![]() |
Originally Posted by guflyer
(Post 30880346)
Does it concern anyone else that the CEO of Boeing asked Trump not to ground the 737 Max aircraft when he called him today, according to the New York Times? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/b...unding-faa.htm What is the likelihood that this type of advocacy is impacting the FAA's decision? |
I read that a bystander saw fire from one of the engines prior to the crash which would make it different from the previous crash. But a lot of people shorted Boeing today
|
Originally Posted by ian_btv
(Post 30877631)
Indeed. Sources, [MENTION=673700]DanielW[/MENTION]? I think all of us here want facts before theories, and [MENTION=10236]LarryJ[/MENTION] just posted some useful ones. I also suggest avherald.com (to everyone). All facts.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...stigation.html Please let me know if you need further explanation on this. |
Originally Posted by Herb687
(Post 30883248)
What does anyone (FAA, Boeing) plan on doing during this grounding that will mean we will know more in a week or a month than we do today in order to unground the fleet?
|
Originally Posted by joeyE
(Post 30871462)
Well according to your post, it seems like Boeing actually did spend money.... to conduct years of experimenting. In reality, the MAX had many aerodynamic improvements, including split-tip winglets, airframe modifications and re-engining. The term ‘Frankenstein’ is not helpful here & does not progress the discussion forward. |
Originally Posted by Silver Fox
(Post 30882381)
It's called erring on the side of caution.
|
Originally Posted by Herb687
(Post 30883248)
Made a knee-jerk emotional decision that was not data-driven?
So now we have 7M8 and 7M9s grounded. For how long? What does anyone (FAA, Boeing) plan on doing during this grounding that will mean we will know more in a week or a month than we do today in order to unground the fleet? Ok, so we are "investigating" stuff with these aircraft? What is being investigated? We already have a pretty good handle on what happened with Lion Air. Estimates given on the news this morning were a 3 month grounding at minimum. |
Anyone wondering why MAX planes are still in the air? Flight Radar shows some flying now, the morning after the ban. Granted its alot less but is there a penalty for the airlines for flying them anyway?
|
Originally Posted by tvon
(Post 30886373)
Anyone wondering why MAX planes are still in the air? Flight Radar shows some flying now, the morning after the ban. Granted its alot less but is there a penalty for the airlines for flying them anyway?
|
Originally Posted by emma69
(Post 30886380)
Could it be that the planned aircraft was a MAX, but they subbed in another 737 type, just haven't updated on Flight Radar? Or could there be dispensation to move empty aircraft back to home bases (without passengers on board?) I am guessing they need to bring the planes 'home' in some manner to be able to implement any inspections, fixes etc.
MoreReminder: as art of the |
Originally Posted by emma69
(Post 30886250)
Additional data reported by pilots whose planes did not crash but had problems of a similar nature to the Lion Air flight.
Estimates given on the news this morning were a 3 month grounding at minimum. That being said, I'm also very, very suspicious of airline companies and pilot groups who have been intimately involved with this aircraft since its development and in its early months of operation. Why are reports >only now< slowly filtering in about similar problems having been experienced? No accident occurring from any of them, so it's OK to set them aside? Who is choosing to withhold such vital reports? Who is dragging their feet? Is it fear of retribution for profit loss or bad on-time performance? I'm calling on all involved to speak up - no matter which country you live in and what you may 'think of the US'. From the CEO of Air China to the most junior type-rated pilot at Southwest, it is the responsibility of ALL airline employees and flight crews to share this data with each other. Corporate secrecy or political barriers don't qualify here as reasons to not share information and experiences where anyone's safety is at risk. Simply put: the builders may well be at fault, but anyone who experienced or saw problems and chose to ignore them are equally culpable for the deaths from these two crashes. |
Originally Posted by emma69
(Post 30886407)
Update: Per Flight Radar:
MoreReminder: as art of the |
What worries me more than the specifics of this is that Boeing has now had the last two major product releases (ie. more than a stretch) have major safety concerns and groundings. Thankfully, there were no fatalities with the 787, however it could have been far worse. Something has gone very wrong in Boeing’s product development line and that is not good for anybody. I will be deeply skeptical of the 797 when it launches, not because of any problem with it but because of the recent product introduction track record. |
Originally Posted by ian_btv
(Post 30886420)
If anyone at Boeing or the FAA signed off on problems or issues reported or identified by their engineers, they should surely be held accountable - legal proceedings with harsh financial punishment or sentences - setting an example and setting precedent has to happen ...
That being said, I'm also very, very suspicious of airline companies and pilot groups who have been intimately involved with this aircraft since its development and in its early months of operation. Why are reports >only now< slowly filtering in about similar problems having been experienced? No accident occurring from any of them, so it's OK to set them aside? Who is choosing to withhold such vital reports? Who is dragging their feet? Is it fear of retribution for profit loss or bad on-time performance? I'm calling on all involved to speak up - no matter which country you live in and what you may 'think of the US'. From the CEO of Air China to the most junior type-rated pilot at Southwest, it is the responsibility of ALL airline employees and flight crews to share this data with each other. Corporate secrecy or political barriers don't qualify here as reasons to not share information and experiences where anyone's safety is at risk. Simply put: the builders may well be at fault, but anyone who experienced or saw problems and chose to ignore them are equally culpable for the deaths from these two crashes. |
Originally Posted by Productivity
(Post 30886573)
What worries me more than the specifics of this is that Boeing has now had the last two major product releases (ie. more than a stretch) have major safety concerns and groundings. Thankfully, there were no fatalities with the 787, however it could have been far worse. Something has gone very wrong in Boeing’s product development line and that is not good for anybody. I will be deeply skeptical of the 797 when it launches, not because of any problem with it but because of the recent product introduction track record. In the case of the MAX, the problem is not so clear cut. Both crashes are still under investigation. I have heard a few things, but the most likely culprit is an automated stall recovery system that is 1: poorly programmed and engaging unexpectly and 2: not included in the training for certifying pilots in the MAX. THAT seems to be where as you say, Boeing has some process problems. Bad data can be fixed..computers are garbage in/garbage out. They should have detected this problem well before going to market with it. But the fact that they didn't seem to include this system in recommended certification points to airlines is an unacceptible oversight. Worse, automated recovery systems have been fatal in the past, as was the case with the first gen Airbus A319's back in the 80's. Pilots can only over-ride such systems if they are told how to do it. Reverting to manual control should be on the first page of the "Congratulations on your purchase of your new MAX 8!" brochure. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 1:31 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.