16 ms·

China orders its airlines to suspend use of Boeing 737 Max aircraft

322 points by Ultramanoid 8y ago

bitxbitxbitcoin 8y ago
The article implies that this is the Chinese government's way of signalling itself as a separate world aviation safety authority besides the FAA. Morbid as it is to think about, they're now postured in a position to benefit if another 737 Max goes down anywhere in the world.
- Ultramanoid 8y ago
  Indeed, a shrewd political move.
- Tyrek 8y ago
  Good political move, but that doesn't preclude it from being a smart move - as far as I've read so far, the conditions (weather, airline quality, etc) make this completely unexpected. Is implausible to believe that the FAA may be leaned on to suppress news that may damage Boeing, especially with the current administration, and the current slate of news coming out of Canada's shenanigans with the SNC?
  - inferiorhuman 8y ago
    The FAA doesn't operate on altruism. They were quite happy to take money from and do work for Southwest during Trump's last shutdown. And regarding the MAX, the FAA happily buried any mention of MCAS (while the Brazilian authorities wisely thought it was significant enough to document in the differences training).
- ejstronge 8y ago
  Perhaps the underlying motivation is that China is a major purchaser of the 737 Max. Indeed, Boeing built a 737 'completion' facility to improve the rate of deliveries to Chinese clients.
- asdfadsfgfdda 8y ago
  The Chinese government is also a competitor to Boeing (Comac and AVIC). Seems difficult to believe China can provide truly independent oversight over certifying airplane or engine products designed by their own government.
  - ei8htyfi5e 8y ago
    Sure but let's flip this. If the US started using China's first exported passenger plane and it went down twice in six months in similar circumstances, we would absolutely be doing the same thing.
    - zavi 8y ago
      How do you know that? Are you a person at FAA responsible for these decisions and protocols?
    - JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
      I think we should change that scenario a bit. If China was our major supplier for Aircraft with a good record for reliability, but their latest model went down twice in six months in similar circumstances, would we ground that model? Perhaps. I don't know, but I don't think your comparison is the correct one.
  - steve19 8y ago
    I am quite sure that if the FAA banned Chinese, or European, aircraft the same accusations would apply.
    - ralfn 8y ago
      That assumes Europeans or Chinese would have the same issue where nationalism constantly blinds their judgement.
      - drbytes 8y ago
        Haha +1
- est 8y ago
  If any other country ground 737s it's better for safety concerns. But if it's China, it must be political motivated.
  - s17n 8y ago
    China is a one party state which explicitly doesn't permit any organization, much less a government agency, to operate without political interference.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - chrischen 8y ago
      America is a two party state... so what? My point is if your mind is closed to looking at their actions at an objective level, there is no point arguing against your position, since it is that China is inherently evil, and is incapable of good actions. Question is, what if you’re wrong? What if one party is better than two, or four, or 8? And if you can’t consider that possibility, are you any more open than China’s politically oppressive one-party system?
      - refurb 8y ago
        There is massive gorge between a one party state and a two party state. Stop trying Arthur they are the same.
        chrischen 8y ago
        As I’m sure there is a massive difference between a two party state and a n-party state (or even senate/house). We all think our own systems are the best...
      - anticensor 8y ago
        > America is a two party state. US are a multi-party state with two dominant parties. There are many unrepresented legal political parties.
- pedrosorio 8y ago
  > The article implies that this is the Chinese government's way of signalling itself as a separate world aviation safety authority besides the FAA Are you implying that before this "signalling" the FAA was a "world aviation safety authority" and furthermore the only one?
  - United857 8y ago
    Of course, it's not the only one. But in practice, the FAA (along with its European equivalent, the EASA) are widely "trusted" by the rest of the world, meaning other countries will usually adapt their directives -- especially where safety is concerned.
sch78 8y ago
this article came a month back: 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...
- AnssiH 8y ago
  The most interesting tidbit for me was: > Boeing decided to feed M.C.A.S. with data from only one of the two angle of attack sensors at a time, depending on which of two, redundant flight control computers — one on the captain’s side, one on the first officer’s side — happened to be active on that flight.
  - leemailll 8y ago
    that’s unbelievable, it clearly disobey the redundancy in the design of plane.
    - michaelt 8y ago
      The theory is if one computer fails due to bad data from a faulty sensor, you've got another computer ready that hasn't seen said data [1]. It'd be pretty bad if bad data from a single sensor broke both computers at the same time. Obviously, the Lion Air flight did crash, so this no longer seems like such a wise design. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19077351 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19077351
dschuler 8y ago
People seem to think this is a political move by the China, which may be true, but this is actually what they're supposed to do. According to the article, 96 737 MAX jets are operated by Chinese airlines, and the aircraft appears to be racking up a questionable safety record. I wouldn't put faith in the FAA to be beyond political influence and crack down on an American manufacturer quickly. Lauda Air flight 004 [0] crashed in 1991 after inadvertent thrust reverser deployment mid-flight, which were not secured with positive locks since Boeing deemed this to be impossible. The FAA accepted Boeing's tests at face value. Regardless, Boeing insisted this would be a survivable event - it wasn't until Niki Lauda (airline's founder) insisted Boeing issue a statement to the contrary or to perform a test flight with him and two pilots attempting a deliberate reverse thrust deployment mid-flight. Boeing relented and acknowledged the defect. The more groups looking at aviation safety, the better. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_Air_Flight_004 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_Air_Flight_004
- quanticle 8y ago
  >I wouldn't put faith in the FAA to be beyond political influence and crack down on an American manufacturer quickly. I would. The FAA grounded the Boeing 787 after some widely publicized battery fires: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner_battery_problems#Groundings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner_battery_.... I would assume that they would do the same thing here, if this also turned out to be a widespread issue not related to aircraft maintenance or pilot training.
  - dis-sys 8y ago
    > I would assume that they would do the same thing here, if this also turned out to be a widespread issue not related to aircraft maintenance or pilot training. Two brand new 737 Max from two different types of airlines crashed in 6 months, what else you need to establish the fact that 737 Max worth to be grounded for a full investigation? How "widespread" it need to be? Maybe a few more crashes are required for FAA to make a move? FAA's refusal to immediately ground all 737 Max is a pure political move to defend a faulty design that have already killed hundreds of people.
