Hubris. Hubris and money are keeping this plane flying in the US. As usual, Americans have an issue being wrong, and both Boeing and the FAA are scared for their reputation (and money). All while innocent lives hang in the balance.
No wonder more of us are questioning capitalism.
6
There's little point in making the same comment over and over, but as a pilot I will bet anyone my salary that this is a training issue and not an airplane issue. In the Indonesian crash, the exact same thing happened the day before on the same airplane but with a UK crew. They followed standard emergency procedures, continued the flight, and landed without incident. The next day, same airplane, same incident, with an Indonesian/Indian crew, the plane crashed. The copilot in this Ethiopian crash had 200 hours TOTAL time flying. In the U.S. you need a statutory minimum of 1,500 hours to qualify for an Airline Transport Pilot certificate and thus fly scheduled passenger flights.
People won't like this in our touchy-feely world, but US- and European-trained crews are just better. Period.
We have absolutely no idea why this plane crashed, nor the Indonesian plane. Anyone who tells you different must know more than the investigators. But I will tell you this: it's no coincidence that these planes crashed in third-world countries.
And lastly, anyone who says Ethiopian has a great safety record literally has absolutely not the first clue what they're talking about. They have had 26 complete hull losses in the last 40 years. American Airlines - which flies 25 times more flights annually than Ethiopian - has had 10. Do the math.
I've said it 100 times: don't travel on third world transport. Period.
51
@Mike Whether this comes down to training or not, there is a flaw in this plane's system that is causing loss of life. So you train to the flaw instead of correcting the flaw? That thinking is flawed!
24
Agree, totally. And I have no expertise about aircraft, only experience in traveling in the third world.
1
@Mike
The point, though, is that the computer is doing overfixing that causes a pilot to have to do the override. Repeatedly. And therein lies the rub. It’s a Boeing design/computer problem.
14
If someone was selling cars where 1 in 160 would explode killing all on board, who would keep driving one? And here we have aircraft carrying 200 people.
2
I travel a lot, on UA, and other airlines.... this isn't, in my opinion, an airline issue. If the FAA has it's "own" voice - the grounding of M8's would happen. Boeing will perhaps look at the outcome of the "fix" as solved. Boeing: please take responsibility for the deaths of so many people. Live up to the mission statement on your website https://www.boeing.com/principles/vision.page
5
too sad, only in America., our government works for corporations and special interest groups. ground the bird.
11
If Trump says an airplane is safe, I'm not getting on that airplane.
16
The FAA, Boeing, Southwest, and American are saying that they don’t have data to support the claim that the plane is unsafe to fly. But neither do they know enough at this point to say definitively that it is safe.
In other words, they just don’t know. But we're supposed to keep flying the 737 Max 8.
No, thanks.
11
Boeing said yesterday something like “safety is always our first concern.” Except profits, of course. Which is obviously a much bigger concern these days than the safety of consumers. When the rest of the world has grounded all the 737 Max 8’s and in some cases, going as far to restrict overflights in a few countries, our FAA tells us “everything is fine.” Boeing has known about this for awhile since pilots have reported this happening on takeoff when the autopilot is engaged, yet, safety is their first concern? Whose safety exactly? The shareholders? It
9
I no longer trust the FAA. They seem to put business before people, just like the rest of the current administration.
11
If there is a third crash ... or we ponder, when, not if ...
3
I wonder how many people will have to die before the trump administration decides to ground planes until they are retrofitted with software that does not cause these kinds of crashes?
1
"Shortly after he was elected president, Mr. Trump assailed Boeing for the estimated cost of its program to build new Air Force One planes that serve as mobile command centers for the president.
The “costs are out of control, more than $4 billion. Cancel order!” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter a month after winning the election but before he took office. A couple of weeks later, Mr. Muilenburg visited Mr. Trump at his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Fla., to try to smooth things over.
“It was a terrific conversation,” Mr. Muilenburg told reporters after the meeting, explaining that he had given Mr. Trump “my personal commitment” that Boeing would build new Air Force One planes for less than the $4 billion estimate."
The above quote from the article (towards the bottom of the article) is not relevant to the story of the downing to two 737's.
1
Couple things came to mind about Boeing's response and non-response: whether it's political or not, as a corporation, an individual, friends, family, etc., there comes a point very early in all discussions, again whether your right or wrong, there is an apology and acknowledgment needed. Then some action:
How to Apologize - heal the relationship with the families that have lost their loved ones with a sincere apology;
What Is an Apology? It acknowledges the hurt that your actions have caused to the families and whomever else is attached to them;
Why Apologize? Taking responsibility for your actions;
Consequences of Not Apologizing: distrust in the community in which Boeing is a job for so many; damage your relationships with business partners, clients, friends, and the families within the reach of Boeing; and let's not forget moral on the shop floor and boardroom.
4
Boeing should welcome the grounding of the Max 8. Transparency is always necessary when it comes to the public perception of safety, especially in the realm of air travel. The FAA, at this moment, appears as a lackey of big business, which is antithetical to its mission. Join the world, America and ground this plane.
5
FAA should put safety before anything else and it appears it is not doing that.
They should ground this plane while all investigations are completed as other countries are doing.
This would be the right thing to do. The only reason not to do this seems to be their own self interest and fear of their so called infallibility coming into question.
Everyone is human and makes mistakes in judgement.
If you cannot acknowledge that, then people may conclude that corporate profits are influencing FAA process.
We are all losing faith in our institutions especially within the last 2 years. Don’t add to an already desperate situation FAA.
Please do the right thing before another crash happens.
8
While I applaud the civility of the idea that is being put forth by Boeing and the FAA in admonishing the public to not rush to judgment, as a public relations professional I see all too often how powerful entities can effectively distract from the real main point. That main point here is the tragic reality that over 300 human beings have died within months of each other in a man made machine that in many respects is brand new. The the fact that the FAA, as a regulatory body, sounds more like a Boeing PR group is profoundly saddening for both our Republic and those who suffered this horrible fate. The FAA, as the steward of aviation safety, should be leading the charge of zealous engagement with a push to at least advocate a voluntary grounding out of an abundance of caution and to give US Airlines time to inspect their fleet for any flaws at least until the basic data can be interpreted from this new tragedy. Sadly, we get metered excuses as to why this possibly defective product should have another chance to injure. Let us not forget it is this quest to accept zero flaws that made aviation safety so enviable to so many other fields today.....
12
Don't you think these planes have been inspected again and again? Pilots are aware and ready for the possibility.
The FAA is not only in charge of safety but also promoting aviation. A very strange relationship.
I would rather fly on a Southwest 737-8 Max than any airplane with a 200 hour first officer.
1
@Alan Patrick Among the eight major carriers there are 74, 737 MAX's in service. 74 out of thousands of airliners in their fleets.
There is no reason on God's green earth to allow these planes in the air. Grounding 74 planes is going to cripple air traffic? No. The biggest carriers have thousands of jets.
Here's the breakdown.
Southwest 34
American 26
United 14 with 18 on order
Delta 0
Alaska 0
Eastern 0
Spirit 0
Jet Blue 0
https://www.planespotters.net/airlines
None of us know these causes of these disasters yet, whether they are linked, or if there's a flaw in the airplane or its software. But knowing that the President of Boeing and Trump are on the phone makes me more worried, not less.
23
Your safety is not the concern of corporate America or our Dear Leaders. I think they've already made that clear.
10
Well, the Trump admin is opposed to any regulation, or rules, or whatnot.
6
It’s all about the benjamins.
4
Just read this at The Economist website. Boeing has 5,000 orders for the 737 MAX. If the problems cannot be fixed, and fast, Boeing is in for a major blow. And it's their own fault.
They employ 80,000 in WA STATE and 160,000 world-wide. We don't have all the details fo the causes, but during Jim McNerny's reign as CEO...profits took the place of passion. Boeing was to the Pacific NW as the film industry is to Hollywood or oil is to Texas. Generations of families worked at Boeing, airplane building was in their blood. Then McNerny, who came over from GE was a "...a numbers guy whose relentless push for efficiency and lower costs has consistently delivered stellar profits in his decade as Boeing chairman and CEO. (He also) has alienated engineers and machinists."
He did everything he could to freeze wages, cut wages and bully employees into concessions. He was relentless in finding ways to cut costs, making Boeing extremely profitable while alienating just about everyone.
If it turns out, this crash is due to cutting corners either in pilot training or design, Boeing will end up paying the cost they should have ponied up in the first place.
Their presence in the Seattle area is irreplaceable. The whole region suffers when Boeing experiences a downturn.
We'll wait and see, but it doesn't look promising. Shame on Boeing.
14
All of the 737 Max Planes should be grounded. The 737 Max was first put into service in May of 2017. Since then, the 737 has been involved in about 60 accidents, involving the deaths of at least a couple of thousand people.
As usual the US is out of step with the rest of the world.
7
Profits first, people second.
7
According to this article, the crash might be due to the new
Not MCAS but lack of trust grounds B737Max worldwide:mindFly
The notorious MAS which was suspected by many to be the cause of the Lion Air accident in 2018 end may not be the cause in the Ethiopian Airlines ET302 accident. The reason why the big regulators like UK, France, Singapore, Australia and many other are imposing a ban on the B-737 Max to even enter their airspace points to a lack of trust in FAA and Boeing and the actions taken by them in the past.
Read my blog "A question of safety or ethics" http://mindfly.blog/2019/01/10/a-question-of-safety-or-ethicsboeing-737.
There was a legal case in the USA in early 2018 where the court had overruled the immunity clause that manufacturers had enjoyed for design defect. The court also documents that Boeing has been aware of known design defects in their aircrafts.
Boeing has paid huge compensation in terms of legal damage after the series of accidents starting in late 1980's. Had they grounded the B737 early and modified them or admitted to oversight of certain aspects in training, manufacturing etc, they would have been seen as a responsible OEM and FAA as a responsible regulator.
The series of incidents of battery fire on the B787 Dreamliner where NTSB has pulled up both FAA and Boeing for design defects has caused irreparable damage to the reputation of the regulator and OEM.
2
Boeing has $600,000,000,000 riding on the fate of the 737 Max. That's 5,000 aircraft on order. That's a gamble it can't lose.
2
Flying Coffins (senryu/haiku quartet) "Max 8: flying hearse, - Kamikaze dive bomber, - Coffin with wings"; "HAL computers force - Max 8's into nosedives - Pilots can't reverse"; "Max 8 computers - Don't discriminate; they'll kill - You and your pilots"; "Trump's FAA says - Max 8's are safe; the rest - Of the world says 'No!'"
2
Of course. FAA has an inherent conflict of interest. They are charged with both promoting air travel and safeguarding air travel. These responsibilities need to be reassigned to two separate agencies.
3
I would really like to know, how often following scenario happened since the Boeing 737 MAX 8 - Version is flying:
- Boeing is in the starting procedure
- The jet´s angle of attack drifts too high, putting the aircraft in risk of stalling
- MCA is activated without pilots input and commands nose down stabilizer to enhance pitch characteristics during step turns with elevated load factors and during flaps up flight at airspeeds approaching stall
Let´s suppose, it happens on every second flight, is that a quote that is tolerable?
1
Who on earth would volunteer to board one of those planes? One can discover the make/model of the plane prior to booking.
5
Yes, Mr. Trump. Let's certainly go back to the days of balsa wood, wire and painted cloth. Maybe even two wings, one pair over the other. That's what will solve our airline problems. The situation, after all, certainly couldn't be improved by the use of improved inspections (by well-trained and well-paid inspectors), research, and good ol' safety training. Nahhh. Those wouldn't affect anything!
2
@Mr. S. Next he'll say that either he or his son, Baron, could have flown better than those stupid pilots! Remember, he always has the hearts of the families who lost loved ones first and foremost in his mind... NOT!
2
If the FAA will ground the planes, you can bet the cause will be uncovered quickly. They must suspect what it is, so ground it and they'll be more motivated to get to it.
Give the software to some hacker kids who aren't intimately involved with it already and the vulnerabilities might be easily found.
2
"The Federal Aviation Administration, the American regulator, is typically hesitant to ground an entire fleet without concrete findings of an inherent design or manufacturing problem."
The last time a similar accident happened there was a lot of talk about the need to retrain pilots for sales, as if this was needed costs would have gone up. No training was needed and the d, as the new more powerful engines made no difference. Except ?????
Sounds like the Ethiopian plane had an explosion and fire before crashing, which would not be part of a MCAS problem and was not present before the Indonesian crash. Likely a different cause.
Also, I am sure Southwest and United and American Airlines reviewed ALL of their flight data on this model after the Indonesian crash, I would guess they found absolutely no erratic behavior whatsoever, and I would also bet that A) those sensors and systems are being maintained carefully to make sure function is optimal, and B) their pilots have reviewed and re-reviewed the emergency procedures to perform if there ever a problem. The black box preliminary should be out soon and will also help.
2
@Will Hogan The report of an eyewitness seeing smoke from the plane before it crashed is certainly mysterious, and would not seem consistent with an MCAS problem. But eyewitness reports are not necessarily reliable after air crashes -- they have proved problematic in the past. It will certainly be valuable to have the black box contents.
4
The article suggests the crashes could be due to the new “maneuvering characteristics augmentation system”, or due to misinformation from instruments, or due to inexperienced pilots relying too much upon automated control. Of course, none of these explanations bear upon why difficulties arose in the first place to trigger some of these subsequent defective responses.
And the analysis of the earlier crash in October has yet to produce anything beyond “maybes”.
And we have no information from pilots of this plane who might have encountered similar problems that did not prove fatal. Such as a sudden nose dive soon after take off that pilots were able to correct in time.
The vagueness surrounding these events and their analysis supports the suspicion that the crashes are due to a rapid concatenation of a number of rare events, and no definitive reproduction of the cause is likely soon, or perhaps ever. Consequently a solution is likely to take the form of preventive measures that should improve safety, and might mitigate such an event, but cannot be directly tied to fixing the cause.
So Boeing is faced with an expensive attempt to fix matters that may or may not work. If the gamble is unsuccessful, another crash will occur, more passengers will die, and Boeing soon after will be bankrupt, and the FAA will have zero credibility.
8
The US is is a notable exception on the wrong side of many issues now that Congress works for lobbyists.
14
And Nikki Haley works for Boeing.
1
Given safety vs. dollars, guess which way the U.S. goes....
17
I have a relative who is a Boeing 787 Captain and has been flying multiple types of large Boeing equipment for over 35 years. When asked for his opinion, he speculated that it might have been a new safety feature added to the MAX 8 to cover an earlier separate design flaw, and that new feature malfunctioned. Did Boeing adequately informed their customers/pilots about the new feature or provide sufficient training on dealing with this control malfunction? These are important questions.
If properly trained on the feature, with solid cockpit experience, and with adequate time to "figure things out" the problem isn't insurmountable. But factor in a co pilot that had only 200 hours total flying time on the equipment with little time to prepare, the odds aren't good. US carriers require 1,500 I believe. My guess it's going to be a blend of design and pilot error.
There is NO substitute for experience and training (lots of it) in the cockpit, especially when thinks go wrong and you have little time to react and the lives of hundreds of people at stake.
The FAA should immediately ground the plane until the issue is figured out. Period. End of story. As another reader commented, if the FAA fails to do this, flyers should refuse to fly on the MAX 8. That will get the FAA, Boeing and airlines attention.
15
Eye witness accounts stated that the Ethiopian Air plane was trailing smoke and debris and making a strange rattling sound before it crashed. That doesn't sound like an MCAS related failure.
@Jack
Unless you can or someone else can produce the eyewitness then this is hearsay. I'm not judging, except for the fact we always hear things that are just that...Hearsay... and want to believe.
1
It is better to be on the ground when you could have been flying than to be flying when you should have stayed on the ground.
2
I applauded the SCJohnson company when they dealt with the Tylenol situation. Boeing should copy that approach and take their killer planes out of service.
5
I will not fly in a Max 8 period. Nor should anyone else. There are no families, businesses, non-profits that can "afford" the loss of their personnel and/or their loved ones. It is disingenuous to pretend it is okay to not ground them until they find out what happened and then fix them.
Is the FAA following the lead of the administration in their deregulation mania by not being the protector of the people flying opposed to the airline that flies them?
13
Whether the FAA is requesting a grounding or not, Boeing should ground all of them.
The last thing they want the Max 8 to be considered is the "Ford Pinto of the Skies" or worse the Corvelle which helped propel Ralph Nader into a household name and bring about a new wave of regulations and lead to safer vehicles but for the US automotive industry spelled the end of the dominance of the world car manufacturing.
The US airline industry faces such a risk if it doesn't show caution for safety over the concern for the bottom line. This no longer just an issue for Boeing, but puts the entire US aviation industry at risk, one more problem with a Max 8 on US soil would put the FAA credibility on the line as well.
Even if the FAA isn't willing to do the right thing, Boeing and the US airlines with Max 8 aircraft should.
11
I understand djt thinks the planes are too complicated. I guess he wants to return to the good old days - when planes were coal powered.
6
"The Federal Aviation Administration, the American regulator, is typically hesitant to ground an entire fleet without concrete findings of an inherent design or manufacturing problem."
Two planes have crashed, hundreds have died, and the FAA no doubt wants to appoint a committee to investigate the possibility that there might be something wrong with the design and/or production of the Boeing 737 Max 8 before doing anything rash, like grounding the planes.
The planes should be grounded. If the FAA doesn't do it, the only alternative we have is to boycott the airlines that continue to use them.
19
To any reasonable person, there are enough similarities between the two recent Max 8 crashes to suggest an inherent defect with this aircraft and to justify its grounding until the presence of such a defect can be ruled out. It is clear that in the US and Canada, the two countries that are rapidly becoming outliers in their response to this tragedy, the airlines and their regulators are being driven more by business considerations than what they mendaciously tout as their primary concern, public safety. Simply put, they would rather gamble with human lives than see their business disrupted. It’s sickening.
19
Pilots have been referred to as "managers" for decades.
Disabling the system should "do the trick" for now if needed.
And yes, pilots should be able to fly the aircraft manually.
The problem may be with both the new system and the lack of training an understanding of the system.
