What exactly did this mechanic sabotage on the American Airlines 737, and how dangerous was it?What does the Airspeed indicator show when your pitot tube is blocked?What is the tablet/application being used in this 737?What is this wire going from mid-fuselage to the tail on this 737?What is this string on the 737?What is this display on the 737 Classic?How did the 737 become a 2-crew plane?What is this intake at the back of a 737?What exactly happened in this bird strike incident?Why did this 737 not take off on first attempt?How did NASA Langley end up with the first 737?What does “POS ITERV WAS CHGD” mean on the ACARS page of a Boeing 737?
Sending non-work emails to colleagues. Is it rude?
What is this book about Satan having to run the world
Writing style in academic English
How can I deal with my coworkers using unknown jargon and acronyms?
Anacruses, Bar Lines, and Line Breaks
Students requesting to switch partners mid term
how to write a condition for all elements of a list
Is economics a science?
Do the holes in Jacquard loom punched cards represent input data or program code?
Implication in Structures like"What money he gave me"
How do sound waves travel and their reflections?
System of linear pde with non constant coefficients
Is there any conceivable way to "turn off" a star?
What milk and yoghurt is the best for mango lassi?
How many cows would you need to drop on Mars to successfully terraform it?
Dropping "to be" and other verbs in Latin?
Was X17 predicted before it was observed?
When will xrandr version 1.5.1 be available in Ubuntu?
What does Lion Air faking the repair of the AoA vane mean for the Florida repair shop that ceased operations?
What does it mean when we say 'The difference between two quantities is of first order'?
Do any other countries aside from the US have a pledge of allegiance?
Help me identify this brick / bracket
Could a chess engine do retro analysis?
What are the possible punishments for an impeached USA president?
What exactly did this mechanic sabotage on the American Airlines 737, and how dangerous was it?
What does the Airspeed indicator show when your pitot tube is blocked?What is the tablet/application being used in this 737?What is this wire going from mid-fuselage to the tail on this 737?What is this string on the 737?What is this display on the 737 Classic?How did the 737 become a 2-crew plane?What is this intake at the back of a 737?What exactly happened in this bird strike incident?Why did this 737 not take off on first attempt?How did NASA Langley end up with the first 737?What does “POS ITERV WAS CHGD” mean on the ACARS page of a Boeing 737?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
An American Airlines mechanic sabotaged a 737 in Miami
An American Airlines mechanic accused of sabotaging a navigation system on a flight with 150 people aboard at Miami International Airport was denied bond by a federal judge on Wednesday after prosecutors suggested he may have links to a Middle East terrorist organization.
Abdul-Majeed Marouf Ahmed Alani, a 60-year-old veteran employee, told investigators after his arrest earlier this month that he disabled the system because he was upset over stalled union contract negotiations with the airline and wanted to generate some overtime for maintenance on the plane. He said he meant no harm to anyone, and the July 17 flight was aborted before takeoff after an error alert appeared on the navigation system.
His defense attorney said it wasn't as big a deal as they were making it out to be
But Alani’s assistant federal public defender, Christian Dunham, said the prosecutors were exaggerating the evidence. He pointed out that there was a second navigation system still working on the plane so his alleged sabotage could not have caused it to crash.
“We don’t believe he intentionally endangered the safety of people” on that flight, said Dunham, who sought a pretrial bond signed by Alani’s family members in California and Florida. “I think the government is blowing this out of proportion.”
What was it he sabotaged, and how serious would it have been if it had taken off?
boeing-737 avionics
asked Sep 20 at 2:52
MachavityMachavity
4,8932 gold badges20 silver badges47 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
An American Airlines mechanic sabotaged a 737 in Miami
An American Airlines mechanic accused of sabotaging a navigation system on a flight with 150 people aboard at Miami International Airport was denied bond by a federal judge on Wednesday after prosecutors suggested he may have links to a Middle East terrorist organization.
Abdul-Majeed Marouf Ahmed Alani, a 60-year-old veteran employee, told investigators after his arrest earlier this month that he disabled the system because he was upset over stalled union contract negotiations with the airline and wanted to generate some overtime for maintenance on the plane. He said he meant no harm to anyone, and the July 17 flight was aborted before takeoff after an error alert appeared on the navigation system.
His defense attorney said it wasn't as big a deal as they were making it out to be
But Alani’s assistant federal public defender, Christian Dunham, said the prosecutors were exaggerating the evidence. He pointed out that there was a second navigation system still working on the plane so his alleged sabotage could not have caused it to crash.
“We don’t believe he intentionally endangered the safety of people” on that flight, said Dunham, who sought a pretrial bond signed by Alani’s family members in California and Florida. “I think the government is blowing this out of proportion.”
