SIGN UP

Profit Before Lives ?

Avatar Image
Bazile | 22:20 Thu 14th Mar 2019 | News
11 Answers
So, ,Boring were working on a software fix since the Lion air crash .
Which sounds like they knew there was a problem with the aircraft
Yet they did not tell the authorities and airlines to ground the aircraft .

Is this a case of risking people's lives over profit ?

What do you think ?

https://www-bbc-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-47567039?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s

Answers

1 to 11 of 11rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Bazile. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Question Author
Boeing
Quite possibly a calculated risk that failed.

I now expect a bulletin from the Forest of Backslash giving chapter and verse on something vaguely related, maybe car crashes.
It's beginning to look like it.

Dump your Boeing stock.
> Some people have pointed to similarities between the incidents, with some experts citing satellite data and evidence from the crash scene as showing links between Sunday's disaster and October's crash in Indonesia of the Lion Air jet that killed 189 people

The USA and Canada banned flights after those similarities were discovered, so my guess is that they are more than just passing similarities. E.g. it could be something like the two planes crashed at exactly the same times into their journeys.

I think it would be debatable that a safety risk was known after the first crash. But after the similarities between the two crashes came to light, it was definitely time to stop and they did.
yes it is, sadly.
one thing about the old septics is they hate this sort of thing so I wouldn't mind betting they'll have Boeing officials arrested before long.
Question Author
Ellipsis
Do if there wasn't a problem , what were they trying to fix ?

It's not uncommon for airlines to take the chance not to act upon a recommendations when it's purely voluntary

In this case it appears that the manufacturer thought - we won't recommend grounding the planes - we will take a risk of coming up with a fix before another incident happens

"new evidence" pointed to in the press today was that the ear stabilisers were tilted upwards:-
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/new-evidence-in-ethiopian-737-crash-points-to-connection-to-earlier-disaster/ar-BBUQjc0?ocid=ientp

evidencing the theory that both incidents are connected, and probably due to the previously uncovered software issue? in January last year a commuter plane took off from Belfast and shortly after take off it plunged into a dive, which the pilot was able to recover from. it emerged that the inbound flight was late and in their haste to depart, the crew forgot to dial-in a "target altitude". thus when the autopilot was engaged, the plane headed for the default figure, zero feet.
Question Author
Frightening , isn't it

There is no excuse for such an error
You have a checklist to go through before take off . If you follow that list , how on earth can you omit a requirement as that ?
Question Author
Shocking the way these people appear to gamble with people's lives

1 to 11 of 11rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Profit Before Lives ?

Answer Question >>