PhantomGremlin 8y ago
I'm disappointed that the FAA hasn't done this. The FAA seems to be adopting Gollum's "I'm not listening" stance. There is historical precedent for the FAA suspending a type certificate. This happened after a DC-10 crash in 1979.[1] The facts are that the Indonesia crash just 5 months ago killed 189 people; this latest Ethiopia crash just killed 157 people. That's way too many dead people for a plane that has only been shipping since 2017, with less than 350 aircraft in service. Maybe it's a coincidence. Maybe the Ethiopian carrier has a bad rep for pushing pilots beyond prudent flying limits. But maybe there's something wrong with the plane! The first crash was IMO almost 100% on Boeing. They significantly changed the operating behavior of the aircraft and didn't prominently publicize that. I hope there won't be a third crash anytime soon. Right now if I were Boeing I'd be 100% in emergency design review mode. How would you like to be an engineer at Boeing right now? 346 people are dead. Is it something you did or failed to do? Did you fuck up what was a relatively minor re-design of a plane that started flying 52 years ago? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191
- drstewart 8y ago
  Do you think the Airbus 330 should be grounded? It has 11 hull losses with 1447 built. That's a rate of 2.67 per 350 built by the way -- higher than the MAX
  - inferiorhuman 8y ago
    That's a rate of 2.67 per 350 built by the way -- higher than the MAX How many of those hull loses resulted in fatalities? How many of the hull loses were due to pilot error (e.g. AF 447)? How many flights have those A330s flown? So far Boeing's lost two MAX8s that were quite new with many signs pointing to a design flaw rather than pilot error. That's a worse record than the A330.
    - yoda222 8y ago
      > How many of the hull loses were due to pilot error (e.g. AF 447)? He is counting 11 hull losses, which is the correct number of hull loss ( http://aviation-safety.net/database/types/Airbus-A330/losses http://aviation-safety.net/database/types/Airbus-A330/losses ), but he didn't bother to look for anything more than that. Out of these 11 losses, four were due to ground attack by armed groups (Two in Sri Lanka in 2001, two in Libya in 2014. These are the one marked "C1" in the page) Pretty sure that these should not count when assessing the security of a airplane (at least a civilian airplane)
jpatokal 8y ago
From the New York Times at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/business/boeing-737-max-8-aircraft-crash-china.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/business/boeing-737-max-8...: > On a commercial level, China’s aviation sector could actually benefit from the tragedies in Indonesia and Ethiopia. A government-owned company in Shanghai has begun doing flight tests of a Chinese-made alternative to the Boeing 737, called the Comac C919. The C919 is the cornerstone of China’s effort to build a commercial aviation competitor to Boeing and Airbus. It's worth noting that a) the C919 program has been severely troubled, and b) this hasn't stopped the Chinese government from arm-twisting Chinese airlines into over 1000 (!) orders. The original plan was for entry into service by 2014; as of now, they're still refining prototypes for test flights and the current goal of 2021 looks optimistic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac_C919#2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac_C919#2018 Comac's other airliner, the ARJ21 regional jet, is (barely) in service but is not faring much better: "Initial operational feedback of aircraft was rather poor. The biggest issue was inability of the aircraft to land on wet runways." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac_ARJ21 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac_ARJ21 ...and per FlightRadar24, sole customer Chengdu Airlines is no longer flying its ARJ21s: https://www.flightradar24.com/data/airlines/eu-uea/fleet https://www.flightradar24.com/data/airlines/eu-uea/fleet
fabianhjr 8y ago
The FAA has issued a similar suspension before: with the DC-10. Mustard — The DC-10 Story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-085TjhUPo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-085TjhUPo Aviation Regulation Agencies will ideally put safety first, and it is a shame that the 737 MAX is either unlucky to be involved in 2 deadly incidents or it does have a design flaw that should be revised.
speedplane 8y ago
Forget China, think about yourself. If you have an option to fly on a 737 Max or another aircraft right now, which would you choose? I suspect market forces will ground these planes anyway.
- em3rgent0rdr 8y ago
  I'd guesstimate flying on a 737 Max is still safer than driving a car.
  - miemo 8y ago
    well driving a max is safer than a shark tasteless
  - cjbprime 8y ago
    The actual option is going to be flying on a Max vs. choosing a different airline or flight number that uses a different model of plane.
    - amyjess 8y ago
      Yes, I've been toying around with the idea of booking a flight for later this year when I get paid on Friday, and I'm paying careful attention to the flight numbers on Southwest's website to make sure that whatever I pick won't be a MAX. (fortunately, the flights between DAL and LGA seem to be mostly 700s, at least during the time of year I want to travel)
  - izzydata 8y ago
    The chance of getting in an accident when calculated by per mile driven and not by per drive is quite low.
- fulafel 8y ago
  Frequent air travelers are becoming self-selected for less planning/foresight than the average person wrt global warming concerns, I wonder if this changes the accident risk aversion of the average flyer.
em3rgent0rdr 8y ago
"zero tolerance for safety hazards." Well everything has some risk. There should be some small tolerance, or else we wouldn't do anything.
tuna-piano 8y ago
I’m most curious what 737 Max pilots think. Are they comfortable flying this plane tomorrow? I assume we’ll be hearing from them and their unions in the coming days, and would put a good amount of trust in what they say (they are the ones who know the airplanes and are at personal risk of death if things go wrong).
- Johnny555 8y ago
  I think you'll know tomorrow -- if the airlines have a mass sickout of pilots scheduled to fly the 737-MAX, then you'll know that they aren't comfortable flying it. If any pilot had any serious reservations about the safety of the aircraft, I can't imagine them flying.
- sfilargi 8y ago
  https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/safety/120514-ethiopian-737-crash-2.html https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/safety/120514-ethiopian-7...
  - jaclaz 8y ago
    Thanks, the two articles linked to on that forum were very interesting and clear eough even for a non-expert like myself: https://leehamnews.com/2018/11/07/boeing-issues-737-operations-manual-bulletin-after-lion-air-accident/ https://leehamnews.com/2018/11/07/boeing-issues-737-operatio... https://leehamnews.com/2018/11/14/boeings-automatic-trim-for-the-737-max-was-not-disclosed-to-the-pilots/ https://leehamnews.com/2018/11/14/boeings-automatic-trim-for...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
hohohmm 8y ago
