Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK joins countries blocking Boeing 737 MAX

caa.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 25 posts

Re: UK joins countries blocking Boeing 737 MAX

#11

Post by justicezyx »

dis-sys wrote: post #8
glitchc wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two different incidents of a similar nature in the span of six months suggests that there is something wrong with the aircraft. China may be playing politics, but the operators have zero incentive to do so. The FAA should begin an investigation and ground the plane if necessary to do so ASAP.

> China may be playing politics all grounded 737 max in China were replaced by 737-800, playing politics to support and promote 737-800 from the exact same company? that is a cute idea.

Any sources of report on 737 800 replacing the 737 max? Hope that the 800 does not have the same issue.

Re: UK joins countries blocking Boeing 737 MAX

#12

Post by Reason077 »

Scoundreller wrote: post #10
Reason077 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. If aircraft are falling out of the sky, it poses a risk not only to people in the air but to those on the ground, especially in a densely-populated country like the UK.

Oh, I get the logic, but dunno if this is common. Since the regulators are jumping the gun on these incidents before investigations are complete, it seems odd to ban overflying when 2 crashes at takeoff occurred. Though overflying could mean having to emergency land in your territory at any time.

I don't think it's unusual. The EU, for example, maintains a list of airlines banned from entering EU airspace because of safety deficiencies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_air_carriers_banned_in...

Re: UK joins countries blocking Boeing 737 MAX

#13

Post by Someone1234 »

Scoundreller wrote: post #10
Reason077 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. If aircraft are falling out of the sky, it poses a risk not only to people in the air but to those on the ground, especially in a densely-populated country like the UK.

Oh, I get the logic, but dunno if this is common. Since the regulators are jumping the gun on these incidents before investigations are complete, it seems odd to ban overflying when 2 crashes at takeoff occurred. Though overflying could mean having to emergency land in your territory at any time.

The UK is surrounded by foreign airports. If the aircraft's flight plan would have taken it over the UK (e.g. Paris to Dublin, Dublin to Copenhagen) even a crash a few minutes after take-off could impact the UK. Banning it in the airspace makes it so flight plans cannot even place the aircraft there.

If you're going to ban something at all, you might have well do it correctly. There's no value in half measures, or allowing loopholes.

Re: UK joins countries blocking Boeing 737 MAX

#14

Post by Reason077 »

justicezyx wrote: post #11
dis-sys wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> China may be playing politics all grounded 737 max in China were replaced by 737-800, playing politics to support and promote 737-800 from the exact same company? that is a cute idea.

Any sources of report on 737 800 replacing the 737 max? Hope that the 800 does not have the same issue.

The 737-800 is part of the 737 "NG" series and does not have the MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System). This is a feature of the MAX series which has been implicated in the Lion Air crash:

http://www.b737.org.uk/mcas.htm

Re: UK joins countries blocking Boeing 737 MAX

#15

Post by xiphias2 »

JdeBP wrote: post #9

Related current discussions: * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19367871 * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19365108 * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19365179

This is scary way of thinking:

,,At this time there are no facts on the cause of the accident other than news reports,” American Airlines said. “We have full confidence in the aircraft and our crew members, who are the best and most experienced in the industry.” The airline added it would continue to monitor the investigation into the crash.

An investigation that starts with having full confidence is not a real investigation. First get the facts, then have confidence.

Re: UK joins countries blocking Boeing 737 MAX

#16

Post by cm2187 »

glitchc wrote: post #5
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #2

Test of credibility for the FAA and China’s aviation authorities. If the crash was due to pilot or maintenance error, the FAA’s prudent process is re-affirmed. If it was a certification mistake, Beijing will have a legitimate claim to being a new global aviation authority.

Two different incidents of a similar nature in the span of six months suggests that there is something wrong with the aircraft. China may be playing politics, but the operators have zero incentive to do so. The FAA should begin an investigation and ground the plane if necessary to do so ASAP.

Agree, that's a winning twice the jackpot at the lottery kind of probability that the plane is not involved.

Re: UK joins countries blocking Boeing 737 MAX

#17

Post by La1n »

mnw21cam wrote: post #7
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #2

Test of credibility for the FAA and China’s aviation authorities. If the crash was due to pilot or maintenance error, the FAA’s prudent process is re-affirmed. If it was a certification mistake, Beijing will have a legitimate claim to being a new global aviation authority.

That may be the perception, yes, and many people will go along with that. I disagree. My view is that it is too early for a strong view to be taken either way, therefore differing views are likely to be taken, and I don't think either side is stupid for doing so. If the FAA come out in a couple of days time and say that they want to ground the aircraft too, I also won't think they are losing face. It simply is a proc…

I wouldn't say it was picked at random when there is little information available. It seems to me like an application of the precautionary principle. In this case there is a plausible risk that the problem extents to other 737 MAX airplanes, and thus to prevent harm it's better to block the use until there is certainty about the situation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

Re: UK joins countries blocking Boeing 737 MAX

#18

Post by SmellyGeekBoy »

mnw21cam wrote: post #7
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #2

Test of credibility for the FAA and China’s aviation authorities. If the crash was due to pilot or maintenance error, the FAA’s prudent process is re-affirmed. If it was a certification mistake, Beijing will have a legitimate claim to being a new global aviation authority.

That may be the perception, yes, and many people will go along with that. I disagree. My view is that it is too early for a strong view to be taken either way, therefore differing views are likely to be taken, and I don't think either side is stupid for doing so. If the FAA come out in a couple of days time and say that they want to ground the aircraft too, I also won't think they are losing face. It simply is a proc…

I can't believe how many comments I've had to wade through to find the one person in these threads talking any sense. This isn't an "us vs them" situation. Different countries and organisations have different approaches, procedures, and decision making processes in place when dealing with these things.

Nobody has to be "right" or "wrong". It's a complicated situation with incomplete information and no right answer.

Re: UK joins countries blocking Boeing 737 MAX

#19

Post by SmellyGeekBoy »

justicezyx wrote: post #11
dis-sys wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> China may be playing politics all grounded 737 max in China were replaced by 737-800, playing politics to support and promote 737-800 from the exact same company? that is a cute idea.

Any sources of report on 737 800 replacing the 737 max? Hope that the 800 does not have the same issue.

> Hope that the 800 does not have the same issue.

No "hope" required - it doesn't.

Re: UK joins countries blocking Boeing 737 MAX

#20

Post by Someone1234 »

xiphias2 wrote: post #15
JdeBP wrote: post #9

Related current discussions: * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19367871 * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19365108 * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19365179

This is scary way of thinking: ,,At this time there are no facts on the cause of the accident other than news reports,” American Airlines said. “We have full confidence in the aircraft and our crew members, who are the best and most experienced in the industry.” The airline added it would continue to monitor the investigation into the crash. An investigation that starts with having full confidence is not a real inves…

> “American Airlines extends our condolences to the families and friends of those on board Ethiopian Airlines flight 302. At this time there are no facts on the cause of the accident other than news reports,”

American Airlines' statement feels a little disingenuous considering it is ignoring the context of the Ethiopian Airlines crash. The Lion Air crash has significantly more than just "news reports" including the FAA Emergency Airworthiness Directive (2018-23-51) and a Continued Airworthiness Directive (2019-03-11), and a preliminary report.

AA's "full confidence" in the aircraft seems to contradict even the FAA which has already requested that Boeing make changes to the aircraft.

Post reply on HN