14 ms·

Some airlines and regulators ground 737 Max in wake of Ethiopian Airlines crash

165 points by mimixco 8y ago

mimixco 8y ago
Several more airlines grounded their 737 Max fleets today, but none of the US carriers did.
- Svip 8y ago
  Nor any European carriers, nor EASA. I also notice that Canada is not interested in grounding them at this junction. I'd imagine that US pressure is preventing the Europeans and Canadians from grounding them. At least so far anyway.
  - stunt 8y ago
    I don’t think that is true. Even if there is a pressure, most probably it is only about not going public about it. This accidents won’t harm Boeing reputation. The only thing that might hurt it is more accidents or even worse, putting pressure on Airlines to use it during investigation. So even if there is a pressure, it will be only about not going public with anything related to grounding 737Max. Anything else would be stupid.
    - jpmoral 8y ago
      How can grounding not be made public?
    - mastazi 8y ago
      How do you not go public about grounding it? Due to regulations you can't operate a scheduled flight without disclosing the aircraft type, so the moment you start operating with a different aircraft, everyone knows, even if the airline did not release an official statement.
      - stunt 8y ago
        Airlines can still do it without making a public announcement about it. For new schedules itbis easy, and for existing ones just an update on bookings or reschedule. It would take sometime for the news to go out and yet many wouldn’t consider it a grounding. That’s way better than public announcements that gets picked up by media.
        Svip 8y ago
        How would it take some time for news to notice? In the wake of this latest crash, news media and amatuers alike are constantly paying attention to what airlines with the 737 MAX-8 are doing. If they notice that airlines are starting to reschedule their flight plan to use other aircraft than the 737 MAX-8, the news will be out instantaneously. Indeed, if they do it in secret (attempt to anyway), it will probably be a lot worse than a public statement. I just don't see how you can hide that major a change (I think flight plans are public anyway) without someone noticing immediately in this day and age.
      - dmurray 8y ago
        You'd also have to cancel a lot of flights. Airlines don't tend to have a huge reserve of airworthy planes sitting idle as substitutes in case their regular fleet gets grounded.
    - zipzap324 8y ago
      >This accidents won’t harm Boeing reputation It's already harmed and they longer they wait to take action the worse it will get. Their stock price is plummeting as we speak.
  - salex89 8y ago
    Maybe it's a confidence thing. Maybe small operators from these regions feel less supported/confident than their European or American counterparts. This might be a very pessimistic approach but I suppose a lot more phones go ringing when someone from Southwest or RyanAir calls and asks:"Yo, what's up with my planes?".
    - Svip 8y ago
      That just makes it sound worse. Why should Norwegian get better support from Boeing than Comair? While I have no doubt that FAA or EASA would have reacted with more expediency had the crash occurred in their jurisdictions, it scares me to think that Boeing treats its customers differently, depending on whether they are Western or not.
      - diplocorp 8y ago
        I think the idea is that Borwegian buys a lot more planes from Boeing.
      - wholien 8y ago
        the treatment is probably proportional to how many planes they order. Im sure if ANA or Singapore Airlines have some issue with their 787s, Boeing would respond immediately. Has nothing to do with western but everything to do with money. See Lauda 004 for how Boeing treats a small Austrian airline. They only responded once the CEO (Niki Lauda) forced their hand by saying he would do a public stunt if they didn't respond.
        salex89 8y ago
        Exactly. I didn't mean to imply that Boeing is discriminating based on the locality of an airline, but there is no denying that there is more money to be earned in places other than Indonesia or Ethiopia. That probably does reflect Boeing sells and airlines buy aircraft. This is just a strong hunch, I have no empirical evidence. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe Airbus is a charity in any way and their sales are different.
        8y ago
  - mastazi 8y ago
    CASA (the Australian regulator) just did it https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-12/boeing-737-max-8-suspended-operations-australia/10894426?pfmredir=sm https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-12/boeing-737-max-8-s...
  - mhandley 8y ago
    UK CAA just grounded 737 Max, and not permitting overflight either. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-47536502 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-47536502 "The UK Civil Aviation Authority has been closely monitoring the situation, however, as we do not currently have sufficient information from the flight data recorder we have, as a precautionary measure, issued instructions to stop any commercial passenger flights from any operator arriving, departing or overflying UK airspace"
    - alexhutcheson 8y ago
      Banning overflight seems like a politically-motivated overreaction. Both incidents took place shortly after takeoff, and there's no current reason to believe the planes aren't safe at cruising altitude.
      - avar 8y ago
        Dublin airport in Ireland is about as far from UK territory as both of the 737 MAX's were from their respective airports when they crashed into the ground. It would be an unfortunate complication for the current discussion on a hard Brexit potentially happening within 3 weeks if the UK needed to work out what to do with an airplane strewn across that border on top of everything else.
  - rsynnott 8y ago
    There are very few of these in Europe currently. The UK has just grounded them, though.
  - lb1lf 8y ago
