12 ms·

Sympathies for all the victims and their families, incredibly sad. Many of us have heard the phrase "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going." In reference to Boeing

Sympathies for all the victims and their families, incredibly sad. Many of us have heard the phrase "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going." In reference to Boeing's perceived safe planes. This phrase has lost any meaning to me, and in fact, I'm feeling the opposite way right now. Boeing's response to the first 737-Max Lion Air crash was abhorrent, in my opinion. While they were taking the time to blame the Lion Air pilots reaction to the plane's issue, and stating how safe the 737-max was, they were also working on urgent patches to their software. The patch is still not yet deployed, but the planes continue to fly. If initial info of this crash points to a related cause to the Lion Air crash, anything less than a full grounding of all 737-Max aircraft seems incredibly dangerous. I get the feeling that Boeing executives have checked their better moral judgement at the door and are thinking solely in terms of dollars. I can't help but feel that Boeing and US regulators would have taken the issue identified after Lion Air much more seriously and been much more likely to take action and responsibility if it was a US flight. That thought leaves me with incredibly sour taste in my stomach. For those who may come to Boeing's defense, take a look at how pilots of the 737 Max responded to the Lion air crash - often with anger. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/03/world/asia/lion-air-plane-crash-pilots.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/03/world/asia/lion-air-plane... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/11/13/pilots-unions-criticize-boeing-withholding-safety-information/?utm_term=.6da8413fb849 https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/11/13/pilots-un... [3] https://www.fullwsj.com/articles/regulators-push-for-clarity-on-boeing-737-safety-systems-after-lion-air-crash-1542854965 https://www.fullwsj.com/articles/regulators-push-for-clarity... [4] https://www.fullwsj.com/articles/boeing-and-regulators-delay-jetliner-fixes-prompted-by-lion-air-crash-11549821489 https://www.fullwsj.com/articles/boeing-and-regulators-delay...

