
E.U.’s Biggest Economies Ban Boeing Max 8 Jets - semigroupoid
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/world/africa/boeing-ethiopian-airlines-plane-crash.html
======
sfilargi
I urge people to read the discussion by pilots regarding the 737 MAX.

[https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/safety/120514-ethiopian-7...](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/safety/120514-ethiopian-737-max-8-crash.html)

It all comes down to this:

"There are far too many aerodynamic bandaids that are permitted to pass the
current standards. Not just this particular airplane, but a whole bunch of
airframes. If the basic aerodynamics won't pass without the pushers, pullers
and now AOA induced changes to primary and secondary controls then a new
design of the wing platform should come into play."

The way I interpret this, is that the plane should never have gotten the green
light to fly.

More info about the MCAS here: [https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-
safety/what-is-the-boeing...](https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/what-
is-the-boeing-737-max-maneuvering-characteristics-augmentation-system-mcas-
jt610/)

~~~
AWildC182
It's a bit more complicated than that even. The 737 was originally designed
for a very different mission than it's being used for right now. If you find
pictures of the original 737-200s they look very different from the MAX line
of today. It was built in an era when it was assumed that 707 and soon after
747 class airliners would serve the hubs and then smaller 737s would serve the
small regional airports. As such the 737 was designed with VERY low ground
clearance such that it could offload without a ramp and generally be
serviceable at these types of low infrastructure airports, hence the lack of
wheel doors, the ovoid engine inlets and the generally low stance.

Fast forward to today where airport infrastructure is much more developed and
these small/medium size airliners are being pressed into front line service
including intercontinental routes. The aircraft has changed drastically to
accommodate these changes through the years, enough that it may be time for a
clean sheet design. They've changed just about everything on the air-frame
from the fuel load/cabin length/wing to the avionics to make this all work.

Now, the other side of that coin is with systems. In theory this __should __be
fine, but obviously isn 't. It's hard to differentiate bandaids from regular
systems and if either fails then safety is compromised. Obviously the amount
of unnecessary systems should be minimized but as time goes on more systems
WILL be added to gain the rewards of automation, which is a good thing. As
such, we need to educate pilots on ALL of the systems, and rigorously test
them before they enter service.

Additionally, if you do as the pilots want and achieve very high aerodynamic
stability through the air-frame instead of stability control systems (fly by
wire essentially) it reduces the aerodynamic efficiency of the airliner,
particularly with current conventional designs.

~~~
zanmat0
>if you do as the pilots want and achieve very high aerodynamic stability
through the air-frame instead of stability control systems (fly by wire
essentially) it reduces the aerodynamic efficiency of the airliner

It's crazy to me that that would be an acceptable compromise.

~~~
anovikov
Obviously stability has to be achieved through fly by wire tech. Doing it
through natural aerodynamic stability is a waste of resources of insane
proportions as such airframes induce more drag and burn more fuel. If this
sounds too scary for people in a forum of software developers it only puts a
shame on our profession, from ourselves.

~~~
XMPPwocky
The software itself isn't necessarily the issue, though- it's also all the
sensors and actuators involved.

Suppose, for instance, that an aircraft needs more yaw stability.

There's all sorts of design choices that could be made, but consider either A:
a larger vertical stabilizer or B: automatic application of the rudder to damp
oscillations.

The vertical stabilizer here is essentially a bit of metal. We know very, very
well what can go wrong with bits of metal. Fatigue, corrosion, manufacturing
defects, bad repairs... But, in 2019, we've pretty much figured out the
failure modes of big bits of metal on an aircraft, and we generally know how
to prevent and/or minimize them.

Now, the dynamic stabilization approach. We'll need gyroscope data (from the
IRS, probably), a software model of flight dynamics (which almost certainly
already exists and is running), and possibly faster servo valves for the
rudder actuator.

This can work! We can formally verify that the control system we've created
damps oscillations throughout all normal flight regimes. The gyroscopes are
already redundant and well-tested. And you might not even need the faster
servos.

Problem is, now avionics failures are even scarier. Will the stabilization
here still operate when you get dropped into secondary mode? Probably not- so
now, in unexpected situations, pilots need to keep in the back of their minds
that yaw oscillations are more possible, that they may need to damp them
manually, etc, etc.

Now you throw in some extra factors- turbulence, IMC (which would probably
make detecting those oscillations manually that much more stressful), and
trying to solve whatever problem dropped you into secondary mode in the first
place... and you have something a bit concerning!

