8 ms·

This is the correct move. Airline crashes are so rare that two crashes of a new model within 6 months of each other must be cause for grounding flights. The fa

This is the correct move. Airline crashes are so rare that two crashes of a new model within 6 months of each other must be cause for grounding flights. The fact that Boeing cut as many corners as they did to bypass mandatory training just adds more smoke to the fire. When the dust settles on this episode I won't be surprised to learn that Boeing (and FAA regulators) is found completely at fault for engineering shortcuts to save costs on re-training.

lurkertroll 8y ago
What does the expression "adds more smoke to the fire" mean
canada_dry 8y ago
> When the dust settles on this episode I won't be surprised to learn that Boeing (and FAA regulators) is found completely at fault And promptly given a pass by the FAA/regulators.
- hyperbovine 8y ago
  Boeing is the single largest exporter in the US. The idea that we are going to seriously punish them is laughable from a political standpoint, regardless of what the regulators have to say.
  - PakG1 8y ago
    Then the interesting question is whether airlines would punish them by forcing better terms or even lawsuits, and would shareholders likewise punish them by selling the stock.
    - chopin 8y ago
      Not to forget a third category: customers. I heard that there were considerable cancellations or at least fuzz about going to ride a 737 Max.
  - gdpgreg 8y ago
    Isn't the alternative an abandonment of the 737 max 8 series from international carriers? The US currently has the largest aviation market but it's growing globally. Airbus has the 320neo and 220 which are direct/close competitors.
    - gsnedders 8y ago
      Remember the 737 has been slowly growing each generation: the A220-100 doesn't compete with the 737 MAX at all (it's smaller than the 737 MAX 7, and the MAX 7 has only 61 orders, out of over 5000 total orders). It provides a possible replacement for the A318 and 737-600 (but also neither of those sold well either!); it's biggest competition is probably the E195-E2. The A220-300 competes with the A319neo and 737 MAX 7 (and the A319neo isn't selling any better than than the MAX 7). I don't think really an abandonment is on the cards: too many fleets are too heavily bought into the 737 family, and the cost of migrating away is real. By way of comparison, the A320(ceo) hardly had the best of starts to its life either with the Air France Flight 296 crash (which while different, still wasn't exactly good press!).
  - HelloNurse 8y ago
    I'm fairly sure knowingly selling defective airplanes involves some liability and breach of contract issues even without criminal charges. No need for the FAA to punish Boeing, but I expect them to feel the weight of public opinion.
HankB99 8y ago
> This is the correct move. Airline crashes are so rare that two crashes of a new model within 6 months of each other must be cause for grounding flights. I agree. It seemed like the FAA was taking a position best described as "innocent until proven guilty." I think that's great for the US criminal justice system. I think a better approach for air travel safety is "abundance of caution." I have no direct experience in this field but it seems to me that the plane should be grounded out of an abundance of caution until we know more. Edit: FWIW I used the phrase "abundance of caution" before I read it in the article.
- Sharlin 8y ago
  Even the criminal justice system has no qualms about "grounding" (taking into custody) people before they are found guilty in a court of law.
  - abfan1127 8y ago
    Great point. Criminal Justice is about erring on the side of caution of imprisoning people wrongfully. Its why there's a difference between arrest and imprisonment.
  - mehrdadn 8y ago
    Question: is it realistic to expect cops to know exactly what law someone is breaking before they decide to arrest them? Like I get that in an ideal world this would be the case, but humans only have so much memory. Is it unreasonable if a cop arrests someone because it seems the person is doing something that warrants it, but then later fails to find an actual crime they can charge them with? i.e. Would we be better in world where cops only arrested those whom they could immediately charge with a crime?
    - philliphaydon 8y ago
      I don’t think the parent comment is about arresting. But holding someone without bail until a trial has concluded where by it is deemed that the person is a possible risk to society by being released until trial. (I think)
arcticbull 8y ago
[deleted]
- andrewflnr 8y ago
  Flying won't stay safer than driving if aircraft manufacturers can get away with letting their standards slip.
  - arcticbull 8y ago
    Well nobody is proposing a free pass here. Of course they'll all need to be fixed, and ASAP. I'm just saying, it's no more a death trap than your average Honda Civic so it's probably okay to let them stay up in the air, depending on what the confounding external factors end up being.
    - nrb 8y ago
