
US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max - pierre-renaux
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47548083
======
poof131
As someone who flew a Boeing plane for a long time, if it’s true they released
a stick pusher (automatic trim) that would dump the nose,[1] couldn’t be
overridden by pulling back on the stick as in previous versions of the
aircraft,[2] but only by disconnecting the automatic trim then manually
trimming the aircraft, was tied to only one AOA sensor, and then felt this was
too much information for “pilots”.[3] Wow. Seems like engineers on the ground
and business leaders making decisions that ended up costing lives. Pilot error
seems like a scapegoat here. Even a well trained pilot on a bad day might not
handle a nose down situation after takeoff well, especially when the intuitive
solution of pulling back on the stick had been disabled.

While this may not be the cause of the most recent crash, the Lion crash alone
seems to indicate a problem with Boeing and the FAA’s relationship. This
probably extends to Airbus and other regulators as indicated in another
comment about his or her carriers safety incidents tripling due to flying two
aircraft of the same “type” but not really.[4] At a minimum the MCAS changes
should have been communicated to pilots and indicates a process problem at
Boeing with insufficient pilot involvement and too much engineering and
business input. And the FAA probably needs to be much stricter in the training
and documentation requirements between models.

[1] [https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-
aerospace/u-s-p...](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-
aerospace/u-s-pilots-flying-737-max-werent-told-about-new-automatic-systems-
change-linked-to-lion-air-crash/)

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19077371](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19077371)

[3]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18438607](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18438607)

[4]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19376565](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19376565)

~~~
raverbashing
> if it’s true they released a stick pusher (automatic trim) that would dump
> the nose,[1] couldn’t be overridden by pulling back on the stick as in
> previous versions of the aircraft,

In the case of the 737MAX the elevator input _cannot compensate_ for the trim
wheel adjustment. I believe this was highlighted in the Lion Air case.

------
iFred
Some points from personal experience from working at Boeing, family working at
Boeing, and a close friend on the flight line for the 737-8;

\- not everything is back from the Lion Air incident, but internally there was
strong confidence that a lack of pilot familiarity with the adjusted mechanics
of MCAS contributed to the disaster

\- reproducing these failures has been extremely hard and has required a lot
of cooperation with other airlines and agencies, and that has been difficult

\- training for the 737-8 and -9 was just short of non existent because in
practice, these planes don’t fly differently.

\- since Lion Air, Boeing has been in somewhat of a “panic mode” but
confidence isn’t that the airframe and engine mechanics are at fault

\- Lion and Ethiopian Air are near the bottom when it comes to maintenance and
follow up with Boeing

\- as of this morning, it sounded like there are more uncertainties with this
incident given that the pilot indicated troubles after take off, but I’m find
it hard to back up that claim in what’s already been published

This isn’t about greed or the FAA being in the pocket of Boeing, it’s that
there were already adjustments made to fix MCAS and the investigation from
Ethiopia isn’t in yet.

~~~
hnnmzh
> \- training for the 737-8 and -9 was just short of non existent because in
> practice, these planes don’t fly differently.

Have you read this complaint from an actual pilot?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19374386](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19374386)

Quoting the HN post:

"My post flight evaluation is that we lacked the knowledge to operate the
aircraft in all weather and aircraft states safely.

The instrumentation is completely different - My scan was degraded, slow and
labored having had no experience w/ the new ND (Navigation Display) and ADI
(Attitude Director Indicator) presentations/format or functions (manipulation
between the screens and systems pages were not provided in training materials.
If they were, I had no recollection of that material).

We were unable to navigate to systems pages and lacked the knowledge of what
systems information was available to us in the different phases of flight. Our
weather radar competency was inadequate to safely navigate significant weather
on that dark and stormy night. These are just a few issues that were not
addressed in our training."

~~~
Pokepokalypse
To me - having had a 25 year career in customer-facing systems engineering and
support, this just reeks of dismissing the first-hand account of UX.

If the problem is lack of training, (or even "possibly maybe failing sensors")
- and your failure mode includes "maybe killing 150+ paying customers in one
shot" ... seems like a no-brainer, to me, to fucking ground the planes, and
take immediate corrective action.

And again: just my opinion, it just reeks of someone who spends their days in
a "spreadsheet-facing" position, making the decision to not ground these
planes, not take their users' (pilots) reports seriously, and continue to risk
hundreds of customers' lives (and thousands of their own employees
livelihoods) on a daily basis.

------
cm2187
I am still convinced there is a problem with the plane based on simple
probabilities. These are brand new planes so they shouldn’t be in a phase
where failures multiply, and maintenance should be irrelevant unless these
planes were delivered faulty. It’s a very small fleet compared to other
models. Two extremely rare crashes (plane crashes are rare in general) within
months of each others, with the same model, same phase of the flight, what is
the probability that it is not related to the plane? It has to be
statistically insignificant.

Now it may be a lack of pilot training, but by Boeing’s own account a B737
pilot should be qualified to pilot a Max. Then how come a small, insignificant
feature can result in the crash of the plane? It would have to be not
insignificant at all.