A bit of metal won't do that to you. We can make much better estimates of a
bit of metal's reliability, and its failures are also less correlated- they
aren't much more likely to crop up when you already have another problem.

~~~
anovikov
Well military jets have been doing exactly that - maintaining stability
through software on inherently unstable planes that would break up even in
straight and level flight in a split second if computer crashes - for 40 years
now. And Boeing builds both kinds of planes so they have the experience.

------
alkonaut
So this isn't just banning from _airports_ , this is banning from their
_airspace_? That's then more or less a total grounding of them in Europe.

As an example, Norwegian (who has 15 of them) said they weren't grounding them
as late as this morning, but now they'll have no choice. They use them mainly
for their medium flights between scandinavia and southern europe (Nice,
Budapest, Tenerife etc). No way they can do that without flying over Germany
and France. It wouldn't be very good optics if they swapped their MAX'es to
domestic use to free up regular 737's for flying over the continent either.

~~~
paganel
It looks like Norwegian is already asking its 737 Max flights to return to
their departing airports, at least according to this recent screenshot I found
on reddit [1]

[1] [https://i.redd.it/6gtecemacpl21.png](https://i.redd.it/6gtecemacpl21.png)

~~~
ak217
Wow. This is pretty ridiculous considering all three of these planes seem to
have been closer to their destination than the origin, making it safer to just
finish the planned flight.

~~~
cm2187
Do these groundings also apply to ferrying the plane?

~~~
consp
From the official reports mentioned elsewhere:

> From the effective date and time of this AD, do not operate the aeroplane,
> except that a single non-commercial ferry flight (up to three flight cycles)
> may be accomplished to return the aeroplane to a location where the expected
> corrective action(s) can be accomplished.

So they are allowed to be ferried in certain situations.

------
xucheng
EASA has just banned 737 MAX jets throughout Europe.

[https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and-events/press-
release...](https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and-events/press-
releases/easa-suspends-all-boeing-737-max-operations-europe)

~~~
cesarb
The official directives seem to be these ones:
[https://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/EASA_AD_2019_0051_E.pdf/EAD_2...](https://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/EASA_AD_2019_0051_E.pdf/EAD_2019-0051-E_1)
and
[https://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/EASA_SD_2019_01.pdf/SD_SD-201...](https://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/EASA_SD_2019_01.pdf/SD_SD-2019-01_1)

In particular, ferry flights are allowed with certain limitations.

~~~
avar
From the notice:

> "[...]do not operate the aeroplane, except that a single non-commercial
> ferry flight (up to three flight cycles) may be accomplished to return the
> aeroplane to a location where the expected corrective action(s) can be
> accomplished.".

Doesn't this just say the 737 MAX can be flown only to undergo future
maintenance that'll resolve whatever the current issue is, unless another
notice is posted clearing it?

------
eric_b
At the gym today, on all the TVs, the media talking heads were crucifying the
FAA for being "unsafe" or playing fast and loose with passenger safety (for
not grounding the planes).

I've always held the FAA in high regard, and think they do a good job. Are
they really being negligent here? Or is the media just looking for something
to spark outrage?

Can anyone with more specific knowledge of aircraft safety weigh in?

~~~
anoncoward111
Two crashes in 6 months and there's only 350 planes in existence is a pretty
bad safety record that is probably on par with Tupolev.

The US can tacitly blame "third world" pilots all they want, but with 300
people dead already, I think it's important for the FAA and Boeing to say
exactly what is going on, especially since the planes are in use in the USA.

There is a debate over if the plane's hardware, software, or pilots are at
fault-- either the planes should be grounded or the exact protocol should be
published all over for the world to know, since it is the passengers' lives at
stake.

~~~
oppositelock
The FAA and Boeing need to investigate this, but you can't make such
statistical inferences, since you simply don't have enough data points. There
could be no more crashes for the next few years with those 350 planes.

The FAA and NTSB are very good at what they do, one of the very few examples
of government services that work well together with industry, give them some
time.

~~~
kharms
We have some idea of a crash rate for safe airplanes. Something like:
P(Crash|Miles Flow & Hull Age)

If we assume this airplane is safe, we can apply that probability to it and
then ask P(2 Crashes|N Miles & 350 New Planes).

You would then have a probability for this just being bad luck, and compare
that against your prior that this is a safe plane.

