Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

Post by Tomte » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 6:59 PM UTC

mises wrote: post #230

js2 wrote: post #20

Having read many commments on HN and elsewhere since the crash, I know I’m in the minority here when I say this but to me it seems like the US airlines and FAA are following their procedures, the same procedures that make the US airlines the safest in the world, while the rest of the world is, I don’t quite want to use the word panicking, but at least giving into pressure from people who aren’t aviation safety expert…

The thing people aren't looking at is the condition of the planes. Both crashes happened with planes of third-world nations, and might not have been held to the same rigorous standards. I'm glad America is trying to get the black box, because I'm not sure I'd trust the Ethiopian govt not to tamper with it just to protect their image (and their tourism industry).

Post by anigbrowl » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 7:03 PM UTC

helaoban wrote: post #245

danepowell wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand and agree that we don't want knee-jerk reactions on the part of regulators. I'm only an aviation enthusiast and by no means an expert, and fully admit that I could be wrong, and even with my natural inclination to reserve judgement, to me it seems obvious that grounding is warranted purely from a statistic viewpoint. Compare the release of the 737 MAX 8 with the release of other recent-ish models like th…

By this argument, all Boeing 777s should have been grounded after the loss of Malaysia 370 and Malaysia 17. Same plane, both incidents within 5 months of each other.

Post by linuxftw » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 7:06 PM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #266

linuxftw wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How will airlines fill the gap from their MAX8 fleet? Europe will probably be fine. Unfortunately here in the states, the Airlines colluded with "capacity discipline" [1]. If you've been on a US flight recently, you'll notice that a whole plane canceled would require another entire plane to be found. And since airlines don't seem to invest too much into their workforce, well they just don't have the extra captains…

American passengers, assisted by SV technology, have been encouraged to be and demonstrated that they are totally indifferent to anything but price and will book with whichever carrier is least expensive. So don't complain that in order to stay in business, airlines are cutting costs to the bone and not carrying extra capacity anywhere that it's not essential.

Post by rootusrootus » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 7:07 PM UTC

fbelzile wrote: post #148

mikeash wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe from the fact that the last fatality in a US airline crash was over ten years ago?

That means nothing. All airlines based out of France and Germany are ISOA certified, never had a fatality, and are rated 7/7 by AirlineRatings [0] (industry leader on airline safety ratings), for example. [0] https://www.airlineratings.com/safety-rating-tool/

Post by linuxftw » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 7:10 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #247

linuxftw wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem, I think, is there's no established protocol in this situation. Congress leaves entirely too much decision making up to the executive branch. How hard is it to write a law such as "If the same (public) commercial model plane crashes with fatalities more than once in an 18 month period, that model plane shall be grounded indefinitely until a root cause is established and mitigated" This would have some int…

> How hard is it to write a law such as "If the same (public) commercial model plane crashes with fatalities more than once in an 18 month period, that model plane shall be grounded indefinitely until a root cause is established and mitigated" The problem is if you write a law like that, then even if the FAA still otherwise nominally retains its existing power, the mere fact of the "2 in 18-months" rule in statute wi…