Moderator: gatso76
Indeed, very similar to the SQ incident that took place in Auckland back in 2003.Rockville wrote:According to the ANP, the mishap took place as the pilot inserted a wrong take-off weight into the system.
Lunk: url: http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/art ... rd_gewicht" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
You're right about "the compter says so" but the intel is received by human input, double checked prior to departure (so fill the rest...)Key wrote:Sign of the times: 'the computer says so, it must be true'. But garbage in = garbage out (GIGO) and a better awareness of power settings vs. weight (talking about a difference of 100000kg here!) would likely have prevented this accident. Quite worrying.
Thx for the updates,
Erik
The really worrying thing is, as I posted 2 weeks ago when the report came out, that this is almost an exact replica of the SQ B744 tailstrike in Auckland in 03.Key wrote:Sign of the times: 'the computer says so, it must be true'. But garbage in = garbage out (GIGO) and a better awareness of power settings vs. weight (talking about a difference of 100000kg here!) would likely have prevented this accident. Quite worrying.
That would suggest that the lessons from that incident haven't been learnt, or that the importance of those lessons has been underestimated.flying_kiwi wrote:Indeed, very similar to the SQ incident that took place in Auckland back in 2003.
Apparently there is some pressure bulkhead damage, and they are currently planning to ferry the aircraft unpressurised to Toulouse for further repairs.Hurricane wrote:Hopefully they didn't wasted the Aft-pressure bulkhead; if so the a/c will fase a very expensive repair / scrapyard will become very interesting
That's what I say: GIGO.Hurricane wrote:You're right about "the compter says so" but the intel is received by human input
Absolutely. Let's hope awareness is global now!flying_kiwi wrote:The really worrying thing
As a member you get access to all our
premium content and benefits learn more