4
When I worked in the nuclear power industry, we had one mandatory safety design philosophy we had to consider. It is called common mode failure. It means anytime we encountered one item that fails for any reason—here, a Boeing 737 Max8—we HAD TO consider the possibility, however unlikely, that all items in common—here, all other Boeing 737 Max8s—could possibly fail the same way. Why isn’t this a perfect case of the need for the same conservatism: ground ‘em all until you KNOW none of the others can fail the same way.
18
The FAA is a shill for the airline industry. Shameful, and one of many corrupt government “watchdog” agencies.
16
Boeing's intransigence in this matter places the company at great peril should there be another incident with the Max. The law suits would tumble out of the sky with billions of liability claims, not to mention fines from many governments. The damage to Boeing would be devastating. All this when prudence would be the wiser policy.
Of course, public safety (grounding) should be the highest priority, but Boeing and the FAA have already dismissed that course of action.
10
Q: How does Boeing do Hynic Manoeuvre?
Ans: It invokes MCAS intervention.
Not much real engineering breakthroughs have happened since a few decades, mostly it is software augumentation, like e-pooja
https://www.rudraksha-ratna.com/p/hindu-puja-services
Wait for AI to take over.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpWbTogEEhg
Typical GOP in charge. Let more people die in the air and on the ground just to make the dollar. Those planes need to be put in a decommissioned status. They fly over 8,500 trips a week and that is way to much use . Be ready for major crashes in the US. Sad.
3
Why is the US always the one to hold back on consumer protections?
17
@D -- The US is always the one to hold back on consumer protections because -- We don't wanna be EUROPE! Heaven forbid. We don't want to live in a society where everybody has health care, and everybody who can get into college can go, at low cost or for free, and the models of planes that crash are grounded until the cause is learned and rectified. God forbid that we should live in such a place! It would be un-American!
11
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences." (William Thomas, sociologist, 1928)
Impossible to escape.
1
Trump babbles:
“‘Pilots are no longer needed, but rather computer scientists from MIT,’ Mr. Trump said. Much of what he asserted, however, was misleading or lacked context, aviation experts said.”
I don’t know the history of all of the presidents, but trump is most certainly the most embarrassing president. And his supporters just love the terrible tyrant.
14
Everything for the almighty dollar, with no regard for peoples' personal safety -- the ones buying tickets at ridiculous price points and being charged for every picaune concierge service including which seat one occupues. Only a banana republic would behave in such a fashion. It's a sad state of affairs when one feels compelled to notify his/her estate planning attorney before boarding a plane. The FAA needs to stop playing hide & seek with passengers' lives, drop the cavalier attitude bred in D.C., and fulfill its legal mandate. Why is this even a question??Ground these planes, conduct independent inspections, resolve the problem, or scrap them as the result dictates.
6
Americans take notice! AA and Shoutwest have voted! Their profitability and logistics are more important that the safety of their own passengers. Send a signal to them by choosing different airlines next time you travel... Because decisions like this, should have consequences!
13
I didn't need another reason not to travel on American Airlines an abysmal company
One brief question: Who will bear the responsibility in case a 737 MAXX goes down in the USA in the course of the ongoing investigations of both crashes? Hopefully this will not happen, but...
7
Ordinary Americans who fly commercial can not count on the Trump Administration anyway. By stuffing the corporate welfare pipeline and shoring up the military industrial aviation complex in the new Budget the message this GOP administration sends to the other 99%, repeatedly, is clear: You are on your own. The Farm Bill is only the latest example, and the facts are piling up all the way to the next election. Boeing, Trump can’t be trusted to do the right thing. What does that say about you? You have a higher trust rating and you are blowing it.
6
This is a perfect metaphor for our current corrupt corporate capitalist Neoliberal politics:
The who world is crashing as a result of catastrophic climate change, while the Trump administration puts the fossil industry in charge of policy.
3
It sounds like Europe's revenge for Trump's tariffs.
1
Not enough people have died, not enough planes have crashed for the FAA to act. Their job is to protect the airline industry and the airline makers
10
If the cause is unknown how can Boeing be confident?
8
March 12, 2019
Let's study the failure and cause - as required and seek to prevent disasters in the future. We mustn't let technology get ahead of the user confidence and safety with building in to the the systems offering for pilot control at all costs.
jja
Articles appear to use max 8 and max (8 and 9). Interchangeably . which is it?
Anyone remember the Ford Pinto?
7
Ground these planes and suspend sales until they can be proven safe. Come on, FAA, do your job!
5
The FAA is controlled by the Executive Branch. We’re doomed.
3
No doubt the Trump FAA will carefully consider all the available evidence and then choose to ignore it.
Because, after all, science is a hoax.
Anything standing in the way of corporate profits is a hoax.
6
I am glad to be done flying for several months. Enough. As if the whole process is not depressing enough you now have to question the safety of flying. Only in America.
5
"Weeks after the conversation, Boeing donated $1 million to Mr. Trump’s inaugural committee." And that is the problem with corporate giving to political campaigns in the U.S. Such donations are meant to buy influence, and influence should have no bearing on the safety of the flying public. Boeing's CEO should be talking to the NTSB, not Trump, who understands nothing about the issues involved in making air travel safe. Keep politics out of it.
15
What if, God forbid, a third 737Max8 crashes soon? The FAA is going to look pretty guilty--and un-cautious.
10
@ClearThnker Very true,. It will show that they are putting the safety of Boeing's stock price over the safety of the flying public. Ground the planes NOW, they figure out if there is information from the crashes that would allow them back into the sky
3
@ClearThnker We have a man in the White House who bragged about walking through dressing rooms full of teenage girls changing clothes.
Ten 737s could crash tomorrow and it wouldn't matter.
5
Maybe aircraft these days are just too complicated. Right—thanks for clearing that up, Mr. President.
12
I live very near the flight path into and out of KCI Airport and I do wish they would ground these planes. I'm by no means a frequent flier and I wouldn't get on one of these planes for all the tea in China.
6
@Barbara
Because you (and millions ) live in the flight path, you're also living in the crash path.
Why? Why? Why?
Why is the President speaking with the Boeing CEO about this plane? Is Trump a plane expert?
This is what is wrong with America. Government by corporation!
21
We all so admire Sully...and our admiration is well deserved. I wonder what HE thinks about this? HEY SULLY................!!!!
11
If it's a Boeing, I'm NOT going.
8
Surprised they can get pilots and crews to fly the things at this point.
3
My family was scheduled to fly tomorrow Miami-NYC on American Airlines. When I looked up our flight and saw it was on a 737Max, I called the airline and requested to be changed to a flight on a different plane. They said "NO" and that I could not have a refund. I cancelled the tickets, booked on Delta, and applied on AA.COM for refunds for all the cancelled tickets (which is a deliberately cumbersome process). Shame on you, American Airlines.
20
hey what’s a 737-800? delta flies those often between msp and dtw.
is it the same thing?
@jeanf No, not the same plane
Sounds like a badly designed plane. Boeing should ditch the software and move the large engine back so that it won't affect the plane's balance.
Until then, the planes should be grounded.
6
@lrw777 The problem is that the design is from the 60s and one cannot update a 50 year old superstructure the way it needs to be competitive.
4
@Henning Sounds like the Edsel of airplanes. The real fix is to get airlines to ok the additional training that pilots need to be able to fly these planes. Boeing should foot the bill. Their desire to avoid requiring costly extra pilot training is what got us into this pickle in the first place.
Patrick Michael Shanahan is acting United States Secretary of Defense appointed by President Trump. Shanahan was with Boeing 30 years and served on Boeing Executive Council. One could surmise Shanahan continues to correspond and/or speak with former colleagues at Boeing. The cynical side of me views this as a problem.
10
@Marsha Frederick: Your view is not cynical; it’s realistic.
2
My child is travelling around the world this summer with a friend to visit family in Australia and Africa. All the gold in the universe would not be worth losing them in a 737Max accident. Boeing! Ground your planes!
6
Typical Trump & Co response. Business trumps all! Even lives.
9
What else would one expect in the US? The government there more than else where is so beholden to corporate interests! What’s scary is that even in such a case of safety they’re willing to gamble with people’s lives!!! Imagine what they’ll do in any other case, say, where there’s a more slowly developing danger, like a good that causes longer term damage! There’s virtually no chance! The system is so bought off and corrupted by commercial interests. Same thing is happening with guns, it doesn’t matter how many people are murdered in mass shootings!! So this isn’t surprising at all!!! They could even have a crash there, lord forbid, and they would say the plane is safe!!! It’s a thoroughly corrupt place that’s unresponsive to anybody but corporate interests!!!
8
Money talks & doesn't care about lives. Look at all the people and pension systems who own tobacco stock.
4
One of few things we still export, good bye America hello china.
2
If we do not know what caused the crashes, we cannot predict the future performance of the 737 Max 8 planes. The planes are not safe until demonstrated otherwise. I think all these planes should be grounded until the cause of the crashes is identified.
“Operator error” is a popular first thought when a product or system fails, because it allows everything to continue unchanged. Just reinstruct the operator and things will be fine.
We used to say it took three fatal accidents to get a traffic signal at an intersection. The first two were driver error. I hope three plane crashes are not needed before the planes are grounded.
8
@Rebecca FAA logic ",,, hesitant to ground an entire fleet without concrete findings of an inherent design or manufacturing problem." is similar to the EPA [even before tRump]. EPA cannot ban a substance UNLESS harm is proven. In all cases it should be 'until safety is proven'.
2
@Tamza
The old military saying:
"One is random; two is coincidence; three is enemy action."
1
Too much rush to judgement. There are 4 areas that need to be looked at. The design of the airplane and airplane systems, the pilots, the maintenance history and maintenance personnel and the flight environment. We haven’t heard yet how close the accident planes may have taken off behind other planes. Wake turbulence is a real danger and could be one factor in this accident.
2
The US and Canada are operating on North American routes with the best crews and maintenance in the world. 737s have, unfortunately been crashed, hijacked, sabotaged all over the world since their inception. It has everything to do with who is flying them and where.
Do you see US carriers with 200 hr co-pilots? Think about that.
In the case of Lion Air, that plane flew for days with faulty sensors (successfully, due to talented crews) until it caught two guys that couldn't figure out to press a disconnect switch.
Would that happen in the US? Of course not. Gross negligence on the part of Lion Air.
4
@Thomas And the Ethiopia air pilot? 8000 hours. I hope to G-d no incident takes place with the 737 in the US or Canada.
2
@Thomas. How about Canad and the EU - all bad pilots, there, also?
@Dr. M
Did you actually read my post? US/Canadian pilots are excellent. The EU pilots are, for the most part also very good but there are aircraft coming into Europe from 3rd world countries that with crews that aren't so wonderful.
Yep, the US hasn’t grounded these planes because it’s pilots are so much more experienced. It has nothing to do with the economic impact on Boeing, why would you mention that?
8
The European Union, Australia, China, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc., have grounded the Boeing 737 MAX as a safety precaution.
The USA and its pro airline agency, the FAA, have kept the Boeing 737 MAX in the air as a profit precaution.
8
I'm just an old-time private pilot who has read much about the MCAS system and the Lion Air tragedy. If there is a reason to believe this crash is related to a similar malfunction then grounding the planes is a no-brainer. Fluctuations in altitude as reported led me to suspect as much. However, witnesses reported the plane on fire before impact? This renders some serious cognitive dissonance and makes the case for waiting for further investigation before grounding.
2
@Joe Thomas
A compressor stall due to unusual pitch attitudes can also produce fire and smoke without the plane being on fire. So a possible scenario is the same flight control issues as in the Lion air crash, but at that crash, nobody was around to see fire/smoke.
On recent cross country flights (4 legs), there was never enough for-purchase food to be bought on any flight. If airlines would rather not have enough to eat rather than throw out remains, is it any surprise the the ROI on safety includes valuing profits over insurance payouts for possible accidents?
1
Boeing lobbyists in Washington must be working overtime.
For Boeing, this is likely a matter of dollars and cents. If the customers decide to ground their airplanes that Boeing and the FAA are airworthy, then the financial loss is on the customers.
But if Boeing and the FAA tell the customers they should ground the planes, then the financial losses to the customers are the fault of Boeing, and the customers could demand compensation for their losses.
As an occasional airline passenger, I think you would have to be brave, or foolish, to be unconcerned about flying on a MAX 8 before this is resolved. Any airline that refuses to re-book for free, or refund in this situation runs the risk of goodwill loss with their customers.
Although the facts do not perfectly fit, if I were a customers trying to avoid a MAX 8 flight I was booked on, I would claim Force Majeure.
5
Typical. Of course our government is going to do everything possible to protect the corporation over the citizenry. We are but peons in an out of control plutocracy.
18
In this case I'd applaud them for not being reactionary and emotional. Statistically, you're still more likely to be killed in a crosswalk at a green light. Are you advocating for closing all crosswalks until we figure out why they're so dangerous?
Here are some numbers. Of the major carriers, there are a total of 74, 737 MAX's in service. I'm sure people can get where they need to go without these planes in the air.
Southwest 34
American 26
United 14 with 18 on order
Delta 0
Alaska 0
Eastern 0
Spirit 0
Jet Blue 0
https://www.planespotters.net/airlines
To Times moderators, this post may seem like a repeat, but the first post contained an error. Thanks.
6
Profit before people. Nobody should be surprised.
I moved to the US more than 10 years ago lured by the false promise of the American dream. My family is part of that middle class that is comfortable and busy just enough not to make real change their priority. As I’m planning to have children and thinking how to take care of them with a nonexistent maternity leave; how to pay for their education so they are not starting their lives with the burden of huge debt while also saving enough for retirement so that we don’t end up as Walmart greeters in our 70s (oh, wait, that’s no longer an option)... I’m beginning to think of moving back to Europe. Which is painful as I came to love this land and care for its people. It’s home.
7
I wonder whether, if this tragedy had occurred on Obama's watch, the FAA would have been quick to ground the 737 Max 8 aircraft just as so many other countries are doing. Under Trump, however, one can't help but wonder whether (a) the FAA (like so many other federal agencies) has been gutted to the point where it's not able to run a rapid investigation of its own on the 737 Max 8s that are being flown by American Airlines, etc., or (b) the FAA is in a position to run such an investigation but is not doing so because Trump doesn't want anything done by the FAA that might interfere with Boeing's ability to make money. The fact that the FAA came out so quickly to say that this aircraft is safe makes me think it's "(b)".
Since lives have been lost, and lives are at stake in the future, it's time for the House to haul the FAA Administrator before a panel and explain why the FAA isn't even bothering to investigate. (The Republican-controlled Senate, of course, won't lift a finger to see what might be going on with the two similar crashes.)
9
@ALB, this happened in a foreign country. Also, the NTSB investigates accidents, not the FAA.
2
@ALB Why do you say they aren’t investigating? Please keep up with the news before making such a comment. Ted Cruz heads the committee and says they should be halted.
There are those that would say that we shouldn't fly a plane until it's proven safe. The FAA apparently feels it can be flown until proven dangerous.
There are those that say we shouldn't use a drug until it's proven safe. The FDA uses the 'until dangerous' standard.
There are those that say we shouldn't us a pesticide until proven safe... You get the idea.
There are those that say that unless we can establish that green house gases aren't destroying the planet, we should try to cut back. Our current government, on the other hand, says 'well it hasn't been destroyed yet...'
9
Reminds me of the Ford Pinto with the exploding gas tank. Corporate internal memos evidenced a willingness to gamble with peoples lives, for profits sake.
12
I fly Southwest a lot. Their SJC to ABQ route is a good price and they are always on time. Right now that route doesn't use any MAX equipment so I'll keep going with them. But I am watching to see if any flight starts using them and if so, I'll just find another way to go. I will definitely not be flying those MCAS versions until they are fixed and a fair amount of air miles are accumulated. It's also necessary to check your flight to see if a last minute change in equipment might put you on one.
100
@S Dowler they can change the plane on you keep checking
7
I think it’s fair to say that a fair amount of flying miles already HAVE been accumulated. And they’re definitely leaning towards the safe side.
1
I can see the point of view of the FAA, but clearly there is a traveler perception problem that the Boeing planes in question are unsafe to fly.
In this case, I think it would be wise to manage to the perception - or at the very least look like they’re giving it their full attention. The safety perception demands an equally gravitational response. As it stands, it looks like they’re callously shrugging it off even as the rest of the world is being prudently cautious.
In an interview this morning a former FAA official claimed that the FAA is more concerned with its own reputation because it has already deemed the 737 Max to be perfectly safe to fly. That official also claimed he would not allow his family to board one until the issue is resolved.
221
@Berk
How about this? Fine, you can fly your 737 Max 8's, but if one more plane crashes, every single executive at every single airline that allowed the planes to keep flying gets life in prison. Same for officials at the FAA who allowed the airframe to keep flying and the executives at Boeing who allowed this. Every one, life in prison. And each must fly themselves and their families on the Max 8 at least once a week until all investigations are complete.
Then we'll see every plane grounded. Overnight.
59
@Berk
"he would not allow his family to board one until the issue is resolved."
That's kind of the criterion, isn't it?
28
That's an unreasonable policy driven by your desire for revenge. There might be a middle ground that could be a good corporate responsibility policy, but suggestions like yours just ensure the two sides will never attempt to compromise.
US Senators lack expertise to propose this.
They are just using the Trump mantra that having their name in the news cycle is good for their election prospects.
These politics are somewhat repulsive, and not in keeping with the normal rational evidence based procedures whose use makes the world operate best. I would ask readers to resist these politicians and their media grabs.
3
@Will Hogan. AOC and Omar seem to be following Along with that.
Beginning to wonder what the Boeing PR fallout team has been saying/paying FAA to convince them to keep them in service. It may be a too soon to make the call, but it is surely the safe call if not the right one.
5
It takes 100 years to build a brand and less than one week to destroy it. Hopefully Boeing will do the right thing before everyone on the planet refuses to fly on it.