~~~
rbanffy
Speaking as an engineer, we, sometimes, underestimate the relevance of a
relatively minor system. We can't imagine all possible scenarios and that's
why in every single decision with systems that are responsible for human lives
there is a lot of people involved - because we rely on someone, at some point,
imagining the scenario everyone else didn't. This reduces the odds of letting
something important slip through, but it's not perfect and can't hope to be
(and, sometimes, we have the grim reminders we aren't all-knowing)

We should not rush to conclusions, since one of the investigations is in its
infancy, but, from all the pilot reports that have been accumulating since the
introduction of these models, it looks like the impact of the differences
between models in the 737 family on crews were underestimated and training for
them was not as thorough as it should have been.

~~~
karmelapple
Quick question, and this is meant sincerely and not flippantly: have you
worked as an aviation or avionics engineer?

The focus on error conditions is truly impressive during the development of
these systems. I’ve spent plenty of hours writing requirements, and writing
and running tests, for cockpit software, and the sheer variety of error
conditions tested is very high. Not that they’ll catch everything, but the
idea that a single AOA sensor could cause the MCAS to fail seems like
something that would have been analyzed and discussed by the engineers working
on this.

~~~
rbanffy
No. I worked in other embedded control settings, but nothing as sensitive.

I understand what you say, that the AOA sensor malfunction or misread should
never cause MCAS to fail and that any such situation (misread, malfunction,
excessive actuator response, etc) should have been spotted sooner, by someone
among the many people involved in its design, all the way from sensor to
servo, well before any passengers were carried in the aircraft but everything
indicates otherwise if we assume good faith. It's very likely all flaws will
be identified and corrected, but reality has a way to stress those vanishingly
small probabilities.

It's not impossible that a lot of very smart people who are dedicated to think
about corner cases all day long will, eventually, let something important
escape. We are all human and, in the end, everything is human error.

------
sundayfunday
Someone shared this on a different forums, it’s a recent NPR interview of a
pilot for American Airlines.

[https://overcast.fm/+nmn7rqq0/06:04](https://overcast.fm/+nmn7rqq0/06:04)

It’s a short interview but in short,

* Boeing left out info on the new flight control system in the pilots manual they trained with

* the training to fly the new planes was 56 minutes of PowerPoint presentations on an iPad

* he would not have known how to correct the system in the Lion Air crash had he have been the pilot

~~~
chipsa
If he doesn't know how to correct for runaway stabilizer trim, then he
probably should be decertified. It's a memory item:
[https://www.theairlinepilots.com/forumarchive/b737/b737memor...](https://www.theairlinepilots.com/forumarchive/b737/b737memoryitems.php#i)
And the checklist is 4 items long. Item 3 disables MCAS.

~~~
lqet
I am curious regarding item 4:

    
    
      STABILIZER TRIM WHEEL - GRASP and HOLD
    

How does the trim wheel work? Is it mechanically connected to the stabilizer?

~~~
20after4
Yes I believe it's mechanically connected.

~~~
lqet
Ok, so in the worst case you are still able to block the motor that does the
automatic trimming with your bare hands. Which seems like a reasonable fall-
back. Thanks!

------
twblalock
Lots of jumping to conclusions going on in this thread, blaming the FAA,
lobbyists, and politicians for being in the pocket of Boeing.

 _Nobody knows why this plane crashed._ The flight recorders have just been
recovered and so far there has been nothing in the news about what was on
them.

The plane might be to blame. The airline or the pilots might be to blame, and
by the way, that airline has a bad safety record. It might have been a bomb,
or a fire caused by a passenger, or many other things.

The sudden rush to judgment on this case is unjustified by the evidence. If it
turns out this was not Boeing's fault, a lot of people are going to have to
eat their words, and millions of dollars will have been wasted for nothing.

~~~
Animats
_Nobody knows why this plane crashed. The flight recorders have just been
recovered and so far there has been nothing in the news about what was on
them._

Yes. And the recorders have angle of attack data. We'll know within days if
it's another AOA sensor problem.

Southwest, the biggest US operator of 737 MAX aircraft, bought the "AOA
Disagree" option on their aircraft, and recently added an AOA indicator. Many
operators didn't get that option; Lion Air didn't have it. If you have that,
you get a warning that the flight control system is seeing bogus AOA data. It
is somewhat less of a safety issue if you have the backup systems.

Why this aircraft was ever offered without "AOA Disagree" sensing is unclear.
The single active AOA sensor can force the nose down. The pilots can switch to
the other flight control computer and use the other AOA sensor, but at that
point they're losing control of the aircraft.

~~~
Kipters
> Southwest, the biggest US operator of 737 MAX aircraft, bought the "AOA
> Disagree" option on their aircraft...If you have that, you get a warning
> that the flight control system is seeing bogus AOA data

How can something that important be an option?

~~~
vonmoltke
> How can something that important be an option?

Based on other comments here and in other discussions, it seems like adding
that feature would increase the training requirements for the pilots since it
is an additional instrument in the cockpit. I don't know whether it was
Boeing, Boeing's customers, or both who pushed for the instrument to be an
option. Any combination is plausible, and I'm not going to rush to judgement
like a couple of my sibling commenters just because it's the fun and popular
thing to do.

