Wouldn't want to get on one of these planes.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/10/africa/china-boeing-ethiopian-air-crash-intl/index.html
QuoteAirlines ground Boeing 737 MAX 8 planes after Ethiopian air crash
By Ben Westcott, Kara Fox and Serenitie Wang, CNN
Updated 1220 GMT (2020 HKT) March 11, 2019
(CNN)Airlines in multiple countries have suspended the use of Boeing's new 737 MAX 8 aircraft over concerns about its safety, after an Ethiopian Airlines flight of the same model crashed Sunday killing all 157 people on board.
Flight ET302 to Nairobi had just taken off from the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa Sunday when it reported technical problems and asked for permission to turn back. It crashed shortly afterwards.
As the crash investigation got underway, the Civil Aviation Administration of China ordered Monday that all domestic Boeing 737 MAX 8 jets be out of the air by 6 p.m. local time, due to its principle of "zero tolerance for safety hazards."
China has one of the world's largest fleets of Boeing 737 MAX 8, operating 97 of the planes, according to Chinese state-run media.
The move was followed by an announcement from Ethiopian Airlines that the carrier had grounded its fleet of Boeing 737 MAX 8 jets as an "extra safety precaution." Cayman Airways also said on Monday it was grounding both of its "new Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft ... until more information is received."
Sunday marked the second time in less than six months that a new Boeing aircraft crashed just minutes into a flight. A Lion Air Boeing 737 MAX 8 flight went down over the Java Sea in last October, killing all 189 people on board.
Both crashes are under investigation and there is no evidence of a link between the two, but similarities in the incidents have prompted caution among some airlines.
"Given in both air crashes, the aircrafts were newly delivered Boeing 737 MAX 8, and both accidents occurred during the take-off, they share certain similarities," the Chinese administration said in a statement. It added that it would contact Boeing and the US Federal Aviation Administration to confirm "flight safety" issues before allowing the planes to fly again.
Mary Schiavo, a CNN aviation analyst and the former Inspector General of the US Transportation Department, called the two incidents "highly suspicious."
"Here we have a brand-new aircraft that's gone down twice in a year. That rings alarm bells in the aviation industry, because that just doesn't happen," she said.
State-owned Ethiopian Airlines is one of Africa's leading aviation groups, and the continent's largest carrier by number of passengers.
The Kenyan and Ethiopian governments announced a joint disaster response team on Monday to investigate the crash. Kenya's Cabinet Secretary of Transport James Macharia described it as a "very complex investigation."
In a statement Sunday, Boeing said it was "deeply saddened" to hear about the loss of life in the Ethiopian Airlines plane crash.
"A Boeing technical team will be traveling to the crash site to provide technical assistance under the direction of the Ethiopia Accident Investigation Bureau and US National Transportation Safety Board," the statement said.
Investigations ongoing after crash
The Ethiopian Airlines flight to Nairobi, in Kenya, lost contact with authorities shortly after takeoff at 8.44 a.m. local time, just minutes after it left Bole International Airport.
Tewolde GebreMariam, Ethiopian Airlines CEO, said at a press conference Sunday that the pilot had reported technical difficulties and had been given clearance to return to the Ethiopian capital.
An eyewitness told CNN they saw smoke coming from the plane before it crashed on Sunday.
GebreMariam said a routine maintenance check hadn't revealed anything before takeoff. The pilot was a senior Ethiopian Airlines employee who had flown more than 8,000 hours and had an "excellent flying record," he added.
"As it is a fresh incident, we have not been able to determine the cause. As I said, it is a brand new airplane with no technical remarks, flown by a senior pilot and there is no cause that we can attribute at this time," GebreMariam said.
Speaking on Monday, Kenyan Transport Secretary Macharia said relatives of the victims would be given "the utmost attention," including accommodation and flights to Ethiopia, if necessary.
The US National Transportation Safety Board said on Sunday it would be sending a team of four to assist in the investigation into the crash.
CNN aviation expert Richard Quest said while a "final determination" on the cause of the crash might be years away, information from the flight recorders should be retrieved within a matter of weeks.
Global disaster
Citizens of 35 countries were among the 157 people killed in Sunday's crash, including 32 Kenyans, 18 Canadians, nine Ethiopians and eight passengers each from China, Italy and the United States.
The United Nations has announced 19 of their staff members were among the dead, including employees of the World Food Programme, the Office of the High Commissioner on Refugees and the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Not all victims have been named, but some details have been released.
Slovakian lawmaker Anton Hrnko announced Sunday that his wife and children, a son and a daughter, had been killed in the crash. "If you had known them, please think of them in a quiet memory," the statement from Hrnko's office said.
Kenyan Cedric Asiavugwa, a third-year student at Georgetown University in the US, was also among the victims, according to a statement from the university Sunday.
"The Georgetown family has lost a stellar student, a great friend to many, and a dedicated champion for social justice across East Africa and the world," the school said.
Pius Adesanmi, a Nigerian-Canadian professor and author, quoted a poignant bible verse in a Facebook post before boarding the ill-fated flight.
"If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me," the verse, identified in the post as Psalm 139:9-10, reads.
The Ethiopian government expressed its "deepest condolences to the families," in a statement from the office of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed.
Clarification: This story has been updated to better reflect the comments made Monday by the Civil Aviation Administration of China.
CNN's Karen Smith and Bethlehem Feleke contributed to this article.
Maybe Boeing tried to squeeze too much out of 737, and all the kludges cobbled together finally caught up with them. Apparently the plane wouldn't be certified as stable to fly if it didn't have software installed that would keep the nose from climbing.
I expect this to be on a future episode of "Mayday".
I heard a veteran pilot speculating that the safety/piloting software on that plane can cause some counter intuitive moments while taking off such that a pilot's first instinct, which is to pull up on the yoke when the nose seems to be going down, is exactly the wrong thing to do.
I've flown on air Ethiopia 3 times and had my worst experience on any airline with them (all but two bathrooms broke on a flight to the US from Ethiopia via Italy and thus featured 30 minute lines to get into the toilets which became exceptionally unhygienic). Also while the main international part of the Addis Ababa airport is quite nice, in the section mainly for local African flights the airport is awful - an overcrowded bathroom literally had buckets for urinals.
These are superficial impressions but I'd be surprised if at least some blame isn't on the airline.
Airport terminals are not run by the airlines so I am not sure if a valid inference can be drawn from how the airport toilets are maintained to inform us how the plane is maintained or piloted.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 11, 2019, 02:54:22 PM
Airport terminals are not run by the airlines so I am not sure if a valid inference can be drawn from how the airport toilets are maintained to inform us how the plane is maintained or piloted.
It is a state owned airline. I don't think it is a stretch to connect the way the state runs its aviation infrastructure to its airline.
Isn't their safety record abysmal? I'm too lazy to google this mind.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 11, 2019, 03:00:31 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 11, 2019, 02:54:22 PM
Airport terminals are not run by the airlines so I am not sure if a valid inference can be drawn from how the airport toilets are maintained to inform us how the plane is maintained or piloted.
It is a state owned airline. I don't think it is a stretch to connect the way the state runs its aviation infrastructure to its airline.
I think you misunderstand how a state owned corporation operates.
Quote from: The Brain on March 11, 2019, 03:25:36 PM
Isn't their safety record abysmal? I'm too lazy to google this mind.
no
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 11, 2019, 04:42:21 PM
I think you misunderstand how a state owned corporation operates.
In places like Ethiopia, I think the answer is poorly and corruptly. Do you still think I misunderstand?