147
I am a retired airline pilot (20,000 plus flight hours) and I simply want to "cut to the chase" before more people die in 737 Max 8's (or any other aircraft such as perhaps the Boeing 767 freighter that suddenly nose-dived into the Gulf of Mexico a short while back). And my "cut" is just this:
Anytime electrical signals to the horizontal stabilizer jackscrew motor are active and an unexpected pitch oscillation problem is encountered --- TURN OFF THE ELECTRICAL INPUTS BY TURNING OFF THE STABILIZER TRIM SWITCHES located on the right side of the cockpit center console just below the flap handle (at least located there on all Boeing 737's). TRIM THE AIRCRAFT MANUALLY FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE FLIGHT!
My thanks to the New York Times for affording me this opportunity to contribute what little I can toward trying to prevent needless aircraft accidents.
19
This is actually an interesting, tragic and subtle situation. The cynicism of some of these comments is unwarranted. The FAA’s track record using the system of analysis they have in place is worthy of admiration and our thanks. That said, the statistic does jump out that something is wrong with the 737-8 Max. The FAA prefers to use facts and a consistent protocol rather than pure speculation and hysteria in its decisions, which has over time served the public very well. But from my earlier career I know that the odds of an airline crash in Western countries is lower than 1 per 10 million. The odds of a 737-8 loss appear to be far worse, approximately 50-100 times worse than normal (with great uncertainty). Based on this alone, the FAA May be justified in grounding these airplanes. I promise as a former airline employee, they do not play games with safety. Financially it does not make sense. If facts support grounding these planes, then they will do just that, period. Based on what we have right now, there is no clear sign of a specific airplane malfunction or particular unresolved issue. Yet. So FAA has no established basis to act. I think that will come. I would ride the 737-8 Max today, but with very slight concern. And probably would not put kids on it - more for psychological reasons than anything.
2
You can count on the good old FAA to always put safety first right after politics and cash flow.
4
The grounding of all DC-10's (made by a precursor of the current Boeing) in 1979 was the result of engines falling off due to improper maintenance processes. Boeing 787s were all grounded due to fires in their batteries in 2013. Both were consistent patterns and the resulting changes restored the safe operation of both after the shutdown. Until the cause of the second crash of the 737-M8 is determined, the risks to the public are unknown. Since the particular version is the subject of uncertainty, continuing to use it seems like the triumph of hope over experience.
8
I think grounding is an overreaction. Tens of thousands of safe flights have been made in that plane. I would, instead, put pressure on Boeing to fix it and very carefully monitor its progress.
2
Why does an airplane manufacturer build planes that can not easily be flown manually?
Is it because airlines find flight training is too expensive ?
5
@BBB YES!!! Don't let people die needlessly.
2
@BBB
It's because automation saves lives - airplanes are much safer now. You look into the causes of accidents, and you see pilot error all over - and you see it decreasing as automated systems warn pilots when they are descending too rapidly, or forgot to set flaps properly, etc.
There does seem to be an issue here, but I'm confident it will be solved, and I do think the FAA has a reasonable point about pilot training - pilots here have to go through a lot more training on all flight modes, on handling all possible issues that can come up.
@BBB
Cockpit automation DOES reduce aircrew training costs.
Airbus has made this its selling point over (hated rival) Boeing for decades.
Sully ditched an Airbus A320 into the Hudson. He made exactly the point that fuddy-duddy old, retro Boeings were better in this situation.
Sounds like Boeing has since drunk the Airbus Kool-Aid.
In these days of industrial espionage, we can't rule out our enemies somehow inserting a line or two of erroneous code in the flight computer that would make the plane hard to control or crash. Just look at who might benefit if the crown jewel of aviation manufacturing is made to look incompetent or dishonest.
@smaragd Boeing itself admits that a fix is needed. All indicators are that Boeing optimized for less pilot retraining via more (flawed) automation.
3
PUTIN! Or not. It’s more likely that the MAX redesign introduced airplane behaviour that leaves less room for error (I hesitate using the term error even - I mean imperfection really) on the part of pilots, and less room for sloppiness on the part of mechanics and flight supervisors.
@smaragd
So, that would be Airbus, then? Or sabotage by an entity that doesn't presently represent any competition. One east of the Urals. Or even further east? Or what about the frozen North above you?
Gosh, keeping up with whoever's been declared an 'enemy of the USA' is hard work..
I predict their system is easy to hack, and they need new software. China can use this To their advantage in negotiations with Trump. Get a deal done before anti US -Trump goes global.
@Ralph Petrillo
Another one thinking that the B737 MAX is a victim of enemy sabotage.
How about, the aircraft is just badly designed?
I’m disappointed the Times hasn’t addressed the MAX 7, 9 & 10. Do they have the same software and hardware system that is in question on the 8 model? United, for example, flies the MAX 9. If these other models have the same system this significantly broadens the issue.
Also, I’m disappointed that people on the ground are not being considered. If a MAX 8 has problems and attempts to return to an airport in a dense urban area like New York it puts people on the ground at risk, too - people who have no choice to decide whether they feel the plane is safe to operate or ride.
14
We need some whistleblowing at both FAA and Boeing. I was just listening to NPR's story about FAA 'non-response' response, and the commentator mentioned that FAA has no expertise, never had any expertise in the latest engineering that it oversees. So what does it do? It defers all decisions to the manufacturers and the carriers.
In other words, the decision to not ground the fleet is grounded in avoiding financial losses by Boeing and the three major airlines. One more stellar example of U.S. corporations putting the dime before life. Just like our politicians who put campaign contributions ahead of anything good for the population.
17
@Indisk
The FAA regulates ALL forms of aviation in the US. From powered hang gliders up. Not only all the planes and their pilots and crew but the aircraft and all the 3rd party parts that go into planes. Apart from the basic airframe, Boeing don't actually MAKE the aircraft, they assemble it. Landing gear, electrics, avionics, engines, safety equipment is either partly, or completely manufactured by someone else. And that 'someone else' is often abroad - even the assembly; subunits of Boeings are manufactured in China, SE Asia, the European Union and imported part assembled. Most people simply don't get the level of engineering complexity involved.
Of course the FAA depends on the manufacturers to design good products and test them to approved standard and to do appropriate post marketing surveillance. How else could it work? How big do you think the FAA would have to grow in order to 'oversee the latest engineering'? To undertake the testing themselves? How much would it cost planemakers, the passengers and the taxpayer?
The present system is better than no regulation at all. Your system would deprive the American people of future, modern, passenger aircraft. But not everybody else. The FAA is but one of many aviation regulators globally.
@nolongeradoc
Your argument is valid assuming good faith judgments by the FAA. When the rest of the world has already acted on this, FAA's inaction speaks volumes. The fleet should be grounded in the interest of caution, just as others have done.
Welcome to America. Here, people are expendable, profits are sacrosanct and corporations are people.
You don’t matter.
Corporations do.
17
As a former systems designer, it seems to me that the new advanced software system is failing in it's objective if it presents pilots with more difficulties in the event of a malfunction than before. It should not require the most experienced and mature pilots in the world to achieve a take off in good condition.
22
From the Lion Air investigation, and what is the first assumption with the Ethiopian crash, it appears that a malfunctioning system in the plane caused it to pull the nose down despite the pilot's efforts to keep the plane level.
The fact that an automatic system can take over a plane, overriding the pilots, is frightening and should warrant an immediate grounding of all 737 Max 8s. The pilot should always be in control of the plane. Automatic systems can aid a pilot, but the pilot should have final say on who controls the plane because automatic systems can (and tragically do) malfunction. Automatic systems should easily be disabled.
This is analogous to a car's cruise control system not braking, or even accelerating, when the driver applies the brakes because it thinks there is no obstacle ahead.
13
@DBman
Except, I wonder whether in this case the opposite may turn out to be correct: The pilots may have switched off the system, which then so radically changed the handling characteristics of the plane that the pilots were unable to fly it manually.
3
@DBman
The 737 Max8 auto-pilot function can be turned off. The problem is the fact all modern planes are designed for fuel efficiency. The average modern plane has virtually no tolerance for excessive control under certain flight characteristics. At cruising altitude the wings give you only +/- 5 knots from over speed to stall. Performance is better at lower altitudes. If you are taking over control of a plane at less than 4000 ft the time you have from stall recovery is almost 0. Since most pilots flying modern planes are instructed to use autopilot immediately it is no surprise pilots aren't recovering in time. The quick solution is not to activate the AP below 10K on take off or TOGO.
@Kara Ben Nemsi
As reported previously in the NYT, the pilots of the last successful flight of the Lion Air plane did just that, shut the system down and flew manually. They landed the plane.
The doomed pilots of the subsequent flight on the same plane did not.
Maybe it shouldn't be a surprise that the FAA is continues to allow potentially flawed Boeing737 Max 8s planes to fly despite the decision by officials in several other countries—including regulators in Europe— to ground the planes out of an abundance of caution. In 2018, Boeing ranked 92 on a list of nearly 20,000 top campaign contributors during the 2018 election cycle. Boeing put more than $4.5 million into both Republican and Democratic candidate pockets in 2018 according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics website Open Secrets. Not only that, in 2018 the company spent $15.1 million lobbying D.C. —the tenth highest amount spent by any corporation that year. It's in times like these people can't help but wonder just how influential money is over policy decisions, even when lives could be at risk.
7
Based on what little information we have seen, it sounds like a possibly poor software/hardware design that makes a trim issue confusing to inexperienced pilots. I flew on a Max 8 hours after learning about this crash and wasn't the slightest bit worried. If Boeing has any reason at all to suspect anything other than pilot error they would be grounding the planes. If I had to guess I would say this is an overreaction.
3
@Ken Parcell
What you call overreaction is actually called caution. People who exercise caution put more value in human life than stock market and reputation.
21
@Ken Parcell A sudden outbreak of " pilot errors " by people who are, after all, qualified on this plane, could point to some unusual difficulty in handling certain situations. I think it's a bit invidious to suggest that only US pilots are capable of handling a plane designed for world wide deployment.
4
@Ken Parcell
Why yes, a for-profit corporation will of course always choose caution over profits...
I can't tell if you are being serious or if this is sarcasm, though.
In the past decades, not a single major aircraft type, including the ones built by Russian and Chinese manufacturers, had two unexplained crashes with so many fatilities this shortly after its introduction. It may be coincidence or pilot errors, but first it needs to be verified that it is not a problem with the plane itself. The first data from the crashes suggest that Boeing has been cutting corners in order to compete with the Airbus A32x Neo. This reminds a lot of the introduction of the DC-10, in which design flaws in the cargo doors resulted in various incidents and accidents. Such doubt is a valid reason to ground planes. The FAA would have come to the same conclusion if the crashes had involved any aircraft built outside the US.
The current episode truly shows how interconnected Boeing, the FAA, and US politics are, while the FAA should be an independent authority. Why does Muilenburg have to call Trump to ensure that the planes are not grounded, and why do several senators have to provide their opinion? The EASA did not call Airbus or political leaders in Europe to ask if they should ground the 737Max. Hopefully, such political decisions will not result in additional deaths.
24
@Michel
"In the past decades, not a single major aircraft type, including the ones built by Russian and Chinese manufacturers,"
Depends how many decades. There are some similarities with the de Havilland Comet which was set to propel Great Britain to the lead position in jet airliner production - yet three planes disintegrated mid-air through unidentified airframe flaws before the aircraft was grounded (and effectively killed off). The DC-10 was an excellent aircraft apart from the flawed cargo door design. Sadly, M-D were frankly evasive about the issue and did little to rectify the situation before there was further major loss of life. Even now, some 50 years later, some relatives of people killed on Turkish Airlines 981 do not believe they have been told the truth.
I'd be hesitant to heap praise on EASA. The jet airliner market is hugely profitable and intensely competitive and there exists a bitter rivalry between Airbus and Boeing - neither of whom can convincingly achieve the Number One spot. I'd be astonished if executives from Toulouse hadn't been twisting EASA's arm for several days. Anything to damage the competition.
1
Meanwhile, where are the "black boxes", is their data recoverable, and how soon will the public hear at least a preliminary analysis upon which to base decisions about future air travel?
3
The cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder have both been recovered. It has not been announced where the contents of the memory units are being extracted and analyzed.
The crash-survivable memory units are extremely robust and can almost always be read.
It is extremely likely that preliminary information from the units will be released to the public quite soon. That may not include everything from the FDR or transcripts of conversation from the CVR, but it will probably be sufficient to give interested parties a sense of the direction of the investigation.
3
@Douglas
It's likely with this particular tragic accident that the FDR and CVR (and possibly other ancillary data recorders) will be recovered intact and working. No intense fire or salt water immersion. for example.
Accident investigators all over the world possess equipment to extract data from flight recorders. When there is extensive damage to the box, it's usually rushed to the device maker to pull the data off.
I've noticed that although there are many makers of flight data recorders worldwide, without exception large passenger airliners of all types and makes use black boxes made by Honeywell. Consequently, damaged data recorders from accidents all over the aviation world often come back to the USA for analysis.
1
Gee, I wonder if $$$ has anything to do with it? Acceptable losses with a few crashes, as opposed to grounding the fleet?
7
It would appear that the reason the remaining holdouts have not grounded the Max 8 is that nearly identical pilots’ errors are a leading possible explanation for these two nearly identical crashes, no alternate cause having been found so far.
Yet the circumstances of the two crashes differed in a most obvious way. It was probably reasonable to suspect pilot error, coupled with inadequate training, in the Lion Air case. But, for heaven’s sake, just from having read the coverage of it in the Times and elsewhere, had this non-pilot been in the cockpit of Ethiopian Flight 961 he would have realized instantaneously the striking similarity and would have known (roughly) the current method to override the Max 8’s MCAS, which is strongly suspected to have been involved in the problems that led to the earlier crash.
Certainly every Max 8 pilot, especially those employed by an apparently conscientious company like Ethiopian Airlines, by March 10 would have known and been able to follow the proper procedure. That alone seems to rule out the same sort of pilot error this time, and thus increases the likelihood that something in both aircraft, perhaps the MCAS, malfunctioned in a way that could not be corrected.
Talk to Ethiopian’s remaining Max 8 pilots to prove that this assumption is correct, and ground the rest of those planes immediately if it is.
9
@Richard H. Martin You are portraying the lion air crash as due to pilot error. It was never concluded as pilot error, but the lack of awareness of a complicated procedure to defeat the automation that was repeatedly pointing the plane down. Even many US pilots have said that Boeing's communications in this regard were poor.
1
@Richard H. Martin, co-pilot had 200 hrs. Think he'd be a co-pilot in the U.S.? Probably not
To gain market share perhaps airlines that do not fly the Boeing 737 MAX should now advertise themselves as "737 MAX Free" airline carriers.
10
Also Canada... because our two major airlines have so many. They couldn’t care less about us. I just hope citizens seek to know which planes are flying and vote with their credit cards
7
Foreign airlines strap 200 hour kids to the right seat of their passenger jets - they ought to ground them. American pilots are mandated to have 750-1500+ so we should be thankful for a robust aviation system that doesn't fall apart when a minor unexpected feature rises..
1
If I recall correctly, it was the FAA that ten years ago refused to publicize airline safety maintenance records.
I guess no one at the FAA has every used eBay's seller ratings, or Yelp, or Amazon ratings.
A little sunshine and transparency would go a long way to keeping airlines honest.
12
One more Max crash would be the end of Boeing...The company itself should demand the grounding of all 737 Max’s...It’s in Boeing’s interest!
14
" Despite the FAA issuing a statement backing the Boeing jet’s airworthiness, Australia, Britain, Germany, Malaysia and Oman became the latest countries to ground the model a day later, with authorities saying the aircraft would not be allowed to fly to or from their countries pending the investigation. "
Does anyone understand the meaning of " airworthiness " ? I don't. It sounds like a lawyer's jargon. I will not fly 737 Max until FAA says, " airworthiness=safety ".
7
@Jean-Claude Arbaut
" Airworthiness is the measure of an aircraft's suitability for safe flight. Certification of airworthiness is conferred by a certificate of airworthiness from the state of aircraft registry national aviation authority, and is maintained by performing the required maintenance actions. "
Thank you for the clarification on the meaning of airworthiness.
The 737 Max 8 which is a brand new plane with 2 accidents in a few months span is more than a coincident. The logical step to take is to ground all 737 Max 8 , upgrade the software to the MCAS system as suggested by FAA and recertify the airworthiness. Rather than current FAA recommendation is to back the airworthiness of this plane , while upgrade the software and allows the plane to fly which will put the public at risk.
I am err on the safety over profit from a consumer standpoint.
It's an insult to the people who paid with their lives. My car has a software system that is like a bi polar ghost, one week it's the driver window, then the radio , then the lock alarm , it's like a Christmas parade of changing nonsense in my Jetta- I feel for the relatives of these people who have left. To you I say , always know that your loved ones are not gone, they are with u still, it is a subtler exchange, but just as real .
4
@Trish Mullahey
why would anyone buy a Jetta from a company, VW, that is known to cheat while making their cars?
It's all about the almighty dollar. Remember we live in a capitalistic dictatorship where money rules with an iron fist.
8
@Costantino Volpe
...and politics rule with an iron head.
Here in the US, nothing comes between a powerful corporation and its profits, not even safety considerations. Yet, I've still been astounded at Boeing's lackadaisical response to this crisis. What's it going to take? One of these planes crashing on US soil?
13
@markymarkActually, it may take crashing into Boelng corporate headquarters during a board meeting.
1
When Trump first became president, he touted Boeing as one of the future providers of American jobs.
When he went to Vietnam recently, he facilitated a sale of 110 Boeing 737 Max 8 airplanes to Hanoi.
Now, after the second disaster with this aircraft, the U.S. is the only country left that has not grounded these Max 8 planes.
I have now learned to ask every time I don't understand something negative that's going on in our country: What's in it for Trump?
16
I hope there are no more crashes with the planes that are still flying.
4
Why isn’t Boeing voluntary grounding these planes until at least the Ethiopia investigation is complete? Do they need more crashes to get sufficient information to determine the cause? If it requires a certain level of training, then Boeing needs to mandate that for flying their planes. I worked in IT for 30 years including a couple stints contracting at Boeing. I know how difficult software bugs can sometimes be to find assuming that is the cause. As a long time Seattle resident with an interest in Boeing’s long term viability, what a stupid long term PR decision if they are trying to convey trust both with the flying public and the airlines. I would not want to fly on a Max 8 until they determine and fix the cause.
