OV9

His pet albino porpoise in the back seat is very well behaved.

Oh - shit - that puts a whole new spin on the issue, doesn't it.

Yeah, that’s not good at all, if true.

Agree “very bad if true” but it would also be very strange. This new info suggests that the power kill switches for the trim screw aren’t actually power-kill switches.... which seems unlikely. Shirley.

The Times is reporting the same (paywalled I think). Let's see what comes out over the next few days.

So..... was Ian or Rev correct ???

The next story then needs to be comparing this new information to the story of an earlier flight being saved by a deadheading pilot. How was he able to counteract the nosedive when the later crew couldn't?

Those aren't mutually exclusive events though are they?

Explain please?

I mean, just because the dead-header was able to save that flight, it doesn't mean that the pilots in this other air crash(es) weren't following the correct procedure.

I feel like I'm losing my grasp on this discussion a little so I'll explain what I meant before and you can see if it ties in with what you're asking.

Two MCAS-related events - one crash avoided by the dead-header, apparently by following the prescrubed procedures. The other, unavoidable despite following the same procedures, as per the news today.

Or was the first crash avoided by something other than following procedures, a workaround of some sort?

I think they should sack the bloke who didn't follow the correct procedure but saved the plane.

We don’t know and will probably have to wait for the full reports. Or we could just have a guess and then argue about it?

NotoriousREV wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:59 am We don’t know and will probably have to wait for the full reports. Or we could just have a guess and then argue about it?

Are you new here?

It was more of a suggestion than anything else.

I wasn't looking to allocate blame, rather am interested, in the light of new information, how one plane was recoverable and one wasn't. Have you lot synchronised your menstrual cycles or something?

This all smacks of sensationalist journalism without all the facts, so I am with Boeing - lets wait for the real analysis.

The report states that they repeatedly followed processes but were unable to recover control of the plane, that they switched trim power off, but then put it on again? Eh?

If MCAS pushes the plane to full nose-down trim (for whatever reason) and the instruction is to kill the trim power. Great. You need to manually re-trim to recover propoer control. Is the instruction to do that? If yes, did they do that? Why would you turn the trim power back on? Or is there a suggestion that MCAS can over-ride a trim power kill-switch and kick back in?

Too many questions.

I suspect the earlier pilot suffered runaway auto-trim, switched auto-trim power off, trimmed manually and didn't then switch auto-trim back on. Maybe.