What was it he sabotaged, and how serious would it have been if it had taken off?
boeing-737 avionics
asked Sep 20 at 2:52
MachavityMachavity
4,8932 gold badges20 silver badges47 bronze badges
$endgroup$
14
$begingroup$
I'm not experienced enough to answer this formally but the assertion by the defendants lawyer that "there was another system" is absurd and dangerous. They went from two systems to one. That reduces the margin of error and is still dangerous. I don't quite know the stats and the lingo here, can an answer include some remarks on this?
$endgroup$
– Freiheit
Sep 20 at 14:42
$begingroup$
Couldn't agree more with @Freiheit. Everyone deserves a defense; the public defender in question should be given a medal for the most astonishing, astounding, spectacular line of b/s of the year.
$endgroup$
– Fattie
Sep 23 at 10:35
$begingroup$
@Freiheit Assuming the mechanic had the opportunity to disable both systems, the fact that he only disabled one could indicate his intent wasn't to make the plane crash.
$endgroup$
– JollyJoker
Sep 23 at 11:42
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
An American Airlines mechanic sabotaged a 737 in Miami
An American Airlines mechanic accused of sabotaging a navigation system on a flight with 150 people aboard at Miami International Airport was denied bond by a federal judge on Wednesday after prosecutors suggested he may have links to a Middle East terrorist organization.
Abdul-Majeed Marouf Ahmed Alani, a 60-year-old veteran employee, told investigators after his arrest earlier this month that he disabled the system because he was upset over stalled union contract negotiations with the airline and wanted to generate some overtime for maintenance on the plane. He said he meant no harm to anyone, and the July 17 flight was aborted before takeoff after an error alert appeared on the navigation system.
His defense attorney said it wasn't as big a deal as they were making it out to be
But Alani’s assistant federal public defender, Christian Dunham, said the prosecutors were exaggerating the evidence. He pointed out that there was a second navigation system still working on the plane so his alleged sabotage could not have caused it to crash.
“We don’t believe he intentionally endangered the safety of people” on that flight, said Dunham, who sought a pretrial bond signed by Alani’s family members in California and Florida. “I think the government is blowing this out of proportion.”
What was it he sabotaged, and how serious would it have been if it had taken off?
boeing-737 avionics
asked Sep 20 at 2:52
MachavityMachavity
4,8932 gold badges20 silver badges47 bronze badges
$endgroup$
An American Airlines mechanic sabotaged a 737 in Miami
An American Airlines mechanic accused of sabotaging a navigation system on a flight with 150 people aboard at Miami International Airport was denied bond by a federal judge on Wednesday after prosecutors suggested he may have links to a Middle East terrorist organization.
Abdul-Majeed Marouf Ahmed Alani, a 60-year-old veteran employee, told investigators after his arrest earlier this month that he disabled the system because he was upset over stalled union contract negotiations with the airline and wanted to generate some overtime for maintenance on the plane. He said he meant no harm to anyone, and the July 17 flight was aborted before takeoff after an error alert appeared on the navigation system.
His defense attorney said it wasn't as big a deal as they were making it out to be
But Alani’s assistant federal public defender, Christian Dunham, said the prosecutors were exaggerating the evidence. He pointed out that there was a second navigation system still working on the plane so his alleged sabotage could not have caused it to crash.
“We don’t believe he intentionally endangered the safety of people” on that flight, said Dunham, who sought a pretrial bond signed by Alani’s family members in California and Florida. “I think the government is blowing this out of proportion.”
What was it he sabotaged, and how serious would it have been if it had taken off?
boeing-737 avionics
boeing-737 avionics
asked Sep 20 at 2:52
MachavityMachavity
4,8932 gold badges20 silver badges47 bronze badges
asked Sep 20 at 2:52
MachavityMachavity
4,8932 gold badges20 silver badges47 bronze badges
asked Sep 20 at 2:52
MachavityMachavity
4,8932 gold badges20 silver badges47 bronze badges
asked Sep 20 at 2:52
MachavityMachavity
4,8932 gold badges20 silver badges47 bronze badges
asked Sep 20 at 2:52
MachavityMachavity
4,8932 gold badges20 silver badges47 bronze badges
4,8932 gold badges20 silver badges47 bronze badges
14
$begingroup$
I'm not experienced enough to answer this formally but the assertion by the defendants lawyer that "there was another system" is absurd and dangerous. They went from two systems to one. That reduces the margin of error and is still dangerous. I don't quite know the stats and the lingo here, can an answer include some remarks on this?
$endgroup$
– Freiheit
Sep 20 at 14:42
$begingroup$
Couldn't agree more with @Freiheit. Everyone deserves a defense; the public defender in question should be given a medal for the most astonishing, astounding, spectacular line of b/s of the year.