5
If Southwest was forced to ground its 737s, I would expect a collapse of their network. They've already been on a critical situation with plane availability.
Still... safety first...
4
"Pilots in the rapidly expanding aviation markets of East Asia and in developing countries tend to be much less experienced than their counterparts in the West."
I am utterly appalled and dismayed by this statement from the NYT reporters on such tragic event. What a convenient victim blaming tactic by the West media!
12
@Zzz
How is that irrelevant? The FO had 200 hours.. 200! If you leave a 200h in the safety of autopilot and autothrottle, things are fine. Even your CFI teaching Joe Six Pack in the West how to hop between cornfields has more than 200 hours.
If you have ten week of experience pressing the correct button and plane go zoom, how does that prep you for a sudden life threatening emergency?
@Zzz
their pilots receive far less training at the wheel.
far less.
I agree. Dumping on foreign pilots is almost Trumpian . Planes should be capable of safely taking off with any pilot who is qualified to fly them. They can't all be Sully.
1
"Mr. Trump jumped into the fray on Tuesday morning, posting Twitter messages deploring what he described as the technological complexities of modern commercial aircraft. “Pilots are no longer needed, but rather computer scientists from MIT,” Mr. Trump said. Much of what he asserted, however, was misleading or lacked context, aviation experts said."
Trump. Just as helpful as he always is. Another thing that is much too complicated for his tiny brain.
8
@MRO
Yes, only 24hrs ago, I correctly predicted that your President would shortly be wading in to offer help and clarity in this sensitive situation. And, what d'ya know, he comes and DOES EXACTLY THAT.
Spooky or what? Almost like I could read his mind from 8.000 miles away.
When your President lies more than 9000 times don't you think that people around the world start to lose faith in your country. People also know that Boeing's CEO is a big supporter of Trump. So next time if you decide to vote for Trump again think about the consequences.
8
What happens if another plane crashes, this time on US soil? Head of FAA resigns? What good would that do for people who have lost their lives? You don’t fly those planes until you know what’s going on. Period.
6
Passenger and flight attendant / pilot union reaction will be what finally forces Boeing to ground these planes.
6
Trump has either dismantled or placed people in charge of oversight that are blatantly wrong for the job in all areas of government. The GOP and Trump think we are all stupid and will fall for anything they say, we eat the unhealthiest foods, breath bad air and are supposed to take the word of those making the profits ahead of science, we should also have a gun just because it's "American" ;-p Kudos to all the other countries in the world and grounding these planes until there is an answer.
3
Money talks, y'all knows what walks!
2
Profit before lives. MAGA!!!
8
Corporate profits Trump dead people, so to speak.
4
Odds of dying in a plane crash = 1 : 5,000,000.
https://www.newsweek.com/what-are-odds-dying-plane-crash-app-892008
Odds of dying in a car crash = 1 : 103.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/us/opioids-car-crash-guns.html
Odds of dying prematurely from heart disease = 1 : 4.
https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm
I know that getting into a small aluminum fuselage where at the point of machine failure negotiation of survival is mostly non-existent, but please let the facts guide you out of the human prison known as conformation bias. Have a nice day.
-Kit
2
@Kit Knight
The discussion is not about air travel in general. So these statistics are fairly useless.
2
@Kit Knight
Those are not the facts. Those of carefully picked examples which have nothing to do with the recent crashes. We don't know what does though. Are you suggesting that people should ignore these accidents? Back to school for you to take another statistics course.
8
Here is an idea: How about we ask Muilenburg and Trump to get on one of these planes. That would be telling
10
It's typical of present day America, leading from behind.
4
Marc Garneau, Canadian Transport Minister is also asleep. Being a lap dog to Air Canada and Boeing’s executives if he chooses will be remembered comes october ‘19. Get real Minister!
2
Let's look at some numbers. These are the largest airlines in the U.S. and the number of 737 MAX
airplanes in each fleet.
Southwest 34
American 26
United 14 with 18 on order.
Delta 0
Alaska 0
Eastern 0
Spirit 0
Jet Blue 0
The total is 74 out of thousands and thousands.
I'm positive people will still be able to get where they need to go with these 74 planes in the air.
https://www.planespotters.net/airlines
4
@mercedes. I'll take Delta
If you don't think the wealthy oligarchy doesn't control the country you're very naive. It's all about the Benjamins baby!!
Not talking about AIPAC. Guys like the Koch's
8
I wouldn't want to be on one of the exceptions to the rule ... but ... two out of how many thousands, ten's of thousands of flights? I suspect that if the problem was endemic to the aircraft we might have had some inkling of it by now.
I have just written to the Canadian Minister of Transport asking that the Canadian government follow the lead of the EU and others rather than the US and make the decision to ground these flights in Canada. This is a perfect example of why regulations and regulators matter in any government/country. But they have to be followed and protected from influence. In this age of scientific and engineering advancements, having 2 almost brand new planes of the same model crash in similar circumstances is cause for grave concern and intervention.
5
They’ve changed the centre of gravity and handling dynamics by introducing heavier engines placed in a different position to the last model; then assigned the compensation responsibilities for these changes to software commands which bypass the pilots. How they ever thought this couldn’t go wrong at some point is beyond me. Will be avoiding this plane like the plague until further notice, as I suspect many others will be. Shame on the FAA for doing the right thing by a greedy corporation, rather than by the public it is there to protect.
9
@C M
Because this has been done since the days of the MD-11, decades ago. Lets be honest, you could ride the 737 every single day the rest of your life and you're still more likely to die in a car crash
Can we at least wait for the data? China and Europe both manufacture competing aircraft. Would they be as quick to ban their own?
2
@Mr. Peabody
Not exactly 'aircraft' but planes fitted with the disastrous Rolls-Royce Trent 900 and 1000 series jet engines (including the Boeing 787) have been grounded by aviation regulators all over the world (including Europe) until very expensive repairs and modifications have been undertaken. RR still, I think, counts as a 'European' manufacturer.
It makes me smile; pro-Brexit fanatics often claim that RR epitomises everything that shows 'Great' Britain doesn't need the EU and is ready to continue as a powerhouse of hi-tech manufacture and engineering knowhow on the global stage. And now this. Empire 2.0, eh?
Guessing that I will have an empty seat next to me on my flight later this week on a 737 Max 8.
I will certainly be holding my breath for the four hour Southwest flight.
@Sixty plus
No, you only need to hold your breath for the first 12 minutes during take off :)
Don't use Air Canada. They have 24 of those planes and refuse to ground them. Furthermore, they refuse to allow people to change flights without paying a fee.
5
The very idea that Trump would have any input in this decision whatsoever is hardly of comfort to the traveling public.
14
Two brand-new planes to not fall from the sky within months of each other without any reason. Come on FAA, how will you guys feel if the next one goes down in the US?
Safety first. If there’s even a chance of risk, then the planes should be grounded until an investigation can be undertaken. Best case, the planes will be cleared for service again soon. Worst case is you do not ground them and people die.
4
Hey Google. Is my plane gonna crash?
1
I trust big companies in America (and their regulators who even after being emasculated by the Trump administration are a sweet sight to behold).
Boeing, whatever you say is fine with me.
I know Trump will ensure the FAA, like all government organizations, will do a top notch job (heck of a job in fact).
6
This story has an error. It is not one country holding back, it is two - Canada - Profit before safety.
I expect the NYtimes to get all the facts right, and not be so solipsistic.
2
Hopefully all those people that keep chiming nationastically "if it ain't Boeing I ain't going" will stop saying such stupid stuff. But I'm not holding my breath
3
"A notable exception... the United States". So is the 'village idiot'.
9
I think the reason Southwest and American, the only U.S.. airlines to fly the 737Max8, refuse to ground them, is simply that they don't have enough other planes to pick up their usual passenger load. They may change their minds about that if enough people refuse to fly the Max8.
4
Isn't Boeing part of the U.S.'s military-industrial complex? Yes, it is. Ahh, a probable reason emerges for U.S. inaction. If a few hundred Americans (and others) have to die, well that is a price our government is willing to pay.
Air travelers need to boycott these planes to protect themselves. Only the loss of revenue will move the airlines to take control of this situation.
The U.S. is no longer a world leader. Hell, we are not even a good follower.
13
Our idiot politicians can squawk a lot and get their names in the paper anent this problem. They have no idea at all what is going on nor involved. Their suggestions and whatnot are orotund and worthless utterances.
They are truly ignorant folks who like to hear themselves babble on.
2
Check your facts, Canada hasn't grounded the 737 Max 8 and we are a country. You know the friendly one next door who keeps sending you polar vortexes.
9
If you could ground the pilot vortex, that would be great. It’s clearly much more dangerous than this plane.
4
Hey Boeing, your MCAS and how it talks to this airplanes tail section (or the motor(s) in the section) is busted. You know it, the FAA knows it, and class action lawyers know it. You better get your sh*t in a pile and ground this plane instead of worrying about your stock price or soon there might not be one.
5
I would love to know what "Sully" thinks about all of this. His ability to fly his plane manually is what saved everyone's lives. God bless him!
8
@cmc
Frankly, it doesn't matter what he thinks about this unless he has a lot of flight hours on a Max 8. He's won't have any more definitive information about the crash than the rest of us speculators.
I don't know of another industry that has more contempt for its customers or its employees. Years ago I read in a book entitled, "Main Street," by that muckraker Sinclair Lewis, about conditions in the USSR during the 50s and 60s, how Soviet airline Aeroflot had strap hanger passengers. Sounds like american airlines are going in that direction.
8
@DavidJ, sorry wrong book wrong author. I'm getting old
2
@DavidJI flew extensively in the USSR in the late 80s and notice that we are clearly moving toward the Soviet Aeroflot model of comfort, convenience, accommodation, and customer service. And paying more for it! Go, Team USA!
Anyone who knows anything about the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, knows that failure by the FAA to take stronger action against Pan Am for repeatedly putting baggage on a plane with no matching passenger, and the failure of Pan Am to heed even the mild warnings from the FAA to stop doing this, resulted in a horrific tragedy. I was a reporter who covered that case, and I have about as much faith in the FAA as I believe in the tooth fairy. I just changed my flights for my upcoming vacation; two legs of my journey were on this jet. Not anymore.
33
@DLM -- My career was in corporate PR. I agree with your decision. Just a matter of time.
4
Boeing is also a union-buster. Union busting often goes hand in hand with cutting corners. Both are symptoms of a desire for short term stock market gains over product integrity.
24
Two crashes on take-off by a brand new plane in clear weather. It's the hardware, the software, or pilot error. I wouldn't fly one until they address the problem.
20
"Early Tuesday, Dennis A. Muilenburg, the chief executive of Boeing, spoke to President Trump on the phone and made the case that the 737 Max planes should not be grounded in the United States, according to two people briefed on the conversation."
I don't know whether the planes should be grounded. I'm not a safety expert. Neither is Trump. He should have no role in determining the flight status of these planes. The call was completely inappropriate.
44
I think given the risk/reward ratio for keeping 737 MAX 8 grounded till there is evidence that either it is safe or not safe is very clear. Other planes can take the crew and passengers wherever needed, but if there is an issue the repercussions are irrevocable and tragic. In keeping the planes flying, there is only risk and no reward.
In many ways this is also a moral choice on how to conduct business. Even if FAA cannot make it, I think the US Airlines should show their commitment to their crew and passengers and make it, and ground these aircrafts.
23
If the airlines won't ground the planes, how about boycotting those airlines. If that's too inconvenient, long term, how about just refusing to fly in that aircraft until it's cleared?
18
This comes as no surprise. In today's America, it is not about protecting citizens. It is about protecting the investor class and corporations.
26
Boeing engineering/computing offices where engineers/programmers try to concentrate on highly technical matters are notoriously crowded, noisy, and distracting. We will never know if the Boeing 737 Max crashes were due to a distracted person making a careless mistake. But it is plausible.
7
It seems fairly obvious that Boeing wants to continue flying the plane for the sake of profit. However, if there is a third crash and if that happens in the United States, the company would face an insurmountable obstacle to ever being viable again. Even if pilot inexperience was the cause of the crash, the responsible action would be to remove the planes from service until the investigations reach their conclusions. Inaction now might lead to catastrophic results later. It should be too great of a risk for any responsible corporation.
18
The FAA made a poor decision. And so did Boeing.
In Dec 2010, Airbus announced the A320 NEO (new engine option). Fuel prices were high and airline demand was strong.
James Albaugh, former CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, announced that Boeing would build an all-new aircraft by 2020. Everyone knew it was time to replace the 737.
But then they ran the numbers. They looked at the problematic roll out of its last all-new aircraft, the 787. And they studied their market share charts. Expecting this new program to be over budget and behind schedule – with Airbus capturing more of the market – Boeing changed course.
Six months later Boeing announced a re-engined 737: the Max ... an awkward pairing of larger engines on an antiquated, low-riding airframe. And when flight tests confirmed aerodynamic challenges, Boeing created MCAS to invisibly autocorrect this deficiency. Subtle control adjustments were meant to go unnoticed, so pilots weren't informed of the new system.
A series of very bad decisions.
42
@Daylight Let's not forget the decision to use a Lithium battery chemistry in the 787s that automakers felt was too risky to use when Lithium batteries were considered too hazardous to fly even as cargo. Short term thinking.
9
"US holds back."
No surprise there. The USA, once on the forefront of everything, is all too frequently on the back end of almost everything. Late to the game on almost all issues of concern to humans.
22
The bible of capitalism, The Wealth of Nations/Adam Smith, was published in 1776 and kind of gave birth to the first (now most powerful) capitalist nation. It is now old, more than 200 years old, and it seems that it won't take much to knock it off its' rails or out of the air, as the case may be.
8
Two is too many gone from Boeing 737 Max 8s. But let us put this world wide knee jerk reaction in perspective. How many millions who flew on this 737 Max 8s have safely traveled on them and how many of these 737 Max 8s have flown around the world without crashing or without no serious technical problems?
We are not even sure at this point whether there was some inherent design or assembly problem with Boeing 737 MAX 8S that can be considered as the cause of the crashes. Certainly Boeing and the American regulators need to closely evaluate the reason for the crash and be able to rule out pilot error, weather related crash or maintenance related problems by getting to the bottom of this.
Grounding of 100s of Boeing 737 Max 8s around the world maybe an essential temporary precautionary time out measure but long term it could be going overboard to continue the grounding. Is it chicken little and the sky is falling?
2
@Girish Kotwal
Be my guest and climb aboard Mr Kotwal, there’s always the fool willing to jump where angels fear to tread.
3
Nothing like jumping to conclusions and claiming conspiracy lets just ground everything, planes, trains, cars and let's stop walking too!
How about this, analyze the flight data recorders, look at the flight crews, their training and hours of flying, try and replicate the failures on/in simulators so people know what they are talking about. when all of that is done the FAA and Boeing will be a long way towards understanding what actually caused the crash and can take steps to remediate.
As far as other countries like China mentioned here, I think their decision was well founded. Understanding that their pilots may not have the thousands of hours of experience and more reliance on automatic responses they did the right thing. Point is, they made an informed decision.
3
@AusTex Agree. The only way Boeing could make this worse for themselves at this point would be to tell its customers not to fly these planes before anyone really knows what happened. Operators have the discretion to ground them if they want to.
1
@AusTex
I disagree, what you are saying is if there is a safety question, the almighty dollar takes precedence. The prudent thing to do is if there is any question of safety, to take it out of service until the cause can be identified. If the issue is pilot training, if the software on the plane requires pilots to be retrained, then they should be retrained before the plane enters service. If the software is faulty, then it needs to be redone.
Back in the 1970's there were major problems with the Douglas DC10, that took several major plane crashes before they were pulled from service to fix the problems, there were problems with the engine pylons and with the superstructure cracking. The fact that several Supermax 737's have crashed in a short period of time is worrisome, because it is so unusual, and it is worth being cautious. Then again, with Trump in power, the FAA and the NHTSA are no longer there to protect safety, they are there to boost the airline industry, I trust their investigation about as much as I trust what comes out of Trump's mouth, I would trust more what EU investigators find.
8
@music observer
First, there was one DC-10 crash (Chicago 1979) that caused them to pull it from service and that was after it was determined it was an engine maintenance procedure issue. The accident in 1974 was not related to that problem.
"The fact that several Supermax 737's have crashed..."
Second, when did two become several?
1
I am impressed by the candor and content in the comments from Mr. Li, the Chinese aviation executive. When it boils down to the safety of pilots and passengers, no matter their race, color, nationality, religion, etc., to err on the side of safety is critical. May Southwest and American fall in line soon.
17
The value of human life is less than the almighty dollar. Why does it not surprise me that the US is silent? One look at who runs this Administration and find your answer. I wouldn't board a 737 Max 8 for free and I'm appalled that they are still flying. Shame on Boeing as well.
31
This is what happens when money is more important than people, as it is in the US.
26
In the US safety vrs profit.
For the Republican FAA, no contest.
13
America, pursuing a profit at any cost
24
Interesting how our government often picks private industry over public safety.
24
If the US pilot’s union says its members are property trained and fully confident this plane is safe, then I’m good with that. They could die if they’re wrong; I trust their judgment.
1
Lives are numbers on a ledger to be matched against the other costs of doing business. Corporate America treats customers and employees the same way black slaves were treated when slavery was in its heyday.
8
How about all Boeing execs and all airline execs and all FAA leaders place one of their beloved children, parents, siblings, spouse and best friends on each flight of these airplanes in questions that they claim are safe to keep using as is? That might show how trustworthy and safe they believe and know their product to be.
16
@ROI
In a sense they are, another crash like this will severely negate their reputations and careers.
I am shocked at how all the so called "experts" on TV are trying to clear Boeing before even getting the slightest hint about this last crash, even by discrediting Ethiopian airline on how their pilots are flying. What a total lack of ethic and professionalism. A flagrant bias to protect this us industry even at the cost of hundreds of lives. Shame on all of them.
16
@Will
Welcome to US business ethics. Heard of the Ford Pinto?
