Ethiopian Max 8 crashes, Canadians on board

[Stealth22]

Originally Posted by woob

Am I the only one who thinks a safety feature shouldn't be optional? Or is it far more complex than that?

Like Ducay said, it sounds sketchy, but it doesn't matter if you're talking about Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier, Embraer, or any of the car manufacturers.

If a certain feature is not required by law and isn't critical, the manufacturer can and will make it optional if they can make a buck off of it, especially if all it takes is a software setting to disable an extra display reading. It's not just Boeing, any aircraft manufacturer will do this.

And perhaps even worse, airlines, or low cost carriers in particular, want the airplanes to come as cheap as possible, because they don't have the deep pockets that the big airlines do.

If a low cost carrier can save $100,000 per plane by leaving a couple of optional features on the table, that's $5 million on an order of 50 aircraft, which could mean money to spend on something else, or a lease payment on plane #51. It's a slippery slope, for sure.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by shane_c

My flight in early July from Halifax to Iceland is supposed to be on a 737 MAX 8. I'd be okay if the plane gets changed.

If you're in a regular economy seat, this should be your position regardless of current events.

It's a decent plane with the extra legroom of a preferred seat, and I'm told business class is nice. But regular economy is painful, especially that length, and the bathrooms are shockingly small.

[Stealth22]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

If you're in a regular economy seat, this should be your position regardless of current events.



It's a decent plane with the extra legroom of a preferred seat, and I'm told business class is nice. But regular economy is painful, especially that length, and the bathrooms are shockingly small.

Seating configurations are chosen by the airline purchasing the aircraft.

I remember reading comments somewhere that Air Canada's 787 seats suck compared to 787's of other airlines. I don't recall if AC had more seats across or not, though.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Stealth22

That tweet is somewhat misleading, IMO. As far as I know, all 737 MAX operators were briefed on MCAS after the Lion Air crash, not just the ones that purchased the AoA indicators and/or AoA disagree lights.


No way to know, really.

Maybe in the case of ET302 (because Ethiopian Airlines claims that their pilots were briefed and trained on MCAS) the AoA disagree light might have made a difference, but given that the flight crew's experience has been called into question, it's hard to say that for sure.

That also assumes that a faulty AoA sensor or MCAS receiving erroneous AoA data is what caused ET302 to crash. While that's definitely the working theory, it hasn't been officially established as the cause.

But you're right, in the case of Lion Air, if they didn't know that MCAS even existed, I don't know if it would have made any difference. Unless the disagree light would make them clue into the fact that the trim wheel was spinning over and over (easy to miss in the heat of the moment, and the trim wheel spins a lot even in normal flight).

Like I said, there's no way to know. But one thing you can be reasonably certain of is that when the MAX does fly again, every pilot and their dog is going to know about MCAS, and if they ever see the "AoA disagree" light come on, they're instantly going to check the stabilizer trim.

You seem knowledgeable in this area, and I'm sure you have good intentions. But you are obviously extremely biased in your support of how Boeing, the NA airlines, and the NA regulators handled this. All of the handled it terribly and they all have a lot of work to do to convince people that their MAX planes are safe to board. And no, this isn't media bias, this is how those 3 parties acted every step of the way.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Stealth22

Like Ducay said, it sounds sketchy, but it doesn't matter if you're talking about Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier, Embraer, or any of the car manufacturers.

If a certain feature is not required by law and isn't critical, the manufacturer can and will make it optional if they can make a buck off of it, especially if all it takes is a software setting to disable an extra display reading. It's not just Boeing, any aircraft manufacturer will do this.

And perhaps even worse, airlines, or low cost carriers in particular, want the airplanes to come as cheap as possible, because they don't have the deep pockets that the big airlines do.

If a low cost carrier can save $100,000 per plane by leaving a couple of optional features on the table, that's $5 million on an order of 50 aircraft, which could mean money to spend on something else, or a lease payment on plane #51. It's a slippery slope, for sure.

This is a terrible, revolting response. You are seriously blaming low cost carriers for not spending enough to get the planes that don't crash themselves?

There is no equivalent critical safety option in cars, and it is disingenuous to even suggest that.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Stealth22

Like Ducay said, it sounds sketchy, but it doesn't matter if you're talking about Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier, Embraer, or any of the car manufacturers.

If a certain feature is not required by law and isn't critical, the manufacturer can and will make it optional if they can make a buck off of it, especially if all it takes is a software setting to disable an extra display reading. It's not just Boeing, any aircraft manufacturer will do this.

And perhaps even worse, airlines, or low cost carriers in particular, want the airplanes to come as cheap as possible, because they don't have the deep pockets that the big airlines do.

