13 ms·

US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

• trhway 8y ago
  they stopped flying 737 Max even in Russia. That is in the country where drunk (not to mention heavily hanged over) pilots isn't something out of ordinary :) Anyway, reading for example this 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... for a layman like me it sounds like making 737 (statically stable plane) into the Max Boeing produced a kind of F-16 - a statically unstable (and thus a great dogfighter) plane which cant be flown manually and requires constant controls adjustments by software.
• tzakrajs 8y ago
  What does the US know that the EU or China doesn't which gives them such confidence? Any clues?
  • FPGAhacker 8y ago
    The cost of grounding.
  • JackPoach 8y ago
    Nothing. Boeing lobby power in US is exceptional. That's the only reason.
    • redisman 8y ago
      Our actual current Secretary of Defense spent 30 years at Boeing.
      • briandear 8y ago
        And that has zero relevance here as the FAA is Department of Transportation.
        • AsyncAwait 8y ago
          Right, and the departments are completely separated and don't work on a 'You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' basis, ever. /s
    • isostatic 8y ago
      I really hope that’s not the case - I can see the argument that this might not be a design fault and we need to wait and see - just like a330s weren’t grounded after AF447 China clearly grounded ge planes for political reasons, and maybe other countries did it due to the optics. However if the decision in the US has been pushed simply for political reasons that’s a terrible indightment on the industry.
      • nraynaud 8y ago
        Af447 immediately suspected the pitot tubes, as it was an ongoing effort to change them for a different model when the crash happened. A bit like in the Boeing case, it was hoped that the pilot would manually handle the issue if the freezing happened.
        • isostatic 8y ago
          And A330s weren't grounded. Had there been a second crash for the same reason though....
      • AsyncAwait 8y ago
        > China clearly grounded ge planes for political reasons Of course, it cannot be that they rather be cautious, right? After all, it's just Chinese lives at risk. Do you really think that? Perhaps the FAA did not ground the planes due to lobbying.
  • stirlo 8y ago
    They know Boeing makes up 10.5% of the Dow... [1] or it did before these crashes, currently under 10% due the the stock price dropping [1] http://indexarb.com/indexComponentWtsDJ.html http://indexarb.com/indexComponentWtsDJ.html
    • argd678 8y ago
      The FAA was intentionally made independent of airline advocacy to avoid conflicts of interest that previous government agencies overseeing air travel in the past had. So it’s odd if it’s not based on the data.
      • chopin 8y ago
        If it's based on data why not publishing it?
        • arnon 8y ago
          That's exactly the thing. There is no data to the contrary. You can't prove that the FAA is wrong, because we don't know why both planes crashed. We have assumptions, and there's a public perception - but it may not be correct.
          • paganel 8y ago
            > You can't prove that the FAA is wrong, because we don't know why both planes crashed. From an outsider's perspective is the FAA's task to prove that both those crashes were unrelated to each other, because for a very safe industry like aviation a slight correlation (two almost identical planes crashed in a span of 6 months in clear-weather conditions) is often times seen as causation by most of the people directly involved: potential customers, the general public that helps pay the taxes that keep both Boeing and Airbus making airplanes etc.
          • lagadu 8y ago
            But we do have data: two airplanes of the exact same model crashed within less than 6 months, sure maybe that's just an outlier and not indicative of poor safety but at this point it falls on them to prove that.
  • gsich 8y ago
    Money.
  • mikejb 8y ago
    Safety is always a priority, but it's never the only one: There's also an economical factor in the equation. Other nations have less to lose by grounding these planes, leading to a different result between 'risking human lives' vs 'causing financial impact'. Finally, airplanes may have different configurations. I only skimmed some discussions and I'm not well versed in the subject so take what I say with a grain of salt, but there seem potential differences in configurations, e.g. AOA disagree indicators (which is related to the potential cause for both accidents); Some airlines (I think South West at least) also announced changes w.r.t. those systems after the Lion Air accident. That might also change the 'risking human lives' variable in the equation.
    • paxys 8y ago
      > Other nations have less to lose by grounding these planes By what measure?
      • mikejb 8y ago
        By financial measure. If Norway grounds the plane (by not allowing it in its airspace), it impacts their (and other nations) airlines. If the US ground the plane, it impacts their (and other nations) airlines, and their airplane manufacturer. (The impact for the latter is hard to measure, particularly for the long-term).
      • rsynnott 8y ago
        This is a very new plane, and most deliveries so far have been in the US or China. In particular, it's easy for EASA to ground it; there are only a handful operating in Europe anyway. Impact of the China grounding would be larger, tho.
    • caprese 8y ago
      These other nations are staffed by people just like you and I who understand why the US (as in the regulator, head of the executive branch, the states, and the discretion of the private companies involved) would be incapable of doing the same calculus. They know of the incestuous relationship with the regulators and private industry and its history, just as much as a US citizen is aware of an irrelevant country's corruption and that country's chronic inability to reform it. So they just make the call: ground it, the US can't, but they will do a comprehensive investigation. Let it play out.
  • dbt00 8y ago
    In short, the Max-8 ships with a shitty default configuration. After the first crash, the FAA and the major american airlines with these planes aggressively updated the instrument panel settings, warnings and processes to ensure pilots were aware if there was a sensor disagreement that could cause the MCAS system to accidentally stall. (I know this is true for Southwest, I assume the rest followed suit.) While the default configuration and the behavior of the MCAS system are both hideously awful, the FAA trusts their process to have fixed it, and I think their results back up the call.
    • winslow 8y ago
      You mentioned "know this is true for Southwest" do you have a source by chance?
      • dbt00 8y ago
        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...
    • raverbashing 8y ago
      "Shitty default configuration" I suspect this goes by another name: it's a configuration that focus on commonality with the previous generation Because adding the indicator and how to handle situations will add training hours, this is not done. But I'm glad Southwest is doing it.
  • microtherion 8y ago
    https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/12/08/boeing-pledges-1-million-donald-trumps-inaugural-events/95164604/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/...
