The board’s conclusions are not admissible in court, but its ranking of factors often influences how a carrier’s insurance company and the plane’s builder apportion the damage settlements or court judgments. Asiana’s filing is an effort by the airline to have the plane’s design characteristics listed among the contributing factors. The airline also said that the approach ordered by air traffic controllers “led to an excessive pilot workload during the final approach.”īoeing has focused on the crew’s failure to maintain proper airspeed, which is expected to be listed by the safety board as the probable cause of the crash. The carrier said Monday in a filing with the National Transportation Safety Board that bad software design “led to the unexpected disabling of airspeed protection without adequate warning to the flight crew,” and that a system to warn the crew of low airspeed did not sound soon enough. But it is also blaming “inconsistencies in the aircraft’s automation logic.” In San Francisco, the prime cause was quickly clear even Asiana faulted its crew for failing to notice that the airplane was flying far too slowly to stay in the air. In contrast, everyone on the Malaysia plane is presumed lost, and the cause is, for now, a mystery. Three people died and scores were injured, but most people walked away. Asiana’s crash, into the sea wall in front of a runway at San Francisco International Airport, was captured on video, with debris spread over a few hundred feet of runway. The circumstances of the crashes could not have been more different. WASHINGTON - While the world has been fixated on the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, the Korean carrier involved in the crash of a different Boeing 777, the Asiana flight into San Francisco last July, raised design issues on Monday that put another question mark over the model of jetliner.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |