Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Boeing 737-8 MAX Kills Again

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia -- An Ethiopian Airlines flight crashed shortly after takeoff from Ethiopia's capital on Sunday morning, killing all 157 on board, authorities said, as grieving families rushed to airports in Addis Ababa and the destination, Nairobi. More than 30 nationalities are among the dead.

It was not immediately clear what caused the crash of the Boeing 737-8 MAX plane, which was new and had been delivered to the airline in November. The pilot sent out a distress call and was given clearance to return, the airline's CEO told reporters.

by Anonymousreply 24520 hours ago

The Boeing 737-8 MAX was new, delivered to Ethiopian Airlines in mid-November, the airline's CEO said. Its last maintenance was on Feb. 4 and it had flown just 1,200 hours. The pilot was a senior one, joining the airline in 2010, he said.

In a statement, Boeing said it was "deeply saddened" to hear of the crash and that a technical team was ready to provide assistance at the request of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board.

In October, another Boeing 737-8 MAX plunged into the Java Sea just minutes after taking off from Jakarta, Indonesia's capital, killing all 189 people on board the plane Lion Air flight. The cockpit data recorder showed that the jet's airspeed indicator had malfunctioned on its last four flights, though Lion Air initially claimed that problems with the aircraft had been fixed.

by Anonymousreply 103/10/2019

@jonostrower

An American Airlines spokesmen said of #ET302: “We will closely monitor the investigation via Boeing and the National Transportation Safety Board.” The airline - second largest U.S. operator after Southwest - has 24 737 Max aircraft in its fleet, all operating normally toda

by Anonymousreply 203/10/2019

My go-to site for professional discussion/opinions about airline "events".

by Anonymousreply 303/10/2019

Thanks r3

by Anonymousreply 403/10/2019

Given the Lion Air crash and now the Ethiopian Air crash what will the major airlines do? Something is definitely going on. Does anyone with knowledge of how these things work have any insight? Surely AA, Southwest, United and others must be concerned at this point? It’s only a matter of time before it happens again.

by Anonymousreply 503/10/2019

I'm glad I'm poor.

by Anonymousreply 603/10/2019

r2 Southwest is bigger than Delta?

by Anonymousreply 703/10/2019

r5 -- see r2 for American Airline's response.

The others you mentioned will have similar responses soon.

by Anonymousreply 803/10/2019

Darfur Orphan might have a point:

by Anonymousreply 903/10/2019

First video of crash site:

by Anonymousreply 1003/10/2019

Darfur Orphan gets some new friends.

by Anonymousreply 1103/10/2019

A chicken probably got loose on the plane and distracted everyone.

by Anonymousreply 1203/10/2019

Travel expert weighs in:

by Anonymousreply 1303/10/2019

r7 You may have a point.

by Anonymousreply 1403/10/2019

There were some UN personnel on the plane

by Anonymousreply 1503/10/2019

A few days ago Linda G predicted a plane crash with a lot of casualties.

by Anonymousreply 1603/10/2019

Obviously, millennial programmers in India have fucked something up in the new flight control system.

by Anonymousreply 1703/10/2019

Funny, when I was a kid, the only ones who hated the UN were John Birchers. Odd that the Israelis picked up that group's attitudes, tactics and strategies so soon after the US GOP rid themselves of that sort of negativity.

by Anonymousreply 1903/10/2019

I love you, R14.

by Anonymousreply 2003/10/2019

Jeremiah was on that flight!

by Anonymousreply 2103/10/2019

How difficult would it be for Boeing to do a “software upgrade” to the 737 MAX to make it operate or behave like the other 737s at climb out or when it senses a stall so that pilots would not get confused? That seems to be the theory behind both crashes. Pilots have complained that they have not been trained properly on the plane.

by Anonymousreply 2203/10/2019

R21 Are you being serious or is this a joke? Not funny.

by Anonymousreply 2303/10/2019

Unimaginable thinking about their last moments. This is by far my worst fear. Many of these people were environmentalists. So sad.

by Anonymousreply 2403/10/2019

R22, can you elaborate? I’m obviously no expert in flying so I’m not sure why you’re referring to but it sounds like a crucial theory.

by Anonymousreply 2503/10/2019

I love you, R21.

by Anonymousreply 2603/10/2019

Ethiopian Airlines was relatively safe until this crash and had a relatively new fleet.

by Anonymousreply 2703/10/2019

Isn't this the airline of some shithole country?

by Anonymousreply 2803/10/2019

R25 Read the article posted at R13 it gives a rundown of everything. Basically the 737 MAX has a different system where when it senses a stall it takes over control. Pilots have complained that they were not made aware of this new system on the 737 MAX and as a result accidents could occur.

by Anonymousreply 2903/10/2019

The Addis Ababa to Nairobi route. That poor plane committed suicide.

by Anonymousreply 3003/10/2019

which airlines in the US use this?

What about British Airways? That's what I usually fly every year.

by Anonymousreply 3103/10/2019

C’mon, R12, you know someone would’ve caught and eat that chicken. It’s Ethiopian Airlines for goodness sake.

by Anonymousreply 3203/10/2019

Most of the US carriers use the 737 MAXs, r31. A lot of them use the 8 series that wa involved in both these crashes (Lion Air and this one), but you'd have to check with the airline to see what they're using for each flight.

by Anonymousreply 3303/10/2019

R17 - preach you brilliant whore!

by Anonymousreply 3403/10/2019

It isn't just Boeing that suffers this, Airbus does too. You see airspeed is measured by a thing called a Pitoc tube. They ice up and send bunk data n airspeed.

by Anonymousreply 3503/10/2019

How do we know this isn't just a plot by the oligarchy to eliminate environmentalists?

by Anonymousreply 3603/10/2019

[quote]You see airspeed is measured by a thing called a Pitoc tube.

You mean a pitot tube.

by Anonymousreply 3703/10/2019

R35 You're right. Faulty Pitot tubes are assumed the reason behind the Air France crash.

by Anonymousreply 3803/10/2019

Hopefully they find the black boxes.

by Anonymousreply 3903/10/2019

Aircraft are such complex things nowadays, that until they analyse the black box, then trying to speculate correctly on why it came down, is very difficult.

Could be an issue in climb. Could be pilot error. Could be terrorism. Could be a failure of part of the aircraft like the pitot tubes. Could be systems related. Could be allsorts.

by Anonymousreply 4003/10/2019

[quote] Hopefully they find the black boxes.

If those black boxes are meant to survive a crash, why don't they make all the plane of the same material?

by Anonymousreply 4103/10/2019

R35, this isn't a pitot tube problem. This is the first generation of Boeing's to include MCAS. It's a system that takes over if the plane is in a stall. It pushed the nose down and increases speed. The issue with Lion Air was the pilots were unaware of MCAS and fought the autopilot instead of shutting it down. From what I've read, this crash seems to have given different data points than the Lion Air crash on FlightTracker and it may be a different cause.

by Anonymousreply 4203/10/2019

I read some of the posts at a pilot's forum linked in this thread or another thread. The pilots were saying that the problem likely runs a lot deeper than a software fix.

by Anonymousreply 4303/10/2019

I've read that this generation has new a new engine design and that the engine design may be part of the problem.

I should add to my post at r42 that the preliminary Lion Air crash report put the blame on sensors. The pilot and co-pilot were receiving different speed readings and they didn't know who had the correct info. At the same time they were battling MCAS for control of the plane.

by Anonymousreply 4403/10/2019

My first thought is that a 2nd crash for the same model definitely points towards the aircraft being an issue vs pilot error.

