That's not the argument at all.
There's a disagreement in the amount of risk here. One side thinks flying the plane is far more risky than the other side does.
-
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
That's not the argument at all.
There's a disagreement in the amount of risk here. One side thinks flying the plane is far more risky than the other side does.
So if another plane went down and the "we are still waiting for evidence" phase is still ongoing, we continue to fly these 737max aircraft? How many planes/lives would need to be lost before you would agree that grounding them until everything is sorted out is the best course of action? Personally I'd rather companies lose millions of dollars than more lives lost. One brand new plane fatally crashing is suspicious in 2019. Two brand new planes fatally nose diving in very similar circumstances is cause for deep concern.
Yes they're Airbus now.
Supposedly it was kept alive as a matter of 'national pride', the crash just gave them the perfect excuse to retire them
The straight forward way to asses a risk in such a situation is: Would you fly in it? Let your kids, wife or parents fly in it?
Ultimately you can assess risk based on analytics, but in the meantime you are losing goodwill.
how about not releasing broken products?
Or is that too much to ask in the era of day-1 patches?
Airplanes and airplane equipment is complicated. You should peruse the FAAs airworthiness directive database. There's 15000 of them.
Right I remember after the volcanic eruption awhile back and everyone was grounded we had to reassess what appropriate risk levels were.
There has literally never been a bug free product of this complexity released.
Flying is matter of fact to me. My grandfather was a pilot, my dad is a pilot, my brother is a pilot, my cousin is a pilot, I've flown airplanes with them and had the stick. I've known people who died in plane crashes and military plane crashes in total hull losses. Tried and true airframes. Shit happens, things break. My dad has had serious airborne emergencies.
I've crossed the pacific twice this year already and am about to do it again. I flew on two different Indonesian airlines last month. I fly on Southwest's fleet of 737s (and have ridden on a couple MAXs) on a monthly basis.
And I get the general public, but the The Dallas News piece and CNN have been fanning the flames on it in particular. The whole article about pilots complaining when there were like 3 noteworthy complaints in a database was accompanied with ridiculous headlines. The media does this for any type of disaster, so I get it, but I read all five complaints in that database and that headlines were far worse than the actual pilot reports.
Certainly two accidents on a new airframe isn't normal - but we are waiting for data on the second one (which may prove this grounding is needed) --- but let's also be real, Indonesian airlines having accidents due to bad maintenance / pilots isn't really that abnormal either.
If the initial investigation in Indonesia wasn't pointing to maintenance and pilot error as the causes of the crash, I might agree with you. That investigation was months old and the preliminary report did not blame the aircraft. Now we'll see the new data that led to today's FAA grounding - that could change everything potentially.
I would. The pilots still are. That's the biggest indicator to me. The pilot union and the lack of pilots breaking rank to call the plane out. Sure there were a few things lodged in a database, but Southwest and its pilots aren't going to do something it thinks might kill passengers.
This is literally the worst way to asses risk. That's how you end up with anti-vaxers.
The Argentinian union of pilots are refusing to pilot their 737 MAX planes.
https://www.latercera.com/pulso/not...-volar-boeing-737-max-tras-accidentes/565608/
Why dont other systems kick in to prevent the nose dive into the ground or at the very least communicate an instrument mismatch and disable automated systems
I guess im fishing for an explanation here on how any one failure overides all the redundancies
It just feels weird with this plane since traditionally Boeing built planes that would concede to pilot control if something went wrong
I guess im fishing for an explanation here on how any one failure overides all the redundancies
It just feels weird with this plane since traditionally Boeing built planes that would concede to pilot control if something went wrong
The system thinks the plane is nearing a stall because the sensor is faulty. No other system knows better since it's got the same sensor data. It starts to trim nose down to help the pilot by making it easier to lower the nose.
The pilot should realize immediately the trim is working against them since they're flying by hand (the yoke literally gets harder to pull and maintain level flight and the trim wheels are moving on their own despite autopilot being off). The procedure is to hit a couple switches that turns the electric stabilizer trim off.
What are the chances of the first crew having to disengage this system 26 times during the first flight, and then not raise hell about it, so that second crew at least knows for damn sure they'll be facing the same problem, and how to deal with it? In an insanely safety-conscious industry like this? It's really hard not to think that something more happened here.
Not all risk obviously, I am a risk manager. I wouldn't calculate credit, finance risk this way. This is something very personal and immediate. You can't assess your family and loved one's safety based on corporate (or otherwise) risk management techniques.
Anti-vax......I can see your point, but not really though? That's not a decision made by emotions, as anti-vaxers believe pseudo scientific data. Their decisions are also made based on data, just using mumbo jumbo.
This is a decision made using emotions. And now we can veer out and discuss why some of you aren't like the rest (most) of us.
;)
For a different thread though.
If Boeing mandated that pilots go through training for changes accounting for this specific variant of plane, do these fall out of the sky?
People who know about the MCAS issue were still complaining about unexplained nose downs though. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5766398-ASRS-Reports-for-737-max8.html
I read the piece. And that's great that it is emphasizing Boeing made assumptions on how pilots should react. So the question remains. If re-training was mandated for these aircraft changes, do they fall out of the sky? Just to make sure no assumptions exist and instead a closer to 100% confident response after simulator training.
Complaint 4 and 5 are both complaints about nose down with the autopilot on - MCAS is disabled with the autopilot on. Sooooo.
The planes are grounded, so no you shouldn't worry.
You can get cheap tickets when you don't book less than a week from the date you want to fly on.
That training wouldn't change how they respond to a runaway trim event. That's what the piece is saying. The existence of the MCAS software routines has no impact on what the response should be.
Well two planes are down, the fleet is grounded. Let's hope any assumptions are cleared up by Boeing and it doesn't happen again.
Not really sure what you are implying? Does it matter what technology exactly is causing the plane to suddenly point nose down? It's not unknown for an issue to be triggered by more than one thing. If disabling/fixing/mitigating the MCAS issue still has the planes causing instability during takeoff, then we are in an even worse situation than we initially thought.
Nice to get some information on what the certification is for this. Hopefully the CVR can figure out if the problem was either missed or the pilots eventually figured out the problem, but were too late to recover.
I've talked to several pilots, including members of my family, about this whole situation, and I think this article helps shed some light on why pilots seem less concerned about flying the MAX, at least based on the information regarding the Lion Air that it known thus far.
It seems like pilots for Southwest/American/United feel confident they have the training and know the procedures needed to correct any issue that might occur with the MCAS, especially since all of this was brought to light after the Lion Air flight (keeping in mind the flight prior to the one that crashed had a similar issue which was properly corrected by the flight crew). I think it also explains why the pilot unions did not seem overly concerned with pilots continuing to fly the MAX. The main point all the pilots I've spoken to make is that there is no way a pilot is going to fly a plane they deem unsafe that could potentially kill them and their passengers.
Obviously we need to see what the investigations conclude and make sure corrective action is taken if needed. At the same time, I don't particularly care for the hysteria the media helps create with articles reporting on a handful of incidents reported by pilots, acting as if these sorts of reports are some sort of rarity (and also 5 reports from 1000s if flights isn't exactly a high percentage). This is why we have properly trained well compensated pilots to deal with emergencies in the cockpit, ones that most of the time passengers never know about.
And if Boeing is selling these to operators around the world for commercial service, do you account for the highest training expectation or the lowest one?
Boeing, or Airbus for that matter, are not in the business of selling unsafe airplanes. Just a handful of fatal crashes among thousands or millions of safe flights, could be enough to sink them. Therefore even if you assume Boeing only cares about money, it's in their best interest to ensure their planes are as safe as possible. I have no doubt that Boeing felt that the 737 MAX was a safe plane and had all the associated training and procedure information for any pilot qualified on the 737 MAX to fly it safely. Now these investigations may conclude otherwise, but I don't think that would have been intentional by Boeing.
