4 ms·

Especially one that the FAA tried to pooh pooh as long as it could. It was amazing to watch the goodwill and trust accumulated over decades crumble to nothing i

by chx 7y ago

Especially one that the FAA tried to pooh pooh as long as it could. It was amazing to watch the goodwill and trust accumulated over decades crumble to nothing in a few hours as the European countries one by one banned the airline from their airspace but did not ground them. It was the EASA telling the FAA to do the right thing. They didn't and then finally the EASA did ground the plane. I really can't remember any other time when the EASA and the FAA disagreed especially this big. https://www.thejournal.ie/us-ireland-boeing-4538567-Mar2019/ https://www.thejournal.ie/us-ireland-boeing-4538567-Mar2019/

FabHK 7y ago
My perception is different. It was appropriate, I think, for the FAA not to ground the fleet after the first crash. It was also arguably appropriate for the FAA not to ground the fleet immediately after the second crash, but then after some time when it became apparent that the failure mode was sufficiently similar (as they did). However, what has emerged since then certainly damaged the reputation of the FAA. But it was not a matter of a few hours, it was a matter of careful investigation and evaluation over months.
- markdown 7y ago
  > It was appropriate, I think, for the FAA not to ground the fleet after the first crash. Safety first. They ought to have grounded the plane immediately after the first crash and TBH it's my belief that they would have done so if it had been a US plane with US passengers. The fact that it happened to brown people on the other side of the world made it easy to ignore. Don't forget that the FAA had all the details of the plane showing that it had implemented the new MCAS system which in theory could have caused the crash.
  - briandear 7y ago
    The FAA doesn’t control the worldwide skies. Indonesia didn’t ground the plane, nor did Ethiopia. Europe also didn’t ground it after the first crash either. The FAA’s jurisdiction is the United States: other countries could have grounded the plane quickly but didn’t.
    - bdhess 7y ago
      As the United States is the country of origin, an airworthiness directive issued by the FAA is valid in all ICAO member states.
  - georgeplusplus 7y ago
    Your safety first rhetoric doesn’t hold up against any sort of practicality. Should the 777 have been grounded immediately when Asiana crashed? What about the 777 after Malaysia or its second which we still don’t know the cause of? the right thing was done after the second crash (and eventually by the FAA after it’s arm was twisted enough) but to say it should’ve been immediately grounded is missing the picture entirely.
    - akie 7y ago
      > and eventually by the FAA after it’s arm was twisted enough There's a big part of the problem.
    - markdown 7y ago
      > Your safety first rhetoric doesn’t hold up against any sort of practicality. Wow. I don't know how to respond to that. People who thought like you kept the planes in the air and the result was the completely preventable deaths of so many more. > Should the 777 have been grounded immediately when Asiana crashed? What about the 777 after Malaysia or its second which we still don’t know the cause of? Nope. Those aircraft have a very long history of safe flight, completely unlike a 737 MAX. The FAA isn't made up of laymen watching the news to find out about the planes. They knew before the first MAX took flight that it had been heavily modified to make bigger engines on an airframe that wasn't designed to support it. It knew about the MCAS hacks that were implemented to make sure the plane fought the pilots under certain circumstances. They knew that pilots hadn't been taught about MCAS. The moment the first plane went down and they got a look at the planes behaviour before it crashed, they would have suspected the cause. Yet they did nothing. They did the bidding of Boeing to ensure they'd have jobs when their stint with govt was over. It's the revolving door. Regulatory capture. Utter corruption leading to completely avoidable mass deaths.
- jussij 7y ago
  Except there are reports some pilots had already raised concerns about the safety of the MAX, even before both of these crashes. If true, that would indicate these pilot reports were not given the full scrutiny that they deserved.
- raverbashing 7y ago
  Well, as you said yourself, the FAA itself calculated the chance of a MAX crash to be significant higher than other models. Sure, those things take time, but a more decisive action should have been taken sooner. It might not justify a full ground but at least it should have justified a very strongly worded Advisory Notice to pilots (not sure of the specific nomenclature for this document) also the AOA disagree light should have been made default ASAP. So no, FAA has a lot to blame here.
- daddylonglegs 7y ago
  It's been reported that an FAA analysis after the first crash concluded that - without modification - MCAS was expected to cause an additional 15 crashes over the service life of the 737 MAX. It seems that when the second aircraft crashed Boeing was already working on a new version of MCAS, but they and the FAA decided to keep this quiet and keep the aircraft flying. I think that this decision accepted rather a lot of risk to life, compared to what I would expect from civil aviation. "Peter Defazio, the chairman of the House Transportation Committee, said an FAA analysis following the Lion Air accident but before the Ethiopian Airlines crash concluded there would be 15 fatal MAX accidents if there was no fix to MCAS. DeFazio asked Dickson why wasn’t airplane grounded then? He did not have an answer." https://leehamnews.com/2019/12/11/faa-no-max-certification-until-2020-analysis-forecast-15-more-crashes-if-mcas-not-fixed/ https://leehamnews.com/2019/12/11/faa-no-max-certification-u... (I think the first report was in the WSJ, but that's behind a paywall)
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
ulfw 7y ago
It was the Chinese Authorities who moved first and the we-outsource-our-job-to-Boeing FAA last.
- dmix 7y ago
  China has recently produced some competing planes and has more of an authoritarian hold on the industry. About 20% of the Max stock was across a few of Chinese airlines which wasn’t a huge number. The last one also happened in SEA and had some initial duelling finger pointing so it worked well as a PR gambit to be the first to block it. Especially in the middle of a trade war involving product quality issues and Boeing is the closest thing to a US state run aircraft manufacturer. It’s always been a beacon of American protectionism well before the recent administration. So basically there was a ton of political will potentially involved here.

