
Some airlines and regulators ground 737 Max in wake of Ethiopian Airlines crash - mimixco
https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/airlines-and-regulators-ground-737-max-in-wake-of-ethiopian-airlines-crash/
======
laydn
This entire industry is (was?) based on "safety-first" principle. After two
very similar incidents, I find it incomprehensible that airlines are still
flying with this aircraft. Two catastrophic incidents within a few months for
a new aircraft is simply unprecedented.

At the very least, MAX8 fleet should be grounded for a few days, just until
the FDR/CVR of ET302 are analyzed. They've already found the boxes, so it
should be only a few days before we have a preliminary report.

~~~
tw04
All indications are they already know what happened. This is entirely a result
of Boeing trying to get this plane pushed through without requiring additional
training. Problem being... they changed the behavior so that pilots flying it
like a regular old 737 don't know what's happening.

I hope there is a lawsuit of some sort so that boeing doesn't pull this ever
again.

~~~
novaRom
The fact that a critical software (MCAS) is installed and not disclosed to the
pilots is significant blow to their reputation.

------
ephemeralism
I honestly don't understand why Boeing themselves don't ground the airplane.
Having individual countries and airlines slowly doing it for them, just
generates a ton of negative news stories. And the longer they wait, the more
it will seem like they only did it because of pressure.

And God forbid there was another crash, Boeing would be history.

~~~
chvid
This is an important point.

Boeing is being reckless with their whole business and showing bad leadership.
Regardless if they are sure that there is no real risk with their planes;
their reputation surely is at risk.

~~~
cyberferret
Well, they were rattled enough to postpone the global launch of their new 777X
which was slated for this week.

~~~
chvid
That is even worse; they are sorta implying whatever is wrong with the max is
also wrong with the 777x.

They need to ground the max so they control for how long for and what is
needed to clear them.

~~~
realityking
I disagree. They’re simply showing enough compassion to know that it’s not
appropriate to throw a part while 150 families are mourning.

~~~
stevehawk
believe he'd like a s/part/party/ in there.

That said, it's more realistic they're delaying it because they don't want the
bad press of the 737MAX to bring down the announcement of the new plane.

------
cyberferret
TFW when _Indonesia_ grounds a US made aircraft type based on safety concerns!
It wasn't so long ago that USA banned Indonesian carriers from flying into
their airspace.

As a former commercial pilot, I applaud the individual countries and airlines
that are enforcing a grounding pending the investigation. The two accidents
just bear too many similarities to assuage all fears that there could be a
specific problem with the aircraft.

~~~
taneq
Would you say that at this point it's starting to be a peer pressure issue?
Once several national regulators ground the aircraft, if any regulator chooses
_not_ to and there's an incident then they'll be raked over the coals. Legally
and career-wise, it's far safer for anyone in the hot seat to follow suit.

~~~
cyberferret
I daresay the pressure within the industry (plus fear of PR and legal
repercussions down the track) may be playing a big part in some airlines and
governments calling for the grounding. No one wants to be the guy to say
"Oops" if the investigation shows up a critical issue with the plane (or
worse, if another 737 MAX goes down the same way soon). As much as it will be
a hit in profits to call a grounding, the alternative would be way worse.

(I am thinking too that if the investigators DID find a flaw in the aircraft
type, the operators may have an avenue to claim compensation from Boeing for
lost revenue and profits).

Personally, if I had to get on a flight tomorrow, and I saw it was a 737 MAX,
I would be asking for my baggage to be unloaded and I would wait for another
flight on a 737 classic, Airbus etc. And this is not just brand snootiness
either - If new Airbus models had 2 crashes in a short space of time under
similar circumstances, then I would boycott those until the officials have
eliminated a flaw in the system as the root cause.

UPDATE: Just heard that our local aviation authority (Australia) has banned
the MAX from entering or leaving the country. There are a few stuck in Sydney
(Fiji Air and Silk Air I believe) that will have to stay on the ground until
further notice.

------
acqq
Some background: 3 months ago, also discussed on HN, in the wake of the
previous 737 Max crash:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18438607](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18438607)

"Boeing Withheld Information on 737 Model, According to Safety Experts and
Others (wsj.com)"

And user Neracked remembered there Feynman's ending of his text in the Rogers
Commission Report, 1986:

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public
relations, for nature cannot be fooled."

[https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/roge...](https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-
commission/Appendix-F.txt)

([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report)
investigating 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, related to how the
managers then were responsible)

------
nickjj
This is really troubling.

I have a flight in a month from NY to Cali on Southwest and they use that same
plane (according to a quick Googling at least).

Am I crazy to think about cancelling the flight or trying to use a different
airline with a different plane?

I'm going to wait to see what the FAA has to say before making a final
decision. I don't keep up with the airline industry, but hopefully they aren't
too corrupt (aka. profit driven).

Edit:

I just discovered [https://www.seatguru.com/](https://www.seatguru.com/). It's
a site where you can pop in your airline, flight date and flight number (no
sign up required) and it reports back which plane is being used in the flight.

In my case it is the 737-700 and 737-800 (I have 1 connection) which I think
are different planes than the MAX?

In any case, if you're flying in the near future I recommend checking that
site out. I just wonder how accurate that site is (it seems legit from an
outsider's POV).

