Ethiopian Max 8 crashes, Canadians on board

[Sliver]

Haha, apologies speede5. I see now.

[FiftyBelow]

Obviously, I recognize that experts on our side are making the necessary analysis and judgement calls. I suppose I have a different risk management approach in this case. As Sliver notes, and as Marc Garneau admitted, we don't yet have all the information. Why not take the risk averse and cautious approach that countries like UK, Australia, France, China etc. in grounding the planes until we actually know for sure?

[ernie]

Originally Posted by speede5

Canada is not sitting on it's hands.

Those aircraft are still in the air because the companies involved have analyzed the risks and have come to the conclusion they are still safe to fly. To suggest no one is paying attention or doing anything about it is ignorance.

I'm sure every Max pilot is now well aware of the potential issues and how to override the system.

Sounds like you might be assuming it's the same issue this time around as the last time. Not sure.

The problem is that last time Boeing knew their engineering (both hardware and software) had created a potential problem and they "forgot" to really tell anyone about how to handle the situation if it presented itself.

If this is the same issue then it might be considered pilot error given the airline said the pilots had the supplemental training. If it's a different flaw that prevented pilots from taking control of the flight then Boeing is in for a whole world of hurt. Even it's the same error and the pilots messed up they could still be in for a world of hurt.

The only thing people see right now is that over 350 people have been killed on the same type of new jet in 5 months. You can put all the odds in the world together to try to explain why it's still not a concern and very few people are going to listen.

It may indeed be reactionary to ground the planes, but Boeing pretty much guaranteed this would happen if another crash occurred based on how they handled things before. Their actions essentially makes the reason for this crash meaningless at this point.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by ernie

Sounds like you might be assuming it's the same issue this time around as the last time. Not sure.

The problem is that last time Boeing knew their engineering (both hardware and software) had created a potential problem and they "forgot" to really tell anyone about how to handle the situation if it presented itself.

If this is the same issue then it might be considered pilot error given the airline said the pilots had the supplemental training. If it's a different flaw that prevented pilots from taking control of the flight then Boeing is in for a whole world of hurt. Even it's the same error and the pilots messed up they could still be in for a world of hurt.

The only thing people see right now is that over 350 people have been killed on the same type of new jet in 5 months. You can put all the odds in the world together to try to explain why it's still not a concern and very few people are going to listen.

It may indeed be reactionary to ground the planes, but Boeing pretty much guaranteed this would happen if another crash occurred based on how they handled things before. Their actions essentially makes the reason for this crash meaningless at this point.

2 of the 370 planes in service failing within 2 years isn't really odds I'd be comfortable with. Especially if I was a pilot or flight attendant flying in them every day.

I have a couple trips coming up with my kids and I'm not sure I'd get on a Max 8 at this point with them. The fact that half the world thinks they need to be grounded changes my comfortably factor by quite a bit. I imagine there are going to be a lot of passengers refusing to get on these planes as the news of these bans spreads.

[FlameOn]

EU ASA just grounded all Max 8 operations.

[FireGilbert]

The Australian ban is interesting since usually we just copy whatever the US is doing. There were currently only 5 of these planes flying in though and 3 of them were already grounded in Singapore so grounding the other two seems like an easy decision.

Virgin Australia does have 30 on order so I will be watching that closely.

[speede5]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I imagine there are going to be a lot of passengers refusing to get on these planes as the news of these bans spreads.

You are probably right, but that's why fact based risk analysis is performed rather than gut feelers.

I don't know all the facts in this situation but I trust the systems in place to analyse the risks and allow the grown ups to make the right decisions. We are not privy to everything that they are. The OEM, transport and other operators know a lot more facts than we do.

Maybe I'm a fool, but do you really think Westjet is going to risk it's safety record while they are growing into international markets without facts?

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by speede5

You are probably right, but that's why fact based risk analysis is performed rather than gut feelers.

I don't know all the facts in this situation but I trust the systems in place to analyse the risks and allow the grown ups to make the right decisions. We are not privy to everything that they are. The OEM, transport and other operators know a lot more facts than we do.

Maybe I'm a fool, but do you really think Westjet is going to risk it's safety record while they are growing into international markets without facts?

Do we trust the grown ups in North America or the grown ups in rest of the world? What facts would West Jet have in this case that? The problem is we don't know the facts yet, and most of the work is saying let's ground them until we know what happened, and North America seems to be saying let's get the facts first before grounding the planes. I'm not finding that all very re-assuring.

[stazzy33]

I wonder if production location has anything to do with the groundings? If this were an Airbus, would North America have grounded the planes ahead of Europe?

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by stazzy33

I wonder if production location has anything to do with the groundings? If this were an Airbus, would North America have grounded the planes ahead of Europe?