~~~
Kipters
Makes sense, thanks for the explanation.

Basically everything about this plane boils down to "it should require more
training but it didn't"

------
Axsuul
Quite frankly I think it’s a bit sensationalist for people and the media to
point fingers at the FAA for making “irresponsible decisions” and being
beholden to lobbyists while conveniently ignoring their track record.

The FAA is notorious for their draconian ways which has become the impetus
behind why air travel is now the safest mode of transportation today. In fact,
there hasn't been a hull loss on US soil since 2009, a magnificent safety
record.

The FAA is a very hands-on agency. There is an inherent difference to how
planes are maintained that touch US soil vs. those in other parts of the
world. For example, many planes that fly in South America would never pass FAA
inspection and would never be considered airworthy. That means a flight
itinerary of LAX-SCL vs. LAX-PTY-SCL are very different when it comes to
safety since the plane that departs from Panama is not inspected by the FAA.

So not only is the FAA risking an insurmountable amount of fallout for making
this statement, they also have the credibility and processes to stand behind
it. With that said, I think it makes prudent sense for other countries to
ground their 737 MAX planes since they simply don't have the FAA.

~~~
bencoder
> there hasn't been a hull loss on US soil since 2009

Until 3 weeks ago:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Air_Flight_3591](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Air_Flight_3591)

~~~
gok
GP must have meant "hull loss of a passenger flight with mass fatalities".
Asiana 214 was a hull loss on US soil, as was American 383, etc

------
js2
From the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association statement released yesterday:

 _I have been in numerous conversations today with Southwest Vice President of
Flight Operations Captain Alan Kasher, who informed me that the MAX aircraft
has 17,000 recordable parameters and Southwest has compiled and analyzed a
tremendous amount of data from more than 41,000 flights operated by the 34 MAX
aircraft on property, and the data supports Southwest 's continued confidence
in the airworthiness and safety of the MAX.

I have also had conversations with TWU 556 President Lyn Montgomery, who
represents Southwest Flight Attendants, AMFA National President Bret
Oestreich, SWAPA Safety Committee and SWAPA Government Affairs Committee
members, as well as leaders from other Pilot labor unions. I relayed to them
that SWAPA is extremely confident that our entire fleet, including the MAX, is
safe based on the facts, intelligence, data, and information we presently
have. We fully support Southwest Airlines' decision to continue flying the MAX
and the FAA's findings to date.

I will continue to put my family, friends, and loved ones on any Southwest
flight and the main reason is you, the Pilots of SWAPA. We have lobbied hard
for our training to continue to evolve and improve, and due to having the
finest union Training and Standards Committee in the industry, that is
occurring.

We now have Extended Envelope Training (EET) in addition to our regular annual
training and since SWAPA and others have brought awareness to the MCAS issue,
we have additional resources to successfully deal with either a legitimate
MCAS triggered event or a faulty triggered MCAS event. SWAPA also has pushed
hard for Angle of Attack (AOA) sensor displays to be put on all our aircraft
and those are now being implemented into the fleet. All of these tools, in
addition to SWAPA Pilots having the most experience on 737s in the industry,
give me no pause that not only are our aircraft safe, but you are the safest
737 operators in the sky._

[https://swaparesources.s3-us-
west-2.amazonaws.com/assets/pdf...](https://swaparesources.s3-us-
west-2.amazonaws.com/assets/pdf/Press_Releases/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_302_Update_2.pdf)

via [https://www.swapa.org/](https://www.swapa.org/)

------
Legogris
I don't get it. Airline workers, Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney and democratic senators
are for suspending it, which China, the EU and Australia have already done.

What's going on at the FAA?

~~~
CydeWeys
All the listed people are in the legislative branch. The FAA is part of the
executive branch. Short of passing a law that grounds the 737 MAX, legislators
don't really have a say here.

Interestingly, Trump has also come out against the plane, but his uninformed
Twitter ramblings are by and large (rightfully) ignored by the executive
branch. And he's not against the 737 MAX for valid reasons, but for luddite
ones.

~~~
magduf
Yep, Trump says a lot of really stupid stuff (like his comments about the
electromagnetic launchers on the new Ford carrier). But in this case, even if
his reasoning is stupid, it'd be better if the executive branch actually
followed his lead and grounded the plane.

~~~
CydeWeys
Just happened. Twitter ramblings rightfully go unignored, but a properly filed
executive order does not.

Trump shares some blame here because he's never had, nor even appointed, an
FAA commissioner. Maybe with someone confirmed in charge they would've been
more proactive.

------
bookofjoe
If the Max was built by Airbus rather than Boeing, more likely than not the
U.S. would have grounded it by now.

------
kerng
What I dont understand is why the airlines themselves (Southwest and American)
are refusing to halt the planes - this seems totally irresponsible with what
is known at this point.

~~~
sfilargi
It’s pretty safe to assume that at this point every fricking pilot out there
knows about MCAS and how to deal with it if this specific problematic behavior
occurs.

~~~
4BxHkLgUVBG
But not if you have 20seconds to recover?

