Behind the Lion Air Crash, a Trail of Decisions Kept Pilots in the Dark https://nyti.ms/2UCzEom
The new element introduced into the flight control system was documented, but Boeing, the FAA, and the European counterpart of the FAA all determined it wasn’t significant enough to explicitly highlight the new element and retrain the pilots for it. The investigation of the Lion Air crash now seems to suggest that perhaps it could have been avoided had the pilots were informed about the new element and trained to deal with its malfunction.
Boeing’s position that following the established emergency checklist should have been sufficient understates the complexity of responding to a crisis in real time, pilots said.
Boeing is "technically" correct. But that doesn't fully absolve them. The ball was in their court, so to speak. The simplest actions that could have had the biggest effect on risks were ones Boeing could have taken at very low cost.
Posts: 12522 | Location: Williamsburg, VA | Registered: 19 July 2005
Originally posted by Piano*Dad: Boeing is "technically" correct. But that doesn't fully absolve them. The ball was in their court, so to speak. The simplest actions that could have had the biggest effect on risks were ones Boeing could have taken at very low cost.
Could you explain which actions you're talking about?
Flagging the changes for the airlines, telling them how and why this would necessitate changes in training for emergencies, and making sure standardized training routines would bring all pilots up to speed. Boeing judged that pilots didn't need to be informed about how the system changes might affect emergency procedures. I suspect that decision was rushed, and made in the heat of cost cutting. It pushed the burden downstream onto parties that had less information and whose reactions likely would be ad hoc. The simplest solution is for the manufacturer to set a best practice for training whenever the manufacturer's alterations necessitate new routines for pilots, mechanics, or whoever.
Posts: 12522 | Location: Williamsburg, VA | Registered: 19 July 2005
Originally posted by Piano*Dad: Flagging the changes for the airlines, telling them how and why this would necessitate changes in training for emergencies, and making sure standardized training routines would bring all pilots up to speed. Boeing judged that pilots didn't need to be informed about how the system changes might affect emergency procedures. I suspect that decision was rushed, and made in the heat of cost cutting. It pushed the burden downstream onto parties that had less information and whose reactions likely would be ad hoc. The simplest solution is for the manufacturer to set a best practice for training whenever the manufacturer's alterations necessitate new routines for pilots, mechanics, or whoever.
OK, here’s my confusion. You said very low cost, but the article specificslly said that new training would have been expensive.
Lower cost for Boeing to do it right and in a standardized way than to push it downstream where it wouldn't (and didn't) get done.
All training is expensive. That needs to be part of the decision about whether or not to tweak a system, I guess. Boeing had to compete, but cut corners. We see the result.
Boeing can say that they thought the training was unnecessary. We'll see what the regulators ultimately say. My hunch is that they'll decide Boeing erred big time to save a few bucks.
Posts: 12522 | Location: Williamsburg, VA | Registered: 19 July 2005
Originally posted by Piano*Dad: Lower cost for Boeing to do it right and in a standardized way than to push it downstream where it wouldn't (and didn't) get done.
All training is expensive. That needs to be part of the decision about whether or not to tweak a system, I guess. Boeing had to compete, but cut corners. We see the result.
Boeing can say that they thought the training was unnecessary. We'll see what the regulators ultimately say. My hunch is that they'll decide Boeing erred big time to save a few bucks.
Perhaps, but they’ll have to conclude that they themselves screwed up by approving it.