curiousDog 8y ago
Yup Boeing has lost its way and is another typical bureaucratic hell hole of a company like IBM. I’ve heard horror stories about the 787 development process as well.
- dingaling 8y ago
  There was a quip back in 1997 that "McDonnell Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing's money" referring to the restacking of the Boeing management with ex-McDD executives after the merger. The last true engineering-led Boeing was the 777. Chaotic mess of 787 development or apparent stretch-too-far Max are pure McDD.
argd678 8y ago
I think there’s just fatigue with Indonesian airlines’ spaced out attention and not caring about safety over the years, of course the time it’s due to a different reason then no one believes it. It’s the natural consequence of their past record and ignoring warnings. If there’s a recent case of an airline with a solid track record of following safety recommendations and Boeing not responding appropriately to a crash then that would be different.
tracer4201 8y ago
It doesn’t make sense to me how they can continue blaming pilots if the cause of today’s crash is the same as last year’s. Even if they tell us with undisputable evidence that the plane was operating within standard operating procedure, it sounds like that SOP is unintuitive garbage and putting everyone at risk. The latter part is what matters the most. I don’t see any sane or reasonable path other than grounding the 737 Max.
- ams6110 8y ago
  I have no expertise in the area, but I doubt it's the same cause. Every 737 Max pilot will certainly be aware of the Lion Air crash and the ways to mitigate that particular behavior of the aircraft. We need to wait for the investigation before we jump to conclusions.
  - woodandsteel 8y ago
    >Every 737 Max pilot will certainly be aware of the Lion Air crash and the ways to mitigate that particular behavior of the aircraft. I think that is a good point.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - nostromo 8y ago
    Not necessarily. The 737 Max is the same type rating as all other 737. That means the pilots and crew switch back and forth between the Max and non-Max planes — despite the fact that they act very different in certain circumstances. This was intentional, it saves airlines money to have fewer type ratings. Besides, so soon after take off there’s very little time to recover when your plane is overriding you attempts to keep it from nose diving into the ground. It’s not as simple as flipping a single switch.
    - neuronic 8y ago
      Why arent pilots able to take full and absolute control of a plane at any time whatsoever?
snthd 8y ago
Another bad Boeing response in 1991 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_Air_Flight_004#Niki_Lauda's_visit_with_Boeing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_Air_Flight_004#Niki_Laud...
inamberclad 8y ago
Lion Air wasn't maintaining their aircraft well. The new anti-stall feature that seemed to cause the Lion Air crash shouldn't have activated under a sensor fault scenario, yes, but software alone isn't to blame for that one.
- gambiting 8y ago
  The Lion Air crash was a 2 months old plane. I'd expect a 2 months old plane to be air worthy even if some maintenance was neglected.
  - twtw 8y ago
    But they neglected maintenance when serious issues with the plane were apparent. The pilots of the flights prior to 610 noted that the two AoA sensor readings differed by ~20 degrees, and nearly aborted their flight before overriding the auto trim. Flight 610 should never have taken off.
    - Someone1234 8y ago
      That's a misstatement of what occurred. The aircraft had a fault on the previous two flights and was repaired before the fatal flight. > Flight 610 should never have taken off. A repaired aircraft should not take off?
      - twtw 8y ago
        The preliminary report from the investigation of LNI610 disagrees with you: https://reports.aviation-safety.net/2018/20181029-0_B38M_PK-LQP_PRELIMINARY.pdf https://reports.aviation-safety.net/2018/20181029-0_B38M_PK-... The AoA attack sensor was replaced prior to flight LNI043 (he flight prior to 610), in which the pilots declared pan-pan and had to manually override the auto trim systems (which include MCAS). Between 043 and 610, there was further maintenance that included flushing the pilot valves and cleaning electrical connectors, but the AoA sensor was not replaced between 043 and 610. An aircraft that was repaired followed by one flight in which the pilots declared abnormal operation and performed 3 non-normal checklists should probably not fly again until they figured out what happened, and the next flight should definitely be aware of the incident on the flight prior. 043 faced and overcame the exact same malfunction as 610 - to me that indicates a clear failure. If you keep flying an aircraft that malfunctions on each flight, you're pressing your luck.
panarky 8y ago
We can't afford to wait for evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that this aircraft is dangerous. Probable cause should be a sufficient standard. Two crashes in similar circumstances is probable cause to take them all out of service until they figure out what the hell is going on. For myself and my family, we won't wait for regulators and airlines to act. We will not fly the 737 Max.
- twtw 8y ago
  It's interesting that you reach that conclusion. I'll fly 737 max. I won't fly Lion Air or Ethiopian Airlines. Southwest: fleet size 754, founded 1967, total of seven accidents with 3 deaths. Ethiopian Airlines: fleet size 107, 64 accidents with 459 deaths since 1965.
  - freehunter 8y ago
    It is possible for both a carrier to be more at-risk for crashes as well as a plane to be more at-risk for crashes. The FAA issued an emergency operation directive for the 737 Max due to inaccurate sensors which could lead to a crash. I'm not entirely sure why you're ignoring that fact and deflecting to something unrelated.
    - twtw 8y ago
      > deflecting to something unrelated I don't think it is unrelated that the only accident thus far of a plane with a failure mode that is more difficult for pilots to respond to was on an airline with a notoriously bad safety record. I fully recognize the fact that airlines and pilots were not informed well enough about MCAS, but I'm also not ignoring the other circumstances of lion air 610 Safety in depth - a single failure should not be a problem. 610 crashed as a result of MCAS, but also a number of other operational failures of Lion Air and the pilots.
