5 ms·

A plane crashes and kills over 300 people, in two separate incidents, in an industry where even minor crashes are rare, and you think the grounding of the plane

A plane crashes and kills over 300 people, in two separate incidents, in an industry where even minor crashes are rare, and you think the grounding of the planes is "political"?

metalliqaz 8y ago
FAA is not in the business of operating based on unsupported assumptions. The investigation for the second crash is not complete and a root cause is not known.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  > "The investigation for the second crash is not complete" After two crashes in such a small amount of time, the investigation doesn't need to be complete. The planes should be grounded until proven safe, not flying until proven unsafe.
- karlkatzke 8y ago
  Bullshit. Anyone who deals with or tries to deal with the FAA will tell you they deal with all kinds of unsupported assumptions. For instance, medical certificates are denied all the time for people who admit to having taken an ADHD drug when they were a kid, even if they only took it once or didn’t want to take it. Why? “An abundance of caution,” which is a frequent cause for actions the FAA takes.
- Scarblac 8y ago
  Isn't that an argument to ground the planes?
- gregmac 8y ago
  If a third 737 Max 8 were to crash before a root cause of this crash can be determined, would you then say it's a prudent move to ground them all? What about a fourth? Fifth? Is your position that any grounding of the planes is unjustified until the full root cause is determined, or that "only" two crashes isn't enough to justify this action? While I would always rather understand root cause -- and it's absolutely essential to get there eventually -- the world is full of imperfect information and assumptions are sometimes all you have.
  - rsynnott 8y ago
    This is pretty much what happened with the Comet. I think they gave in when four of them had exploded.
  - FabHK 8y ago
    One inexplicable crash is not a case for grounding, no; otherwise the (incredibly safe) 777 would still be grounded because of MH 370. Regarding the 737 MAX now, the prior Lion Air crash is reasonably well understood. It has exposed some fundamental weakness and questionable design choices, but the plane was still deemed safe to fly. Thus, what we have is one unexplained crash. Why should it be grounded? (Having said that, I'm avoiding the MAX as far as I can. But that's based already on the Lion Air crash. So, I argue that it should've been grounded after Lion Air became understood, or not at all.)
    - gizmo385 8y ago
      We have one unexplained crash where early reports about what happened /strongly/ match the circumstances that brought down the LionAir flight. We also have hundreds of public complaints from pilots across the United States of similar unexpected nose down behavior from 737 MAX airplanes.
      - FabHK 8y ago
        Oh, I hadn't heard of those reports. It must be terrifying when your plane is actively trying to kill you. I don't understand how they could build MCAS on the basis of one (!) AoA sensor.
        salawat 8y ago
        It's one sensor per flight computer, and the diagnostic indicator to warn a pilot of disagreeing AoA sensors is a paywalled upgrade.
- chimpburger 8y ago
  This is probably 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...
lavezzi 8y ago
I would argue that the reasoning for not grounding them was political.
nashashmi 8y ago
Europe bans it immediately because they have their own airbus. China grounds it after Europe. US grounds it after consulting with Boeing. Europe was anti US. China was reactionary. And US was protecting their own. The major people to be hurt are airlines and travelers.
- cygx 8y ago
  Except your timeline is wrong: China was the first to issue a ban, followed by Indonesia. Australia and various European as well as non-European countries followed suit, and eventually the European Aviation Safety Agency.

A plane crashes and kills over 300 people, in two separate incidents, in an industry where even minor crashes are rare, and you think the grounding of the planes is "political"?

metalliqaz 8y ago

FAA is not in the business of operating based on unsupported assumptions. The investigation for the second crash is not complete and a root cause is not known.

darkpuma 8y ago
> "The investigation for the second crash is not complete" After two crashes in such a small amount of time, the investigation doesn't need to be complete. The planes should be grounded until proven safe, not flying until proven unsafe.
karlkatzke 8y ago
Bullshit. Anyone who deals with or tries to deal with the FAA will tell you they deal with all kinds of unsupported assumptions. For instance, medical certificates are denied all the time for people who admit to having taken an ADHD drug when they were a kid, even if they only took it once or didn’t want to take it. Why? “An abundance of caution,” which is a frequent cause for actions the FAA takes.
Scarblac 8y ago
Isn't that an argument to ground the planes?
gregmac 8y ago
If a third 737 Max 8 were to crash before a root cause of this crash can be determined, would you then say it's a prudent move to ground them all? What about a fourth? Fifth? Is your position that any grounding of the planes is unjustified until the full root cause is determined, or that "only" two crashes isn't enough to justify this action? While I would always rather understand root cause -- and it's absolutely essential to get there eventually -- the world is full of imperfect information and assumptions are sometimes all you have.
- rsynnott 8y ago
  This is pretty much what happened with the Comet. I think they gave in when four of them had exploded.
- FabHK 8y ago
  One inexplicable crash is not a case for grounding, no; otherwise the (incredibly safe) 777 would still be grounded because of MH 370. Regarding the 737 MAX now, the prior Lion Air crash is reasonably well understood. It has exposed some fundamental weakness and questionable design choices, but the plane was still deemed safe to fly. Thus, what we have is one unexplained crash. Why should it be grounded? (Having said that, I'm avoiding the MAX as far as I can. But that's based already on the Lion Air crash. So, I argue that it should've been grounded after Lion Air became understood, or not at all.)
  - gizmo385 8y ago
    We have one unexplained crash where early reports about what happened /strongly/ match the circumstances that brought down the LionAir flight. We also have hundreds of public complaints from pilots across the United States of similar unexpected nose down behavior from 737 MAX airplanes.
    - FabHK 8y ago
      Oh, I hadn't heard of those reports. It must be terrifying when your plane is actively trying to kill you. I don't understand how they could build MCAS on the basis of one (!) AoA sensor.
      - salawat 8y ago
        It's one sensor per flight computer, and the diagnostic indicator to warn a pilot of disagreeing AoA sensors is a paywalled upgrade.
chimpburger 8y ago
This is probably 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...

lavezzi 8y ago

I would argue that the reasoning for not grounding them was political.

nashashmi 8y ago

Europe bans it immediately because they have their own airbus. China grounds it after Europe. US grounds it after consulting with Boeing. Europe was anti US. China was reactionary. And US was protecting their own. The major people to be hurt are airlines and travelers.

cygx 8y ago
Except your timeline is wrong: China was the first to issue a ban, followed by Indonesia. Australia and various European as well as non-European countries followed suit, and eventually the European Aviation Safety Agency.