Boeing 737 MAX model involved in Ethiopian Airlines crash banned from European airspace.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Boeing 737 Max aircraft have been banned from flying in the skies of Europe following a fatal crash in Ethiopia.

The European Union Aviation Safety Agency says it has issued orders for the aircraft to be grounded from 7pm on Tuesday. It means planes flying over, or into, Europe will not be able to complete their journeys.

In a statement it said it had issues the directive "As a precautionary measure," adding it is "taking every step necessary to ensure the safety of passengers".

It extended the ban to include MAX 8 and MAX 9, although only the first type was involved in the crash in Ethiopia.

The move unifies a series of nationwide bans across Europe.

France, Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland and the UK all banned the planes from their airspace on Tuesday afternoon.

Internationally, authorities in Australia, South Korea, Singapore, China and Indonesia have grounded the aircraft.

Link.

[mr friendly guy]

Groundings by country

Groundings by country:
Australia
Bermuda
China
European Union
Fiji
India
Indonesia
Kuwait
Malaysia
Norway
Oman
Singapore
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
Vietnam

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-13/ ... a/10895542

[Broomstick]

It would be really helpful if the authorities in Ethiopia would take a look at the damn black boxes, which they have in their possession, because that could clear up questions about the crash.

Weather is unlikely to be a factor here, so it's important to know if it was a mechanical, human, or software problem.

As to whether or not the ground of the Max 8 is justified... I don't know. There aren't that many Max 8's in the fleet yet.

I am concerned that the general public isn't going to understand that the 737 Max 8 is a particular sort of 737 and not all 737's are affected by this (or shouldn't be). Earlier models of the 737 are a reliable, safe aircraft with an excellent safety record and there is no reason to fear them.

[K. A. Pital]

Of course it is justified.

Check the issues and determine if the plane is safe to operate.

Why is it not justified? Boeing’s profits?!!!!

[Lost Soal]

I am concerned that the general public isn't going to understand that the 737 Max 8 is a particular sort of 737 and not all 737's are affected by this (or shouldn't be). Earlier models of the 737 are a reliable, safe aircraft with an excellent safety record and there is no reason to fear them.

I wouldn't be, show the general public a passenger jet and the only way they'll even know its a Boeing is if its written on the side nevermind which particular model it is.

[LaCroix]

To be fair, if the problem is with the AoA sensor going haywire, this part is most likely a common item shared with all the other models.
And if it is a software bug, it could also be in all 737s.

Better to keep them grounded for a few days to get confirmation after this second crash.

[Ace Pace]

To be fair, if the problem is with the AoA sensor going haywire, this part is most likely a common item shared with all the other models.
And if it is a software bug, it could also be in all 737s.

Better to keep them grounded for a few days to get confirmation after this second crash.

Except that's really not the situation. This is something new to this design, as many articles point out.

[Ace Pace]

Of course it is justified.

Check the issues and determine if the plane is safe to operate.

Why is it not justified? Boeing’s profits?!!!!

Is there a cost benefit analysis, that is not around money, that would change your opinion?
For example, cancelling flights that contain donated organs, or people travelling to unique family events.

[K. A. Pital]

Would make sense if there had not been any alternative to using potentially flawed means of transport.

If 737 MAX were the only airplanes available to mankind, one had to consider the consequences of potential disruption of all air traffic. And perhaps prioritize based on necessity to avert suffering (ie allow flights of organs to proceed under strict supervision but end non-essential flights).

But they are not. Hence, the matter is only Boeing’s profits from a particular type of airplane.

My utilitarian calculator (joke!) tells me that 737 MAX is not a significant enough share of airplane fleets in the world ATM to even warrant a discussion in terms of alleviating suffering.

[AniThyng]

It would be really helpful if the authorities in Ethiopia would take a look at the damn black boxes, which they have in their possession, because that could clear up questions about the crash.

Weather is unlikely to be a factor here, so it's important to know if it was a mechanical, human, or software problem.

As to whether or not the ground of the Max 8 is justified... I don't know. There aren't that many Max 8's in the fleet yet.

I am concerned that the general public isn't going to understand that the 737 Max 8 is a particular sort of 737 and not all 737's are affected by this (or shouldn't be). Earlier models of the 737 are a reliable, safe aircraft with an excellent safety record and there is no reason to fear them.

You phrase it as if they are sitting on their hands and not looking into the black boxes, is that the case?

[Alkaloid]

To be fair, if the problem is with the AoA sensor going haywire, this part is most likely a common item shared with all the other models.
And if it is a software bug, it could also be in all 737s.

Nope. The MAX is basically a completely new aircraft with different AoA software to try to make it fly like other 737s. This problem is specific to the MAX.

Weather is unlikely to be a factor here, so it's important to know if it was a mechanical, human, or software problem.

After the Lion air incident they are already pretty sure it's software. They introduced new AoA correction to the MAX to make it behave like any other 737 so pilots "didn't have to recertify". They neglected to tell any of the pilots who "didn't have to recertify" about it and didn't include information about it in the ops manual. After the new software pitched a plane into the ground they patched it, now the patch appears to be causing its own problems.