It befuddles me to see people relating this to external motivations, not a genuine concern for safety. Would you fly 737 max8 tomorrow? Anybody who knows anything about Chinese aviation industry knows that it is severely government-regulated industry and the top 1 priority is safety. It has better records than the American counterpart. While BOEING(being one of the pillars of American industry) might twist arms in corporate America, it simply doesn't have enough influence to warrant such risks with the Chinese government. Simple as that. I would very much appreciate FAA doing the same. And it saddens me to see my comment being downvoted so rapidly. Has it become too hard in this corporate America to not buy into this bs? Has it not been obvious from history lessons that companies can only be held up to the moral standards that the law could effectively demand? A thorough investigation means potentially losing hundreds of billions of dollars. I would not expect Boeing to jump into this without some iron-fisted slaps. In the current trade circumstances, doubly not so. It is FAA's job to be doubtful and strict, not Boeing's. And it disappoints when FAA is testing reasonable doubts with human lives, not Boeing's profits. If you are so inclined to downvote this, fly 737 max8 whenever you can probably help your corporate daddies more. Put your life on it where you mean it.
- notimetorelax 8y ago
  For what it’s worth, I checked what planes I take on my next flight with the full intent to change the airline if it was 737 max8.
- kerng 8y ago
  You have very good points, I assume the FAA will issue a similar message soon - as it seems the most logical step if one cares about safety. I will certainly not fly in one of these planes anytime soon.
- sk5t 8y ago
  > It has better records than the American counterpart What is the basis for this statement? And are you trying to say something about airline maintenance policy, or manufacturing, or training, or record-keeping?
  - 8y ago
jfoster 8y ago
A suspension can always be lifted. If something appears like it may be beyond a coincidence, it doesn't seem like a bad move to suspend until more is known.
SubiculumCode 8y ago
I need to book a flight. Does anybody know whether Google Flight differentiates Boeing 737s from the 737 Max in its listings (where it lists the type of plane for a flight). I haven't seen any that say max..
- ww520 8y ago
  Go to Seat Guru to enter your airline and flight date. It will show the seat layout of the flight, along with the plane model. e.g. https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/American_Airlines/American_Airlines_Boeing_737_Max_8.php https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/American_Airlines/American...
  - rbanffy 8y ago
    Airlines are known to change airplanes if usage is too low or too high (beyond overbooking limits)
- koyote 8y ago
  The only way to mostly guarantee this is to fly with an airline that does not have a 737 Max (or has any orders).
- vinay427 8y ago
  Last I checked, Southwest distinguishes between the 737 Max and other 737 variants when shopping for a flight. This is particularly important for them as they only fly 737s. I can't check anymore because their site seems to be blocked for users outside of the US, or at least from the two countries from which I've tried.
- amyjess 8y ago
  I don't know about Google, but if you're on Southwest's website, you can click on the flight number and it'll tell you what model of 737 it'll be.
TimTheTinker 8y ago
My family (wife and kids) and I have a scheduled flight on a Southwest 737 MAX this week. I'm worried about whether there's an unacceptable risk involved in flying on a 737 MAX because of this morning's crash (and last year's Lion Air crash). After a bit of googling, I found this article from November 2018: https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/southwest-airlines-is-adding-new-angle-of-attack-indicators-to-its-737-max-fleet/ https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/southwest-airlines... Apparently, Southwest has been updating glass cockpits in its 737 MAX fleet to include extra indicators to mitigate factors that led to the 2018 Lion Air crash, like an on-screen AOA indicator and a warning light to indicate when AOA sensors don't agree. (I do wish they had gone far enough to disable the MCAS system when one AOA sensor indicates high AOA and the two sensors disagree by more than 2x their individual tolerance.) That mitigates our risk in the chance that the crash was caused by the same factors that led to the 2018 Lion Air crash, but I'm still nervous as the cause of this morning's crash is unknown.
- mbgaxyz 8y ago
  https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-10/ethiopian-crash-throws-spotlight-back-on-boeing https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-10/ethiop... > A software update intended to fix the problem identified in the Lion Air crash still hasn’t been rolled out. The fact that the crew on Flight 610 are likely to have been aware of the known issues with the aircraft, too, raises the more worrying possibility that there’s an unknown complication. 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... > The relocated engines and their refined nacelle shape caused an upward pitching moment -- in essence, the Max's nose was getting nudged skyward... putting the aircraft at risk of stalling, according to a series of questions and answers provided to pilots at Southwest Airlines. The Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System(MCAS) was designed to address this.
- cjbprime 8y ago
  I am generally the person who says things like "the plane will be many times safer than the car ride to get to the airport", and I would cancel that flight. (And I would further be shocked if the FAA doesn't issue a ground suspension of the MAX tomorrow.) And hey, Southwest gives full credit for cancellations, right? The Lion Air crash was world news. If any 737 pilot heard about it, presumably went through extra training in its aftermath, and yet was unable to avoid the exact same takeoff->unreliable airspeed->stall pattern, then it's simply not possible to rely on piloting to avoid stalling the plane. As far as I know this Ethiopia crash was in visual conditions: the pilots could see the ground, which means they weren't confused about what their AoA was. I'm not an expert, but I think control failure of the airliner under these conditions is basically unprecedented. There's a planned MCAS software update that's been delayed for months: after that actually ships seems like the right time for people to start flying the plane again. https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-and-regulators-delay-jetliner-fixes-prompted-by-lion-air-crash-11549821489 https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-and-regulators-delay-jet...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
cameldrv 8y ago