    Norwegian Airlines / DY just grounded their 737MAX, too. Presumably as UK airspace was just closed to them. Anyway - the ball is rolling; it is much easier being the [n]th airline/regulator to ground it than it is to jump first.
drinchev 8y ago
TBH at this point everyone should do it, since it will be a nightmare flying on these, until the investigation is over. I can’t imagine how the crew feels when assigned to such a fight in these circumstances.
- 6nf 8y ago
  When customers start complaining they'll ground them I think
  - distances 8y ago
    Customers are already demanding information about the plane assigned on their flight.
    - newman314 8y ago
      If you look at Southwest's Twitter feed, it's in full spin mode.
- netsharc 8y ago
  The current theory of "why" is that the new system should work automatically so there's no need for retraining, but if it goes wrong the pilot can disable it; but since there's no retraining, the doomed pilots didn't know why the planes were doing what they did and how to disable it. If I were a pilot and got assigned the same model, I would make sure to learn the procedure to disable it. And make sure the procedure really works, although how would I do that, can I ask Boeing? Since it's software, what other variables did they forget to include in their testing?
  - stevehawk 8y ago
    It's already been established however that if the pilots follow the original checklist then they would be disabling it as part of those steps. With the first crash it was decided that they quit following the steps and kept fighting the stick until it was too late.
  - 8y ago
cyberferret 8y ago
TFW when Indonesia grounds a US made aircraft type based on safety concerns! It wasn't so long ago that USA banned Indonesian carriers from flying into their airspace. As a former commercial pilot, I applaud the individual countries and airlines that are enforcing a grounding pending the investigation. The two accidents just bear too many similarities to assuage all fears that there could be a specific problem with the aircraft.
- taneq 8y ago
  Would you say that at this point it's starting to be a peer pressure issue? Once several national regulators ground the aircraft, if any regulator chooses not to and there's an incident then they'll be raked over the coals. Legally and career-wise, it's far safer for anyone in the hot seat to follow suit.
  - cyberferret 8y ago
    I daresay the pressure within the industry (plus fear of PR and legal repercussions down the track) may be playing a big part in some airlines and governments calling for the grounding. No one wants to be the guy to say "Oops" if the investigation shows up a critical issue with the plane (or worse, if another 737 MAX goes down the same way soon). As much as it will be a hit in profits to call a grounding, the alternative would be way worse. (I am thinking too that if the investigators DID find a flaw in the aircraft type, the operators may have an avenue to claim compensation from Boeing for lost revenue and profits). Personally, if I had to get on a flight tomorrow, and I saw it was a 737 MAX, I would be asking for my baggage to be unloaded and I would wait for another flight on a 737 classic, Airbus etc. And this is not just brand snootiness either - If new Airbus models had 2 crashes in a short space of time under similar circumstances, then I would boycott those until the officials have eliminated a flaw in the system as the root cause. UPDATE: Just heard that our local aviation authority (Australia) has banned the MAX from entering or leaving the country. There are a few stuck in Sydney (Fiji Air and Silk Air I believe) that will have to stay on the ground until further notice.
acqq 8y ago
Some background: 3 months ago, also discussed on HN, in the wake of the previous 737 Max crash: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18438607 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18438607 "Boeing Withheld Information on 737 Model, According to Safety Experts and Others (wsj.com)" And user Neracked remembered there Feynman's ending of his text in the Rogers Commission Report, 1986: "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/roge... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report investigating 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, related to how the managers then were responsible)
OscarTheGrinch 8y ago
It sounds like no one system of keeping the plane level is fool & error proof. OK, this might be a stupid idea, but what about a simple old spirit level, a fancy oil based one that will never freeze, mounted to the side of the cockpit to give the pilots a emergency true level backup when all else fails?
- taneq 8y ago
  It'd work fine if the plane was stationary but the moment you have any acceleration, you couldn't trust it.
  - acqq 8y ago
    During one train travel I've watched one window filled with a few inches of water between the two glass planes. If you'd trust that one alone, the train went more than 45 degrees up or down when it was actually traveling on the flat ground, but changing the speed.
- bnt 8y ago
  Are you just copy/pasting this across different discussions on this topic? While I personally like the proposal (I am no pilot so it may be a dumb idea to a professional), c/p the same post is just noise.
  - OscarTheGrinch 8y ago
    Sorry, just trying to maximize the chance of getting an answer.
    - pferde 8y ago
      So, basically the same approach that spammers use - maximizing your gain while inconveniencing everyone else. I hope you're proud of yourself.
      - seppin 8y ago
laydn 8y ago
This entire industry is (was?) based on "safety-first" principle. After two very similar incidents, I find it incomprehensible that airlines are still flying with this aircraft. Two catastrophic incidents within a few months for a new aircraft is simply unprecedented. At the very least, MAX8 fleet should be grounded for a few days, just until the FDR/CVR of ET302 are analyzed. They've already found the boxes, so it should be only a few days before we have a preliminary report.
- isostatic 8y ago
  The comet's first paying flight was May 2nd 1952, there were hull losses in Oct 1952 (no fatalities), March 1953 and May 2nd 1953. There were then 2 more in 1954.