~~~
kirykl
It's 2.5 degrees every 15 seconds. There's time to recover

"MCAS will trim the Stabilizer down for 10 seconds (2.5 deg nose down) and
pause for 5 seconds and repeat if the conditions (high angle of attack, flaps
up and autopilot disengaged) continue to be met. Using electric pitch trim
will only pause MCAS, to deactivate it you need to switch off the STAB TRIM
SUTOUT switches."
[http://www.b737.org.uk/mcas.htm](http://www.b737.org.uk/mcas.htm)

------
tzakrajs
What does the US know that the EU or China doesn't which gives them such
confidence? Any clues?

~~~
stirlo
They know Boeing makes up 10.5% of the Dow... [1] or it did before these
crashes, currently under 10% due the the stock price dropping

[1]
[http://indexarb.com/indexComponentWtsDJ.html](http://indexarb.com/indexComponentWtsDJ.html)

~~~
argd678
The FAA was intentionally made independent of airline advocacy to avoid
conflicts of interest that previous government agencies overseeing air travel
in the past had. So it’s odd if it’s not based on the data.

~~~
chopin
If it's based on data why not publishing it?

~~~
arnon
That's exactly the thing. There is no data to the contrary. You can't prove
that the FAA is wrong, because we don't know why both planes crashed.

We have assumptions, and there's a public perception - but it may not be
correct.

~~~
paganel
> You can't prove that the FAA is wrong, because we don't know why both planes
> crashed.

From an outsider's perspective is the FAA's task to prove that both those
crashes were unrelated to each other, because for a very safe industry like
aviation a slight correlation (two almost identical planes crashed in a span
of 6 months in clear-weather conditions) is often times seen as causation by
most of the people directly involved: potential customers, the general public
that helps pay the taxes that keep both Boeing and Airbus making airplanes
etc.

------
cmurf
787's were grounded in 2013 for battery related issues, when it was a new
airplane make/model. There were emergency landings, but no crashes. Here we
have crashes, and no grounding. At the time of the grounding there were 50
affected aircraft, lasting from January to April. Grounding 737 MAX 8's would
be ~350 groundings, and ostensibly could include MAX 9's.

~~~
KindOne
Looks like it only took two events for the FAA to ground them. I think they
were instantly grounded because everyone knew the dangers of lithium-ion
batteries catching fire.

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-lithium-
ion-b...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-lithium-ion-
batteries-grounded-the-dreamliner/)

------
Emma_Goldman
'But the FAA said that other civil aviation authorities had not "provided data
to us that would warrant action".'

Pretty sure the data is that two planes crashed in five months in perfect
weather conditions, killing everyone on board. Statistically, that's
sufficiently improbable that it warrants investigation.

~~~
cesarb
> Pretty sure the data is that two planes crashed in five months in perfect
> weather conditions

Not only that, but the data we have so far from the second crash (ADS-B data
showing irregular vertical speed, see
[https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/flightradar24-data-
regard...](https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/flightradar24-data-regarding-
the-crash-of-ethiopian-airlines-flight-302/)) is consistent with both
accidents having a similar cause. Grounding all airplanes from the same model
until preliminary data from the (already recovered) flight recorders can
confirm or discard that hypothesis is prudent.

~~~
Recurecur
If it was a "similar cause", it is absolutely pilot error.

The MCAS system, at fault in the first crash, may be disabled via a cockpit
control. In other 737s, moving the stick was sufficient to disengage it. For
some reason, this was changed in the Max, and you must use the other control.
However, any competent pilot would know every control in the cockpit. The
captain of the latest flight to crash allegedly had 8,000+ hours of flight
time.

If an aircraft begins behaving incorrectly, the first thing a flight crew
should do is disable automation and try and fly it manually. That wasn't done
if MCAS caused the crash. This was an emergency that developed over minutes,
not seconds, and there's really no excuse.

~~~
julianlam
Unless I am mistaken, the regular 737s do not have the MCAS installed,just the
MAXs ([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/))

Additionally it has been suggested that documentation for this physical switch
is not well laid out or presented in the manual because Boeing was confident
that it would simply stay out of the pilot's way during flight.

Assuming pilot error would seem to be premature if these points are in fact
true.

~~~
darkcha0s
As far as I'm aware, the previous versions gave an audible warning when the
flight parameters were exceeding limits. The new system attempts to actively
take control and sink the nose. If you know the system from previous aircraft,
you'd expect the same behavior in the new one. I'm certain they mention this
in training, but if English is not your first language, you'd have to pay
particular attention to this part or you're screwed.

~~~
rtkwe
There was no new training for this is what I've read. Boeing thought the new
system was simple and similar enough that no retraining was required for the
new model.

------
atlasunshrugged
Will this basically be negated by enough other countries grounding it though?
It seems to me that if the EU, China, the UK, and other major countries are
all grounding it then many others are likely to follow suit basically making
it irrelevant if there are one or two holdouts (even if one of them is the
U.S.)