Quote from: The Brain on March 11, 2019, 03:25:36 PMQuote
Isn't their safety record abysmal? I'm too lazy to google this mind.
no
Well, I was just googling the 5 largest North American carriers for comparision. In the last 10 years, with a fleet of ~100 passenger aircraft, Ethiopian airlines have lost 2, with all lives lost. Delta, American Air Canada, and United have not had a fatality in the past 10 years.
Southwest has had 1 fatality in that time.
Ethiopian, with a comparatively miniscule fleet, have had 247 times the fatalities of the 5 largest carriers in North America in the last 10 years.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 11, 2019, 05:27:20 PM
In places like Ethiopia, I think the answer is poorly and corruptly. Do you still think I misunderstand?
I now think it goes beyond mere lack of comprehension.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 11, 2019, 05:27:20 PM
In places like Ethiopia, I think the answer is poorly and corruptly.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/4WHkXdDx8wjS0/giphy.gif)
FWIW, according to the AP, Ethiopian Airlines has a good reputation and is the largest carrier in Africa.
Also, witnesses said that smoke was coming from the rear of the plane before it crashed. If that's accurate (granted, a big IF), it would seem to rule out both pilot error and software problems as the cause of the crash.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 11, 2019, 05:29:14 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 11, 2019, 05:27:20 PM
In places like Ethiopia, I think the answer is poorly and corruptly. Do you still think I misunderstand?
I now think it goes beyond mere lack of comprehension.
Ie, I'm beyond lack of comprehension and into understanding?
It is a deeply corrupt country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
It ranks 114th in the world in the corruptions perception index.
Some highlights from the CIA world fact book:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/et.html
"Ethiopia - the second most populous country in Africa - is a one-party state with a planned economy....The state is heavily engaged in the economy. Ongoing infrastructure projects include power production and distribution, roads, rails, airports and industrial parks. Key sectors are state-owned, including telecommunications, banking and insurance, and power distribution. Under Ethiopia's constitution, the state owns all land and provides long-term leases to tenants. Title rights in urban areas, particularly Addis Ababa, are poorly regulated, and subject to corruption."
Quote from: dps on March 11, 2019, 07:11:19 PM
FWIW, according to the AP, Ethiopian Airlines has a good reputation and is the largest carrier in Africa.
Also, witnesses said that smoke was coming from the rear of the plane before it crashed. If that's accurate (granted, a big IF), it would seem to rule out both pilot error and software problems as the cause of the crash.
One thing that I learned from watching Mayday episodes is that witnesses often report that the plane was on fire before the crash, only to turn out to be wrong about it.
Quote from: DGuller on March 11, 2019, 07:50:23 PM
Quote from: dps on March 11, 2019, 07:11:19 PM
FWIW, according to the AP, Ethiopian Airlines has a good reputation and is the largest carrier in Africa.
Also, witnesses said that smoke was coming from the rear of the plane before it crashed. If that's accurate (granted, a big IF), it would seem to rule out both pilot error and software problems as the cause of the crash.
One thing that I learned from watching Mayday episodes is that witnesses often report that the plane was on fire before the crash, only to turn out to be wrong about it.
Well, I haven't watched Mayday, but I've gotten that same info from other sources, hence the "a big IF" part of my post.
Quote from: DGuller on March 11, 2019, 07:50:23 PM
Quote from: dps on March 11, 2019, 07:11:19 PM
FWIW, according to the AP, Ethiopian Airlines has a good reputation and is the largest carrier in Africa.
Also, witnesses said that smoke was coming from the rear of the plane before it crashed. If that's accurate (granted, a big IF), it would seem to rule out both pilot error and software problems as the cause of the crash.
One thing that I learned from watching Mayday episodes is that witnesses often report that the plane was on fire before the crash, only to turn out to be wrong about it.
If passenger air travel is so safe, why do apparently so many people watch mayday type programs? :P
Quote from: alfred russel on March 11, 2019, 07:40:18 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 11, 2019, 05:29:14 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 11, 2019, 05:27:20 PM
In places like Ethiopia, I think the answer is poorly and corruptly. Do you still think I misunderstand?
I now think it goes beyond mere lack of comprehension.
Ie, I'm beyond lack of comprehension and into understanding?
It is a deeply corrupt country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
It ranks 114th in the world in the corruptions perception index.
Some highlights from the CIA world fact book:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/et.html
"Ethiopia - the second most populous country in Africa - is a one-party state with a planned economy....The state is heavily engaged in the economy. Ongoing infrastructure projects include power production and distribution, roads, rails, airports and industrial parks. Key sectors are state-owned, including telecommunications, banking and insurance, and power distribution. Under Ethiopia's constitution, the state owns all land and provides long-term leases to tenants. Title rights in urban areas, particularly Addis Ababa, are poorly regulated, and subject to corruption."
I was referred to as having "weird racial views" in an earlier thread where I pointed out that Spain and other south and eastern European countries are more corrupt than the UK. I don't really know why it's such a sensitive issue.
Quote from: mongers on March 11, 2019, 11:23:57 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 11, 2019, 07:50:23 PM
Quote from: dps on March 11, 2019, 07:11:19 PM
FWIW, according to the AP, Ethiopian Airlines has a good reputation and is the largest carrier in Africa.
Also, witnesses said that smoke was coming from the rear of the plane before it crashed. If that's accurate (granted, a big IF), it would seem to rule out both pilot error and software problems as the cause of the crash.
One thing that I learned from watching Mayday episodes is that witnesses often report that the plane was on fire before the crash, only to turn out to be wrong about it.
If passenger air travel is so safe, why do apparently so many people watch mayday type programs? :P
For the same reason there are so many videos on YouTube of skateboarders hurting themselves--people are sick, sadistic bastards.
The pre-eminent mind of our age weighs in.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D1d3H9kW0AAk0PQ?format=png&name=small)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D1d4BAyWwAAsOk5?format=png&name=900x900)
If there is a stupid opinion to be had the President at least gives it a test drive.
but at least those pilots had full control until they hit the ground
Meh, it is part of his populist act to appeal to a fanciful past when things were more simple and better.
Quote from: Syt on March 12, 2019, 10:20:35 AM
The pre-eminent mind of our age weighs in.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D1d3H9kW0AAk0PQ?format=png&name=small)
I'm just being contrarian and difficult on this point, but if his words are taken at face value they are defensible and not out of line with the stats posted by Syt.
Trump's posted tweets boil down to "all of this great cost yet very little gain". The point about "very little gain" is proven by Syt's chart. An incredibly safe method of travel has become even safer over the past 30 years, but it was so safe to begin with the reduction in risk is miniscule.
The fact that he mentions "very little gain" implies that there has been improvement.
I can't speak to the cost of the automation of aircraft to assess the "very great cost", but costs have skyrocketed. In 1972 you could get a new and equipped 737 for $5.2 million, and a 747 for $24 million.
https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1972/1972%20-%202020.html
Today the 737 is $89.1 million and a 747 $418.4 million.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/273941/prices-of-boeing-aircraft-by-type/
The inflation factor between 1972 and today is about 6, so that doesn't explain the price increase.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 12, 2019, 03:16:21 PM
I'm just being contrarian and difficult on this point, but if his words are taken at face value they are defensible and not out of line with the stats posted by Syt.
Trump's posted tweets boil down to "all of this great cost yet very little gain". The point about "very little gain" is proven by Syt's chart. An incredibly safe method of travel has become even safer over the past 30 years, but it was so safe to begin with the reduction in risk is miniscule.
The fact that he mentions "very little gain" implies that there has been improvement.
