Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Ramshock, Mar 10, 2019.
Something I wanted to know as well. Perhaps they just trust the FAA.
I'd buy it if it was a Chinese regulatory authority.
I would assume that FAA and Easa are not testing everything independently of each other. I assume that once you get an approval by FAA you do not need to go through the whole process in Europe.
From when I worked in medical devices, FDA and CE were totally unrelated processes.
That is a good point.
With VW there is a very strong customer base and it appears that most customers put it down to a one off issue which didn't really affect long term perceptions. They have heavily discounted to maintain sales volume.
With Boeing, the airlines have little real choice. As others have said it essentially boils down to Airbus or Boeing for the single aisle planes.
As with VW Boeing will probably offer discounts if necessary.
The primary requirement will be to get the aircraft airworthiness restored and back in the air.
Sort of. The manufacturer will carry out all the relevant tests and the regulators check it. The big regulators work together and the Easa can take the FAAs word and vice versa, although they don't have to. According to the news there was some disagreement over the flight control systems on the 737.
Tweet— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet— Twitter API (@user) date
If that’s true, that’s criminal negligence on Boeing’s side. Safety should never be an option in aviation.
That's a bit disingenuous. The 737 has been flying safely for 50 years without that, a properly trained crew would know how to deal with a malfunction. The lack of training and documentation by Boeing is the issue, not the missing display.
I hope someone takes Boeing to the cleaners. They've killed people. Someone needs to go to prison.
Wasn't the actual issue something that didn't and couldn't exist in the original 737, though? If there's no new software, then that software can't send you crashing into the ground by mistake. Of course, the reason the software is there to begin with is that they didn't want to have to train pilots, so the software was supposed to make it feel like the 737.
The issue is not solved by angle of attack indication. The software is still going to pitch the nose down and fight the pilots if those sensors malfunction. No doubt Boeing will be forced to include the display as standard but the software is what needs fixing, and the training so that crews know how to switch it off and fly normally.
Someone really needs to be charged with murder.
Ah yes, I think I misunderstood what you were saying. I agree.
I would think a disagree light between the two AOA censors would greatly ease the pilots decision concerning the autopilot.
It would, but it's not essential and it wouldn't have prevented these crashes. The aircraft still tells the crew if there is a problem with the sensors and there is a standard checklist to follow if they can't control the pitch.
The problem with the Lionair crash was that nobody told that crew about the new system and in the heat of the moment they couldn't relate what was happening to what they did know and turn the system off. Boeing did then publish instructions about it but it is looking like the Ethiopian pilots hadn't yet been trained on it, which may explain why the Ethiopian CEO came out so aggressively towards Boeing.
I don't know, I think it would have increased the chances of the pilots figuring it out, whether it would have been enough in that short time I don't know. The crews not knowing about the system is only a part of the problem it appears though. Having an automated attitude adjustment rely on one sensor alone (as was reported concerning MCAS) is problematic too in my opinion.
That's not how murder works, there needs to be intent.
That said, Boeing is incredibly lucky (from a financial perspective) that this crash did not happen in the U.S., there would have been a joint and punitive civil suit in the courts already.
They will still pay out eventually the way things are going.
What is this reference to VW? Is this pertaining to the emissions test scandal?
If they had known the sensors were malfunctioning it wouldn't have made much difference as they didn't know how to fix the resulting nose down trim from the MCAS software. Boeing need to fix the software and airlines need to properly train their pilots on it.
It might all be too late though. The first airline cancelled its 737 order today.
It violates every principle in designing redundant and hardened aviation systems.
But it makes sense if you've ever written a block of code and it doesn't run, and you spend hrs worrying about how to get it to run, and eventually you magically figure out a "trick" to get it to run. I think that's what happened here to some extent, where the software fix probably was fast-tracked through review because it "solved" the structural problem.
We'll be seeing more order delays/cancellations, not totally related to this issue. Avianca canceled delivery of some A320neos recently.
I think if this was easily fixable by software they'd have already done that. They had enough time.
Looking at more details about this aircraft , it appears that if a pilot wants to disable MCAS, they need to disable the whole electric trimming system . After which they find themselves in a completely differently handled aircraft, where the actual reason for the existence of MCAS starts to manifest itself.
The only way this could have been properly resolved , was to change the stabilizer - however then that would no longer be a 737. I think Boeing (and FAA) may actually be in more trouble than people imagine.
It would have at least told them whether they were in danger of stalling or not, then they could have fought the one battle they needed to fight (nose down), instead of having 2 contrary problems. I don't think it's impossible that that could have made a difference, but it's just speculation.
It's too late now anyway, those 2 aircraft are lost. Wouldn't surprise me if the effort to get it airworthy again involves installing a 3rd AOA sensor and looping all of them in, but again, that's just speculation.
When you sell someone a product that you knew would plunge to the ground while in autopilot it's like firing an automatic weapon in to a crowd of people. You know you're gonna kill someone you just don't know who. That's murder.
If they knew there was defect on the planes autopilot and still sold the planes that's wilful intent.
They're lucky it didn't happen in Europe or they would be up for murder.
As of now, there is no proof of that. And what on earth would be the incentive for Boeing engineers and managers to let such a product go out to the public?
I think this falls under the umbrella of "unintentional negligence", which is still bad, but not in the same category as deliberately looking the other way when you know that this could happen
I obviously stand corrected if a chain of emails come out where engineers warned senior management of this and they waved away concerns
As I said if this tweet is true then it's murder.
Yes. If Boeing knew that the sensor malfunctions could cause a crash, and did not relay this information because Ethiopian and Lion Airlines did not subscribe to the "enhanced safety package" then yes, they would be criminally liable. As of now the information suggests just civil liability, but that could change with the investigation currently ongoing.
Well yeah But I was replying to the tweet post. The idea that they had a fix but you needed to pay extra for it is obscene. Considering that there was evidence that the malfunction had been to blame in the Lion Air crash, not recalling all planes and fixing the problem free of charge was criminally negligent IMHO.
Having the evidence from the Lion Air crash and not informing airlines who hadn't brought the upgrade that their planes were possibly flawed is very questionable.
There were more than a few Europeans on the flight though so they're still in big trouble.
And incorrect. Not having the angle of attack indicators did not cause the crash. The MCAS logic loop that kept forcing the nose down and the lack of pilot training on how to correct it did.
The only way they will have any liability is if it's found that they knew about the software glitch and kept it quiet.
They did inform them, back in November. Whether Ethiopian hadn't fully trained the pilots on how to deal with it or they just didn't do what they were supposed to isn't clear.
they did train them. But the training was a one hour long exercise on an ipad. Designed by Boeing. And that applies for all the other pilots out there. How would that make you feel if you were a passenger on an airbus 737 8max?
Tweet— Twitter API (@user) date
I always thought the „corporate media“ angle was blown way out of proportion. Then I see shit like this, where an amercian news outlet makes it look like the african airline is at fault and not the american company who build the failing plane. What a disgrace.
A fecking disgrace is what that article is.
It's no different than any other accident; if it's your plane that falls out of the sky, it's your reputation that gets hit.
Not in this case. First thing I (and many other people in this thread) checked was if they were flying a 737-MAX in their booked flights. It's Boeing's reputation that has taken a huge hit.
The article itself paints Ethiopian Airlines in a glowing light as an outstanding company; it’s a business news article after all, not general news. Hence the unsympathetic focus on how it impacts the company, not the cause.
It’s just a completely shit headline/tweet to accompany the article.
Another - Max 8 which was part of the grounded fleet made an emergency landing after experiencing problems with an engine. The plane was being moved to temporary storage in California.
Separate names with a comma.