~~~
weaksauce
Well I don’t care to speculate but the first officer had only 200 hours of
flight logged and the captain had over 8000. A lot of captains will let the
less experienced first officer fly take off and landing if it’s favorable
conditions and easy terrain to give them more experience. I don’t know who was
flying the plane but it certainly could have been the fo because it was vfr
conditions and seemingly favorable terrain. As to your flight you should
probably be fine as there is a us rule that the fo needs to have 1500 hours to
be qualified. That coupled with the fact that the pilots are now keenly aware
of the failure mode of the 37 max means you are probably fine.

~~~
rb666
I would certainly cancel. Boeing still has not applied a software update, and
pilots were already aware of the 737's failure mode, the 2018 crash! The FAA
is being protective of US industry.

~~~
jimktrains2
Not all 737 models are affected. the -700 and -800 have excellent safety
records; among the best of any airframe. These issues both happened with MAX
(MAX 8 iirc) airframes.

SouthWest does fly 35 MAX8 airframes it appears. [0]

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_fleet#Curre...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_fleet#Current_fleet)

------
drinchev
TBH at this point everyone should do it, since it will be a nightmare flying
on these, until the investigation is over. I can’t imagine how the crew feels
when assigned to such a fight in these circumstances.

~~~
netsharc
The current theory of "why" is that the new system should work automatically
so there's no need for retraining, but if it goes wrong the pilot can disable
it; but since there's no retraining, the doomed pilots didn't know why the
planes were doing what they did and how to disable it.

If I were a pilot and got assigned the same model, I would make sure to learn
the procedure to disable it. And make sure the procedure really works,
although how would I do that, can I ask Boeing? Since it's software, what
other variables did they forget to include in their testing?

~~~
kayfox
The pilots are required to, by memory, know when this particular situation is
happening and how to disable the system. The checklist is the runaway trim
checklist, to turn the system off the pilot flips switches next to the trim-
wheel, which moves with the automatic trim to visually indicate trim
adjustments. This is not new to the MAX, only MCAS adjusting the trim is new
to MAX.

------
lb1lf
Oops. Germany, too, follows suit and closes their airspace for the MAX.

[https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/deutschla...](https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/deutschland-
sperrt-luftraum-fuer-boeing-737-max-8-16085000.html)

------
js2
Lots of comments asking why not ground these planes, so let's just for a
moment imagine some reasons why that may not be the best decision if your goal
is safety first. First, we know that any decision that forces passengers from
flying to driving will likely lose more lives, just due to the inherit risk in
flying vs driving. So it's possible that grounding the plane will cause
cancellations and force some passengers into driving, especially in the US.
Second, perhaps Boeing already has some advance information pointing to a
different culprit than MCAS. Third, an MCAS failure need not doom the flight
if the pilot responds correctly. Perhaps US carriers feel that their more
experienced pilots can deal with an MCAS fault. Fourth, maybe US planes are
better maintained and Boeing hasn't seen any MCAS/AoA faults on US planes.

These are all guesses on my part. I don't know. What I do know is that the FAA
and Boeing have way more information than any of us, that this situation is
complex, that there are factors likely none of us have considered, and that
we're all pretty terrible at assessing risk.

Another 737 Max crash is a nightmare scenario for Boeing. If they aren't
grounding this plane, it has to be based on something we don't know. Consider
that grounding the plane might be the right PR decision but the wrong safety-
first decision.

~~~
oarabbus_
>First, we know that any decision that forces passengers from flying to
driving will likely lose more lives, just due to the inherit risk in flying vs
driving. So it's possible that grounding the plane will cause cancellations
and force some passengers into driving, especially in the US.

Well air travel is safer than driving in aggregate, over decades, across
hundreds of models of cars and dozens of models of planes.

Even though Ford cars on the whole are quite safe, the Pinto was a death trap.
Likewise although Boeing planes are safe on the whole (the regular 737 is very
safe) this model could be a death trap. I disagree with your claim here. Two
crashes in under 6 months is an abysmal safety record.

~~~
js2
Right, that's an example of Simpson's paradox (I think).

I agree two crashes in six months seems abysmal, but it could also be an awful
coincidence with different factors at play. If it's so obvious that Boeing
should ground this plane and they aren't, might it be due to something we
don't know?

