Tweet
so to keep other threads clean, i figured this would be a good place to talk about the topic. i'll do my best to explain things but will not respond to folks like evan who have their heads buried in certain orifices and refuse to acknowledge reality or provide proof for their ASSumptions.
based on what has been released, there is little doubt that the ultimate cause of the asiana crash @ SFO was GROSS pilotS error. it has been discussed ad nauseum in the asiana thread that the pilots neglected, for whatever reason, to FLY the plane and pay attention to what they were supposed to have paid attention to, most importantly, airspeed.
similarities were drawn to the Turkish 737 crash in Amsterdam in 2009, where the 3 human idiots did nothing for an incredible period of time until it was way too late.
in the wake of that incident, the Dutch Safety Board made the following recommendation:
"Boeing, FAA and EASA
3. Boeing, FAA and EASA should assess the use of an auditory low-speed warning signal as a means of warning the crew and - if such a warning signal proves effective - mandate its use." (http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1175.pdf)
in 2010, Boeing allegedly made software alterations to 400 in-service 737's to add a "airspeed low" announcement and ent a bulletin to all operators that new 737's would come with this feature from the factory.
airbus already has a "speed speed speed" every five seconds between 2,000 and 100 feet when an aircraft goes too slow. The equipment is on the A320 family since 1995 and on all A330, 340, 350 and 380 aircraft.
in 2003, in its report on the senator wellstone crash, the NTSB made the following recommendation:
"Convene a panel of aircraft design, aviation operations, and aviation human factors specialists, including representatives from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, to determine whether a requirement for the installation of low-airspeed alert systems in airplanes engaged in commercial operations under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 121 and 135 would be feasible, and submit a report of the panel’s
findings. (A-03-53)
If the panel requested in Safety Recommendation A-03-53 determines that a requirement for the installation of low-airspeed alert systems in airplanes engaged in commercial operations under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 121 and 135 is feasible, establish requirements for low-airspeed alert systems, based on the findings of this panel. (A-03-54)" (https://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2003/AAR0303.pdf).
In February, 2009, the NTSB made the following recommendation in the Colgan report:
For all airplanes engaged in commercial operations under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 121, 135, and 91K, require the installation of low-airspeed alert systems that provide pilots with redundant aural and visual warnings of an impending hazardous low-speed condition. (A-10-12) (Supersedes Safety Recommendations A-03-53 and -54 and is classified “Open—Unacceptable Response”)" (www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2010/aar1001.pdf)
NOTE: the ntsb now considers its original recommendation regarding low airspeed warning as "Open-Unacceptable Response," presumably referring to the FAA's failue to address the issue as recommended.
so, as an attorney, you look at this history of unheeded recommendations, which the manufacturers are all well aware of, especially Boeing, and you use that as a tool in proving liability. does it ensure liability? no, but in the minds of the jury, and they are who count here, it is very damaging to the manufacturer.
I AM IN NO WAY saying or suggesting that pilots do not have the ULTIMATE responsibility to fly the damn plane the way they were taught time and time again. but history has proven beyond any doubt, that human plots will fail on occasion, no matter how rare that may be. the goal of automation and all the warnings and cues and clues is to assist the pilots. and yes, adding yet another "idiot function" to the aircraft may have the reverse effect of allowing pilots to sit around and wait for HAL to yell, "airspeed, asshole!!"
is it possible that the cockpit has become a visually and aurally overwhelming place? quit possibly so. will the addition of yet another aural warning prevent all of these low airspeed accidents? possibly not. but clearly, a bunch of folks with craploads more experience in aviation than anyone here have decided it's a good idea to add the warning to all aircraft and boeing has not.
now, i also read somewhere that the 777 has an aural speed warning but it is not a voice announcement.
based on what has been released, there is little doubt that the ultimate cause of the asiana crash @ SFO was GROSS pilotS error. it has been discussed ad nauseum in the asiana thread that the pilots neglected, for whatever reason, to FLY the plane and pay attention to what they were supposed to have paid attention to, most importantly, airspeed.
similarities were drawn to the Turkish 737 crash in Amsterdam in 2009, where the 3 human idiots did nothing for an incredible period of time until it was way too late.
in the wake of that incident, the Dutch Safety Board made the following recommendation:
"Boeing, FAA and EASA
3. Boeing, FAA and EASA should assess the use of an auditory low-speed warning signal as a means of warning the crew and - if such a warning signal proves effective - mandate its use." (http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1175.pdf)
in 2010, Boeing allegedly made software alterations to 400 in-service 737's to add a "airspeed low" announcement and ent a bulletin to all operators that new 737's would come with this feature from the factory.
airbus already has a "speed speed speed" every five seconds between 2,000 and 100 feet when an aircraft goes too slow. The equipment is on the A320 family since 1995 and on all A330, 340, 350 and 380 aircraft.
in 2003, in its report on the senator wellstone crash, the NTSB made the following recommendation:
"Convene a panel of aircraft design, aviation operations, and aviation human factors specialists, including representatives from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, to determine whether a requirement for the installation of low-airspeed alert systems in airplanes engaged in commercial operations under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 121 and 135 would be feasible, and submit a report of the panel’s
findings. (A-03-53)
If the panel requested in Safety Recommendation A-03-53 determines that a requirement for the installation of low-airspeed alert systems in airplanes engaged in commercial operations under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 121 and 135 is feasible, establish requirements for low-airspeed alert systems, based on the findings of this panel. (A-03-54)" (https://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2003/AAR0303.pdf).
In February, 2009, the NTSB made the following recommendation in the Colgan report:
For all airplanes engaged in commercial operations under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 121, 135, and 91K, require the installation of low-airspeed alert systems that provide pilots with redundant aural and visual warnings of an impending hazardous low-speed condition. (A-10-12) (Supersedes Safety Recommendations A-03-53 and -54 and is classified “Open—Unacceptable Response”)" (www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2010/aar1001.pdf)
NOTE: the ntsb now considers its original recommendation regarding low airspeed warning as "Open-Unacceptable Response," presumably referring to the FAA's failue to address the issue as recommended.
so, as an attorney, you look at this history of unheeded recommendations, which the manufacturers are all well aware of, especially Boeing, and you use that as a tool in proving liability. does it ensure liability? no, but in the minds of the jury, and they are who count here, it is very damaging to the manufacturer.
I AM IN NO WAY saying or suggesting that pilots do not have the ULTIMATE responsibility to fly the damn plane the way they were taught time and time again. but history has proven beyond any doubt, that human plots will fail on occasion, no matter how rare that may be. the goal of automation and all the warnings and cues and clues is to assist the pilots. and yes, adding yet another "idiot function" to the aircraft may have the reverse effect of allowing pilots to sit around and wait for HAL to yell, "airspeed, asshole!!"
is it possible that the cockpit has become a visually and aurally overwhelming place? quit possibly so. will the addition of yet another aural warning prevent all of these low airspeed accidents? possibly not. but clearly, a bunch of folks with craploads more experience in aviation than anyone here have decided it's a good idea to add the warning to all aircraft and boeing has not.
now, i also read somewhere that the 777 has an aural speed warning but it is not a voice announcement.
Comment