$endgroup$
– Fattie
Sep 23 at 10:35
$begingroup$
@Freiheit Assuming the mechanic had the opportunity to disable both systems, the fact that he only disabled one could indicate his intent wasn't to make the plane crash.
$endgroup$
– JollyJoker
Sep 23 at 11:42
add a comment
|
14
$begingroup$
I'm not experienced enough to answer this formally but the assertion by the defendants lawyer that "there was another system" is absurd and dangerous. They went from two systems to one. That reduces the margin of error and is still dangerous. I don't quite know the stats and the lingo here, can an answer include some remarks on this?
$endgroup$
– Freiheit
Sep 20 at 14:42
$begingroup$
Couldn't agree more with @Freiheit. Everyone deserves a defense; the public defender in question should be given a medal for the most astonishing, astounding, spectacular line of b/s of the year.
$endgroup$
– Fattie
Sep 23 at 10:35
$begingroup$
@Freiheit Assuming the mechanic had the opportunity to disable both systems, the fact that he only disabled one could indicate his intent wasn't to make the plane crash.
$endgroup$
– JollyJoker
Sep 23 at 11:42
14
14
$begingroup$
I'm not experienced enough to answer this formally but the assertion by the defendants lawyer that "there was another system" is absurd and dangerous. They went from two systems to one. That reduces the margin of error and is still dangerous. I don't quite know the stats and the lingo here, can an answer include some remarks on this?
$endgroup$
– Freiheit
Sep 20 at 14:42
$begingroup$
I'm not experienced enough to answer this formally but the assertion by the defendants lawyer that "there was another system" is absurd and dangerous. They went from two systems to one. That reduces the margin of error and is still dangerous. I don't quite know the stats and the lingo here, can an answer include some remarks on this?
$endgroup$
– Freiheit
Sep 20 at 14:42
$begingroup$
Couldn't agree more with @Freiheit. Everyone deserves a defense; the public defender in question should be given a medal for the most astonishing, astounding, spectacular line of b/s of the year.
$endgroup$
– Fattie
Sep 23 at 10:35
$begingroup$
Couldn't agree more with @Freiheit. Everyone deserves a defense; the public defender in question should be given a medal for the most astonishing, astounding, spectacular line of b/s of the year.
$endgroup$
– Fattie
Sep 23 at 10:35
$begingroup$
@Freiheit Assuming the mechanic had the opportunity to disable both systems, the fact that he only disabled one could indicate his intent wasn't to make the plane crash.
$endgroup$
– JollyJoker
Sep 23 at 11:42
$begingroup$
@Freiheit Assuming the mechanic had the opportunity to disable both systems, the fact that he only disabled one could indicate his intent wasn't to make the plane crash.
$endgroup$
– JollyJoker
Sep 23 at 11:42
add a comment
|
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It's a serious crime, but what that guy did, only affecting one system out of three, would be unlikely to cause a crash if the pilots were half way reasonably competent. The take-off would be rejected as soon as the blocked side's speed tape failed to "come alive", well below 80kt (the pilot not flying checks that both speed tapes start to move as the airplane accelerates - this would be the first obvious clue and is a very basic action on a jet).
answered Sep 20 at 4:13
John KJohn K
50.2k2 gold badges103 silver badges177 bronze badges
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
In fact, the article quoted in the question says that the takeoff was aborted because the damage was detected.
$endgroup$
– Barmar
Sep 20 at 17:20
11
$begingroup$
It actually says the flight was aborted before takeoff. That's different from the takeoff was aborted, and could be also interpreted as cancelled..
$endgroup$
– Michael Hall
Sep 20 at 19:09
1
$begingroup$
I downvoted because the statement "would be unlikely to cause a crash if the pilots were half way reasonably competent" is overly judgmental and I think, incorrect. Unreliable airspeed in flight is a serious problem, and not terribly easy to deal with. I agree with you that it shouldn't cause a crash, but it has caused crashes in the past. Further, the idea that "if they accelerate to 80, detect a mismatch, and abort, it's safe" is also wrong, aborts above 80 kias are considered high speed, and are not only moderately dangerous, but also often result in damage to the aircraft.
$endgroup$
– nexus_2006
Sep 22 at 18:39
1
$begingroup$
@nexus_2006 I said "well below 80kt" (or 90 or whatever) The tape moves long before 80kt so it would be a low energy reject. It's something that's done regularly in the sim on recurrent. Verifying speed alive, on BOTH sides, is Job #2 for the pilot monitoring after verifying engine parameters after thrust set. Now, if the PNF wasn't, you know, doing his/her job and paying attention, and called airspeed dead just before V1, well we're back to the halfway competent thing aren't we.
$endgroup$
– John K
Sep 22 at 18:59
1
$begingroup$
It's utterly astounding to try to "softly defend" some fool who turned off a major system on an airliner.