  • AsyncAwait 8y ago
    They know that they have to protect the economic interests of their companies and if that means blaming everything on '3rd world pilots', (with the implied racism and all that), so be it.
• Jedi72 8y ago
  I wonder pilots are feeling about it? It will cause a very big stink if one crashes in the US.
  • iscrewyou 8y ago
    At that point, not only will Boeing be at fault, but heads at FAA as well. On the other hand, FAA is known to be very strict when it comes to safety. So, I feel like they must think that US pilots are trained for what the alleged issue seems to be (MCAS).
    • jliptzin 8y ago
      Still, that wouldn’t help foreign planes crashing into our cities.
      • caprese 8y ago
        that won't happen because this issue only happens during takeoff, and all the foreign airlines have grounded their fleets already problem solved we did it America
        • TheArcane 8y ago
          It's ridiculous to think that just because they've trained their own pilots for this, and that the issue can happen in foreign territories, they can wash their hands off of this
  • kartan 8y ago
    > It will cause a very big stink if one crashes in the US. And people will die and families will suffer.
  • Jach 8y ago
    Pilots will do what the union (ALPA) does. So far I just see condolences. https://twitter.com/WeAreALPA https://twitter.com/WeAreALPA (Edit: We can also see that another pilot union for AA is confident in the plane: https://www.alliedpilots.org/News/ID/6769/Allied-Pilots-Association-Remains-Confident-in-Boeing-737-Max https://www.alliedpilots.org/News/ID/6769/Allied-Pilots-Asso... )
• supermw 8y ago
  There’s really not a need to ground the 737 Max. The easy solution is if you don’t want to fly in one don’t book a flight that uses that plane. Now sure, maybe by grounding the planes you can argue you are protecting people who are ignorant about what plane they are booking, but a person could easily be killed getting a taxi or an Uber, but that doesn’t mean we stop them from operating. Even with the recent crashes, these planes are still far safer than cars. And really with the amount of travel that happens everyday I don’t think it would be wise to keep such a large amount of airplanes on the ground for little to no reason.
• atlasunshrugged 8y ago
  Will this basically be negated by enough other countries grounding it though? It seems to me that if the EU, China, the UK, and other major countries are all grounding it then many others are likely to follow suit basically making it irrelevant if there are one or two holdouts (even if one of them is the U.S.)
  • paxys 8y ago
    There are a ton of these aircraft flying in the US domestically and on US-Canada routes.
    • atlasunshrugged 8y ago
      Got it, can states/airports decide unilaterally not to serve them? I imagine if the highest volume airports banned these flights it would ground the vast majority of them
      • zavi 8y ago
        No? FAA makes these decisions.
        • dingaling 8y ago
          Yes, an airport could reject any flightplan filed with type B38M or B39M citing operational reasons. The exception to this in the USA is when the airport is in receipt of FAA improvement grants, when they are obliged to accept all compatible traffic. Or more subtly adjust landing and handling fees to astronomical levels for those types. That's how Gatwick in the UK discourages small turboprops, for example.
• stirlo 8y ago
  It’s scary to think how complicit the FAA was in granting Boeing’s wish that this 30 year newer plane with substantially larger engines only required 2-3 hours of new training and said training was able to miss covering entire systems like MCAS. Now 350 people are dead, all the FAA can be thankful of is the dead are foreigners so it’s unlikely they’ll be held properly accountable.
  • av_throwaway_19 8y ago
    It isn't just the FAA and Boeing. Where I work many of us have a "common type rating" between the A330 and A350 (-900 and -1000). While I commend Airbus for making them similar they are in no way common enough to justify the minuscule training course. Flying the A350 you get lots of brilliant features like brake-to-vacate, auto wing leveling during a crosswind landing (when you de-crab), differential flap setting in the cruise for CP control and better fuel efficiency. And so on. However, coming back to the 330 after lots of 350 flying it's very easy to forget just what you have and don't have. Both have very different cockpit layouts. Even something simple like cockpit lighting is totally different. They have significantly different limitations, speeds and procedures for dealing with abnormal situations. Additionally, the A350 still has a fair share of teething problems. The list of Temporary Abnormal Behaviors is quite long and hasn't shortened much in the last couple of years. Throw some fatigue into the mix and it's not much fun. My company's error rates have increased on the "common fleet" by almost triple. Yet our regulator thinks it's all good.
    • poof131 8y ago
      > My company's error rates have increased on the "common fleet" by almost triple. That is Terrifying. It seems like the FAA has optimized for allowing the Manufacturers and Airlines to streamline changes and operations while slowly letting safety deteriorate. Perhaps these accidents will force what seems like a needed change in type ratings.
      • sib 8y ago
        From GP's comment, it appears that s/he is not referring to the FAA. "It isn't just the FAA and Boeing."
• mnm1 8y ago
  2 crashes in less than 6 months for a plane that's been in service less than 24 months, yet "no systemic performance issues". Somebody's going to die so US companies can make a some extra profits. Business as usual here.
• anoncoward111 8y ago
  "Profits over people! Go on then, we've got a plane to fly. We've put too many hours into this plane to turn back now! Don't show weakness!" - Boeing
  • briandear 8y ago
    Good grief, when was the last time Airbus grounded anything?
    • FartyMcFarter 8y ago
      When was the last time that two brand new Airbus planes of the same new model crashed in similar ways?
      • _Codemonkeyism 8y ago
        When was the last time that two brand new Airbus planes of the same model crashed in similar ways and the EASA didn't ground the model?