Maybe it's politically motivated, but IMO so is the FAA's certification and nonaction so far. Boeing promised a software fix by January, and the FAA's decision not to ground the fleet was probably informally based on that promise. Unfortunately the software fix is proving more difficult than anticipated. Regulated, safety-critical software, whose failure leads to a smoking crater full of bodies can be like that. Especially in this case where it's not going to be just a bugfix, but probably a major redesign of the concept of the MCAS. Ultimately though there are over 5000 orders for the 737MAX. The list price is $121 million. That makes the total value of the order book $600 Billion at list prices. That's roughly the market cap of Google or Apple, and the 737MAX is extremely important to the U.S. balance of trade. There is obviously going to be a political component to any big regulatory action on it. The FAA needs to make a major course correction here, because what's even more important long-term than a single, very popular airplane to the U.S. economy is FAA's credibility as a regulator. In most countries, FAA certification means rubber-stamp certification from the local authority. As long as it is, it's a huge advantage to the U.S. aviation industry, because the FAA can write regs that are favorable to U.S. interests. This is only true though as long as the FAA is seen to have integrity. In this case, when it comes to that, by my reading (and I'm not a lawyer or an expert), the MCAS is in violation of FAR part 25.672, and the 737MAX is not airworthy.
- taurath 8y ago
  Sadly I think it still comes down to lack of real competition - that’s why this is gonna be such a big deal, air travel safety in general is in the balance. Everyone that flys regularly should hope this is a coincidence because the supply chain isn’t there to fill in for grounded 737s - there won’t be enough planes in general. Like the adage about owing a billion to the bank being their problem, a crash is an airlines problem, but 3 crashes of the same plane for the same reason is the air industries problem.
- cjbprime 8y ago
  I wonder if there's a cognitive bias punishing action vs. inaction here, too, in the decision to delay the software fix -- when they decide to delay the fix again to consider improving it further, are they accurately calculating the consequences of the inaction of having no deployed fix?
beefield 8y ago
Has someone already gotten flight data of all 737max flights from adsbexchange and put that into torrent so that all budding data scientists and investigative journalists can take a shot to find out how many flights actually have had this kind of erratic behaviour in the flight path but that have managed to land safely?
toephu2 8y ago
Because one plane went down now everyone is scared and going to cancel any 737 flights. Irrational humans that pay attention to the news. Your chances of dying in a car accident are much higher than dying from flying on a Boeing 737. Are you still going to drive to work tomorrow though? Edit: Yes it is good that 737s are being suspended and investigated but still, statistically speaking, flying is safer than driving. The media just likes fear-mongering headlines (not this article, but others in general).
- shawabawa3 8y ago
  2 planes have gone down in 6 months, basically unprecedented in commercial aviation
  - ReptileMan 8y ago
    777 with Malaysia Airlines. But in one case it was highjacking by the pilot and in other anti aircraft missile. But it was not problems with the airplanes per se. The new Max is having issues. Whether it need combo of inexperienced pilots and specific chain of sensor errors to be presented simultaneously is to be seen.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - brandon272 8y ago
    Also worth noting that they have only built 350 737 MAX aircraft so far. 2 already destroyed out of 350 doesn't seem like a plane I want to fly on, regardless of industry-wide stats regarding accidents per billion miles travelled.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- tirpen 8y ago
  No, because two planes went down within 6 months.
leemailll 8y ago
Besides China, Ethiopian and cayman airlines both grounded their 737max
- occamrazor 8y ago
  Indonesia too.
xcv10 8y ago
Rumors are that the model (a stretched version) is aerodynamically unstable without FBW. Stretched versions of the MD11 cargo also mad many stability problems.
pfdietz 8y ago
I'm flying on business this week. I checked if I'm booked on any 737 MAXs (I am not).
PaulHoule 8y ago
What people are forgetting here is that the 737 Max is an airplane that is designed to make flying more miserable even if you survive the flight. The common seat layout of the Max 8 squeezes in more rows for a worse experience. Compare the 737 to the Embrarer 175 - the Embrarer is a much smaller plane but it has an elliptical fuselage so that you can stand up comfortably in it and also not get a crick in your neck from being inside a too-small circle. Many words have been written on the flying experience getting worse, but not enough have been written on the 737. Not too long ago you could find a decent plane like a 757 on a major route in the U.S. (say JFK to LAX) but now you have to squeeze yourself into a 737 sardine can, breathe toxic fumes, etc. It's just awful. But you only hear about it when they are hell-bent on re-engining a plane which isn't tall enough to fit a high-bypass engine and then they have to do all kinds of crazy things to make it fit. Boeing had a chance to do a clean-sheet design of the 737 but they didn't and now Embrarer is going to eat their lunch.
- exidy 8y ago
  The 737 and 757 (and 707 and 727) all have exactly the same fuselage diameter, the 757 is merely longer. Seat pitch is determined by the airline. I agree with you about the re-engining though. Seems Boeing might have pushed the 737 airframe one generation too far.
- gruez 8y ago
  > breathe toxic fumes Elaborate?
  - PaulHoule 8y ago
    The 737 uses an air bleed system instead of a modern electric system.
    - gruez 8y ago
      What airliners use bleedless system other than the 787? My speculation is that 737 max is a "refresh" of the 737, rather than a complete redesign like the 787, hence why the 787 has new features even though it came out later.
FunnyLookinHat 8y ago
Black box has been located - so I guess we'll see if we get to hear what they find: https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/11/africa/black-box-found-boeing-ethiopian-air-crash-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/11/africa/black-box-found-boeing... If you're interested in wading into the arguments of whether or not this plane is safer or more dangerous than others this is a useful resource: http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm
appleflaxen 8y ago
Not only is this an appropriate (and probably correct - time will tell) reaction by China, but it represents the Chinese government taking consumer safety and health more seriously than the US. Does anyone know if this is the first such example? They've come a long way from the scandal of having melamine in the milk.
- cat199 8y ago
  > it represents the Chinese government taking consumer safety and health more seriously than the US. current trade discussions w/r/t fentanyl regulation in PRC would suggest otherwise
tyingq 8y ago
I took Boeing's order list[1], and made a list of 737 MAX Operators with numbers of orders and already delivered: https://gist.github.com/tyingq/5c45907c22ec62c00e02079e1fecf274 https://gist.github.com/tyingq/5c45907c22ec62c00e02079e1fecf... [1]http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/displaystandardreport.cfm?cboCurrentModel=737&optReportType=AllModels&cboAllModel=737&ViewReportF=View+Report http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/displaystandardre...
- dawson 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_and_deliveries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
duado 8y ago
Our family was scheduled to fly Southwest this month. Checked the flights and sometimes they’re 737 Max 8’s. Cancelled the flights last night.
sky_nox 8y ago
Two plane crashes under six months, something is seriously wrong with this model. New planes never crash this much. Rest in peace to the 157 deceased.