Yes, this could be another Challenger-type situation of executives overriding
engineers, but the incentives don't make sense to me for that to be the case.

Anyway, I've played devil's advocate enough here. I'm just trying to
understand the situation too.

~~~
bdamm
Another possibility is that the 737 MAX 8 is, just like the rest of the 737
fleet, an outstanding performer with one flawed subsystem, the AoA sensor. The
FAA and the aviation industry in general has been very excited to deploy these
AoA sensors; they've reduced regulatory hurdles across the board to get AoA
sensors of all different types installed and retrofitted into airplanes of all
sizes and shapes. The reworked part 23 rules were first put to work on AoA
sensors, and the expansion of AoA deployment was part of the drive to do the
part 23 rework (which has ripple effects across the entire industry, for the
better.)

But when you push new technology, inevitably there will be unexpected failure
scenarios. This may be one of those, with a particularly catastrophic series
of events.

It is a simple fix, and Boeing is already rolling out software updates to
manage this failure scenario. If it does turn out to be the MCAS/AoA fault, it
would in fact be the best scenario, because it's already fixed.

~~~
js2
Thanks for the info. I guess the question for me is: even with a bad AoA
sensor and the current MCAS behavior, can it be safer flying a 737 Max than
whatever equipment I'd end up on if the 737 Max were grounded until the s/w
update is deployed.

I seem to recall after the MCAS came to light as being involved in the Lion
crash, some folks here were arguing that there was no way that exact crash
would happen again because all pilots would now be aware of that failure
scenario. And yet here we are. Unless the Ethiopian plane crashed for another
reason entirely.

~~~
bdamm
Well yes, although it's possible the Ethiopian Air pilots haven't seen that
memo. If I recall correctly, a fast remediation suggestion was to switch off
all avionics power. As a pilot myself, I would be deeply reluctant to do such
a drastic move, especially in an emergency. With the airplane in an
overpowering dive, removing all instrumentation in one kill switch move just
doesn't seem like the right thing to do. While I don't know the 737 MAX 8
electrical layout, in small planes that would also kill the radios,
transponder, and navigation systems, possibly also flap controls, lighting,
and some direct instrumentation. Such direction would have to be very strongly
communicated if it were a viable escape from the MCAS/AoA failure.

------
mimixco
Several more airlines grounded their 737 Max fleets today, but none of the US
carriers did.

~~~
Svip
Nor any European carriers, nor EASA. I also notice that Canada is not
interested in grounding them at this junction. I'd imagine that US pressure is
preventing the Europeans and Canadians from grounding them. At least so far
anyway.

~~~
salex89
Maybe it's a confidence thing. Maybe small operators from these regions feel
less supported/confident than their European or American counterparts. This
might be a very pessimistic approach but I suppose a lot more phones go
ringing when someone from Southwest or RyanAir calls and asks:"Yo, what's up
with my planes?".

~~~
Svip
That just makes it sound worse. Why should Norwegian get better support from
Boeing than Comair? While I have no doubt that FAA or EASA would have reacted
with more expediency had the crash occurred in their jurisdictions, it scares
me to think that Boeing treats its customers differently, depending on whether
they are Western or not.

~~~
wholien
the treatment is probably proportional to how many planes they order. Im sure
if ANA or Singapore Airlines have some issue with their 787s, Boeing would
respond immediately. Has nothing to do with western but everything to do with
money.

See Lauda 004 for how Boeing treats a small Austrian airline. They only
responded once the CEO (Niki Lauda) forced their hand by saying he would do a
public stunt if they didn't respond.

~~~
salex89
Exactly. I didn't mean to imply that Boeing is discriminating based on the
locality of an airline, but there is no denying that there is more money to be
earned in places other than Indonesia or Ethiopia. That probably does reflect
Boeing sells and airlines buy aircraft. This is just a strong hunch, I have no
empirical evidence.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe Airbus is a charity in any way and their
sales are different.

------
CompelTechnic
If you guys are interested in some close-to-the-details reporting on
individual crashes, [http://avherald.com/](http://avherald.com/) is an
excellent resource. For some reason I couldn't find the specific crashes
related to the 737 Max in their logs though, I didn't search very very
thoroughly though. It may only show certain carriers.

~~~
dalai
You can search for "B38M". The top two are the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines
crashes.

------
dis-sys
UK grounded all Boeing 737 Max

[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47536502](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-
asia-47536502)

------
datenhorst
What would be the quickest way for me to check which aircraft a flight I want
book is being carried out with?

~~~
consp
Go to any flight radar (online, google etc) and look up the previous flights
with the same flight number (letter/number combo) as they usually mention the
type. 99.9% of the time the plane is the same.