$endgroup$
– Fattie
Sep 23 at 10:33
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
According to BBC's description, he blocked one of the pitot tubes.
(...) a piece of foam was found glued inside a navigation system part which stopped it from functioning. It was reportedly inside the tube leading from the outside of the plane to its air data module, a system that reports aircraft speed, pitch [sic] and other critical flight data.
A blocked pitot is very serious. One blocked pitot caused the crash of Birgenair Flight 301 after takeoff, for example.
answered Sep 20 at 3:02
ymb1ymb1
87.1k10 gold badges275 silver badges453 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
On the other hand, I would be very disappointed in pilots who cannot fly the plane with all pitot tubes completely blocked and reading 0 airspeed.
$endgroup$
– Joshua
Sep 21 at 3:21
4
$begingroup$
Yes, you would be rightfully disappointed if the pilot didn't detect the dangerous tampering, but then you might be dead.
$endgroup$
– gnasher729
Sep 21 at 13:15
1
$begingroup$
Serious, yes, though a single pitot tube being blocked is readily detectable. IIRC, in Birgenair 301, the ASIs disagreed already during the takeoff roll; Wikipedia appears to agree.
$endgroup$
– a CVn
Sep 21 at 14:22
7
$begingroup$
@Joshua A blocked pitot tube doesn't cause a zero airspeed indication. Rather, it causes the ASI to function as a crude altimeter (showing an increase in airspeed as the aircraft climbs), which very likely contributed to the pilots' confusion on Birgenair 301. See What does the Airspeed indicator show when your pitot tube is blocked?
$endgroup$
– a CVn
Sep 21 at 14:30
add a comment
|
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "528"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f69874%2fwhat-exactly-did-this-mechanic-sabotage-on-the-american-airlines-737-and-how-da%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It's a serious crime, but what that guy did, only affecting one system out of three, would be unlikely to cause a crash if the pilots were half way reasonably competent. The take-off would be rejected as soon as the blocked side's speed tape failed to "come alive", well below 80kt (the pilot not flying checks that both speed tapes start to move as the airplane accelerates - this would be the first obvious clue and is a very basic action on a jet).
answered Sep 20 at 4:13
John KJohn K
50.2k2 gold badges103 silver badges177 bronze badges
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
In fact, the article quoted in the question says that the takeoff was aborted because the damage was detected.
$endgroup$
– Barmar
Sep 20 at 17:20
11
$begingroup$
It actually says the flight was aborted before takeoff. That's different from the takeoff was aborted, and could be also interpreted as cancelled..
$endgroup$
– Michael Hall
Sep 20 at 19:09
1
$begingroup$
I downvoted because the statement "would be unlikely to cause a crash if the pilots were half way reasonably competent" is overly judgmental and I think, incorrect. Unreliable airspeed in flight is a serious problem, and not terribly easy to deal with. I agree with you that it shouldn't cause a crash, but it has caused crashes in the past. Further, the idea that "if they accelerate to 80, detect a mismatch, and abort, it's safe" is also wrong, aborts above 80 kias are considered high speed, and are not only moderately dangerous, but also often result in damage to the aircraft.
$endgroup$
– nexus_2006
Sep 22 at 18:39
1
$begingroup$
@nexus_2006 I said "well below 80kt" (or 90 or whatever) The tape moves long before 80kt so it would be a low energy reject. It's something that's done regularly in the sim on recurrent. Verifying speed alive, on BOTH sides, is Job #2 for the pilot monitoring after verifying engine parameters after thrust set. Now, if the PNF wasn't, you know, doing his/her job and paying attention, and called airspeed dead just before V1, well we're back to the halfway competent thing aren't we.
$endgroup$
– John K
Sep 22 at 18:59
1
$begingroup$
It's utterly astounding to try to "softly defend" some fool who turned off a major system on an airliner.
$endgroup$
– Fattie
Sep 23 at 10:33
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
It's a serious crime, but what that guy did, only affecting one system out of three, would be unlikely to cause a crash if the pilots were half way reasonably competent. The take-off would be rejected as soon as the blocked side's speed tape failed to "come alive", well below 80kt (the pilot not flying checks that both speed tapes start to move as the airplane accelerates - this would be the first obvious clue and is a very basic action on a jet).
answered Sep 20 at 4:13
John KJohn K
50.2k2 gold badges103 silver badges177 bronze badges
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
In fact, the article quoted in the question says that the takeoff was aborted because the damage was detected.
$endgroup$
– Barmar
Sep 20 at 17:20
11
$begingroup$
It actually says the flight was aborted before takeoff. That's different from the takeoff was aborted, and could be also interpreted as cancelled..
