Finally, some action. The FAA we know is in bed with Boeing (former Boeing management now at the FAA) so of course there wasn't going to be any quick action to ground the fleet as it's bad for business.

At least now it forces Boeings hands to properly identify the issue and fix it ASAP.

They look bad but if they did do their due diligence then it doesn't matter. It only matters under the public eye I suppose, but people are dumb. How many people clamoring for grounding have close to zero aviation knowledge? Most of their rationale was "well everyone else is doing it." Do you really want a regulatory agency using that as a reason for doing stuff? Or do you want data backed science?

FAA is now saying they have more data linking the two crashes.

source please.

CNN is citing a conference call with Daniel Elwell. Currently the 2nd post here:

https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/...ash/index.html

It's cited in the official Emergency Order linked above, under the header "Basis for Order".

Just saw it live in CNN - FAA says they have satellite data they previously did not have.

The FAA looks bad not just because of the grounding, but because they allowed Boeing to talk them out of requiring extra pilot training when the MAX were put in service.

I don't think there's much basis for disputing that the FAA is to a certain degree a captive agency. They still do good work, but they could do better if they had more independence from the companies they are charged with regulating.

If it's the same data that Canada cited this morning it's satellite data of the ET flight and compared to known data from the Lion Air flight.

From the FAA order: https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/med...ency_Order.pdf

"On March 13, 2019, the investigation of the ET302 crash developed new information from the wreckage concerning the aircraft's configuration just after takeoff that, taken together with newly refined data from satellite-based tracking of the aircraft's flight path, indicates some similarities between the ET302 and JT610 accidents that warrant further investigation of the possibility of a shared cause for the two incidents that needs to be better understood and addressed."

I would argue that not grounding these aircraft sooner undermines confidence in the safety culture of the FAA as well as the airlines who expressed confidence in the aircraft while they were being grounded across the rest of the world.

While there may not be any direct link between these two accidents at this time, there are plenty of similarities and variables that make this disturbing. Both accidents occurred in very similar phases of flight where weather was unlikely to be a factor. These were the same type of aircraft, operated by different airlines in different countries. Both airframes were only a few months old at the time of their respective accidents, limiting the possibility that either accident was caused by age related stresses/maintenance issues with the aircraft. The profiles of each crash show a similar catastrophic high-speed impact with terrain with little warning resulting in the aircraft being pulverized and next to no ability to survive the accident. There is no safety-related reason to keep these aircraft flying and to continue to expose people to the potential risk of a third accident. At some point down the road we may very well find out that these were completely unrelated accidents, however what safety benefits are there to continue operating the aircraft until that is discovered?

If this were a case of one aircraft crashing short of the runway in a major thunderstorm and the other being flown into the side of a mountain in blinding fog that would be one thing, however the similarities between the two crashes cannot be ignored.

UA missed a great PR opportunity to get in front of the US field and ground their MAX aircraft voluntarily. It was obvious that soon after the Ethiopian Airlines crash that there would be a world wide grounding of the max ... very poor foresight from the UA leadership...

Still a touch better than AA who were allowing their staff to decline working on the planes while continuing to charge customers a change fee if they did not want to fly on them.