~~~
paxys
There are a ton of these aircraft flying in the US domestically and on US-
Canada routes.

~~~
atlasunshrugged
Got it, can states/airports decide unilaterally not to serve them? I imagine
if the highest volume airports banned these flights it would ground the vast
majority of them

~~~
zavi
No? FAA makes these decisions.

~~~
dingaling
Yes, an airport could reject any flightplan filed with type B38M or B39M
citing operational reasons. The exception to this in the USA is when the
airport is in receipt of FAA improvement grants, when they are obliged to
accept all compatible traffic.

Or more subtly adjust landing and handling fees to astronomical levels for
those types. That's how Gatwick in the UK discourages small turboprops, for
example.

------
Jedi72
I wonder pilots are feeling about it?

It will cause a very big stink if one crashes in the US.

~~~
iscrewyou
At that point, not only will Boeing be at fault, but heads at FAA as well.

On the other hand, FAA is known to be very strict when it comes to safety. So,
I feel like they must think that US pilots are trained for what the alleged
issue seems to be (MCAS).

~~~
jliptzin
Still, that wouldn’t help foreign planes crashing into our cities.

------
baxtr
From a customer perspective I would have appreciated a joint approach of the
major aviation agencies. The way it is handled right now, I can’t judge
whether the EU is reacting shortsighted or if the US is too careless. One
seems to be true?

~~~
chappi42
It's easier for the EU, they don't have many MAX planes. It's likely too early
to say something definitive and in times of social medial pressure one
conformes if possible.

~~~
isostatic
The US doesn’t have many MAX planes either.

Southwest have 35/755 planes

American 22/956

Norwegian by comparison have 18/163 - a far higher proportion (of course
Norwegian isn’t an EU airlin but they have EU subsidiaries included in that
total)

~~~
lagadu
Norwegian is technically an EU airline because despite the name they're also
headquartered in EU countries. This is so because being EU-based they're free
to use all EU airports to base flights out of, which they use to good extent
to make flights between the US and the French Caribbean islands, something
that would be impossible had they been solely HQd in Norway :)

Check out this video about it (Norwegian starts at about 10 minutes in):
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thqbjA2DC-E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thqbjA2DC-E)

edit: turns out they're registed in several countries, not just Denmark.

------
verytrivial
Can someone with flight experience help me with this question?

So, MCAS is watching the AOA sensor and dipping the nose to prevent
aerodynamic stall. When activated (and altering the pilots loudly) what would
happen to airspeed in the valid-AOA and borked-AOA sensor states? I would have
thought in the bogus-AOA case, airspeed would be increasing MUCH faster? Is
this factored into regarding validation of the AOA input? Or are airspeed
indicators unreliable near aerodynamic stall? Or ..? It just feels like MCAS
should be able to detect the contradiction state from other variables without
requiring the pilot to act.

~~~
bitwalker
Airspeed and angle-of-attack are different measurements, whether the AoA is
borked or not would make no difference to airspeed measurements, and vice
versa.

Without AoA though, airspeed alone is not enough to determine a stall. If one
or both sets of probes are incorrect or inoperable, detection of stall
conditions would be unreliable at best, either reporting a stall when there
isn't one, or failing to report one that is valid.

As for MCAS, it would likely be able to see that two AoA probes disagree, but
would be unable to choose the "correct" probe. A third AoA probe _might_
address that, but I never saw that kind of configuration on aircraft I worked
on, and it isn't on the MAX. Regardless though, from what I've read, MCAS only
applies gradual nose down trim, so ignoring whether or not MCAS even knows
enough to disable itself in abnormal conditions, the pilot/first officer
should have more plenty of time to react to it (I believe it was something
like 2.5deg of trim every 10s). Either the pilots in these situations are not
aware that it is a trim issue, which seems very unlikely, or they are
overloaded and don't remember in time to set the stab trim to cutoff which
would disable those inputs. Very much still on Boeing in my opinion, but it
isn't like the aircraft is just diving into the ground the second MCAS starts
nosing down.

------
ElBarto
It is all PR and public perception at this point.

I feel that the US have lost in reputation here while, e.g. China has gained.
It didn't have to be that way.

China was the first to ban the 737 MAX. When they did it people could counter
that it was political. But since so many countries, including some of the US's
closest allies, have followed suit then they have come out as being serious
and safety-conscious.

On the other hand, by refusing to ban the US are seen as putting corporate
interests above safety.

------
jmull
Personally, I think the least risky/safest approach is for the FAA to follow
its normal procedures.

Changing them on-the-fly leads to ambiguity up and down the line, which leads
to mistakes and gaps.

Of course, I don't know for sure what that actually means in this case. But
I'd guess if the lobbyist head of the FAA were blocking a grounding
recommendation, that would leak in about a millisecond, so I'm guessing the
FAA is investigating this normally.

~~~
gdubs
I think the FAA needs to do a better job explaining why every other aviation
authority in the world seems to be grounding the plane, but they’re not.