      • anoncoward111 8y ago
        Within 6 months of each other, out of only 400,000 flights! The fact that Americans and other Westerners died onboard and US Govt is like "lalalalalalala keep flying" shows how little they care
      • somecontext 8y ago
        I don't know whether this is "the last time", but perhaps others might find this example informative. The A320 first crashed on literally its first passenger flight "(in service for two days)". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296 Later, an A320 crashed less than two months after delivery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Airlines_Flight_605 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Airlines_Flight_605 These two crashes, as well as a third flight later, Wikipedia describes as "a series of crashes caused, at least in part, by what was believed to be pilots' unfamiliarity with the sophisticated computer system of the Airbus A320". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Inter_Flight_148 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Inter_Flight_148 Different sources disagree on the causes of these flights. Most indicate "pilot error", but the pilots themselves and other organizations dispute these reports and instead claim design flaws with the aircraft. In general, most discussions of the accidents focus on the new fly-by-wire system.
• baxtr 8y ago
  From a customer perspective I would have appreciated a joint approach of the major aviation agencies. The way it is handled right now, I can’t judge whether the EU is reacting shortsighted or if the US is too careless. One seems to be true?
  • curiousgal 8y ago
    None, US politicians are looking after their self-interest. Lobbying strikes again!
    • caprese 8y ago
      well this would also mean EU authorities are looking after their self-interest too, even if that self-interest happens to mean that it more likely preserves lives.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  • chappi42 8y ago
    It's easier for the EU, they don't have many MAX planes. It's likely too early to say something definitive and in times of social medial pressure one conformes if possible.
    • isostatic 8y ago
      The US doesn’t have many MAX planes either. Southwest have 35/755 planes American 22/956 Norwegian by comparison have 18/163 - a far higher proportion (of course Norwegian isn’t an EU airlin but they have EU subsidiaries included in that total)
      • lagadu 8y ago
        Norwegian is technically an EU airline because despite the name they're also headquartered in EU countries. This is so because being EU-based they're free to use all EU airports to base flights out of, which they use to good extent to make flights between the US and the French Caribbean islands, something that would be impossible had they been solely HQd in Norway :) Check out this video about it (Norwegian starts at about 10 minutes in): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thqbjA2DC-E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thqbjA2DC-E edit: turns out they're registed in several countries, not just Denmark.
• bredren 8y ago
  Meanwhile Samsung Galaxy Note 7 and hover boards still banned.
• curiousgal 8y ago
  You are not allowed to bring more than 100ml of water because of safety concerns but we will fly you on on airplane model that has failed twice in 2 years of service.
  • adsadadsad 8y ago
    I curse America everytime this inconveniences me, damn globalization of your silly rules..
    • akuji1993 8y ago
      You are not remembering correctly. TSA doesn't care what kind of water it is, you take 100ml or less with you. Also I'm not quite sure, you know what the word 'machine' means.
      • akuji1993 8y ago
        Nice edit to the original comment btw. Makes me look like a dumbass.
        • adsadadsad 8y ago
          Ah sorry that makes two of us then, I would of replied earlier but I had to find a dictionary to lookup the word machine. Pot kettle black lmao
    • adwww 8y ago
      I think this was actually a British rule, after MI5 disrupted a plot to bring down a transatlantic airliner with a peroxide bomb.
  • rb666 8y ago
    With the X-ray scanners installed at modern airports you're allowed to bring filled bottles into planes again. Also don't have to remove anything from your luggage, it's great!
• kerng 8y ago
  What I dont understand is why the airlines themselves (Southwest and American) are refusing to halt the planes - this seems totally irresponsible with what is known at this point.
  • js2 8y ago
    Re: Southwest: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19378827 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19378827
  • twblalock 8y ago
    What is known at this point is that another 737 Max crashed for some reason, which might have been unrelated to the cause of the last crash, while being flown by an airline with a questionable safety record. If this turns out to have been a terrorist attack or something like that, a lot of people are going to have to eat their words, and millions of dollars will have been wasted for nothing.
    • isostatic 8y ago
      And if it turns out to be a fault in the max’s design, operation, or training procedures?
    • La1n 8y ago
      You keep saying millions of dollars will have been wasted. However consider an other option where it turns out to be a problem with more airplanes and hundreds of of lives 'will be wasted'. Some countries take a more precautionary approach to risk than others where there is uncertainty, and I, personally, am happy to live somewhere that is willing to take the decision to prevent possible harm to human life instead of possible harm to (a relatively small section of) the economy, where there is uncertainty.
    • jbm 8y ago
      Not a questionable safety record. Can we please stop assuming that African countries and airlines are all the same? https://thepointsguy.com/news/despite-recent-crash-ethiopian-airlines-has-strong-safety-record/ https://thepointsguy.com/news/despite-recent-crash-ethiopian...
• johmue 8y ago
  max crash aircraft - what a headline
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• _cerv 8y ago
  Some points from personal experience from working at Boeing, family working at Boeing, and a close friend on the flight line for the 737-8; - not everything is back from the Lion Air incident, but internally there was strong confidence that a lack of pilot familiarity with the adjusted mechanics of MCAS contributed to the disaster - reproducing these failures has been extremely hard and has required a lot of cooperation with other airlines and agencies, and that has been difficult - training for the 737-8 and -9 was just short of non existent because in practice, these planes don’t fly differently. - since Lion Air, Boeing has been in somewhat of a “panic mode” but confidence isn’t that the airframe and engine mechanics are at fault - Lion and Ethiopian Air are near the bottom when it comes to maintenance and follow up with Boeing - as of this morning, it sounded like there are more uncertainties with this incident given that the pilot indicated troubles after take off, but I’m find it hard to back up that claim in what’s already been published This isn’t about greed or the FAA being in the pocket of Boeing, it’s that there were already adjustments made to fix MCAS and the investigation from Ethiopia isn’t in yet.
  • Svip 8y ago
    > - Lion and Ethiopian Air are near the bottom when it comes to maintenance and follow up with Boeing Another commenter mentioned that Ethiopian Airline is considered Category 1 by the FAA, and is a member of the Star Alliance. Surely that indicates a decent track record? I'm not saying it _is_ the plane, but as the EASA Emergency Airworthiness Directive points out, while a connection between the two incidents cannot be established, neither can one be ruled out. And for that reason, they are grounding the planes as a prudent temporary measure till we know more.
