ian_btv

Come on, people. Any pilot can refuse to fly an aircraft if he or she deems it unairworthy. It's their signature and career PLUS all the passengers' lives on the line. Do you really think all and every North American MAX pilot today are being >forced< to fly their planes? That is an insult to our pilots. Don't you think maybe that all aircraft flight logs, especially for MAX aircraft, have been reviewed very, very carefully esp since Lion Air for issues related to AOA or airspeed conflicts? On another note: what pressures might exist in some carriers (or government policies) to overlook airworthiness concerns. Look at all the past maintenance-fault incidents for Ethiopian Air (avherald.com). Lion Air: noted instrument conflicts on repeated past flights for >that one, particular aircraft<, each 'fixed' yet problems unresolved. Do we have any North American carrier with MAX aircraft which have either exhibited these issues or, more critically, allowed said aircraft to continue to fly if unsolvable?

Silver Fox

When they do their testing of this (and make an already safe plane safer), can we put the entire board of Boeing on the plane, the engineers, plus a few select from the FAA, until at least 1000 hours has been done with a test pilot and a real pilot? No? Thought not.

MSPeconomist

LarryJ

The airport is 7,657'.

The Lion Air report isn't final but a good amount of information has been released. Judging by the currently released information, there was nothing wrong with the MCAS system on the accident airplane. The failure was in an AoA vane/sender which fed the MCAS, and other systems, bad data.

Very little data out on the Ethiopian accident. The flightstats data, which is questionable due to poor coverage in the area, indicates that the flight never reached an altitude where the flaps would normally be retracted and the problem started almost immediately. MCAS is suppressed with the flaps extended. If that holds then this wasn't an MCAS event. The rapid changes in vertical speed almost immediately after liftoff, if correct, might indicate them trying to chase a bad airspeed indication (there are three separate IAS displays) either flying manually or on autoflight. If the airspeed displays differ by more than 4 knots you get "IAS DISAGREE" messages. Normal minimum autopilot engagement altitude is 800'.

We need a lot more information before we can say for sure what happened. So far, no evidence to suggest a connection between the two accidents.

YuropFlyer

So it seems China was right all along

Safety > Money

ian_btv

Sounds conspiratorial to me. Minus the Boeing board, and multiplying several times the '1000 hours' flown before certification is approved, I think this has already been done. Show me the individual flight logs for these two lost aircraft. Show me the flight logs of all MAX aircraft in operation. Show me similar reports of AOA or airspeed conflicts in any other operating MAX aircraft. Any reports? Any at all?

ian_btv

I guess you don't follow international news? Tariffs levied against China. China has its own emerging aircraft industry. Are you sure >public safety< is their motive? Feel free to go breathe the air in Shanghai for several months and let me know how you feel. Oh, but that's just speculation ... collecting data and connecting the dots is wrong ... sorry.

YuropFlyer

I suppose you're trolling.. Boeing produces in China, and China is operating a lot of 737 - they'll take a direct financial hit from the ban, and are willing to take it, to avoid further accidents with an airplane that apparently was designed like Microsoft Windows - let the software grow at the customer.. that might work with a desktop operating system, but not an airliner.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-b...-idUSKBN1OE06C

China's own airline industry is still about 15-20 years behind Airbus/Boeing at the moment, and for the next generation won't yet be of any direct competition. Your assumption is complete nonsense and, if all, shows YOU don't follow international news..

ian_btv

@sddjd ... 'Speculative' is being generous. I believe the term is something like: 'speech emerging from the other end'

ian_btv

That's just what our domestic manufacturers of goods, technologies and suppliers of raw materials have said over the last generation or two. "It couldn't happen to us." Now, China produces these things themselves - not only for us, but also for >half the global middle-class market in all industries< - themselves. We've gone from leader to 'needer' in a very short time. Our scholastic and R&D achievements are similarly being overshadowed, in all areas of STEM. Our universities teach countless foreign students, who take the training back to the country whose governments provided the means to do so. None of these occurred overnight, or from one incident, and not through any virtuous agenda. It is nationalism and a desire to dominate on the global stage, honed and promoted over many years. Hindsight is 20/20 - unless you're a blind manager who thinks that 'it can't happen to my company'. Time to think forward.

That's actually very funny, but sadly, aerodynamics and jet propulsion (and indeed, physical laws in whole) don't follow a 'Frankenstein' approach very well. A Microsoft 'bloatware' aircraft would be too heavy to fly. Look above to @LarryJ and his MAX facts as a primer to some of the things Boeing implemented - it's all about saving weight - quite an opposite agenda to Windows. By the way, 'Tux' the LINUX penguin here on my desktop says 'hi'.

Awww ... you got me! and look at my bio: I've been doing so 6 years longer here than you have. Cheers!

sddjd

Said news also extensively covers China's Comac C919, built by a government-owned company for China's state-controlled airline industry. Already in flight testing the C919 is a direct move by China to build a competitor to the 737 line. While it's unlikely to earn widespread international adoption it has the potential for large sales domestically given the national interests woven in.

Don't buy into China's aviation regulating body grounding the MAX purely out of concern for passengers. There are clear industry motives at work when the smoke is still rising from an accident scene and such conclusions are drawn with zero backup data. The slew of groundings are government officials running scared in the face of media drawing conclusions for hits.

ian_btv

Whether Apple, Caterpillar, Boeing/NASA ... or any lucrative technology sourced in the US ... you send the proprietary info over there, and they will copy it in short order ... you teach their scientists, and they will learn how to create and/or improve it themselves (the difference: no hiding the goal of profit at the expense of social or environmental improvement or advancement). It is happening now. By the time they are 'of any direct competition', there won't be any competition left to have. @YuropFlyer ... troll indeed! I think there's a reason why you sound so complacent ...

JamesKidd

Right - but what about UK, EU, Australia, Singapore and India. China started it, but others have followed probably as a precaution.

LAXlocal

Any idea how long it will take for an investigation to take place so they are allowed to fly again ?
weeks ? Months ? Year ?

Seems like a big task .

COSPILOT

So we have the United States and Canada left. Boeing stock took another hit today.