------
stingrae
Does anyone know if this system could just be safely turned off? It seems to
be a system that automates the stall avoidance when the plane hits a stall
warning. It seems that all pilots should know how to avoid stalls and how to
deal with them when they happen. As long as the stall warning still happens, I
don't see an issue with turning off the stall avoidance system.

~~~
salawat
The issue is that the system is necessary to make the plane self-certifiable.
I.e. Boeing has to show that the aircraft is not essentially different in
flight characteristics from the original airframe it was based on. This allows
them to avoid the very costly retreating and type certification they would be
required to do otherwise with a 'novel' airframe.

Frankly, as soon as the Erodynamics changed sufficiently that a new automated
system was required to maintain parity with older airframe's flight
characteristics, I think the case should have been made for requiring a new
type cert, or at least far more extensive change notification/documentation
update requirements.

------
physicsyogi
It looks like the US has reversed its position and the 737 Max is being
grounded. [1]

[1]
[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/business/canada-737-max.h...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/business/canada-737-max.html)

------
gSrikar
Boeing suffered more than 10% drop in the stock price because of the recent
crash and Lion Air (an Indonesian airline) plans to drop a $22 billion order.
Boeing failed to address the numerous complaints and FAA is reluctant to
ground the 737 Max 8 putting lives at risk.

------
trhway
they stopped flying 737 Max even in Russia. That is in the country where drunk
(not to mention heavily hanged over) pilots isn't something out of ordinary :)

Anyway, reading for example this [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/) for a layman like me it sounds like making 737 (statically stable
plane) into the Max Boeing produced a kind of F-16 - a statically unstable
(and thus a great dogfighter) plane which cant be flown manually and requires
constant controls adjustments by software.

------
mnm1
2 crashes in less than 6 months for a plane that's been in service less than
24 months, yet "no systemic performance issues". Somebody's going to die so US
companies can make a some extra profits. Business as usual here.

------
yitchelle
If you are a pilot for one of these American airlines, would still stand your
ground and not fly?

~~~
somuchtyler
no because everyone is aware of what the issue is and how to overcome it.

------
fixermark
I'm hoping that we aren't seeing a situation where acting FAA administrator
Elwell's past service as an Aerospace Industries Association VP and company
advocate is biasing his reasoning towards the interest of industry players
over public safety.

------
coldtea
Nothing that another crash and huge human toil can't fix.

------
stirlo
It’s scary to think how complicit the FAA was in granting Boeing’s wish that
this 30 year newer plane with substantially larger engines only required 2-3
hours of new training and said training was able to miss covering entire
systems like MCAS. Now 350 people are dead, all the FAA can be thankful of is
the dead are foreigners so it’s unlikely they’ll be held properly accountable.

~~~
prostoalex
While you may end up being entirely correct, it is too early to start finger-
pointing before the investigations are finished.

Neither Lion nor Ethiopian had stellar safety records, e.g.

* [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/22/world/asia/lion-air-crash...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/22/world/asia/lion-air-crash-safety-failures.html)

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_accidents_a...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_accidents_and_incidents)

The training hours should also be looked in the context of the total hours
flown on that specific model - a pilot who just sat through the short training
session would have a different perspective than a pilot who sat through the
same training session but has also flown the plane for hundreds of hours.

It's also not a brand new airplane - it's a modification of 737, so the
training is transitional. It's not like Boeing took a freshly minted Cessna
152 pilot, gave them a 2-hour seminar, and type-rated them for the 737 Max.

~~~
tibbydudeza
Nonsense.

Ethiopian airlines is rated Category 1 by the FAA and can thus fly direct to
the US and they are a member of the star alliance.

Just because they are the largest carrier in Africa does not imply dubious
safety or maintenance.

~~~
briandear
They had a 200 hour pilot flying in the right seat of the crashed airplane.
Star Alliance or not, who in the hell defends a low-time student pilot flying
right seat in an airliner? In the US, that would be illegal as a first officer
has a 1500 hour requirement along with significant multi-engine turbine
training. That copilot wouldn’t even have enough hours for a commercial
certificate, let alone ATP.

~~~
CaptainZapp
You conveniently forgot to mention that the captain of the flight was highly
experienced with 8'000 hours of flight time.

~~~
jhayward
We don't know which pilot was the flying pilot on this takeoff.

~~~
CaptainZapp
That should not be relevant at all.

During the critical phases of flying both pilots will be engaged with the
operation. While it's true that the first officer may execute the take-off the
captain will be at the controls, alert and ready to intervene at any time.

Later during cruising the responsibilities may be split. For example: The
captain may deal with administrative stuff while the first officer is actually
flying the plane.

Especially since the crew knew that the plane can potentially behave in an
erratic manner you can bet on the fact that an experienced captain is standing
by and observing very closely what's happening.

Source: I had the oportunity to sit in the cockpit during an entire (short
haul) flight, when that was still possible. Both pilots were always engaged
during all critical periods of the flight and very specifically during take
off and landing. Even when the first officer executed the operations.