    • isostatic 8y ago
      Quite. That doesn’t pass the sniff test. If it turns out this is Boeing’s fault, for the reasons suspected, and the FAA have staked their reputation on it - I fear for the future of airline safety.
      • askmike 8y ago
• sundayfunday 8y ago
  Someone shared this on a different forums, it’s a recent NPR interview of a pilot for American Airlines. https://overcast.fm/+nmn7rqq0/06:04 https://overcast.fm/+nmn7rqq0/06:04 It’s a short interview but in short, * Boeing left out info on the new flight control system in the pilots manual they trained with * the training to fly the new planes was 56 minutes of PowerPoint presentations on an iPad * he would not have known how to correct the system in the Lion Air crash had he have been the pilot
  • chipsa 8y ago
    If he doesn't know how to correct for runaway stabilizer trim, then he probably should be decertified. It's a memory item: https://www.theairlinepilots.com/forumarchive/b737/b737memoryitems.php#i https://www.theairlinepilots.com/forumarchive/b737/b737memor... And the checklist is 4 items long. Item 3 disables MCAS.
    • lqet 8y ago
      I am curious regarding item 4: STABILIZER TRIM WHEEL - GRASP and HOLD How does the trim wheel work? Is it mechanically connected to the stabilizer?
      • 20after4 8y ago
        Yes I believe it's mechanically connected.
        • lqet 8y ago
          Ok, so in the worst case you are still able to block the motor that does the automatic trimming with your bare hands. Which seems like a reasonable fall-back. Thanks!
      • racingmars 8y ago
        > How does the trim wheel work? Is it mechanically connected to the stabilizer? On 737s, yes, the trim wheel is mechanically connected by cables. To quote the 737-800 FCOM: "Manual stabilizer control is accomplished through cables which allow the pilot to position the stabilizer by rotating the stabilizer trim wheels. The stabilizer is held in position by two independent brake systems. Manual rotation of the trim wheels can be used to override autopilot or main electric trim. The effort required to manually rotate the stabilizer trim wheels may be higher under certain flight conditions. Grasping the stabilizer trim wheel will stop stabilizer trim motion."
• twblalock 8y ago
  Lots of jumping to conclusions going on in this thread, blaming the FAA, lobbyists, and politicians for being in the pocket of Boeing. Nobody knows why this plane crashed. The flight recorders have just been recovered and so far there has been nothing in the news about what was on them. The plane might be to blame. The airline or the pilots might be to blame, and by the way, that airline has a bad safety record. It might have been a bomb, or a fire caused by a passenger, or many other things. The sudden rush to judgment on this case is unjustified by the evidence. If it turns out this was not Boeing's fault, a lot of people are going to have to eat their words, and millions of dollars will have been wasted for nothing.
  • sankoz 8y ago
    > that airline has a bad safety record Could you substantiate the above claim ? Whatever I have read indicates Ethiopian has a very good safety record. e.g. The airline has a safety rating of six stars out of a possible seven on respected aviation site AirlineRating.com. Source: https://thepointsguy.com/news/despite-recent-crash-ethiopian-airlines-has-strong-safety-record/ https://thepointsguy.com/news/despite-recent-crash-ethiopian...
  • Legogris 8y ago
    > The sudden rush to judgment on this case is unjustified by the evidence. If it turns out this was not Boeing's fault, a lot of people are going to have to eat their words, and millions of dollars will have been wasted for nothing. The prudent thing would be to err on the side of caution and suspend it until we know. What's millions of dollars (which I think is way exaggerated for a temporary suspension until the evidence is in) compared to a real risk of loss of human lives?
    • em3rgent0rdr 8y ago
      There is risk most any human activity. Your prudent thing would result in suspending any beneficial activity with any possible risk. The a prudent thing would be to err on the side of still receiving the benefits of 737 air travel.
• Legogris 8y ago
  I don't get it. Airline workers, Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney and democratic senators are for suspending it, which China, the EU and Australia have already done. What's going on at the FAA?
  • tibbydudeza 8y ago
    Boeing spends a lot of money on lobbying and the CEO called Trump after his tweet.
    • josefresco 8y ago
      I came here to see if anyone was talking about this specific issue and I found your comment (downvoted of course). Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/ethiopia-airlines-trump/trump-spoke-to-boeing-ceo-after-tweets-about-airplane-safety-source-idUSL1N20Z1C3 https://www.reuters.com/article/ethiopia-airlines-trump/trum... Some background: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-airlines-trump/ties-between-boeing-and-trump-run-deep-idUSKBN1QT2MQ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-airlines-trump/t...
  • CydeWeys 8y ago
    All the listed people are in the legislative branch. The FAA is part of the executive branch. Short of passing a law that grounds the 737 MAX, legislators don't really have a say here. Interestingly, Trump has also come out against the plane, but his uninformed Twitter ramblings are by and large (rightfully) ignored by the executive branch. And he's not against the 737 MAX for valid reasons, but for luddite ones.
    • magduf 8y ago
      Yep, Trump says a lot of really stupid stuff (like his comments about the electromagnetic launchers on the new Ford carrier). But in this case, even if his reasoning is stupid, it'd be better if the executive branch actually followed his lead and grounded the plane.
      • 8y ago
• nutcracker46 8y ago
  This is a "fifth risk" scenario, where the FAA misjudges other countries' aviation authorities as mere America bashers. The Feds also misjudge their own threat environment, gambling that the rate of hull losses due to MCAS problems is low enough to fly through. The question, "What if we're wrong?" doesn't get asked. Instead, the FAA Administrator's boss tweets a complaint about aircraft being too complicated. No, the problem isn't overcomplication, it is failure to build, document, and train for the aircraft and pilots you have, not the ones you want. The Trump FAA are clueless political hacks, not professional safety experts and airmen. They don't handle black swans well, and think of economic costs before human costs.
  • sparkling 8y ago
    [The Trump FAA are clueless political hacks, not professional safety experts and airmen.] Surely you have the FAA employee turnover % numbers available since Trump took office?
