically after having been started from cold and only run for a minute or less. They can be restarted with a lot of cranking and delicate foot work, but the result is very like in the clip)
     
  17. iamtheoneneo

    Capodecina

    Joined: 15 Mar 2010

    Posts: 10,219

    Location: Bucks

    Read what I said again. Seriously.
    And stop implying something that I NEVER actually put into words.
     
  18. TNGL

    Mobster

    Joined: 2 Jul 2010

    Posts: 3,095

    Massive cost to the insurance industry, might be one of the biggest aviation losses reinsurers have seen.
     
  19. Diddums

    Capodecina

    Joined: 24 Oct 2012

    Posts: 21,390

    Location: London

    Que? You literally wrote those EXACT words. Word for word, it's there in black and white, written by none other than yourself.

    I'd stop posting in this thread if I were you, you're really not doing yourself any favours here.
     
  20. muon

    Capodecina

    Joined: 8 Nov 2006

    Posts: 20,941

    Location: London

    So hasn't it turned out the crew followed the procedures they should have?

    So the plane (and therefore Boeing) is actually entirely to blame.

    Shocking really. Imagine this was a car manufacturer where hundreds had died from a fault in their vehicle. The response would be completely different and less forgiving.