2
In case you missed this:
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/air-force-wont-accept-any-more-boeing-tankers-until-manufacturing-process-is-cleaned-up/
Boeing has problems that they need to acknowledge. Clearly they're cutting corners on safety issues that even the military had to draw a line, and this JUST happened two weeks ago. How dare they put the lives of the public at risk for the gain of a profit. I, for one, will not be flying in these planes, as long as I can help it!
15
On the next day, there are news in American media saying Huawei caused the problem of Boeing 737, it is a conspiracy of Chinese government. And then USA forces other countries to ban Chinese airlines:Air China, China southern airlines, Hainan Airlines and China eastern. Those who don't listen to the ADVICE will not be allowed to share information with US because Chinese airlines could have threatend the stability of aircraft industry and causing aircrash
3
Ground the plane, do it now before others are killed.
7
Take them out of the sky as a precautionary measure until the black box analysis and investigation concludes, because people and their fears matter, and money does not.
Do the right thing. Double doop dare ya, Uncle Sam.
4
Let us not be too quick to a judgment here. Yes, the Lion air crash had more to do with pilot training and then pilot error, not with the airworthiness of the plane. At this time, we do not know what brought down the Ethiopian Air 737. This is typical of a crowd panic, a rush to judgment before all the facts are in. Let the investigators investigate.
2
What if gun accidents/misuse were treated this seriously?? Oh that’s right—guns ONLY kill 30k of us a year.
7
"One country holding back: the United States."
Unless there's been a change this morning, Canada, your invisible neighbour, is also still allowing them to fly.
5
@Bryant Avery How quaint that you think that the average American knows that there's a country north of us.
1
It would be beyond fascinating to listen in to telephone conversations between Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg and Donald Trump which must have taken place over the last 48 hours.
Muilenburg has been cozying up to Trump and - in 2017 - was appointed to the vaunted (and now disbanded) 'manufacturing council'.
Muilenburg has praised (y)our president, noting that he has allowed businesses "to have a valuable voice" in policy decisions. Perhaps like the failure of the FAA to ban this airplane.
Don't forget - also - that the proposed 2020 budget gives lucrative rewards to defense industry concerns, of which Boeing is one of the largest.
https://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/news/2019/02/12/boeing-ceo-says-president-trump-gives-business-a.html
NOT my president
9
You can always count on America to do the right thing...after it has tried everything else.
It's all about the Benjamin's, baby!
8
The decision to keep these deathtraps flying in the United States is political and economic. Shame on my country.
5
Air Canada has 24 of the 737 Max in its fleet and uses this model to fly between Calgary and Vancouver at least 40 times a week. That's among the most active in weekly flight routes and the second most number of planes among the airlines. I'm sure we are not part of the USA, so please correct the story. Thank you.
3
@GM
It would be interesting to hear from Canadian pilots as to their experiences with the plane. Chinese pilots have been critical.
Oh brother.
Just knowing that Boeing's Muilenburg called Trump to plead his case reveals Boeing's Washington connections: right at the (unstable) top. Now our president is leading the game of Russian roulette being played with crews' and passengers' lives. What's the FAA for, anyway, if Trump and his big corporate buddies can make this decision, to risk our lives for $$ ?
8
If the FAA grounded Boeing’s jet, a billionaire donor might lose a buck and a DC swamp creature might lose a donation or lobbying contact. The people who might die in a plane crash are collateral damage. Welcome to Republican America.
10
It's all the Boeing Benjamin's, baby!!! :D
Boeing and the other airlines OWNS the FAA.
2
'The U.S. stands alone in not grounding the 737 Max 8' Countries outside the U.S. is said to be over regulated, at least they don't let companies run rough shot over people! The world is watching America put profits over lives!
4
Apparently our national motto has changed from "E pluribus unum," to "It's the money, honey."
7
Sounds like it's time for Elaine Chao to decide if she cares more about the Boeing stock price or the American people.
6
Human lives have become cheaper in the Age of Trump.
6
Fly Airbus planes. The best in the world.
3
What planes are the airline executives flying in?
11
The FAA made the right call. I think we need to put this accident in some perspective, and let the investigators do their work before jumping to conclusions.
Flying is a dramatically safe way to travel, period. Per the National Safety Council, the lifetime odds of dying in a car crash is about 1 in 103, whereas the chance of dying in an airplane crash is in 1 in 118,364 (see: https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/). That means cars are more than 1,000 times more dangerous than aircraft, on average, yet there is no great focus in the news today on auto accidents, which claim at least 100 lives *each day* in the US alone.
By all means, investigators should pursue the leads and determine if the 737 Max should be made safer, and individuals can choose not to fly it if they prefer. But in the meantime we need to keep in mind what is truly risky, not that which happens to be headline news of the hour.
1
Nothing to do with Boeing's lobbyists?
5
That there hasn't been an accident in the U.S. is dumb luck.
That the U.S. seems to be standing by Boeing is yet another sign of the gangrene that is overtaking our nation.
This is in line with the legacy of Scott Pruitt, Ryan Zinke, Betsy DeVos, and the traitors in the White House.
---
Things Trump Did While You Weren't Looking
https://wp.me/p2KJ3H-3h2
3
In this country we bankrupt you for simply aging , getting sick, needing medicine or becoming terminally ill. We also do nothing when 20 six and seven year olds are murdered at school and over 800 people wounded in a mass shooting (59 dead) and 17 more kids killed at school in FLA.
In the USA what's a couple more plane crashes when there is money at stake?
3
To read the many comments below one would think the world is collapsing. Look if you don't feel safe don't fly the 737 . Personally I will bet on Boeing over the hysterical comments I have read. Good airline good plane until proven otherwise.
1
If one of these crash in USA everyone behind this decision goes to jail
2
This article is misleading as Canada has also allowed the Max to fly.
1
No way a plane should nose dive into the ground. Yes all MAXs should be grounded.
2
safety first... ground all 737 max until crashes are fully investigated. stop worrying about profits and put humans firts
3
I have flown on the Boeing 737 Max 8; it did not crash. The fault is not with Boeing; it is with the Ethiopian maintenance crew. Thank you.
1
An anecdote. Very helpful. Thank you, President Trump, for turning this kind of thing into "data."
6
@Southern Boy
The chain of logic is so ridiculous that it is actually funny.
@Andreas,
Have you flown the plane? It is as safe as can be. Its safety depends on who performs the maintenance. Thank you.
The WH’s upcoming communiqué: Fake News, I know more about planes than anyone else. Believe me! Also, the plane crashed in Africa. I’m just saying!!!
3
So, in the US the FAA "... is typically hesitant to ground an entire fleet without concrete findings of an inherent design or manufacturing problem."
Really? There need to be "concrete findings?" A suspicion based on 2 crashes which, for now, seem very similar is not enough?
The rhetorical question I ask is: how many Americans want to fly the 737 MAX 8 with a POSSIBLE inherent design or manufacturing problem? I sure don't. Our fellow human beings in most of the rest the world are being protected by their governments and regulatory agencies. It is scary to think that we are not similarly protected.
5
I have to fly up to Baltimore in three weeks and I particularly avoided American and Southwest Airlines because they fly the 737 Max 8. Delta cost more, but the peace of mind of being on a flight worthy plane is well worth the extra money.
8
Senator Warren,
It is not just pilot training that is the problem. Engine design and placement is under scrutiny. Ground the planes until safety is ensured. Boeing worked out the battery problem in its 787. Maybe it can fix the 737 MAX issues.
4
Surely not anyone is surprised by the US decision - FAA is a government agency - not overly concerned with human lives, as we the people have proven - before and since Trump - that Big Business comes first -before health, in all its forms - like lead free drinking water - look at all the cities, Detroit was the tip of the iceberg - Big Business before education - improvement in grades 1-12 - meaning the standards all States - importantly not financed by property taxes. It's a long list folks, and it's called out of control Capitalism - the damnation of Democracy.
14
The new Pentagon Chief Shanahan is probably the reason the US hasn't grounded the Boeing jets. Money is more important than people's lives it appears.
11
Just one more example of how Americans are treated as a resource to be exploited by corporate interests instead of like citizens.
What’s a little risk when there’s so much money to be made.
18
The FAA makes that decision, not the Pentagon
I seem to remember reading long ago that the FAA has conflicting missions: to ensure air safety, but also to promote the idea that aviation is safe. If something like that is true, the agency should either be split in two, or the “promotion” part dropped. We’ve come a long way from the Wright brothers, which, ironically, might be part of the problem.
7
FAA: ". . . this investigation has just begun and to date we have not been provided data to draw any conclusions or take any actions."
A natural outcome of "corporate personhood" as supported by the Citizen's United decision: the FAA is treating Boeing as "innocent until proven guilty"
8
I have extremely limited knowledge of flight systems or mechanisms. As a frequent flyer, however, I am terrified by the thought of boarding a plane with a new automatic flying system (i.e., advanced autopilot) with which the pilot is unfamiliar. I am assuming if the pilot is unfamiliar with a new system, he would likely experience difficulty identifying the moment at which autopilot should be switched off. Even if the systems or models themselves are not the issue (inherently), the lack of training afforded to pilots who have to directly engage with said systems or models is an issue that demands that these systems or models be made inactive until we have well-trained, competent pilots. In this particular context, this solution is, in the short-term, economically unfavorable: Boeing's stock would immediately plummet and Boeing would have to concede its role in this accident (even if the Max 8 isn't faulty, Boeing's decision to skip training for pilots is). However, in the long-term, such a solution would prevent future like accidents (which are and should continue to be an anomaly). The safety of passengers and crew are of the utmost importance; pilots should never have to fly planes that feature systems that they are not trained to use or are uncomfortable using and passengers should never have to board a plane controlled by an untrained or insecure pilot.
8
I wonder if Pat Shanahan's role as acting DOD secretary has unconsciously influenced the administration given he served as a longtime Boeing executive and frequently comments on the supposed inferiority of competitors during meetings.
See the Politico article titled "New Pentagon chief under scrutiny over perceived Boeing bias" published on January 9th, 2019 for more on his comments.
31
@Brian Nelson Thanks for the tip. Did not know this. Seems like an obvious conflict of interest even if he's former exec and considering Boeing makes military planes. What else is Trump up to?
6
@Brian Nelson. Does DOD control the FAA?
@Jackson No, it's under the Department of Transportation, which is headed by Mitch McConnell's wife, Elaine Chao. Chao is arguably well aware of Shanahan's prior role, but whether she pressured the FAA is pure speculation on my part.
And herein lies the rub of the US regulatory environment. From pharma to pollution, and tech to toys, the US puts the burden of proof on the public or government to prove that a product is harmful and should be removed from the market.
The rest of the world takes a different approach. They require that a product be proven safe before release. If any issues are found, they remove regulatory approval until it's proven safe again. The burden of proof is on the producer, not the public.
It's more than a half-empty/half-full difference though. The US system makes it much easier to launch and continue to sell a harmful product than the rest of the world. It places consumers in greater, more frequent, and more lasting danger too.
31
Have I made any positive statements about Donald Trump...ever? I don't think so. Wait, there was that brief statement after Parkland when he said he would go after the NRA even though other Republicans were scared to. But his resolve against guns lasted about five minutes before he started selling guns for the NRA instead. But I do think what he said today, albeit late, about not trusting Boeing technology for these planes seems on target. Of course if it ends up being the plane's body design or some other mechanical function and not technology, he would be wrong, but at least he came out with a statement that he does not trust the planes.
3
@common sense advocate
I seldom, if ever, take exception with your brilliant comments and thought process. However, today, I must disagree with the utmost respect.
I don't think it's the place of Trump or ANY U.S. President to comment publically about this situation. I am baffled that he did not support Boeing, but rather subtly threw the FAA under the plane. I don't think his comment was appropriate.
I also realize that he only flies on Air Force One so commercial flying is something he does not have to worry about or his family. It's easy to shoot one's mouth off when the topic at hand does not concern nor impact him directly.
I sincerely apologize if I hurt your feelings. Take care.
2
@Marge Keller - I should explain my thinking a bit better-I thought that Trump was staying underground instead of speaking out about the plane crash because he just helped VietJet sign a major deal for these Boeing planes during his summit with Kim Jong-un last month. It seemed mildly positive, instead of just standing by that deal at all costs, that he made some kind of expression that investigation is needed. I should have said instead that he has no idea why the plane crashed anymore than the rest of us do. Thanks for the correction, and never any offense taken. Glad to be among thinking people like you in these pages!
2
@common sense advocate
Thanks much for the clarification. Your explanation makes a world of difference in that revised light.
Thanks for taking the time to set me mind set and at ease. I thought for a moment you were falling off the rails with your quasi-support of Thumper.
1
U.S. holds back? No.
Our President, who *is* The United States and don't you forget it, has already shrieked his response on Twitter.
1
As a frequent flyer, safety comes first. I will make my own choice regarding the type airplane I fly and not rely on U.S. government guidance that values profits over people.
15
Time to take a deep breath. Greedy companies? .... Sounds like people are conflating their (and my) annoyance with long security lines, crowded terminals and packed airplanes with the incredible safety of flying commercially in the USA. Flying is a science, perfected in the USA, and the airlines that everyone suddenly fears have a stellar record of delivering them safely to their destinations. I've flown on the Boeing Max model. Very comfortable and nice flights.
"Almost 100 million U.S.-operated airline flights, carrying several billion people, had taken off and landed safely in this country over a nine-year span since the last time a passenger died in an accident." April 2018. So NINE years without a fatality before that engine on a Southwest flight exploded and killed one passenger. Google the same period of time for car fatalities.
Having said that, no family that lost someone to a plane crash expected that outcome. Horrible tragedies. But grounding a fleet needs to be a scientific decision not an emotional one. Taking new Maxs out of service and replacing them temporarily with leased older planes should not bring any comfort.
Thinking of my upcoming trips, it still much more of a gamble for me to drive that same distance than to fly it commercially in whatever plane that the FAA certifies for flight that day.
I like the think the crews would not step onto a plane every day that they thought was a risk...
10
Understood, but the statistics you state, looked at from a different angle - 2 planes, same make and model, fatal crashes, similar circumstances, in a very short period of time (measured against those 9 years) might argue for an abundance of caution. I have held a private pilots license since age 16, and small aircraft crash much more frequently than the big birds, so I don’t think I scare easily. But when that 2nd plane went down, I immediately checked the equipment for my upcoming flights.
1
@Bill Cullen, Author Two crashes of a new plane. Both, at least on the surface, very similar. The most plausible explanation for at least one of them is a new system on the aircraft overriding the pilots and forcing the plane into the ground. The fact that the plane rarely seems to do this doesn't mean that people should be flying on it.
As far as pilots being willing to fly the plane, millions of people drive cars, despite the large number of people killed or injured in crashes.
1
@Bill Cullen, Author
Fear of flying is emotional until airplanes with hundreds of passengers start falling out of the sky.
I want to know if there is a problem with this aircraft and can it be remedied? That's not emotional. That's rational.
1
European regulators have a conflict of interest given European government economic interests in Boeing's competitor Airbus.
3
@Frank The same can be said about the bias of the FAA, with far more significance. The Europeans do not have a suspect plane they insist on flying. If this was an Airbus, the FAA would have reacted very severely. Note that Europe was the last to act, it was China who acted first.
It should make little difference what the findings are in Africa. An Airworthiness Directive addressing the problems should have been issued after the Indonesian crash. While the airlines await the secret software change. The FAA states the planes are safe in the interim because in the event of an MCAS failure the pilots can work around it by switching off the automation and hand flying the plane. The FAA is effectively lower their Airworthiness Standard in this case.
6
@itchycoo
Exactly my question: CAN the pilots actually fly this plane by hand with the flight control computer switched off? How often do they train to do that?
My understanding is that the changed position of the engines did substantially alter the flight characteristics of the plane so it now handles differently and is less forgiving than an older 737 model.
It is well possible that this radical change in stability can hit the pilot unprepared when encountering an emergency situation that requires recovery from an unusual attitude.
3
If only we had pilots who were highly skilled in the manual operation of their planes. Air France, anyone?
Boeing's profits will be severely damaged if it turns out there is an issue with the plane and regulators are papering over it.
Branding and safety go hand in hand with independent public oversight where safety is a huge concern of the paying customer.
No different than food, water and drug safety.
The Republican party has done a huge disservice to US companies and their brands by skimping on independent professional regulation that the public has confidence in for cheaper self regulation.
Boeing reputation and profits are tied to the hip to the flying publics confidence in our government role as an independent regulator. The failure to regulate may do tremendous damage to Boeing's profits and long term survivability.
Regulation is good for private companies. Confidence by the consuming public in safety allow US companies to have a competitive advantage both here and globally.
Strong regulatory oversight should be bi-partisan. Sadly the "pro-business Republican party is dismantling it.
22
Well said, but also notice how little choice consumers have with air travel heavily monopolized and so few alternatives. If we want to get there were going to take our chances because we have no choice. Thats math the elite like.
3
But, but, but ... what about airline profits?!
They always come first.
9
simple proposition: since no one knows why two of these planes crashed including the manufacturer, in an abundance of caution, the planes should be temporarily grounded. it doesn't mean anyone did anything wrong. it doesn't mean that we should over react every time there is an accident. the circumstances are extraordinary and stepping back and being thoughtful is prudent and reasonable.
56
For some years now there has been a shortage of pilots to match the rapid growth of feeder airlines around the world. The standard for pilot ability is going lower and lower. At the same time more and more maintenance is going overseas, too. That's where the problems lie.
I predict that in the end we will find once again that the pilot failed to turn off the autopilot at the start of whatever problem the flight crew encountered and maintenance squawks from a previous flight were overruled or under investigated.
2
Considering how rare airline crashes are, these planes should be grounded until a full investigation is completed.
The fact that two of these planes failed in such a short period of time is alarming.
Public safety has got to be the top priority of our government, not protecting corporate profits.
24
Boeing, the FAA and the airlines here in America who continue to support the flying of this plane may not have the choice. The American consumer will decide and from the looks of things they are fleeing with their feet to other airlines and safer planes.
Our family of four frequent flying adults will be among them.
8
@It's About Time. Where do you see this happening?