The fact is there will always be a human component to flying, and not all pilots are trained equally. Both Boeing and Airbus have done a hell of a job of making aviation as safe as it is these days, which has done a ton to help make up for the discrepancies in training quality you see from American and other first world pilots vs pilots in other parts of the world.
So yes, I do believe Boeing creates and sells planes with the intention of every pilot who is trained on the plane to fly it safely. With that said, they don't have full control over the differences in training quality across the world, and those differences at times could make a difference between a pilot safely recovering from a critical situation and a tragic result such as a crash.
Josh Dawsey
✔@jdawsey1
FAA officials gave an aggressive defense of Boeing. Trump eventually decided to ground the planes regardless — explaining the decision privately in terms of his own personal opinions about the plane, while his administration cited new data publicly. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-disparages-boeing-737s-in-private-before-grounding-the-plane-after-deadly-crash/2019/03/13/8eac7c92-45a3-11e9-8aab-95b8d80a1e4f_story.html …
9:24 PM - Mar 13, 2019
✔@jdawsey1
FAA officials gave an aggressive defense of Boeing. Trump eventually decided to ground the planes regardless — explaining the decision privately in terms of his own personal opinions about the plane, while his administration cited new data publicly. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-disparages-boeing-737s-in-private-before-grounding-the-plane-after-deadly-crash/2019/03/13/8eac7c92-45a3-11e9-8aab-95b8d80a1e4f_story.html …
9:24 PM - Mar 13, 2019
WaPo: Trump disparages Boeing 737s in private before grounding the plane after deadly crash
As President Trump consulted with administration officials Wednesday over whether Boeing's 737 Max jetliners should be grounded after a crash killed more than 150 passengers in Ethiopia over the weekend, he shared his pointed opinion of the type of plane in question.
In his words, it "sucked."
The president said Boeing 737s paled in comparison to the Boeing 757, known as Trump Force One, which he owns as a personal jet, according to White House and transportation officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. He questioned why Boeing would keep building the model and opined that he never would have bought a 737 for the Trump Shuttle, the small airline he briefly ran three decades ago that relied on 727s before going bankrupt, the officials said.
Later in the day, Trump agreed with his aides that the Federal Aviation Administration, as the industry regulator, should formally announce the decision to ground the 737 Max planes, according to two White House officials. But when reporters were brought into the White House for a previously scheduled immigration event, he scrapped the plan.
"We're going to be issuing an emergency order of prohibition to ground all flights of the 737 Max 8 and the 737 Max 9 and the planes associated with that line," Trump announced, catching some industry officials by surprise.
----------------
Trump was inclined to announce a grounding on Tuesday, but he received pushback from the FAA, which had not yet reached a decision, according to officials familiar with the deliberations. But Trump also equivocated himself, telling advisers that grounding planes would cause panic and could hurt the stock market, according to two people who spoke to him.
Federal regulators usually take the lead on making decisions related to safety, said Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with Teal Group.
"It's not the president's decision and it should never be the president's decision," he said, adding that he did not know whether Trump broke any protocols.
On Tuesday, as a growing number of countries were grounding the planes, Trump spoke to Muilenburg, who argued in favor of keeping the planes in the sky, according to a senior administration official. Boeing was facing increasing global pressure after reports showed that pilots had complained about the plane's automation system.
On Tuesday night, officials said, Trump was given satellite data that indicated the same 737 Max automation system believed to be responsible for a crash in Indonesia last year that killed more than 180 people may have played a role in Sunday's accident.
By Wednesday morning, officials said, Trump had also seen information about the crash from the Canadian government, which then announced it was grounding the model, leaving the U.S. as the only major country where the aircraft was being allowed to operate.
"We were coordinating with Canada," Trump said Wednesday. "We were giving them information, they were giving us information."
Throughout the process, Trump played the role of aviation expert, despite having no formal training in aeronautics. Trump told advisers about the dynamics and equipment of various airplanes, comparing them to his 757.
----------------
Daniel Wells, who sits on the board of the Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations, said Trump should not have been the person making the announcement.