  - willyt 8y ago
    Yes but that was 65 years ago and the context is completely different. Planes crashed all the time back then and our safety culture and technology has changed massively. These steam locomotives[0], that look like they were built by a farmer, were ~10 years old at the time. Comet was incredibly futuristic space age technology. But with no 3D CAD or FEA simulations. No X-ray or ultrasound metallurgy. Crack propagation wasn't understood. Also, there was no CRM, no safety gadgets like stick pushers/shakers. Most pilots and airline management were WW2 ex military and a couple of planes a year is nothing compared to the 4-5 they would lose in a typical bombing sortie. I think there was an attitude of it being regrettable, but just part of life. [0] http://www.railgiants.org/union-pacific-big-boy-back-head.htm http://www.railgiants.org/union-pacific-big-boy-back-head.ht...
    - lqet 8y ago
      > These steam locomotives[0], that look like they were built by a farmer This is a little derogatory, considering the mechanical wonder a steam locomotive was back then and still is today.
    - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
      >Crack propagation wasn't understood It was well enough understood. Square openings leading to stress risers and cracks has been known in ship building since at leas the 1940s.
ephemeralism 8y ago
I honestly don't understand why Boeing themselves don't ground the airplane. Having individual countries and airlines slowly doing it for them, just generates a ton of negative news stories. And the longer they wait, the more it will seem like they only did it because of pressure. And God forbid there was another crash, Boeing would be history.
- mtw 8y ago
  If they ground the plane, maybe this allow the airline to cancel orders and get deposits back?
- chvid 8y ago
  This is an important point. Boeing is being reckless with their whole business and showing bad leadership. Regardless if they are sure that there is no real risk with their planes; their reputation surely is at risk.
  - cyberferret 8y ago
    Well, they were rattled enough to postpone the global launch of their new 777X which was slated for this week.
    - chvid 8y ago
      That is even worse; they are sorta implying whatever is wrong with the max is also wrong with the 777x. They need to ground the max so they control for how long for and what is needed to clear them.
      - realityking 8y ago
        I disagree. They’re simply showing enough compassion to know that it’s not appropriate to throw a part while 150 families are mourning.
        stevehawk 8y ago
datenhorst 8y ago
What would be the quickest way for me to check which aircraft a flight I want book is being carried out with?
- consp 8y ago
  Go to any flight radar (online, google etc) and look up the previous flights with the same flight number (letter/number combo) as they usually mention the type. 99.9% of the time the plane is the same.
- asdff 8y ago
  seatguru
CompelTechnic 8y ago
If you guys are interested in some close-to-the-details reporting on individual crashes, http://avherald.com/ http://avherald.com/ is an excellent resource. For some reason I couldn't find the specific crashes related to the 737 Max in their logs though, I didn't search very very thoroughly though. It may only show certain carriers.
- dalai 8y ago
  You can search for "B38M". The top two are the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes.
nickjj 8y ago
This is really troubling. I have a flight in a month from NY to Cali on Southwest and they use that same plane (according to a quick Googling at least). Am I crazy to think about cancelling the flight or trying to use a different airline with a different plane? I'm going to wait to see what the FAA has to say before making a final decision. I don't keep up with the airline industry, but hopefully they aren't too corrupt (aka. profit driven). Edit: I just discovered https://www.seatguru.com/ https://www.seatguru.com/. It's a site where you can pop in your airline, flight date and flight number (no sign up required) and it reports back which plane is being used in the flight. In my case it is the 737-700 and 737-800 (I have 1 connection) which I think are different planes than the MAX? In any case, if you're flying in the near future I recommend checking that site out. I just wonder how accurate that site is (it seems legit from an outsider's POV).
- weaksauce 8y ago
  Well I don’t care to speculate but the first officer had only 200 hours of flight logged and the captain had over 8000. A lot of captains will let the less experienced first officer fly take off and landing if it’s favorable conditions and easy terrain to give them more experience. I don’t know who was flying the plane but it certainly could have been the fo because it was vfr conditions and seemingly favorable terrain. As to your flight you should probably be fine as there is a us rule that the fo needs to have 1500 hours to be qualified. That coupled with the fact that the pilots are now keenly aware of the failure mode of the 37 max means you are probably fine.
  - rb666 8y ago
    I would certainly cancel. Boeing still has not applied a software update, and pilots were already aware of the 737's failure mode, the 2018 crash! The FAA is being protective of US industry.
    - jimktrains2 8y ago
      Not all 737 models are affected. the -700 and -800 have excellent safety records; among the best of any airframe. These issues both happened with MAX (MAX 8 iirc) airframes. SouthWest does fly 35 MAX8 airframes it appears. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_fleet#Current_fleet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_fleet#Curre...
dis-sys 8y ago
UK grounded all Boeing 737 Max https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47536502 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47536502
leemailll 8y ago