U.S. carriers American and Southwest have been flying this model with no reported problems, so it makes you wonder if this aircraft is to complex for less experienced pilots from 3rd world countries.

by Anonymousreply 4503/10/2019

China grounds all MAX 8s in its airspace until further notice, other countries & airlines following suit. Knew that was coming today.

by Anonymousreply 4603/10/2019

Ethiopian Airlines is, by all accounts, the best airline in Africa and maintains a pretty high standard, and the pilot was a senior pilot with a lot of experience, so I doubt it's that the aircraft is too complex, but it could be that they weren't adequately trained.

by Anonymousreply 4703/10/2019

R47 Rubbish! Ethiopian has had three hijacks and four crashes, two in which everyone on the plane was killed, in 25 years. Pilots are flown well over any legal or normal limits. Rest rules are blatantly ignored. That is not "the best" by any standard, even African.

Canada's Global News showed locals walking around the site of the wreckage, picking up anything that looked interesting/valuable and then walking on.

by Anonymousreply 4803/10/2019

A Norwegian was on the plane. She was just 28 years old. She was wotking with the UN. RIP.

by Anonymousreply 4903/10/2019

working*

by Anonymousreply 5003/10/2019

[quote]You're right. Faulty Pitot tubes are assumed the reason behind the Air France crash.

Actually no, the reason behind the Air France crash was the pilot response, with the pilot causing repeated stall-outs even when the plane was at comfortably high altitudes.

by Anonymousreply 5103/10/2019

Sorry, should have said pilotS.

by Anonymousreply 5203/10/2019

Now that China has grounded the the 737 MAX will the US and Europe follow suit?

by Anonymousreply 5303/10/2019

r48 no African airline would be considered up to par in the West. That's not a PC thing to say, so it doesn't get talked about on SM, but it's the truth. The last time I did a deep dive on aviation sites, many industry personnel--including pilots, were warning of this happening A lot of these manufacturers are assuming standards of maintenance, training and/or operation that don't exist in all parts of the world.

Having said that, it's not just a question of pilot error/training; it's an entire technological threshold of what being a pilot means. Many aviation/aerospace commentators were also concerned about the on-board systems being too complex and prone to security issues.

There was much internet back & forth at the time (about 5 years ago), admittedly over my head in some places, but I understood enough to realize that it was going to be a major concern.

DL aviation industry insiders--any thoughts?

by Anonymousreply 5403/10/2019

[QUOTE]The pilots were saying that the problem likely runs a lot deeper than a software fix.

I blame those fucking Wright Brothers

by Anonymousreply 5503/10/2019

r36: The oligarchy are the psycopaths who own the central banks as well as the UN (which stands on Rockefeller land, btw) They are desperate to impose a global tax on everyone to pay the billion$ in interest to themselves on the massive and exponentially increasing government debts. So they came up with a 'carbon tax' (which homosexual Macron tried to impose in France and angered the yellow vests) to do the job. Thankfully there is fierce resistance to this caca and hopefully people are starting to wake up to the $cam of man-made climate change Nice that a few of the UN criminals were 'eliminated'!

by Anonymousreply 5603/11/2019

. I work in the UN and this crash is a gut punch across the system through most agencies. My colleague and dearest friend, a beautiful gay man, died as did many experts working in the fields of development and environment. There are no words.

by Anonymousreply 5703/11/2019

Ethiopian Airlines was actually created by TWA way back when. It isn’t really government owned like the other “good” airline, South African Airways, and has mostly escaped the taint of ID with 3rd World Airlines in general.

It really has quite a good reputation, and Bolé Intl in Addis is rapidly expanding as the only true connecting hub in Africa.

by Anonymousreply 5803/11/2019

Lad 20 miles back at the coast from me was on the flight.

by Anonymousreply 5903/11/2019

And Addis itself is growing amazingly fast. New metro train system.

Basically serves as the “capital” of Africa (as Brussels does for the EU) as home of the African Union.

High elevation so no pesky tropical diseases, great food, gorgeous people.

by Anonymousreply 6003/11/2019

R51 is of course an idiot. The final report released in 2012 concluded that the aircraft crashed after temporary inconsistencies between the airspeed measurements—likely due to the aircraft's pitot tubes being obstructed by ice crystals—caused the autopilot to disconnect, after which the crew reacted incorrectly and ultimately caused the aircraft to enter an aerodynamic stall, from which it did not recover.

by Anonymousreply 6103/11/2019

Poor little r61, calls me an idiot then is forced to agree I was right. It’s ok dear, maybe next time.

by Anonymousreply 6203/11/2019

Of course the BBC is like a dog with a bone on this one — apparently they’re already concluded Boeing is at fault.

That’s what happens when State run media also owns state run aerospace corp that’s struggling.

by Anonymousreply 6303/11/2019

That's one way to look at it R63. Or maybe as an corporation that is not funded by advertising, the BBC doesn't worry about losing revenue when it tells unflattering business stories.

Maybe we should focus on why Boeing planes keep falling out of the sky rather than what the BBC says about it.

by Anonymousreply 6403/11/2019

[quote]Sorry, should have said pilotS.

No, you should’ve said pilots’.

by Anonymousreply 6503/11/2019

Sorry for your loss, R57.

by Anonymousreply 6603/11/2019

The thing is that both Ethiopian and Lion Air flights could have dropped out of the sky for the same or differing reasons.

Aa soon as the black box is examined, we will know more.

by Anonymousreply 6703/11/2019

One of the posts from that pilots' forum noted that both planes malfunctioned at the same airspeed, 383 kts.

by Anonymousreply 6803/11/2019

@NPR

Boeing has delivered a total of 350 MAX aircraft worldwide.

In the United States, three airlines fly the MAX and all three said today they have no plans to stand down:

American – flies 24 MAX 8

Southwest – flies 34 MAX 8

United – flies 14 MAX 9

by Anonymousreply 6903/11/2019

Aircraft might have taken a hit from a bomb or missile.

-------------------

Crash witness Gebeyehu Fikadu, 25, told CNN he was collecting firewood nearby when he saw the plane 'swerving'.

'I was in the mountain nearby when I saw the plane reach the mountain before turning around with a lot of smoke coming from the back and then crashed at this site. It crashed with a large boom. When it crashed luggage and clothes came burning down.

'Before it crashed the plane was swerving and dipping with a lot of smoke coming from the back and also making a very loud unpleasant sound before hitting the ground.'

Another witness, Tegegn Dechasa told AFP 'the plane was already on fire when it crashed to the ground. The crash caused a big explosion.'

Malka Galato, the farmer whose land the plane crashed on, told Reuters he saw small items that looked like paper coming from the plane. The jet was making a strange noise and made a sudden turn just before it crashed, he said.

The plane tried to climb before it made a sharp turn and came down, farmer Tamirat Abera added.

Another farmer Sisay Gemechu, added: 'The plane seemed to be aiming to land at a nearby level open field, but crashed before reaching there.'

by Anonymousreply 7003/11/2019

Weirder and weirder, if what those farmers are saying is accurate.

It couldn't have been hit by a missile, because if it had the pilot wouldn't have had time to call in for permission to turn around and re-land.

by Anonymousreply 7103/11/2019

Yeah, the farmers' accounts are inaccurate; eyewitnesses of plane & car crashes notoriously are -- it all happens too fast, too spectacularly. Pilot radio'd he had technical problem, pilot was flying a circle back to the airport, and both black boxes will clearly show no missle/explosion/fire (it's what they track).

by Anonymousreply 7203/11/2019

It’s very common (I have no idea why) for eyewitnesses of plane crashes to say that the plane was on fire before it hit the ground, when it wasn’t.

by Anonymousreply 7303/11/2019

The Western Erasure of African Tragedy

by Anonymousreply 7403/11/2019

@Moonipulations

How a Bad Business Decision May Have Made Boeing’s 737 Max Vulnerable to Crashes

by Anonymousreply 7503/11/2019

R75 Thank you for this article - This expert explains it all - There is an inherent design flaw that causes the nose to pitch up causing them to stall that Boeing will not be able to overcome. It is irresponsible for any airline to be flying these planes. Wow!