It sure feels that way to me.

lol at Donald Trump's comments on it all while Sarah Sanders is trying to convince everyone it's all safe. Not exactly helping out his American company here!

https://twitter.com/user/status/1105468569800839169

https://twitter.com/user/status/1105471621672960000

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

It sure feels that way to me.

lol at Donald Trump's comments on it all while Sarah Sanders is trying to convince everyone it's all safe. Not exactly helping out his American company here!

This is Trump we're talking about, he probably doesn't know.

"Sir...it's actually Boeing that's American and Airbus is European..."

[OMG!WTF!]

This was an article from the Lion Air crash...

https://www-bloomberg-com.cdn.amppro...rom%20%251%24s

They were thinking about issuing a warning back then. I'd be very interested in knowing how many close calls there have been. I'm sure there have been incidents where pilots had enough elevation and managed to get away with a wild ride. I think Boeing might be screwed.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by ernie

Sounds like you might be assuming it's the same issue this time around as the last time. Not sure.

The problem is that last time Boeing knew their engineering (both hardware and software) had created a potential problem and they "forgot" to really tell anyone about how to handle the situation if it presented itself.

If this is the same issue then it might be considered pilot error given the airline said the pilots had the supplemental training. If it's a different flaw that prevented pilots from taking control of the flight then Boeing is in for a whole world of hurt. Even it's the same error and the pilots messed up they could still be in for a world of hurt.

The only thing people see right now is that over 350 people have been killed on the same type of new jet in 5 months. You can put all the odds in the world together to try to explain why it's still not a concern and very few people are going to listen.

It may indeed be reactionary to ground the planes, but Boeing pretty much guaranteed this would happen if another crash occurred based on how they handled things before. Their actions essentially makes the reason for this crash meaningless at this point.

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

This was an article from the Lion Air crash...

https://www-bloomberg-com.cdn.amppro...rom%20%251%24s

They were thinking about issuing a warning back then. I'd be very interested in knowing how many close calls there have been. I'm sure there have been incidents where pilots had enough elevation and managed to get away with a wild ride. I think Boeing might be screwed.

There was the Sunwing incident that I linked earlier that was bad enough to require a pan pan

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...cident-453805/

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

The Australian ban is interesting since usually we just copy whatever the US is doing. There were currently only 5 of these planes flying in though and 3 of them were already grounded in Singapore so grounding the other two seems like an easy decision.

Virgin Australia does have 30 on order so I will be watching that closely.

Australia had a pretty easy decision. As you mentioned there are no Australian airlines operating the MAX aircraft so there is no political downside. The ban only affects foreign carriers.

Not that it should matter but the US and Canada are a little different in that in Canada's case both major airlines operate the aircraft and a ban will have significant effects on their operations. In the case of the US I think there may be a little pressure to protect Boeing. Neither of these reasons should trump safely but I wonder if this factors into the (non) decision so far.

Regardless this might get to the point where consumers effectively force the airlines to stop using them by boycotting bookings on these flights.

The challenge for airlines (lets say Air Canada and WestJet for now) are where to find replacement aircraft for any grounded MAX aircraft.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by Firebot

There was the Sunwing incident that I linked earlier that was bad enough to require a pan pan

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...cident-453805/

This one sounds significantly different from Ethiopian and Lion air, at least at initial glance.

Ugh. I hope this doesn't affect my Mexico trip next week

[Manhattanboy]

If I’m CEO of a company I’m prohibiting my people from flying on a Max 8.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

This one sounds significantly different from Ethiopian and Lion air, at least at initial glance.

The ADIRU is the sensor. (one of two and only one on at one time). ADIRU sensor malfunctioning and giving faulty data is what caused the MCAS to take control of the plane on the Lion Air crash and having it nosedive.

Also note the date, Nov 28 was the date of the preliminary report of the Lion Air crash, and the incident on Sunwing occured on Nov 14. They may not have even known the MCAS existed yet at the time, since it was a secret on Boeing's side and wasn't disclosed until around that time period. Their actions and noticing the ADIRU on the captain's side was faulty and switching to the first officer side could have prevented a crash they had no idea could be imminent.

https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-s...irlines-jt610/

https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-s...em-mcas-jt610/

[mrkajz44]

My issue with the blanket grounding of MAX aircraft (not just the MAX 8 as I recently found out) is that its not really based on facts and logic, rather it is based on emotion. At this point its impossible to say that the two incidents are related, even if they appear similar at this point. So there is really no factually based reason to ground the fleet - the reasoning is "there is a non-zero chance these things are related, so we are going to be ultra conservative and ground everything". I think it's a little rash to be honest, and is likely going to cause chaos with airlines trying to figure out how to operate without any MAX aircraft.

[surferguy]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

If I’m CEO of a company I’m prohibiting my people from flying on a Max 8.

Lol - do you let them drive to work?