      Cars kill people primarily due to human error in judgment or lack of attention. Mechanical or software failures causing fatalities are the overwhelming minority of cases. Remember how big of a deal the Toyota accelerator pedal recall was?
      - paulie_a 8y ago
        Didn't Toyota turn out to be a few old people that probably shouldn't haven't been driving anymore anyways.
        lagadu 8y ago
        No, it was a buffer overflow in the ECU. It's an interesting read if that's the kind of thing that strikes your fancy :)
    - astrodust 8y ago
      This could be as bad as the Toyota "unintended acceleration" glitch. The way this particular glitch plays out sounds suspiciously like software, or a software-like function of the MCAS unit.
arcticbull 8y ago
I think we should be careful to look wholistically at this. Will grounding the plane cause more people to drive? Driving is so much more dangerous than flying even if there’s a MAX crash every 6 months (doubtful). How many more people will take connecting flights — the danger is in the take off and landing after all. I don’t have the answers, I’m suggesting this isn’t a straightforward decision. Humans have an amazing ability to overweight incredibly unlikely outcomes with severe consequences. Some napkin math. 150,000 flights, each with 172 seats (based on the American Airlines 7M8 configuration, which is admittedly tight). That's 25.8 million journeys. Two accidents, let's that's ~350 deaths. Your chance of dying on any given journey is therefore 0.00135% (four nines to live). You've got a 0.0167% chance of dying [1] for every 10,000 miles driven. Let's assume that each 7M8 journey averages 2500mi (generous, a transcontinental average). A linear projection tells me that's a 0.004175% of dying in an equivalent car ride. You're still 3X safer on a 7M8 than you are in your car. Now, by no means should this be taken to say the planes shouldn't be fixed or that Boeing should "get away with it." However, grounding all these planes and pushing people into a less safe form of transit may actually end up causing more harm than allowing the planes to fly with a fixed, short schedule to resolving the problem. [1] https://www.seeker.com/how-common-are-skydiving-accidents-1765419215.html https://www.seeker.com/how-common-are-skydiving-accidents-17...
- manav 8y ago
  The alternative isn't driving, it's using a different (safer) plane.
  - arcticbull 8y ago
    Maybe! Looks like there've been 350 deliveries so far [1]. Are that many planes available on short notice to replace them? Airlines generally operate with 80% load factors, it'd be hard to just re-shuffle everyone. The grounding and reaction may also shake people's faith in air travel in general, causing them to drive more even if planes were available. Bruce Schneier has a good write-up on this effect post 9/11 too. Humans are terrible at dealing with this kind of thing. The reality is you're much more at risk in your Uber ride to the airport than you are aboard the 7M8. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#Orders_and_deliveries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#Orders_and_deli...
mcv 8y ago
It's sad that Boeing tried to cut so many corners, but absolutely baffling that the FAA went along with it. They squandered an enormous amount of trust by doing this. I wonder what the long term effects of that loss of trust will be. And even if they fix the problem and pilots get more training, it's still likely to hurt 737 Max sales; it seems likely they cut those corners because having the Max count as "just another 737" that didn't require extra training, was a major advantage to airlines. When airlines need to retrain their pilots anyway, they might choose different planes in the future. And they may be less likely to trust Boeing and the FAA when they claim a new plane model won't require extra training. Then again, I don't know the airline industry. Maybe it just blows over with no long term effects.
- dclowd9901 8y ago
  This is what happens when you have a business-forward administration who guts all regulatory bodies and instills industry titans into their spots.
  - sfopdxnonstop 8y ago
    I'll happily blame anything on this evil administration, including this, but the corporatism which led to these deaths predates the American fascist assumption of power.
GuB-42 8y ago
Grounding aircraft for unexplained mechanical failures is the norm. Following that, the problem is not finding who is at fault but how to prevent it from happening again. The first step to getting the aircraft ungrounded is often to update the flight manual and decrease inspection time so it can be flown safely with reduced capabilities. The root cause is fixed later. Aviation regulatory bodies are normally not into finger pointing. Traditionally, the customer pays for everything, even if it is not their fault. The reasoning is that it is one less incentive for the manufacturer to hide defects. No doubt that legal battles will ensue but care is taken to keep lawyers out of the technical process.

