Ethiopian 737 Max 8 crash and Fallout

[MEL_Traveller]

MEL-traveler, you need to say exactly what you want re info. You seem to be arguing a notion that is free from such precise reality. Such an argument is easy because it involves such ideal but without restricting itself to the reality. What is it exactly that you want?

That's a good question. Maybe things like flight paths. Screening of cargo and carriage of dangerous goods. Compliance with manufacturer, regulatory or other airworthiness directives (some fixes are given quite long lead in times to be implemented). Crew fatigue management.

 

[jb747]

That's a good question. Maybe things like flight paths.

When would you like that. That information isn’t even available to the pilot until about 60 minutes prior to departure. And it’s subject to change at all times.

Screening of cargo and carriage of dangerous goods.

Again how would you like that? The load sheet, with dangerous goods info arrives in the last few minutes prior to departure.

Compliance with manufacturer, regulatory or other airworthiness directives (some fixes are given quite long lead in times to be implemented).

Yes, they are complied with. Nobody would say anything else, whether they were or not.

Crew fatigue management.

Just assume the crew is knackered.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

When would you like that. That information isn’t even available to the pilot until about 60 minutes prior to departure. And it’s subject to change at all times.

A policy statement by airlines about their choice of flight paths and those that will avoid. For example why not include a list that they will not fly over (updated, as required), regardless of whether that airspace is 'open'. The exact route on the day is not required.

Again how would you like that? The load sheet, with dangerous goods info arrives in the last few minutes prior to departure.

A policy stated by the airline on their website that they will not carry (for example) a shipment of lithium batteries (or other dangerous cargo) even if techincally permitted by authorities.

Yes, they are complied with. Nobody would say anything else, whether they were or not.

An airworthiness directive may have an extended implementation period. Airlines could be free to state whether they have complied with the directive before that period. (There was the occasion where six B-734s were allegedly grounded for not meeting a directive, although this was denied by the airline.)

Safety and operational information doesn't have to be in the domain of the crew to deliver at the time of the flight. It can be made available on an ongoing basis. If a regulatory authority has undertaken an audit on a company, why not publish the report in full? This happens now with government auditors. It happens with commissions and investigations (banking, etc).

Airlineratings - whatever worth people give to that - is able to maintain a list of supposed safety indicators, and how an airline compares. Perhaps an extension of that list to include other safety issues?

 

[RooFlyer]

A policy statement by airlines about their choice of flight paths and those that will avoid. For example why not include a list that they will not fly over (updated, as required), regardless of whether that airspace is 'open'. The exact route on the day is not required.

A policy stated by the airline on their website that they will not carry (for example) a shipment of lithium batteries (or other dangerous cargo) even if techincally permitted by authorities.

Agree .. there is a lot of stuff that might be collated which would help inform a traveler. Not saying it would be easy, or if consistent information could be collated across even the majority of the majors, but add maybe average age of fleet, (segmented as far as possible); growth of fleet (demand for ... experience ... of pilots ...); quality of the airlines' national certification quality / procedures for planes & pilots; acceptance or rejection of an airline or a countries' airlines by various bodies (eg Thailand;s rejection by the US authorities), etc. Maybe financial situation as an indicator.

No one or group of data would be authoritative I guess, but put together & crunched by a group with good knowledge of the industry I would think it could be useful.

People would just have to decide how helpful or realistic the data is, but you'd think there might be a commercial opportunity to develop say a subscription database of interest to large corporates on an on-going basis (careful about how they send their staff) and maybe on-off reports for individuals.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Agree .. there is a lot of stuff that might be collated which would help inform a traveler. Not saying it would be easy, or if consistent information could be collated across even the majority of the majors, but add maybe average age of fleet, (segmented as far as possible); growth of fleet (demand for ... experience ... of pilots ...); quality of the airlines' national certification quality / procedures for planes & pilots; acceptance or rejection of an airline or a countries' airlines by various bodies (eg Thailand;s rejection by the US authorities), etc. Maybe financial situation as an indicator.

No one or group of data would be authoritative I guess, but put together & crunched by a group with good knowledge of the industry I would think it could be useful.

People would just have to decide how helpful or realistic the data is, but you'd think there might be a commercial opportunity to develop say a subscription database of interest to large corporates on an on-going basis (careful about how they send their staff) and maybe on-off reports for individuals.

i guess it what insurance companies, other risk assessors and airlineratings do already. I think there's at least one AFF member who's corporate risk assessors have a list of 'no fly' airlines that is compiled through analysis of data. So it must be possible to find this information.