Uk also announced grounding https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjv0KKw5_zgAhWNoYMKHWaEB7UQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fstory%2Fnews%2Fnation%2F2019%2F03%2F12%2Fboeing-737-max-8-ethiopia-australia-singapore-stop-planes-amid-crash%2F3138054002%2F&psig=AOvVaw3ElVOljnKqmEG3RU1lDxTv&ust=1552487129561429 https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjv...
Steve44 8y ago
There are reports that this aircraft was trailing smoke and making unusual noises before it crashed. From my understanding of the earlier crash it was a combination of the pilot fighting an auto-trimming system and I'm not aware that was smoking on its way down. This would seem to be a different type of incident which just happens to be in the same model of plane.
- leemailll 8y ago
  stall could lead to backfire, maybe that is what seen
- mnw21cam 8y ago
  There's also the fact that witnesses will tend to say all sorts of weird things that get proven false in video footage later on. So I personally would be cautious about believing the smoke and unusual noises.
leemailll 8y ago
It seems Eu will also ground 737 max http://fortune.com/2019/03/12/europe-uk-grounds-boeing-737-max/ http://fortune.com/2019/03/12/europe-uk-grounds-boeing-737-m...
lb1lf 8y ago
Oops. Germany, too, follows suit and closes their airspace for the MAX. https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/deutschland-sperrt-luftraum-fuer-boeing-737-max-8-16085000.html https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/deutschla...
chinathrow 8y ago
France too.
ajay-d 8y ago
Boeing says they'll issue a software update in the coming weeks. Is that what the problem was? https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-releases-statements?item=130402 https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-releases-statements?item=1...
- seppin 8y ago
  InternetofShit is starting to kill people..
js2 8y ago
Lots of comments asking why not ground these planes, so let's just for a moment imagine some reasons why that may not be the best decision if your goal is safety first. First, we know that any decision that forces passengers from flying to driving will likely lose more lives, just due to the inherit risk in flying vs driving. So it's possible that grounding the plane will cause cancellations and force some passengers into driving, especially in the US. Second, perhaps Boeing already has some advance information pointing to a different culprit than MCAS. Third, an MCAS failure need not doom the flight if the pilot responds correctly. Perhaps US carriers feel that their more experienced pilots can deal with an MCAS fault. Fourth, maybe US planes are better maintained and Boeing hasn't seen any MCAS/AoA faults on US planes. These are all guesses on my part. I don't know. What I do know is that the FAA and Boeing have way more information than any of us, that this situation is complex, that there are factors likely none of us have considered, and that we're all pretty terrible at assessing risk. Another 737 Max crash is a nightmare scenario for Boeing. If they aren't grounding this plane, it has to be based on something we don't know. Consider that grounding the plane might be the right PR decision but the wrong safety-first decision.
- Sebb767 8y ago
  The first good points I heard in favor of not grounding the plane. Thank you for the insight!
- oarabbus_ 8y ago
  >First, we know that any decision that forces passengers from flying to driving will likely lose more lives, just due to the inherit risk in flying vs driving. So it's possible that grounding the plane will cause cancellations and force some passengers into driving, especially in the US. Well air travel is safer than driving in aggregate, over decades, across hundreds of models of cars and dozens of models of planes. Even though Ford cars on the whole are quite safe, the Pinto was a death trap. Likewise although Boeing planes are safe on the whole (the regular 737 is very safe) this model could be a death trap. I disagree with your claim here. Two crashes in under 6 months is an abysmal safety record.
  - 8y ago
coldcode 8y ago
While it could certainly be the same issue, I've seen enough airline crash stories to know that your first assumption can be wildly incorrect. Typically people who investigate these things try to have no pre-conceived notions of what it could be, not much different from debugging a software crash.
gdubs 8y ago
Doesn’t this just damage the brand of the other 737 Boeing has, that from what I understand has a terrific record? I’m guessing most consumers are going to be apprehensive if they’re flying on any kind of 737. Whereas, they pull the Max and passengers would know that they're not on the troubled plane.
- rconti 8y ago
  No, for the very reason you state.
  - gdubs 8y ago
    Not sure I follow. What I’m saying is most people won’t make the distinction between the different 737s.
    - rconti 8y ago
      I thought it was well-known that 737s have been flying for decades, and an issue with a 737-Max would, necessarily, be about that specific plane. I certainly don't expect people to grasp the nuance between the 737-max800/max900, if there is one in this regard.
      - gdubs 8y ago
        I see. I mean, I actually enjoy flying despite the hastles of getting to and from the plane. But, I’d rather not take my family on a Max. However, when I hear 738 8 Max and I see 737-800 on my ticket, I immediately wonder if they’re the same thing. The presence of articles like this make me think this is a pretty common concern: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-737-max-8-boeing-737-800-how-are-the-planes-different/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-737-max-8-boeing-737-800... And this is despite the fact that I’ve always felt safe on Boeing planes because they’ve historically had such a great safety record. I would assume this is gonna have a negative impact on the 737 line as a whole, since people tend to read just the headline. Whereas, had they immediately grounded the Max, there’d be no question; as a passenger you’d know you weren’t on the troubled plane, because they grounded that one. It’s like when Romaine lettuce gets recalled; a lot of people just stop buying lettuce because they’re just not sure which kind it was that got recalled.