  - bgorman 8y ago
    If Boeing is issuing software updates that disable manual override without telling pilots, Boeing is completely at fault here, and some of the engineers/executives should face criminal charges.
segmondy 8y ago
I flew the 737 Max about a month after the Lion crash. I sure as hell will not be getting on it anytime soon.
weaksauce 8y ago
I’m curious why they would need that system in the first place. Pilots know to trim for level flight so the computer doing it automatically seems unneeded regardless of new engine placement.
- twtw 8y ago
  The new system (MCAS) was not intended to take action in normal flight. It was intended the trim in certain scenarios (roughly high AoA + steep turn + high g + near stall), but on lion air 610 the AoA sensor was malfunctioning, which caused MCAS to activate when it shouldn't have.
- inferiorhuman 8y ago
  The engines are more powerful and further ahead of the wing on the MAX. This means that the plane may pitch up significantly (and potentially stall) if you apply a bunch of thrust. MCAS was designed to prevent this. There was, IIRC, a similar incident in an 737 Classic (go around in England that achieved a dramatic nose up pitch IIRC — not the Tailwind incident) but I can't seem to find the entry on avhearld.
  - mhandley 8y ago
    You're probably referring to this one - Thomson 737-300 at Bournemouth in 2007. Scary reading the full report: 44 degrees nose-up and 82 knots indicated air speed! https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aar-3-2009-boeing-737-3q8-g-thof-23-september-2007 https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aar-3-2009-boeing-737-3q8-g-...
    - inferiorhuman 8y ago
      Yep, that's the one. If memory serves, most or all planes with the engines under the wing will pitch up when you apply thrust. Most planes will have an effective enough elevator to counteract this... but it seems like the 737 does not.
_Codemonkeyism 8y ago
"if it was a US flight." Or Airbus.
chrisseaton 8y ago
> Many of us have heard the phrase "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going." Do people out there really think Airbus have such lower safety standards that they won't fly on them? They must struggle to get around even the US domestic routes these days.
- wbkang 8y ago
  Isn't this a reference to airplanes like MD DC-10? Airbus is a super new company.
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    > Airbus is a super new company. Not really sure what you're on about - Airbus' passenger jets started only a decade after McDonnell Douglas and Boeing's. A300 flew around 1970. DC-8 flew around 1960, same as the Boeing 707. Th grandfathers of some people on this site would have been flying on Airbus.
    - nkurz 8y ago
      > The grandfathers of some people on this site would have been flying on Airbus. I like the image, but I think you can make it much stronger. The grandfathers of many users of this site are still flying on Airbus (as well as all other current planes), so I think you being at least a couple generations to conservative. Instead, I think it's safe to say that the "great-great-grandfathers" of some of the users of this site almost certainly flew on an Airbus. For ease of math, assume an 18 year-old-user born in 2000, 25 years per generation, and a 75 year lifespan. Their father was born in 1975, their grandfather in 1950, their great-grandfather in 1925, and their great-great-grandfather in 1900. That great-great-grandfather died in 1975, and thus assuming they flew in the last years of their life, would likely have flown on an A300. Given that these assumptions might be closer to average rather than extreme, I don't think it would be unreasonable to bet that at least one user's great-great-great-grandfather flew on an Airbus as well.
    - wbkang 8y ago
      You are right, Airbus is not as new as I thought. Still I think it was a reference to DC-10?
celticninja 8y ago
I also wonder if the fact that Boeing is a US company has anything to do with it. If this was an Airbus would the US have required grounding of the planes? I believe your point about if it happened in the US they would still have been grounded but perhaps if it wasn't a US company they would have pushed for grounding to be safe even if it did not occur in the US.
- free652 8y ago
  US never grounded Airbus, but grounded all Boeing 787s once.
starpilot 8y ago
> If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going No one actually says that. Even Boeing itself, when arranging corporate travel for employees, picks whatever flight is available with reasonable airfare regardless of aircraft type.
- rconti 8y ago
  It’s a common saying in the northwest. If not actually obeyed.
tigershark 8y ago
I completely agree and I was utterly shocked when so many “self-professed experts” on HN just dismissed everything to accuse the pilots that didn’t read the manual. As I said before I will not fly on a 737 max until all this shitshow is cleared, and I urge everyone else to avoid it.
- pmontra 8y ago
  I checked my next flights, some Airbus, a Fokker and two 737-800. Luckily not the MAX. I never checked the aircraft model before booking but I'll start doing it. I won't fly a MAX.
  - tigershark 8y ago
    Better to be safe than to be sorry, especially when your life is at stake.
  - blub 8y ago
    The airplane can be changed at the last minute, but it's worth a try I guess.
sfilargi 8y ago
Sounds like 737-Max has an inherent design flaw that they tried to patch with a software fix adding unnecessary complexity, a single point of failure(AoA sensors) and more importantly adds an element of surprise for the pilots: https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/what-is-the-boeing-737-max-maneuvering-characteristics-augmentation-system-mcas-jt610/ https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/what-is-the-boeing... Basically pretty shitty system design.
tluyben2 8y ago
> If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going I have mostly had the reverse sentiment; my experience is mainly based on 777-xxx planes, but I find the experience in those so horrible that I try to avoid Boeing in favor of Airbus. Every time when I cannot (like last week when I flew with a 777-300er) I get reminded how crap these things really are. Not talking safety but general feel and comfort; basically everything is worse; noise, seating, effects of turbulence etc. And I have noticed this across multiple premium airlines.