I haven’t done the math, but my gut says it would point to grounding the
plane.

~~~
wikiwawa
The mean of a Beta Distribution (2, 348)
([https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=beta+distribution+(2,+...](https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=beta+distribution+\(2,+348\)&x=0&y=0))
is roughly half a percent, much higher than the 1 in 11 million across all
flights ([https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-probability-for-an-
airplan...](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-probability-for-an-airplane-to-
crash-for-commercial-flights)).

(You can pretty much always make statistical inference, with uncertainty going
up with the lack of data)

~~~
DuskStar
I highly doubt there have been 11 million _airliners manufactured_ , though -
and that's what the 348 number is.

If we assume that the average MAX 8 has been in service for a year (first
delivery was a little less than 2 years ago), and conducts 4 flights a day, we
get this [0] - a mean of 1/250000\. Still worse than 1/11000000, but only by a
factor of 50 instead of 50 _thousand_.

0:
[https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?x=0&y=0&i=beta+distribut...](https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?x=0&y=0&i=beta+distribution+\(2,+348*365*4\))

~~~
wikiwawa
Good point, I was wondering why I was off orders of magnitude.

------
dahdum
American and Southwest Airlines are still flying the Max 8/9, and are refusing
refunds (Southwest/American) and charging change fees (American) for customers
concerned for their safety.

I don't understand this logic. They are essentially risking their entire
company over the safety of this plane. If something happens now they'll be
driven to bankruptcy at record speed.

~~~
Reason077
One thing to note is that both American and Southwest's 737 Max aircraft are
configured differently to those flown by most other operators, with regards to
the display of AOA indicators and the "AOA DISAGREE" warning light. These
features are optional and the fact that they are not present on Lion Air's
aircraft may have contributed to that crash.

[https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/southwest-
airlines...](https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/southwest-airlines-is-
adding-new-angle-of-attack-indicators-to-its-737-max-fleet/)

~~~
dahdum
That would mean Southwest strongly believes the lack of "AOA DISAGREE" caused
the crashes, so they are safe to continue flying their fleet. If so, they
should come out and say it.

Right now, 737 Max Fleet is the deadliest plane per mile that is in the air
[1], by a wide margin. Maybe it's an anomaly and the rate is much lower, but
by the same reasoning, it could be worse. I'm not flying on one, and my
opinion of Southwest and American is at a new low.

1\. [https://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-boeing-737-max-is-now-
the...](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-boeing-737-max-is-now-the-
deadliest-mainstream-jetliner-203441321.html)

~~~
outworlder
> That would mean Southwest strongly believes the lack of "AOA DISAGREE"
> caused the crashes

No, that only means that they believe this will improve pilot's situational
awareness. You don't need that feature to override uncommanded trim.

Until the FAA says the aircraft is unsafe, your opinion of these airlines is
misplaced. They went beyond what's legally required and added an additional
safety feature.

Southwest exclusively flies 737s. They have one of the largest pilot corps for
that type. The airline has good safety and maintenance records.

~~~
dahdum
While I understand your point and appreciate your knowledge of the situation,
I’m left with the idea that while the rest of the world is grounding these
planes until more is known Southwest is flying them anyway. The only motive I
can see for them to do so is money.

What’s the non-monetary harm in grounding until more is known? They are a
small percentage of their fleet.

------
tibbydudeza
When passengers starts wondering what model plane they are going to fly on
then you know that you have lost the narrative.

No wonder McDonald Douglas changed the DC-10 into the MD-11.

~~~
alexis_fr
...which also crashed. It was bumping because it was too long and the pilots
couldn’t feel when they touched down. I think it caused 2 crashes.

Which is a lot, considering DC-9 and DC-10 are known for all sorts of crashes,
including losing the same door 4 times for the same reason, each time with
deaths. Ah, and who doesn’t remember the Concorde crash. Provoked by bursting
a tyre on a piece lost by a DC-10. The airplane that literally falls into
pieces.

------
mark_l_watson
I may not have this correct, but here is the FAA, a branch of our government
not temporarily grounding the Max 8 - looks like the government is protecting
a (mostly) US company. Flip this around and we are putting a lot of pressure
on allies like Germany to not use ‘dangerous’ Chinese 5G infrastructure.

I guess it is natural for governments to promote local industries but the
cynical me thinks that corporations have captured our government so they don’t
act in the public interests.

------
lb1lf
According to the head of the Norwegian civil aviation authority, interviewed
live on radio right now, the ban is EU-wide as of a couple of minutes ago.