 

[jb747]

And at the end of all of this, most will fly with XYZ, 'cos they are cheaper. And, because they fly to Australia, they must be approved, so they're ok. Right.

 

[tgh]

Really JB.. there is this air of cynicism about the cattle..
You are one of us now… walk an inch in our shoes…

 

[DC3]

So, what is the advantage to the airline in providing this sort of information?

The passengers can go jump, I would expect?

 

[drron]

Southwest now sending their Maxes to the desert for storage.
Southwest Ferrying 737 MAX Planes To Desert For Storage - One Mile at a Time

 

[jb747]

Really JB.. there is this air of cynicism about the cattle..
You are one of us now… walk an inch in our shoes…

Of course there is.......

 

[Quickstatus]

Agree, but for a decision on treatment etc you should be having things fully explained prior to proceeding. (Note that i’d also agree that this isn’t universally done well.....). Not sure the pilot standing at the front of the aircraft telling you everything that might go wrong (x 500 pax) would work so well.


Having said that, it’s hard to see where that info is held in an aviation context. There’s a scatter of info now on the internet, but little of it is curated or in a helpful format. WHat should be the airlne’s or manufacturer’s disclosure requirement. A complex can of worms.

We’re also assuming consumers really want to know. There’s certainly plenty of patients who are happy to proceed on the basis “i’ll Just do what you tell me doc” rather than want every last detail......

Full disclosures/informed consent never happens. It takes too long. What do you leave in and what do you leave out?. The only way to do that properly is for each person to get a rather large wad of documents which would need to be read, and then the person would need a solicitor to explain it all and what they are signing. The solicitor would need to sign off that the person understands the entirety of the documents.

And even if full disclosure happens. What now?, you still have to make that decision.

Certain bits of information might help: The main one for me is pilot hours. If there are 2 competing airlines I would go with the one with substantially better hours.

But the big one is pilot fatigue. I reckon many pilots currently fly while fatigued - especially when flying across timezones.

....

Agree. And it highlights the distinction between minutiae and significant issues that could affect safety. There really shouldn't be any safety concerns at the time of departure if the crew are intending to fly the plane.

Other issues may be relevant... an airline's choice to continue to fly a particular aircraft, or to a particular airport. Or an airline's choice of flight paths. Or crew management (qualifications, training, fatigue).

And who decides what is minutiae and what is significant. People go to court to sue because they were not told about the minutiae.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

And who decides what is minutiae and what is significant. People go to court to sue because they were not told about the minutiae.

Examples have been provided above.

The perceived difficulties shouldn't be a barrier to making information available to those who want it. Many companies already publish policies on a wide range of issues. Overarching policy about safety should be no different.

Even with published policies in place it won't preclude holding airlines accountable in court. But it could help passengers identify airlines that are more willing to take risks for commerical reasons.

 

[p--and--t]

@jb747 hit the nail squarely on the head.

While the readers of this forum, who are a very select and very much minority group may fret over even the placement of a single seat on variant 3 seating plan of a particular aircraft type with a specific carrier, 99.9% of the people I deal with on a daily basis say "did you see that fare!!!!!" and when I ask which airline and what are the layovers like, they say; "who cares".

 

[Captain Halliday]

@jb747 hit the nail squarely on the head.

While the readers of this forum, who are a very select and very much minority group may fret over even the placement of a single seat on variant 3 seating plan of a particular aircraft type with a specific carrier, 99.9% of the people I deal with on a daily basis say "did you see that fare!!!!!" and when I ask which airline and what are the layovers like, they say; "who cares".

You should let them know that some planes have MCAS and they might want to look out for it.

If they’re still not interested tell them it stands for: Might Crash Again Soon.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

While the readers of this forum, who are a very select and very much minority group may fret over even the placement of a single seat on variant 3 seating plan of a particular aircraft type with a specific carrier, 99.9% of the people I deal with on a daily basis say "did you see that fare!!!!!" and when I ask which airline and what are the layovers like, they say; "who cares".

There is that talk in the office. Often when one of the papers prints 'amazing deals to Europe for $800' (but on Scoot ). I don't know of many people that actually end up booking these fares.

But it also works both ways. A lot of people in the office won't even consider Garuda because 'they've heard bad things'. Doesn't matter that they have full service, bags, meals and entertainment included, and can be at the pool with a coughtail by lunchtime rather than missing a whole day with JQ or VA.

Who knows the effect of making safety information available. But as yet, while people have raised valid questions as to what information should be made available, and how it could be presented, no one has come up with a reason not to do it at all.

