The findings/report take a lot of time though, one for 2016 FlyDubai crash is yet to be published. Not sure why people are getting so defensive for Boeing. It could just be that the planes are safe but pilots need new training to operate them without any scope of incident. Boeing claimed that no new training would be required as one of the USPs, that may not hold. It is absolutely to correct to ground planes until one is sure that latest crash was not similar to Lion air one and not caused by a fault in new plane's design.
737 Max - Boeing grounds the fleet after second crash | Production temporarily suspended
- Thread starter Ramshock
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
I reckon that Boeing's solution is probably over-engineered for sure and we've seen incidents before where pilots and complex systems interact poorly in what are seemingly innocuous moments leading to disaster but the flight data is available and some form of review could be done to support grounding. Right now it does not feel like it's based on anything other than random people comparing data from flight tracker.
Interestingly, if you take these as seperate incidents and accept a 1/100000 occurence rate; with 700 flights per day it works out to one every four and a half months. 
That's opposite to how aviation safety works. It doesn't need to wait for concrete proof of danger for action to be taken. If there is a reasonable amount of evidence to suggest the two accidents might share the same cause, and there most definitely is here, the aircraft get grounded until it can be determined for certain.
Not too long ago every Rolls Royce engined 787 on the planet was grounded, simply because they discovered there was a chance the turbine blades might crack. If you've flown out of Heathrow recently there are still a few sitting there minus their engines.
Boeing were building a completely new aircraft but then Airbus came along with their re-engined A320 and took hundreds of orders, including a massive one from American Airlines. Boeing had to build a re-engined 737 to compete but the new engines are heavier and change the centre of gravity. The software was put in to make the aircraft behave like the old one so airlines didn't have to retrain their pilots - that's common across all aircraft nowadays. Southwest had the first order but it was Airbus that forced Boeing to make it.
I don't think there is a reasonable amount of evidence that suggests that, that's my contention here.
With regards to turbine fatigue and engine related issues, it is very easy to reach that point of "reasonable amount of evidence" quickly. You can boroscope engines and such.
It's harder to get to the same point when the issue is software related.
What evidence is that?
Yeah, I am sure officials of China, UK, Oz, Germany and other countries made their decision after scouting reddit and twitter.
. You are conflating rampant speculation online over any incident with big calls like the one taken by all relevant agencies over the last 24 hours.I meant that the rapid grounding of the aircraft around the world (China leading the way) might be have been affected by the US's relations with those countries. I don't believe the NTSB/FAA would let an unsafe aircraft fly because of lobbyists. Not with ~170 courtcases to face if something happens.
Yeah, it's based on public perception, little else.Yeah, I am sure officials of China, UK, Oz, Germany and other countries made their decision after scouting reddit and twitter.
Both flights encountered almost identical issues with altitude stability in a very similar phase of the flight, around 10 minutes after takeoff. There's no great evidence this new software caused it but there is definitely enough to suggest whatever caused one might have caused the other, and as both aircraft crashed it's plenty to warrant the grounding. Other aircraft have been grounded for much less.
Wouldn't be the first time they've done it to protect US interests - see the DC10.
That's not much of a link, though. Many factors could affect the altitude stability in that manner. The link is that the model of aircraft is new and two have crashed in a relatively short period of time.
Landed safely
Was it a neo?
It's also harder when the planes crash. It took 2 (at least, could be 5) crashes over 5 years to resolve a rudder issue with 737s in the 90s - it was solved when the same issue occurred and the plane didn't crash.
Or Scat?
An airliner would never display those characteristics in normal flight. For it to do that unplanned suggests something seriously wrong.
Both aircraft struggled to gain and maintain altitude.
Both had large swings in vertical speed and corresponding swings in horizontal speed.
Both reported errors that would trigger the MCAS software.
Both occurred late in the takeoff phase, above 5000ft but below 10,000ft.
Both led to an unrecoverable event that crashed the aircraft.
You look at the altitude and speed graphs of the two flights and its almost identical.
There is a huge safety culture in aviation and all the above is easily enough to warrant the groundings. At this point it says more about the US regulators being reluctant to upset American interests than the rest of the world being swayed by public perception.
yep that tooPlease try not to fly on one of these aircraft. Better safe than sorry and all that.