Why is it not justified? Boeing’s profits?!!!!

"Didn't have to recertify."

[K. A. Pital]

How does this answer my question - what reasons are there not to ground the airplane while its safety is being checked, except Boeing’s potentially lost profits?

[LaCroix]

Boing Max(all types):
Total number built: 376 as of February 2019[4]

I think we can all live with less than 400 planes being grounded temporary until they manage to fix a bug in a way that doesn't cause further crashes.

[Alkaloid]

/s

That was sarcasm K.A. The only reason not to is to pretend that we don't need proper training for pilots on this entirely new type of aircraft, which is clearly not true. But clearly Boeing shouldn't be responsible for this. For some reason.

[LadyTevar]

Please note that the United States is being idiots and claiming there's nothing wrong with the planes, and still flying them.
I'm waiting for a US crash of the MAX, because people dying is the only way the US Gov will acknowledge any problem

[TimothyC]

CNN is reporting that Trump is ordering the grounding of the aircraft in US airspace.

[Broomstick]

Of course it is justified.

On what basis? Yes, it has been involved in two accidents but the cause(s) of those two accidents have not yet been conclusively determined. Aviation is not an area where you should make policy based on a guess.

Check the issues and determine if the plane is safe to operate.

Again, it would be helpful if Ethiopia would look at the goddamned black boxes, both of which have been recovered, instead of dragging their feet. Do they have something to hide? See how easy accusations are!

Why is it not justified? Boeing’s profits?!!!!

How about "act on evidence, not guesswork".

If it's a mechanical problem we need to know what exactly is the problem, and if it would affect any other types of airplanes.

If it's an engine problem then the engine manufacturer - which is NOT Boeing but a joint Franco-American company called CFM International in English - becomes a party of interest and other aircraft flying with that engine might need to be grounded/fixed.

If it's a software problem same issue - any other model of airplane using similar software will likely need a fix.

If it's pilot error - well, in that case the erroneous pilots have eliminated themselves.

It would be just a bit embarassing to ground the airframe and later - after a couple more crashes and a few hundred more dead people - find out that whoops, it's a problem with the engines. Which the Chinese might want to know about because they use the same CFM engines as the Boeing Max 8 in some of their airplanes, as just one possible additional interested party. Airbus might want to know about that, too, as there are A320's flying with that engine, too.

So... why ground just the airframe and not also the engine, which is also new on the scene and no older than the B737 Max 7 and Max 8? Except, of course, that would hit Airbus, too... and Europe is just a biased towards Airbus as the US is towards Boeing.

Yes, the angle-of-attack indicator is speculated to be a factor in the Lion Air crash, and Boeing was already looking into the matter even though the investigation isn't complete. Which is why the black box for Ethiopia Air is so important - if that also implicates the angle-of-attack indicator we (everyone) need to know that. If it doesn't, though, then we need to find out what downed that airplane. So why the fucking delay when the black boxes have been recovered?

(NOTE: if the black boxes WERE looked at today while I was at work then the above subjected to change with the new information)

[Gandalf]

From what I've read, they're being sent to France for analysis.

[K. A. Pital]

Of course it is justified.

On what basis? Yes, it has been involved in two accidents but the cause(s) of those two accidents have not yet been conclusively determined. Aviation is not an area where you should make policy based on a guess.

On the contrary - if the aircraft is proven safe by subsequent events, nothing serious happens due to temporary grounding. The matter is investigated and the flights will resume. 400 planes is a tiny number. Better safe than sorry.

If it's an engine problem then the engine manufacturer - which is NOT Boeing but a joint Franco-American company called CFM International in English - becomes a party of interest and other aircraft flying with that engine might need to be grounded/fixed.

True. This may be necessary as well if there is enough suspicion engine could be at fault.

It would be just a bit embarassing to ground the airframe and later - after a couple more crashes and a few hundred more dead people - find out that whoops, it's a problem with the engines. Which the Chinese might want to know about because they use the same CFM engines as the Boeing Max 8 in some of their airplanes, as just one possible additional interested party. Airbus might want to know about that, too, as there are A320's flying with that engine, too.

True. Worst thing - people get a bit embarassed. As I said, perfectly fine in any normal world. Only wrong if profits matter more than lives potentially lost.

[Broomstick]

To be fair, if the problem is with the AoA sensor going haywire, this part is most likely a common item shared with all the other models.
And if it is a software bug, it could also be in all 737s.

New member of the 737 family, new software - if it IS an angle-of-attack software bug it's not going to effect 737's prior to the "Max" line because it hasn't affected them. The first 737 left the ground in 1967, I mean, hell, that early they didn't even have computers on board it was all analog dials and gauges, they've been around a long time and there is a lot of information about them in regards to accidents and safety. 10,000 of them have rolled off the assembly lines since then, making the the airline equivalent of the Cessna 172: ubiquitous world-wide. Everybody seems to fly them, including 23 national militaries. If this problem was in ALL 737's trust me, it would have been noticed by now.