I can't speak to the cost of the automation of aircraft to assess the "very great cost", but costs have skyrocketed. In 1972 you could get a new and equipped 737 for $5.2 million, and a 747 for $24 million.
https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1972/1972%20-%202020.html
Today the 737 is $89.1 million and a 747 $418.4 million.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/273941/prices-of-boeing-aircraft-by-type/
The inflation factor between 1972 and today is about 6, so that doesn't explain the price increase.
Paying a bit more than double to reduce the likelihood of death by three orders of magnitude sounds reasonable.
Quote from: frunk on March 12, 2019, 03:22:08 PM
Paying a bit more than double to reduce the likelihood of death by three orders of magnitude sounds reasonable.
That seems like rather soft logic.
If the inflation adjusted cost was $10 billion in 1990 and an average of 6 people were killed, you would be paying in excess of $10 billion to save 4 lives.
The question as a society should be whether that spend / life is best deployed in improved aviation safety or (for example) better road safety, anti smoking programs, etc.
Depends on the magnitude to begin with.
Airlines are willing to pay many times the cost of a 1970s airplane not because they are safer (though they are) but because they are an order of magnitude cheaper to operate per passenger-mile. The procurement + life-cycle costs of a 2000s jet is probably half that of a 1970s jet (just a guess, but a somewhat informed one). That's why inflation-adjusted ticket prices are lower, even when paying fees to get the same services.
That's come at the cost of time and comfort, but that's not what the POTUS was talking about.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 12, 2019, 03:30:15 PM
That seems like rather soft logic.
If the inflation adjusted cost was $10 billion in 1990 and an average of 6 people were killed, you would be paying in excess of $10 billion to save 4 lives.
That's not three orders of magnitude, or even close, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. If you were talking about elevator deaths (one of the safest methods of travel ever created) then you would have a point.
If we were operating on the death rate of 1970 we would have ~22,000 deaths in 2017, instead of the 44 that we actually had. I'm pretty sure that the airlines made back the extra costs of the airplanes just on the reduced insurance.
Quote from: frunk on March 12, 2019, 03:51:17 PM
That's not three orders of magnitude, or even close, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. If you were talking about elevator deaths (one of the safest methods of travel ever created) then you would have a point.
If we were operating on the death rate of 1970 we would have ~22,000 deaths in 2017, instead of the 44 that we actually had. I'm pretty sure that the airlines made back the extra costs of the airplanes just on the reduced insurance.
I was using 1990 as the baseline earlier, because almost all the safety improvements came previous to that point and presumably the "computer scientists from MIT" needed to fly the plane in lieu of pilots came later. In 1970 I agree that flying wasn't that safe.
I didn't use 1990 as the cost basis of airlines because i googled for historic prices and the first link was the 1972 price list I linked to.
The European Air Safety Authority has grounded the 737 Max in Europe. https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and-events/news/easa-suspends-all-boeing-737-max-operations-europe
1972 was the year before the first big OPEC crisis. American industry has changed a lot since then, for better or for worse, and there is no way to turn the clock backwards.
Quote from: Zanza on March 12, 2019, 04:33:58 PM
The European Air Safety Authority has grounded the 737 Max in Europe. https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and-events/news/easa-suspends-all-boeing-737-max-operations-europe
hmm, I wonder if they would have acted so quickly with Airbus?
Anyway, Canada&USA have not grounded the planes so far. I remember after the last accident, some changes were made to the planes in Canada and pilots had to train for the new software. Maybe that's why they aren't grounded yet over here.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 12, 2019, 04:06:42 PM
Quote from: frunk on March 12, 2019, 03:51:17 PM
That's not three orders of magnitude, or even close, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. If you were talking about elevator deaths (one of the safest methods of travel ever created) then you would have a point.
If we were operating on the death rate of 1970 we would have ~22,000 deaths in 2017, instead of the 44 that we actually had. I'm pretty sure that the airlines made back the extra costs of the airplanes just on the reduced insurance.
I was using 1990 as the baseline earlier, because almost all the safety improvements came previous to that point and presumably the "computer scientists from MIT" needed to fly the plane in lieu of pilots came later. In 1970 I agree that flying wasn't that safe.
I didn't use 1990 as the cost basis of airlines because i googled for historic prices and the first link was the 1972 price list I linked to.
isn't it a bit... wrong, to use different starting point to compare the effectiveness of a measure?
Quote from: viper37 on March 12, 2019, 05:52:02 PM
Quote from: Zanza on March 12, 2019, 04:33:58 PM
The European Air Safety Authority has grounded the 737 Max in Europe. https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and-events/news/easa-suspends-all-boeing-737-max-operations-europe
hmm, I wonder if they would have acted so quickly with Airbus?
Anyway, Canada&USA have not grounded the planes so far. I remember after the last accident, some changes were made to the planes in Canada and pilots had to train for the new software. Maybe that's why they aren't grounded yet over here.
Many companies operating flights in Canada have grounded their Max 8.
Quote from: viper37 on March 12, 2019, 05:53:34 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 12, 2019, 04:06:42 PM
Quote from: frunk on March 12, 2019, 03:51:17 PM
That's not three orders of magnitude, or even close, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. If you were talking about elevator deaths (one of the safest methods of travel ever created) then you would have a point.
If we were operating on the death rate of 1970 we would have ~22,000 deaths in 2017, instead of the 44 that we actually had. I'm pretty sure that the airlines made back the extra costs of the airplanes just on the reduced insurance.
I was using 1990 as the baseline earlier, because almost all the safety improvements came previous to that point and presumably the "computer scientists from MIT" needed to fly the plane in lieu of pilots came later. In 1970 I agree that flying wasn't that safe.
I didn't use 1990 as the cost basis of airlines because i googled for historic prices and the first link was the 1972 price list I linked to.
isn't it a bit... wrong, to use different starting point to compare the effectiveness of a measure?
Yeah, and i'll update the analysis if you can find 1990 price lists for aircraft. :P
I'm certain I've put more thought into defending the president's dumbass tweets than he did before making them.
Quote from: Zanza on March 12, 2019, 04:33:58 PM
The European Air Safety Authority has grounded the 737 Max in Europe. https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and-events/news/easa-suspends-all-boeing-737-max-operations-europe
If only they would listen to Dorsey and his theory that it is all related to the condition of the toilets in the domestic departures area of the airport in Ethiopia. No one would worry about the concerns about the software.
It has now been grounded in Eurasia and Oceania...
Quote from: viper37 on March 12, 2019, 05:52:02 PM
Quote from: Zanza on March 12, 2019, 04:33:58 PM
The European Air Safety Authority has grounded the 737 Max in Europe. https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and-events/news/easa-suspends-all-boeing-737-max-operations-europe
hmm, I wonder if they would have acted so quickly with Airbus
All the Asians and the Australians grounded it before the Europeans.
Thanks a bunch Trump
https://qz.com/1570266/ethiopian-airlines-crash-us-shutdown-delayed-boeing-737-max-fixes/
QuoteStraightforward safety upgrades to the jets' software to fix the automated safety feature, were originally expected in January according to multiple reports. But they were delayed until April, the Wall Street Journal reported Feb. 10, because of "engineering challenges," "differences of opinion" between federal and Boeing officials, and the 35-day government shutdown, during which "consideration of the fixes was suspended."
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 12, 2019, 07:09:13 PM
Quote from: Zanza on March 12, 2019, 04:33:58 PM
The European Air Safety Authority has grounded the 737 Max in Europe. https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and-events/news/easa-suspends-all-boeing-737-max-operations-europe
If only they would listen to Dorsey and his theory that it is all related to the condition of the toilets in the domestic departures area of the airport in Ethiopia. No one would worry about the concerns about the software.
They aren't grounded in the US.