It's all the actual data you have right now. When two new airliners crash in the space than less than half of an year, having similar altitude and speed problems, does that not warrant grounding the entire line until you sort it out? Or shall we wait another aircraft to crash to assume some statistical pattern?
India has grounded them too.
$$$
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
There's also a huge evidence culture embedded in that safety culture and right now there is no clear evidence that these crashes are related beyond the make and model of the aircraft involved. If the FDR and voice recorders show that both incidents have the same root cause affecting the Max's airworthiness ground it, until then letting circumstantial evidence affect the lives of thousands of people is premature.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
There doesn't need to be clear evidence. Aviation works on the principle that 'it's allowed when you can prove its safe', not 'its allowed until you can prove its not safe'. You might not like it, but that's how it is.
Have you also considered that maybe the regulators have access to a bit more information than the flight tracker charts you think they're basing these decisions on. Multiple reports of exceedingly similar events that didn't lead to crashes for one. It's becoming increasingly damning of the FAA that it's still flying in the US.
I've been around airplanes my whole life. If you can't prove it's working well, we don't allow it under any circumstances. The idea that, "well you can't prove it's not" doesn't fly in the industry.
I have but I've no idea where they'd obtain that information, seeing as these crashes didn't happen in their jurisdiction or with their planes. Like I said, all the links suggesting this is due to the plane's system or design are circumstantial and it's more likely that pilot error is at fault. Regulators are grounding the Max due to public furor not evidence because they don't have access to any data.
Why is this damning of the FAA? I would back them as the premium aviation authority to know when to step in and ground flights.
I actually think it's irresponsible for elected officials to spread panic by lobbying the FAA to unilaterally ground planes outside of normal procedure.
Yeah Pratt's engines have had a rough entry into service on the neos.
But by doing so, didn't Boeing change their design paradigm that "pilot has full control" at all times? Surely the possibility of multiple sources of control surface input would seem very foreign to 737 pilots with thousands of flight hours ?
In the Airbus 320 family this issue does not exist because the whole concept is for the pilot to give pitch/roll speed targets with the stick and let the FCs determine the rest.
I am aware you probably already know this, however it might be beneficial to other posters.
From my perspective there's an abundance of evidence that the plane is airworthy and very little evidence that it is not.
US Pilots have not received sufficient training on the Max. Canadian airlines mandated their pilots learn to deal with nose down scenarios after the Air Lion crash.
You don't know every evidence there is. After that Lion Air crash the investigators must've skimmed through thousands of charts and data from flights all over the world.
Not guilty unless proven otherwise doesn't fly in the industry. If there is even little doubt the aircraft is not safe that's all it takes to warrant grounding of the whole fleet.
It might not be a design flaw, mind. If those pilots haven't received proper training they shouldn't operate one until they do.
Very little is enough, when it comes to aviation.
To be certified the aircraft has to able to be safely flown by the worst qualified pilot. If US pilots are qualified on the type but in your words 'have not received sufficient training' then the aircraft is unsafe.
I was being kind using very little. There's less than that.
May be the case. We don't allow pilots who haven't received the training to fly it. Seems like an appropriate approach and not having received the training would make a pilot not qualified.
That's pretty much my argument distilled. Canada did this after the Air Lion crash and pilots who haven't' been trained to deal with that scenario do not fly the Max.
It wouldn't be the first time they've put business interests over passenger safety. They turned a blind eye to problems with the DC-10, until one fell out of the sky. A worldwide grounding could be the end of the 737 family. Boeing have had their CEO on the phone to the president it's that serious for them, and Trump has already shown the lengths he will go to to protect them. They're also now kicking off that the data recorders are being sent to Europe instead of to the US.
When it comes to regulation i trust the Europeans and the Australians to be more impartial than the Americans, personally.
If US pilots doesn't have the same training and SW and AA don't have the crew to fly those airplanes with the appropriate, extended training they shouldn't be in the air period. As it was already explained Boeing and airlines are cutting corners in terms of proper training due to costs and if it is indeed a case like this it makes little difference whether it is a design flaw of the plane itself or the crew can't operate it properly - in both cases they should ground it until it's cleared.
The other issue with the pilot training is that Boeing don't yet fully know the extent of the problem or the fix, you can't train someone for something you don't understand yourself.
Like i said upthread, if a pilot who holds a type rating for your aircraft can't safely fly it, your aircraft is not safe. If you need to change the training procedures, you ground the aircraft until its done.
"aggregate" feck me