If a low cost carrier can save $100,000 per plane by leaving a couple of optional features on the table, that's $5 million on an order of 50 aircraft, which could mean money to spend on something else, or a lease payment on plane #51. It's a slippery slope, for sure.

Has WestJet commented on their decision to not purchase the AOA indicator? Do they still consider themselves a low-cost carrier? I thought they had changed philosophies somewhat away from the low-cost thing. Regardless, I wish they optioned the aircraft with all the safety gear. I have a WestJet MasterCard and we fly on them whenever we go anywhere...I've lost some confidence in them over all this.

Globe and Mail article discussing where WestJet admits they didn't get the AOA indicator.

Air Canada spokeswoman Isabelle Arthur said the country’s largest airline purchased both safety features for its fleet of 24 Max 8 planes.

However, WestJet spokeswoman Morgan Bell said the Calgary-based airline’s 13 Max 8 planes are not configured with the angle of attack indicators.

[Stealth22]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

You seem knowledgeable in this area, and I'm sure you have good intentions. But you are obviously extremely biased in your support of how Boeing, the NA airlines, and the NA regulators handled this. All of the handled it terribly and they all have a lot of work to do to convince people that their MAX planes are safe to board. And no, this isn't media bias, this is how those 3 parties acted every step of the way.

Which response are you referring to, the one about the tweet, or re: Fuzz's post about whether these optional features making a difference in either of the two crashes?

Either way, I don't think I was being biased, at least not intentionally. The FAA issued an airworthiness directive after the Lion Air crash, which required Boeing (by law) to disclose info about MCAS to every MAX operator. To suggest they didn't tell one operator cause of how much money they spent on the plane is just silly.

I have been biased towards Boeing in some of my posts, yeah, but I also happen to be a big fan of due process. Being familiar with aviation, I'm hardwired to point out misinformation. Can't explain why, lol.

How is it biased of me to say that the tweet is misleading, when it says Boeing didn't warn Ethiopian Airlines about MCAS simply because they didn't pay extra for the options.

I didn't say that NA airlines/pilots are perfect either. That comment about pilots potentially missing the spinning trim wheel was just a general comment, not referring to third-world airlines - in fact, it was Ryan Coke (a WestJet pilot) who pointed that out to me in the first place.

Originally Posted by nfotiu

This is a terrible, revolting response. You are seriously blaming low cost carriers for not spending enough to get the planes that don't crash themselves?

There is no equivalent critical safety option in cars, and it is disingenuous to even suggest that.

I didn't say I blame them. I'm just informing him on why we have a situation where safety features like this are paid upgrades.

It's cause Boeing wants to make a fast buck.

Do I agree with the practice? Heck no. Those things should absolutely be standard. The FAA should be doing more to make these types of safety features required by law. Their reach is limited to the US, but most of the world would follow their lead if they went that far, IMO anyway.

[Stealth22]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Has WestJet commented on their decision to not purchase the AOA indicator? Do they still consider themselves a low-cost carrier? I thought they had changed philosophies somewhat away from the low-cost thing. Regardless, I wish they optioned the aircraft with all the safety gear. I have a WestJet MasterCard and we fly on them whenever we go anywhere...I've lost some confidence in them over all this.

Globe and Mail article discussing where WestJet admits they didn't get the AOA indicator.

I haven't seen any comment from WestJet on that, but I'll let Ryan Coke chime in if he doesn't mind, cause my knowledge is going to start to plateau here.

I agree, I think WestJet should have both options. Given my limited knowledge though, I'd say that the AoA disagree light is the more "in your face" of the two, because if it comes on, there's DEFINITELY a problem. Whereas the AoA gauge just tells the pilot what the angle of attack reading is, and requires the pilot to actually look at the gauge and diagnose it if it's wrong.

Southwest is adding the AoA indicators though, so there's no reason WS couldn't do the same thing, especially now that the disagree light is going to be standard. (i.e. "Hey Boeing, we paid for this and its now free, give us the other option for free/discounted now" - although I don't know if thats how it works, lol)

[Stealth22]

Garuda wants to cancel the remainder (49) of their 50 jet order...

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news...t2Z8W_Jzxx3EiA

[Ryan Coke]

My 2 cents....I think this talk about about either Boeing charging for certain features, or airlines not paying for them, is a bit of red herring.

The problem with the MAX is about an inaccurate risk analysis, and a system which appears it may have been designed incorrectly.

It isn’t because there are, always have been, and always will be a variety of options. Much like cars.

Technology changes, which improves certain systems, or makes other systems unnecessary. Part of the equation is cost, of course, in relation to what actual benefit there is. And there is also reliability, and real world usefulness.