------
sheri
Does anyone know if there is a material difference between the MAX-8 and the
MAX-9? All the banning seems to be specifically for the MAX-8, but should they
consider banning all MAX series aircraft? I realize the crashes themselves
were MAX-8, but the difference between them seems not significant?

~~~
imsofuture
I believe only the MAX-8s are in service. MAX-7s exist, but not sure if
they're in use, or just on order. The 9 and 10 haven't been produced yet.

~~~
Reason077
MAX 9 deliveries started in 2018. About 30 have been delivered, many for
United Airlines.

[https://www.planespotters.net/production-
list/Boeing/737/737...](https://www.planespotters.net/production-
list/Boeing/737/737-MAX-9)

------
vkou
Just two days ago, people were poo-pooing China for doing the same exact
thing, referencing political interference, protectionism, and setting all
sorts of other ill deeds at the doors of their regulators.

------
lgleason
The FAA has always been very pro-active about grounding planes that are
unsafe. The airlines operating these aircraft do not benefit by continuing to
fly them if they are un-safe. Between the cost of the loss, public image etc.
it would not make economic sense.

Given the trade tensions the US has with both China and the EU and the fact
that both are offering competing products (Airbus more so), this sounds like
more of a political move. In the case of the EU, the WTO ruled that Airbus was
illegally subsidized by the government that has now banned a Boeing aircraft
while it has the green light to fly in the US.

As swampy as the US government is, the EU has it's fair share of payoffs etc..
I expect this to further heat up the trade war.

~~~
netsharc
To me the more political move seems to be the FAA not grounding them... 2
brand new planes yoyoing after take-off and crashing...

~~~
jedmeyers
Older 737 crashed in the similar manner as well:

\- Flydubai Flight 981

\- Tatarstan Airlines Flight 363

------
Areading314
Does anyone actually know or suspect what's wrong with these planes? Hardware
issue? Software issue?

~~~
anaphor
The engines are larger than previous models and had to be moved forward, which
causes it to (potentially) stall, so they implemented an anti-stalling
mechanism called MCAS which relies on a particular sensor, which can
malfunction potentially. They also didn't inform pilots that this system even
existed which means they have trouble diagnosing the problem and will
potentially only make it worse by trying other things.

Of course that's all speculation since we don't know much about this
particular crash, but that's the main issue with them.

Source:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfQW0upkVus](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfQW0upkVus)

~~~
foepys
Didn't Boeing also market the plane as an evolution of the 737 that doesn't
require retraining? So pilots with experience on the 737 can automatically fly
the 737 Max?

~~~
notfromhere
Yep, that was the big selling point since airlines hate retraining pilots.

Totally backfired in that regard though.

~~~
w0utert
It sounds really stupid for Boeing if you put it that way.

I can imagine it looks good on the marketing material, 'no pilot retraining
required!', but as far as I understand from all the analysis so far, it's
actually not that hard to disable the new MCAS system and prevent a crash. As
a pilot you only need to know it is there, and what happens if it somehow
fails.

I would be surprised if they had sold even a single plane less if they
advertised it as 'very minimal pilot retraining necessary'.

~~~
outworlder
> As a pilot you only need to know it is there, and what happens if it somehow
> fails.

You don't even have to know it is there. All you need to know is "hey, auto
trim is acting very funky today and I'm having to fight it. Better override.".
And hit two switches.

> I would be surprised if they had sold even a single plane less if they
> advertised it as 'very minimal pilot retraining necessary'.

They were likely afraid that it would require a new type certificate.

~~~
linuxftw
> All you need to know is "hey, auto trim is acting very funky today and I'm
> having to fight it. Better override."

Unless you believe your instruments (AoA reading high) and assume the plane is
actually doing the correct thing.

------
dang
Previous big thread on this:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19365108](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19365108)

Other discussions at
[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Boeing%20points%3E10&sort=byDa...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Boeing%20points%3E10&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&storyText=false&prefix&page=0)

~~~
js2
Here’s a few more from before this crash that I’ve bookmarked:

Boeing Withheld Information on 737 Model, According to Safety Experts and
Others (wsj.com) 398 points | 3 months ago | 211 comments

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

What the Lion Air Pilots May Have Needed to Do to Avoid a Crash (nytimes.com)
118 points | 3 months ago | 50 comments

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18471464](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18471464)

How the pilots of Lion Air Flight 610 lost control (nytimes.com) 105 points |
75 days ago | 136 comments

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18761830](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18761830)

------
throw7
The FAA isn't passing the smell test. If both previous crashes happened with
US carriers taking off from US airports, you better believe the FAA would
ground these boeing max jets.