Here is a deal offer: if one crashes in the US, I'll admit I was wrong and you were right. If one doesn't crash, you will admit you are wrong and I was right.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 12, 2019, 10:00:53 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 12, 2019, 07:09:13 PM
Quote from: Zanza on March 12, 2019, 04:33:58 PM
The European Air Safety Authority has grounded the 737 Max in Europe. https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and-events/news/easa-suspends-all-boeing-737-max-operations-europe
If only they would listen to Dorsey and his theory that it is all related to the condition of the toilets in the domestic departures area of the airport in Ethiopia. No one would worry about the concerns about the software.
They aren't grounded in the US.
Here is a deal offer: if one crashes in the US, I'll admit I was wrong and you were right. If one doesn't crash, you will admit you are wrong and I was right.
They are now grounded in Canada. The US may be the one hold out and the concern is the reason the US doesn't ground them is more motivated by Boeing's well being than concerns about public safety. Now what were you saying about corruption in government causing an unsafe environment? :P
edit: here is the reason given by the Canadian government
QuoteGarneau said the decision to issue the safety notice was made after his department received new data suggesting a similarity between the Ethiopian Airlines crash and another deadly crash off Indonesia in October.
I daresay, similarity of bathroom facilities at the airports was not the concern. Rather it probably has something to do with the plane itself.
I'm quite surprised we broke with the FAA on this one and grounded the 737-MAX.
Not saying it's the right or wrong call - it's well outside my expertise. But since Transport Canada has the same information the FAA does it's surprising.
Quote from: Barrister on March 13, 2019, 11:59:33 AM
I'm quite surprised we broke with the FAA on this one and grounded the 737-MAX.
Not saying it's the right or wrong call - it's well outside my expertise. But since Transport Canada has the same information the FAA does it's surprising.
I agree. I think they must have seen something that got them concerned. We always follow the Americans on these things. It could also be yet another sign of how much we and the rest of the world are losing confidence in decisions made by American governmental agencies under the Trump regime.
At this point it could also be that perception becomes reality. If people are genuinely anxious about flying on the Max planes, then regardless of how well-founded the anxiety is, it could be simpler to just go with the flow, even if there is no new informaion. It's also one of those calls where you're not punished for being unreasonably careful, but you're going to get a lot of shit for appearing to be not careful enough.
Quote from: DGuller on March 13, 2019, 12:09:14 PM
At this point it could also be that perception becomes reality. If people are genuinely anxious about flying on the Max planes, then regardless of how well-founded the anxiety is, it could be simpler to just go with the flow, even if there is no new informaion. It's also one of those calls where you're not punished for being unreasonably careful, but you're going to get a lot of shit for appearing to be not careful enough.
Both of our airlines have quite a few 737-MAX planes flying with them, so grounding this airplane is going to cause significant disruption.
The actual economic costs are quite real, but the general public doesn't give a flying fuck about them. The political costs are misslgned with the economic costs.
Quote from: Barrister on March 13, 2019, 12:21:57 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 13, 2019, 12:09:14 PM
At this point it could also be that perception becomes reality. If people are genuinely anxious about flying on the Max planes, then regardless of how well-founded the anxiety is, it could be simpler to just go with the flow, even if there is no new informaion. It's also one of those calls where you're not punished for being unreasonably careful, but you're going to get a lot of shit for appearing to be not careful enough.
Both of our airlines have quite a few 737-MAX planes flying with them, so grounding this airplane is going to cause significant disruption.
Yeah, this is definitely not about going with the flow. This is going to be very disruptive to the Canadian carriers, which is why we always follow the lead of the Americans. If the Americans did it, it would make no sense from a safety or economic perspective not to follow. It makes no sense from an economic perspective to make a different decision from the Americans. So there must be some safety issue that has them concerned.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 13, 2019, 11:54:32 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 12, 2019, 10:00:53 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 12, 2019, 07:09:13 PM
Quote from: Zanza on March 12, 2019, 04:33:58 PM
The European Air Safety Authority has grounded the 737 Max in Europe. https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and-events/news/easa-suspends-all-boeing-737-max-operations-europe
If only they would listen to Dorsey and his theory that it is all related to the condition of the toilets in the domestic departures area of the airport in Ethiopia. No one would worry about the concerns about the software.
They aren't grounded in the US.
Here is a deal offer: if one crashes in the US, I'll admit I was wrong and you were right. If one doesn't crash, you will admit you are wrong and I was right.
They are now grounded in Canada. The US may be the one hold out and the concern is the reason the US doesn't ground them is more motivated by Boeing's well being than concerns about public safety. Now what were you saying about corruption in government causing an unsafe environment? :P
edit: here is the reason given by the Canadian government
QuoteGarneau said the decision to issue the safety notice was made after his department received new data suggesting a similarity between the Ethiopian Airlines crash and another deadly crash off Indonesia in October.
I daresay, similarity of bathroom facilities at the airports was not the concern. Rather it probably has something to do with the plane itself.
You have 2 crashes in 3rd world countries with corruption issues...
Typical you won't take up my offer but keep up your trolling.
I'm sure the planes can be made safer but with well trained and experienced pilots and support staff they are fine. Probably orders of magnitude safer than a lot of our commutes to work each day.
Quote from: DGuller on March 13, 2019, 12:33:14 PM
The actual economic costs are quite real, but the general public doesn't give a flying fuck about them. The political costs are misslgned with the economic costs.
In the past we have always followed the American's lead on aviation safety issues. That is where the perceived expertise is located. If your analysis is correct, it speaks volumes about the degree to which confidence in American regulatory agencies as declined.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 13, 2019, 12:44:42 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 13, 2019, 12:33:14 PM
The actual economic costs are quite real, but the general public doesn't give a flying fuck about them. The political costs are misslgned with the economic costs.
In the past we have always followed the American's lead on aviation safety issues. That is where the perceived expertise is located. If your analysis is correct, it speaks volumes about the degree to which confidence in American regulatory agencies as declined.
So CC has confidence in Air Ethiopia, which has now had 247 times the fatalities in the past 10 years than the largest 5 north American carriers combined, but apparently lacks it in American regulatory agencies....
Quote from: alfred russel on March 13, 2019, 12:59:53 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 13, 2019, 12:44:42 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 13, 2019, 12:33:14 PM
The actual economic costs are quite real, but the general public doesn't give a flying fuck about them. The political costs are misslgned with the economic costs.
In the past we have always followed the American's lead on aviation safety issues. That is where the perceived expertise is located. If your analysis is correct, it speaks volumes about the degree to which confidence in American regulatory agencies as declined.
So CC has confidence in Air Ethiopia, which has now had 247 times the fatalities in the past 10 years than the largest 5 north American carriers combined, but apparently lacks it in American regulatory agencies....
No comment on Ethiopia, but I do have confidence in Transport Canada.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 13, 2019, 12:59:53 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 13, 2019, 12:44:42 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 13, 2019, 12:33:14 PM
The actual economic costs are quite real, but the general public doesn't give a flying fuck about them. The political costs are misslgned with the economic costs.
In the past we have always followed the American's lead on aviation safety issues. That is where the perceived expertise is located. If your analysis is correct, it speaks volumes about the degree to which confidence in American regulatory agencies as declined.
So CC has confidence in Air Ethiopia, which has now had 247 times the fatalities in the past 10 years than the largest 5 north American carriers combined, but apparently lacks it in American regulatory agencies....
I am not sure how the Transport Canada decision has anything to do with having confidence in Air Ethiopia.
So Trump grounds the planes in the US as well. Do you guys still think that grounding was the right thing to do?
Quote from: DGuller on March 13, 2019, 01:52:31 PM
So Trump grounds the planes in the US as well. Do you guys still think that grounding was the right thing to do?