It all comes down to business strategy. Chicago-based Boeing is locked in a fierce duopolistic rivalry with Toulouse-based Airbus, with whom it roughly splits the $200 billion airliner market. The biggest segment of that market is for short- to medium-range narrowbody jets that typically carry between 100 and 200 passengers. These are the workhorses of aviation, unglamorous and hard-ridden, endlessly bouncing back and forth on routes like Salt Lake-Denver and La Guardia-O’Hare.

Boeing’s entry, the 737, first flew in 1967, and though various improvements have been rolled out over the years, at heart it’s still a creature of the Right Stuff era. Instead of computer-controlled fly-by-wire controls, which guide a plane’s flight electronically, it still has old fashioned mechanical actuators, and it’s made of aluminum rather than modern lightweight composites.

Airbus’ A320 family, meanwhile, took to the skies a generation later, in 1987, but it was a fly-by-wire, composite creature from the get go. In 2014 Airbus rolled out its most recent iteration, the A320neo, a range of jets with engines that were billed as being 15 percent more fuel efficient than the old model.

To maintain its lead, Boeing had to counter Airbus’ move. It had two options: either clear off the drafting tables and start working on a clean-sheet design, or keep the legacy 737 and polish it. The former would cost a vast amount—its last brand-new design, the 787, cost $32 billion to develop—and it would require airlines to retrain flight crews and maintenance personnel.

Instead, they took the second and more economical route and upgraded the previous iteration. Boeing swapped out the engines for new models, which, together with airframe tweaks, promised a 20 percent increase in fuel efficiency. In order to accommodate the engine’s larger diameter, Boeing engineers had to move the point where the plane attaches to the wing. This, in turn, affected the way the plane handled. Most alarmingly, it left the plane with a tendency to pitch up, which could result in a dangerous aerodynamic stall. To prevent this, Boeing added a new autopilot system that would pitch the nose down if it looked like it was getting too high. According to a preliminary report, it was this system that apparently led to the Lion Air crash.

If Boeing had designed a new plane from scratch it wouldn’t have had to resort to this kind of kludge. It could have designed the airframe for the engines so that the pitch-up tendency did not exist. As it was, its engineers used automation to paper over the aircraft’s flaws. Automated systems can go a long way toward preventing the sorts of accidents that arise from human fecklessness or inattention, but they inherently add to a system’s complexity. When they go wrong they can act in ways that are surprising to an unprepared pilot. That can be dangerous, especially in high-stress, novel situations. Air France 447 was lost in 2009 after pilots overreacted to minor malfunctions and became confused about what to expect from the autopilot.

by Anonymousreply 7603/11/2019

[quote]When they go wrong they can act in ways that are surprising to an unprepared pilot.

This is the bone of contention. There are aviation experts who maintain that there is a measurable threshold beyond which these hi-tech system planes become too complex for humans to fly, too complicated to diagnose and fix economically, and too prone to security flaws.

"Unprepared pilot" is code for third world carriers with lax standards, or airlines run by rich despotic regimes who do what the sheik, king, dictator, etc want. Right now, they are the ones involved in the 4 incidents (there were 2 other 'nose up' incidents).

Yes, this is a major no-no in aviation, to mod repeatedly when the issue is a design flaw; however, the core problem is that threshold.

by Anonymousreply 7703/11/2019

R77 I would argue that both are issues - Unprepared pilots that aren’t trained to the same standards as in the United States, Europe and Asia - Also repeatedly modifying the 737 to the point where it will spontaneously nose up and stall due to repositioning the engines further back on the fuselage is not safe. The idea that the autopilot was redesigned to force the nose down so the engines can be restarted makes sense unless the plane is still at climb out and at a low altitude. The plane crashes. Boeing needs to redesign the plane if it is prone to stall.

by Anonymousreply 7803/11/2019

R78 exactly. We're not talking about Excel having a bug you need to work around -- this is a damn plane! Hate the arrogance of computer engineers (as opposed to real engineers): "Oh, looks like these third world pilots aren't well trained enough to....uh.... to overcome a serious design flaw WE created." Smdh

by Anonymousreply 7903/11/2019

For those interested -- a primer on Black Boxes (which are orange):

by Anonymousreply 8003/11/2019

r79 if the design flaw was the main issue, then more planes of this type would crash, so it clearly is a partial training/ability problem. As I said, the design has to be flawless, but shouldn't the pilot be able to disconnect the MCAS and fly it? The original complaint from pilots was they weren't aware of the workaround. Do you really think that a fatal design flaw with no acceptable workaround would be tolerated by pilots? If it was malfunctioning, then that's slightly different, and IIRC that happened re: Lion Air. If the design is flawed, *&* the correction system automation isn't working, then the margin of safety will be too low.

To me, that points to a larger problem. Even if these planes are grounded tomorrow, another problem could arise that will result in an accident because the tech is just too complicated, but the pilots are losing the ability to problem solve due to over-dependence on auto-pilot. This has been a bone of contention on aviation sites generally, not just re: accidents--pilots are too slow/reluctant to go off auto-pilot.

by Anonymousreply 8103/11/2019

R81 the problem is that the design flaw DOES cause malfunction: autopilot insistently & erroneously pointing the nose in the wrong direction. Even after pilots manually point it back in the right direction, the malfunction fights them. No, it's not a training error, unless pilots should be expected to wrestle with autopilot that keeps sending the plane in the wrong direction. There's no time to deal with that shit: Lion Air crashed 13 minutes after takeoff, Ethiopian Air just 6 minutes after takeoff. Both very experienced pilots. This is a serious design flaw.

by Anonymousreply 8203/11/2019

I remember engines falling off 747s from the 70s through the 90s.

by Anonymousreply 8303/11/2019

Wrong, R83. Engines were falling off DC-10s in the late seventies, not 747s. Different aircraft and different manufacturer.

by Anonymousreply 8403/11/2019

747 engines falling off

by Anonymousreply 8503/11/2019

[quote]The idea that the autopilot was redesigned to force the nose down so the engines can be restarted...

R78, I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word stall when used in relation to airplanes. The engines don't stop and need toi be restarted when angled too high, the wings lose lift. The autopilot pushes the nose down so the wings again meet the airflow at the proper angle of attack to regain lift.

MCAS is just a more modern version of the mechanical stick pusher, which has been present on many airplanes for many years. It may well be that the engine placement causes MCAS to kick in when it's not needed, but the correct response to an aerodynamic stall is indeed to push the nose down and increase speed.

by Anonymousreply 8603/11/2019

R86 yeah but thanks to this design flaw, as the pilot pushes it down, the damn autopilot keeps trying to push it back up -- can't fly with a software glitch fighting against you as you make the correct moves.

by Anonymousreply 8703/12/2019

The UK Civil Aviation Authority has now banned 737-Maxs from UK airspace.

by Anonymousreply 8803/12/2019

Some developments this morning:

UK has ordered the aircraft grounded and banned it from its airspace; Trump tweets blame complex automation for confusing pilots ; Senators Romney and Blumenthal call on Boeing to ground the 737 Max fleet.

by Anonymousreply 8903/12/2019

Wow. That’s huge, R89!

by Anonymousreply 9003/12/2019

Does Trump know what plummeting Boeing stock will do to the Dow Jones? I would hate to be the one who has to tell him.

Trump just tweeted:

[quote] Airplanes are becoming far too complex to fly. Pilots are no longer needed, but rather computer scientists from MIT. I see it all the time in many products. Always seeking to go one unnecessary step further, when often old and simpler is far better. Split second decisions are........needed, and the complexity creates danger. All of this for great cost yet very little gain. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want Albert Einstein to be my pilot. I want great flying professionals that are allowed to easily and quickly take control of a plane!

by Anonymousreply 9103/12/2019

R91 This is from the guy trumpeting those nifty inventions: walls and wheels. The latest must-have items.

by Anonymousreply 9203/12/2019

I have to agree with Trump. This obsesion with replacing humans in every fucking area is insane.