lurkertroll 8y ago

What does the expression "adds more smoke to the fire" mean

canada_dry 8y ago

> When the dust settles on this episode I won't be surprised to learn that Boeing (and FAA regulators) is found completely at fault And promptly given a pass by the FAA/regulators.

hyperbovine 8y ago
Boeing is the single largest exporter in the US. The idea that we are going to seriously punish them is laughable from a political standpoint, regardless of what the regulators have to say.
- PakG1 8y ago
  Then the interesting question is whether airlines would punish them by forcing better terms or even lawsuits, and would shareholders likewise punish them by selling the stock.
  - chopin 8y ago
    Not to forget a third category: customers. I heard that there were considerable cancellations or at least fuzz about going to ride a 737 Max.
- gdpgreg 8y ago
  Isn't the alternative an abandonment of the 737 max 8 series from international carriers? The US currently has the largest aviation market but it's growing globally. Airbus has the 320neo and 220 which are direct/close competitors.
  - gsnedders 8y ago
    Remember the 737 has been slowly growing each generation: the A220-100 doesn't compete with the 737 MAX at all (it's smaller than the 737 MAX 7, and the MAX 7 has only 61 orders, out of over 5000 total orders). It provides a possible replacement for the A318 and 737-600 (but also neither of those sold well either!); it's biggest competition is probably the E195-E2. The A220-300 competes with the A319neo and 737 MAX 7 (and the A319neo isn't selling any better than than the MAX 7). I don't think really an abandonment is on the cards: too many fleets are too heavily bought into the 737 family, and the cost of migrating away is real. By way of comparison, the A320(ceo) hardly had the best of starts to its life either with the Air France Flight 296 crash (which while different, still wasn't exactly good press!).
- HelloNurse 8y ago
  I'm fairly sure knowingly selling defective airplanes involves some liability and breach of contract issues even without criminal charges. No need for the FAA to punish Boeing, but I expect them to feel the weight of public opinion.

HankB99 8y ago

> This is the correct move. Airline crashes are so rare that two crashes of a new model within 6 months of each other must be cause for grounding flights. I agree. It seemed like the FAA was taking a position best described as "innocent until proven guilty." I think that's great for the US criminal justice system. I think a better approach for air travel safety is "abundance of caution." I have no direct experience in this field but it seems to me that the plane should be grounded out of an abundance of caution until we know more. Edit: FWIW I used the phrase "abundance of caution" before I read it in the article.

Sharlin 8y ago
Even the criminal justice system has no qualms about "grounding" (taking into custody) people before they are found guilty in a court of law.
- abfan1127 8y ago
  Great point. Criminal Justice is about erring on the side of caution of imprisoning people wrongfully. Its why there's a difference between arrest and imprisonment.
- mehrdadn 8y ago
  Question: is it realistic to expect cops to know exactly what law someone is breaking before they decide to arrest them? Like I get that in an ideal world this would be the case, but humans only have so much memory. Is it unreasonable if a cop arrests someone because it seems the person is doing something that warrants it, but then later fails to find an actual crime they can charge them with? i.e. Would we be better in world where cops only arrested those whom they could immediately charge with a crime?
  - philliphaydon 8y ago
    I don’t think the parent comment is about arresting. But holding someone without bail until a trial has concluded where by it is deemed that the person is a possible risk to society by being released until trial. (I think)

arcticbull 8y ago

[deleted]

andrewflnr 8y ago
Flying won't stay safer than driving if aircraft manufacturers can get away with letting their standards slip.
- arcticbull 8y ago
  Well nobody is proposing a free pass here. Of course they'll all need to be fixed, and ASAP. I'm just saying, it's no more a death trap than your average Honda Civic so it's probably okay to let them stay up in the air, depending on what the confounding external factors end up being.
  - nrb 8y ago
    Cars kill people primarily due to human error in judgment or lack of attention. Mechanical or software failures causing fatalities are the overwhelming minority of cases. Remember how big of a deal the Toyota accelerator pedal recall was?
    - paulie_a 8y ago
      Didn't Toyota turn out to be a few old people that probably shouldn't haven't been driving anymore anyways.
      - lagadu 8y ago
        No, it was a buffer overflow in the ECU. It's an interesting read if that's the kind of thing that strikes your fancy :)
  - astrodust 8y ago
    This could be as bad as the Toyota "unintended acceleration" glitch. The way this particular glitch plays out sounds suspiciously like software, or a software-like function of the MCAS unit.