$endgroup$
– Michael Hall
Sep 20 at 19:09
1
$begingroup$
I downvoted because the statement "would be unlikely to cause a crash if the pilots were half way reasonably competent" is overly judgmental and I think, incorrect. Unreliable airspeed in flight is a serious problem, and not terribly easy to deal with. I agree with you that it shouldn't cause a crash, but it has caused crashes in the past. Further, the idea that "if they accelerate to 80, detect a mismatch, and abort, it's safe" is also wrong, aborts above 80 kias are considered high speed, and are not only moderately dangerous, but also often result in damage to the aircraft.
$endgroup$
– nexus_2006
Sep 22 at 18:39
1
$begingroup$
@nexus_2006 I said "well below 80kt" (or 90 or whatever) The tape moves long before 80kt so it would be a low energy reject. It's something that's done regularly in the sim on recurrent. Verifying speed alive, on BOTH sides, is Job #2 for the pilot monitoring after verifying engine parameters after thrust set. Now, if the PNF wasn't, you know, doing his/her job and paying attention, and called airspeed dead just before V1, well we're back to the halfway competent thing aren't we.
$endgroup$
– John K
Sep 22 at 18:59
1
$begingroup$
It's utterly astounding to try to "softly defend" some fool who turned off a major system on an airliner.
$endgroup$
– Fattie
Sep 23 at 10:33
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
It's a serious crime, but what that guy did, only affecting one system out of three, would be unlikely to cause a crash if the pilots were half way reasonably competent. The take-off would be rejected as soon as the blocked side's speed tape failed to "come alive", well below 80kt (the pilot not flying checks that both speed tapes start to move as the airplane accelerates - this would be the first obvious clue and is a very basic action on a jet).
answered Sep 20 at 4:13
John KJohn K
50.2k2 gold badges103 silver badges177 bronze badges
$endgroup$
It's a serious crime, but what that guy did, only affecting one system out of three, would be unlikely to cause a crash if the pilots were half way reasonably competent. The take-off would be rejected as soon as the blocked side's speed tape failed to "come alive", well below 80kt (the pilot not flying checks that both speed tapes start to move as the airplane accelerates - this would be the first obvious clue and is a very basic action on a jet).
answered Sep 20 at 4:13
John KJohn K
50.2k2 gold badges103 silver badges177 bronze badges
answered Sep 20 at 4:13
John KJohn K
50.2k2 gold badges103 silver badges177 bronze badges
answered Sep 20 at 4:13
John KJohn K
50.2k2 gold badges103 silver badges177 bronze badges
answered Sep 20 at 4:13
John KJohn K
50.2k2 gold badges103 silver badges177 bronze badges
50.2k2 gold badges103 silver badges177 bronze badges
4
$begingroup$
In fact, the article quoted in the question says that the takeoff was aborted because the damage was detected.
$endgroup$
– Barmar
Sep 20 at 17:20
11
$begingroup$
It actually says the flight was aborted before takeoff. That's different from the takeoff was aborted, and could be also interpreted as cancelled..
$endgroup$
– Michael Hall
Sep 20 at 19:09
1
$begingroup$
I downvoted because the statement "would be unlikely to cause a crash if the pilots were half way reasonably competent" is overly judgmental and I think, incorrect. Unreliable airspeed in flight is a serious problem, and not terribly easy to deal with. I agree with you that it shouldn't cause a crash, but it has caused crashes in the past. Further, the idea that "if they accelerate to 80, detect a mismatch, and abort, it's safe" is also wrong, aborts above 80 kias are considered high speed, and are not only moderately dangerous, but also often result in damage to the aircraft.
$endgroup$
– nexus_2006
Sep 22 at 18:39
1
$begingroup$
@nexus_2006 I said "well below 80kt" (or 90 or whatever) The tape moves long before 80kt so it would be a low energy reject. It's something that's done regularly in the sim on recurrent. Verifying speed alive, on BOTH sides, is Job #2 for the pilot monitoring after verifying engine parameters after thrust set. Now, if the PNF wasn't, you know, doing his/her job and paying attention, and called airspeed dead just before V1, well we're back to the halfway competent thing aren't we.
$endgroup$
– John K
Sep 22 at 18:59
1
$begingroup$
It's utterly astounding to try to "softly defend" some fool who turned off a major system on an airliner.
$endgroup$
– Fattie
Sep 23 at 10:33
|
show 2 more comments
4
$begingroup$
In fact, the article quoted in the question says that the takeoff was aborted because the damage was detected.
$endgroup$
– Barmar
Sep 20 at 17:20
11
$begingroup$
It actually says the flight was aborted before takeoff. That's different from the takeoff was aborted, and could be also interpreted as cancelled..