No. I'll never admit I was wrong until a US, Canadian, Japanese, or European airline crashes one.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 13, 2019, 01:57:17 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 13, 2019, 01:52:31 PM
So Trump grounds the planes in the US as well. Do you guys still think that grounding was the right thing to do?
No. I'll never admit I was wrong until a US, Canadian, Japanese, or European airline crashes one.
well. they are grounded everywhere now. Hard to crash a grounded plane.
Quote from: viper37 on March 13, 2019, 02:04:44 PM
well. they are grounded everywhere now. Hard to crash a grounded plane.
If that is the case, it seems like any perceived safety issues were corrected virtually overnight. :)
Quote from: alfred russel on March 13, 2019, 02:08:05 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 13, 2019, 02:04:44 PM
well. they are grounded everywhere now. Hard to crash a grounded plane.
If that is the case, it seems like any perceived safety issues were corrected virtually overnight. :)
Yep, no fly orders have that corrective effect.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 13, 2019, 01:57:17 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 13, 2019, 01:52:31 PM
So Trump grounds the planes in the US as well. Do you guys still think that grounding was the right thing to do?
No. I'll never admit I was wrong until a US, Canadian, Japanese, or European airline crashes one.
Australia is not amused.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 13, 2019, 02:43:56 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 13, 2019, 01:57:17 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 13, 2019, 01:52:31 PM
So Trump grounds the planes in the US as well. Do you guys still think that grounding was the right thing to do?
No. I'll never admit I was wrong until a US, Canadian, Japanese, or European airline crashes one.
Australia is not amused.
I don't think they have gotten any of these planes delivered...
Looks like it may have been the same problem.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/canada-grounds-boeing-737-max-8-leaving-us-as-last-major-user-of-plane/2019/03/13/25ac2414-459d-11e9-90f0-0ccfeec87a61_story.html?utm_term=.b2735e38b739
QuoteFAA's emergency order grounding Boeing jets came after the agency identified similarities between crashes in Ethiopia, Indonesia
By Luz Lazo , Michael Laris ,Lori Aratani, Aaron Gregg and Damian Paletta
March 13 at 5:00 PM
The FAA developed new information from the wreckage of a 737 crash in Ethiopia that painted similarities to an earlier crash in Indonesia, leading the agency to ground all Boeing 737 Max 8 and 9 aircraft in the U.S., three people familiar with the matter said.
President Trump on Wednesday grounded all Boeing 737 Max 8 planes, effective immediately. The wording in the emergency order is similar to that used by Canadian officials who hours earlier had issued an order grounding the planes.
"Any plane currently in the air will go to its destination and thereafter be grounded until further notice," Trump said. "The safety of the American people, and all people, is our paramount concern."
The order states that the similarities "warrant further investigation of the possibility of a shared cause for the two incidents that needs to be better understood and addressed."
Trump's announcement followed one by Canada's transportation minister grounding all the jets, saying a review of satellite-tracking data by his country's experts found similarities between Sunday's crash of an Ethiopian Airlines jet and an October Lion Air crash.
The news had left the United States and its carriers as the last major users of the aircraft.
[Two plane crashes in five months: What the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines flights have in common]
Shortly after 3 p.m. the FAA issued a statement confirming the official order.
"The FAA is ordering the temporary grounding of Boeing 737 MAX aircraft operated by U.S. airlines or in U.S. territory." the statement said. "The agency made this decision as a result of the data gathering process and new evidence collected at the site and analyzed today. This evidence, together with newly refined satellite data available to FAA this morning, led to this decision."
The order temporarily halts all flights of the Boeing MAX 8 and MAX 9 planes, effective immediately.
"On March 13, 2019, the investigation of the [Ethiopian Airlines] crash developed new information from the wreckage concerning the aircraft's configuration just after takeoff that, taken together with newly refined data from satellite-based tracking of the aircraft's flight path, indicates some similarities between the" Ethiopia and Indonesia crashes, according to the order.
Those similarities "warrant further investigation of the possibility of a shared cause for the two incidents that needs to be better understood and addressed," the order says.
Once current U.S. flights land, they "may not again takeoff," according to the order. Special flight permits may be issued, "including to allow non-passenger carrying flights, as needed, for purposes of flight to a base for storage, production flight testing, repairs, alterations, or maintenance," according to the order.
The order also says "experimental airworthiness certificates" may be issued "to support certification of design changes."
The order will ground more than 70 aircraft and covers both the 737 Max 8 and Max 9, another plane in the series. The aircraft is used byAmerican and Southwest airlines, which combined have 58 Max 8s in their fleets. United Airlines has 14 of the Max 9 planes.
Boeing said that it continues to have full confidence in the safety of both the Max 8 and Max 9, but after consulting with the FAA, the NTSB, aviation authorities and its customers, decided to suspend operations of its entire global fleet of 371 Max aircraft.
"Boeing has determined — out of an abundance of caution and in order to reassure the flying public of the aircraft's safety — to recommend to the FAA the temporary suspension of operations of the entire global fleet of 371 737 MAX aircraft," the company said in a statement, adding that is supported the FAA's decision.
"We are supporting this proactive step out of an abundance of caution," the statement said. "We are doing everything we can to understand the cause of the accidents in partnership with the investigators, deploy safety enhancements and help ensure this does not happen again."
While unions representing pilots had voiced support for the FAA's reluctance to ground the craft leading up to Wednesday, the plane had developed an unfavorable reputation among many pilots.
Officials at American Airlines, which earlier in the day had reiterated its belief that the planes were safe to fly, said they were now being grounded out of "an abundance of caution."
"Earlier today the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) informed us that based on new information, they are grounding the United States Boeing 737 MAX fleet out of an abundance of caution," the airline said in a statement.
"We appreciate the FAA's partnership, and will continue to work closely with them, the Department of Transportation, National Transportation Safety Board and other regulatory authorities, as well as our aircraft and engine manufacturers," the airline said. "Our teams will be working to rebook customers as quickly as possible, and we apologize for any inconvenience."
Southwest said it was "is immediately complying" with the FAA order, noting that it operates a fleet of more than 750 Boeing 737s and that the 34 Max 8s in it's fleet "account for less than five percent of our daily flights."
"We have been in constant contact with the FAA and Boeing since Ethiopian Airlines' accident last Sunday," the airline said in a statement. "While we remain confident in the MAX 8 after completing more than 88,000 flight hours accrued over 41,000 flights, we support the actions of the FAA and other regulatory agencies and governments across the globe that have asked for further review of the data — including information from the flight data recorder — related to the recent accident involving the MAX 8."
Board chair and Southwest chief executive Gary Kelly said: "During our 48-year history, Southwest has continuously demonstrated our commitment to Safety. We sincerely appreciate the trust our Customers and Employees place in our airline every day, and the Southwest Team is working diligently to minimize disruptions to our Customers' travel plans."
Canadian Transport Minister Marc Garneau said he issued the "safety notice" after the newly-available data was reviewed Wednesday morning.
"At this point, we feel that that threshold has been crossed and that is why we are taking these measures," Garneau said.
Garneau said the safety notice halts Boeing 737 MAX aircraft from arriving, departing or using Canadian airspace, effective immediately. The notice also covers the Max 9.
Garneau said the new information reviewed Wednesday is satellite tracking data that is collected when an aircraft takes off. He said the data provides an indication of the plane's course and its vertical profile.
"My experts have looked at this and compared it to the flight that occurred with Lion Air six months ago in October, and . . . there are similarities that sort of exceed a certain threshold in our minds with respect to the possible cause of what happened in Ethiopia," he said.