curiousDog 8y ago

Yup Boeing has lost its way and is another typical bureaucratic hell hole of a company like IBM. I’ve heard horror stories about the 787 development process as well.

dingaling 8y ago
There was a quip back in 1997 that "McDonnell Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing's money" referring to the restacking of the Boeing management with ex-McDD executives after the merger. The last true engineering-led Boeing was the 777. Chaotic mess of 787 development or apparent stretch-too-far Max are pure McDD.

argd678 8y ago

I think there’s just fatigue with Indonesian airlines’ spaced out attention and not caring about safety over the years, of course the time it’s due to a different reason then no one believes it. It’s the natural consequence of their past record and ignoring warnings. If there’s a recent case of an airline with a solid track record of following safety recommendations and Boeing not responding appropriately to a crash then that would be different.

tracer4201 8y ago

It doesn’t make sense to me how they can continue blaming pilots if the cause of today’s crash is the same as last year’s. Even if they tell us with undisputable evidence that the plane was operating within standard operating procedure, it sounds like that SOP is unintuitive garbage and putting everyone at risk. The latter part is what matters the most. I don’t see any sane or reasonable path other than grounding the 737 Max.

ams6110 8y ago
I have no expertise in the area, but I doubt it's the same cause. Every 737 Max pilot will certainly be aware of the Lion Air crash and the ways to mitigate that particular behavior of the aircraft. We need to wait for the investigation before we jump to conclusions.
- woodandsteel 8y ago
  >Every 737 Max pilot will certainly be aware of the Lion Air crash and the ways to mitigate that particular behavior of the aircraft. I think that is a good point.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- nostromo 8y ago
  Not necessarily. The 737 Max is the same type rating as all other 737. That means the pilots and crew switch back and forth between the Max and non-Max planes — despite the fact that they act very different in certain circumstances. This was intentional, it saves airlines money to have fewer type ratings. Besides, so soon after take off there’s very little time to recover when your plane is overriding you attempts to keep it from nose diving into the ground. It’s not as simple as flipping a single switch.
  - neuronic 8y ago
    Why arent pilots able to take full and absolute control of a plane at any time whatsoever?

snthd 8y ago

Another bad Boeing response in 1991 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_Air_Flight_004#Niki_Lauda's_visit_with_Boeing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_Air_Flight_004#Niki_Laud...

inamberclad 8y ago

Lion Air wasn't maintaining their aircraft well. The new anti-stall feature that seemed to cause the Lion Air crash shouldn't have activated under a sensor fault scenario, yes, but software alone isn't to blame for that one.