Greedy captains of industry and sociopathic nerds ruin everything.

by Anonymousreply 9303/12/2019

This from a man who needs a computer scientist from MIT if his Twitter account accidentally logs itself out.

“How do I log cabin again?” “Do you mean login?”

by Anonymousreply 9403/12/2019

Problems arise from both sides of the computer interface. One reviewer of fly-by-wire, "pilot-proof" Airbus noted that since anyone can fly those planes, anyone does.

by Anonymousreply 9503/12/2019

The UK has now grounded the 737 MAX - The FAA can continue the make all the excuses it wants but something needs to be done in the United States - Until a definitive cause for both crashes is determined the planes should not be in the air - I almost wonder how much of Boeing’s money is falling out of the FAA’s pockets to keep these planes airborne? Given how many in the government are calling for the grounding of these planes is there anything they can do to force the FAA’s hand? Can Trump force the head of the FAA to ground the planes? Hate on him all you want but he does have a point regarding the over reliance pilots have on automation while flying modern aircraft. Many others with far more knowledge on the subject have made the same exact point as Trump.

by Anonymousreply 9603/12/2019

And the elephant in the room that no one wants to address is that the Pilot was way inexperienced. Too few flying hours and MAX experience. 28 years old and 8,000 hours flying experience? Perhaps if he started flying professionally at 14.

by Anonymousreply 9703/12/2019

Engine mount design change may have contributed to 737-8 MAX crashes.

by Anonymousreply 9803/12/2019

R97 The pilots experience may have been a contributing factor. You cannot discount the 737 MAX being redesigned within an inch of it’s life to achieve maximum fuel efficiency to compete with the Airbus A320neo a completely new design. Boeing saved billions of dollars in research and development costs. The fact remains until the root cause of the accidents is determined whether it be pilot error, equipment failure, onboard computer malfunction or a combination of any or all of these the planes should not be transporting passengers.

by Anonymousreply 9903/12/2019

"At this point every major Boeing 737 MAX operator outside of North America has grounded these planes. Every. Single. One. Either voluntarily or by request from the government."

by Anonymousreply 10003/12/2019

@ChrisG_NSF

The #BOEING737MAX8 groundings and air space bans just keep coming. So far Boeing's response as been "Well, the FAA hasn't ordered us to do anything, so nothing to see here."

by Anonymousreply 10103/12/2019

[quote]So far Boeing's response as been "Well, the FAA hasn't ordered us to do anything, so nothing to see here."

JFC.

As someone else just said, will it take an accident here for us to wake up?

by Anonymousreply 10203/12/2019

Here's a nasty fact about crash investigation. Depending on the problem, it may not be possible to determine the cause from the evidence in one or two crashes. This was true of the cause of the bizarre rudder-based 737 crashes back in the 70's and 80's. A couple of crashes went unsolved for years until the problem happened under just the right circumstances to allow investigators to determine it was due to cold temperatures on an activator. So grounding the fleet may actually make it take longer to find the issue.

by Anonymousreply 10303/12/2019

U. S. pilots are managing to keep the max in the air just fine. The distinction is pilot quality and experience.

by Anonymousreply 10403/12/2019

EU and India have grounded the aircraft.

OK for you Americans to fly in them by the sounds of it though!

by Anonymousreply 10503/12/2019

Several Boeing 737 Max 8 pilots in U.S. complained about suspected safety flaw

by Anonymousreply 10603/12/2019

Now you’ve got me scared to fly back to the East Coast for my sister’s wedding next month.

by Anonymousreply 10703/12/2019

I think they are hestitant to ground the planes because it would tank Boeing's stock and that would fuck with the stock market. Trump and his people are pretty transparent.

[quote] The stock's sharp move down cost the 30-stock Dow more than 150 points. Boeing has by far the biggest influence on the Dow given the index is price weighted. In other words, a higher share price will have a greater impact on the Dow.

by Anonymousreply 10803/12/2019

Maddow read some posts from some pilot site where they described the exact same things happening to their flights. They turned off autopilot and kept going without any other incidents. All these two pilots had to do was know enough to turn off the autopilot and all those people would be alive. It's probably one line of code in some software. Maddow also covered that the fix of this software was delayed by the government shutdown. Fucking Trump. And fucking McConnell. Oh, and fucking Elaine Chao, who is the head of the department of transportation and, of course, also known as...Mrs. McConnell. I hope they all die in fiery crashes.

by Anonymousreply 10903/12/2019

R104

But the manufacturers and airline operations guides still need to be followed.

by Anonymousreply 11003/12/2019

Gruesome question:

In all the pictures of these crashes we just see burned out plane parts and shoes and suitcases laying on the ground next to a giant pit where the plane blew up and disintegrated on impact. I always assumed the people mostly also blew up and disintegrated on impact but is that true? Are these sites just covered with body parts or is everything pretty much gone? Anyone ever work a crash site?

by Anonymousreply 11103/12/2019

@MaddowBlog

The software fix to solve the unexpected nosedive problem in these planes had been expected in early January but the government shutdown reportedly "halted work on the fix for five weeks."

by Anonymousreply 11203/12/2019

Hong Kong bans the 737 Max.

by Anonymousreply 11303/13/2019

Why would Boeing take this risk? If another plane goes down, won't Boeing be completely wiped out as a company?

by Anonymousreply 11403/13/2019

R111 The people don't disintegrate. There are bodies and body parts used for the IDing the victims of a crash

NY Daily News has some graphic non-gory images from 2015.

by Anonymousreply 11503/13/2019

R107 Law of averages. There's already been a plane crash, so the likelihood of another so soon after goes way down. Check what type of plane you're flying on. And enjoy your sister's wedding.

by Anonymousreply 11603/13/2019

Canada now has it's first grounding of Max 737- Sunwing has grounded it's 4 Max planes. No word yet on Air Canada.

by Anonymousreply 11703/13/2019

Air Canada has 24 Max 737.

by Anonymousreply 11803/13/2019

So if there will be another crash it will be in North America.

by Anonymousreply 11903/13/2019

I' d say Boing is already fucked

by Anonymousreply 12003/13/2019

PR disaster for Boeing

by Anonymousreply 12103/13/2019

Canada has now grounded the Max.

by Anonymousreply 12203/13/2019

Reminder to R117 and the rest of the illiterate morons:

it's - contraction of it is

its - possessive, e.g. its first grounding, its 4 MAX planes

by Anonymousreply 12303/13/2019

R123 Boeing CEO

by Anonymousreply 12403/13/2019

R124 Illiterate moron

by Anonymousreply 12503/13/2019

To all of the racist assholes saying the problem is the airline not Boeing, what is the excuse for the malfunction on that Boeing plane to Houston the other day?

Trump doesn't care if 50 Boeing planes crash in America. He's not going to want a stock market crash right before election

by Anonymousreply 12603/13/2019

R109 Wouldn't turning off the autopilot be the fundamentals of flying 101 when a jet airliner begins behaving erratically and becomes difficult to control? I find it hard to believe that they would've overlooked something so obvious. I don't know the first thing about flying an aircraft, so maybe it's a bit more complicated than that?

by Anonymousreply 12703/13/2019

R126 truly believes that only positive images should be portrayed of African airlines and not the reality that crews are poorly trained and airplanes poorly maintained.

by Anonymousreply 12803/13/2019

R122 Wow, so Canada has not only grounded the planes, but are also not allowing any (meaning US planes as we are the last ones to do the right fucking thing) to fly into their airspace. Would love to know what new information they have.

by Anonymousreply 12903/13/2019

R127, the problem that happened with Lion Air was a malfunctioning senor caused critical data, like air speed, to show up differently on both the pilot and copilot's consoles. So control over the plane was only one issue. The second was how to fly a plane when you don't know what data is correct.

by Anonymousreply 13003/13/2019

R128, I used to work in Ethiopia. I've flown with Ethiopian Airlines all the time. You probably think the coked out American pilots are just the epitome of professionalism, right?