At a Wednesday afternoon news conference, Elwell, of the FAA, said delays in getting the damaged flight data recorders to a place where information could be retrieved contributed to the agency's decision to ground the planes now. Ethiopia has the capability to read black boxes, but not heavily damaged ones as in this case, he said.
The current plan is to have them on a plane to France Wednesday night, he said.
"We had been hopeful all along, with the black boxes being discovered so soon after the incident, that we could get them on a table and start pulling data to help us inform our decision one way or another" about whether to ground the airplanes, Elwell said. "That process was lengthened more than I had hoped, to the point where the boxes still are in Ethiopia. But at least now we have a plan to get them out of country."
Asked what role U.S. investigators will play in analyzing the black box data, Elwell said, per international protocol, Ethiopia is taking the lead — "their soil, their aircraft, their airline," he said.
[Ethiopian pilots received new training for 737 Max after Indonesian crash]
But he said U.S. inspectors have been cooperating with their Ethiopian counterparts from the onset of the tragedy and they will continue to do so. "Together, FAA and [the National Transportation Safety Board] are helping Ethiopian accident investigation board," he said.
In a preliminary report of the Oct. 29 Lion Air crash, a device known as an "angle of attack" sensor mistakenly indicated the plane's nose was too high, prompting the plane's automation software to push the plane downward. The Lion Air pilots fought to raise the plane's nose but were unable to sending the plane crashing into the Java Sea.
In November, An American Airlines spokesman said that the airline followed all procedures outlined by Boeing and in a separate emergency directive from the FAA in the wake of the Lion Air crash.
American Airlines said Wednesday that it has reviewed data for more than 14,000 flights since the Lion Air Flight 610 crash and has not seen a single anomaly related to the sensor.
"At American, we have not had similar issues regarding an erroneous Angle of Attack during manual flight," spokesman Ross Feinstein said, responding to questions about pilot complaints and concerns about flying a MAX 8.
He said the airline had complied with an FAA airworthiness directive following the Indonesian crash, and said the directive "reiterated existing, well established procedures for MAX 8 pilots."
American's fleet of 24 MAX 8 aircraft first went into operation in November 2017 and have a combined total of more than 46,400 operating hours and nearly 18,000 cycles.
Officials around the world have cited the continued absence of clear information from the Ethiopian Air plane to call for Boeing 737 Max 8 jets to be grounded.
The data from the two flight recorders are eagerly awaited as investigators look for any connection between Sunday's crash and the October crash of Air Lion flight.
[FAA doubles down on decision not to ground the Boeing 737 Max, as counterparts around the world have done]
In the months leading up to the crash of Ethiopian Airlines flight 302, pilots from around the U.S. had expressed exasperation about the aircraft's systems, which limited their control of the planes they were commanding, according to a confidential safety reporting system hosted by NASA.
Pilots wrote of the inadequate training on automation-assisted flying systems, unfamiliarity with the controls, anxiety that prompted them to engage autopilot earlier than normal and at least two instances where the plane pitched downward or maneuvered against pilots' inputs.
"I think it is unconscionable that a manufacturer, the FAA, and the airlines would have pilots flying an airplane without adequately training, or even providing available resources and sufficient documentation to understand the highly complex systems that differentiate this aircraft from prior models," one pilot reported in November, according to the NASA database. "The fact that this airplane requires such jury rigging to fly is a red flag. Now we know the systems employed are error prone--even if the pilots aren't sure what those systems are, what redundancies are in place, and failure modes."
The pilot went on to question how the manufacturer could subject those in the cockpit to a system with which they had so little familiarity.
"I am left to wonder: what else don't I know?" the pilot said. "The Flight Manual is inadequate and almost criminally insufficient."
It was one of about a dozen complaints about the Boeing 737 MAX in a NASA safety database, first reported by the Dallas Morning News, which chronicles the extent to which pilots were leery of the new aircraft, anxious about their training, and concerned about automated flying assistance features such as a new sensor system in the plane.
After China grounded the plane on Monday, most countries followed suit, including much of Europe. The latest bans were issued by India, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Turkey and Hong Kong.
Ethiopian Airlines chief executive Tewolde Gebremariam told CNN on Tuesday that the pilot reported "flight control problems" and asked to return to the airport.
Tewolde said that the boxes would be sent abroad "because we don't have the equipment here" to analyze their data.
While Tewolde of Ethiopian Airlines said the cause of the crash was not yet clear, he cast doubt on the airworthiness of the 737 Max.
"Two major fatal accidents on the same airplane model, brand new airplane model, in six months — so there are a lot of questions to be answered on the airplane," he said.
[Grounding of Boeing jets has some passengers — even experienced ones — feeling jittery]
In remarks to local media, Tewolde also revealed that pilots received additional training from Boeing to fly the 737 Max after an Indonesian domestic Lion Air flight crashed into the Java Sea shortly after takeoff last year.
"After the Lion Air crash, questions were raised, so Boeing sent further instructions that it said pilots should know," he said, according to the Associated Press. "Those relate to the specific behavior of this specific type of aircraft. As a result, training was given by Boeing, and our pilots have taken it and put it into our manuals."
Lazo, Laris, Aratani, Gregg and Paletta reported from Washington. Paul Schemm contributed to this report from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Felicia Sonmez contributed from Washington.
I'm skeptical of the "new information" angle. The tracking data, and the vertical instability of the flight path it indicated, was available immediately after the crash. Such data is collected and shared in real time by several sites on the Internet. That site's data is why everyone remotely familiar with the first crash immediately thought of MCAS this time. I think Canadians and Americans just caved to pressure, and were waiting for the first thing to come along that could be presented as a new development.
Who would make the better travelling companion, AR or DG? :hmm:
:P
How could you choose between Samuel Clemens or Mark Twain? Both such great men.
:hmm: Which one am I in this analogy?
Professional pilot forum if you're interested in it
https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/619272-ethiopian-airliner-down-africa-3.html
https://en.flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/B38M
Grounded doesn't always means grounded.
Quote from: mongers on March 13, 2019, 10:59:13 PM
Who would make the better travelling companion, AR or DG? :hmm:
:P
I've taken 3 flights with Air Ethiopia, one of which was on a prop plane. I'm not worried about traveling on airlines like Air Ethiopia even though I haven't deluded myself into thinking it is as safe as a western airline.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 14, 2019, 09:19:48 AM
Quote from: mongers on March 13, 2019, 10:59:13 PM
Who would make the better travelling companion, AR or DG? :hmm:
:P
I've taken 3 flights with Air Ethiopia, one of which was on a prop plane. I'm not worried about traveling on airlines like Air Ethiopia even though I haven't deluded myself into thinking it is as safe as a western airline.
:cool:
I just joshing with you guys, ftr I think DG's statistical take on things might sometimes be a bit much.
Besides I think nearly all Languishites would make decent travel companions, lots to talk about :)
It was definitely Boeings faulty stall sensors/software that killed ET302
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/world/boeing-737-max-ethiopian-airlines.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/world/boeing-737-max-ethiopian-airlines.html)
QuoteADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia — The captain of a doomed Ethiopian Airlines jetliner faced an emergency almost immediately after takeoff from Addis Ababa, requesting permission in a panicky voice to return after three minutes as the aircraft accelerated to abnormal speed, a person who reviewed air traffic communications said Thursday.
"Break break, request back to home," the captain told air traffic controllers as they scrambled to divert two other flights approaching the airport. "Request vector for landing."
Controllers also observed that the aircraft, a new Boeing 737 Max 8, was oscillating up and down by hundreds of feet — a sign that something was extraordinarily wrong.
All contact between air controllers and the aircraft, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 to Nairobi, was lost five minutes after it took off on Sunday, the person said.
