4 ms·
> 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.
by 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.
- smallbigfish 8y agoIt depends on who died.
- userbinator 8y agoIndeed. If this happened to a US airline, I bet the reaction would be quite different.
- snowwrestler 8y agoYes because FAA understands well the maintenance and training standards of US airlines. These are factors that depend on airline, not airframe, and affect the likelihood of crashes.
- petschge 8y agoI can not speak to Lion Air, but Ethiopian Airlines has a good maintenance and training record. It is widely considered the best airline in Africa and does maintenance for a lot of other airlines on the continent.
- sangnoir 8y agoAll airlines that fly into the US - including Ethiopian - follow FAA rules on maintenance and training. So the FAA already understands the Ethiopian standards well, since they set them.
- Johnny555 8y agoThe cause of this crash hasn't been determined, some witnesses described seeing flames before the plane hit the ground, so it's entirely possible that a cargo hold fire took the plane down. the black box should be relatively easy to find (assuming it survived), so investigators should have a better idea about the cause soon.
- dis-sys 8y ago> The cause of this crash hasn't been determined that is the exact reason why all 737 Max should be immediately grounded for a full investigation. or are you suggesting to further risk lives just to protect the interests of a company which had two of its brand new jets crashed in 6 months? Will you defend a Russian/Chinese manufacturer posing similar obvious fatal risks to the public when FAA orders all of them to be grounded in the US?
- wokwokwok 8y agoTouché
- Rooster61 8y ago> Will you defend a Russian/Chinese manufacturer posing similar obvious fatal risks to the public when FAA orders all of them to be grounded in the US? The person you are replying to made no reference to the countries/governments involved. Please do not assume someone's argument is politically charged if they have said nothing to imply that it is. It assumes the worst of people with no impetus.
- Rooster61 8y agoThe pilots indicated a difficulty controlling the plane before it went down. We certainly can't rule out a cargo hold fire severing control avenues, but it's hard to shake the possibility that the flight software did something goofy after the Lion flight that went down.
- AlexTWithBeard 8y agowhat else you need to establish the fact that 737 Max worth to be grounded for a full investigation? With all my respect, this is an opinion, not a fact. A fact has to be proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Here it's just "likely to be true" at best.
- Rooster61 8y agoThis isn't a court of law. People have died on this aircraft twice in 6 months. Fact beyond reasonable doubt is not the threshold for taking actions of prevention while make sure nothing is wrong with that airframe.
- pbhjpbhj 8y agoYes, indeed courts also use "balanced of probabilities" in civil cases which is a much lower threshold that may well be met here.