165 points by mimixco 8y ago

mimixco 8y ago

Several more airlines grounded their 737 Max fleets today, but none of the US carriers did.

Svip 8y ago
Nor any European carriers, nor EASA. I also notice that Canada is not interested in grounding them at this junction. I'd imagine that US pressure is preventing the Europeans and Canadians from grounding them. At least so far anyway.
- stunt 8y ago
  I don’t think that is true. Even if there is a pressure, most probably it is only about not going public about it. This accidents won’t harm Boeing reputation. The only thing that might hurt it is more accidents or even worse, putting pressure on Airlines to use it during investigation. So even if there is a pressure, it will be only about not going public with anything related to grounding 737Max. Anything else would be stupid.
  - jpmoral 8y ago
    How can grounding not be made public?
  - mastazi 8y ago
    How do you not go public about grounding it? Due to regulations you can't operate a scheduled flight without disclosing the aircraft type, so the moment you start operating with a different aircraft, everyone knows, even if the airline did not release an official statement.
    - stunt 8y ago
      Airlines can still do it without making a public announcement about it. For new schedules itbis easy, and for existing ones just an update on bookings or reschedule. It would take sometime for the news to go out and yet many wouldn’t consider it a grounding. That’s way better than public announcements that gets picked up by media.
      - Svip 8y ago
        How would it take some time for news to notice? In the wake of this latest crash, news media and amatuers alike are constantly paying attention to what airlines with the 737 MAX-8 are doing. If they notice that airlines are starting to reschedule their flight plan to use other aircraft than the 737 MAX-8, the news will be out instantaneously. Indeed, if they do it in secret (attempt to anyway), it will probably be a lot worse than a public statement. I just don't see how you can hide that major a change (I think flight plans are public anyway) without someone noticing immediately in this day and age.
    - dmurray 8y ago
      You'd also have to cancel a lot of flights. Airlines don't tend to have a huge reserve of airworthy planes sitting idle as substitutes in case their regular fleet gets grounded.
  - zipzap324 8y ago
    >This accidents won’t harm Boeing reputation It's already harmed and they longer they wait to take action the worse it will get. Their stock price is plummeting as we speak.
- salex89 8y ago
  Maybe it's a confidence thing. Maybe small operators from these regions feel less supported/confident than their European or American counterparts. This might be a very pessimistic approach but I suppose a lot more phones go ringing when someone from Southwest or RyanAir calls and asks:"Yo, what's up with my planes?".
  - Svip 8y ago
    That just makes it sound worse. Why should Norwegian get better support from Boeing than Comair? While I have no doubt that FAA or EASA would have reacted with more expediency had the crash occurred in their jurisdictions, it scares me to think that Boeing treats its customers differently, depending on whether they are Western or not.
    - diplocorp 8y ago
      I think the idea is that Borwegian buys a lot more planes from Boeing.
    - wholien 8y ago
      the treatment is probably proportional to how many planes they order. Im sure if ANA or Singapore Airlines have some issue with their 787s, Boeing would respond immediately. Has nothing to do with western but everything to do with money. See Lauda 004 for how Boeing treats a small Austrian airline. They only responded once the CEO (Niki Lauda) forced their hand by saying he would do a public stunt if they didn't respond.
      - salex89 8y ago
        Exactly. I didn't mean to imply that Boeing is discriminating based on the locality of an airline, but there is no denying that there is more money to be earned in places other than Indonesia or Ethiopia. That probably does reflect Boeing sells and airlines buy aircraft. This is just a strong hunch, I have no empirical evidence. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe Airbus is a charity in any way and their sales are different.
      - 8y ago
- mastazi 8y ago
  CASA (the Australian regulator) just did it https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-12/boeing-737-max-8-suspended-operations-australia/10894426?pfmredir=sm https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-12/boeing-737-max-8-s...
- mhandley 8y ago
  UK CAA just grounded 737 Max, and not permitting overflight either. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-47536502 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-47536502 "The UK Civil Aviation Authority has been closely monitoring the situation, however, as we do not currently have sufficient information from the flight data recorder we have, as a precautionary measure, issued instructions to stop any commercial passenger flights from any operator arriving, departing or overflying UK airspace"
  - alexhutcheson 8y ago
    Banning overflight seems like a politically-motivated overreaction. Both incidents took place shortly after takeoff, and there's no current reason to believe the planes aren't safe at cruising altitude.
    - avar 8y ago
      Dublin airport in Ireland is about as far from UK territory as both of the 737 MAX's were from their respective airports when they crashed into the ground. It would be an unfortunate complication for the current discussion on a hard Brexit potentially happening within 3 weeks if the UK needed to work out what to do with an airplane strewn across that border on top of everything else.
- rsynnott 8y ago
  There are very few of these in Europe currently. The UK has just grounded them, though.
- lb1lf 8y ago
  Norwegian Airlines / DY just grounded their 737MAX, too. Presumably as UK airspace was just closed to them. Anyway - the ball is rolling; it is much easier being the [n]th airline/regulator to ground it than it is to jump first.

drinchev 8y ago

TBH at this point everyone should do it, since it will be a nightmare flying on these, until the investigation is over. I can’t imagine how the crew feels when assigned to such a fight in these circumstances.