I would compare a direct AOA readout to having an oil pressure gauge in your car that that has digital display down to tenths of a psi. A gauge that shows if it is high or low, or a light that tells you, is almost always sufficient. But if there was an odd situation where the ability to notice a 0.3 psi drop in oil pressure might be indicative of another system malfunction, then the more expensive and detailed gauge might be useful. But most of the time it would make no difference.

Now how many people have chosen only cars that have a digital oil pressure display, and paid extra to get that?

I can assure you that WestJet and Air Canada are not reluctant at all to spend huge amounts of money on safety equipment, or to upgrade current equipment.

[Acey]

The same people that were crucifying WS and AC for being almost last to stop flying, are now praising AC for ordering this optional equipment. As any little tidbit of information comes out related to this, be it positive or negative, there is huge overreaction.

[speede5]

Originally Posted by Acey

The same people that were crucifying WS and AC for being almost last to stop flying, are now praising AC for ordering this optional equipment. As any little tidbit of information comes out related to this, be it positive or negative, there is huge overreaction.

As these tidbits come out though, someone who understands the airworthiness system can understand why certain decisions may have been made.

AC and WS may have made their original decision to keep flying based on the fact they had already taken precautions in this area. We don't know what internal communications they had with their pilots either, they may have been better prepared to react to this issue than other fleets.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

This is a terrible, revolting response. You are seriously blaming low cost carriers for not spending enough to get the planes that don't crash themselves?

There is no equivalent critical safety option in cars, and it is disingenuous to even suggest that.

Currently in the market for a car and ive seen things like side air bags and collision avoidance software be optional packages.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

This is a terrible, revolting response. You are seriously blaming low cost carriers for not spending enough to get the planes that don't crash themselves?

There is no equivalent critical safety option in cars, and it is disingenuous to even suggest that.

I maintain that blindspot monitors in side mirrors are a good equivalent for AOA disagree. I've managed to never crash my car despite no light in my side mirror telling me there's a car next to me.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Acey

I maintain that blindspot monitors in side mirrors are a good equivalent for AOA disagree. I've managed to never crash my car despite no light in my side mirror telling me there's a car next to me.

There are significant differences. You make the informed choice on whether or not to pay for those extra safety features. 200 people get on board these planes with the (apparently false) expectation that the airplane manufacturer has done everything within their capabilities to make the plane not crash.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

There are significant differences. You make the informed choice on whether or not to pay for those extra safety features. 200 people get on board these planes with the (apparently false) expectation that the airplane manufacturer has done everything within their capabilities to make the plane not crash.

To be fair, no one is upgrading their car for the safety features. They got the leather seat/navigation/bose sound system upgrade that, as a bonus, came with the safety features.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

There are significant differences. You make the informed choice on whether or not to pay for those extra safety features. 200 people get on board these planes with the (apparently false) expectation that the airplane manufacturer has done everything within their capabilities to make the plane not crash.

That's a philosophical approach that's a matter of opinion.

In the sense that it is an optional safety feature that provides a false sense of security, they are the same.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Acey

That's a philosophical approach that's a matter of opinion.

In the sense that it is an optional safety feature that provides a false sense of security, they are the same.

Is it a false sense of security if it would have prevented the crashes?

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Is it a false sense of security if it would have prevented the crashes?

Would it though?

The pilots might have just ignored the AOA disagree light just like a blind spot light doesn't prevent a terrible driver from plowing into something.

I think from Boeing's perspective, one of the first steps (if not the very first step) when you're losing control is to disable the auto trim. If the pilots couldn't even do that first step, what hope do they have to diagnose another light that just came on?

[Acey]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Is it a false sense of security if it would have prevented the crashes?

No, but you (nor anybody) knows if it would have prevented Lion Air given that they were fighting a system they didn't know existed. I liked it better when people had an acronym to go after for all the blame, i.e. MCAS. I don't see how knowing there was an AOA disagree would have made a difference.

It is a false sense of security because my mother no longer shoulder checks and relies on the damn yellow light in the mirror of her unnecessarily fancy car to determine if there is a car in her blindspot. We've already seen similar false senses of security result in crashes with crews that lack basic airmanship, i.e. Asiana at SFO. That airplane crashed because the glideslope was u/s and the pilots didn't know how to manually fly their airplane. Neither the probable cause of the accident nor the contributing factors blamed SFO for the glideslope being u/s. They blamed the pilots for being tired and not knowing how to fly the airplane.

Don't forget AF447. Transat glider. Advanced Airbus planes that told the crew what was wrong and they still screwed up with fatal consequences. The notion that either of these things would make a difference is a misunderstanding of what has historically caused planes to crash.