$endgroup$
– Michael Hall
Sep 20 at 19:09
1
$begingroup$
I downvoted because the statement "would be unlikely to cause a crash if the pilots were half way reasonably competent" is overly judgmental and I think, incorrect. Unreliable airspeed in flight is a serious problem, and not terribly easy to deal with. I agree with you that it shouldn't cause a crash, but it has caused crashes in the past. Further, the idea that "if they accelerate to 80, detect a mismatch, and abort, it's safe" is also wrong, aborts above 80 kias are considered high speed, and are not only moderately dangerous, but also often result in damage to the aircraft.
$endgroup$
– nexus_2006
Sep 22 at 18:39
1
$begingroup$
@nexus_2006 I said "well below 80kt" (or 90 or whatever) The tape moves long before 80kt so it would be a low energy reject. It's something that's done regularly in the sim on recurrent. Verifying speed alive, on BOTH sides, is Job #2 for the pilot monitoring after verifying engine parameters after thrust set. Now, if the PNF wasn't, you know, doing his/her job and paying attention, and called airspeed dead just before V1, well we're back to the halfway competent thing aren't we.
$endgroup$
– John K
Sep 22 at 18:59
1
$begingroup$
It's utterly astounding to try to "softly defend" some fool who turned off a major system on an airliner.
$endgroup$
– Fattie
Sep 23 at 10:33
4
4
$begingroup$
In fact, the article quoted in the question says that the takeoff was aborted because the damage was detected.
$endgroup$
– Barmar
Sep 20 at 17:20
$begingroup$
In fact, the article quoted in the question says that the takeoff was aborted because the damage was detected.
$endgroup$
– Barmar
Sep 20 at 17:20
11
11
$begingroup$
It actually says the flight was aborted before takeoff. That's different from the takeoff was aborted, and could be also interpreted as cancelled..
$endgroup$
– Michael Hall
Sep 20 at 19:09
$begingroup$
It actually says the flight was aborted before takeoff. That's different from the takeoff was aborted, and could be also interpreted as cancelled..
$endgroup$
– Michael Hall
Sep 20 at 19:09
1
1
$begingroup$
I downvoted because the statement "would be unlikely to cause a crash if the pilots were half way reasonably competent" is overly judgmental and I think, incorrect. Unreliable airspeed in flight is a serious problem, and not terribly easy to deal with. I agree with you that it shouldn't cause a crash, but it has caused crashes in the past. Further, the idea that "if they accelerate to 80, detect a mismatch, and abort, it's safe" is also wrong, aborts above 80 kias are considered high speed, and are not only moderately dangerous, but also often result in damage to the aircraft.
$endgroup$
– nexus_2006
Sep 22 at 18:39
$begingroup$
I downvoted because the statement "would be unlikely to cause a crash if the pilots were half way reasonably competent" is overly judgmental and I think, incorrect. Unreliable airspeed in flight is a serious problem, and not terribly easy to deal with. I agree with you that it shouldn't cause a crash, but it has caused crashes in the past. Further, the idea that "if they accelerate to 80, detect a mismatch, and abort, it's safe" is also wrong, aborts above 80 kias are considered high speed, and are not only moderately dangerous, but also often result in damage to the aircraft.
$endgroup$
– nexus_2006
Sep 22 at 18:39
1
1
$begingroup$
@nexus_2006 I said "well below 80kt" (or 90 or whatever) The tape moves long before 80kt so it would be a low energy reject. It's something that's done regularly in the sim on recurrent. Verifying speed alive, on BOTH sides, is Job #2 for the pilot monitoring after verifying engine parameters after thrust set. Now, if the PNF wasn't, you know, doing his/her job and paying attention, and called airspeed dead just before V1, well we're back to the halfway competent thing aren't we.
$endgroup$
– John K
Sep 22 at 18:59
$begingroup$
@nexus_2006 I said "well below 80kt" (or 90 or whatever) The tape moves long before 80kt so it would be a low energy reject. It's something that's done regularly in the sim on recurrent. Verifying speed alive, on BOTH sides, is Job #2 for the pilot monitoring after verifying engine parameters after thrust set. Now, if the PNF wasn't, you know, doing his/her job and paying attention, and called airspeed dead just before V1, well we're back to the halfway competent thing aren't we.
$endgroup$
– John K
Sep 22 at 18:59
1
1
$begingroup$
It's utterly astounding to try to "softly defend" some fool who turned off a major system on an airliner.
$endgroup$
– Fattie
Sep 23 at 10:33
$begingroup$
It's utterly astounding to try to "softly defend" some fool who turned off a major system on an airliner.
$endgroup$
– Fattie
Sep 23 at 10:33
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
According to BBC's description, he blocked one of the pitot tubes.
(...) a piece of foam was found glued inside a navigation system part which stopped it from functioning. It was reportedly inside the tube leading from the outside of the plane to its air data module, a system that reports aircraft speed, pitch [sic] and other critical flight data.