322 points by Ultramanoid 8y ago

The article implies that this is the Chinese government's way of signalling itself as a separate world aviation safety authority besides the FAA. Morbid as it is to think about, they're now postured in a position to benefit if another 737 Max goes down anywhere in the world.

Ultramanoid 8y ago
Indeed, a shrewd political move.
Tyrek 8y ago
Good political move, but that doesn't preclude it from being a smart move - as far as I've read so far, the conditions (weather, airline quality, etc) make this completely unexpected. Is implausible to believe that the FAA may be leaned on to suppress news that may damage Boeing, especially with the current administration, and the current slate of news coming out of Canada's shenanigans with the SNC?
- inferiorhuman 8y ago
  The FAA doesn't operate on altruism. They were quite happy to take money from and do work for Southwest during Trump's last shutdown. And regarding the MAX, the FAA happily buried any mention of MCAS (while the Brazilian authorities wisely thought it was significant enough to document in the differences training).
ejstronge 8y ago
Perhaps the underlying motivation is that China is a major purchaser of the 737 Max. Indeed, Boeing built a 737 'completion' facility to improve the rate of deliveries to Chinese clients.
asdfadsfgfdda 8y ago
The Chinese government is also a competitor to Boeing (Comac and AVIC). Seems difficult to believe China can provide truly independent oversight over certifying airplane or engine products designed by their own government.
- ei8htyfi5e 8y ago
  Sure but let's flip this. If the US started using China's first exported passenger plane and it went down twice in six months in similar circumstances, we would absolutely be doing the same thing.
  - zavi 8y ago
    How do you know that? Are you a person at FAA responsible for these decisions and protocols?
  - JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
    I think we should change that scenario a bit. If China was our major supplier for Aircraft with a good record for reliability, but their latest model went down twice in six months in similar circumstances, would we ground that model? Perhaps. I don't know, but I don't think your comparison is the correct one.
- steve19 8y ago
  I am quite sure that if the FAA banned Chinese, or European, aircraft the same accusations would apply.
  - ralfn 8y ago
    That assumes Europeans or Chinese would have the same issue where nationalism constantly blinds their judgement.
    - drbytes 8y ago
      Haha +1
est 8y ago
If any other country ground 737s it's better for safety concerns. But if it's China, it must be political motivated.
- s17n 8y ago
  China is a one party state which explicitly doesn't permit any organization, much less a government agency, to operate without political interference.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - chrischen 8y ago
    America is a two party state... so what? My point is if your mind is closed to looking at their actions at an objective level, there is no point arguing against your position, since it is that China is inherently evil, and is incapable of good actions. Question is, what if you’re wrong? What if one party is better than two, or four, or 8? And if you can’t consider that possibility, are you any more open than China’s politically oppressive one-party system?
    - refurb 8y ago
      There is massive gorge between a one party state and a two party state. Stop trying Arthur they are the same.
      - chrischen 8y ago
        As I’m sure there is a massive difference between a two party state and a n-party state (or even senate/house). We all think our own systems are the best...
    - anticensor 8y ago
      > America is a two party state. US are a multi-party state with two dominant parties. There are many unrepresented legal political parties.
pedrosorio 8y ago
> The article implies that this is the Chinese government's way of signalling itself as a separate world aviation safety authority besides the FAA Are you implying that before this "signalling" the FAA was a "world aviation safety authority" and furthermore the only one?
- United857 8y ago
  Of course, it's not the only one. But in practice, the FAA (along with its European equivalent, the EASA) are widely "trusted" by the rest of the world, meaning other countries will usually adapt their directives -- especially where safety is concerned.

sch78 8y ago

this article came a month back: 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...

AnssiH 8y ago
The most interesting tidbit for me was: > Boeing decided to feed M.C.A.S. with data from only one of the two angle of attack sensors at a time, depending on which of two, redundant flight control computers — one on the captain’s side, one on the first officer’s side — happened to be active on that flight.
- leemailll 8y ago
  that’s unbelievable, it clearly disobey the redundancy in the design of plane.
  - michaelt 8y ago
    The theory is if one computer fails due to bad data from a faulty sensor, you've got another computer ready that hasn't seen said data [1]. It'd be pretty bad if bad data from a single sensor broke both computers at the same time. Obviously, the Lion Air flight did crash, so this no longer seems like such a wise design. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19077351 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19077351

dschuler 8y ago

People seem to think this is a political move by the China, which may be true, but this is actually what they're supposed to do. According to the article, 96 737 MAX jets are operated by Chinese airlines, and the aircraft appears to be racking up a questionable safety record. I wouldn't put faith in the FAA to be beyond political influence and crack down on an American manufacturer quickly. Lauda Air flight 004 [0] crashed in 1991 after inadvertent thrust reverser deployment mid-flight, which were not secured with positive locks since Boeing deemed this to be impossible. The FAA accepted Boeing's tests at face value. Regardless, Boeing insisted this would be a survivable event - it wasn't until Niki Lauda (airline's founder) insisted Boeing issue a statement to the contrary or to perform a test flight with him and two pilots attempting a deliberate reverse thrust deployment mid-flight. Boeing relented and acknowledged the defect. The more groups looking at aviation safety, the better. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_Air_Flight_004 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_Air_Flight_004

quanticle 8y ago
>I wouldn't put faith in the FAA to be beyond political influence and crack down on an American manufacturer quickly. I would. The FAA grounded the Boeing 787 after some widely publicized battery fires: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner_battery_problems#Groundings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner_battery_.... I would assume that they would do the same thing here, if this also turned out to be a widespread issue not related to aircraft maintenance or pilot training.
- dis-sys 8y ago
  > I would assume that they would do the same thing here, if this also turned out to be a widespread issue not related to aircraft maintenance or pilot training. Two brand new 737 Max from two different types of airlines crashed in 6 months, what else you need to establish the fact that 737 Max worth to be grounded for a full investigation? How "widespread" it need to be? Maybe a few more crashes are required for FAA to make a move? FAA's refusal to immediately ground all 737 Max is a pure political move to defend a faulty design that have already killed hundreds of people.