This was a plane issue. Don't fall for the Boeing PR/damage control that this was the fault of the pilot or airlines. They're in big trouble and will look to deflect blame elsewhere. I guess the pilot in Indonesia and the American pilot in Houston was at fault too, right?

by Anonymousreply 13103/13/2019

If this were any other country, the people would be outraged in the streets that their country and president refuses to support suspending a dangerous plane model. Imagine how the deplorables would freak and call Obama a terrorist if he refused to do so.

Only in America do stocks and financial gain matter more than public safety and disaster prevention.

by Anonymousreply 13203/13/2019

[quote]U. S. pilots are managing to keep the max in the air just fine...for now.

Fixed that for ya.

by Anonymousreply 13303/13/2019

And only on DataLounge could people discussing a plane crash, the manufacturer’s lack of action and the country’s inaction be accused of racism.

It’s the new scarlet letter for the 21st century. Let’s not have frank and open dialogue, let’s just scream the “R” word, and if you don’t agree...guess what that means you are?

by Anonymousreply 13403/13/2019

The Ethiopian pilot had issues with flight control. American pilots are also complaining about flight control issues with this 737-Max 8. Our government refuses to do anything of course because Boeing and the defense industry controls Washington.

Congress will remain silent on this as well because pissing off Boeing can cost them an election.

by Anonymousreply 13503/13/2019

Southwest should do the right fucking thing if not for moral/ethical reasons than a PR boost, and get one over on United and AA. Instead, every minute they are deflecting and doubling down on their Twitter. That used to be "my" airline, now I am disgusted. If Herb was still alive, I wonder if they wouldn't have taken action by now. Instead they are doing polls asking what movies they should be offering. They are scrambling to keep up in their replies to concerned customers, mostly via DM, and continuing to toe the line, example:

Hey, there. As you know, our fleet of Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft are operating as planned today and we plan to operate those aircraft going forward. We remain confident in the Safety of our fleet, and our focus on the Safety of our operation is constant and unwavering. -Chelsea

by Anonymousreply 13603/13/2019

[quote]I've flown with Ethiopian Airlines all the time. You probably think the coked out American pilots are just the epitome of professionalism, right?

Professionalism isn't the issue. It's experience and knowledge, something those "coked out American pilots" have in abundance, which African pilots sorely lack. To say nothing of poor airline maintenance. But carry on pretending.

Whether or not the plane was the issue is up to the investigators, not someone who NEEDS the plane to be the issue.

by Anonymousreply 13703/13/2019

R137, I'm not needing the plane to be the issue. The plane is the issue you moron. The adequately trained perfect American pilots are also complaining about flight control regarding this plane.

Do you think the whole world is suspending this plane for fun?

by Anonymousreply 13803/13/2019

The Boeing PR people have found Datalounge. No point arguing with them, though it's hard not to. As you said r138, the rest of the world isn't suspending this plane for fun.

by Anonymousreply 13903/13/2019

Yes, cause the world knows just how influential Datalounge is on the aviation industry.

by Anonymousreply 14003/13/2019

You can go too r140.

by Anonymousreply 14103/13/2019

You're a moron, r141.

by Anonymousreply 14203/13/2019

Such rapier wit r141! Thanks! WW to YOU!

Back to Boeing...

by Anonymousreply 14303/13/2019

Southwest's 737 Max planes are fitted with a display for the AoA data (the single input that the MCAS relies on - a dubious engineering choice). This upgrade, paid for by SW after the Lion Air crash, potentially makes their Max fleet a wee bit safer because their pilots have more data available when making decisions in flight. Boeing at the very least ought to provide the AoA displays for free even if the MCAS is not implicated in the Ethiopian crash as it was in Lion Air. Their planes are grounded everywhere but in the States, so now is the perfect time to refit them and it would go a small way toward remedying their PR catastrophe.

by Anonymousreply 14403/13/2019

R144 I also understand that Southwest is the only one of the 3 carriers with a simulator that supports the MAX. You make good points.

by Anonymousreply 14503/13/2019

Confirmed, you're moron and a prolific poster, r143. Do you even have a life off DL?

by Anonymousreply 14603/13/2019

Every airline flies with an experienced pilot and an inexperienced co-pilot in the cockpit, somewhere in the world everyday.

Pilots can only build up their experience of an aircraft type that way.

The race or nationality of the pilots is immaterial. It's the airline and the nation's civil aviation authority's training and operating procedures and rules that are important.

by Anonymousreply 14703/13/2019

FAA grounds Max fleet in the United States.

by Anonymousreply 14803/13/2019

R148, and there was me hoping Dad might go to Mar-a-Lago with one of these planes some day.

:-(

by Anonymousreply 14903/13/2019

Tried to post this hours ago. But trying again..

Is it true that Boeing gave $1,000,000 to Trump's Inaugural Committee? No wonder it took Trump so long to ground the planes. Wasn't USA one of the last?

by Anonymousreply 15003/13/2019

Boeing probably gave a million to Hillary, too. They play both sides.

by Anonymousreply 15103/13/2019

R150= The US was the last major carrier, right after Canada banned the MAX.

by Anonymousreply 15203/13/2019

[quote]If those black boxes are meant to survive a crash, why don't they make all the plane of the same material

It would be too heavy to fly.

by Anonymousreply 15303/13/2019

It's about time that the US did the right thing in grounding these planes..shameful it took so song.

by Anonymousreply 15403/13/2019

R154 It took so song because Boeing was dancing around the issue.

by Anonymousreply 15503/13/2019

R138 Complaining and crashing are worlds apart. Experience and training make the difference here.

by Anonymousreply 15603/13/2019

[quote]The US was the last major carrier

The U.S. is a carrier?

by Anonymousreply 15703/13/2019

R137 has obviously never flown Ethiopian Airlines. Bless her uninformed heart.

by Anonymousreply 15803/13/2019

R3 Yeah, but they never think it could be pilot error on almost every crash they discuss.

by Anonymousreply 15903/13/2019

On the pilots' forum PPRuNE, many repeat the mantra, "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going."

by Anonymousreply 16003/13/2019

R305 Pitot not pictoc. Frozen/malfunctioning pitot tubes have resulted in a few airline crashes.

by Anonymousreply 16103/13/2019

R76 The Airfrance crash wasn't due to the error of the pilots (plural). It was the inexperienced co-pilot who waited too long to notify the captain (who was taking a break with a stewardess) about the trouble. Then , when the pilot returned to the cabin, the co-pilot was pulling the wrong way on the controls.

by Anonymousreply 16203/13/2019

Ha! R155... very good.. stupid typos.

by Anonymousreply 16303/13/2019

[quote]Law of averages. There's already been a plane crash, so the likelihood of another so soon after goes way down. Check what type of plane you're flying on. And enjoy your sister's wedding.

You need to take a statistics class.

by Anonymousreply 16403/13/2019

R162, the Air France crash was also due to Air France not requiring their pilots to hand-fly their planes during training. The younger pilots have all been trained to depend on automation to resolve any issues and they weren't even learning stall recovery with the larger jets. In addition, the lead pilot did contribute to the problem by not announcing clearly he was taking control and communicating with his copilot to recognize the guy was hauling back on his joystick. Also, the design of the Airbus contributed because it allowed conflicting control inputs - the copilot was pulling back and the pilot was doing the right thing in pushing forward. The computer interpreted the conflicting commands as cancelling each other out and did nothing.