A blocked pitot is very serious. One blocked pitot caused the crash of Birgenair Flight 301 after takeoff, for example.
answered Sep 20 at 3:02
ymb1ymb1
87.1k10 gold badges275 silver badges453 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
On the other hand, I would be very disappointed in pilots who cannot fly the plane with all pitot tubes completely blocked and reading 0 airspeed.
$endgroup$
– Joshua
Sep 21 at 3:21
4
$begingroup$
Yes, you would be rightfully disappointed if the pilot didn't detect the dangerous tampering, but then you might be dead.
$endgroup$
– gnasher729
Sep 21 at 13:15
1
$begingroup$
Serious, yes, though a single pitot tube being blocked is readily detectable. IIRC, in Birgenair 301, the ASIs disagreed already during the takeoff roll; Wikipedia appears to agree.
$endgroup$
– a CVn
Sep 21 at 14:22
7
$begingroup$
@Joshua A blocked pitot tube doesn't cause a zero airspeed indication. Rather, it causes the ASI to function as a crude altimeter (showing an increase in airspeed as the aircraft climbs), which very likely contributed to the pilots' confusion on Birgenair 301. See What does the Airspeed indicator show when your pitot tube is blocked?
$endgroup$
– a CVn
Sep 21 at 14:30
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
According to BBC's description, he blocked one of the pitot tubes.
(...) a piece of foam was found glued inside a navigation system part which stopped it from functioning. It was reportedly inside the tube leading from the outside of the plane to its air data module, a system that reports aircraft speed, pitch [sic] and other critical flight data.
A blocked pitot is very serious. One blocked pitot caused the crash of Birgenair Flight 301 after takeoff, for example.
answered Sep 20 at 3:02
ymb1ymb1
87.1k10 gold badges275 silver badges453 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
On the other hand, I would be very disappointed in pilots who cannot fly the plane with all pitot tubes completely blocked and reading 0 airspeed.
$endgroup$
– Joshua
Sep 21 at 3:21
4
$begingroup$
Yes, you would be rightfully disappointed if the pilot didn't detect the dangerous tampering, but then you might be dead.
$endgroup$
– gnasher729
Sep 21 at 13:15
1
$begingroup$
Serious, yes, though a single pitot tube being blocked is readily detectable. IIRC, in Birgenair 301, the ASIs disagreed already during the takeoff roll; Wikipedia appears to agree.
$endgroup$
– a CVn
Sep 21 at 14:22
7
$begingroup$
@Joshua A blocked pitot tube doesn't cause a zero airspeed indication. Rather, it causes the ASI to function as a crude altimeter (showing an increase in airspeed as the aircraft climbs), which very likely contributed to the pilots' confusion on Birgenair 301. See What does the Airspeed indicator show when your pitot tube is blocked?
$endgroup$
– a CVn
Sep 21 at 14:30
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
According to BBC's description, he blocked one of the pitot tubes.
(...) a piece of foam was found glued inside a navigation system part which stopped it from functioning. It was reportedly inside the tube leading from the outside of the plane to its air data module, a system that reports aircraft speed, pitch [sic] and other critical flight data.
A blocked pitot is very serious. One blocked pitot caused the crash of Birgenair Flight 301 after takeoff, for example.
answered Sep 20 at 3:02
ymb1ymb1
87.1k10 gold badges275 silver badges453 bronze badges
$endgroup$
According to BBC's description, he blocked one of the pitot tubes.
(...) a piece of foam was found glued inside a navigation system part which stopped it from functioning. It was reportedly inside the tube leading from the outside of the plane to its air data module, a system that reports aircraft speed, pitch [sic] and other critical flight data.
A blocked pitot is very serious. One blocked pitot caused the crash of Birgenair Flight 301 after takeoff, for example.
answered Sep 20 at 3:02
ymb1ymb1
87.1k10 gold badges275 silver badges453 bronze badges
edited Sep 20 at 3:11
answered Sep 20 at 3:02
ymb1ymb1
87.1k10 gold badges275 silver badges453 bronze badges
answered Sep 20 at 3:02
ymb1ymb1
87.1k10 gold badges275 silver badges453 bronze badges
answered Sep 20 at 3:02
ymb1ymb1
87.1k10 gold badges275 silver badges453 bronze badges
87.1k10 gold badges275 silver badges453 bronze badges
$begingroup$
On the other hand, I would be very disappointed in pilots who cannot fly the plane with all pitot tubes completely blocked and reading 0 airspeed.
$endgroup$
– Joshua
Sep 21 at 3:21
4
$begingroup$
Yes, you would be rightfully disappointed if the pilot didn't detect the dangerous tampering, but then you might be dead.
$endgroup$
– gnasher729
Sep 21 at 13:15
1
$begingroup$
Serious, yes, though a single pitot tube being blocked is readily detectable. IIRC, in Birgenair 301, the ASIs disagreed already during the takeoff roll; Wikipedia appears to agree.