    • mywittyname 8y ago
      Not to defend the parent comment, but the Director of the FAA was replaced with a Trump appointment about a year ago after completing a 5 year term. The FAA went from being led by a Democrat, civilian, and life-long civil servant to Republican Air Force LtCol. I would be surprised if they had similar views on how best to lead the agency. From the wikipedia article about our current FAA Director: > Elwell was named Vice President of the Aerospace Industries Association[5] in 2008 where he stayed until 2013. Elwell was a civil aerospace manufacturer representative in this capacity where he was an advocate for various companies.[2] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-swamp-earns-its-wings-airline-lobbyist-takes-control-of-the-faa https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-swamp-earns-its-wings...
• Axsuul 8y ago
  Quite frankly I think it’s a bit sensationalist for people and the media to point fingers at the FAA for making “irresponsible decisions” and being beholden to lobbyists while conveniently ignoring their track record. The FAA is notorious for their draconian ways which has become the impetus behind why air travel is now the safest mode of transportation today. In fact, there hasn't been a hull loss on US soil since 2009, a magnificent safety record. The FAA is a very hands-on agency. There is an inherent difference to how planes are maintained that touch US soil vs. those in other parts of the world. For example, many planes that fly in South America would never pass FAA inspection and would never be considered airworthy. That means a flight itinerary of LAX-SCL vs. LAX-PTY-SCL are very different when it comes to safety since the plane that departs from Panama is not inspected by the FAA. So not only is the FAA risking an insurmountable amount of fallout for making this statement, they also have the credibility and processes to stand behind it. With that said, I think it makes prudent sense for other countries to ground their 737 MAX planes since they simply don't have the FAA.
  • mindentropy 8y ago
    > With that said, I think it makes prudent sense for other countries to ground their 737 MAX planes since they simply don't have the FAA. If a plane has enormous costs for maintenance then it should be justified for grounding or prevent them from buying. This is very similar to cars. A car which is very costly to maintain but very reliable does not inspire much confidence for me when I am driving in remote areas. A car which is easy to maintain, reliable and with low costs and big service network with plenty of spare parts inspires a lot of confidence and I will take it anywhere.
  • bencoder 8y ago
    > there hasn't been a hull loss on US soil since 2009 Until 3 weeks ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Air_Flight_3591 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Air_Flight_3591
    • gok 8y ago
      GP must have meant "hull loss of a passenger flight with mass fatalities". Asiana 214 was a hull loss on US soil, as was American 383, etc
• TomMckenny 8y ago
  How can this possibly be a surprise. It's public interest vs a multitude of companies: airlines, Boeing, their suppliers etc. It's absolutely no contest in current the US system.
• wtdata 8y ago
  The title itself is unnecessary fear mongering. I actually went to confirm if the BBC actually wrote "crash aircraft" or it was just the poster that altered the title. It seems that not even the once respectable newspapers can keep away from easy sensationalism these days.
  • ComputerGuru 8y ago
    If you're familiar with the BBC, you'll know it's not fear mongering at all. It's their writing style and it simply serves to inform that this is the model of the plane that was involved in the crash. It's actually a question of grammar. Now if it had said "crash-prone aircraft" or"crashy aircraft," that would be a different issue altogether.
• nonamechicken 8y ago
  Tinfoil: Someone said something could happen with Boeing 2 weeks ago: https://www.removeddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/atcby6/boeing/ https://www.removeddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/atcby6/... >Hello >I work IT for a company that makes your nasty inflight dining funnily enough. This Saturday something will happen that could either mean fortunes or devastation depending on your luck. I don't know which way and I won't say why. >That is all y'all. Fellow autistic chum. Got it from here: https://old.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/b039c5/ba_issues_737_max_software_enhancement_press/eibz9ts/ https://old.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/b039c5/ba_i...
  • konschubert 8y ago
    Meh. Every day, thousands such things are posted.
  • sundayfunday 8y ago
    I have inside information from very reliable sources that Apple will maybe release a newer faster iPhone this year, but definitely by the end of 2020. I also have inside information that Donald Trump will definitely no longer be president of the United States in 2025. My sources also tell me that a crime will happen a few minutes from now, somewhere in the world.
  • stordoff 8y ago
    Unless they make specific predictions, I'd pay it no mind (and even then they can get lucky). There are a thousand things that line could apply to, and there are probably a ton of such "predictions" posted daily that go nowhere.
• Emma_Goldman 8y ago
  'But the FAA said that other civil aviation authorities had not "provided data to us that would warrant action".' Pretty sure the data is that two planes crashed in five months in perfect weather conditions, killing everyone on board. Statistically, that's sufficiently improbable that it warrants investigation.
  • renholder 8y ago
    Most would even say statistically significant enough to order the planes grounded in their own countries...
  • buboard 8y ago
    > Statistically, that's sufficiently improbable Is it?
    • kickopotomus 8y ago
      Yes, it is. The 737 NG (700 series, 800 series, etc) has a hull loss rate of 0.27 per million departures[0]. I am having difficulty finding the exact number of departures for the MAX but 737s average about 3-5 departures per day[1]. Only 350 MAXs have been delivered and the first one was delivered on May 6, 2017[2] (676 days ago). So even being generous and supposing that all 350 aircraft were delivered exactly on May 6, 2017 and that each plane made 5 flights daily, that would be a total of 1,183,000 flights. Therefore the MAX line has a best-case hull loss rate of 1.69 per million departures. I.e. the MAX generation has a hull loss rate 6.25 times that of the NG line. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737#Accidents_and_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737#Accidents_and_incid... [1]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274782362_Characterization_of_the_Frequency_and_Nature_of_Bleed_Air_Contamination_Events_in_Commercial_Aircraft https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274782362_Character... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX
      • buboard 8y ago
        the question is if this difference is statistically significant
• cm2187 8y ago
  I am still convinced there is a problem with the plane based on simple probabilities. These are brand new planes so they shouldn’t be in a phase where failures multiply, and maintenance should be irrelevant unless these planes were delivered faulty. It’s a very small fleet compared to other models. Two extremely rare crashes (plane crashes are rare in general) within months of each others, with the same model, same phase of the flight, what is the probability that it is not related to the plane? It has to be statistically insignificant. Now it may be a lack of pilot training, but by Boeing’s own account a B737 pilot should be qualified to pilot a Max. Then how come a small, insignificant feature can result in the crash of the plane? It would have to be not insignificant at all.