And that's EXACTLY the sloppy sort of thing I am concerned about - lumping all 737's with the newest model/airframe/software/engines the 737 Max 7 and 8. If it is a software bug those are the ones affected, not all the rest of the previously built models of 737's.

The original series of B737's (built 1967-1983)has a hull-loss (meaning "airplane destroyed" and most if not all on board killed) rate of 1.75 per million takeoffs. The next group (1984-1997) had a hull-loss rate of .54 per million takeoffs, and .27 hull losses per millions takeoffs for the "next generation" series (1998-2015). The 737 "family" has had a good safety record, one that has continued to improve over time. Depending on exactly how the parameters are measured, it is at least as safe as the comparable A320 and arguably more so, although the fact is they're both damn close in the stats.

Better to keep them grounded for a few days to get confirmation after this second crash.

Better to look at the black boxes, which might give us the information we need to know if there's actually a problem other than the one initially suspected, or to confirm it's a problem inherent to the Max's and ground ALL of the Max 7's and 8's worldwide because right now it's hit-or-miss whether a particular country has done that.

[Broomstick]

From what I've read, they're being sent to France for analysis.

Good.

While the French are just as reluctant to commit to a final answer as the US authorities, if the angle-of-attack indicator WAS involved I trust them to state that is the case. At which point, yes, we need to ground ALL the Max 7's and Max 8's until the problem is fixed or the offending hardware/software replaced.

[Broomstick]

It would be just a bit embarassing to ground the airframe and later - after a couple more crashes and a few hundred more dead people - find out that whoops, it's a problem with the engines. Which the Chinese might want to know about because they use the same CFM engines as the Boeing Max 8 in some of their airplanes, as just one possible additional interested party. Airbus might want to know about that, too, as there are A320's flying with that engine, too.

True. Worst thing - people get a bit embarassed. As I said, perfectly fine in any normal world. Only wrong if profits matter more than lives potentially lost.

Re-read what I wrote. I don't think you really got it the first time.

If the problem is, hypothetically, the engines and not the software then some Airbus 320's and another aircraft in China are affected, too. My point was that it would suck if, while we have the Max's ground there's another couple crashes in Europe and China because we grounded the wrong aircraft based on a faulty assumption.

That's not embarrassment. That's hundreds of people dead. Because the wrong assumption was made.

Rinse and repeat for anything on the Max 7/8 aircraft shared by other aircraft.

That's why getting the black box data as soon as possible is so important - because that's going to be a good indicator of what really should (or should not) be done in regards to these accidents, safety, and the particular models of aircraft that may be affected.

It's not about "Boeing profits" and I'd say the same damn thing about any other model of aircraft. Making wrong assumptions in aviation gets people killed, that's why accident investigation is so important. That's why NOT making knee-jerk assumptions - which the media does oh, so readily - is so important.

And, again, if it IS the angle-of-attack (hardware and/or software) then ALL of the affected airplanes around the world need to be grounded until fixed, not some here and some there. And fuck Boeing if they don't like it - the're 103 years old, they're big boys, they can handle the fall out and I expect the company will survive just fine.

Or maybe it was pilot error, plain and simple, which IS the most common factor in aircraft accidents these days at all levels.

I eagerly await what the Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses pour la Sécurité de l'Aviation Civile has to say about the black box data and the accident.

[Broomstick]

According to the BBC, in addition to the Ethiopian airline 737 never gaining much altitude and, based on transmitted flight data having vertical airspeed issues, witnesses working under the flight path of the airplane reported "rattling noises" and smoke and debris coming off the airplane before the crash.

From here:

Several witnesses who worked in the farmland below the plane's flight path told the Reuters news agency they heard loud rattling noises coming from the aircraft and saw billows of smoke and debris in its wake as it made a low turn over the fields.

"When it was hovering, fire was following its tail, then it tried to lift its nose," said one witness, Gadisa Benti. "When it passed over our house, the nose pointed down and the tail raised up. It went straight to the ground with its nose, it then exploded."

That sounds like more than just faulty software. The airplane could have hit a flock of birds, precipitating other problems as a possibility. Or something catastrophic with one or more engines. If, on top of something like that, you also had a vertical airpeed stability issue that is a Very Bad Scenario. The "nose down/tail up" sounds like a stall which in an airliner is bad news at any altitude but that low it's a hopeless situation, there is simply not enough altitude to recover flight. Unstable airspeed, though, can come about from engine problems or pilot error, not necessarily bad software (though a trifecta of trouble is also possible).

With this additional information it looks like this may be a multifactorial accident.

[K. A. Pital]

I must note the decision to ground was done by government agencies supervising aviation in the affected nations and not by the media.

Erring on the side of caution is not necessarily wrong. Neither does it preclude a thorough investigation.

Even if not all planes affected are grounded, it is still a better reaction than to ground none of them.

[Broomstick]

Government agencies pressured by the public, who are ignorant when it comes to aviation.