6nf 8y ago
When customers start complaining they'll ground them I think
- distances 8y ago
  Customers are already demanding information about the plane assigned on their flight.
  - newman314 8y ago
    If you look at Southwest's Twitter feed, it's in full spin mode.
netsharc 8y ago
The current theory of "why" is that the new system should work automatically so there's no need for retraining, but if it goes wrong the pilot can disable it; but since there's no retraining, the doomed pilots didn't know why the planes were doing what they did and how to disable it. If I were a pilot and got assigned the same model, I would make sure to learn the procedure to disable it. And make sure the procedure really works, although how would I do that, can I ask Boeing? Since it's software, what other variables did they forget to include in their testing?
- stevehawk 8y ago
  It's already been established however that if the pilots follow the original checklist then they would be disabling it as part of those steps. With the first crash it was decided that they quit following the steps and kept fighting the stick until it was too late.
- 8y ago

cyberferret 8y ago

TFW when Indonesia grounds a US made aircraft type based on safety concerns! It wasn't so long ago that USA banned Indonesian carriers from flying into their airspace. As a former commercial pilot, I applaud the individual countries and airlines that are enforcing a grounding pending the investigation. The two accidents just bear too many similarities to assuage all fears that there could be a specific problem with the aircraft.

taneq 8y ago
Would you say that at this point it's starting to be a peer pressure issue? Once several national regulators ground the aircraft, if any regulator chooses not to and there's an incident then they'll be raked over the coals. Legally and career-wise, it's far safer for anyone in the hot seat to follow suit.
- cyberferret 8y ago
  I daresay the pressure within the industry (plus fear of PR and legal repercussions down the track) may be playing a big part in some airlines and governments calling for the grounding. No one wants to be the guy to say "Oops" if the investigation shows up a critical issue with the plane (or worse, if another 737 MAX goes down the same way soon). As much as it will be a hit in profits to call a grounding, the alternative would be way worse. (I am thinking too that if the investigators DID find a flaw in the aircraft type, the operators may have an avenue to claim compensation from Boeing for lost revenue and profits). Personally, if I had to get on a flight tomorrow, and I saw it was a 737 MAX, I would be asking for my baggage to be unloaded and I would wait for another flight on a 737 classic, Airbus etc. And this is not just brand snootiness either - If new Airbus models had 2 crashes in a short space of time under similar circumstances, then I would boycott those until the officials have eliminated a flaw in the system as the root cause. UPDATE: Just heard that our local aviation authority (Australia) has banned the MAX from entering or leaving the country. There are a few stuck in Sydney (Fiji Air and Silk Air I believe) that will have to stay on the ground until further notice.

acqq 8y ago

Some background: 3 months ago, also discussed on HN, in the wake of the previous 737 Max crash: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18438607 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18438607 "Boeing Withheld Information on 737 Model, According to Safety Experts and Others (wsj.com)" And user Neracked remembered there Feynman's ending of his text in the Rogers Commission Report, 1986: "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/roge... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report investigating 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, related to how the managers then were responsible)

OscarTheGrinch 8y ago

It sounds like no one system of keeping the plane level is fool & error proof. OK, this might be a stupid idea, but what about a simple old spirit level, a fancy oil based one that will never freeze, mounted to the side of the cockpit to give the pilots a emergency true level backup when all else fails?

taneq 8y ago
It'd work fine if the plane was stationary but the moment you have any acceleration, you couldn't trust it.
- acqq 8y ago
  During one train travel I've watched one window filled with a few inches of water between the two glass planes. If you'd trust that one alone, the train went more than 45 degrees up or down when it was actually traveling on the flat ground, but changing the speed.
bnt 8y ago
Are you just copy/pasting this across different discussions on this topic? While I personally like the proposal (I am no pilot so it may be a dumb idea to a professional), c/p the same post is just noise.
- OscarTheGrinch 8y ago
  Sorry, just trying to maximize the chance of getting an answer.
  - pferde 8y ago
    So, basically the same approach that spammers use - maximizing your gain while inconveniencing everyone else. I hope you're proud of yourself.
    - seppin 8y ago

laydn 8y ago

This entire industry is (was?) based on "safety-first" principle. After two very similar incidents, I find it incomprehensible that airlines are still flying with this aircraft. Two catastrophic incidents within a few months for a new aircraft is simply unprecedented. At the very least, MAX8 fleet should be grounded for a few days, just until the FDR/CVR of ET302 are analyzed. They've already found the boxes, so it should be only a few days before we have a preliminary report.