The accident would never have happened on a Boeing since they use linked control columns, not joysticks that give physical feedback. The pilot would have known immediately the copilot was pulling up because he would feel it.

Tragic.

by Anonymousreply 16503/13/2019

Excessive automation is at fault.

I personally feel much safer flying in planes with older technology

by Anonymousreply 16603/13/2019

The Boeing 'safety feature' in 737 Max 8 jets that crashed after take-off: System meant to prevent stalling pushes plane's nose down during steep climbs

by Anonymousreply 16703/13/2019

Boeing claims THEY requested the FAA temporarily ground all 737 Max 8 planes 'out of an abundance of caution' - but insists it has full confidence in their safety following Ethiopia disaster

by Anonymousreply 16803/13/2019

r168 Liars. I despise Trump but whoever convinced him he had to order those fucking planes grounded should get a medal. And for the airlines (looking at you Southwest) that insisted they would not be able to operate without those planes in use, well... so far the world has kept turning.

by Anonymousreply 16903/13/2019

Boeing had the software patch to fix the issue. Due to the government shutdown, the software patch was delayed.

But, this turns out to be terrific for China. China has a competing airplane under development.

by Anonymousreply 17003/13/2019

Regardless of whether it’s pilot error or design flaw the law of averages with modern airline travel should dictate that something isn’t kosher. Either land the planes issue re-training for pilots world-wide or alter the design of the plane. Can you imagine the sheer terror for both flights 6 minutes of utter terror knowing you are about to be reduced to dust.

by Anonymousreply 17103/13/2019

It’s very entertaining to see a whole lot of posters who have never left their home state except to jump on South West to Vegas for their brother in law’s bucks’ weekend, make authoritative pronouncements on the skills of an Ethiopian Airlines pilot when they couldn’t point out Addis Ababa on a map.

And couldn’t distinguish a 737-8 Max from and A380-800.

by Anonymousreply 17203/13/2019

The shutdown was only part of the problem:

@rebeccaballhaus

A software fix to the Boeing 737 MAX was delayed for months as discussions between regulators and Boeing dragged on—and U.S. officials said the government shutdown halted work on the fix for five weeks.

by Anonymousreply 17303/13/2019

So, is it a good time to buy Boeing shares, or no?

by Anonymousreply 17403/13/2019

Absolutely, R174. Seriously. Look at it as they’re having a sale.

by Anonymousreply 17503/14/2019

Money above everything.. and lives. That's what it always boils down to..

by Anonymousreply 17603/14/2019

^^ It's the American Way. Let's face it, that's what the American Revolution was really all about.

by Anonymousreply 17703/14/2019

USA: 42nd nation to ground the aircraft. What a shit hole.

by Anonymousreply 17803/14/2019

R176, I once saw a documentary on plane crashes that said airlines have a formula for “acceptable risk.” It was like an algorithm wherein if the cost of potentially one plane crashing was cheaper than the cost of the fix, they’d take the gamble.

Scary shit.

by Anonymousreply 17903/14/2019

Why is it that we have only an ACTING head of the FAA.? Was donald too busy playing golf to appoint a permanent chief? Jesus, what is wrong wth this so-called administration?

by Anonymousreply 18003/14/2019

Because the head of the FAA must be confirmed by the Senate. Until that happens s/he is “acting” as the head.

by Anonymousreply 18103/14/2019

@flightradar24 20m20 minutes ago More Updated count of #737MAX flights through yesterday, 13 March.

6 March — 1251

7 March — 1256

8 March — 1313

9 March — 1252

10 March — 1257

11 March — 950

12 March — 718

13 March — 314

There are currently 5 MAX flights (all ferry flights) in the air now:

(Four AA getting planes out of the Caribbean, and one SWA moving a MAX from La Guardia to Atlanta)

by Anonymousreply 18203/14/2019

Map as of 30 minutes ago:

by Anonymousreply 18303/14/2019

I thought all 737 Max planes grounded effectively immediately as of early yesterday afternoon. How can some still be in the air some 20-24 hours later?

by Anonymousreply 18403/14/2019

*were

by Anonymousreply 18503/14/2019

The exemption process would be very educational to know.

by Anonymousreply 18603/14/2019

Was thinking the same thing, R184.

[quote]and one SWA moving a MAX from La Guardia to Atlanta)

And this particularly troubles me. These planes were supposed to be grounded due to potential safety issues yet it’s OK to send one down the east coast?!

by Anonymousreply 18703/14/2019

The black box that could solve Boeing crash mystery: Flight recorder from doomed Ethiopian flight is revealed by French investigators as families demand answers

by Anonymousreply 18803/14/2019

Pilot of Ethiopian Boeing 737 Max 8 called 'in a panicky voice' and requested to return to the airport shortly after take-off just minutes before the plane crashed and killed 157 people

by Anonymousreply 18903/15/2019

Some pilots complained that the new technology, they weren't aware of... and had no training in how to handle it. How very irresponsible of the airlines.. and scary, that they put everyone in a dangerous situation. Updated training should be on an ongoing basis.

by Anonymousreply 19003/15/2019

REVEALED: FAA says they finally decided to ground Boeing 737 Max planes because data from two doomed flights showed the reasons they crashed were 'linked'

by Anonymousreply 19103/15/2019

Hero pilot Sully of 'Miracle on the Hudson' fame slams 'absurdly low' number of training hours for Ethiopian Airlines pilots after deadly crash

by Anonymousreply 19203/15/2019

More bad news for Boeing: Pentagon says firm is 'simply unacceptable' after they received fueling jets scattered with trash and tools

by Anonymousreply 19303/15/2019

Now you know why it’s called “Boeing.”

Because when the planes crash, they go “Boeing, Boeing, Boeing!”

by Anonymousreply 19403/15/2019

More here.

by Anonymousreply 19503/17/2019

[quote]That's one way to look at it [R63]. Or maybe as an corporation that is not funded by advertising, the BBC doesn't worry about losing revenue when it tells unflattering business stories.

Sure it has to worry about that — when the unflattering news stories are about the aerospace business its master owns. You know, the one whose flight control design contributed to the Air France disaster, or whose small minded desire to outdo the 747 led to the A380 catastrophe (always softpedalled by state run BBC of course).

Do keep up.

by Anonymousreply 19603/17/2019

Today’s Seattle Times has the best article yet.

by Anonymousreply 19703/17/2019

R197 Thanks, great find! Some damn good reporting there.

by Anonymousreply 19803/17/2019

To answer the question above about body parts. apparently in this crash, there is very little left of these souls. I am very surprised by this as I figured the plane crashed from a low altitude. Family members are receiving soil from the crash site in lieu of body parts (Articles just came out today)

Some wonderful people on that plane.

Worthy of remembrance- See excellent memorial at link. A lot of people who spent their lives helping others- This truly is tragic.

by Anonymousreply 19903/17/2019

R199 it's because of the intense fire. Plane had a full tank of gas when it hit the ground, so

by Anonymousreply 20003/17/2019

Plane also came to a dead stop as a hole in the ground after going over 500 mph. You really don't want to know what it does to a body. It's pretty much the same as Lufthansa hitting a mountain.

by Anonymousreply 20103/17/2019

Yeah, R200, I just realized that it crashed from 9000 feet- and yes, and being loaded with fuel is basically says it all-

Terrible.

by Anonymousreply 20203/17/2019

There are remains.Fire has liftle to do with it. Coming to a stop at 500 mph tears flesh apart.

[quote]Forensic DNA work has begun on identifying the remains but it may take six months to identify the victims, because the body parts are in small pieces. However, authorities say they will issue death certificates within two weeks. The victims of the crash came from 35 countries.

by Anonymousreply 20303/17/2019

A good article that explains clearly what (probably) went wrong in both these disasters.

by Anonymousreply 20403/17/2019

R204, are you also R197?

by Anonymousreply 20503/17/2019

No, I’m not R204. But 204 must’ve just seen it, and kindly thought to share. I’m just checking back because the information coming out is so troubling.

