Boeing Refuses to Cooperate with New Inquiry into Deadly Crash from 2009
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
—-Mike—- I’m a pilot. Can someone tell me what Dutch legislators know about air crash investigations? Because this crash was investigated by professionals and a probable cause found. What you at the NYT cited in your “investigation” is perfectly normal. Essentially you found one guy who felt that his findings didn’t carry as much weight has he thought they should have, and his former professor and mentor who agreed.
This is going beyond the point of obsession at this point, guys, it really is. There are always disagreements within investigations, and sometimes investigators or entire groups of investigators within an investigation will disagree so vehemently with the findings that they file a dissent. That didn’t happen here. Which tells me a lot.
Furthermore, I’m quite familiar with this accident, and the crew was rightfully blamed. They disregarded a SACROSANCT policy among airline crews by not initiating a go-around when they hadn’t achieved a stabilized approach by 1,000 feet. And they knew the radar altimeter was malfunctioning. What’s even worse is that this was a training flight! So they were teaching the new first officer to ignore standard safety practices! What does that tell you?!
I am so tired of the Times’ quite deliberate, and very diligent, efforts to misinform the public. I really am! This accident was investigated and blame apportioned appropriately. Ditch legislators have no business sticking their noses in here. Let. It. Be!
I have also noticed quite a few articles from the NYT that only recap what has happened so far and don't actually have anything new in them. Boeing and the MAX seems to be a hot story right now, so I guess I don't blame them, but its tiring to see a new article and think "oh, good, some new info" and then waste time reading it to find out its just more of the same stuff as last week.
I was on a Lufthansa flight that did not have a stabilized approach from 5000 feet all the way down to the runway, right until the left hand wingtip came within a meter or so of brushing the ground to the side of the plane.
Then, and only then did they initiate a go-around. Crappiest flight I've ever been one, I sent a message to LH and zero response. It is quite possible this rule is indeed sacrosanct but here you have at least one violation. In case anybody is interested in looking it up, LH2310, 14 Feb.
First thing you should do after discovering a bug in software is think about where else the methodology that created the big in the first place may have also been used. This seems a completely valid case to reexamine.
The NTSB going on the defensive would not be something I would have expected. Even a cursory retreating of well traveled paths can generally be enlightening as people come and go from an agency.
> Boeing and American safety officials refused to cooperate [...]
"Members of the Dutch parliament wanted to question the Boeing chief executive, David Calhoun, about the company’s possible influence over the original Dutch investigation of the accident, which killed nine people on a Turkish Airlines flight. The National Transportation Safety Board also refused lawmakers’ request to participate."