~~~
phkahler
>> If both previous crashes happened with US carriers taking off from US
airports, you better believe the FAA would ground these boeing max jets.

You're not wrong. But do you think the EU banning them couldn't possibly have
anything to do with who makes them or the competition between Airbus and
Boeing? Even as a secondary factor?

~~~
Mr_Shiba
How about 300 deaths already, and well know design shortcomings as primary
factors ?

------
VanPossum
If it turns out to be gross negligence by Boeing, I wouldnt like to be the US
taxpayer when this blows up and goes to court. Because the US gvt is not going
to let Boeing go bankrupt, so guess who's gonna pay in the end b/c Boeing
tried to save a few bucks.

------
cmurf
I found both of these relevant:

[https://leehamnews.com/2018/11/07/boeing-
issues-737-operatio...](https://leehamnews.com/2018/11/07/boeing-
issues-737-operations-manual-bulletin-after-lion-air-accident/)

[https://leehamnews.com/2018/11/14/boeings-automatic-trim-
for...](https://leehamnews.com/2018/11/14/boeings-automatic-trim-for-
the-737-max-was-not-disclosed-to-the-pilots/)

Either not widely reported or lost in other confusion, that I find important
about Lion Air, from the first article:

 _Indonesian crash investigators have said the 737 MAX involved in the crash
has flown with unreliable airspeed information in the last four flights._

That very well could make identification and corrective action for the problem
more difficult. And then, there is in fact a different behavior in the MAX
with MCAS in normal operation that pilots weren't made aware of, and results
in this central question in the 2nd article:

 _How should [pilots] know that pulling on the Yoke didn’t stop the trim?_

In previous 737's, pulling on the yoke does stop trim, but that's contrary to
the point of MCAS which is why it has different behavior, but it's a behavior
pilots aren't aware of and haven't trained for; and both Boeing and the FAA
have been saying 737's all have the same behaviors and flight characteristics.
And that becoming clearly not the case is really pissing everyone off.

------
bwang29
What would financially happen to an airplane company with a fleet of dozens of
Max 8s?

~~~
SilasX
Naive me would expect that these are typically lease agreements whereby the
OEM promises an SLA with compensation if they have to take the aircraft out of
service for design issues? If they don't do it that way, why not?

~~~
structural
First, because taking aircraft out of service for design issues is incredibly
rare (less than once a decade across all kinds of passenger aircraft).

Second, because airplane manufacturers have a significant amount of
negotiating power, combined with airlines very often not being in a great
financial position: Boeing certainly wouldn't want to be liable for storage
costs and the logistics of getting a fleet of planes back to a central
facility if an airline went bankrupt, for example. Leases also get legally
interesting when the assets involved move internationally on a daily basis...

~~~
SilasX
I wasn't proposing that any of that and I'm not sure it's relevant (e.g. in
this case it's a software update that can be done without moving the plane); I
agree they wouldn't want to take over a dead airline, and such an agreement
doesn't get the incentives right. But it's common for OEMs to take the hit for
things that are their own fault, if it isn't legally required.

And the rarity of the incidents plus Boeing's asymmetric knowledge of them
would _favor_ Boeing being a guarantor. And remember, I just said the _design_
issues. Obviously the airline would be expected to take hits from e.g. FAA
groundings from their own maintenance failures.

Edit: That leaves asymmetric bargaining power in your reply, but I don't see
OEM aircraft competition as being so monopolized that they wouldn't compete on
"hey this company makes us bear the costs of their design problems but this
one doesn't".

------
zaroth
The black box has been recovered. The data is probably being recovered as we
pontificate. Within the next 48-72 hours I expect someone will know
definitively if the MCAS system was even active, and if trim was a factor in
this crash.

Given that this significant data point is hours or just a couple days away,
isn’t it prudent to get the data before grounding the fleet?

If the jet had been brought down intentionally, should the FAA have grounded
the aircraft? Crashes like this are so incredibly rare, and on a new aircraft
perhaps the easy decision is to just ground it. But shouldn’t that require
actual evidence on the cause of the crash?