Of course. God forbid that the U.S. would ever err on the side of caution and the greater good rather than on that of corporate profits. The American Way in action!
“The safety and confidence of our customers and crew is always our priority,” Wrenelle Stander, executive director of Comair’s airline division, said in a statement.
Okay, so every airline will say something like this. How interesting that one walking the walk as well is not American. Heeding the judgment of customers rather than overlords... such novelty.
10
We are flying American today. Contacted the airline last night to see what kind of plane we would be boarding. We would have changed our reservation if it had been one of these. They absolutely should not be in the air until it has been determined what caused these crashes.
26
Why are people disputing with those passengers (or relatives) concerned about the risk of flying in this plane? If they choose to take less risk, why dispute it?
I can only conclude that those urging people to fly it anyway have something to gain. Stock owners? Boeing employees?
Let each one decide for themselves!
But notice that more and more nations have decided for them: Too risky!!
14
Clearly, Boeing needs to accept responsibility for not mandating pilot training for the 737 Max 8. The company thought it had to save cost and beat its competitor, Airbus. As is obvious, the cost of human lives have not been part of their calculation. This, in turn, is a common feat of present day capitalism: capital before human life. Brazil was right to not be swayed, as it insisted on the necessary training. All 737 Max 8 need to be grounded worldwide, until pilots have been trained.
17
One wonders if Boeing were not a US company would the FAA or airlines incorporated in the US respond differently.
30
By refusing to temporarily banning these planes, I cannot help but feel as if the FAA is flying on borrowed time.
18
Although the FAA has declined to ground the MAX 8, it has mandated “design changes” by next month. And we, the flying public, are supposed to feel confident getting on one of those planes?
45
@J.
If the FAA demanded design changes, then it already must have a pretty good idea of what happened. Otherwise how would they know what to change?
Can the NYT find out what these design changes are and the reason why (and when) they were implemented?
5
@J. Part of the future boarding procedure will be to stick your head into the flight deck and ask if all the latest software updates have been complied with.
This is Trump Business World now.
Do you realize how many dollars airlines would lose grounding this aircraft. What is a couple of hundred of lives lost here or there compared to the lower profit margins the industry would suffer. Regulators will cave to the Presidents wishes until the public pressure becomes insurmountable.
50
@Babel
Until this is resolved safely, let's require that all republicans flying on the public's dime fly on these suspect planes. This will prove that Trump is putting his money where is mouth is.
1
On America's highways, the equivalent of a sold out 747 crashes, killing everyone, every single day. Panic over a fixable problem that has sadly resulted in loss of life does a major disservice to what is an immensely safe form of travel.
8
Why are people telling the FAA to remove the planes when they should be telling American and Southwest? The same folks who now want the FAA to act are the ones who were saying yesterday that government was 'too big.
7
To paraphrase the old EF Hutton ad, "When Boeing money talks, the FAA listens." May God have mercy on their souls if there is a US crash with 100% casualties--a virtual certainty if the worst case scenario is true. And short-term thinking here is not good business--a ground-stop order would speed the investigation and n the long run cost peanuts for Boeing and for the airlines compared to the irrevocable and totally unsurvivable financial and reputational long-term damage of doing nothing and losing 150-200 lives. Let's see, 200 people x $250 milion each in damages and attorney fees plus $xx million for the destroyed plane (which insurance probably wouldn't cover because there was no advance damage mitigation effort) + bankruptcy for Boeing +say $5-10 billion in lost passenger revenue for each Boeing airline customer = one hellacious recession. And that doesn't mention the most important part: Despite Wall Street's claims to the contrary, human life still matters deeply to Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Right-wing hardliners, Christians, Jews, Muslims, and any other living entity that walks on two legs.
8
You seem to neglect Canada, who's two major airlines, Air Canada & WestJet, both highly respected, are also continuing use of these aircraft.
5
The US regulators are controlled by pols who are controlled big businesses. They don't care if Americans die as much as they care about political contributions. So, they won't do a thing unless there is a 3rd crash happens in the US.
12
If the FAA doesn’t apply the Precautionary Principal in a life or death situation, then when would they? They should ground the planes until the black box proves the plane was not mechanically at fault. Then again, our government doesn't apply The Principle to climate change, failing infrastructure, school children shot dead ... why bother writing more ...
10
In America, life will always be cheaper than next month's profit forecast.
13
Regulatory fortitude has been sliding since 1980.
Thank you, Greed Over People (GOP) Party. Hope your grandchildren love the unbreathable air, undrinkable water and sterile soil that you're creating, as well as the unaffordable drugs and medical care needed to treat those afflicted by these conditions.
18
@Jeff K. I see you have forgotten those year so when the Dims ruled everything. Why do libs have short term memory issues?
The only leverage us poor flyers seem to have is to refuse to fly on those planes. The only thing that will ground them is the threat of losing money.
13
Trump would not want to take action that would lower Boeing’s stock value or injure Southwest’s or American Airlines’ business just to protect us poor people who do not use private jets.
8
@M.i. Estner. It figure the a lefty from Mass would blame Trump. Why isn’t Lizzie speaking up?
@M.i. Estner
I guarantee you that if Air Force One was a 737 MAX 8 the president wouldn't go anywhere near it. Enough said?
Is it all about the money? People's lives are at stake, the world grounds the plane but our FAA stands with Boeing.
6
I wouldn't want to be booked on one right now.
5
I can't believe this is being discussed. This is a RECALL ISSUE. But it is one million times worse since it causes mass casualties.
My goodness, the FAA is looking into what??
This is not the Mueller probe please. It is not an issue that should be subjected to unethical and unwarranted pressure so Boeing the deep pocket is protected. This is not the new Trump way of American life with corrupt pressure, extolling of wrong and forced apathy. Right is right.
Ground ALL the dratted planes now. LIVES ARE AT RISK!!
14
Our new national motto: Profits over people.
12
The US has pretty much zero worldwide credibility now.
15
I am very concerned about the 737 Max 8 situation. Two crashes in the same type of situation, take off, in just 5 months definitely sounds an alarm. At the same time, the NYT shows 8500 Max 8 flights a week which is 8500 take offs. Obviously, those are without problems that we know of. I hope those reviewing the data can reach some persuasive conclusions about the cause of these tragedies.
5
While President Trump ruminates on the complexity of modern aircraft, nations worldwide ground the 737.
It used to be that airplanes crashing
Were met with more than mere tongue lashings.
Now heaven knows, (in the US) anything goes.
6
Why does every instance of product safety smell like the battles over tobacco in the US? I trust Europe far more than the US/corporate complex to make the correct decision regarding public safety.
17
Of course there's no response from the US and its FAA! Someone cut corners -- we'll find out! -- and that step has cost many lives. But in a country where NO ONE in leadership care about THE RULE OF LAW and MORALITY, what may we not expect?
IMPEACH TRUMP NOW!
4
@FritzTOF. It must be exhausting to be so full of rage.
just paid a bit more for a coast to coast flight on Delta vs. risk flying American. Not worth it. American and SW Air need to ground these planes immediately.
16
@Meg Riley
Smart move!
1
Although I am not an ATP (air transport pilot), I love to fly single engine planes, especially for aerobatics. Therefore, I have first-hand practical knowledge of a few things that might be important for gauging the safety of the newest 737 MAX planes.
In aerobatics, part of the fun and thrill is to take the plane to the edge of its envelope, which includes intentionally stalling it and inducing a spin from which one then recovers with the appropriate control inputs. Not every plane is spin certified, i.e. if such a plane inadvertently enters a spin, it may be unrecoverable. Likewise, moving the center of gravity (COG) towards the rear promotes spin entry and also makes spin recovery progressively harder.
It is my understanding that the design changes of the MAX8 had the goal to make the plane more fuel efficient, which was achieved trading spin resistance for reducing drag. To compensate for the less forgiving handling characteristics of the plane, the flight control system had to take over a significant role of keeping the plane within its envelope, basically emulating the more forgiving flight characteristics of the older 737 models.
What I would like to hear from a pilot actually flying the MAX 8 is this: How often do you train flying that plane with the flight control system switched off and how does the plane handle when large control input is necessary to recover from unusual attitudes?
Would you be comfortable in such a situation?
20
@Kara Ben Nemsi
The reason I am asking this is because there was smoke reported by eye witnesses in the last crash. If that fire was caused either by an engine malfunction (bird strike?) and the crew switched off the flight control system in a panic, or the system was disabled by the fire (?), would the pilots be proficient enough to recover from a low altitude, low speed, climb-out emergency caused by excessive yaw and loss of thrust?
This is a difficult situation even in a small plane and unless one practices this regularly, the odds of making it out unharmed are diminished.
4
Zero training. Well, I guess the 20 slides on an iPad do count. But wait, none of the slides mentioned MCAS. So to answer your question, zero training.
The only reason the US has not joined the rest of the world is because US Airlines already have too many of these new planes and can't afford to ground their fleets.
5
@Eduardo Fake news. Did you just make that up or are you regurgitating from somewhere else? The 7M8 is a small fraction of the fleet of American and Southwest. It is much bigger for many foreign-based carriers.
China allegedly owns the most
The risks of one of these crashes is still far less than the risks many will face commuting home today. If only we talked about road safety like we do about air safety.
3
@Multimodalmama
Risk conmmuting is on the ground risk. You have a bit more control. You know the vehicle, the driver. If you decide it’s too risky to fly, you pay no higher price.
With this plane, the risk is not the same.
4
@Multimodalmama
I'm not sure what you mean.
There is a world of difference between accidents caused by user error or bad conditions (which is the cause of almost all car accidents) which every so often might cost a couple of lives, and an accident caused by mechanical failure that costs 150 lives. The former is difficult to prevent, and the latter is extremely easy to prevent.
Besides, if two Hyundai Elantras spontaneously drove off a road and killed 150 people within six months of each other, we'd be calling on Elantras to be taken off the road until we could be assured of their safety, too.
4
@Multimodalmama Are you basing your risk assessment on crash probabilities based on many years of flights across all commercial equipment types? Or have you isolated the probabilities specific to the 7M8 given the 2 crashes in such a short time period following the aircraft's introduction? Let me guess...
2
During takeoff, a stall on a 737 MAX vs. an uncontrollable descent suffer the same consequences.
2
Each 737 Max 800 cost about $50 million. The depreciation is over approximately 20 years, so each plane cost $2.5 million per year. Southwest has 34 of them. A grounding could last for a year until real issues are identified and fixed. This would cost Southwest $85 million. I guess $85 million is too much to lose compared to 150 lives. Now if it's only $1 million, maybe they would ground it "out of an abundance of caution." But we get the "we have no information to believe it is unsafe" excuse for now.
18
In my opinion, the most important technical reason to immediately prohibit these aircraft from further flight is that there is evidence of a similar issue in the two accidents. It has already been conclusively established that defects in the flight control system and software contributed to the Lion Air accident. And now, according to The New York Times, the pilots of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 reported to air traffic control that they were having “flight control problems.” In my opinion, a responsible and ethical response from Boeing requires its issuance of a Service Bulletin recommending no further flight until necessary modifications are developed and made to the aircraft. This should be followed immediately by a similar Airworthiness Directive from the FAA which would have force of law in the United States. I speak from 46 years of experience as an engineer and professor in aerodynamics and flight vehicle dynamics, and as a licensed pilot for more than a decade. At this time, I would advise every one of my family members not to fly on this aircraft.
44
“The Federal Aviation Administration, the American regulator, is typically hesitant to ground an entire fleet without concrete findings of an inherent design or manufacturing problem.”
So two crashes, in a short time span, under the control of competent pilots, do not indicate a problem? Yet another global embarrassment for the good old US of A.
7
Minimalism once was the mantra of engineering. To be able to create a functional product with as little fallible parts possible. Computers have changed that. As a programmer, I know exactly how fallible computers are. Simply failing to handle a single potential error could crash entire systems, in the event that error occurs. For this reason, programs that deal with peoples' lives should be extremely well-vetted before putting into production. If a safety system hasn't been in testing for at least a decade, it probably isn't ready to handle peoples' lives.
11
No, the historic purpose of engineering has always been to achieve the desired results with the thinnest acceptable margin of safety and the lowest cost possible. It is the intersection of science and capitalism.
I don't mean to suggest that engineering is a bad thing. But let's just see things plainly.
1
@Lorem Ipsum Engineering as practiced in a society of predatorial capitalism, yes, I agree, but according to Antoine de Saint-Exupery, one of the pioneers of aviation, "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
Whatever happened to acting out of an abundance of caution? We're not talking about pulling the certificate of airworthiness - yet. We're talking about grounding a relative handful of planes for a few days until we - the FAA - can determine if the problem is in fact pilot error or if the problem is (apparently) the software. If both the Indonesian and Ethiopian crashes have the same cause, then pull the 737 MAX8's certificate; if the causes are different, let the planes resume flying.
12
Sincerely asking, because I don’t know - are notes left from the last shift for the next shift?
Like in my building (I live in a high-rise), the front desk keeps a notepad on which they write notes during their shift for the next shift: so-and-so’s fob wasn’t working, apartment xxx’s hot water heater alarm sounded, so-and-so has been admonished not to walk dog in front lobby, etc. I believe they review the notes during the handoff.
Seems like a good idea. And my apartment building’s not going to fall out of the air.
1
How many crashes are too many? Just as there doesn't seem to be a number of school shootings that will trigger gun reform, how can we expect our government in this instance to value our lives above dollars and votes.
26
The FAA is not acting in the public interest of safety when it continues to let the Max 8 fly. Nor are US airlines, but they have profit objectives. The FAA does not. Its mandate is a safe air travel system.
Although nothing has been proven regarding the second crash, the FAA should err on the side of safety and ground the Max 8. The second crash is going to be understood soon now that the recorders have been found. US airlines can handle a few weeks of using other aircraft in exchange for safety. God forbid, if a US airline experiences one of these crashes, that airline and the FAA will lose all credibility with the public.
13
Of course we won't ban the planes. Our government is owned and operated by corporations. Follow Boeing's money. It might lead to McConnell and his wife, the Secretary of Transportation.
36
@Phil M
It's a revolving door. The current acting Secretary of Defense was also a long-time Boeing executive.
7
@Phil M: Your comment about Mitch McConnell is spot on. He also was found out by the NYT to have conspired with Orrin Hatch and Amgen to keep biologic injectable meds prices sky high - - because of huge campaign contributions from Amgen to these two corrupt folks. A pattern, eh?
1
Clrearly, something is causing these planes to fall out of the sky and the experts need to get to the bottom of it. By not grounding the planes in the U.S. until the cause is identified and fixed - which could take weeks or months - the FAA is leaving itself open to litigation if there's another accident, especially if it involves a U.S. carrier. Of course, airlines could voluntarily ground their 737 Max 8 fleets without waiting for the FAA to issue an emergency airworthiness directive. That would be good PR for airlines by showing they really care about their customers' safety. However, they may not want to lose passenger revenue. Business is business...
7
I tried contacting Southwest Airlines via their website and they have no forum to discuss this problem. What risk or disaster will it take to get their attention? I am an A-List customer and they need to ground these planes until this problem is resolved.
8
This reminds me of the accidents early in the history of Boeing's 727, ultimately the best-selling airliner of its era. Three 727s of major US carriers crashed in 1965, all flown into the ground on landing approaches. As I recall, investigations revealed unfamiliar characteristics of the 727 that led to pilot errors. Sounds familiar. Back then pilots didn't have as many systems trying to tell them what to do. Maybe the current 737 Max situation involves too much automated input to pilots and flight control systems.
It's interesting that none of the three largest operators of the Max (Southwest, American, Air Canada) have removed it from service. Maybe they've figured out how to prepare pilots for it. It's also interesting that China, the first and strongest critic of the Max, is having some trading tension with the US and also has a competing plane trying to gain share in same market segment as the Max. That said, it seems as if the Max may have a single failure point that can threaten the plane. Airliners are supposed to be designed to avoid such things.
11
But it also reminds me of Comet, the first jet airliner. A string of midair hull losses grounded Comet for 4 years. By the time de Havilland was ready to re-enter skies with Comet 4, the world had moved on, to Douglas and Boeing.
Boeing apparently decided that the pilots did not need training on the newly installed software to handle the large engines.
The training would have cost a lot.
Did Boeing even send a warning to all countries that had purchased the plane that there was this new software on board and in its opinion, an experienced pilot should be able to handle it? At least if it has done so, then Boeing can say that we gave our opinion and it was up to the countries and their pilots to decide if they wanted additional training.
Why did the FAA not insist on such a warning or information to be sent to all countries?
5
Listened to pilot interview on NPR yesterday. The training for new 737- Max did not have anything about how to override the stall control software. Now evidently Boeing provides it. Further evidently Boeing is now going to provide simulator training. The pilot who was interviewed said after the Indonesian crash he learned on his own about the stall control override. Evidently not an easy thing to do to override.
7
If the FAA won't act, and enough passengers call the US airlines and tell them they won't fly on a 737 Max, the airlines are likely to capitulate.
9
I’m cancelling my upcoming Southwest flights as they are all on 737s. I’m going to pay a lot more to fly on another carrier. Worth it.
9
@Heather
Same here for my son's flight out of Montreal to San Francisco. You listening, Canada? How come you and the US are the laggards here?
1
@Heather it's not about ALL 737s.... only the new MAX 8s
It’s irresponsible to not ground the 737 Max until the investigation yields a cause of this latest crash. I will not fly in one at this point. Would a third crash convince the FAA?
12
For Boeing to push the venerable 737 to the extreme of hanging oversized engines on its now displaced wing, only to compromise its proven CG (center of gravity) design envelope is, IMO at the heart of the problem. The FAA should have never approved such a compromise that now requires flight control software to correct the Max's inherent pitch up instability. This is a reality they are well aware of but will never admit to. For to do so, would demand a costly redesign of the entire Max fleet, kill their orders and devastate Boeing's bottom line. The FAA should ground these aircraft immediately and a congressional investigation launched.
31
@Michael Amerlan Absolutely, positively!!!
