The FAA
✔@FAANews
#FAA statement on the temporary grounding of @Boeing 737 MAX aircraft operated by U.S. airlines or in a U.S. territory.
3:09 PM - Mar 13, 2019 · Washington, DC
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Airlines beginning to ground Boeing 737-Max following Ethiopian Airline crash [UP: Trump orders grounding of fleet in the US]
- Thread starter OtherWorldly
- Start date
The FAA
✔@FAANews
#FAA statement on the temporary grounding of @Boeing 737 MAX aircraft operated by U.S. airlines or in a U.S. territory.
3:09 PM - Mar 13, 2019 · Washington, DC
Well we already know that the attempt to attach a massive engine on a 50 year old platform caused issues with flight characteristics and increased chances of stalling causing changes to engine placement and other modifications. This is basically known with this design. This is in part why MCAS was developed.
So yeah, at some level, the decision was made to further modify the 737 rather than go through the much more expensive process of developing a new platform.
I am admittedly new to this but how come Concorde was shut down after 1 crash after they were considered the safest in air travel history?
Boeing meanwhile has had numerous crashes but yet continue to operate with impunity.
If I were to speculate, likely has to do with it being an American company?
Boeing meanwhile has had numerous crashes but yet continue to operate with impunity.
If I were to speculate, likely has to do with it being an American company?
Most regulatory authorities throughout the world have reciprocity in some form - EASA takes certifications from the FAA and vice versa. But their procedures are not the same so it would take way longer than 5 weeks to recreate all their procedures to get approval with EASA first instead of the FAA.
Concorde apparently was already a money loser and had no real sustainable market. That crash simply made the decision easy to end the program. 737 is one of the most widespread platforms in existence and normally is a good investment and very safe/reliable.
Concorde was barely profitable before the crash, it wasn't worth keeping it around.
Everyone goes off of the FAA's lead when it comes to certification issues - FAA does it first and then EASA / JCAB / TC everyone else follows suit. Note, if an airline flies into America at all, it falls under FAA regulated. With Boeing being based in the US, they need the FAA's OK before they can roll it out and have any authority behind it.
Thank you for that link.
its interesting that in this case, almost the entire world didnt and the FAA was the last to ground the MAX..
Economics killed the Concorde long before the crash
The crash just ended up being the final straw
So is it a fair assertion to presume Boeing knew about this "issue" and never bothered to think about the implications for the passengers? Did they issue a warning at all?
Is it fair to want to know about this as a consumer? Or are all idiotic pions who do not know any better than a corporation, so we should just shut up and know our place?
Is it fair to want to know about this as a consumer? Or are all idiotic pions who do not know any better than a corporation, so we should just shut up and know our place?
Couldn't they have worked with EASA? I mean, if Boeing really took the plane crash seriously they would've.
Is that not a fair criticism?
Not in any kind of reasonable time frame. You have DERs and other important people operating on one set of procedures for one agency and it would take a very long time to switch to something EASA expects.
Ah makes sense but couldn't they have been bailed out? They could've come up with a better business model no?
I mean it's not like they had a short history. Plus aren't they now more or less Airbus now?
He did it through emergency powers, was that a bit of a dry-run? Given that the UK and Canada (albeit only hours earlier, so likely not having any impact) grounded flights, the US was probably going to follow suit anyway.
Does anyone know if there was another mechanism through which the US could have done this, or is an emergency declaration pretty standard?
Does anyone know if there was another mechanism through which the US could have done this, or is an emergency declaration pretty standard?
It's amazing how you had to edit in the second line to make it more apparent you're a troll. Lmao.
I know you're a troll, but just in case:
Aviation Professionals Warn of Dire Risk Amid Shutdown
New York Times said:
I think the FAA can take action. They've apparently been silent so far. Which is unacceptable.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/03/world/asia/lion-air-plane-crash-pilots.html
300+ lives and 350+ grounded planes later, I wonder if it was worth it
300+ lives and 350+ grounded planes later, I wonder if it was worth it
The FAA responded with a continued airworthiness bulletin almost immediately. This stated the planes were considered safe at that point, highlighted the on-going efforts mandated by the emergency AD some months ago and said they'd be constantly evaluating the safety status as data was received.
Hi SC, it was Sky News with their initial report of the Max being grounded. It seems that they got their initial facts slightly wrong and tweeted an updated article later.
The head of the FAA is a corporate stooge and former airline industry lobbylist. (The Canadian Minister of Transport, on the other hand, is a former astronaut.)
While others have answered regarding the business model (i.e. it wasn't worth the high cost and specialized maintenance just so a few ultra-rich people could use it as a status symbol,) the safety record was bolstered by the fact that there were so few Concordes flying. It's all due to the law of small numbers, but that single crash changed the Concorde from the safest plane to the most dangerous.
Oh man. You changed your avatar. Nobody will suspect a thing!
To be clear they've both made the same decisions based on the same data. Initially airworthiness was reiterated by both and now, after additional info, the planes have been grounded.
So whats up with automatic flight no longer disengaging with pilot input
It seems like newer planes are all about multistep management and can no longer just grab the control column to attempt a recovery
When did this philosophy shift?
It seems like newer planes are all about multistep management and can no longer just grab the control column to attempt a recovery
When did this philosophy shift?
I honest thought he was sincere. It's 2019 so you can't never tell.
Trump is always thinking of that single solitary American: himself.
There are 2 safety philisophies at play here, ground them till we figured out what is going on and lets take a gamble with human lifes till we have more info, sonething Kharvey so eloquently represents.
The "only ground if we have specific technical information the plane is unsafe" has been the regulatory philosophy since the beginning.
OP
OP
The new cockpits are about fault tolerance. The cockpit is designed to correct pilot errors and adjust for it giving pilots a chance to correct their mistakes. In this case however it is the system itself with the error and pilot needing to adjust which is not what pilots are accustomed to in a NORMAL flight
Faulty equipment regularly requires pilot intervention to correct and work around. They have all those memory items and check lists for a reason.
new data coming in is of interest. We'll see what happened in Ethiopia and what caused the change of heart here. I sort of think Boeing wants to ground them now so it can return them to service as "safe" (even though Boeing continues to say and believe the aircraft is airworthy). Probably the best way to restore faith in the aircraft given the media hysteria.
You're talking about an aircraft though that Southwest has had 41k flights on, United and American have a ton of hours on it too. Those pilot unions were supporting keeping the 737 MAX in operation. If the pilot unions were throwing a fit, I'd be raising an eyebrow. We'll see if there's a systemic issue. I still highly doubt it.
OP
OP
Not entirely surprising, since the FAA is a) catching up on being behind due to the shutdown and b) they are the authoritative source for this stuff. They know that if they ground it, everyone else is immediately grounding the plane. So they have to make sure they have some kind of hard evidence the two flights may have suffered the same issue.
Sadly, even with the shutdown, I think the FAA would finish cert faster than trying to run it through EASA. On top of it, airlines would complain bitterly that they were being put at a disadvantage against airlines that didn't have to do the software change because they aren't under EASA jurisdiction, iirc.
OP
OP
Yes but what this is about is a system which does not tell the pilot it made a change because it thought pilot made an error thus pilot only needing manual input if he notices instrumentation readings changing
No the pilot only has to intervene if something fails and causes the system to trim erroneously. If there is no part failure MCAS has no impact on Lion Air.
I don't even disagree with the stances you two took. Just the "matter of fact" vibes that left a cold impression. Ultimately, we're all mostly speaking and making assertions with unverified and unqualifed facts. But can you really blame anyone? Two brand new planes falling out of the sky isn't normal. Calling it "Hysteria" is hyperbole. People are dead. This isn't exactly manufactured outrage. We all fly all the time. Hell I just picked up my father from the airport this morning.
Airlines have a damn good track record overall and we are all grateful and automation has vastly increased aviation security. But its a logical fallacy to rely on past records as indicators of future development.
Last edited:
OP
OP
We will find that out in the final report for that crash in a year
We'll know for sure then but the previous flight had the same issue and that plane specifically had issues reported with AoA and airspeed days before.
