Another 737 MAX-8 down

a reply to: Zaphod58

Agreed, and understood!

That's not my point!

If the aircraft required re-training AND a software upgrade, it's not about the software guys but the regulation side to make the decision to ground the aircraft.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

And at the time, it was a maintenance failure. That wasn't enough to ground the fleet, when no one else had seen the same issue.

As for now, see my previous post.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Bigburgh

Atlas was a flight control issue.

These recorders haven't even left Ethiopia to be decoded yet.

Sorry I should have been clear. Nobody knows anything just yet.


Not even the FAA.

Edit: not a jab at FCD or you... truth is, nobody knows yet.🍻

a reply to: Zaphod58

Okay, true...that's a valid point.

I guess my point was more the delay by the FAA to react after the 2nd incident. That the EU revoked their airspace privilege, and the FAA was standing firm, doesn't look very good on the FAA...and it shouldn't.

That's all I'm saying. I mean, seriously, even YOU were showing the altitude stability issues right here on ATS within hours of the crash. Surely the FAA has WAY better information...right? (right???)

IMHO, the FAA was holding out to special interest, rather than doing the right thing and grounding the 737-Max. And, it took the President to stand up (with a pair) and say "No!"

DBL

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I'm still torn on that. The similarities are striking, but there's just enough doubt that I'm doubting it's the same cause. The FAA got the tracking data from Aerion Monday, which was at least similar to the FR24 data.

I do agree that once the groundings started the FAA should have said something besides "we certified it, and we were right". Certainly by the time the EU closed their airspace they should have acted, if for nothing else than to show they aren't the most screwed up regulatory agency out there.

At least they weren't the last ones to ground them. Heh.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Perfect!

I'll agree with that!

ETA - ....

At least they weren't the last ones to ground them. Heh

That's not saying much!!!

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I don't know what they have or don't have so I can't say if this warrants grounding entire fleets, but as I mentioned earlier in the thread, with every company or regulatory agency that chose to ground them, the harder it became to keep them in the air. Not because those companies/agencies/the media know more or better than Boeing/carriers still flying/FAA, but because it becomes a legal and optics liability. This quickly became the "right" answer, not based on information available, but because it became a potential liability.

I imagine if it's related to the Lion Air case, it will be a problem in regards to pilot training. That doesn't perhaps alleviate responsibility from Boeing fully -- if you have a product with an unusal quirk that might adversely affect safety, you have a responsibility to stress those quirks to customers and to not trust the customer is competent enough to find it. It's worth noting, howeve, neither of the incidents occurred in the US, Canada, or Australia where pilot requirements are more stringent. Boeing addressed this very specifically after the first incident-- so the onus after that is on the operators.

If it turns out these incidents do have the same cause, we're going to find that Boeing already addressed this is announcements to operators of the type, and those announcements were not properly addressed at the level of the carriers involved. It would be difficult to assign much blame to Boeing in the light (though, perhaps, less so in the first instance, as I noted above Boeing does have a responsibility to effectively communicate potentially adverse conditions as a result of the FCS). I don't fly anything as large as the B737, but even I became aware of MCAS issues after the first incident and the work-arounds -- how could pilots and operators of the types fail to take notice?

ETA: you've since added "... doesn't look very good on the FAA" in a comment, which ties in nicely above. Just because it doesn't look good does not make the decision correct on the merits -- but I agree, and mentioned earlier, it becomes a liability as more groundings were ordered elsewhere.

a reply to: animatorsteve

I hate it when a flight I'm on goes through Chicago for this very reason. I don't remember any scary take-offs but I definitely have had some scary turbulent landings there.

The recorders have arrived in France. BEA officials have said they're ready to begin work on them, but any updates will only come from Ethiopian officials involved in the investigation.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
I've seen a lot of FAA screw ups over the years, and would be just as happy to see them disbanded and started over, but I just can't bring myself to slam them this time.

The FAA's mandate is to regulate and PROMOTE aviation. Sometimes these mandates conflict with each other and it seems that the FAA usually comes down on the promote side when it should be on the regulate side. They need to come down on the manufacturers and airlines the way that they come down on the General Aviation people. Of course the GA people can't make campaign contributions or offer cushy jobs to retiring Government employees.

I like the idea of blowing up the FAA and starting from scratch. With all of the changes in technology is the FAA capable of certifying new aircraft? For years there has been a standing joke among mechanics. "Those who can, do. Those who can't get Government jobs."

Both 737s from Lion Air and the Ethiopia airlines were shot down under order of EU royals from the Netherlands, the UK, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Belgium and Luxembourg. Additionally the whole EU commission, Macron, Mattarella and Merkel are part of this terrorist act.

The aim of both terrorist acts are to attempt to start a stock sellout against Boeing in NYSE and to disrupt the deals that Boeing has with Russian companies, Sukhoi in particular !

Western media reaction to the tragedy betrays them ! It is obviously oriented at attempting to play the crisis in favor of a new stock market crash .....

a reply to: Flanker86

Did you forget the '/sarcasm'' BBcode switch?

If not...you're in the right place, here on ATS! LOL

a reply to: Flanker86

Upgrade.

The BEA said they may have the preliminary read tomorrow.

Need to correct a post..
Lion and Ethiopia both just quit transmitting during their flights.

Ethiopian:


Lion Air:

a reply to: Bigburgh

The final altitude that Lion Air transmitted at was 425 feet while in a 31,000 fpm descent. The next second, when it should have transmitted again, they had hit the water, or it was close enough that the transmission was interrupted and showed bad data.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thank you

a reply to: Zaphod58

Could a structural failure have damaged either the power or antennae leads?

a reply to: JIMC5499

Yes. The question then becomes, why. Simply going from nose up to nose down shouldn't put that much strain on the aircraft.