If that had happened there'd be a debris trail. None has been reported.

My post wasn't in bad intent. I assumed most elites posting on these forums on a regular basis, would know the general fleet makeup of their respective FFP; especially as it relates to their odds of upgrade chances with the ratio of F seats. Notwithstanding that, there were quite a few posts talking about the Max, to which you even replied to one.

However like I said my intent wasn't bad, I was merely surprised. Apologies if you thought otherwise.

The data are publicly available. If the MAX had the same safety profile as the 737NG and A320, the probability that it would have had two 100% fatal hull losses this early in its service life is less than 1 in 1,000. To me, those aren't good odds, but I can't speak to your own risk preferences or priors.

Investigation is still ongoing for JT610, and just underway for ET302. Let's have the pros continue doing their jobs.

In no way is the above dismissal of potential inherent flaws with the aircraft series. It could be one or more factors which contributed to the tragic loss of both planes. RIP.

As we say on the desk "It's not gone, Mr. Market is just keeping it for a while..." That's an industry joke.

I'm not saying this is going to be a huge long-term issue for $BA but the idea that its an economic non-event for them with 22 airlines now grounding this model (per NYT) is also a little too sanguine for me.

Absolutely. It is essential they determine the root causes of the accidents. I'm only pointing out that the data reveal there are one or more problems with the aircraft as currently operated. The investigators will, very likely, determine what those problems are with sufficient time.

from the article: "Tamirat Abera, 25, was walking past the field at the time. He said the plane turned sharply, trailing white smoke and items like clothes and papers, then crashed about 300 meters away."

Or until another 150 people die. Whichever comes first. :eek:

And things like 'clothes and papers' could be mistaken for something ingested by an engine for example

That it took several days for media to find witnesses is testament to the developing world nature of the crash site

But they seem to point to the altitutde data being correct - plane never got more than about 1,000 feet up - flew level for several minutes before crashing in a quick move - and witnesses report plane flying low, making 'unusual' noise (which could simply be flying low)

Several note something trailing the aircraft - 'fire' is often mistaken by witnesses - but sparks, smoke, etc from an engine that ingested something or otherwise failed is common in situations like a compressor stall.

Lots for the investigators to piece together and black box being found will make things clearer quickly.

I avoid UA's MAX not because of safety concerns, but because of the horrible F seats. Same is true for the Airbus equipment that uses the same F slimline seat.

Huh? NYT reports it was over 8000 feet when transmissions ceased. Boeing 737 MAX Crash

And those eyewitness reports are always so reliable.

elevation of runway is a little over 7000 ft above sea level...so the aircraft only reached an altitude of 8000 feet or approx. 1000 vertical rise.


no they are not obviously. But something coming out of the aircraft like smoke witnessed by a half a dozen people, at least, is very notable. As opposed to no smoke.

The graph I believe you are referring to (titled "The fluctuating altitude of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302") is referring to altitude above sea level, not ground level. The airport's elevation above sea level is around 7,000 feet.