$endgroup$
– a CVn
Sep 21 at 14:22
7
$begingroup$
@Joshua A blocked pitot tube doesn't cause a zero airspeed indication. Rather, it causes the ASI to function as a crude altimeter (showing an increase in airspeed as the aircraft climbs), which very likely contributed to the pilots' confusion on Birgenair 301. See What does the Airspeed indicator show when your pitot tube is blocked?
$endgroup$
– a CVn
Sep 21 at 14:30
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
On the other hand, I would be very disappointed in pilots who cannot fly the plane with all pitot tubes completely blocked and reading 0 airspeed.
$endgroup$
– Joshua
Sep 21 at 3:21
4
$begingroup$
Yes, you would be rightfully disappointed if the pilot didn't detect the dangerous tampering, but then you might be dead.
$endgroup$
– gnasher729
Sep 21 at 13:15
1
$begingroup$
Serious, yes, though a single pitot tube being blocked is readily detectable. IIRC, in Birgenair 301, the ASIs disagreed already during the takeoff roll; Wikipedia appears to agree.
$endgroup$
– a CVn
Sep 21 at 14:22
7
$begingroup$
@Joshua A blocked pitot tube doesn't cause a zero airspeed indication. Rather, it causes the ASI to function as a crude altimeter (showing an increase in airspeed as the aircraft climbs), which very likely contributed to the pilots' confusion on Birgenair 301. See What does the Airspeed indicator show when your pitot tube is blocked?
$endgroup$
– a CVn
Sep 21 at 14:30
$begingroup$
On the other hand, I would be very disappointed in pilots who cannot fly the plane with all pitot tubes completely blocked and reading 0 airspeed.
$endgroup$
– Joshua
Sep 21 at 3:21
$begingroup$
On the other hand, I would be very disappointed in pilots who cannot fly the plane with all pitot tubes completely blocked and reading 0 airspeed.
$endgroup$
– Joshua
Sep 21 at 3:21
4
4
$begingroup$
Yes, you would be rightfully disappointed if the pilot didn't detect the dangerous tampering, but then you might be dead.
$endgroup$
– gnasher729
Sep 21 at 13:15
$begingroup$
Yes, you would be rightfully disappointed if the pilot didn't detect the dangerous tampering, but then you might be dead.
$endgroup$
– gnasher729
Sep 21 at 13:15
1
1
$begingroup$
Serious, yes, though a single pitot tube being blocked is readily detectable. IIRC, in Birgenair 301, the ASIs disagreed already during the takeoff roll; Wikipedia appears to agree.
$endgroup$
– a CVn
Sep 21 at 14:22
$begingroup$
Serious, yes, though a single pitot tube being blocked is readily detectable. IIRC, in Birgenair 301, the ASIs disagreed already during the takeoff roll; Wikipedia appears to agree.
$endgroup$
– a CVn
Sep 21 at 14:22
7
7
$begingroup$
@Joshua A blocked pitot tube doesn't cause a zero airspeed indication. Rather, it causes the ASI to function as a crude altimeter (showing an increase in airspeed as the aircraft climbs), which very likely contributed to the pilots' confusion on Birgenair 301. See What does the Airspeed indicator show when your pitot tube is blocked?
$endgroup$
– a CVn
Sep 21 at 14:30
$begingroup$
@Joshua A blocked pitot tube doesn't cause a zero airspeed indication. Rather, it causes the ASI to function as a crude altimeter (showing an increase in airspeed as the aircraft climbs), which very likely contributed to the pilots' confusion on Birgenair 301. See What does the Airspeed indicator show when your pitot tube is blocked?
$endgroup$
– a CVn
Sep 21 at 14:30
add a comment
|
Thanks for contributing an answer to Aviation Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f69874%2fwhat-exactly-did-this-mechanic-sabotage-on-the-american-airlines-737-and-how-da%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
14
$begingroup$
I'm not experienced enough to answer this formally but the assertion by the defendants lawyer that "there was another system" is absurd and dangerous. They went from two systems to one. That reduces the margin of error and is still dangerous. I don't quite know the stats and the lingo here, can an answer include some remarks on this?
$endgroup$
– Freiheit
Sep 20 at 14:42
$begingroup$
Couldn't agree more with @Freiheit. Everyone deserves a defense; the public defender in question should be given a medal for the most astonishing, astounding, spectacular line of b/s of the year.
$endgroup$
– Fattie
Sep 23 at 10:35
$begingroup$
@Freiheit Assuming the mechanic had the opportunity to disable both systems, the fact that he only disabled one could indicate his intent wasn't to make the plane crash.
$endgroup$
– JollyJoker
Sep 23 at 11:42