The person who shared the information, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the communications have not been publicly released, said the controllers had concluded even before the captain's message that he had an emergency.
The account of the cockpit communications shed chilling new detail about the final minutes before the plane crashed, killing all 157 people aboard. The crash, which has led to a worldwide grounding of Max 8s, was the second for the best-selling Boeing aircraft in less than five months.
Regulatory authorities in the United States and Canada say similar patterns in the trajectories of both planes may point to a common cause for the two crashes. But they cautioned that no explanation had been ruled out yet, and said the planes might have crashed for different reasons.
The new disclosures about the last moments of Flight 302 came as pilots were discussing what they described as the dangerously high speed of the aircraft after it took off from Addis Ababa's Bole International Airport.
Pilots were abuzz over publicly available radar data that showed the aircraft had accelerated far beyond what is considered standard practice, for reasons that remain unclear.
"The thing that is most abnormal is the speed," said John Cox, an aviation safety consultant and former 737 pilot.
"The speed is very high," said Mr. Cox, a former executive air safety chairman of the Air Line Pilots Association in the United States. "The question is why. The plane accelerates far faster than it should."
Ethiopian Airlines officials have said the crew of Flight 302 reported "flight control" problems to air traffic controllers a few minutes before contact was lost. The new account of communications between air traffic controllers and the pilot, Yared Getachew, who had 8,000 hours of flying experience, provides much more information about what was happening in the cockpit.
Within one minute of Flight 302's departure, the person who reviewed communications said, Captain Getachew reported a "flight control" problem in a calm voice. At that point, radar showed the aircraft's altitude as being well below what is known as the minimum safe height from the ground during a climb.
Within two minutes, the person said, the plane had climbed to a safer altitude, and the pilot said he wanted to stay on a straight course to 14,000 feet.
Then the controllers observed the plane going up and down by hundreds of feet, and it appeared to be moving unusually fast, the person said. The controllers, the person said, "started wondering out loud what the flight was doing."
Two other Ethiopian flights, 613 and 629, were approaching from the east, and the controllers, sensing an emergency on Flight 302, ordered them to remain at higher altitudes. It was during that exchange with the other planes, the person said, that Captain Getachew, with panic in his voice, interrupted with his request to turn back.
Flight 302 was just three minutes into its flight, the person said, and appeared to have accelerated to even higher speeds, well beyond its safety limits.
Cleared by the controllers to turn back, Flight 302 turned right as it climbed further. A minute later, it disappeared from the radar over a restricted military zone.
The disaster drew immediate comparisons to the October crash of another Boeing 737 Max 8, operated by Lion Air, in Indonesia. Both took place soon after takeoff, and the crews of both planes had sought to return to the airport.
The possibility that the two crashes had a similar cause was central to regulators' decision to ground all 737 Maxes, a family of planes that entered passenger service less than two years ago.
After the Indonesia crash, a new flight-control system meant to keep the jet from stalling was suspected as a cause. In both cases, pilots struggled to control their aircraft.
The investigation of the Ethiopian crash is still in its early stages, and safety regulators have noted that it is too soon to draw conclusions about the cause. The so-called black boxes, voice and flight data recorders that contain more detailed information about the Ethiopian flight's final moments, arrived in France on Thursday for analysis.
Since the Indonesia crash, Boeing has been working on a software update for the 737 Max jets, expected by April. But the company and the Federal Aviation Administration face new questions over whether there should have been more pilot training as airlines added the new models to their fleets.
On Wednesday, the chairman of the transportation committee in the House of Representatives said he would investigate the F.A.A.'s certification of the 737 Max, including why the regulator did not require more extensive training.
What a pile of incompetence and corruption
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/
QuoteBy Dominic Gates
Seattle Times aerospace reporter
As Boeing hustled in 2015 to catch up to Airbus and certify its new 737 MAX, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) managers pushed the agency's safety engineers to delegate safety assessments to Boeing itself, and to speedily approve the resulting analysis.
But the original safety analysis that Boeing delivered to the FAA for a new flight control system on the MAX — a report used to certify the plane as safe to fly — had several crucial flaws.
That flight control system, called MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System), is now under scrutiny after two crashes of the jet in less than five months resulted in Wednesday's FAA order to ground the plane.
Current and former engineers directly involved with the evaluations or familiar with the document shared details of Boeing's "System Safety Analysis" of MCAS, which The Seattle Times confirmed.
Understated the power of the new flight control system, which was designed to swivel the horizontal tail to push the nose of the plane down to avert a stall. When the planes later entered service, MCAS was capable of moving the tail more than four times farther than was stated in the initial safety analysis document.
Failed to account for how the system could reset itself each time a pilot responded, thereby missing the potential impact of the system repeatedly pushing the airplane's nose downward.
Assessed a failure of the system as one level below "catastrophic." But even that "hazardous" danger level should have precluded activation of the system based on input from a single sensor — and yet that's how it was designed.
...
My limited knowledge of the industry (mostly helping a guy who *is* an expert write a paper about parts development in aerospace) is that this is done fairly often. Authorities allow large proven manufacturers to conduct certification themselves in order to expedite development, if they are dealing with mature processes. It's not shady or anything - whether is a good idea or not is another matter.
I think it's important to differentiate what is normally done, and whether that is a good idea. A lot of things may look bad in hindsight, and they may indeed be bad, but at the same time they wouldn't be excepional. For all we know, the same exact regulatory process was applied to planes that never ever crashed, but no one does indepth investigations into why planes don't crash.
Quote from: celedhring on March 18, 2019, 09:05:54 AM
My limited knowledge of the industry (mostly helping a guy who *is* an expert write a paper about parts development in aerospace) is that this is done fairly often. Authorities allow large proven manufacturers to conduct certification themselves in order to expedite development, if they are dealing with mature processes. It's not shady or anything - whether is a good idea or not is another matter.
That is a fairly recent phenomenon. But governments are beginning to understand that allowing industry to regulate itself is problematic.
Hopefully the industry as a whole will also understand that sometimes it needs regulation to save itself from itself.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 18, 2019, 11:22:30 AM
Quote from: celedhring on March 18, 2019, 09:05:54 AM
My limited knowledge of the industry (mostly helping a guy who *is* an expert write a paper about parts development in aerospace) is that this is done fairly often. Authorities allow large proven manufacturers to conduct certification themselves in order to expedite development, if they are dealing with mature processes. It's not shady or anything - whether is a good idea or not is another matter.
That is a fairly recent phenomenon. But governments are beginning to understand that allowing industry to regulate itself is problematic.
Boeing as a company has huge incentives to ensure it's aircraft are safe however. This incident is costing them billions and billions of dollars. This is not some rogue criminal enterprise.
What appears to be the incident here (it is still under investigation of course) is a software bug. In order to accomodate a hardware tendency for the aircraft to go nose-up and potentially stall, the software has a bias to put the plane's nose down. In fairly rare circumstances however that nose-down bias becomes overwhelming and pushes the plane down to the ground.
The 737 MAX has some 300 planes that have been delivered, with only two accidents. The two accidents appear to be in situations where the air crew did not think to de-activate the automatic pilot when this behaviour commenced. Not to minimize the loss of two planes full of passengers, and certainly this problem needs to be fixed before the plane resumes flying, but I just don't see where tighter FAA regulation would have prevented these tragedies.
Quote from: Barrister on March 18, 2019, 11:52:00 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 18, 2019, 11:22:30 AM
Quote from: celedhring on March 18, 2019, 09:05:54 AM
My limited knowledge of the industry (mostly helping a guy who *is* an expert write a paper about parts development in aerospace) is that this is done fairly often. Authorities allow large proven manufacturers to conduct certification themselves in order to expedite development, if they are dealing with mature processes. It's not shady or anything - whether is a good idea or not is another matter.