"The president isn't the right person to do it. Elwell or Chao should have made the announcement," said Wells, whose 30,000-member group did not call for the planes to be grounded. "But it was Trump who said it. That tells you everything you need to know."
LOL 757 is better though. Beoing should have stretched the 757 for the 737Max market, not shove a bigger engine to 737 and try to sell it as new plane.
this is a multi billion dollar company and they have the resources to diagnose and fix the problem but didn't bother because the FAA was shut down? it's a shame that the government strong arms countries to buy Boeing planes over the last few administrations especially in the last 10-12 years when they were outsourcing work.
But they're not American so it doesn't count.
Who knows how underskilled these pilots could be due to the hack training they might have had?
I love how this is the attitude some people take when the loss of lives are predominantly a bunch of brown people from Indonesia and Ethiopia.
"oh it must be the pilots"
"oh it must be the airlines maintenance/safety programme"
It only really counts if it happens to Americans right? Absolute joke. I'm glad the authorities saw the sense to take preventative action before the corporate defence force on this forum have.
The attitude displayed by some people has been abhorrent.
Last edited:
And yet you Boeing shills still try to victim-blame the pilots.
Last edited:
lol, no. The 757 has not been made in 15 years. It would be far cheaper and more cost efficient for Boeing in the long term to develop the NMA
In addition, the 737 Max was made to bridge the 737 to the 757 market so what on earth would a stretched 757 be aimed at :)
Isn't the whole likely reason for the crashes that the MAX flights differently than the predecessor when deactivating the new SW, but that Boeing told the plane buyers that specific training for the pilots was not necessary?
Yup. There are A320neo planes all over the world flying perfectly because Airbus made sure to inform pilots on how to use the tech on their plane.
But it won't be till an American 737Max went down that people on here would think there was something wrong with this plane. There is huge reason to believe that there is something wrong - whether that's training, software, or physically something wrong. Brand new planes just don't have an activate nose dive function. I await the results of investigations.
No. We don't have enough information about the latest crash to make any conclusions just yet, but the previous crash likely could have been avoided if the pilots followed existing memory items and check lists.
I agree that Boeing should have been upfront about the existence of the MCAS. At the same time, as has been discussed ad nauseam here, the procedure to fix this issue is not anything new and has been in existence with previous models. A similar issue occurred with the Lion Air plane that crashed on the previous flight and was it successfully corrected using this procedure. Per the preliminary report on the Lion Air crash, not only did the crew of the flight right before the tragic crash able to correct this same issue, it looks like there was an ongoing issue with the AoA sensor that was not fixed, which obviously points to a maintenance problem. Add this to the fact that Lion Air has a history of safety issues.
We can't draw final conclusions about the Lion Air flight until the complete investigation is done, and we may very well find design issues on Boeing's end that need to be made to prevent these tragedies in the future. At the same time, it's not "abhorrent" to review the facts we have so far and ask legitimate questions about maintenance and training, which is largely the responsibility of the airline and national aviation authorities.
On the Ethiopian flight, until we get at least a preliminary report, any mention of what might happened is nothing but speculation.
I don't really understand the anger over the fact that training and maintenance are two big things that are looked at during a crash investigation. They are often a cause, if not "the" cause for a crash, especially when an airline with a spotty safety record such as Lion Air is involved. So yes, it often is "the pilots" or "airlines maintenance". That has nothing to do with the color of the people involved in the crash.
The Lion Air crash could involve a mixture of the pilot training on a procedure that already existed pre MAX, maintenance issues, and of course potential issues directly with Boeing (too little emphasis placed on the changes between the 737 NG and MAX, potential design issues with the number of sensors used or other problems that the investigation could find). Then again we won't know until the final report.
I have no idea how people are making any conclusions about the Ethiopian crash without even a preliminary report other than just outright speculation.
User warned: antagonizing other members
I would spend less time digging through post history and more time trying to understand the technical issues being discussed.
I come from a family of pilots and have a differing opinion than some here, plus aviation issues are important to me. I am also a new member of the site. Not exactly sure how that makes me an "astroturfer".