------
leemailll
It seems Eu will also ground 737 max [http://fortune.com/2019/03/12/europe-uk-
grounds-boeing-737-m...](http://fortune.com/2019/03/12/europe-uk-grounds-
boeing-737-max/)

------
leemailll
Uk also announced grounding
[https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjv...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjv0KKw5_zgAhWNoYMKHWaEB7UQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fstory%2Fnews%2Fnation%2F2019%2F03%2F12%2Fboeing-737-max-8-ethiopia-
australia-singapore-stop-planes-amid-
crash%2F3138054002%2F&psig=AOvVaw3ElVOljnKqmEG3RU1lDxTv&ust=1552487129561429)

------
gdubs
Doesn’t this just damage the brand of the other 737 Boeing has, that from what
I understand has a terrific record? I’m guessing most consumers are going to
be apprehensive if they’re flying on any kind of 737. Whereas, they pull the
Max and passengers would know that they're not on the troubled plane.

~~~
rconti
No, for the very reason you state.

~~~
gdubs
Not sure I follow. What I’m saying is most people won’t make the distinction
between the different 737s.

~~~
rconti
I thought it was well-known that 737s have been flying for decades, and an
issue with a 737-Max would, necessarily, be about that specific plane.

I certainly don't expect people to grasp the nuance between the
737-max800/max900, if there is one in this regard.

~~~
gdubs
I see. I mean, I actually enjoy flying despite the hastles of getting to and
from the plane. But, I’d rather not take my family on a Max. However, when I
hear 738 8 Max and I see 737-800 on my ticket, I immediately wonder if they’re
the same thing. The presence of articles like this make me think this is a
pretty common concern:

[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-737-max-8-boeing-737-800...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-737-max-8-boeing-737-800-how-
are-the-planes-different/)

And this is despite the fact that I’ve always felt safe on Boeing planes
because they’ve historically had such a great safety record.

I would assume this is gonna have a negative impact on the 737 line as a
whole, since people tend to read just the headline. Whereas, had they
immediately grounded the Max, there’d be no question; as a passenger you’d
know you weren’t on the troubled plane, because they grounded that one.

It’s like when Romaine lettuce gets recalled; a lot of people just stop buying
lettuce because they’re just not sure which kind it was that got recalled.

------
coldcode
While it could certainly be the same issue, I've seen enough airline crash
stories to know that your first assumption can be wildly incorrect. Typically
people who investigate these things try to have no pre-conceived notions of
what it could be, not much different from debugging a software crash.

------
ajay-d
Boeing says they'll issue a software update in the coming weeks. Is that what
the problem was? [https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-releases-
statements?item=1...](https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-releases-
statements?item=130402)

~~~
seppin
InternetofShit is starting to kill people..

------
chinathrow
France too.

------
Steve44
There are reports that this aircraft was trailing smoke and making unusual
noises before it crashed.

From my understanding of the earlier crash it was a combination of the pilot
fighting an auto-trimming system and I'm not aware that was smoking on its way
down.

This would seem to be a different type of incident which just happens to be in
the same model of plane.

~~~
mnw21cam
There's also the fact that witnesses will tend to say all sorts of weird
things that get proven false in video footage later on. So I personally would
be cautious about believing the smoke and unusual noises.

------
OscarTheGrinch
It sounds like no one system of keeping the plane level is fool & error proof.

OK, this might be a stupid idea, but what about a simple old spirit level, a
fancy oil based one that will never freeze, mounted to the side of the cockpit
to give the pilots a emergency true level backup when all else fails?

~~~
cm2187
I would rather expect the anti-stall system to be based on a speed indicator
rather than a level indicator. Though not an aviation specialist.

~~~
mannykannot
Beyond the point, made by others, that a spirit level will not give you the
airplane's attitude (on account of acceleration), it is also the case that the
airplane's attitude does not tell you the angle of attack, which also depends
on the airplane's vertical speed with respect to the airmass. Pilots-in-
training are taught not to rely on the airplane's attitude (normally judged,
in visual flight, by the position of the nose or top of the instrument panel
relative to the horizon) as an indicator of whether a stall is imminent.

In a steady state, and for a given wing configuration (flaps/slats/spoiler
positions), there's a causal relationship between angle of attack and speed
(which also depends on air density, aircraft weight and load factor (how many
gs you are pulling)), such that the _indicated_ airspeed (which measures ram
air pressure in a pitot tube, and fortuitously cancels out the density
dependence) has historically been the proxy for angle of attack - and, at
least in small airplanes, it still is.

Even small airplanes often have a separate stall warning device, which is
triggered by the movement of the leading-edge stagnation point (where the flow
divides between going above and below the wing) as the angle of attack
changes. In its simplest form, it is operated by a small tab which is flipped
up when the stagnation point moves below it.

