Ethiopian plane crash
Discussion
JuniorD said:
US Military aircraft
on the ground
tail end exploded off
by a numptie with a homemade pressure gauge
no one injured
aircraft left like this
A homemade gauge with no end stop so he didn't notice that the needle had swung around the dial 3 times before it blew - I know in modern aviation safety we have a "no blame" culture to avoid people trying to hide mistakes for fear of punishment, but this dude needed to be shipping to the furthest reaches of Alaska far away from touching another A/C ever again! on the ground
tail end exploded off
by a numptie with a homemade pressure gauge
no one injured
aircraft left like this
snotrag said:
Argh! You just failed your recurrence/continuation training with that statement! 
(This stuff is my job. Never say 'no blame'!)
No idea where you work but both my UK/Foreign military and UK/Foreign civilian workplaces have "no blame" blended into HF training with the exception being malicious damage/harm. (This stuff is my job. Never say 'no blame'!)
IanH755 said:
snotrag said:
Argh! You just failed your recurrence/continuation training with that statement!
(This stuff is my job. Never say 'no blame'!)
No idea where you work but both my UK/Foreign military and UK/Foreign civilian workplaces have "no blame" blended into HF training with the exception being malicious damage/harm. (This stuff is my job. Never say 'no blame'!)
What a just culture does though is make sure that if there is an incident it is investigated and understood fully and only if a person's actions are found to be well beyond the pale by their peers or trusted and accepted people, then they would face sanction.
Fundamentally it is the same thing, but when you say "no blame" it suggests there is no sanction as long as you hold your hands up and that isn't quite right.
IanH755 said:
snotrag said:
Argh! You just failed your recurrence/continuation training with that statement!
(This stuff is my job. Never say 'no blame'!)
No idea where you work but both my UK/Foreign military and UK/Foreign civilian workplaces have "no blame" blended into HF training with the exception being malicious damage/harm. (This stuff is my job. Never say 'no blame'!)
eccles said:
IanH755 said:
snotrag said:
Argh! You just failed your recurrence/continuation training with that statement!
(This stuff is my job. Never say 'no blame'!)
No idea where you work but both my UK/Foreign military and UK/Foreign civilian workplaces have "no blame" blended into HF training with the exception being malicious damage/harm. (This stuff is my job. Never say 'no blame'!)
IanH755 said:
snotrag said:
Argh! You just failed your recurrence/continuation training with that statement!
(This stuff is my job. Never say 'no blame'!)
No idea where you work but both my UK/Foreign military and UK/Foreign civilian workplaces have "no blame" blended into HF training with the exception being malicious damage/harm. (This stuff is my job. Never say 'no blame'!)
The only time your likely to get in trouble is if you wilfully break the rules for personal gain.
First post on this thread but have followed from the start..
This popped up on my homepage yesterday, quite an interesting read.
Not sure how accurate or factual it is as I know nothing about planes but worth a read if anyone's interested..
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/what-really-b...
This popped up on my homepage yesterday, quite an interesting read.
Not sure how accurate or factual it is as I know nothing about planes but worth a read if anyone's interested..
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/what-really-b...
George Smiley said:
Looks like a Boeing sponsored smear campaign
Have to agree with you, it's telling that they have changed the structure of management reporting.https://youtu.be/SvpAsiwdM_E
George Smiley said:
Looks like a Boeing sponsored smear campaign
it does feel that way, in a way its like like a car maker explianing that an engine design that failed and sprayed oil all over the front wheels wouldn't have been such a problem if all drivers were more experienced and had skid pan training. Yeah its true,...Teddy Lop said:
George Smiley said:
Looks like a Boeing sponsored smear campaign
it does feel that way, in a way its like like a car maker explianing that an engine design that failed and sprayed oil all over the front wheels wouldn't have been such a problem if all drivers were more experienced and had skid pan training. Yeah its true,...Quite an assassination of the Lion Air crew. It all begs the question, if this crew was so poor that the accident could be laid at their door, how come the airlines and the regulatory bodies have seen fit for the entire 737 MAX to be grounded indefinitely while its issues are sorted out.
JuniorD said:
Quite an assassination of the Lion Air crew. It all begs the question, if this crew was so poor that the accident could be laid at their door, how come the airlines and the regulatory bodies have seen fit for the entire 737 MAX to be grounded indefinitely while its issues are sorted out.
Well yes. My thought has always been that the worst certified crew should be able to fly the plane without it killing them. These chaps were certified. There was 2 of them active in case one failed or needed to confirm something. They did a bunch of obvious things while staring death in the face, in a very short time frame, in a situation they had never faced in a simulator, but which initially could have seemed like other situations they had trained for.
There was 1 AoA sensor active, it had one job, and it was wrong. It was connected to a computer that was performing actions outside it's certified on paper design. The plane was taking actions it should not ever have been taking.
Even if they could have done a better job. They should never be expected to cope with the situation they were put in by Boeing.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff