7 ms·

Does anyone have any idea WHY the US was the holdout here? I'm not well-versed, but my understanding is that aviation safety is generally very good, and that t

Does anyone have any idea WHY the US was the holdout here? I'm not well-versed, but my understanding is that aviation safety is generally very good, and that the US is not an outlier on the bad side. While grounding a plane at this point is premature from the stance of conclusion, it seems reasonable from the standpoint of excessive caution that seems to be the norm for the industry. I can conjecture about Boeing being a big US manufacturer, etc, but is there any evidence at all for why the US held out on this one? My initial reaction was that there must be a good reason for the holdout, given our safety record, but on reading more about it, I've not seen one. (Again, relative to the stance of excessive caution).

RandomTisk 8y ago
Theories I've read so far: 1. Ineptitude 2. Corruption/Greed 3. US planes don't have the same issues that is suspected to be the root cause of other crashes.
- drawnwren 8y ago
  4. The issue was pilot operation of the aircraft. Apparently it was possible to disable the old 737 autopilot with stick input despite that not being the method prescribed by the procedures. MAX didn't involve simulator training, so a less disciplined crew in MAX might not correctly disable autopilot in an emergency despite the procedures for doing so still being correct.
  - erokar 8y ago
    This is incorrect. The MCAS doesn't even get triggered when autopilot is on. And surely when a system malfunctions, the issue is not entirely pilot operation.
    - kelnos 8y ago
      Terminology issue in the parent: I believe the correct statement would be that in the non-MAX 737, extreme stick movement would countermand auto-trim. In the MAX, this is not the case (at least when MCAS is the bit making adjustments). It was an "undocumented feature" that (less experienced?) pilots were relying on.
linuxftw 8y ago
Regulators come and go. The person holding the reigns at even given point in time is potentially not as good or unbiased as the predecessors. From what I've read so far, there's absolutely no clear indication at this point it was solely pilot error, and common sense dictates you ground the planes before more crashes happen.
ajharrison 8y ago
Short answer: Capitalism, lobbying, and putting profits over everything.
- briandear 8y ago
  LOL, every looked at Aeroflot's crash record? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_Air#Incidents_and_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_Air#Incidents_and_acciden... 5 times as many people died on Aeroflot than any other airline during the Soviet Era.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dap 8y ago
I don't know, but I wonder whether they were expecting to have preliminary findings within a few days that would clarify the choice. I gather that it's a more disruptive move for the US than for many of the countries that grounded the plane sooner because the US fleet may be larger.
- kelnos 8y ago
  It's not. Out of US carriers, only Southwest and American fly 737 MAX planes, and they're not a significant part of either fleet.
  - dap 8y ago
    Is the count not also significant? I don't know enough about the industry to know. I mentioned it because when I first heard that there were so many other regulatory bodies grounding the fleet, I was surprised about the FAA. When it was pointed out that many of those regulatory bodies represent countries having a handful of these planes to begin with, I was still surprised, but it made a little more sense that the FAA might have more to lose if the decision proved rash.
    - kelnos 8y ago
      Southwest has 35 MAX8s (out of a total of 755 aircraft)[0]. American has 24 MAX8s (out of a total of 962 aircraft)[1]. Not a trivial number for either fleet, but I imagine it won't significantly impact their business either. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_fleet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_fleet [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_fleet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_fleet
  - sbalea 8y ago
    United has a few as well
    - kelnos 8y ago
      It looks like they have 14 MAX9s in service. Does the MAX9 have the same issue as the MAX8, and is the MAX9 included in the ground order?
rz2k 8y ago
For the sake of argument: their historical reputation allowed them to make determinations of safety independent of political considerations that other aviation authorities must make. While it certainly sounds like there is a flaw in how the system handles erroneous sensor data, or that the interface promotes incorrect actions, the independent groundings of 737 MAX 8 planes probably are not independent in sense of each authority coming to its own determination based on their professional opinions alone. It would be politically foolish to be the lone holdout in your region. There is a real cost to grounding these aircraft, and I'd imagine that if they are grounded without specific questions that need to be answered or problems that can be fixed, it becomes even more difficult to un-ground them later.
lutorm 8y ago
I believe that the FAA has a strong tradition of acting on evidence, not presumption. It's the flight certification equivalent of "innocent until proven guilty" (although they usually operate at a much lower level of proof than a court of law.) I don't usually make libertarian-style arguments, but until there's evidence pointing to a specific safety of flight issue from the latest crash there's no justification for the government effectively "taking" airplane owners property by preventing its use. At the moment there is specific evidence, I have no doubt the FAA will act swiftly.
- an_account_name 8y ago
  The empirical evidence is there: two crashes.
  - FabHK 8y ago
    If an airplane crashes because it's hit by a missile, or because there's a bomb aboard, or because a suicidal pilot flies it into a mountain, that is no reason to ground it. Thus, more evidence is required to ground an airplane (that has, after all, gone through the certification process), than two crashes.
    - chimpburger 8y ago
      Two similar crashes within 5 months with an obvious candidate for the root cause https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faa-evaluates-a-potential-design-flaw-on-boeings-737-max-after-lion-air-crash/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faa-e...
      - FabHK 8y ago
        I agree with the assessment that the MAX has a problem; I'm saying "oh, two crashes" by itself is not sufficient evidence for that conclusion. As someone pointed out in this thread, there were three B767 hull losses between September and November 2001, but two of those were caused by 9/11 terrorists and don't tell you much about the airworthiness of the aircraft.
sschueller 8y ago
Boeing and the FAA have a deal to let Boeing self regulate. In exchange they are supposed to tell the FAA of any internal issues. [1] This of course is insane when you are talking about a for profit business. [1] https://youtu.be/vWxxtzBTxGU https://youtu.be/vWxxtzBTxGU 20min in.
- curiousjorge 8y ago
  wow. this aired in 2011!
- snowwrestler 8y ago
  It's a shame this is getting upvoted because it's an incomplete picture. FAA Delegated Organizations Page: https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/designees_delegations/delegated_organizations/ https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/designees_... "Regular FAA oversight of an ODA is accomplished by a team of FAA engineers and inspectors to ensure the ODA holder functions properly and that any approvals or certificates issued meet FAA safety standards." List of delegated organizations: https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/designees_delegations/designee_types/media/ODADirectory.pdf https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/designees_... Spoiler: there's a lot more than Boeing on there. I don't know about the specific concerns in that video, just replying to the insinuation that Boeing has some strange deal that exempts their planes from oversight by the FAA. They don't.
FabHK 8y ago
While there might be issues of regulatory capture (ie too much influence of the regulatee (<- not a word, but it should be...) on the regulator)), my personal opinion is that there were two consistent courses of action: 1. Ground the MAX after the reasons for the Lion Air crash had became clear, as it's not airworthy. 2. Do not ground the MAX, as it's sufficiently airworthy. This new crash had not provided enough information initially to conclude otherwise. However, the FAA is sort of arguing that there is now enough new information from the second crash to support the decision to ground it.
- snowwrestler 8y ago
  This is the answer. The FAA considered the Max 8 after the Lion Air crash and determined that it was safe to fly, even taking into account the cause of the Lion Air crash. If that was determination was done correctly, then there is no reason to ground every plane of that model, just because another one crashes shortly thereafter. The FAA obviously is inclined to believe that they did that determination correctly. Of course, they could be wrong. It will be very interesting to see how the Ethiopian investigation turns out. If the cause was the same as Lion Air, then the FAA will come under tremendous pressure to reconsider what constitutes "safe to fly". (IMO the industry in general will come under hard questioning about the role of software in compensating for aerodynamic issues. Yeah the military does it, but we have different standards for airlines.) But if it turns out that some other factor caused the crash, unrelated to the Lion Air cause, then the FAA will come off looking insensitive but ultimately justified in their determination.

RandomTisk 8y ago

Theories I've read so far: 1. Ineptitude 2. Corruption/Greed 3. US planes don't have the same issues that is suspected to be the root cause of other crashes.

drawnwren 8y ago
4. The issue was pilot operation of the aircraft. Apparently it was possible to disable the old 737 autopilot with stick input despite that not being the method prescribed by the procedures. MAX didn't involve simulator training, so a less disciplined crew in MAX might not correctly disable autopilot in an emergency despite the procedures for doing so still being correct.
- erokar 8y ago
  This is incorrect. The MCAS doesn't even get triggered when autopilot is on. And surely when a system malfunctions, the issue is not entirely pilot operation.
  - kelnos 8y ago
    Terminology issue in the parent: I believe the correct statement would be that in the non-MAX 737, extreme stick movement would countermand auto-trim. In the MAX, this is not the case (at least when MCAS is the bit making adjustments). It was an "undocumented feature" that (less experienced?) pilots were relying on.

linuxftw 8y ago

Regulators come and go. The person holding the reigns at even given point in time is potentially not as good or unbiased as the predecessors. From what I've read so far, there's absolutely no clear indication at this point it was solely pilot error, and common sense dictates you ground the planes before more crashes happen.

ajharrison 8y ago

Short answer: Capitalism, lobbying, and putting profits over everything.

briandear 8y ago
LOL, every looked at Aeroflot's crash record? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_Air#Incidents_and_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_Air#Incidents_and_acciden... 5 times as many people died on Aeroflot than any other airline during the Soviet Era.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

dap 8y ago

I don't know, but I wonder whether they were expecting to have preliminary findings within a few days that would clarify the choice. I gather that it's a more disruptive move for the US than for many of the countries that grounded the plane sooner because the US fleet may be larger.

kelnos 8y ago
It's not. Out of US carriers, only Southwest and American fly 737 MAX planes, and they're not a significant part of either fleet.
- dap 8y ago
  Is the count not also significant? I don't know enough about the industry to know. I mentioned it because when I first heard that there were so many other regulatory bodies grounding the fleet, I was surprised about the FAA. When it was pointed out that many of those regulatory bodies represent countries having a handful of these planes to begin with, I was still surprised, but it made a little more sense that the FAA might have more to lose if the decision proved rash.
  - kelnos 8y ago
    Southwest has 35 MAX8s (out of a total of 755 aircraft)[0]. American has 24 MAX8s (out of a total of 962 aircraft)[1]. Not a trivial number for either fleet, but I imagine it won't significantly impact their business either. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_fleet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_fleet [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_fleet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_fleet
- sbalea 8y ago
  United has a few as well
  - kelnos 8y ago
    It looks like they have 14 MAX9s in service. Does the MAX9 have the same issue as the MAX8, and is the MAX9 included in the ground order?

rz2k 8y ago

For the sake of argument: their historical reputation allowed them to make determinations of safety independent of political considerations that other aviation authorities must make. While it certainly sounds like there is a flaw in how the system handles erroneous sensor data, or that the interface promotes incorrect actions, the independent groundings of 737 MAX 8 planes probably are not independent in sense of each authority coming to its own determination based on their professional opinions alone. It would be politically foolish to be the lone holdout in your region. There is a real cost to grounding these aircraft, and I'd imagine that if they are grounded without specific questions that need to be answered or problems that can be fixed, it becomes even more difficult to un-ground them later.

lutorm 8y ago

I believe that the FAA has a strong tradition of acting on evidence, not presumption. It's the flight certification equivalent of "innocent until proven guilty" (although they usually operate at a much lower level of proof than a court of law.) I don't usually make libertarian-style arguments, but until there's evidence pointing to a specific safety of flight issue from the latest crash there's no justification for the government effectively "taking" airplane owners property by preventing its use. At the moment there is specific evidence, I have no doubt the FAA will act swiftly.

an_account_name 8y ago
The empirical evidence is there: two crashes.
- FabHK 8y ago
  If an airplane crashes because it's hit by a missile, or because there's a bomb aboard, or because a suicidal pilot flies it into a mountain, that is no reason to ground it. Thus, more evidence is required to ground an airplane (that has, after all, gone through the certification process), than two crashes.
  - chimpburger 8y ago
    Two similar crashes within 5 months with an obvious candidate for the root cause https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faa-evaluates-a-potential-design-flaw-on-boeings-737-max-after-lion-air-crash/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faa-e...
    - FabHK 8y ago
      I agree with the assessment that the MAX has a problem; I'm saying "oh, two crashes" by itself is not sufficient evidence for that conclusion. As someone pointed out in this thread, there were three B767 hull losses between September and November 2001, but two of those were caused by 9/11 terrorists and don't tell you much about the airworthiness of the aircraft.

sschueller 8y ago

Boeing and the FAA have a deal to let Boeing self regulate. In exchange they are supposed to tell the FAA of any internal issues. [1] This of course is insane when you are talking about a for profit business. [1] https://youtu.be/vWxxtzBTxGU https://youtu.be/vWxxtzBTxGU 20min in.

curiousjorge 8y ago
wow. this aired in 2011!
snowwrestler 8y ago
It's a shame this is getting upvoted because it's an incomplete picture. FAA Delegated Organizations Page: https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/designees_delegations/delegated_organizations/ https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/designees_... "Regular FAA oversight of an ODA is accomplished by a team of FAA engineers and inspectors to ensure the ODA holder functions properly and that any approvals or certificates issued meet FAA safety standards." List of delegated organizations: https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/designees_delegations/designee_types/media/ODADirectory.pdf https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/designees_... Spoiler: there's a lot more than Boeing on there. I don't know about the specific concerns in that video, just replying to the insinuation that Boeing has some strange deal that exempts their planes from oversight by the FAA. They don't.

FabHK 8y ago

While there might be issues of regulatory capture (ie too much influence of the regulatee (<- not a word, but it should be...) on the regulator)), my personal opinion is that there were two consistent courses of action: 1. Ground the MAX after the reasons for the Lion Air crash had became clear, as it's not airworthy. 2. Do not ground the MAX, as it's sufficiently airworthy. This new crash had not provided enough information initially to conclude otherwise. However, the FAA is sort of arguing that there is now enough new information from the second crash to support the decision to ground it.

snowwrestler 8y ago
This is the answer. The FAA considered the Max 8 after the Lion Air crash and determined that it was safe to fly, even taking into account the cause of the Lion Air crash. If that was determination was done correctly, then there is no reason to ground every plane of that model, just because another one crashes shortly thereafter. The FAA obviously is inclined to believe that they did that determination correctly. Of course, they could be wrong. It will be very interesting to see how the Ethiopian investigation turns out. If the cause was the same as Lion Air, then the FAA will come under tremendous pressure to reconsider what constitutes "safe to fly". (IMO the industry in general will come under hard questioning about the role of software in compensating for aerodynamic issues. Yeah the military does it, but we have different standards for airlines.) But if it turns out that some other factor caused the crash, unrelated to the Lion Air cause, then the FAA will come off looking insensitive but ultimately justified in their determination.