gambiting 8y ago
The Lion Air crash was a 2 months old plane. I'd expect a 2 months old plane to be air worthy even if some maintenance was neglected.
- twtw 8y ago
  But they neglected maintenance when serious issues with the plane were apparent. The pilots of the flights prior to 610 noted that the two AoA sensor readings differed by ~20 degrees, and nearly aborted their flight before overriding the auto trim. Flight 610 should never have taken off.
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    That's a misstatement of what occurred. The aircraft had a fault on the previous two flights and was repaired before the fatal flight. > Flight 610 should never have taken off. A repaired aircraft should not take off?
    - twtw 8y ago
      The preliminary report from the investigation of LNI610 disagrees with you: https://reports.aviation-safety.net/2018/20181029-0_B38M_PK-LQP_PRELIMINARY.pdf https://reports.aviation-safety.net/2018/20181029-0_B38M_PK-... The AoA attack sensor was replaced prior to flight LNI043 (he flight prior to 610), in which the pilots declared pan-pan and had to manually override the auto trim systems (which include MCAS). Between 043 and 610, there was further maintenance that included flushing the pilot valves and cleaning electrical connectors, but the AoA sensor was not replaced between 043 and 610. An aircraft that was repaired followed by one flight in which the pilots declared abnormal operation and performed 3 non-normal checklists should probably not fly again until they figured out what happened, and the next flight should definitely be aware of the incident on the flight prior. 043 faced and overcame the exact same malfunction as 610 - to me that indicates a clear failure. If you keep flying an aircraft that malfunctions on each flight, you're pressing your luck.

panarky 8y ago

We can't afford to wait for evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that this aircraft is dangerous. Probable cause should be a sufficient standard. Two crashes in similar circumstances is probable cause to take them all out of service until they figure out what the hell is going on. For myself and my family, we won't wait for regulators and airlines to act. We will not fly the 737 Max.

twtw 8y ago
It's interesting that you reach that conclusion. I'll fly 737 max. I won't fly Lion Air or Ethiopian Airlines. Southwest: fleet size 754, founded 1967, total of seven accidents with 3 deaths. Ethiopian Airlines: fleet size 107, 64 accidents with 459 deaths since 1965.
- freehunter 8y ago
  It is possible for both a carrier to be more at-risk for crashes as well as a plane to be more at-risk for crashes. The FAA issued an emergency operation directive for the 737 Max due to inaccurate sensors which could lead to a crash. I'm not entirely sure why you're ignoring that fact and deflecting to something unrelated.
  - twtw 8y ago
    > deflecting to something unrelated I don't think it is unrelated that the only accident thus far of a plane with a failure mode that is more difficult for pilots to respond to was on an airline with a notoriously bad safety record. I fully recognize the fact that airlines and pilots were not informed well enough about MCAS, but I'm also not ignoring the other circumstances of lion air 610 Safety in depth - a single failure should not be a problem. 610 crashed as a result of MCAS, but also a number of other operational failures of Lion Air and the pilots.
- bgorman 8y ago
  If Boeing is issuing software updates that disable manual override without telling pilots, Boeing is completely at fault here, and some of the engineers/executives should face criminal charges.

segmondy 8y ago

I flew the 737 Max about a month after the Lion crash. I sure as hell will not be getting on it anytime soon.

weaksauce 8y ago

I’m curious why they would need that system in the first place. Pilots know to trim for level flight so the computer doing it automatically seems unneeded regardless of new engine placement.

twtw 8y ago
The new system (MCAS) was not intended to take action in normal flight. It was intended the trim in certain scenarios (roughly high AoA + steep turn + high g + near stall), but on lion air 610 the AoA sensor was malfunctioning, which caused MCAS to activate when it shouldn't have.
inferiorhuman 8y ago
The engines are more powerful and further ahead of the wing on the MAX. This means that the plane may pitch up significantly (and potentially stall) if you apply a bunch of thrust. MCAS was designed to prevent this. There was, IIRC, a similar incident in an 737 Classic (go around in England that achieved a dramatic nose up pitch IIRC — not the Tailwind incident) but I can't seem to find the entry on avhearld.
- mhandley 8y ago
  You're probably referring to this one - Thomson 737-300 at Bournemouth in 2007. Scary reading the full report: 44 degrees nose-up and 82 knots indicated air speed! https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aar-3-2009-boeing-737-3q8-g-thof-23-september-2007 https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aar-3-2009-boeing-737-3q8-g-...
  - inferiorhuman 8y ago
    Yep, that's the one. If memory serves, most or all planes with the engines under the wing will pitch up when you apply thrust. Most planes will have an effective enough elevator to counteract this... but it seems like the 737 does not.