  • rbanffy 8y ago
    Speaking as an engineer, we, sometimes, underestimate the relevance of a relatively minor system. We can't imagine all possible scenarios and that's why in every single decision with systems that are responsible for human lives there is a lot of people involved - because we rely on someone, at some point, imagining the scenario everyone else didn't. This reduces the odds of letting something important slip through, but it's not perfect and can't hope to be (and, sometimes, we have the grim reminders we aren't all-knowing) We should not rush to conclusions, since one of the investigations is in its infancy, but, from all the pilot reports that have been accumulating since the introduction of these models, it looks like the impact of the differences between models in the 737 family on crews were underestimated and training for them was not as thorough as it should have been.
    • karmelapple 8y ago
      Quick question, and this is meant sincerely and not flippantly: have you worked as an aviation or avionics engineer? The focus on error conditions is truly impressive during the development of these systems. I’ve spent plenty of hours writing requirements, and writing and running tests, for cockpit software, and the sheer variety of error conditions tested is very high. Not that they’ll catch everything, but the idea that a single AOA sensor could cause the MCAS to fail seems like something that would have been analyzed and discussed by the engineers working on this.
• cmurf 8y ago
  787's were grounded in 2013 for battery related issues, when it was a new airplane make/model. There were emergency landings, but no crashes. Here we have crashes, and no grounding. At the time of the grounding there were 50 affected aircraft, lasting from January to April. Grounding 737 MAX 8's would be ~350 groundings, and ostensibly could include MAX 9's.
  • KindOne 8y ago
    Looks like it only took two events for the FAA to ground them. I think they were instantly grounded because everyone knew the dangers of lithium-ion batteries catching fire. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-lithium-ion-batteries-grounded-the-dreamliner/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-lithium-ion-b...
• ElBarto 8y ago
  It is all PR and public perception at this point. I feel that the US have lost in reputation here while, e.g. China has gained. It didn't have to be that way. China was the first to ban the 737 MAX. When they did it people could counter that it was political. But since so many countries, including some of the US's closest allies, have followed suit then they have come out as being serious and safety-conscious. On the other hand, by refusing to ban the US are seen as putting corporate interests above safety.
• sametmax 8y ago
  If one plane crashes every year, it would still be safer to fly than to drive a car. Even if boing is at fault, and FAA failed in their validation process, I doubt there is any evil doing in any way. Indeed, they had a fantastic track record for decades compared to pretty much any other industrial equivalent. As an european, and as much as I would love boing to take a hit in favor or EADS, it would be unfair to them and the FAA. They have been doing a great job for so long, on so numerous complicated systems we forget that as human, we can fuck up. Nobody can guaranty to ever do perfectly fine all the time, and certainly not in such a huge endavour. Of course, the outrage is understandable given mistakes cost lives, so the situation sucks for all the sides in this story.
  • adrianN 8y ago
    Nobody can guarantee absence of errors, but you can stop using machines where you have good reasons to believe that something is wrong until you've figured out what's the problem and how to fix it.
• Grue3 8y ago
  How improbable was two Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777-200ER flights crashing within five months? Should all Boeing 777-200ER airplanes be grounded? Or all Malaysian Airlines flights? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17 By the way it took years to figure out how exactly these crashed.
  • danmaz74 8y ago
    One of the two planes was downed by a missile, and this was clear from the start. The only question was who was responsible for firing the missile. Your argument is extremely forced.
  • lb1lf 8y ago
    -Quite different scenario. One was shot down by a Russian-made surface-to-air missile (And one can hardly fault Boeing for not providing ECM equipment as standard!), the other was (probably) wilfully flown into the great void. Here, on the other hand, there are two eerily similar cases where the likely -mind, likely- common denominator is a new 'feature' which has been undercommunicated to the pilots flying the things.
    • crushcrashcrush 8y ago
      MH 370's crew and passengers went hypoxic. (edited from 17 to 370)
      • ceejayoz 8y ago
        That's one theory. It's certainly not confirmed.
    • magduf 8y ago
      >And one can hardly fault Boeing for not providing ECM equipment as standard! Maybe it should be, for planes flying near or over Russia...
  • 8y ago
• poof131 8y ago
  As someone who flew a Boeing plane for a long time, if it’s true they released a stick pusher (automatic trim) that would dump the nose,[1] couldn’t be overridden by pulling back on the stick as in previous versions of the aircraft,[2] but only by disconnecting the automatic trim then manually trimming the aircraft, was tied to only one AOA sensor, and then felt this was too much information for “pilots”.[3] Wow. Seems like engineers on the ground and business leaders making decisions that ended up costing lives. Pilot error seems like a scapegoat here. Even a well trained pilot on a bad day might not handle a nose down situation after takeoff well, especially when the intuitive solution of pulling back on the stick had been disabled. While this may not be the cause of the most recent crash, the Lion crash alone seems to indicate a problem with Boeing and the FAA’s relationship. This probably extends to Airbus and other regulators as indicated in another comment about his or her carriers safety incidents tripling due to flying two aircraft of the same “type” but not really.[4] At a minimum the MCAS changes should have been communicated to pilots and indicates a process problem at Boeing with insufficient pilot involvement and too much engineering and business input. And the FAA probably needs to be much stricter in the training and documentation requirements between models. [1] https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/u-s-pilots-flying-737-max-werent-told-about-new-automatic-systems-change-linked-to-lion-air-crash/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/u-s-p... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19077371 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19077371 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18438607 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18438607 [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19376565 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19376565
  • raverbashing 8y ago
    > if it’s true they released a stick pusher (automatic trim) that would dump the nose,[1] couldn’t be overridden by pulling back on the stick as in previous versions of the aircraft, In the case of the 737MAX the elevator input cannot compensate for the trim wheel adjustment. I believe this was highlighted in the Lion Air case.
