|
|
|
|
|
by xenadu02
314 days ago
|
|
To be extra clear here: They used an unproven custom-designed sensor + controller system to monitor the health of the hull. The monitoring system detected the beginning of total hull failure in the exact way they intended. They then ignored that monitoring system because hull failure would have been inconvenient. Really that's the whole story of Stockton here. Massively motivated reasoning. Anything inconvenient was written off as wrong. A lot of normalization of deviance too as some of the written-off concerns turned out to be wrong. But not all of them. I recently got my PPL and that's a massive risk for pilots. You fly in weather you shouldn't and get away with it for a while. Then it becomes normal. You've "proven" you can handle it. Then a situation comes along that requires more margin than you have left and you die. |
|