 

[Moody]

I would MUCH rather that airlines spent their time and resources making their operations as safe and efficient as possible, rather than chasing their tails trying to satisfy the 1% of passengers who care about the minutia. The regulators (if they are doing their job properly) should expose and remediate bad practices, and in addition the airlines' own track record are material inputs to my decision making.

So of the "majors", Air France and Garuda are still in my no-fly bucket. Also revelations about the Max8 issues push me towards always flying Qantas (regardless of fare premium), as when an aircraft that I am on tries to kill me I want the best crew on my side to prevent that happening.

 

[RooFlyer]

@jb747 hit the nail squarely on the head.

While the readers of this forum, who are a very select and very much minority group may fret over even the placement of a single seat on variant 3 seating plan of a particular aircraft type with a specific carrier, 99.9% of the people I deal with on a daily basis say "did you see that fare!!!!!" and when I ask which airline and what are the layovers like, they say; "who cares".

There is also the corporate market. The big corporates (and there are many, with a lot of flyers, who are not price sensitive) often have policies on corporate travel - as in, duty of care to those employees they send travelling for the job.

I've told the story before of a large gold mining company, with operations in many third world countries who even in the 1990s had a corporate airline safety guy whose job it was to individually assess the airlines (with a focus on the small domestic airlines of said countries) for their safety characteristics. He dug deep. In one prominent mining country, he judged the commercial services not good enough so the company had their own 15 seater based there to ferry people about.

When I travelled around the Middle East for work, also in the 1990s, the large Australian mining company I worked for had a list of airlines and airports that I was not permitted to fly on/to.

Today, it would be hard for a large corporate to resist using a reputable commercial 'airline safety assessor', again as part of their duty of care to their oft-travelling employees.

I'm sure such services exist today, but probably so specialised and expensive that they don't enter the general market.

Although flying is very safe, there is a very risk-adverse portion of any market that is willing to pay to dot another i .

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I would MUCH rather that airlines spent their time and resources making their operations as safe and efficient as possible, rather than chasing their tails trying to satisfy the 1% of passengers who care about the minutia. The regulators (if they are doing their job properly) should expose and remediate bad practices, and in addition the airlines' own track record are material inputs to my decision making.

So would we all. But unfortunately it's not the case. I don't think the carriage of dangerous goods, or flying over war zones is minutiae?

Unfortunately a track record is exactly that... and 'after the fact' is often too late.

If airlines can regularly update a glossy webpage detailing the exact number of aircraft that have been upgraded with a new business class seat, they have the time to publish policies on major safety issues.

 

[cambriamarsh]

I would MUCH rather that airlines spent their time and resources making their operations as safe and efficient as possible, rather than chasing their tails trying to satisfy the 1% of passengers who care about the minutia. The regulators (if they are doing their job properly) should expose and remediate bad practices, and in addition the airlines' own track record are material inputs to my decision making.

So of the "majors", Air France and Garuda are still in my no-fly bucket. Also revelations about the Max8 issues push me towards always flying Qantas (regardless of fare premium), as when an aircraft that I am on tries to kill me I want the best crew on my side to prevent that happening.

Well put. The reality is that an airline that spent its resources trying to satisfy the points asked would potentially become either so expensive or unprofitable that it failed.

Very few flights have significant problems and even fewer end in disaster so the marginal value of the information is very low. When was the last time a flight to, from or in Australia crashed and when was the last time there was a fatality due to that crash?

I think we are better to spend our time and energy on ensuring our safety on the road where the risks are higher and we personally have more chance of influencing the outcome.

 

[drron]

There is also the corporate market. The big corporates (and there are many, with a lot of flyers, who are not price sensitive) often have policies on corporate travel - as in, duty of care to those employees they send travelling for the job.

I've told the story before of a large gold mining company, with operations in many third world countries who even in the 1990s had a corporate airline safety guy whose job it was to individually assess the airlines (with a focus on the small domestic airlines of said countries) for their safety characteristics. He dug deep. In one prominent mining country, he judged the commercial services not good enough so the company had their own 15 seater based there to ferry people about.

When I travelled around the Middle East for work, also in the 1990s, the large Australian mining company I worked for had a list of airlines and airports that I was not permitted to fly on/to.

Today, it would be hard for a large corporate to resist using a reputable commercial 'airline safety assessor', again as part of their duty of care to their oft-travelling employees.

I'm sure such services exist today, but probably so specialised and expensive that they don't enter the general market.

Although flying is very safe, there is a very risk-adverse portion of any market that is willing to pay to dot another i .

Though some times a charter is not the way to go.
Miners recovered from plane crash