isostatic 8y ago
The comet's first paying flight was May 2nd 1952, there were hull losses in Oct 1952 (no fatalities), March 1953 and May 2nd 1953. There were then 2 more in 1954.
- willyt 8y ago
  Yes but that was 65 years ago and the context is completely different. Planes crashed all the time back then and our safety culture and technology has changed massively. These steam locomotives[0], that look like they were built by a farmer, were ~10 years old at the time. Comet was incredibly futuristic space age technology. But with no 3D CAD or FEA simulations. No X-ray or ultrasound metallurgy. Crack propagation wasn't understood. Also, there was no CRM, no safety gadgets like stick pushers/shakers. Most pilots and airline management were WW2 ex military and a couple of planes a year is nothing compared to the 4-5 they would lose in a typical bombing sortie. I think there was an attitude of it being regrettable, but just part of life. [0] http://www.railgiants.org/union-pacific-big-boy-back-head.htm http://www.railgiants.org/union-pacific-big-boy-back-head.ht...
  - lqet 8y ago
    > These steam locomotives[0], that look like they were built by a farmer This is a little derogatory, considering the mechanical wonder a steam locomotive was back then and still is today.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    >Crack propagation wasn't understood It was well enough understood. Square openings leading to stress risers and cracks has been known in ship building since at leas the 1940s.

ephemeralism 8y ago

I honestly don't understand why Boeing themselves don't ground the airplane. Having individual countries and airlines slowly doing it for them, just generates a ton of negative news stories. And the longer they wait, the more it will seem like they only did it because of pressure. And God forbid there was another crash, Boeing would be history.

mtw 8y ago
If they ground the plane, maybe this allow the airline to cancel orders and get deposits back?
chvid 8y ago
This is an important point. Boeing is being reckless with their whole business and showing bad leadership. Regardless if they are sure that there is no real risk with their planes; their reputation surely is at risk.
- cyberferret 8y ago
  Well, they were rattled enough to postpone the global launch of their new 777X which was slated for this week.
  - chvid 8y ago
    That is even worse; they are sorta implying whatever is wrong with the max is also wrong with the 777x. They need to ground the max so they control for how long for and what is needed to clear them.
    - realityking 8y ago
      I disagree. They’re simply showing enough compassion to know that it’s not appropriate to throw a part while 150 families are mourning.
      - stevehawk 8y ago

datenhorst 8y ago

What would be the quickest way for me to check which aircraft a flight I want book is being carried out with?

consp 8y ago
Go to any flight radar (online, google etc) and look up the previous flights with the same flight number (letter/number combo) as they usually mention the type. 99.9% of the time the plane is the same.
asdff 8y ago
seatguru

CompelTechnic 8y ago

If you guys are interested in some close-to-the-details reporting on individual crashes, http://avherald.com/ http://avherald.com/ is an excellent resource. For some reason I couldn't find the specific crashes related to the 737 Max in their logs though, I didn't search very very thoroughly though. It may only show certain carriers.

dalai 8y ago
You can search for "B38M". The top two are the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes.

nickjj 8y ago

This is really troubling. I have a flight in a month from NY to Cali on Southwest and they use that same plane (according to a quick Googling at least). Am I crazy to think about cancelling the flight or trying to use a different airline with a different plane? I'm going to wait to see what the FAA has to say before making a final decision. I don't keep up with the airline industry, but hopefully they aren't too corrupt (aka. profit driven). Edit: I just discovered https://www.seatguru.com/ https://www.seatguru.com/. It's a site where you can pop in your airline, flight date and flight number (no sign up required) and it reports back which plane is being used in the flight. In my case it is the 737-700 and 737-800 (I have 1 connection) which I think are different planes than the MAX? In any case, if you're flying in the near future I recommend checking that site out. I just wonder how accurate that site is (it seems legit from an outsider's POV).

weaksauce 8y ago
Well I don’t care to speculate but the first officer had only 200 hours of flight logged and the captain had over 8000. A lot of captains will let the less experienced first officer fly take off and landing if it’s favorable conditions and easy terrain to give them more experience. I don’t know who was flying the plane but it certainly could have been the fo because it was vfr conditions and seemingly favorable terrain. As to your flight you should probably be fine as there is a us rule that the fo needs to have 1500 hours to be qualified. That coupled with the fact that the pilots are now keenly aware of the failure mode of the 37 max means you are probably fine.
- rb666 8y ago
  I would certainly cancel. Boeing still has not applied a software update, and pilots were already aware of the 737's failure mode, the 2018 crash! The FAA is being protective of US industry.
  - jimktrains2 8y ago
    Not all 737 models are affected. the -700 and -800 have excellent safety records; among the best of any airframe. These issues both happened with MAX (MAX 8 iirc) airframes. SouthWest does fly 35 MAX8 airframes it appears. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_fleet#Current_fleet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_fleet#Curre...

dis-sys 8y ago

UK grounded all Boeing 737 Max https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47536502 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47536502

leemailll 8y ago

Uk also announced grounding https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjv0KKw5_zgAhWNoYMKHWaEB7UQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fstory%2Fnews%2Fnation%2F2019%2F03%2F12%2Fboeing-737-max-8-ethiopia-australia-singapore-stop-planes-amid-crash%2F3138054002%2F&psig=AOvVaw3ElVOljnKqmEG3RU1lDxTv&ust=1552487129561429 https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjv...