• rurban 8y ago
  Now imagine if AA grounds a MAX, Boeing will go bankrupt. Extremely high risk they dealing with now.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• verytrivial 8y ago
  Can someone with flight experience help me with this question? So, MCAS is watching the AOA sensor and dipping the nose to prevent aerodynamic stall. When activated (and altering the pilots loudly) what would happen to airspeed in the valid-AOA and borked-AOA sensor states? I would have thought in the bogus-AOA case, airspeed would be increasing MUCH faster? Is this factored into regarding validation of the AOA input? Or are airspeed indicators unreliable near aerodynamic stall? Or ..? It just feels like MCAS should be able to detect the contradiction state from other variables without requiring the pilot to act.
  • bitwalker 8y ago
    Airspeed and angle-of-attack are different measurements, whether the AoA is borked or not would make no difference to airspeed measurements, and vice versa. Without AoA though, airspeed alone is not enough to determine a stall. If one or both sets of probes are incorrect or inoperable, detection of stall conditions would be unreliable at best, either reporting a stall when there isn't one, or failing to report one that is valid. As for MCAS, it would likely be able to see that two AoA probes disagree, but would be unable to choose the "correct" probe. A third AoA probe _might_ address that, but I never saw that kind of configuration on aircraft I worked on, and it isn't on the MAX. Regardless though, from what I've read, MCAS only applies gradual nose down trim, so ignoring whether or not MCAS even knows enough to disable itself in abnormal conditions, the pilot/first officer should have more plenty of time to react to it (I believe it was something like 2.5deg of trim every 10s). Either the pilots in these situations are not aware that it is a trim issue, which seems very unlikely, or they are overloaded and don't remember in time to set the stab trim to cutoff which would disable those inputs. Very much still on Boeing in my opinion, but it isn't like the aircraft is just diving into the ground the second MCAS starts nosing down.
• coldtea 8y ago
  Nothing that another crash and huge human toil can't fix.
• bookofjoe 8y ago
  If the Max was built by Airbus rather than Boeing, more likely than not the U.S. would have grounded it by now.
• _Codemonkeyism 8y ago
  There will be a point in time when CEOs of those airlines in the US that do not ground 737 MAX planes get into a lot of trouble if something happens to one of their planes. Then they play with jail time instead of payments to victim relatives.
  • ComputerGuru 8y ago
    No, there won't. It's not a CEO's job to make kind of call because they're not expected to have that kind of insight into such technical safety matters. Their job is to run the company based off of what the experts tell them; the FAA is literally absolving companies of having to make the decision and shoulder the burden themselves.
    • _Codemonkeyism 8y ago
      Yes it is, the same way a CEO is responsible if the systems of the company are hacked and millions of emails and passwords are lost. They do what security experts tell them. Equifax for sure had lots of experts. Or Sony for that matter. There is a point when a court will decide that "you should have known" and the "expert" defense will not work. It's funny on HN, if it's security the CEO should go to jail for listening to experts, if it's Boeing - one of the holy cows beside Tesla - it's "follow expert advice". I bet $100 if an US 737 MAX crashes the CEO will go to jail.
      • ComputerGuru 8y ago
        It's the difference between there being a regulatory agency that oversees these decisions and it not existing.
      • ComputerGuru 8y ago
        Also, you seem to be replying under the impression that I'm talking about the Boeing CEO. I'm not. That comment was about CEOs of airlines not having to make the decision to ground or not to ground their fleet.
• sparkling 8y ago
  Can't the MCAS simply be disabled until further investigation takes place?
• nickjj 8y ago
  But if you bring your own water then you wouldn't have the privilege of spending $4 for a single bottled water[0] at an airport vendor. Sounds like the common ground there is profits come before anything else. [0]: You could also bring your own empty water bottle and ask one of the bartenders to fill it up which is what I usually do and then drop them a $1 tip.
  • bluedino 8y ago
    Why not just use one of the many water bottle filling stations?
    • nickjj 8y ago
      Not all airports have these. Also if you're an inexperienced flyer and have a tight connection, you may not have the time to find one in an unfamiliar airport but a bar or restaurant is almost always in sight.
      • kawfey 8y ago
        Not all airports have sinks? It's not like they filter what's coming out of water fountains anyway.
        • nickjj 8y ago
          > Not all airports have sinks? I haven't seen any, unless you're talking about using the bathroom sinks? In which case, no thanks. Even with a touch less sensor people can still (and do) touch the area where the water comes out. Flying is stressful enough as it is. I don't want to have to think about potentially drinking tainted water (pun intended).
          • freehunter 8y ago
            If you think no one has ever touched the nozzle of the drinking fountain with their dirty hands, boy are you in for a surprise.
• gSrikar 8y ago
  Boeing suffered more than 10% drop in the stock price because of the recent crash and Lion Air (an Indonesian airline) plans to drop a $22 billion order. Boeing failed to address the numerous complaints and FAA is reluctant to ground the 737 Max 8 putting lives at risk.
• whack 8y ago
  How does the plane's safety record compare against that of motorcycles or sub-compact cars? Should we ban them as well, until they can attain safety parity? My girlfriend has two intercontinental flights coming up in the next month. Flights that are very important to her life goals and fulfillment. I would hate to see a wrench thrown into those plans, because of a risk that she already takes on every weekend when she goes on a long drive. More importantly, there are so many more pressing issues that we as a society need to be dealing with. Issues like fatalities caused by automobile accidents, inadequate healthcare coverage, medical errors and poor diet. Issues that are being starved of the attention they deserve because of our fixation on sensational deaths, as opposed to the banal but common ones https://outlookzen.com/2015/02/15/all-lives-matter/ https://outlookzen.com/2015/02/15/all-lives-matter/
  • rorykoehler 8y ago
    If cars are considered defective they are recalled. Happens often. Your comment is shockingly tone deaf.