by chx 7y ago

FabHK 7y ago

My perception is different. It was appropriate, I think, for the FAA not to ground the fleet after the first crash. It was also arguably appropriate for the FAA not to ground the fleet immediately after the second crash, but then after some time when it became apparent that the failure mode was sufficiently similar (as they did). However, what has emerged since then certainly damaged the reputation of the FAA. But it was not a matter of a few hours, it was a matter of careful investigation and evaluation over months.

markdown 7y ago
> It was appropriate, I think, for the FAA not to ground the fleet after the first crash. Safety first. They ought to have grounded the plane immediately after the first crash and TBH it's my belief that they would have done so if it had been a US plane with US passengers. The fact that it happened to brown people on the other side of the world made it easy to ignore. Don't forget that the FAA had all the details of the plane showing that it had implemented the new MCAS system which in theory could have caused the crash.
- briandear 7y ago
  The FAA doesn’t control the worldwide skies. Indonesia didn’t ground the plane, nor did Ethiopia. Europe also didn’t ground it after the first crash either. The FAA’s jurisdiction is the United States: other countries could have grounded the plane quickly but didn’t.
  - bdhess 7y ago
    As the United States is the country of origin, an airworthiness directive issued by the FAA is valid in all ICAO member states.
- georgeplusplus 7y ago
  Your safety first rhetoric doesn’t hold up against any sort of practicality. Should the 777 have been grounded immediately when Asiana crashed? What about the 777 after Malaysia or its second which we still don’t know the cause of? the right thing was done after the second crash (and eventually by the FAA after it’s arm was twisted enough) but to say it should’ve been immediately grounded is missing the picture entirely.
  - akie 7y ago
    > and eventually by the FAA after it’s arm was twisted enough There's a big part of the problem.
  - markdown 7y ago
    > Your safety first rhetoric doesn’t hold up against any sort of practicality. Wow. I don't know how to respond to that. People who thought like you kept the planes in the air and the result was the completely preventable deaths of so many more. > Should the 777 have been grounded immediately when Asiana crashed? What about the 777 after Malaysia or its second which we still don’t know the cause of? Nope. Those aircraft have a very long history of safe flight, completely unlike a 737 MAX. The FAA isn't made up of laymen watching the news to find out about the planes. They knew before the first MAX took flight that it had been heavily modified to make bigger engines on an airframe that wasn't designed to support it. It knew about the MCAS hacks that were implemented to make sure the plane fought the pilots under certain circumstances. They knew that pilots hadn't been taught about MCAS. The moment the first plane went down and they got a look at the planes behaviour before it crashed, they would have suspected the cause. Yet they did nothing. They did the bidding of Boeing to ensure they'd have jobs when their stint with govt was over. It's the revolving door. Regulatory capture. Utter corruption leading to completely avoidable mass deaths.
jussij 7y ago
Except there are reports some pilots had already raised concerns about the safety of the MAX, even before both of these crashes. If true, that would indicate these pilot reports were not given the full scrutiny that they deserved.
raverbashing 7y ago
Well, as you said yourself, the FAA itself calculated the chance of a MAX crash to be significant higher than other models. Sure, those things take time, but a more decisive action should have been taken sooner. It might not justify a full ground but at least it should have justified a very strongly worded Advisory Notice to pilots (not sure of the specific nomenclature for this document) also the AOA disagree light should have been made default ASAP. So no, FAA has a lot to blame here.
daddylonglegs 7y ago
It's been reported that an FAA analysis after the first crash concluded that - without modification - MCAS was expected to cause an additional 15 crashes over the service life of the 737 MAX. It seems that when the second aircraft crashed Boeing was already working on a new version of MCAS, but they and the FAA decided to keep this quiet and keep the aircraft flying. I think that this decision accepted rather a lot of risk to life, compared to what I would expect from civil aviation. "Peter Defazio, the chairman of the House Transportation Committee, said an FAA analysis following the Lion Air accident but before the Ethiopian Airlines crash concluded there would be 15 fatal MAX accidents if there was no fix to MCAS. DeFazio asked Dickson why wasn’t airplane grounded then? He did not have an answer." https://leehamnews.com/2019/12/11/faa-no-max-certification-until-2020-analysis-forecast-15-more-crashes-if-mcas-not-fixed/ https://leehamnews.com/2019/12/11/faa-no-max-certification-u... (I think the first report was in the WSJ, but that's behind a paywall)
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

ulfw 7y ago

It was the Chinese Authorities who moved first and the we-outsource-our-job-to-Boeing FAA last.

dmix 7y ago
China has recently produced some competing planes and has more of an authoritarian hold on the industry. About 20% of the Max stock was across a few of Chinese airlines which wasn’t a huge number. The last one also happened in SEA and had some initial duelling finger pointing so it worked well as a PR gambit to be the first to block it. Especially in the middle of a trade war involving product quality issues and Boeing is the closest thing to a US state run aircraft manufacturer. It’s always been a beacon of American protectionism well before the recent administration. So basically there was a ton of political will potentially involved here.