Boeing and the FAA, the appearance is that you are putting profits and potential embarrassment over previous decisions ahead of passengers’ lives. It doesn’t matter if that is your reasoning or you are waiting for investigations to finish or more information. Whatever. As they say in the military, “Appearance is reality.”
15
The Europeans can be accused of trying to stick it to Boeing to help their own Airbus but they're also known for having a better regulatory environment than the USA in almost every sector: health, consumer affairs, banks and privacy. So kudos to them for rejecting the likely pressure from the US government to not ground the Max 8.
39
Boeing employees thousands of eligible voters in key states. No FAA administration is going to ground Boeing’s biggest money maker unless a US flight crashes. Nothing escapes politics. Nothing.
20
It's sad that a company that could design the 747 in 1969 could not redesign the 737 to make it airworthy.
12
"The F.A.A. said on Monday that it would examine the data from the Ethiopia crash and act as necessary. But the agency added that it was too early to make a determination about what caused the fatal accident."
What is this supposed to mean? The flight data recorders were recovered, and other countries are examining the data RIGHT NOW. Couldn't FAA and NTSB examiners be doing the same? "Would examine" means they haven't even started yet, although we're the country that makes the plane.
Also, saying it's "too early to make a determination about what caused the fatal accident" is true, of course, but it's like saying "we don't know what caused two fatal crashes months apart with the same plane, so we'll let them crash a few more times to build up more data before we do anything."
13
Chris NYC, remember, whenever there is a gun massacre in the US the initial reaction, besides “thoughts & prayers”, is that it’s too soon to investigate or consider the weapon used ... so really, this reaction to the safety concerns of this aircraft shouldn’t surprise us.
4
Who do you think runs the airline industry in this country: The FAA or the airlines? You get two guesses. The first doesn't count.
20
I wouldn't think it's too early to ground the 737 Max 8's if I happened to be on the next one that went down. I think it would be prudent to ground this aircraft now and error on the side of caution while the investigation proceeds. Two crashes within a relatively short time could be coincidental then again maybe not. Ground the planes now and find out first if there's a design, material or training issue. Then release the aircraft when the problem is resolved and planes fixed if necessary.
10
"Many pilots with less experience depend heavily on automatic systems to help them fly planes, and such systems, in turn, need reliable data."
Airlines have no business using inexperienced pilots. An experienced pilot knows what to do when automatic systems fail.
That said, there is a difference between a system failing (ie not functioning) and a system actively sending the aircraft into a dangerous position from which recovery is difficult or impossible.
Contributing to the problem is mandatory retirement ages which remove the most experienced pilots.
15
@Barry Borella
Let's ask Sully about this
Is either American or Southwest allowing passengers on Max8 flights to change or cancel their reservations without penalties?
18
@Jim S. I called American this morning to ask be booked on another airline or to be refunded for my flight as I don't feel safe flying on the Max 8 next week for a scheduled flight to Miami. I was told that American Airlines has deemed the model safe for flight and that standard cancellation or change policies apply. I have decided to eat the cost, and booked a different flight with a different airline and plan to no show my American flight.
9
@Jim S. I called Southwest yesterday to change my daughter's reservation for travel next week. The employee stated that Southwest considers the aircraft safe. I replied that I wasn't prepared to have my daughter fly on that equipment and stated that I wanted to change the reservation without paying the published upcharge. The employee made the change without a charge and noted the reason for my request. Perhaps more customers need to speak up.
6
@Jim I just happened to check my itinerary for this Thursday's Southwest flight I'm on. For the first time, and I fly Southwest a lot, there was a bright red alert saying that I could change my reservation by up to 14 days without paying a higher fee. However, the alert didn't state why other than "unforeseen circumstances such as weather, etc." I called and was told by the Southwest representative that it was due to the 737 Max 8 situation. The alert should be absolutely transparent about why it is being offered.
The FAA director is guaranteed to sleep uneasy these days. If there is one more accident with that plane, whether related to the flight control system or not, heads will roll.
Perception is everything in politics.
11
This is akin to a auto recall but with much more severe consequences. Must take the road better safe than sorry and, of course, I want to know whom and how to sue for the restoration of my life.
11
Boeing isn't interested on damaging its reputation as a preeminent position as a global supplier of passenger aircraft. its it's more likely human error was involved than a defective aircraft design. roughly 8500 flights per week and 2 crashes is not quite a pattern, however, discretion is the better part of valor and until they examine the similarities between the 2 crashes it's probably prudent to suspend it from service.
6
@Ron They may want to rethink that pre-eminent position as the stock continues to tumble.
Welcome to the US! Profit versus lives? Profit wins always.
This just shows how corrupt the country has become. Lobbyists and their folks essentially own the country.
Government agencies seem to exist to serve moneyed interests not the public!
They’re concerned more about Boeing’s share price than the lives on these planes!
If they can do this for a plane, then, they can probably did it for unhealthy water, the environment etc.
31
@Frea or to get into one of the better universities as reported elsewhere in this paper. Corruption has no bounds in the U.S.
There are many ways to interpret the dichotomy between the US decision and the rest of world which is grounding 737s.
Can it be because the rest of the world actually cares about their citizens? That the rest of the world would rather error on the side of caution versus corporate controlled America?
Isn't this identical to America's approach to climate change versus the rest of the world? They (including China) are reducing the use of fossil fuel whereas we elect a president who increases coal usage.
Isn't this identical to the budget Trump proposed? Increase defense spending and cut medicare.
Does anyone other than me see the pattern of woeful disregard for Americans by the present gov?
114
Well, once the rest of the world has grounded the 737 Max 8, U.S. citizens will be the most vulnerable to the next disaster. Perhaps the deaths of Americans in the U.S. will finally lead to common sense decisions in this country. Probably not...
13
Just like we care about victims of gun violence. You’re on to something.
Being from Connecticut, you should know no atrocity on US soil will move the government to act. Not if it’s committed by a US entity.
Isn't capitalism grand? (Please note sarcasm). Boycott Southwest and American Airlines. When both companies see their profits plummeting maybe the FAA will take notice.
25
I fly a lot on American. 1.2 million miles so far, and 5 times on a Max 8. I'm a data driven guy. I have a Max 8 flight next week. My complaints with this plane have to do with the interior design and cramming more seats into it. I have no safety concerns.
I will fly that MAX 8 next week because until there is some hard data as to what happened to the Ethiopian plane, I'm keeping an open mind. I also know a few American pilots (I am not in the aircraft biz). They are all very experienced, well-trained people with a lot of hours.
I am well aware of all the other comments about it should be grounded. But we all have choices. If you feel unsafe, switch to another flight. I don't have a choice. It's the only plane on a once-daily run and I need to be on it. I do not intend to worry.
Where is American going to get enough planes to replace the 24 MAX 8's it has? (And Southwest). This will lead to enormous flight disruptions. Let people choose. I understand concern, and you can act accordingly. Let me make my choice please.
9
@BOG.CPA Hey there, you contradict yourself, though. You say "I don't have a choice", acknowledging "it's the only plane on a one-daily run" (second paragraph), then conclude "Let me make my choice please". Forgive me, but it sounds like the freedom of choice you're calling for is a charade? You don't have a choice, in fact, and many folks are the same.
They've booked on American (or SouthWest) and can't afford to switch, either in time or money or general disruption. That's assuming another airliner flies their route.
Banning this model as a temporary precaution (with its temporariness subject to the outcome of the Ethopian investigation) will force those airlines to get resourceful and inventive if they wish to stay in business. I have no doubt those airlines will find another model/other planes very quickly if it comes down to doing so versus going bankrupt.
4
@BOG.CPA You have every right to risk your life anyway you choose but there are other people on those planes who may not share your risk tolerance. The reason we have regulatory institutions like the FAA is to protect the public’s interests but they too often focus on $$$ versus people.
4
@BOG.CPA,
Good Luck, truly.
It's true that no actual facts are available for what caused this crash or if the two occurrences are related.
But not having the certainty that the FAA will eventually provide doesn't preclude being prudent. There are real alternatives such as choosing a different aircraft, delaying the trip, using other types of transportation or even teleconferencing; yes, they all have costs and inconveniences. Incidentally the Government does have a responsibility in this matter; it can dictate a grounding of this model if it evaluates that the costs to society are larger than "your" personal ability to assume the risk.
I wouldn't ever want my family or friends to wonder why I didn't choose otherwise when alternatives existed.
Good Luck, truly.
3
Once the flying public in the US refuses to board a Boeing 737 max 8 plane, then maybe the FAA and airlines will get the message. Until then, business as usual.
14
Economic imperatives outweighing safety concerns?
5
No big surprise. In America, profits are ALWAYS more important that human lives.
10
I would like the ability to check my pilots credentials and flight history/experience. If I can do with my Lyft and Uber drivers I should certainly be able to with my pilot.
5
@JH
The insurance carriers for the airlines probably mandate a certain level of pilot proficiency that is more rigorous than that of the airlines.
As of right now, you couldn't pay me to be on a 737. I understand the concept of caution, but I understand I don't want a smidgen of a chance that I'm going down in a burning pile. Sorry. Not sorry.
23
Uh, there's this little country north of the U.S. still flying the Max as well? Westjet and Air Canada's FB pages are full of comments from hundreds of customers asking questions, expressing fears and wanting to switch aircraft.
9
@Peter Jurisic Yes, I agree. For other readers, see https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/boeing-upgrade-software-737-max-8-1.5052471 . Canadian airlines are flying 41 of these aircraft and our Transport Canada department are following the US/FAA lead (as they usually do). Like many readers, I would think twice before flying on a MAX8 until the investigation of Ethiopian crash is done.
3
@Peter Jurisic
I am one of them
What is happening to Boeing now exemplifies how the USA has so badly lost its way in the world. No longer the leader, but a follower of $$$. Human life takes a back seat to profits.
Boeing and the FAA/ NTSB had a perfect chance to get *in front* of this huge story proactively. Instead they dropped the ball - spinning the story with Southwest Airlines, AA - pretending “Trump style” that they could control the narrative. The FAA’s inaction is a textbook example of why Americans no longer trust their government or institutions supposedly meant to protect them. Southwest Airlines will never be seen as a caring Airline again.
Crisis management 101. Who remembers the Tylenol scare and how well it was handled?
25
I will not fly with U.S. airlines using this aircraft. Period.
9
Thank De-Regulation.
3
Rightfully so. You shall see. Soon. Agree with MCAS algorithm change in the works.
1
Same set of facts, totally opposite reactions each side of the ocean. We could just as well be talking about Republicans and Democrats.
1
OK, hysteria taken aside, there won't suddenly be 737s falling off the sky all over the place. But aviation is not just based on technical proof, but also trust. It sounds irrational but aviation is one of those fields, where trust in certain cases trumps a lot of other stuff; it's a bit like the stock market, where even 'rumors' will start an avalanche even though nothing really happens.
So for the sake of trust in highly 'risk-averse' industries like aviation and food, a lot of countries apply the 'precautionary principle', meaning negative attitudes until it is proven safe and trustworthy. This is of course a rather huge problem in terms of business growth and potential and hurts them.
But the US apparently accepts that it's worth the risk, instead going for the 'damage limitation' philosophy in all areas: Safe until proven otherwise, so no action until there is concrete evidence.
Don't you think in industries with a huge trust problem and that immediately affect a massive amounts of people, you should switch principles?
5
Should we wait for a third plane to crash before grounding the fleet? This sounds like a classic example of regulatory capture on the part of the FAA.
7
Put Individual-1 and his cabinet along with Sanders on one and take a flight. If there are no problems, then it's good enough for everyone else.
3
@Marko PoloI am told by the cabin crews that the loo on the Max 8 is a space saver, the smallest yet. Individual 1 is too big to use it, so your test flight is not going to happen.
In the old days (pre Trump), the rest of the world world defer to the United States on issues like air safety. No longer. The reason the FAA has not grounded the Boeing fleet is that Donald Trump is incapable of making this type of decision.
6
@STSI
The decision is made by the FAA, not the president. The FAA is sclerotic at best when it comes to making decisions.
4
@Barry Borella
With all due respect, since 2016's election, the president decides everything public, period. The FAA is controlled by a placeholder, which is Mitch McConnell's wife and a more obedient little soldier never drew breath on this planet. She will order the FAA to do Donald's bidding, or else a tantrum will follow.
1
One has to wonder how much Boeing, American Airlines and Southwest Airlines Elaine Chao holds or has held - and how much each company has contributed to her husband's re-election campaigns. Odd that every other country and the EU has banned the 737 MAX 8 until further investigation is completed.
18
If this plane needs to fly it needs to have the 'automatic pull up' system disabled till it is fully evaluated. Not too hard or costly, virtually all planes lack this questionable system currently. Seems like a nobrainer. These are peoples lives lost and may soon be lost. Act Now.
5
@VinCaruso
Sorry is an 'automatic nose down' (not up) system that is in question.
Surprising that US airlines have full confidence in the plane’s safety. As long as we don’t know the cause of these accidents with brand new planes on what facts exactly is that confidence based? Shouldn’t we apply the principle of precaution when we talk about passenger safety? It seems that commercial interest weigh heavier than safety concerns.
10
All Boeing and the Airlines that are still flying this plane, care about is profits. It can afford to pay the few wrongful death actions that they already have, and those that may subsequently occur.
Despite this, many other countries, and even a union have voiced their disapproval.
Regardless of what the FAA, Boeing, Southwest and American Airlines, and other foreign airlines, the public reserves the right to decide for themselves, whether or not to use the airlines that fly them to their destinations.
Their lives are more important than the aforestated profits!
8
If the planes are not grounded in the United States then a member of the FAA should be aboard each flight until the issue is resolved.
153
@RonEsq
How about putting a member of Congress aboard each flight? That'll get the problem fixed sooner.
6
We still don't know the cause of the most recent crash.
So how do we criticize the FAA or Boeing for anything until that piece of vital information is provided?
That was a rhetorical question of course; on the internet we immediately get our pitch forks out and try to be first at sticking them anywhere soft.
8
Shouldn't we err on the side of caution until this issue is thoroughly investigated, though? People's lives are at stake!
6
@MitchP This isn't a court room where innocent until proven guilty is the right answer. It's a flying hunk of metal with a few hundred people on board. Grounded until proven safe. Two planes of the same make crashing with similar circumstances that just happen to have the same anti-stall software that most other planes do not. Sounds like sound logic not pitch forks.
14
@MitchP,
I haven't read many comments that are "get our pitch forks out". I have read comments by many who are uncertain about what happened and recognize that it's currently unknown. They are worried and concerned about they, their family or friends flying on this model.
Grounding the 737-Max does have significant transportation and financial implications beyond that just for Boeing and the airlines. However, not knowing the facts of the causes and being prudent are not mutually exclusive events. Yes, the FAA is tasked and extremely skilled in this task of finding the causes. Yet, these types of investigations take many months to come to a conclusion with the type of quality investigation and reporting that the FAA does.
Significant costs of grounding versus low-probabilities of an accident but with the risk of losing family is not that hard a choice. There are options of flying on another aircraft, delaying or canceling the trip or choosing an alternative methods of travel; they each have costs. However in the interim while the FAA is doing it's job, if another 737-Max does go down are you planning on posting a "oh-well, things happen".
1
Our govt in the pocket of corporations as usual. We need Warren for president. She may not be likable and Indian-on-demand, but this stuff won't be allowed under her (or Sanders, but I don't want an octuagenarian president).
12
What is “Indian on demand”?
@L.Tallchief Referring to her claimed Indian heritage, when it suits her
"Such groundings are rare in the United States. The Federal Aviation Administration, the American regulator, is typically hesitant to ground an entire fleet without concrete findings of an inherent design or manufacturing problem."
This is the definition of Tombstone Technology. In other words, when there are enough dead people, then the FAA moves to get airlines and aircraft manufacturers to fix their design, manufacturing, or operating problems.
30
@mrpisces No, that is the definition of responsible regulating. In other words, you do not reverse a previous authorization unless there are concrete findings of an inherent design or manufacturing problem.
Customers have the option of declining to fly a route utilizing these jets. Airlines have the option of declining to fly these jets. The government, however, needs to wait until there is proof before rescinding their airworthiness certificates.
4
@mikecody Why wait? Why must the government be the most careless?
@Peter Because they went through an extensive process before issuing an airworthiness certification. Revoking one should not be done lightly.
Once again the USA has shown that it is more interested in protecting the wealth of its capitalists than in saving the lives of its citizens.
79
The FAA cannot ground the Boeing aircrafts because of the stock market in Newyork. It is obvious that both flights went down after a few minutes of taking off. We know that even after extracting information from the black box, they might still give the public some false information all in the name of protecting the Boeing reputation.
10
Amazing how many experts in avionic safety there are in the world. I went to public school and that wasn’t part of our curriculum. I’m sure the FAA will make their decisions based on expert analysis of facts and data not social media mob sentiment, as they always have.
6
This model plane has been in service for less than 2 year. Most of the metal was delivered in the past 12 months. So let's wait another month until Boeing releases their quickly patched together software update?
At the current rate the odds are roughly 5% that another plane stalls in the sky in the coming 30 days....
3
@Tom its not only about that. It is about supply and demand. If people are afraid of your product, that is a big problem. The FAA can't magically override that.
Yeah, okay, except most other countries have grounded these planes. What do you think they do for analysis in the EU, pull numbers from a hat? The US is the only major user of these planes that is still using them. That is suspicious.
The two flights that crashed had remarkably similar crashes. The planes have only a short history, so not everything about them is known yet. We can't just chalk the crashes up to a freak accident.
So balance the inconvenience of grounded flights and harm to Boeing's reputation vs. the possibility of 200 dead Americans. The answer should be obvious.
Boeing is a major American company. It is not inconceivable that the government, especially this government, would want to protect it.
3
My understanding is that all Boeing 737 MAX planes share similar software, sensors, and other technology. If software and sensors are the worries following the Lion Air and Ethiopian crashes, why aren’t there calls to ground the 737 MAX 7 and 9 in addition to the MAX 8?
5
@Alex S
Because they haven't crashed.
It is more likely that the FAA is echoing Boeing than Boeing is echoing the FAA.
54
Once, okay maybe a fluke, but when the exact same thing happens twice, it is a pattern. This is bananas.