Of note in the article is that the original approved design of the horizontal tail (stabilizer) was to tilt only 0.6 degrees in response to MCAS. But then somehow it ended up at 2.5 degrees. And it would keep triggering itself. Unclear if the FAA approved the final 2.5 degree movement.

Also unclear why the FAA thought it was a good idea to allow huge engines placed on a different part of the wings on a1960 airframe design.

The comments on the article provide an interesting insight from the local Boeing personnel.

I love Southwest Airlines. But I’ll never book a 737 Max again, regardless if Southwest pilots are trained in the simulator and know fully well to disable things when the MCAS is tilting the plane down. There isn’t much room to play with after takeoff!

I’m about to go over to ppune “rumors and news” and lurk. It’s always interesting to re-read the threads by the professional pilots/engineers and see how the conversation evolved.

by Anonymousreply 20603/17/2019

NBC news: “Understaffed and underfunded, the FAA delegated much of the oversight of the plane to Boeing.” Now a grand jury is looking into the oversight process.

by Anonymousreply 20703/18/2019

More trouble for Boeing.

by Anonymousreply 208Last Tuesday at 2:38 PM

That's not more trouble, R208, it's the same trouble. And Sully expresses the issue well.

by Anonymousreply 209Last Tuesday at 4:38 PM

@latimes

An off-duty pilot who happened to be riding in the cockpit of a Lion Air 737 Max jet told the crew how to disable a malfunctioning flight-control system and save the plane. A day later, the same aircraft crashed into the sea.

by Anonymousreply 210Last Tuesday at 7:42 PM

Incident on Lion Air plane day before it crashed

by Anonymousreply 211Last Wednesday at 12:53 AM

@seattletimes

BREAKING: The FBI has joined the criminal investigation into the certification of the Boeing 737 MAX

by Anonymousreply 212Last Wednesday at 12:45 PM

Ruh-roh

by Anonymousreply 213Last Wednesday at 1:05 PM

Reading the article in R199’s post makes me feel guilty about being alive (i’m lazy and unaccomplished). There were quite a few inspiring people on that flight.

by Anonymousreply 214Last Wednesday at 6:46 PM

R207 -

I understand that a new ‘clean-sheet’ design would have taken Boeing longer and cost more - and that pushing the existing design to this next stage also saved a lot in pilot and crew training (tho we’ve seen how that worked out!) - but...

Although the basic 737 airframe is as you point out - essentially a sixties design - it is nonetheless a robust one. Over time, there have been many tweaks - and composite materials incorporated into wings and control surfaces, etc. - so although an old basic design - the planes themselves are new.

Yes, the engines have wider inlets and have had to be repositioned. And yes - this causes some problems in some circumstances. But I don’t think it’s an insurmountable problem. Clearly the design has been looked at and computer mapped and analysed and wind-tunnel checked and flight -tested with the most up to date aviation tech possible. And tho the engine placement and shift of weight does have the potential to cause some control issues - there have already been thousands of flight with no problems.

The best solution would have been a new aircraft. But Boeing would have lost a lot of time and many sales to the A320-NEO. They made a commercial decision and are kind of stuck with the consequences now.

Ultimately I think the fix will be better pilot training and awareness - and some tweaking of sensor(s) and existing software. They’ll go back to into service and in time people will forget and assume it was all fixed ages ago...

Their real problem will be now that they’ve made stupid decisions at the corporate level. After the first crash they should have come clean that they suspected/knew of a problem and rushed a solution - grounding if necessary. Now - by delaying - and denying - they risk more legal action - and a big spotlight will now be shone publicly onto practices in the industry they’d rather we didn’t know or think about. The current Boeing management need to be canned. Their lack of compassion and transparency is truly appalling. But I still think these planes will be back in the air and things will go back to normal. Just like after those early DC-10 crashes. And the Comet crashes in the fifties - once the problems were fixed - people flew in them. But neither plane ended up as successful financially as planned - so the sooner Boeing has a viable replacement design ready to go into production - the better!

I gotta say - I’m more reluctant to fly in one of their Dreamliners! Those 787 battery fires were fucking freaky! And if that happens when you’re halfway across an ocean - not so good! I know they claim to have ‘fixed’ the issue - but a big, fireproof metal box isn’t exactly elegant! And the very nature of those batteries means there’s always gonna be a risk if instability. I know there hasn’t been a problem since they were introduced in numbers - and I realise I’m being irrational! - but a fire in the air is nightmarish and can cause catastrophic damage in such a short time. I find it scary as fuck!

by Anonymousreply 215Last Wednesday at 10:36 PM

[quote]Although the basic 737 airframe is as you point out - essentially a sixties design - it is nonetheless a robust one. Over time, there have been many tweaks - and composite materials incorporated into wings and control surfaces, etc. - so although an old basic design - the planes themselves are new.

Believe me when I say I am NOT being snarky, I am genuinely curious:

Isn’t that like saying the 1960 Cadillac is the same basic design, but with updates and tweaks? Not much has changed over the years regarding the actual design: engine, 4 tires and a steering wheel. I’m not sure I’m making myself clear, but what could they “redesign” to make a new plane?

by Anonymousreply 216Last Thursday at 5:07 AM

Cadillacs don't fly.

by Anonymousreply 217Last Thursday at 5:11 AM

Well, obviously r217. But that’s not what I meant. They were discussing that the basic design of the plane hasn’t changed since the ‘60s. I was wondering exactly what was expected to be changed.

by Anonymousreply 218Last Thursday at 5:44 AM

@seatimesbiz

In an unusual move during an airline safety investigation, Alaska Air Group expressed support for Boeing in “an incredibly difficult time” after two crashes of the 737 MAX 8.

by Anonymousreply 219Last Thursday at 5:47 AM

@nycjim

Doomed #Boeing737 Jets Lacked 2 Safety Features That the Company Sold Only as Extras.

by Anonymousreply 220Last Thursday at 7:34 AM

What an utter disgrace. That article at r220 is very telling, and what it tells is disgusting.

by Anonymousreply 221Last Thursday at 7:53 AM

R218 -

That’s exactly right. The original design is very much sound - and perfect to do the job it’s desugned to do. That’s why it’s endured for so long - with very few problems.

But what has advanced and changed in a big way are engines. The design of the engines is getting far more efficient and effective as time goes by. The holy grail is more bang for the buck. Things like geared turbofans use less fuel. But the engine intakes are much bigger.

This is the problem.

When the 737 was designed - it was pre turbofan engines. It had sleek engine pods. And for various practical reasons with smaller airports - the plane was fairly low to the ground. As turbofans came into play and they were installed - they posed a problem. There’s only so high the plane can go without needing to accommodate new, larger landing gear. This means radical redesign as you have to accommodate the extra space that takes. And to do that you have to reroute electrical systems and hydraulics and a shit ton of other things - radical redesign changes -

In which case - you might as well redesign the whole airframe. And while you’re at it - incorporate the latest advances in aviation tech - new, stronger, lighter materials etc - a whole new plane.

Which costs a lot more than retrofitting the existing design. And of course when it comes to manufacturing the current plane already in production - all the tools to do so already exists and every part and how to manufacture it - is a known quantity. So no extra costs involved.

The new plane will use newer materials and be lighter and stronger - it will essentially do the same duty - but cost a shit ton more to set it all up and get it into production. So rather than do that - Boeing have elected to milk every last drop out of the existing model. And from a business point of view - who can blame them?