That is a fairly recent phenomenon. But governments are beginning to understand that allowing industry to regulate itself is problematic.
Boeing as a company has huge incentives to ensure it's aircraft are safe however. This incident is costing them billions and billions of dollars. This is not some rogue criminal enterprise.
Yeah, that is exactly the argument that was made to allow industry to regulated itself.
Quote from: DGuller on March 18, 2019, 11:19:26 AM
I think it's important to differentiate what is normally done, and whether that is a good idea. A lot of things may look bad in hindsight, and they may indeed be bad, but at the same time they wouldn't be excepional. For all we know, the same exact regulatory process was applied to planes that never ever crashed, but no one does indepth investigations into why planes don't crash.
Regulation tends to be a one-way ratchet, always increasing over time - as any incident is likely to *increase* regulation for obvious reasons, but a lack of incidents cannot act to *decrease* regulation, because the argument can reasonably be made that it is the existing regulation that prevents incidents.
Problem is that regulation carries costs; having an infinite amount of it is not infinitely good, nor will it make whatever being regulated infinitely safe. Yet any attempt to quantify and limit costs is seen as ghoulish, particularly in hindsight after an incident. A rational decision that, as a society, we are willing to pay such-and-such for X degree of safety is generally treated with distain when someone is hurt or killed by something.
The article quoted by Tim does not sound like it needs more or tighter regulation.
The issue here according to that article is that Boeing apparently misstated some facts on the flight control system so that it would be classified less crucial than it actually is for flight safety and thus bypassed the more stringent regulation.
It will be interesting to see if there is a paper trail that shows that these misstatements were deliberate. It seems to be at least negligent.
Quote from: Barrister on March 18, 2019, 11:52:00 AM
The 737 MAX has some 300 planes that have been delivered, with only two accidents. The two accidents appear to be in situations where the air crew did not think to de-activate the automatic pilot when this behaviour commenced. Not to minimize the loss of two planes full of passengers, and certainly this problem needs to be fixed before the plane resumes flying, but I just don't see where tighter FAA regulation would have prevented these tragedies.
It is my understanding that the problem persists even with the autopilot set to off.
Quote from: viper37 on March 18, 2019, 03:06:24 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 18, 2019, 11:52:00 AM
The 737 MAX has some 300 planes that have been delivered, with only two accidents. The two accidents appear to be in situations where the air crew did not think to de-activate the automatic pilot when this behaviour commenced. Not to minimize the loss of two planes full of passengers, and certainly this problem needs to be fixed before the plane resumes flying, but I just don't see where tighter FAA regulation would have prevented these tragedies.
It is my understanding that the problem persists even with the autopilot set to off.
That is absolutely not my understanding. The issue has happened a couple of times in north america, and each time resolved by turning auto pilot off. Problem was turning it off is somehow different in the MAX than in older 737s.
From what I have read the system needs the autopilot to be off. Which might make sense, because it seems to be designed to compensate for manual error leading to a stall and both accidents took place immediately after take off, when autopilot might not have been switched on yet.
This system is always on and operates in the background unless manually turned off. Unlike normal autopilot systems, the pilot does not turn it on.
Quote from: Malthus on March 18, 2019, 12:35:51 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 18, 2019, 11:19:26 AM
I think it's important to differentiate what is normally done, and whether that is a good idea. A lot of things may look bad in hindsight, and they may indeed be bad, but at the same time they wouldn't be excepional. For all we know, the same exact regulatory process was applied to planes that never ever crashed, but no one does indepth investigations into why planes don't crash.
Regulation tends to be a one-way ratchet, always increasing over time - as any incident is likely to *increase* regulation for obvious reasons, but a lack of incidents cannot act to *decrease* regulation, because the argument can reasonably be made that it is the existing regulation that prevents incidents.
Problem is that regulation carries costs; having an infinite amount of it is not infinitely good, nor will it make whatever being regulated infinitely safe. Yet any attempt to quantify and limit costs is seen as ghoulish, particularly in hindsight after an incident. A rational decision that, as a society, we are willing to pay such-and-such for X degree of safety is generally treated with distain when someone is hurt or killed by something.
Yes, regulation incurs cost and to effect cost savings there has been a trend toward self regulation on the naive assumption that corporations can appropriately self regulate.
If we've turned over aircraft regulation to industry in the past decade or so, it seems the past few years would endorse self regulation as flying is so safe these days.
Quote from: Barrister on March 18, 2019, 03:07:37 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 18, 2019, 03:06:24 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 18, 2019, 11:52:00 AM
The 737 MAX has some 300 planes that have been delivered, with only two accidents. The two accidents appear to be in situations where the air crew did not think to de-activate the automatic pilot when this behaviour commenced. Not to minimize the loss of two planes full of passengers, and certainly this problem needs to be fixed before the plane resumes flying, but I just don't see where tighter FAA regulation would have prevented these tragedies.
It is my understanding that the problem persists even with the autopilot set to off.
That is absolutely not my understanding. The issue has happened a couple of times in north america, and each time resolved by turning auto pilot off. Problem was turning it off is somehow different in the MAX than in older 737s.
You're assuming that the reports cited by the media are relevant, which is a big assumption. MCAS in fact is supposed to function only when the auto-pilot is off. That makes sense, because auto-pilot will never get the plane near a stall condition.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 18, 2019, 03:47:29 PM
If we've turned over aircraft regulation to industry in the past decade or so, it seems the past few years would endorse self regulation as flying is so safe these days.
This story is not about flying in general though, but about one specific aircraft design, which happens to have a very poor safety record with this latest crash. Unless you are assuming that all aircraft average each other out when it comes to safety, the safety record of other aircraft models has no influence on the safety of this type. For all we know, while aircraft in general have become much safer, this particular type might be the exception.
Quote from: Zanza on March 18, 2019, 05:01:11 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 18, 2019, 03:47:29 PM
If we've turned over aircraft regulation to industry in the past decade or so, it seems the past few years would endorse self regulation as flying is so safe these days.
This story is not about flying in general though, but about one specific aircraft design, which happens to have a very poor safety record with this latest crash. Unless you are assuming that all aircraft average each other out when it comes to safety, the safety record of other aircraft models has no influence on the safety of this type. For all we know, while aircraft in general have become much safer, this particular type might be the exception.
Even if we accept your assertion that this type has a poor safety record, we aren't sure that the crashes are due to an inherent flaw or pilot error. I don't know enough from what I've read to tell if the MCAS itself is the cause, or that the pilots weren't adequately informed and trained in how it worked. If the latter, I don't see how more or different regulation in the certification process could have made any difference.
Pilot error does not automatically absolve Boeing or the design. You have to design the planes to be operated by humans, and humans make mistakes. If some design change is making pilots make fatal errors often enough, then it's still a design flaw that regulations exist to prevent or correct. Mandating pilot education is another thing that regulations do.
Self-regulation happens in the university sector as well. A start-up university requires external accreditation before it can offer a new degree level course. The external party will examine the curriculum, the background of the teaching staff, send in audit teams etc before it gives the all-clear. But more established universities are what we call "self-accrediting". Essentially if it says the courses are ok, then they are ok. This is because, say, the University of Cambridge's reputation is its most important asset. It has incentive not to screw up.
Only His Excellency, the Sublime Permanent Undersecretary of Hong Kong Educational Affairs would know something that arcane.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2019, 08:36:58 PM
Only His Excellency, the Sublime Permanent Undersecretary of Hong Kong Educational Affairs would know something that arcane.
Even the folks who serve tea in the meeting rooms know this :lol: