Ethiopian 737 Max 8 crash and Fallout

[JB expat]

Indeed.As a senior politician once said to me-"Ron if there is ever a choice between a conspiracy or a c*ckup the c*ckup wins every time.

Conspiracy is overstating what I am trying to say. I'm not saying that Boeing said to the White House "the plane is bad, but please don't ground". I'm suggesting that Boeing (first conversation) said "hey, we just don't know yet - there's no reason to ground the planes - we kind of think they are safe - just wait a few days" and the WH, because of Boeing's influence said "sure, we will give you the benefit of the doubt"...and then Boeing (second conversation) said "um, sorry, we think there may be a real problem here - go ahead and ground the planes so we can look into it before another takes a nose dive" and the WH said "ok - we will ground the planes today".

thus - focus of the WH (and the FAA) was not on safety first/abundance of caution, but "we know Boeing, they know us and are good to us - let's trust what they say"

 

[Bundy Bear]

Bit more information available.

Flight recorder data links Ethiopian, Lion Air MAX 8 crashes

A preliminary analysis of data from Ethiopian Airlines flight ET302’s flight data and coughpit voice recorders provides the strongest evidence yet linking the accident sequence to the October 2018 crash of Lion Air flight JT610.

 

[drron]

JB expat unfortunately conspiracy is exactly what you are saying even if you don't think so.however there is evidence out there that disproves any WH conspiracy.Potus and the Boeing chairman spoke on Tuesday March 12th after China grounded the Max on March 11.At midnight on the Tuesday Potus tweeted-

Airplanes are becoming far too complex to fly. Pilots are no longer needed, but rather computer scientists from MIT. I see it all the time in many products. Always seeking to go one unnecessary step further, when often old and simpler is far better. Split second decisions are....



117K
12:00 AM - Mar 13, 201
Twelve minutes later came this-

....needed, and the complexity creates danger. All of this for great cost yet very little gain. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want Albert Einstein to be my pilot. I want great flying professionals that are allowed to easily and quickly take control of a plane!

Sounds very much like he wasn't agreeing that the Max was safe.

 

[JB expat]

JB expat unfortunately conspiracy is exactly what you are saying even if you don't think so.however there is evidence out there that disproves any WH conspiracy.Potus and the Boeing chairman spoke on Tuesday March 12th after China grounded the Max on March 11.At midnight on the Tuesday Potus tweeted-

Airplanes are becoming far too complex to fly. Pilots are no longer needed, but rather computer scientists from MIT. I see it all the time in many products. Always seeking to go one unnecessary step further, when often old and simpler is far better. Split second decisions are....



117K
12:00 AM - Mar 13, 201
Twelve minutes later came this-

....needed, and the complexity creates danger. All of this for great cost yet very little gain. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want Albert Einstein to be my pilot. I want great flying professionals that are allowed to easily and quickly take control of a plane!

Sounds very much like he wasn't agreeing that the Max was safe.

He said it wasn't safe and yet it wasn't grounded. Don't get me started on what I think of Trump either. I'm not talking conspiracy - I'm talking about motives that were not in line with the FAA mission

Safety: The Foundation of Everything We Do
Safety: The Foundation of Everything We Do

• 

At FAA, what drives us — through everything we do — is our mission to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world. We continually strive to improve the safety and efficiency of flight in this country.

 

[serfty]

I posted this on the Ask the Pilot thread:

...

OK, here's something referring to what I meant re Value Add (AKA, Fries): (Trevor Sumner on Twitter)

Boeing sells an option package that includes an extra AoA vane, and an AoA disagree light, which lets pilots know that this problem was happening. Both 737MAXes that crashed were delivered without this option. No 737MAX with this option has ever crashed.

Reminds me of a Multinational IT service provider who sold managed services (i.e. Offsite Server/database hosting).

Having a backup / archive process for the hosted services was an optional extra at a quite significant upcost. You can guess what happened ...

 

[drron]

JB expat Potus doesn't run the FAA.Stop trying to make Trump an issue.This time he reflected the public's and your opinion.
As well read serfty's post 484.It seems there is a fix but some airlines didn't want to pay for it.

 

[JB expat]

JB expat Potus doesn't run the FAA.Stop trying to make Trump an issue.This time he reflected the public's and your opinion.
As well read serfty's post 484.It seems there is a fix but some airlines didn't want to pay for it.

You raised Trump's tweet. I never raised Trump - I talked about the White House. The FAA currently has no head - because Trump hasn't appointed one. Thus the deputing/acting is in limbo with fingers-crossed (I assume) that he gets the job - or the WH simply just doesn't think the role is that important. And speaking of Trump tweets re: FAA and air travel (which you raised - not me) - how's this one -

 

[drron]

Read your post 464 again.You certainly mentioned the WH as making decisions.I didn't take that as the press secretary making decisions.
Plus a January 2nd tweet is totally irrelevant..

 

[JB expat]

Read your post 464 again.You certainly mentioned the WH as making decisions.I didn't take that as the press secretary making decisions.
Plus a January 2nd tweet is totally irrelevant..

You have it your way - pick whatever suits your narrative.

I stick to the basic assertion that I made - that the FAA is not as independent as it should be or as it needs to be in order to perform in accordance with its purpose.

 

[RooFlyer]

I stick to the basic assertion that I made - that the FAA is not as independent as it should be or as it needs to be in order to perform in accordance with its purpose.

I think your assertions have gone well beyond that , to the point of repetitiveness.

 

[JohnM]

Yes, I think the Max name will disappear from their product range

To twist an existing Boeing saying: If it's a Max, I ain't a pax.

 

[drron]

I pick the truth.
Did you read serfty's post.
What if the US airlines have purchased the extra options
"Boeing sells an option package that includes an extra AoA vane, and an AoA disagree light, which lets pilots know that this problem was happening. Both 737MAXes that crashed were delivered without this option. No 737MAX with this option has ever crashed."

The FAA therefore may have felt US airlines were safe.

 

[NZflygirl]

Now this is an interesting tweet! I haven’t flown easyjet but it’s on my list of airlines I would fly. Not sure if this changes that. At the moment I don’t think it does.

Ethiopian FO has 200hrs?

 

[NZflygirl]

I pick the truth.
Did you read serfty's post.
What if the US airlines have purchased the extra options
"Boeing sells an option package that includes an extra AoA vane, and an AoA disagree light, which lets pilots know that this problem was happening. Both 737MAXes that crashed were delivered without this option. No 737MAX with this option has ever crashed."

The FAA therefore may have felt US airlines were safe.

If it improved safety why was it only optional instead of mandatory?

 

[woodborer]

I pick the truth.
Did you read serfty's post.
What if the US airlines have purchased the extra options
"Boeing sells an option package that includes an extra AoA vane, and an AoA disagree light, which lets pilots know that this problem was happening. Both 737MAXes that crashed were delivered without this option. No 737MAX with this option has ever crashed."

The FAA therefore may have felt US airlines were safe.

I think the conclusion that this is trying to make by saying that "No 737MAX with this option has ever crashed" is faulty. Does that option actually make the aircraft safer? And if it did make it safer, why is it an option.

 

[33kft]

If it improved safety why was it only optional instead of mandatory?

I think the conclusion that this is trying to make by saying that "No 737MAX with this option has ever crashed" is faulty. Does that option actually make the aircraft safer? And if it did make it safer, why is it an option.

4 engines are safer than 2, due to redundancy. In the past, twin engine aircraft were prohibited from transoceanic flight due to a requirement to be no further than 60 minutes away from an airfield:

For Transoceanic Flights, Are Two Engines Enough?

Yet most 4 engine planes (B747, A340, A380) are as good as retired. Why is it not mandatory to have 4 or even more engines on a plane?

(Yes I am being facetious but the point is that the answer in air travel is always economics).

 

[drron]

Or maybe after the Lion crash why didn't those airlines who hadn't purchased the option then retrofit it?

As to why it was only an option.Who knows it is all speculation as is everything I say as well as most others posting here.

 

[33kft]

What they really should have is 3 AoA sensors. That way when there is a disagree situation, there is an election where the two in agreement exclude the third not in agreement. They would need to be in different places on the airframe so damage or blockage doesn't affect them all. But then again, how many MCAS controllers are there? one? So if it has a fault what happens? Maybe what we need is two MCAS controllers as well. Three would be optimal for the same purpose as the AoA sensors but then where would we house all of this in a narrowbody jet? While we're replicating these sensors, a few more pitot tubes and static ports wouldn't go astray, they've been responsible for a lot of issues in the past (and so on, and so on, and so forth, and so forth).

 

[Must...Fly!]

What they really should have is 3 AoA sensors. That way when there is a disagree situation, there is an election where the two in agreement exclude the third not in agreement.

Which is actually how modern railway signalling works. Roughly, 3 computers process the same information - as long as two agree, the command goes ahead. If two disagree, it won't. Extremely high level redundancy.

 

[NZflygirl]

4 engines are safer than 2, due to redundancy. In the past, twin engine aircraft were prohibited from transoceanic flight due to a requirement to be no further than 60 minutes away from an airfield:

For Transoceanic Flights, Are Two Engines Enough?

Yet most 4 engine planes (B747, A340, A380) are as good as retired. Why is it not mandatory to have 4 or even more engines on a plane?

(Yes I am being facetious but the point is that the answer in air travel is always economics).

Acknowledge $ is often the company bottom line.

Whilst I like 4 engine aircraft (never been on an A340) I'm ok flying on 2 engines.

But it seems weird to put out a 'safe' option and then a 'safer option'. Would you like one parachute on your skydive today or two?