I’ll just paraphrase what heard one NTSB investigator once say:
Can you really call it ‘pilot error’ when the system was so hard to understand that two different crews had an accident because they didn’t understand how the system worked?
No, this wasn’t in relation to MCAS but hiding integrated systems and information from flight crew is nothing new… Aircraft systems designers has been doing that since 1903.
Thanks for the well qualified explanation. I was academically aware of speedtrim, but not the implication that pilots on the line fight it constantly and are used to it trimming against their efforts. That opens a whole can of worms with regards to how the airplane is designed!
Nice to fly, but all other aspects are a disasters. There’s a reason production and acceptation was stopped last year and could be stopped again if issues continue.
Oh man…that thought does not seem far fetched does it? “You crashed our airplane and did irreparable damage to our brand…” What a world…
Fantastic insight. Thanks for taking the time to expand on all of that.
I have never met any pilot who has spoken ill of the 787. Although a few do disparagingly call it “sparkey”. A few of my friends who’ve flown both, prefer the 777, but that might be more due to mission than the machine itself. The 787 is probably the best plane offered in its class of size and range.
Hence I said “nice to fly”. It’s a great bird to plotter around the skies with. The technical aspects not so much unfortunately!
Well, OK. But what’s implied here is that pilots lack a technical knowledge of the planes they fly. There’s more to love than simply a love of flying qualities. Systems reliability and even serviceability are important measures that weigh on all of us who touch the plane, not just the technicians.