As a sidenote: It's not like driving a bus up there. Both pilots were focused,
concentrated and busy during the entire flight (this may be somewhat different
on a long haul flight ).

~~~
jhayward
It is relevant because MCAS is tied to the AOA sensor on the side of the
active flight computer. Even if the Captain intervened, he may not have
thought to switch flight computers to rule out a malfunctioning AOA sensor.

I'm well aware of cockpit procedure; my brother is a 30-year captain, now
retired and our family has been flying since before I was born. One of my
earliest memories is of using the barf bag in a 172 while my father was
shooting landings.

------
mtw
The current head of FAA appointed by Trump was a lobbyist for Southwest, AA,
United Airlines. No wonder he doesn't ground the Boeing 737 Max. Southwest
alone operates the biggest 737 Max fleet in the world, with 280 planes. They'd
lose a lot of money if their former employee grounds the plane
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Elwell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Elwell)

~~~
kawfey
> Southwest alone operates the biggest 737 Max fleet in the world, with 280
> planes.

Incorrect, they operate 35 Max8's, and have 237 total firm orders for Max8 and
30 for Max7.

[https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Southwest-
Airlines](https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Southwest-Airlines)

[http://www.southwestairlinesinvestorrelations.com/news-
and-e...](http://www.southwestairlinesinvestorrelations.com/news-and-
events/news-releases/2018/10-25-2018-113001340)

------
johmue
max crash aircraft - what a headline

------
sparkling
Can't the MCAS simply be disabled until further investigation takes place?

------
wtdata
The title itself is unnecessary fear mongering. I actually went to confirm if
the BBC actually wrote "crash aircraft" or it was just the poster that altered
the title.

It seems that not even the once respectable newspapers can keep away from easy
sensationalism these days.

~~~
ComputerGuru
If you're familiar with the BBC, you'll know it's not fear mongering at all.
It's their writing style and it simply serves to inform that this is the model
of the plane that was involved in the crash. It's actually a question of
grammar. Now if it had said "crash-prone aircraft" or"crashy aircraft," that
would be a different issue altogether.

------
nutcracker46
This is a "fifth risk" scenario, where the FAA misjudges other countries'
aviation authorities as mere America bashers. The Feds also misjudge their own
threat environment, gambling that the rate of hull losses due to MCAS problems
is low enough to fly through.

The question, "What if we're wrong?" doesn't get asked. Instead, the FAA
Administrator's boss tweets a complaint about aircraft being too complicated.
No, the problem isn't overcomplication, it is failure to build, document, and
train for the aircraft and pilots you have, not the ones you want.

The Trump FAA are clueless political hacks, not professional safety experts
and airmen. They don't handle black swans well, and think of economic costs
before human costs.

~~~
sparkling
[The Trump FAA are clueless political hacks, not professional safety experts
and airmen.]

Surely you have the FAA employee turnover % numbers available since Trump took
office?

~~~
mywittyname
Not to defend the parent comment, but the Director of the FAA was replaced
with a Trump appointment about a year ago after completing a 5 year term.

The FAA went from being led by a Democrat, civilian, and life-long civil
servant to Republican Air Force LtCol. I would be surprised if they had
similar views on how best to lead the agency.

From the wikipedia article about our current FAA Director:

> Elwell was named Vice President of the Aerospace Industries Association[5]
> in 2008 where he stayed until 2013. Elwell was a civil aerospace
> manufacturer representative in this capacity where he was an advocate for
> various companies.[2]

[https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-swamp-earns-its-
wings...](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-swamp-earns-its-wings-
airline-lobbyist-takes-control-of-the-faa)

------
curiousgal
You are not allowed to bring more than 100ml of water because of safety
concerns but we will fly you on on airplane model that has failed twice in 2
years of service.

~~~
rb666
With the X-ray scanners installed at modern airports you're allowed to bring
filled bottles into planes again. Also don't have to remove anything from your
luggage, it's great!

------
Animats
US just grounded the 737 Max. FAA waited until Trump could take the credit.

------
bredren
Meanwhile Samsung Galaxy Note 7 and hover boards still banned.

------
nickjj
But if you bring your own water then you wouldn't have the privilege of
spending $4 for a single bottled water[0] at an airport vendor.

Sounds like the common ground there is profits come before anything else.

[0]: You could also bring your own empty water bottle and ask one of the
bartenders to fill it up which is what I usually do and then drop them a $1
tip.

~~~
bluedino
Why not just use one of the many water bottle filling stations?

~~~
nickjj
Not all airports have these.

Also if you're an inexperienced flyer and have a tight connection, you may not
have the time to find one in an unfamiliar airport but a bar or restaurant is
almost always in sight.

~~~
kawfey
Not all airports have sinks?

It's not like they filter what's coming out of water fountains anyway.

~~~
nickjj
> Not all airports have sinks?

I haven't seen any, unless you're talking about using the bathroom sinks?

In which case, no thanks. Even with a touch less sensor people can still (and
do) touch the area where the water comes out. Flying is stressful enough as it
is. I don't want to have to think about potentially drinking tainted water
(pun intended).

~~~
freehunter
If you think no one has ever touched the nozzle of the drinking fountain with
their dirty hands, boy are you in for a surprise.

~~~
nickjj
I don't doubt it, but I also don't use those stations. I've never even seen
one in the few airports I visited.