PhantomGremlin 8y ago

I'm disappointed that the FAA hasn't done this. The FAA seems to be adopting Gollum's "I'm not listening" stance. There is historical precedent for the FAA suspending a type certificate. This happened after a DC-10 crash in 1979.[1] The facts are that the Indonesia crash just 5 months ago killed 189 people; this latest Ethiopia crash just killed 157 people. That's way too many dead people for a plane that has only been shipping since 2017, with less than 350 aircraft in service. Maybe it's a coincidence. Maybe the Ethiopian carrier has a bad rep for pushing pilots beyond prudent flying limits. But maybe there's something wrong with the plane! The first crash was IMO almost 100% on Boeing. They significantly changed the operating behavior of the aircraft and didn't prominently publicize that. I hope there won't be a third crash anytime soon. Right now if I were Boeing I'd be 100% in emergency design review mode. How would you like to be an engineer at Boeing right now? 346 people are dead. Is it something you did or failed to do? Did you fuck up what was a relatively minor re-design of a plane that started flying 52 years ago? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191

drstewart 8y ago
Do you think the Airbus 330 should be grounded? It has 11 hull losses with 1447 built. That's a rate of 2.67 per 350 built by the way -- higher than the MAX
- inferiorhuman 8y ago
  That's a rate of 2.67 per 350 built by the way -- higher than the MAX How many of those hull loses resulted in fatalities? How many of the hull loses were due to pilot error (e.g. AF 447)? How many flights have those A330s flown? So far Boeing's lost two MAX8s that were quite new with many signs pointing to a design flaw rather than pilot error. That's a worse record than the A330.
  - yoda222 8y ago
    > How many of the hull loses were due to pilot error (e.g. AF 447)? He is counting 11 hull losses, which is the correct number of hull loss ( http://aviation-safety.net/database/types/Airbus-A330/losses http://aviation-safety.net/database/types/Airbus-A330/losses ), but he didn't bother to look for anything more than that. Out of these 11 losses, four were due to ground attack by armed groups (Two in Sri Lanka in 2001, two in Libya in 2014. These are the one marked "C1" in the page) Pretty sure that these should not count when assessing the security of a airplane (at least a civilian airplane)

jpatokal 8y ago

From the New York Times at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/business/boeing-737-max-8-aircraft-crash-china.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/business/boeing-737-max-8...: > On a commercial level, China’s aviation sector could actually benefit from the tragedies in Indonesia and Ethiopia. A government-owned company in Shanghai has begun doing flight tests of a Chinese-made alternative to the Boeing 737, called the Comac C919. The C919 is the cornerstone of China’s effort to build a commercial aviation competitor to Boeing and Airbus. It's worth noting that a) the C919 program has been severely troubled, and b) this hasn't stopped the Chinese government from arm-twisting Chinese airlines into over 1000 (!) orders. The original plan was for entry into service by 2014; as of now, they're still refining prototypes for test flights and the current goal of 2021 looks optimistic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac_C919#2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac_C919#2018 Comac's other airliner, the ARJ21 regional jet, is (barely) in service but is not faring much better: "Initial operational feedback of aircraft was rather poor. The biggest issue was inability of the aircraft to land on wet runways." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac_ARJ21 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac_ARJ21 ...and per FlightRadar24, sole customer Chengdu Airlines is no longer flying its ARJ21s: https://www.flightradar24.com/data/airlines/eu-uea/fleet https://www.flightradar24.com/data/airlines/eu-uea/fleet

fabianhjr 8y ago

The FAA has issued a similar suspension before: with the DC-10. Mustard — The DC-10 Story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-085TjhUPo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-085TjhUPo Aviation Regulation Agencies will ideally put safety first, and it is a shame that the 737 MAX is either unlucky to be involved in 2 deadly incidents or it does have a design flaw that should be revised.

speedplane 8y ago

Forget China, think about yourself. If you have an option to fly on a 737 Max or another aircraft right now, which would you choose? I suspect market forces will ground these planes anyway.

em3rgent0rdr 8y ago
I'd guesstimate flying on a 737 Max is still safer than driving a car.
- miemo 8y ago
  well driving a max is safer than a shark tasteless
- cjbprime 8y ago
  The actual option is going to be flying on a Max vs. choosing a different airline or flight number that uses a different model of plane.
  - amyjess 8y ago
    Yes, I've been toying around with the idea of booking a flight for later this year when I get paid on Friday, and I'm paying careful attention to the flight numbers on Southwest's website to make sure that whatever I pick won't be a MAX. (fortunately, the flights between DAL and LGA seem to be mostly 700s, at least during the time of year I want to travel)
- izzydata 8y ago
  The chance of getting in an accident when calculated by per mile driven and not by per drive is quite low.
fulafel 8y ago
Frequent air travelers are becoming self-selected for less planning/foresight than the average person wrt global warming concerns, I wonder if this changes the accident risk aversion of the average flyer.

em3rgent0rdr 8y ago

"zero tolerance for safety hazards." Well everything has some risk. There should be some small tolerance, or else we wouldn't do anything.

tuna-piano 8y ago

I’m most curious what 737 Max pilots think. Are they comfortable flying this plane tomorrow? I assume we’ll be hearing from them and their unions in the coming days, and would put a good amount of trust in what they say (they are the ones who know the airplanes and are at personal risk of death if things go wrong).

