I think it’s that one. I also think there were more than this one, at least one being somewhere in Asia.
Car manufacturers are held liable for all kinds of defects on cars. Google “automotive recall” for more details.
There’s also a scene in Fight Club that goes into this a bit.
The question here is whether there were design problems that contributed to the copilot’s error. I’m not really in a position to know, but I do realize that there can be a bit of a conflict of interest in an incident like this where the manufacturer can blame everything that went wrong on a person who is too deceased to give his version of events.
That was exactly my point wysinwyg. Car manufacturers are blamed for defects not operator error. They are not held liable for someone opening their door at 100mph or slamming the breaks on a busy highway. In other words, they do not get fined for making doors than can be opened a 100mph or breaks that can be mashed to the floor on a busy highway.
1 Like
Right, so my point is that there’s a gray area, and it’s not clear to me a priori that this was definitely only user error with no contribution by design of the craft.
If you have more information than I do on that score, information that makes it quite clear that it was definitely user error with no contribution from the design of the craft, then I will happily look at it.
Only what you have. My reading of
Federal safety officials say (…) Scaled Composites, is at fault for not anticipating the copilot error that caused the spaceship’s disintegration during a test flight nine months ago.
is that the feds think the copilot erred and that Scaled Composites should have anticipated it.
Yes. But it gives us no insight into the nature of that error.
People have been discussing the Airbus crash in this thread for obvious reasons. In some sense, that crash was caused by “pilot error”. But it was not solely caused by pilot error; there were a large number of elements in the Airbus design that contributed to the fact that the error was made and that prevented the crew from identifying and correcting the error.
If that is also the case here – and I maintain that neither of us have enough information to assess whether that’s the case – then I think the feds have some justification in assigning some portion of responsibility to the manufacturer.
1 Like
You know, I completely missed this obvious point in my initial take. Durr…
Yes! Thank you. The barrier of which I speak is one where the user’s probable intent is not blocked in the moment, but actions based on highly improbable intent (i.e. mistakes) are made different and/or difficult. This requires a thoughtful design approach with end user input. Make it easy to do the right thing…
1 Like
Yep, engineering controls are FAR superior to process controls. Because; humans.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