arcticbull 8y ago

I think we should be careful to look wholistically at this. Will grounding the plane cause more people to drive? Driving is so much more dangerous than flying even if there’s a MAX crash every 6 months (doubtful). How many more people will take connecting flights — the danger is in the take off and landing after all. I don’t have the answers, I’m suggesting this isn’t a straightforward decision. Humans have an amazing ability to overweight incredibly unlikely outcomes with severe consequences. Some napkin math. 150,000 flights, each with 172 seats (based on the American Airlines 7M8 configuration, which is admittedly tight). That's 25.8 million journeys. Two accidents, let's that's ~350 deaths. Your chance of dying on any given journey is therefore 0.00135% (four nines to live). You've got a 0.0167% chance of dying [1] for every 10,000 miles driven. Let's assume that each 7M8 journey averages 2500mi (generous, a transcontinental average). A linear projection tells me that's a 0.004175% of dying in an equivalent car ride. You're still 3X safer on a 7M8 than you are in your car. Now, by no means should this be taken to say the planes shouldn't be fixed or that Boeing should "get away with it." However, grounding all these planes and pushing people into a less safe form of transit may actually end up causing more harm than allowing the planes to fly with a fixed, short schedule to resolving the problem. [1] https://www.seeker.com/how-common-are-skydiving-accidents-1765419215.html https://www.seeker.com/how-common-are-skydiving-accidents-17...

manav 8y ago
The alternative isn't driving, it's using a different (safer) plane.
- arcticbull 8y ago
  Maybe! Looks like there've been 350 deliveries so far [1]. Are that many planes available on short notice to replace them? Airlines generally operate with 80% load factors, it'd be hard to just re-shuffle everyone. The grounding and reaction may also shake people's faith in air travel in general, causing them to drive more even if planes were available. Bruce Schneier has a good write-up on this effect post 9/11 too. Humans are terrible at dealing with this kind of thing. The reality is you're much more at risk in your Uber ride to the airport than you are aboard the 7M8. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#Orders_and_deliveries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#Orders_and_deli...

mcv 8y ago

It's sad that Boeing tried to cut so many corners, but absolutely baffling that the FAA went along with it. They squandered an enormous amount of trust by doing this. I wonder what the long term effects of that loss of trust will be. And even if they fix the problem and pilots get more training, it's still likely to hurt 737 Max sales; it seems likely they cut those corners because having the Max count as "just another 737" that didn't require extra training, was a major advantage to airlines. When airlines need to retrain their pilots anyway, they might choose different planes in the future. And they may be less likely to trust Boeing and the FAA when they claim a new plane model won't require extra training. Then again, I don't know the airline industry. Maybe it just blows over with no long term effects.

dclowd9901 8y ago
This is what happens when you have a business-forward administration who guts all regulatory bodies and instills industry titans into their spots.
- sfopdxnonstop 8y ago
  I'll happily blame anything on this evil administration, including this, but the corporatism which led to these deaths predates the American fascist assumption of power.

GuB-42 8y ago

Grounding aircraft for unexplained mechanical failures is the norm. Following that, the problem is not finding who is at fault but how to prevent it from happening again. The first step to getting the aircraft ungrounded is often to update the flight manual and decrease inspection time so it can be flown safely with reduced capabilities. The root cause is fixed later. Aviation regulatory bodies are normally not into finger pointing. Traditionally, the customer pays for everything, even if it is not their fault. The reasoning is that it is one less incentive for the manufacturer to hide defects. No doubt that legal battles will ensue but care is taken to keep lawyers out of the technical process.