_Codemonkeyism 8y ago

"if it was a US flight." Or Airbus.

chrisseaton 8y ago

> Many of us have heard the phrase "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going." Do people out there really think Airbus have such lower safety standards that they won't fly on them? They must struggle to get around even the US domestic routes these days.

wbkang 8y ago
Isn't this a reference to airplanes like MD DC-10? Airbus is a super new company.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  > Airbus is a super new company. Not really sure what you're on about - Airbus' passenger jets started only a decade after McDonnell Douglas and Boeing's. A300 flew around 1970. DC-8 flew around 1960, same as the Boeing 707. Th grandfathers of some people on this site would have been flying on Airbus.
  - nkurz 8y ago
    > The grandfathers of some people on this site would have been flying on Airbus. I like the image, but I think you can make it much stronger. The grandfathers of many users of this site are still flying on Airbus (as well as all other current planes), so I think you being at least a couple generations to conservative. Instead, I think it's safe to say that the "great-great-grandfathers" of some of the users of this site almost certainly flew on an Airbus. For ease of math, assume an 18 year-old-user born in 2000, 25 years per generation, and a 75 year lifespan. Their father was born in 1975, their grandfather in 1950, their great-grandfather in 1925, and their great-great-grandfather in 1900. That great-great-grandfather died in 1975, and thus assuming they flew in the last years of their life, would likely have flown on an A300. Given that these assumptions might be closer to average rather than extreme, I don't think it would be unreasonable to bet that at least one user's great-great-great-grandfather flew on an Airbus as well.
  - wbkang 8y ago
    You are right, Airbus is not as new as I thought. Still I think it was a reference to DC-10?

celticninja 8y ago

I also wonder if the fact that Boeing is a US company has anything to do with it. If this was an Airbus would the US have required grounding of the planes? I believe your point about if it happened in the US they would still have been grounded but perhaps if it wasn't a US company they would have pushed for grounding to be safe even if it did not occur in the US.

free652 8y ago
US never grounded Airbus, but grounded all Boeing 787s once.

starpilot 8y ago

> If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going No one actually says that. Even Boeing itself, when arranging corporate travel for employees, picks whatever flight is available with reasonable airfare regardless of aircraft type.

rconti 8y ago
It’s a common saying in the northwest. If not actually obeyed.

tigershark 8y ago

I completely agree and I was utterly shocked when so many “self-professed experts” on HN just dismissed everything to accuse the pilots that didn’t read the manual. As I said before I will not fly on a 737 max until all this shitshow is cleared, and I urge everyone else to avoid it.

pmontra 8y ago
I checked my next flights, some Airbus, a Fokker and two 737-800. Luckily not the MAX. I never checked the aircraft model before booking but I'll start doing it. I won't fly a MAX.
- tigershark 8y ago
  Better to be safe than to be sorry, especially when your life is at stake.
- blub 8y ago
  The airplane can be changed at the last minute, but it's worth a try I guess.

sfilargi 8y ago

Sounds like 737-Max has an inherent design flaw that they tried to patch with a software fix adding unnecessary complexity, a single point of failure(AoA sensors) and more importantly adds an element of surprise for the pilots: https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/what-is-the-boeing-737-max-maneuvering-characteristics-augmentation-system-mcas-jt610/ https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/what-is-the-boeing... Basically pretty shitty system design.

tluyben2 8y ago

> If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going I have mostly had the reverse sentiment; my experience is mainly based on 777-xxx planes, but I find the experience in those so horrible that I try to avoid Boeing in favor of Airbus. Every time when I cannot (like last week when I flew with a 777-300er) I get reminded how crap these things really are. Not talking safety but general feel and comfort; basically everything is worse; noise, seating, effects of turbulence etc. And I have noticed this across multiple premium airlines.