4 ms·

Arguably, after what we've learned about the FAA after the 737-Max crashes, FAA approval should be considered a red flag instead of sufficient proof of safety,

Arguably, after what we've learned about the FAA after the 737-Max crashes, FAA approval should be considered a red flag instead of sufficient proof of safety, especially when it come to Boeing airframes. Europe has banned airlines, especially African airlines, and individual aircraft pretty regularly for safety concerns [1]. America tends to ban entire countries. It is only fair for African countries to follow the similar guidelines, especially when there are problem aircraft. [1] https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-themes/eu-air-safety-list_en https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-themes/eu-air-safet...

jhugo 4y ago
So just to understand this correctly, you're saying that a type that the FAA certified in 1982, and a specific aircraft of that type that has flown safely for about the last 25 years, should be viewed with a red flag because of the 737 MAX debacle? This airframe has been banned to make a point about Delta scheduling their older frames on JFK-ACC. Delta probably does it because it's a low-yielding route, and making a big public stink (with safety overtones designed to scare uninformed readers) is one of the few ways Ghana can try to convince Delta to ignore the economics. Making a stink like this worked with BA, so maybe it will work with Delta too. > Europe has banned airlines, especially African airlines, and individual aircraft pretty regularly for safety concerns [1]. America tends to ban entire countries. It is only fair for African countries to follow the similar guidelines, especially when there are problem aircraft. To be clear, this has nothing to do with safety. If EASA or FAA banned an airline or a country because of a fuel imbalance there would be no airlines left.
- jkulubya 4y ago
  From what I’ve read, the Ghanaian regulators have demanded that that specific aircraft not be flown within their jurisdiction because they don’t like the recurring issue with the fuel imbalance (…and advised that Delta flies newer planes because Ghanaians don’t like the old ones) The FAA/EASA not being concerned by it (from what we know), doesn’t mean that there isn’t a possible safety issue to investigate. It’s also easy to have politics and safety i.e. regulation mix in ways that aren’t so black and white. Consider the time it took for the 737 Max to be recertified in the rest of the world vs the US. Do you think that was all safety? Or some combination of safety and politics? So no, I don’t think it’s possible to categorically state that it has nothing to do with safety.
  - jhugo 4y ago
    A fuel imbalance happening twice is not a "recurring issue". It's a problem that wasn't fixed correctly. It may or may not concern you, depending on your level of knowledge about aviation, to know that when it comes to relatively minor issues like this, this kind of thing actually happens all the time — the maintenance engineer will carry out a documented series of steps to test the system, find that everything tests OK, and release the aircraft back to service. Meanwhile some intermittent fault is still present, that didn't show up during the test, and it happens again on the next flight or a few flights later. Eventually the tech log entries give enough clues to identify the problem or it happens during a test, and the issue is solved. No sane regulator would ban an aircraft for this kind of situation — a version of it happens daily worldwide, including on whatever your own favourite airline is.
    - jkulubya 4y ago
      Yeah, we’re gonna have to agree to disagree. Do I personally think that the 2x fuel imbalance is a problem? Nope, I’d happily get on that plane Could this situation become a safety issue? Yes it could. Is it possible that there’s more to this situation than safety? Yeah, probably. Maybe they want shiny new planes on the route. But also, the passengers are paying customers with consumer rights - these are being enforced Are the Ghanaian authorities not a sane regulator? I’ve got no reason to believe they aren’t being proper regulators. There is a possible safety issue that’s well within their mandate. What happens when you’re dealing with regulators is if you’ve got a good relationship with them, then all the optional stuff (and some of the mandatory stuff) is optional. If not, then you’re gonna have to check every single box and then some. See Boeing in the US vs Europe. Call it politics, call it whatever but it is what it is
      - DocTomoe 4y ago
        Given how important fuel balance is to trimming the aircraft, I would not board an aircraft that has a history of problems with this. > See Boeing in the US vs Europe. Call it politics, call it whatever but it is what it is What you call "good relationship", I call corruption and murder. If Ghanan authorities are fighting against that, more power to them.

jhugo 4y ago

So just to understand this correctly, you're saying that a type that the FAA certified in 1982, and a specific aircraft of that type that has flown safely for about the last 25 years, should be viewed with a red flag because of the 737 MAX debacle? This airframe has been banned to make a point about Delta scheduling their older frames on JFK-ACC. Delta probably does it because it's a low-yielding route, and making a big public stink (with safety overtones designed to scare uninformed readers) is one of the few ways Ghana can try to convince Delta to ignore the economics. Making a stink like this worked with BA, so maybe it will work with Delta too. > Europe has banned airlines, especially African airlines, and individual aircraft pretty regularly for safety concerns [1]. America tends to ban entire countries. It is only fair for African countries to follow the similar guidelines, especially when there are problem aircraft. To be clear, this has nothing to do with safety. If EASA or FAA banned an airline or a country because of a fuel imbalance there would be no airlines left.

jkulubya 4y ago
From what I’ve read, the Ghanaian regulators have demanded that that specific aircraft not be flown within their jurisdiction because they don’t like the recurring issue with the fuel imbalance (…and advised that Delta flies newer planes because Ghanaians don’t like the old ones) The FAA/EASA not being concerned by it (from what we know), doesn’t mean that there isn’t a possible safety issue to investigate. It’s also easy to have politics and safety i.e. regulation mix in ways that aren’t so black and white. Consider the time it took for the 737 Max to be recertified in the rest of the world vs the US. Do you think that was all safety? Or some combination of safety and politics? So no, I don’t think it’s possible to categorically state that it has nothing to do with safety.
- jhugo 4y ago
  A fuel imbalance happening twice is not a "recurring issue". It's a problem that wasn't fixed correctly. It may or may not concern you, depending on your level of knowledge about aviation, to know that when it comes to relatively minor issues like this, this kind of thing actually happens all the time — the maintenance engineer will carry out a documented series of steps to test the system, find that everything tests OK, and release the aircraft back to service. Meanwhile some intermittent fault is still present, that didn't show up during the test, and it happens again on the next flight or a few flights later. Eventually the tech log entries give enough clues to identify the problem or it happens during a test, and the issue is solved. No sane regulator would ban an aircraft for this kind of situation — a version of it happens daily worldwide, including on whatever your own favourite airline is.
  - jkulubya 4y ago
    Yeah, we’re gonna have to agree to disagree. Do I personally think that the 2x fuel imbalance is a problem? Nope, I’d happily get on that plane Could this situation become a safety issue? Yes it could. Is it possible that there’s more to this situation than safety? Yeah, probably. Maybe they want shiny new planes on the route. But also, the passengers are paying customers with consumer rights - these are being enforced Are the Ghanaian authorities not a sane regulator? I’ve got no reason to believe they aren’t being proper regulators. There is a possible safety issue that’s well within their mandate. What happens when you’re dealing with regulators is if you’ve got a good relationship with them, then all the optional stuff (and some of the mandatory stuff) is optional. If not, then you’re gonna have to check every single box and then some. See Boeing in the US vs Europe. Call it politics, call it whatever but it is what it is
    - DocTomoe 4y ago
      Given how important fuel balance is to trimming the aircraft, I would not board an aircraft that has a history of problems with this. > See Boeing in the US vs Europe. Call it politics, call it whatever but it is what it is What you call "good relationship", I call corruption and murder. If Ghanan authorities are fighting against that, more power to them.