111–120 of 344 posts
'But the FAA said that other civil aviation authorities had not "provided data to us that would warrant action".' Pretty sure the data is that two planes crashed in five months in perfect weather conditions, killing everyone on board. Statistically, that's sufficiently improbable that it warrants investigation.
What I dont understand is why the airlines themselves (Southwest and American) are refusing to halt the planes - this seems totally irresponsible with what is known at this point.
What is known at this point is that another 737 Max crashed for some reason, which might have been unrelated to the cause of the last crash, while being flown by an airline with a questionable safety record. If this turns out to have been a terrorist attack or something like that, a lot of people are going to have to eat their words, and millions of dollars will have been wasted for nothing.
https://thepointsguy.com/news/despite-recent-crash-ethiopian...
Now it may be a lack of pilot training, but by Boeing’s own account a B737 pilot should be qualified to pilot a Max. Then how come a small, insignificant feature can result in the crash of the plane? It would have to be not insignificant at all.
Some points from personal experience from working at Boeing, family working at Boeing, and a close friend on the flight line for the 737-8; - not everything is back from the Lion Air incident, but internally there was strong confidence that a lack of pilot familiarity with the adjusted mechanics of MCAS contributed to the disaster - reproducing these failures has been extremely hard and has required a lot of cooperat…
> - not everything is back from the Lion Air incident, > but internally there was strong confidence that a lack > of pilot familiarity with the adjusted mechanics of > MCAS contributed to the disaster > > - training for the 737-8 and -9 was just short of non > existent because in practice, these planes don’t fly > differently. Don't you think these two statements are at odds? If there is no difference in practice the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The sudden rush to judgment on this case is unjustified by the evidence. If it turns out this was not Boeing's fault, a lot of people are going to have to eat their words, and millions of dollars will have been wasted for nothing. The prudent thing would be to err on the side of caution and suspend it until we know. What's millions of dollars (which I think is way exaggerated for a temporary suspension until the ev…
Did the E.U. ground the A320 when the Germanwings suicide pilot crashed the plane in the Alps, killing 150? Investigators didn’t know what brought that plane down for several days. Wouldn’t the prudent thing to do be to ground all Airbus A320s until the cause was confirmed? Did they ground the A320 after the Egyptair crash? They still aren’t sure what brought that plane down. But they didn’t ground the fleet. How abo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really hope that’s not the case - I can see the argument that this might not be a design fault and we need to wait and see - just like a330s weren’t grounded after AF447 China clearly grounded ge planes for political reasons, and maybe other countries did it due to the optics. However if the decision in the US has been pushed simply for political reasons that’s a terrible indightment on the industry.
Af447 immediately suspected the pitot tubes, as it was an ongoing effort to change them for a different model when the crash happened. A bit like in the Boeing case, it was hoped that the pilot would manually handle the issue if the freezing happened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nonsense. Ethiopian airlines is rated Category 1 by the FAA and can thus fly direct to the US and they are a member of the star alliance. Just because they are the largest carrier in Africa does not imply dubious safety or maintenance.
They had a 200 hour pilot flying in the right seat of the crashed airplane. Star Alliance or not, who in the hell defends a low-time student pilot flying right seat in an airliner? In the US, that would be illegal as a first officer has a 1500 hour requirement along with significant multi-engine turbine training. That copilot wouldn’t even have enough hours for a commercial certificate, let alone ATP.
Quite frankly I think it’s a bit sensationalist for people and the media to point fingers at the FAA for making “irresponsible decisions” and being beholden to lobbyists while conveniently ignoring their track record. The FAA is notorious for their draconian ways which has become the impetus behind why air travel is now the safest mode of transportation today. In fact, there hasn't been a hull loss on US soil since 2…
If a plane has enormous costs for maintenance then it should be justified for grounding or prevent them from buying.
This is very similar to cars. A car which is very costly to maintain but very reliable does not inspire much confidence for me when I am driving in remote areas. A car which is easy to maintain, reliable and with low costs and big service network with plenty of spare parts inspires a lot of confidence and I will take it anywhere.
I feel that the US have lost in reputation here while, e.g. China has gained. It didn't have to be that way.
China was the first to ban the 737 MAX. When they did it people could counter that it was political. But since so many countries, including some of the US's closest allies, have followed suit then they have come out as being serious and safety-conscious.
On the other hand, by refusing to ban the US are seen as putting corporate interests above safety.