------
TomMckenny
How can this possibly be a surprise. It's public interest vs a multitude of
companies: airlines, Boeing, their suppliers etc. It's absolutely no contest
in current the US system.

------
_Codemonkeyism
There will be a point in time when CEOs of those airlines in the US that do
not ground 737 MAX planes get into a lot of trouble if something happens to
one of their planes. Then they play with jail time instead of payments to
victim relatives.

~~~
ComputerGuru
No, there won't. It's not a CEO's job to make kind of call because they're not
expected to have that kind of insight into such technical safety matters.
Their job is to run the company based off of what the experts tell them; the
FAA is literally absolving companies of having to make the decision and
shoulder the burden themselves.

~~~
_Codemonkeyism
Yes it is, the same way a CEO is responsible if the systems of the company are
hacked and millions of emails and passwords are lost. They do what security
experts tell them. Equifax for sure had lots of experts. Or Sony for that
matter. There is a point when a court will decide that "you should have known"
and the "expert" defense will not work.

It's funny on HN, if it's security the CEO should go to jail for listening to
experts, if it's Boeing - one of the holy cows beside Tesla - it's "follow
expert advice".

I bet $100 if an US 737 MAX crashes the CEO will go to jail.

~~~
ComputerGuru
Also, you seem to be replying under the impression that I'm talking about the
Boeing CEO. I'm not. That comment was about CEOs of airlines not having to
make the decision to ground or not to ground their fleet.

------
rurban
Now imagine if AA grounds a MAX, Boeing will go bankrupt. Extremely high risk
they dealing with now.

------
sametmax
If one plane crashes every year, it would still be safer to fly than to drive
a car.

Even if boing is at fault, and FAA failed in their validation process, I doubt
there is any evil doing in any way. Indeed, they had a fantastic track record
for decades compared to pretty much any other industrial equivalent.

As an european, and as much as I would love boing to take a hit in favor or
EADS, it would be unfair to them and the FAA. They have been doing a great job
for so long, on so numerous complicated systems we forget that as human, we
can fuck up.

Nobody can guaranty to ever do perfectly fine all the time, and certainly not
in such a huge endavour. Of course, the outrage is understandable given
mistakes cost lives, so the situation sucks for all the sides in this story.

~~~
adrianN
Nobody can guarantee absence of errors, but you can stop using machines where
you have good reasons to believe that something is wrong until you've figured
out what's the problem and how to fix it.

------
whack
How does the plane's safety record compare against that of motorcycles or sub-
compact cars? Should we ban them as well, until they can attain safety parity?

My girlfriend has two intercontinental flights coming up in the next month.
Flights that are very important to her life goals and fulfillment. I would
hate to see a wrench thrown into those plans, because of a risk that she
already takes on every weekend when she goes on a long drive.

More importantly, there are so many more pressing issues that we as a society
need to be dealing with. Issues like fatalities caused by automobile
accidents, inadequate healthcare coverage, medical errors and poor diet.
Issues that are being starved of the attention they deserve because of our
fixation on sensational deaths, as opposed to the banal but common ones
[https://outlookzen.com/2015/02/15/all-lives-
matter/](https://outlookzen.com/2015/02/15/all-lives-matter/)

~~~
PhasmaFelis
There are about 350 of these planes flying, and they've been in general use
for about two years. That implies 1/350 odds of a fatal crash per plane per
year. I can't find similar statistics for motorcycles, but that's still wildly
unacceptable.

And even if it weren't, you're arguing that problems can only be addressed one
at a time in strict order of severity, in a nation of 326 million people.
That's ridiculous.

~~~
magduf
What's more, this isn't an issue just for a nation of 326M people, this is
global.

There are other issues which IMO are worse: how many people in America are
killed by guns because we refuse to do anything about those legislatively? How
many are killed by auto crashes because we refuse to build better trains and
public transit?

However, other countries (like those in the EU) see this plane as problematic,
and are grounding it. That's something that they can do. EU nations don't have
any control over America refusing to fix its problems with guns and cars and
public transit, but they _do_ have the power to ground unsafe planes in their
airspace, so that's what they're doing.

As for the US, the US isn't doing anything about this plane at all; that's why
we're arguing about it here, combined with the fact that other nations _are_
doing something about it.

------
Grue3
How improbable was two Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777-200ER flights crashing
within five months? Should all Boeing 777-200ER airplanes be grounded? Or all
Malaysian Airlines flights?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17)

By the way it took years to figure out how exactly these crashed.

~~~
lb1lf
-Quite different scenario. One was shot down by a Russian-made surface-to-air missile (And one can hardly fault Boeing for not providing ECM equipment as standard!), the other was (probably) wilfully flown into the great void.

Here, on the other hand, there are two eerily similar cases where the likely
-mind, likely- common denominator is a new 'feature' which has been
undercommunicated to the pilots flying the things.

~~~
crushcrashcrush
MH 370's crew and passengers went hypoxic.

(edited from 17 to 370)

~~~
ceejayoz
That's one theory. It's certainly not confirmed.