Johnny555 8y ago
I think you'll know tomorrow -- if the airlines have a mass sickout of pilots scheduled to fly the 737-MAX, then you'll know that they aren't comfortable flying it. If any pilot had any serious reservations about the safety of the aircraft, I can't imagine them flying.
sfilargi 8y ago
https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/safety/120514-ethiopian-737-crash-2.html https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/safety/120514-ethiopian-7...
- jaclaz 8y ago
  Thanks, the two articles linked to on that forum were very interesting and clear eough even for a non-expert like myself: https://leehamnews.com/2018/11/07/boeing-issues-737-operations-manual-bulletin-after-lion-air-accident/ https://leehamnews.com/2018/11/07/boeing-issues-737-operatio... https://leehamnews.com/2018/11/14/boeings-automatic-trim-for-the-737-max-was-not-disclosed-to-the-pilots/ https://leehamnews.com/2018/11/14/boeings-automatic-trim-for...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

hohohmm 8y ago

It befuddles me to see people relating this to external motivations, not a genuine concern for safety. Would you fly 737 max8 tomorrow? Anybody who knows anything about Chinese aviation industry knows that it is severely government-regulated industry and the top 1 priority is safety. It has better records than the American counterpart. While BOEING(being one of the pillars of American industry) might twist arms in corporate America, it simply doesn't have enough influence to warrant such risks with the Chinese government. Simple as that. I would very much appreciate FAA doing the same. And it saddens me to see my comment being downvoted so rapidly. Has it become too hard in this corporate America to not buy into this bs? Has it not been obvious from history lessons that companies can only be held up to the moral standards that the law could effectively demand? A thorough investigation means potentially losing hundreds of billions of dollars. I would not expect Boeing to jump into this without some iron-fisted slaps. In the current trade circumstances, doubly not so. It is FAA's job to be doubtful and strict, not Boeing's. And it disappoints when FAA is testing reasonable doubts with human lives, not Boeing's profits. If you are so inclined to downvote this, fly 737 max8 whenever you can probably help your corporate daddies more. Put your life on it where you mean it.

notimetorelax 8y ago
For what it’s worth, I checked what planes I take on my next flight with the full intent to change the airline if it was 737 max8.
kerng 8y ago
You have very good points, I assume the FAA will issue a similar message soon - as it seems the most logical step if one cares about safety. I will certainly not fly in one of these planes anytime soon.
sk5t 8y ago
> It has better records than the American counterpart What is the basis for this statement? And are you trying to say something about airline maintenance policy, or manufacturing, or training, or record-keeping?
- 8y ago

jfoster 8y ago

A suspension can always be lifted. If something appears like it may be beyond a coincidence, it doesn't seem like a bad move to suspend until more is known.

SubiculumCode 8y ago

I need to book a flight. Does anybody know whether Google Flight differentiates Boeing 737s from the 737 Max in its listings (where it lists the type of plane for a flight). I haven't seen any that say max..

ww520 8y ago
Go to Seat Guru to enter your airline and flight date. It will show the seat layout of the flight, along with the plane model. e.g. https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/American_Airlines/American_Airlines_Boeing_737_Max_8.php https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/American_Airlines/American...
- rbanffy 8y ago
  Airlines are known to change airplanes if usage is too low or too high (beyond overbooking limits)
koyote 8y ago
The only way to mostly guarantee this is to fly with an airline that does not have a 737 Max (or has any orders).
vinay427 8y ago
Last I checked, Southwest distinguishes between the 737 Max and other 737 variants when shopping for a flight. This is particularly important for them as they only fly 737s. I can't check anymore because their site seems to be blocked for users outside of the US, or at least from the two countries from which I've tried.
amyjess 8y ago
I don't know about Google, but if you're on Southwest's website, you can click on the flight number and it'll tell you what model of 737 it'll be.

TimTheTinker 8y ago

My family (wife and kids) and I have a scheduled flight on a Southwest 737 MAX this week. I'm worried about whether there's an unacceptable risk involved in flying on a 737 MAX because of this morning's crash (and last year's Lion Air crash). After a bit of googling, I found this article from November 2018: https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/southwest-airlines-is-adding-new-angle-of-attack-indicators-to-its-737-max-fleet/ https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/southwest-airlines... Apparently, Southwest has been updating glass cockpits in its 737 MAX fleet to include extra indicators to mitigate factors that led to the 2018 Lion Air crash, like an on-screen AOA indicator and a warning light to indicate when AOA sensors don't agree. (I do wish they had gone far enough to disable the MCAS system when one AOA sensor indicates high AOA and the two sensors disagree by more than 2x their individual tolerance.) That mitigates our risk in the chance that the crash was caused by the same factors that led to the 2018 Lion Air crash, but I'm still nervous as the cause of this morning's crash is unknown.

mbgaxyz 8y ago
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-10/ethiopian-crash-throws-spotlight-back-on-boeing https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-10/ethiop... > A software update intended to fix the problem identified in the Lion Air crash still hasn’t been rolled out. The fact that the crew on Flight 610 are likely to have been aware of the known issues with the aircraft, too, raises the more worrying possibility that there’s an unknown complication. 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... > The relocated engines and their refined nacelle shape caused an upward pitching moment -- in essence, the Max's nose was getting nudged skyward... putting the aircraft at risk of stalling, according to a series of questions and answers provided to pilots at Southwest Airlines. The Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System(MCAS) was designed to address this.
cjbprime 8y ago
I am generally the person who says things like "the plane will be many times safer than the car ride to get to the airport", and I would cancel that flight. (And I would further be shocked if the FAA doesn't issue a ground suspension of the MAX tomorrow.) And hey, Southwest gives full credit for cancellations, right? The Lion Air crash was world news. If any 737 pilot heard about it, presumably went through extra training in its aftermath, and yet was unable to avoid the exact same takeoff->unreliable airspeed->stall pattern, then it's simply not possible to rely on piloting to avoid stalling the plane. As far as I know this Ethiopia crash was in visual conditions: the pilots could see the ground, which means they weren't confused about what their AoA was. I'm not an expert, but I think control failure of the airliner under these conditions is basically unprecedented. There's a planned MCAS software update that's been delayed for months: after that actually ships seems like the right time for people to start flying the plane again. https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-and-regulators-delay-jetliner-fixes-prompted-by-lion-air-crash-11549821489 https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-and-regulators-delay-jet...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

cameldrv 8y ago

Maybe it's politically motivated, but IMO so is the FAA's certification and nonaction so far. Boeing promised a software fix by January, and the FAA's decision not to ground the fleet was probably informally based on that promise. Unfortunately the software fix is proving more difficult than anticipated. Regulated, safety-critical software, whose failure leads to a smoking crater full of bodies can be like that. Especially in this case where it's not going to be just a bugfix, but probably a major redesign of the concept of the MCAS. Ultimately though there are over 5000 orders for the 737MAX. The list price is $121 million. That makes the total value of the order book $600 Billion at list prices. That's roughly the market cap of Google or Apple, and the 737MAX is extremely important to the U.S. balance of trade. There is obviously going to be a political component to any big regulatory action on it. The FAA needs to make a major course correction here, because what's even more important long-term than a single, very popular airplane to the U.S. economy is FAA's credibility as a regulator. In most countries, FAA certification means rubber-stamp certification from the local authority. As long as it is, it's a huge advantage to the U.S. aviation industry, because the FAA can write regs that are favorable to U.S. interests. This is only true though as long as the FAA is seen to have integrity. In this case, when it comes to that, by my reading (and I'm not a lawyer or an expert), the MCAS is in violation of FAR part 25.672, and the 737MAX is not airworthy.

