I do feel the instructions from Boeing to 737 MAX pilots can be summarised as "Don't screw it up like the Lion Air guys did".

However, part of good aircraft design is making it hard to "hold it the wrong way". Simply ordering pilots to Do It The Right Way is not as safe as making it hard to do it wrong.

So indeed, the question arises whether other (likely better-trained) pilots at Ethiopian also held it the wrong way.

I also have the same too-much-grandfathered feeling about the 737, Boeing gets an easy ride (ahem) with the FAA on this. The door slide design, for example, and the fiction that manual reversion is an acceptable way to fly jet transports in the 21st century if you get a double hydraulic failure.

The thing is, the opportunity for them to "screw it up" should be a rare event. Having it happen every couple months (if that turns out to be the case) is poor design and needs to be addressed. Humans are fallible beings, given enough opportunities, human error will occur. So they should be trying to eliminate the chance of human error occurring in the first place, which is done by fixing the underlying issue, not simply saying "train some more, don't screw up".

Im reluctant to blame Boeing, a specific airline or crew as many aircraft have had fatal accidents early in their service lives, mainly because the crew weren't familiar with certain characteristics of the aircraft. The 727 and A320 both had such accidents. The crash/short-landing of the British Midland 737 at EMA had similar root causes. The crew shut down the wrong engine, partially because of knowledge about how the AC system on the 737-200 worked which was not the case on the -3/4/500s. They reverted to this knowledge because of unclear readouts from the then-new "Glass Cockpit".

Extensive discussion on PPRuNe, of course. https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/...wn-africa.html

i won't try to summarise or add speculation to rumour, you can read that thread yourselves, but it certainly sounds as though Boeing have created a bit of a monster with this variant. One little detail, though ... apparently the switches to disconnect the MCAS auto-trim system are the only ones to operate with "Up for Off", unlike every single other switch on Boeing aircraft! :eek:

Although I don't understand much of it, I'm finding the technical discussion from those with more insight into these things very interesting. I was within hours of booking a Comair flight when I checked the aircraft (thanks to my FT training) and yes, it is listed as a 737-MAX-8. I'd rather pay a bit more money for a direct flight and reduce my risk. China has grounded all 97 of its Max-8 fleet. CNN Aviation Analyst Mary Schiavo (and yes, she holds a Pilots licence) thinks it "highly suspicious". We'll have to await the result of the Black Box examination.

I agree to some degree but the Lion Air crash AFAIK had some maintenance/pilot error component to that crash too (Lion Air have had more than their fair share of crashes/runway excursions and incidents) and I agree that Ethiopian on the whole are a lot better but I wouldn't be at all surprised if pilot error is the cause for the Ethiopian crash. Ethiopian did have a 737-800 (ET409) that crashed shortly after takeoff from BEY in 2010 entirely down to pilot error. Also the First Officer on this new accident with the MAX had just 200 hours total time confirmed by Ethiopian so not an experienced crew member (Captain had 8000 hours).

I mean we'll see of course but i wouldn't write off pilot error that quickly and I'm sure Boeing will want to get to the bottom of what happened and if anything does need to be done rather quickly with lots of 737 MAX operators grounding planes.

BBC are reporting several airlines plus Chinese regulator grounding 737 max aircraft.

BBC

Reuters also reporting Norwegian shares down on Max worroese. Could it be the straw the breaks the camels back if these aircraft are grounded.

I've got a flight booked later this year with a Comair sector. In MMB it shows "Aircraft type: 738". Am I right in thinking that this indicates a 737-800 and that a 737 MAX 8 would be 7M8? Obviously I realise that the actual aircraft could change at the last minute anyway. Not sure how I would react to boarding a 737 MAX at present. I think I would probably choose not to fly in most circumstances.

Correct, the 738 will be a 737-800.

China grounding these planes is as much about Huawei and trade wars than safety imo. Until EASA and/or FAA do the same I will hold opinion.

I do share some of the concerns that the original 737 type certification has nothing to do with a current 7M8. Perhaps time to shine a light on this.

I'm flying to Livingstone tomorrow on comair, thankfully it's a 737-800 from 2007. Really don't fancy getting on a Max 8.

It might be subbed at a later date. If you definitely don't want to travel on a MAX 8 then you are best off booking another airline now.

See that Comair are now grounding their 737-8's

For clarity, it looks it's Comair's single example of the MAX that is being grounded: https://www.iol.co.za/business-repor...7-max-19811120

Surely the remainder of the 737-800 fleet isn't in the least bit affected by this?

My biggest problem with the 737-Max discussion has been that the MCAS auto-trim system is a single fault design flaw. Retired Boeing engineers and others have been quoted as saying that the air input to the system that determines the angle of attack for the MCAS auto-trim system is a single point with no back up. Thus if there is a flaw/failure there the whole system malfunctions.
This should have been picked up at the time of FAA certification but was not (software has gotten so complex that I'm not surprised that this happened, I am surprised that Boeing has not jumped on either a fix or a disconnect of the MCAS auto-trim system.)
Remember, FAA is NOT supposed to allow certification of any aircraft where a single fault would allow disabling of the aircraft. I would think that Boeing would be better served to disable the MCAS auto-trim system and train for the flight characteristics of the 737Max rather than having the pilots fighting the computer, especially if there are times when the computer is being given false information from the angle of attack input to the MCAS auto-trim system.