So yeah - the old Cadillac does the job admirably. But newer cars are lighter, stronger, more efficient - reflecting all we’ve learnt in the meantime. As will be a 737 replacement - when they eventually are forced to introduce one.

by Anonymousreply 222Last Thursday at 12:24 PM

Fascinating, R222. Truly fascinating.

I’m such a huge fan of aviation in general that this stuff is amazing to me.

Thanks.

by Anonymousreply 223Last Thursday at 12:42 PM

The first 737 MAX order cancellations are starting to roll in. $4.9 Billion from Indonesian airline Garuda. I wonder if others will follow suit? Boeing doesn’t have a comparable product to replace it with.

by Anonymousreply 224Last Friday at 10:35 AM

Based on the article at R220, I hope everyone cancels any pending orders and the other carriers demand a refund as a defective non-functional product.

by Anonymousreply 225Last Friday at 12:57 PM

WHy so harsh, R225? It should be perfectly safe once they get the MCAS issues solved. No need to destroy the company.

by Anonymousreply 226Last Friday at 1:03 PM

R226, again, read the article at r220. They knew much like Volkswagen knew what they were doing.

They offered the bare minimum as “standard equipment,” and the item that could’ve prevented this and/or assisted the pilots in the event something happened was sold as an “upgrade.” That, to me, is unconscionable when it could (and now has) involve the death of innocent people.

by Anonymousreply 227Last Friday at 1:22 PM

Fuck Boeing. It's bad enough when the airline unbundles everything and up charges you to carry on a bag, pick a seat where your knees are in your neck, or take a shit.

But Boeing unbundled safety?

by Anonymousreply 228Last Friday at 3:53 PM

Here’s a March 23 NYT article. It’s clear Boeing got cocky. If you google the 1960 737 vs today’s 737, it clear how much those engines have grown in size, and thus disrupting the aerodynamics.

by Anonymousreply 229Last Saturday at 11:48 AM

Can you cut and paste the article above R229? Can’t access it - abd it looks good!

R224 - doubt this’ll result in a huge tranche if order cancellations - unless it happens again and another one crashes in similar circumstances.

As it stands - they seem to know what the problem is - and can fix it. They can offer additional pilot training - and hopefully all will go on as normal and people will gradually forget.

I think Garuda cancelling is to show solidarity with Lionair - and people in Indonesia will remember longer as it happened on their turf. Plus the initial response looks like the initial response that it must be pilot error - and the implication that brown skinned pilots in the third world can’t quite cut it like western pilots must leave a nasty racist taste in their mouths - and rightly so!

But unless anything else untoward happens - the bulk of the orders will go through as normal. The airlines need those fuel efficient planes - the roughly fifteen percent fuel saving is tens - if not hundreds! - of millions a year - depending on their fleet size.

And as it stands - there’s not really an alternative. Airbus is producting around 55-57 A320 NEOS a month. They’re hoping to ratchet that up to around 60-63 - but they’ve got thousands of orders already. If you switch your 737 MAX order to them - you’re going to be waiting a very long time...

So really - if the current problems are rectified - imagine most will stick with what they’ve got - tho some may cut their orders slightly and order some airbuses to arrive later on - just in case. Imagine this would only be the very big airlines who already have mixed fleets so that the training and maintenance costs of changing type aren’t as onerous.

Let’s hope the whole mess is fixed soon and no one else dies - and that Boeing really does the right thing by admitting some culpability and compensating the relatives of those poor victims.

by Anonymousreply 230Last Saturday at 2:41 PM

I truly urge you all to read about the passengers in the Ethiopian crash- such a true loss for the world

Oh Mary, I know. But in this case it is warranted.

by Anonymousreply 231Last Saturday at 2:52 PM

[quote]Airbus is producting around 55-57 A320 NEOS a month. They’re hoping to ratchet that up to around 60-63

Really? I honestly had no idea that many planes, from any manufacturer no less, were produced annually. Seems like you’re always hearing planes that are 30-35 years old are the norm.

by Anonymousreply 232Last Saturday at 3:09 PM

One of my colleagues back in the 80s worked for Boeing for 19 years, 10 months and 13 days.

Then they laid him off.

by Anonymousreply 233Last Saturday at 3:11 PM

Was the pension just about to kick in?

by Anonymousreply 234Last Saturday at 3:33 PM

Oh yes...

by Anonymousreply 235Last Saturday at 3:41 PM

R232 - yeah - it’s boggling really! Fifty/sixty planes a month seems extraordinary - but then both Boeing and airbus each have a backlog of around five thousand orders each - it they’re pushing out 60 or so planes a month for twelve months - that’s still only just around 700-750ish a year - so it’s gonna take several years to deal with just the current orders. Suspect airbus will do everything it possibly can to increase production - but there’s limits they just can’t exceed (see the article at link)

by Anonymousreply 236Last Saturday at 4:50 PM

R233 happened to a loved one too. 24.5 years there, from age 27-51, an executive then mysteriously laid off in the early 90s -- first generation of folks that happened to. His boss cried at the lunch he took him to to break the news. Poor guy is really struggling financially in retirement now.

by Anonymousreply 237Last Saturday at 4:57 PM

I’m kinda wondering if this might be a real sales opportunity for the Airbus 220?

The plane is like a smaller version of the 320 or 737. Less passengers, shorter range - meant for smaller regional transport. It’s the old bombardier C-series that Airbus bought into as bombardier was having financial difficulties. Apparently it’s a really great little plane - with better than anticipated fuel economy. And airbus is looking at setting up a production line in the US (Alabama).

Suspect many could make this work on some of the of the routes they’d scheduled their new 737NEOs for? So if there are ongoing problems with that - it might be a possibility?

by Anonymousreply 238Last Saturday at 5:00 PM

R238 here - just to clarify - when I sad ‘old’ I just meant it was bombardier’s design not Airbus’s. It’s not old at all - it’s really cutting edge - and by all amounts - a great plane!

by Anonymousreply 239Last Saturday at 5:02 PM

Love the Airbus!

And fuck Boeing right in the ass for laying off employees just before retirement. Disgraziato.

by Anonymousreply 240Last Saturday at 5:53 PM

Our new DL word for the day:

Kludge

(really good article too!)

by Anonymousreply 241Last Saturday at 6:09 PM

Boeing has always been thieves scamming the government.

by Anonymousreply 242Last Saturday at 8:04 PM

Excellent article, r241. Thank you for posting. I’m not familiar with Quartz.

I guess we shall see how the flying public reacts. But me? I’m booking a flight right now. Hmmm, looking at my options I just see 737 with stops, 757, or A320. The site doesn’t specify what 737 it is. So it’s a NOPE. I’m going with the 757 or Airbus.

by Anonymousreply 243a day ago

Go with the airbus. Much smoother ride.

by Anonymousreply 244a day ago

How soon is your flight R243?

All the 737 MAXs are grounded just now - so if it’s pretty soon - you’ll be on an older - and perfectly safe! - version.

Remember: it’s a good plane! The older versions were constantly improved and tweaked - it didn’t get to be the most produced passenger plane evah by accident. It’s juat this latest iteration that’s taking it maybe a bridge too far. And you can bet if it comes back into service shortly - it’ll have been tested and tested - and tested! - Boeing & the airlines know they cannot afford another crash anytime soon.

Having said that - if course you must go with your gut. As i said in an earlier post! - I’m still reluctant to travel on a Dreamliner after those battery fires. They freaked me the fuck out. Fire on a plane can render vital electrical systems useless within minutes - and once that happens - you’re going down.

My worst nightmare.

by Anonymousreply 24520 hours ago
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Don't you just LOVE clicking on these things on every single site you visit? I know we do! You can thank the EU parliament for making everyone in the world click on these pointless things while changing absolutely nothing. If you are interested you can take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT and we'll set a dreaded cookie to make it go away. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed


recent threads by topic delivered to your email

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!