|
|
|
|
|
|
by txcwpalpha
2532 days ago
|
|
|
>In the end, software didn’t bring down that flight (as in, the software didn’t pitch the plane down into the ground) >to compare that crash with the recent MAX crashes is just not right >More comparable would be something like Qantas Flight 72, where the autopilot did in fact result in an uncommanded pitch down These seem like very unnecessary distinctions. "In the end", the plane had software that was supposed to do one thing but failed to do that, resulting in the plane crashing. These are very apt and natural comparisons. |
|
|
What exactly was the software supposed to do in this instance? They were flying at 30 feet, with idle engines and suddenly demanded full power while pitching up. It takes a good 8 seconds to spool up a jet engine, that's a lot of time to continue travelling forward. At the same time, due to their low speed, climbing steeply away from the ground just isn't possible because it would stall the plane.
It's a shitty situation, but physically the software can't do anything here. I guess you could make a case that the software shouldn't have allowed the plane to even get into such a dangerous flight envelope. But there are a lot of aural warnings from the GPWS (ground proximity warning system) to tell the pilots to climb away from the ground. But if you disable those warnings, can you really blame the software?