taurath 8y ago
Sadly I think it still comes down to lack of real competition - that’s why this is gonna be such a big deal, air travel safety in general is in the balance. Everyone that flys regularly should hope this is a coincidence because the supply chain isn’t there to fill in for grounded 737s - there won’t be enough planes in general. Like the adage about owing a billion to the bank being their problem, a crash is an airlines problem, but 3 crashes of the same plane for the same reason is the air industries problem.
cjbprime 8y ago
I wonder if there's a cognitive bias punishing action vs. inaction here, too, in the decision to delay the software fix -- when they decide to delay the fix again to consider improving it further, are they accurately calculating the consequences of the inaction of having no deployed fix?

beefield 8y ago

Has someone already gotten flight data of all 737max flights from adsbexchange and put that into torrent so that all budding data scientists and investigative journalists can take a shot to find out how many flights actually have had this kind of erratic behaviour in the flight path but that have managed to land safely?

toephu2 8y ago

Because one plane went down now everyone is scared and going to cancel any 737 flights. Irrational humans that pay attention to the news. Your chances of dying in a car accident are much higher than dying from flying on a Boeing 737. Are you still going to drive to work tomorrow though? Edit: Yes it is good that 737s are being suspended and investigated but still, statistically speaking, flying is safer than driving. The media just likes fear-mongering headlines (not this article, but others in general).

shawabawa3 8y ago
2 planes have gone down in 6 months, basically unprecedented in commercial aviation
- ReptileMan 8y ago
  777 with Malaysia Airlines. But in one case it was highjacking by the pilot and in other anti aircraft missile. But it was not problems with the airplanes per se. The new Max is having issues. Whether it need combo of inexperienced pilots and specific chain of sensor errors to be presented simultaneously is to be seen.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- brandon272 8y ago
  Also worth noting that they have only built 350 737 MAX aircraft so far. 2 already destroyed out of 350 doesn't seem like a plane I want to fly on, regardless of industry-wide stats regarding accidents per billion miles travelled.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
tirpen 8y ago
No, because two planes went down within 6 months.

leemailll 8y ago

Besides China, Ethiopian and cayman airlines both grounded their 737max

occamrazor 8y ago
Indonesia too.

xcv10 8y ago

Rumors are that the model (a stretched version) is aerodynamically unstable without FBW. Stretched versions of the MD11 cargo also mad many stability problems.

pfdietz 8y ago

I'm flying on business this week. I checked if I'm booked on any 737 MAXs (I am not).

PaulHoule 8y ago

What people are forgetting here is that the 737 Max is an airplane that is designed to make flying more miserable even if you survive the flight. The common seat layout of the Max 8 squeezes in more rows for a worse experience. Compare the 737 to the Embrarer 175 - the Embrarer is a much smaller plane but it has an elliptical fuselage so that you can stand up comfortably in it and also not get a crick in your neck from being inside a too-small circle. Many words have been written on the flying experience getting worse, but not enough have been written on the 737. Not too long ago you could find a decent plane like a 757 on a major route in the U.S. (say JFK to LAX) but now you have to squeeze yourself into a 737 sardine can, breathe toxic fumes, etc. It's just awful. But you only hear about it when they are hell-bent on re-engining a plane which isn't tall enough to fit a high-bypass engine and then they have to do all kinds of crazy things to make it fit. Boeing had a chance to do a clean-sheet design of the 737 but they didn't and now Embrarer is going to eat their lunch.

exidy 8y ago
The 737 and 757 (and 707 and 727) all have exactly the same fuselage diameter, the 757 is merely longer. Seat pitch is determined by the airline. I agree with you about the re-engining though. Seems Boeing might have pushed the 737 airframe one generation too far.
gruez 8y ago
> breathe toxic fumes Elaborate?
- PaulHoule 8y ago
  The 737 uses an air bleed system instead of a modern electric system.
  - gruez 8y ago
    What airliners use bleedless system other than the 787? My speculation is that 737 max is a "refresh" of the 737, rather than a complete redesign like the 787, hence why the 787 has new features even though it came out later.

FunnyLookinHat 8y ago

Black box has been located - so I guess we'll see if we get to hear what they find: https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/11/africa/black-box-found-boeing-ethiopian-air-crash-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/11/africa/black-box-found-boeing... If you're interested in wading into the arguments of whether or not this plane is safer or more dangerous than others this is a useful resource: http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm

appleflaxen 8y ago

Not only is this an appropriate (and probably correct - time will tell) reaction by China, but it represents the Chinese government taking consumer safety and health more seriously than the US. Does anyone know if this is the first such example? They've come a long way from the scandal of having melamine in the milk.

cat199 8y ago
> it represents the Chinese government taking consumer safety and health more seriously than the US. current trade discussions w/r/t fentanyl regulation in PRC would suggest otherwise

tyingq 8y ago

I took Boeing's order list[1], and made a list of 737 MAX Operators with numbers of orders and already delivered: https://gist.github.com/tyingq/5c45907c22ec62c00e02079e1fecf274 https://gist.github.com/tyingq/5c45907c22ec62c00e02079e1fecf... [1]http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/displaystandardreport.cfm?cboCurrentModel=737&optReportType=AllModels&cboAllModel=737&ViewReportF=View+Report http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/displaystandardre...

dawson 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_and_deliveries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

duado 8y ago

Our family was scheduled to fly Southwest this month. Checked the flights and sometimes they’re 737 Max 8’s. Cancelled the flights last night.

sky_nox 8y ago

Two plane crashes under six months, something is seriously wrong with this model. New planes never crash this much. Rest in peace to the 157 deceased.