Witness accounts are of the plane trailing smoke and debris, but I don’t trust
those at all. I feel like given that we will know definitively if trim was a
factor in the crash so soon, a decision should only be made once that is
known.

~~~
butler14
While I see your point, no, I think it's prudent to ground the fleet
immediately.

Two of the same plane have crashed in 5 months and 346 people are dead.

------
krmbzds
Turkish Airlines grounds all 737 Max jets too:

[https://www.apnews.com/94c19abef66d4a0e977a1286d779ba22](https://www.apnews.com/94c19abef66d4a0e977a1286d779ba22)

"Turkish Airlines says it is grounding all Boeing 737 Max aircraft in its
fleet until further notice."

------
soVeryTired
There are a number of aircraft leasing companies who I'd imagine are fairly
heavily leveraged. I don't suppose anyone knows if it's Boeing or the
purchasers who are left on the hook for this sort of thing? How about for
aircraft that haven't yet been delivered, or options?

~~~
user5994461
It's gonna be the hell of a legal battle between Boeing, the leasing
companies, the flying companies, the governments, the purchasers, the owners,
the loaners and the insurances.

------
mrdodge
How good are Boeing's software engineers? They don't seem to pay very well.

~~~
cal5k
The 777 is the second-safest aircraft in the world, next to the Airbus A340.
The 787 is on track to demonstrate a similar safety record (in terms of fatal
incidents).

So overall, they seem to be quite good.

~~~
mrdodge
Those were produced pre-FAANG, Boeing probably paid comparatively better then.
Do the smartest software engineers flock to Boeing in 2019?

I think the relatively low pay and status of software engineers outside of the
Bay Area is a huge risk to society. We are going to start seeing it show up in
interesting places.

~~~
xcyyyy
God forbid that FAANG engineers ever work on aerospace software...

~~~
notacoward
I work at a FAANG company, and I feel the same way. I don't mean that as a
criticism of my coworkers. It's just a different ethos. Not only are no lives
at stake, but all copies of the software are visible and modifiable at will.
How's that system doing? Oh, it's slow because this part was tuned
incorrectly? Boom, pushed a fix. People come to rely on it. They rely on it so
much that anyone who emphasizes prevention too much will get dinged for moving
too slowly.

It's actually a valid POV for that environment, but it has been difficult for
me to adjust. I'm sure it's even harder for them to adjust the other way, to
an environment where you don't even know who's running your code until they
report a catastrophic failure. Prevention hardly seems like a waste of time
then.

------
elcomet
Why does the title mentions "EU's Biggest Economies", when it is affecting all
the european union ? It is a very confusing title.

The original title was : _E.U. Suspends All Operations of Boeing Max Model
That Crashed_

------
dis-sys
As of writing, FAA still refuses to protect the safety of passengers flying
with American airlines.

Completely disregard public safety to just protect the financial interests of
a single private company, when this is systematically carried out by a tax
funded bureau which was actually created to safeguard the safety of the
public, how this is is not corruption? How this is not the text book
definition of corruption at the highest level?

Will FAA fight so hard to ignore public concerns and safety if the aircraft
were built by other countries?

------
cmurf
How are pilots expected to know how to fly the plane absent a type rating
which was obviated by the now disabled software abstraction via setting
stabilizer trim to cutoff?

And what is this mandatory software update MCAS needs? If it's safe, why does
it need an update?

------
sctb
Earlier discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19365108](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19365108).

------
runxel
UPDATE: The EASA has banned now aviation space for whole Europe.

------
jayess
I'm getting close to buying Boeing stock or options.

------
ehudla
What programming language is used for the avionics?

------
fixermark
Regarding the FAA's lack of willingness to ground the Max 8's:

Are we looking at a lack of leadership in the org? The current head is acting
administrator as a result of a failure of the Trump administration to appoint
a new head in the wake of the previous administrator's planned exit on Jan 6
of last year.

I don't know anything about Mr. Elwell one way or another, but not all
deputies are there with an eye towards taking the top job.

------
ajhurliman
Why do they bother mentioning Trump in this article? They even followed his
tweet with a disclaimer that experts said it wasn't accurate.

------
VBprogrammer
The more I think about it the less likely I think the most recent crash will
end up being attributed to the MCAS system.

Why? Because with what we know now I could have prevented the Lion Air crash.
Any airline flying these planes would have been criminally negligent to have
not issued guidance to all of it's crews pointing out the system, the
potential danger and the workaround. Any pilots who've gone through their
annual sim time will no doubt have had a trim-runaway situation thrown at
them.

I obviously have no data beyond what has been released to the public but I'd
be unsurprised to here this was completely unrelated.

~~~
VBprogrammer
Honestly, I'm not sure what's wrong with that statement. There is plenty of
president for aircraft which went through special airworthiness
investigations, the MU-2 for example, and came out the other side without
fault.

