5 ms·

What does the US know that the EU or China doesn't which gives them such confidence? Any clues?

by tzakrajs 8y ago

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.

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.