    • whack 8y ago
      Whether you choose to categorize a death being caused by "defects" or "user error" is ultimately irrelevant. Any system that's prone by design to user error should be considered equally defective. Even with the two ambiguous incidents on Boeing 737, they are still far safer than the vehicles that people choose to ride everyday for pleasure. I will never ride a motorcycle myself, but would hate to see them banned nationwide. I apologise if my comment is "tone deaf". I happen to think that public policy proposals should be fair game for constructive criticism.
      • rorykoehler 8y ago
        If the brakes on your car failed one in every 100k engagements would you feel safe driving your car? Anyways news just in. Sanity prevailed. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47562727 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47562727
• urbanslug 8y ago
  Two words: peak capitalism.
• stingrae 8y ago
  Does anyone know if this system could just be safely turned off? It seems to be a system that automates the stall avoidance when the plane hits a stall warning. It seems that all pilots should know how to avoid stalls and how to deal with them when they happen. As long as the stall warning still happens, I don't see an issue with turning off the stall avoidance system.
  • magduf 8y ago
    The indications are that Boeing didn't include this information in the type training, and also an important instrument needed to see if there was a problem with this system was made optional.
  • salawat 8y ago
    The issue is that the system is necessary to make the plane self-certifiable. I.e. Boeing has to show that the aircraft is not essentially different in flight characteristics from the original airframe it was based on. This allows them to avoid the very costly retreating and type certification they would be required to do otherwise with a 'novel' airframe. Frankly, as soon as the Erodynamics changed sufficiently that a new automated system was required to maintain parity with older airframe's flight characteristics, I think the case should have been made for requiring a new type cert, or at least far more extensive change notification/documentation update requirements.
• pluc 8y ago
  That's what happens when you appoint an airline lobbyist as head of the FAA, lol.
• mtw 8y ago
  The current head of FAA appointed by Trump was a lobbyist for Southwest, AA, United Airlines. No wonder he doesn't ground the Boeing 737 Max. Southwest alone operates the biggest 737 Max fleet in the world, with 280 planes. They'd lose a lot of money if their former employee grounds the plane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Elwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Elwell
  • kawfey 8y ago
    > Southwest alone operates the biggest 737 Max fleet in the world, with 280 planes. Incorrect, they operate 35 Max8's, and have 237 total firm orders for Max8 and 30 for Max7. https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Southwest-Airlines https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Southwest-Airlines http://www.southwestairlinesinvestorrelations.com/news-and-events/news-releases/2018/10-25-2018-113001340 http://www.southwestairlinesinvestorrelations.com/news-and-e...
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
• jmull 8y ago
  Personally, I think the least risky/safest approach is for the FAA to follow its normal procedures. Changing them on-the-fly leads to ambiguity up and down the line, which leads to mistakes and gaps. Of course, I don't know for sure what that actually means in this case. But I'd guess if the lobbyist head of the FAA were blocking a grounding recommendation, that would leak in about a millisecond, so I'm guessing the FAA is investigating this normally.
  • gdubs 8y ago
    I think the FAA needs to do a better job explaining why every other aviation authority in the world seems to be grounding the plane, but they’re not.
• js2 8y ago
  From the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association statement released yesterday: I have been in numerous conversations today with Southwest Vice President of Flight Operations Captain Alan Kasher, who informed me that the MAX aircraft has 17,000 recordable parameters and Southwest has compiled and analyzed a tremendous amount of data from more than 41,000 flights operated by the 34 MAX aircraft on property, and the data supports Southwest's continued confidence in the airworthiness and safety of the MAX. I have also had conversations with TWU 556 President Lyn Montgomery, who represents Southwest Flight Attendants, AMFA National President Bret Oestreich, SWAPA Safety Committee and SWAPA Government Affairs Committee members, as well as leaders from other Pilot labor unions. I relayed to them that SWAPA is extremely confident that our entire fleet, including the MAX, is safe based on the facts, intelligence, data, and information we presently have. We fully support Southwest Airlines' decision to continue flying the MAX and the FAA's findings to date. I will continue to put my family, friends, and loved ones on any Southwest flight and the main reason is you, the Pilots of SWAPA. We have lobbied hard for our training to continue to evolve and improve, and due to having the finest union Training and Standards Committee in the industry, that is occurring. We now have Extended Envelope Training (EET) in addition to our regular annual training and since SWAPA and others have brought awareness to the MCAS issue, we have additional resources to successfully deal with either a legitimate MCAS triggered event or a faulty triggered MCAS event. SWAPA also has pushed hard for Angle of Attack (AOA) sensor displays to be put on all our aircraft and those are now being implemented into the fleet. All of these tools, in addition to SWAPA Pilots having the most experience on 737s in the industry, give me no pause that not only are our aircraft safe, but you are the safest 737 operators in the sky. https://swaparesources.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets/pdf/Press_Releases/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_302_Update_2.pdf https://swaparesources.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets/pdf... via https://www.swapa.org/ https://www.swapa.org/
• fixermark 8y ago
  I'm hoping that we aren't seeing a situation where acting FAA administrator Elwell's past service as an Aerospace Industries Association VP and company advocate is biasing his reasoning towards the interest of industry players over public safety.
• yitchelle 8y ago
  If you are a pilot for one of these American airlines, would still stand your ground and not fly?
  • somuchtyler 8y ago
    no because everyone is aware of what the issue is and how to overcome it.
• physicsyogi 8y ago
  It looks like the US has reversed its position and the 737 Max is being grounded. [1] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/business/canada-737-max.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/business/canada-737-max.h...
• Animats 8y ago
  US just grounded the 737 Max. FAA waited until Trump could take the credit.