31
@Suzy even once, for brand new plane it is a massive sign something is rotten
The American flying public has a choice.
Do you trust the FAA and fly in this plane that has had two crashes in such short timescale after its 'launch'.
Or do you trust the UK's CAA, the air safety regulators of Australia, Germany, France .... and the rest of the world - who have grounded this aircraft as a safety precaution.
Do you believe that the plane is airworthy and it is just a coincidence Boeing was already preparing a patch to the software before the latest crash?
Do you believe it is all pilot error despite Boeing boasting pilots did not need any training to fly this aircraft ... and then issuing updates to training manuals et al?
Ultimately do the public feel it is safe to trust the judgement of the FAA?
Both the FAA and Boeing could be facing reputational damage for generations if they get this wrong.
146
@Hooj agreed. But to be fair the USA and FAA have a MUCH better flying record than the rest of the world, especially in the last 20 years.
3
@Hooj
In UK the CAA has not only grounded all Boeing 737-MAX aircraft, but has also banned them from overflying in UK airspace. It's the same throughout the entire European Union.
8
@Josh
It was reported that Ethiopia Air has had only one crash since 1996. They have a pretty darn good record too.
11
"But the (FAA) added that it was too early to make a determination about what caused the fatal accident..."
The FAA apparently does not believe that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cause.". It would rather submit to monied interests.
43
That’s because the US has Trump who is personally responsible for all planes that have landed safely.
On a more serious note, Max 8 will not be suspended until the donor class has given its approval.
33
@Opinioned! I won't be flying on the Max 8 until the reasons for its failure is clearly defined. I choose not to die terrorized.
5
Gotta love all those airline officials who have "full confidence" in the safety of the airplane -- in the middle of an international investigation of whether it IS safe! It's a bit like a prosecutor or defense attorney stating in the middle of a trial that they're sure the jury will agree with them.
I'm wondering if all those "great deals" to Hawaii on Southwest are all that great after all, under the circumstances.
19
I don't care whether the U.S. has grounded these planes or not. I will not fly on this plane and will look for flights on other planes. I wouldn't be surprised if other people have the same reaction.
130
Dennis Muilenberg and Elaine Chao need to hit the road. Their reactions are wholly inappropriate. these deaths are on their watch. This is a toxic mix of anything goes capitalism and no-rules GOP governance. This brings to mind the lead poisoning in Flint, Michigan.
152
No doubt Boeing knows how to build good airplanes, but the cavalier attitude Boeing (and the FAA) adopted in dealing with the Lion Air and later the Ethiopian accidents, is a perfect demonstration of C Suites lacking the most basic notions on handling the modern court of public opinion. Airplane accidents, although statistically insignificant, have always attracted public attention. Nowadays, it is no news, that this phenomenon is being magnified and multiplied by the social networks whether the heavy breathers at Boeing and the FAA like it or not. For those that have been in this Industry for many decades, it is embarrassing and sad witnessing how the FAA and Boeing have painted themselves in a corner in such an unprofessional way. They totally lost control of the narrative...
16
@Shillingfarmer
Elaine Chow and her husband Mitch McConnell are wealthy enough to own and/or lease their own planes!
4
@Shillingfarmer - and Elaine can take her husband Mitch with her. Better yet, they can fly on a MAX 8 to their retirement destination of choice.
6
What would it look like America grounding planes made by Boeing? They are rolling the dice because they don't want to kill Boeing on the stock exchange. Also American pilots have been trained to disable the software and fly the old fashioned way in case of an emergency. I agree that it is not time to hit the panic button.
10
And people wonder why AOC and more of us in general are questioning capitalism.
251
Do you actually think a State run Airline wouldn't sacrifice a few comrades?
Strong regulatory oversight has gone hand in hand with US corporate branding and safety. The more the US government ignores independent and rigorous regulation and safety the more US corporate brands are at risk of failure.
8
@RGT
Well, Boeing still has a much better track record than Antonov...
5
@HL The trouble is we are reaching a point where regulatory oversight is failing thanks to emphasis on stock prices, exec compensation, lobbying, political/corporate cronyism, etc. Capitalism is going to eat itself and then we'll lose its benefits. Corporations are keeping their stock prices artificially high without regard to product integrity or care for the consumer.
17
With the utmost respect to the F.A.A. - I certainly hope you folks know what you are doing.
Many are in doubt, but more importantly, a whole lot of folks are nervous and scared right now. I tend to find more comfort in the countries that are temporarily banning these planes that I currently do in the F.A.A.
Please find the answers and the solutions.
Take your time . . .quickly.
Thank you.
26
@Marge Keller Unfortunately, the FAA is the final authority in determining whether an aircraft type is airworthy and should be introduced into service. It's beginning to look like both Boeing and the FAA were woefully negligent in their testing and certification programs.
6
@Bruce M
All the more reason to place a temporary ban on these planes. Thanks for your thoughts. Much appreciated.
1
"Better safe than sorry" can be used to justify accommodating any neurotic fear one can think of. If and when facts justifying the grounding of all Max 8's come to light, then by all means those aircraft should be grounded. Until then, you can add Maxophobia to the current list of fears (e.g. vaccineophobia) for which there is no reasonable factual basis.
3
@Jay Orchard I see 300+ dead people under very similar circumstances implying a technical malfunction in the AOA system that creates a very reasonable and factual basis for fear.
14
@Josh
That fear is understandable but it's not rational. The aircraft has had many hundreds of thousands of flights without incident. You and others are acting as if the Max8 just rolled off the assembly line and had two crashes.
But it's not unusual for people to react this way to aviation accidents. After one Valuejet crashed in the Everglades because of negligence by one of its subcontractors who improperly placed oxygen cannisters in the aircraft, the airline was forced to change its name (to AirTran) because of the public's irrational fear about flying on a Valuejet aircraft.
@Jay Orchard All other 737s: ~1 crash per million flights. 737 MAX: closer to 1 per 100K flights. What you call neurotic fear I call 10x chance of being killed. What you called vaccinophobia, I call injecting people with thimesoral for no measurable benefit, per Cochrane review of influenza vaccine. So many fools have claimed the mantle of Science and Reason, you can't even count them.
Without prejudice to Boeing, the uncertainty around the cause of the fatal crash demands that a pause be put on operations for this model. Unfortunately, it appears that customers affected here won't be able to claim refunds and so, while it's costing money, this is insignificant compared to the cost of lives lost.
10
I have a flight at the end of the month on Southwest. I will be cancelling that flight and switching to another airline if Southwest continues operating these planes.
If an investigation reveals that the plane model does not have a design defect, great! But until we know, the airlines and the FAA should be putting passengers first in the face of doubt.
67
@AJ
I have a flight on Friday & SWA sent a note that we can change flights without penalty. Only problem is it does us no good when the listed equipment for the only 2 alternate flights is still the Max8.....
American is no better, and our only other feasible option. Other than a 2500 mile drive (each way).
Makes you wonder about SWA’s new Hawaii routes.
4
When airworthiness relies upon software, it should raise questions.
76
im pretty sure all fly by wire aircraft fly at the mercy of software.
5
@p6x Airworthiness has depended entirely on software (what the airplane manufacturers call "fly by wire") for many years. The fact that you are completely unaware of this shows how safe and effective it is. Most modern planes can essentially fly and land by themselves -- far safer than pilot control.
4
@scott “fly by wire” replaced cables and hydraulic. Although software is involved, this was not the issue I was referring to.
3
All this talk of people canceling or rescheduling flights on 737 MAX aircraft reminds me of the DC-10 scare of the late 70's. For several years afterward, my Dad refused to allow us to fly on any DC-10 flight for a family vacation. (For what it's worth, I ended up flying on a DC-10 on a few occasions without incident, as did thousands of other people).
There are actually three variants in the MAX family: the 7, 8, and 9. Thus far, the accidents have been with 8's. I understand that we have no final official findings on the causes of these crashes, but the most popular "educated guess" (which is really a polite way of saying speculation) goes like this: In order to fit new, fuel efficient engines on the Max 8, Boeing designers had to reposition where the wing meets the fuselage. This gave the plane a tendency to pitch up, possibly leading to a stall. To counteract this tendency, Boeing programmed the autopilot system to automatically pitch down in some circumstances. Malfunctioning sensors led the plane to pitch down when it shouldn't have, causing it to go into a steep dive.
Again, that's not an official finding, just a popular theory that seems to be going around. But here's a question I don't see discussed in this article: Do these design changes apply to the entire Max series, or just the 8?
59
@TGF The major change was where the engines are mounted on the wings.
The major selling point of the Max series is the more fuel efficient CFM Int'l LEAP engines, which are larger in diameter than the CFM56 engines used on preceding 737 models. The CFM56 itself required distinctive flattened engine inlets to maintain ground clearance, but this wouldn't work with the even larger LEAP. (As a footnote, the way you tell that the 737 in the main photo is a Max is that the engine inlets are perfectly round.)
The underlying factor in the ground clearance issue, as I understand it, is that the 737 main landing gear retracts inwards, which restricts how tall it can be, and redesigning the airplane to use taller gear was deemed excessively difficult.
The different engine placement makes the airplane a bit less stable and makes it fly differently. Boeing wanted the Max to share a type rating (a training classification) with the older 737 models. If the type rating were different, airlines would have to retrain pilots at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars per pilot. Hence the decision to calibrate the flight control software to make the new airplane fly the same way as the old one... assuming the system is working properly.
Lastly, there are four variants of the Max family: the 7, 8, 9, and 10, in order of increasing length. The 7 has proved less popular than forecast and none have been delivered to airlines yet. The 10 is still on the drawing boards.
14
@TGF Ran out of comment length in my previous response.
Yes, all Max variants use the same engine placement (and wing).
All theoretically have the same basic stability characteristics; the different fuselage lengths will affect flying characteristics somewhat, although I surmise that Boeing may have also calibrated the flight control software to minimize these differences.
10
I’m going to assume the MCAS exists on all Max aircraft for the following. The larger, fuel efficient, Leap engines require a different method of mounting. This intern causes a change in the center of gravity and ultimately the stability of the aircraft. The MCAS is installed counter this tendency.
The real issue is not the malfunctioning software. It is the lack of training or even information afforded the pilots. We simply did not know that this was added to the aircraft. The initial actions we as pilots use to counteract “run away trim” does not work for an MCAS failure. In fact it exacerbated the situation in the Lion Air crash. Simply explaining the system would have avoided the accident all together.
I have over 20,000 hours at my Airline with 4000 flying the 737-8.
Experience is helpful but knowledge is essential. So the real question is: why did Boeing withhold the MCAS system information. The answer : training = increased cost to the airlines. Increased costs are the bane of airline executives whom ultimately purchase aircraft.
1
I'm a longtime resident of the DFW, Texas metroplex, where domestic airline competition can be quickly summarized as a perpetual American Airlines vs. Southwest Airlines battle (each has a major hub and corporate HQ in the area).
At this point I'm surprised that one of these carriers hasn't voluntarily grounded its Max 8 fleet as a competitive move against the other. I'd imagine the same is true of Air Canada and WestJet. Stay tuned...
28
@C Walton
SWA is offering fee free (and no price increase on the ticketed airfare) changes for 14 days. Only problem for us is the equipment is the same for the long leg of our pending trip on Friday ...
Switching to AA or United would be cost prohibitive at this point.
I’m not greatly concerned due to our pilots’ training and everyone’s hyper awareness right now, but it does give one reason to pause.
How shocking that the U.S. is behind the rest of the world in terms of attention to human rights, putting human welfare above profit incentives, and regulating an industry.
79
This is a perfect example of how little the US government and its agencies think of human life. Money is God apparently.
185
@MyNYC The US government has ignored thousands of death by gun for decades. Airplane accidents are a rounding error in comparison to that.
57
@MyNYC There has NOT been a fatal accident of this magnitude in the United States for almost 10 years. So I give credit to the FAA where credit is due. I sincerely believe the regulators in that agency want to protect me and my family from harm. So I will continue to trust that they will do the right thing.
3
@MyNYC - Not just US, Canada is not grounding the plane. I think it is best to wait and see what the case of the crash is rather than rushing to judgement.
1
More evidence of the U.S. decline into a third world banana republic. Just Great...
98
It doesn't matter if "U.S. Holds Back." The traveling public will not fly on a plane they cannot trust and that many of our allies deem unfit for the air. Eventually Boeing's bottom line will begin to sag, reflecting the will of the people. It's inevitable. Tomorrow the news will be different.
65
That’s what’s kind of amazing about all this. I’m flying in May and the first thing I did this morning was check to see if any of my flights would be in this plane. If it had been, I would’ve cancelled. Multiply that by thousands and add the PR disaster of appearing to care more about the bottom line than passenger safety and this seems like a no-brainer.
19
This is simply business as usual. Foreign regulators are not beholden to airlines and aircraft manufacturers like the FAA is in this country. Unfortunately, it will take a tragedy here to change that mentality.
85
@Misterbianco The 787 was grounded with not one body to show for it.
1
@Atm oht...So what is the appropriate body count for grounding an airplane?
2
The FAA is making a mistake by not grounding these airplanes. God forbid that anything happens with a U.S. airline before they finally submit to reason. Boeing needs to come out in favor of grounding these airplanes for the same reason. They're both presenting the appearance that money matters more than the lives of the traveling public, air crew members, and innocent bystanders on the ground or in other airplanes.
152
Boeing should ground the plane for economic reasons. Imagine the result if a third plane crashes
3
It’s painfully clear that the FAA cares more about protecting Boeing than about the welfare of passengers. And airlines which continue to fly this plane care more about their bottom lines than the safety of their customers and crews. It’s almost impossible to believe that the planes and software are fine and it’s just bad luck, or pilots are making the same errors.
111
@Avatar
I agree on the first initial considerations.
I do believe, though, that the pilots are making the same error trying to address a 'trivial' malfunctioning of the system. Aircraft systems do malfunction quite regularly, and the issue I see here is that it is difficult for pilots on this aircraft to override and take control over a system that is not behaving correctly.
5
All the data that feeds into a plane's cockpit voice recorder and black box needs to simultaneously be transmitted in real time via satellite to collection points. That way they have something to work with while they're waiting to find the boxes. It would also show the plane's GPS location up to the last second - not an issue in these two crashes but it was with MH 370 and other crashes.
18
The USA used to be the world leader in regulatory safety. We have mostly sold out the concept of professional government regulators for Corporate self regulation.
Fortunately it's not good business for US companies to kill their customers. Hopefully that's enough to protect the flying public.
98
@HL Really? Cigarette companies killed us by the tens of thousands per year for decades. We just loved Joe Camel to death.
2
I have an upcoming Southwest flight. When I saw it was scheduled on a Max I switched to an Alaska flight leaving at a similar time. It cost extra, but gives me peace of mind.
I have believed from the beginning that Boeing took the cheap way out. They didn’t want to spend the time and money to redesign the plane to create a new frame that would be aerodynamically sound. Instead, they slapped the larger, fuel efficient engines on a (very) old design and created a software “fix” to safeguard against potential inherent instability. That’s not putting safety first. It’s prioritizing profits.
Also the FAA certified this plane. One has to be concerned about the undo influence Boeing has in Washington. Lobbyists hold sway, as we know, and I’m sure played a role in Boeing’s belief that the company could offer up a half-baked remedy in order to make an aerodynamically suspect plane certifiable.
Boeing was desperate to compete with Airbus and while I’m all for fuel efficiency, I believe planes should be designed from the ground up rather than retrofitted.
368
@Ellen
Do you have experience in airplane design? Are you even a pilot? Manufacturers "stretch" planes all the time. It's not the "cheap way out." There are plenty of versions of 707, 747, Airbus, etc. Most of the planes you fly on are a version of a core design. When you change the weight of engines you create balance changes that need to be offset with modifications to control surfaces or operating procedures. You are correct in that there are political issues in the US, but the article states that the FAA rarely grounds planes--besides the issues with the manufacturers it would also imply a lack of confidence in the certification process. The process works quite well. Since the Colgan Air crash in 2009, which was not the fault of the airplane, there was only one US airline fatality, which occurred in April of 2018. Two crashes by foreign airlines, one attributed to poor maintenance, and the other unknown, but involving a copilot with fewer flying hours than I have--just doesn't worry me, and I've already taken ttrips on the aircraft.
17
@Chris Hynes
I agree with everything you've said, from the idea that stretching airplanes is standard practice and completely acceptable to the idea that the process works well. I believe you are wrong to not "worry" about the the plane that crashed for unknown reasons. The plane should be grounded until the reasons are known and either found to be not relevant to the airframe or the issue has been addressed. 2 crashes in 5 months on a new plane with similar circumstances is enough to stop using the plane until the issue is better understood.
76
@Chris Hynes
You make valid points and speak from knowledge. However, does it make sense to wait for the next 737 Max to crash, possibly in a densely populated area? Airplane crashes involve people and not just statistics.
I've expressed my doubt as to the quality of today's FAA work due to budget cuts, retirements and political influence. We see it at the FDA so is the FAA different? Both are essential to our safety.
57
As I mentioned previously, Boeing is making its decision based on money and not safety. Money is the only thing keeping the 737 MAX in the air at the moment while other countries do the right thing.
Boeing sees the 737 MAX as an airplane that carries its profits and not passengers.
132
Of course the U.S. is holding back where dollar is king! Dollars first, human lives last. Not only are other countries grounding and not allowing 737 Max 8's , but also all 737 Max planes.
Yes, I know it is still more dangerous to drive and so on..., but planes should not just fall out of the sky. An investigation is needed. Clearly it was not done after the first fatal crash.
227
@Sonia V. You are not correct. An investigation is ongoing for the first crash. The investigation is tedious and exacting so we don't have a final decision yet , it is expected later this summer.
2
@SN OK, good to hear that it is being done, but in the meantime 157 people have been killed, while the tedious and exacting investigation is underway. This is totally unprecedented.
13
@SN It is telling that Boeing has already made operation recommendations and has a sw upgrade going out in weeks before the investigation is over. Investigations are deliberate to reach definitive conclusions, but corrective action is more urgent. The 787 was grounded with not a single life lost.
2