[DrScientist]

> and certainly nobody is "blaming" them.

Not now the facts have come out, but originally - how about:

Congressman Sam Graves:

"In May, Graves insisted that “facts in the preliminary report reveal pilot error as a factor”. He went on to claim that “pilots trained in the US would have successfully been able to control this situation”.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/sd9LGK2S9m/battle_over_blam...

> At the same time, I don't know anyone working in aviation who thinks it's 100% a coincidence that the first crashes happened with those two airlines.

And here you are effectively repeating that.....

You basic premise is ridiculous. The idea that because some airlines/pilots aren't as good as others, then it absolves Boeing.

Boeing should not be selling a plane into a market that don't cover markets natural variant in pilots and airlines. That's like selling a car only F1 drivers can safely drive to the general public ( and crucially without telling them it's really F1 driver only... ) and claiming it's perfectly safe despite lots of crashes because Lewis Hamilton doesn't have a problem with it.

You could also argue the second crash happened because of the blaming of the airline/crew on the first crash.

Sure there are other factors - it's a question of how many times do you have to roll the dice before you get a crash - clearly far too few in this planes case - and that is entirely Boeing's fault.

[_-___________-_]

I'm not claiming that anything absolves Boeing, and I can't see how any of my words can be interpreted in that way. I encourage you to read what I'm actually writing rather than imagine what I'm thinking.

There are serious issues to be resolved by Boeing and the FAA. There are issues to be resolved around airline company culture. There are issues to be resolved around pilot training and other human factors.

This "entirely Boeing's fault" stuff just encourages a blinkered view of the situation and is exactly the absolutism I was referring to in my grandparent post.

This absolutism is encouraged by the media (just look at that BBC headline: "Battle over blame") and is thankfully absent from the actual investigative work.

While I have no idea why hot air from a congressman is relevant here, the first quote from Graves is accurate. Pilot error was identified as a factor in the preliminary report, and every subsequent report has also identified it as a factor. Obviously there are far more important factors, but it's still a factor, and every factor should be considered and possibly acted upon. As I mentioned in a grandparent comment, the multi-factor approach to accident investigation is one of the reasons air travel is so safe today.

The second quote is pretty much impossible for him to back up and should probably be treated as the usual political noise -- he is, after all, a congressman.

[DrScientist]

I said:

> Sure there are other factors - it's a question of how many times do you have to roll the dice before you get a crash - clearly far too few in this planes case - and that is entirely Boeing's fault.

You said:

>This "entirely Boeing's fault" stuff just encourages a blinkered view of the situation and is exactly the absolutism

You haven't understood what I wrote.

Let's say there is a dice - that represents the chances of a combination of different factors occurring ( weather, pilot experience, plane maintenance, chance of debris hitting sensor, cosmic ray hitting computer - whatever )

What numbers that dice rolls is entirely out of Boeing's control.

However what is entirely in it's control is what happens when particular combinations, represented by the numbers, come up.

So if there is a plane that crashes only when you roll a six, and a plane that crashes when you roll a five or a six, clearly the second plane is 100% worse and yes the individual crash depends on what the dice rolled - but the relative safety of the plane doesn't!!!

Do you understand now?

[DrScientist]

> While I have no idea why hot air from a congressman is relevant here, the first quote from Graves is accurate.

Because you wrote, "certainly nobody is "blaming" them"

Clearly that was wrong - here's another article: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/23/boeing-737-...

Where the Amercian airlines pilots union is saying Boeing blaming pilots is inexcusable - whereas you say 'nobody is blaming them'.....

> I encourage you to read what I'm actually writing rather than imagine what I'm thinking.

Hmm - see above.

[_-___________-_]

The sentence of mine that you selectively quoted starts with "If you ignore the shrill media and look at the actual investigative work going on,"

[magduf]

>Boeing should not be selling a plane into a market that don't cover markets natural variant in pilots and airlines. That's like selling a car only F1 drivers can safely drive to the general public ( and crucially without telling them it's really F1 driver only... )

This reminds me of that fatal crash with "Fast and Furious" star Paul Walker: the Porsche he was driving really wasn't fit for the road, and was only safely driveable by a race car driver. It was too powerful and the center of mass was too far to the rear (thanks to Porsche's idiotic rear engine placement), giving it a strong tendency to fishtail and lose control.

[orangeplanet]

the car was mid-engine (porsche carrera gt)