Steve44 8y ago

There are reports that this aircraft was trailing smoke and making unusual noises before it crashed. From my understanding of the earlier crash it was a combination of the pilot fighting an auto-trimming system and I'm not aware that was smoking on its way down. This would seem to be a different type of incident which just happens to be in the same model of plane.

leemailll 8y ago
stall could lead to backfire, maybe that is what seen
mnw21cam 8y ago
There's also the fact that witnesses will tend to say all sorts of weird things that get proven false in video footage later on. So I personally would be cautious about believing the smoke and unusual noises.

leemailll 8y ago

It seems Eu will also ground 737 max http://fortune.com/2019/03/12/europe-uk-grounds-boeing-737-max/ http://fortune.com/2019/03/12/europe-uk-grounds-boeing-737-m...

lb1lf 8y ago

Oops. Germany, too, follows suit and closes their airspace for the MAX. https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/deutschland-sperrt-luftraum-fuer-boeing-737-max-8-16085000.html https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/deutschla...

chinathrow 8y ago

France too.

ajay-d 8y ago

Boeing says they'll issue a software update in the coming weeks. Is that what the problem was? https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-releases-statements?item=130402 https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-releases-statements?item=1...

seppin 8y ago
InternetofShit is starting to kill people..

js2 8y ago

Lots of comments asking why not ground these planes, so let's just for a moment imagine some reasons why that may not be the best decision if your goal is safety first. First, we know that any decision that forces passengers from flying to driving will likely lose more lives, just due to the inherit risk in flying vs driving. So it's possible that grounding the plane will cause cancellations and force some passengers into driving, especially in the US. Second, perhaps Boeing already has some advance information pointing to a different culprit than MCAS. Third, an MCAS failure need not doom the flight if the pilot responds correctly. Perhaps US carriers feel that their more experienced pilots can deal with an MCAS fault. Fourth, maybe US planes are better maintained and Boeing hasn't seen any MCAS/AoA faults on US planes. These are all guesses on my part. I don't know. What I do know is that the FAA and Boeing have way more information than any of us, that this situation is complex, that there are factors likely none of us have considered, and that we're all pretty terrible at assessing risk. Another 737 Max crash is a nightmare scenario for Boeing. If they aren't grounding this plane, it has to be based on something we don't know. Consider that grounding the plane might be the right PR decision but the wrong safety-first decision.

Sebb767 8y ago
The first good points I heard in favor of not grounding the plane. Thank you for the insight!
oarabbus_ 8y ago
>First, we know that any decision that forces passengers from flying to driving will likely lose more lives, just due to the inherit risk in flying vs driving. So it's possible that grounding the plane will cause cancellations and force some passengers into driving, especially in the US. Well air travel is safer than driving in aggregate, over decades, across hundreds of models of cars and dozens of models of planes. Even though Ford cars on the whole are quite safe, the Pinto was a death trap. Likewise although Boeing planes are safe on the whole (the regular 737 is very safe) this model could be a death trap. I disagree with your claim here. Two crashes in under 6 months is an abysmal safety record.
- 8y ago

coldcode 8y ago

While it could certainly be the same issue, I've seen enough airline crash stories to know that your first assumption can be wildly incorrect. Typically people who investigate these things try to have no pre-conceived notions of what it could be, not much different from debugging a software crash.

gdubs 8y ago

Doesn’t this just damage the brand of the other 737 Boeing has, that from what I understand has a terrific record? I’m guessing most consumers are going to be apprehensive if they’re flying on any kind of 737. Whereas, they pull the Max and passengers would know that they're not on the troubled plane.

rconti 8y ago
No, for the very reason you state.
- gdubs 8y ago
  Not sure I follow. What I’m saying is most people won’t make the distinction between the different 737s.
  - rconti 8y ago
    I thought it was well-known that 737s have been flying for decades, and an issue with a 737-Max would, necessarily, be about that specific plane. I certainly don't expect people to grasp the nuance between the 737-max800/max900, if there is one in this regard.
    - gdubs 8y ago
      I see. I mean, I actually enjoy flying despite the hastles of getting to and from the plane. But, I’d rather not take my family on a Max. However, when I hear 738 8 Max and I see 737-800 on my ticket, I immediately wonder if they’re the same thing. The presence of articles like this make me think this is a pretty common concern: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-737-max-8-boeing-737-800-how-are-the-planes-different/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-737-max-8-boeing-737-800... And this is despite the fact that I’ve always felt safe on Boeing planes because they’ve historically had such a great safety record. I would assume this is gonna have a negative impact on the 737 line as a whole, since people tend to read just the headline. Whereas, had they immediately grounded the Max, there’d be no question; as a passenger you’d know you weren’t on the troubled plane, because they grounded that one. It’s like when Romaine lettuce gets recalled; a lot of people just stop buying lettuce because they’re just not sure which kind it was that got recalled.