Ethiopian 737 Max 8 crash and Fallout

[oz_mark]

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?

Was it certified by the FAA, might be a question to ask....

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

Well, given the pilots didn't know there was an MCAS until after the fact, how would they publish it before the fact?

 

[RooFlyer]

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

Granted, although in the case I cited, the company owned and operated the aircraft themselves. Charters in third world countries are a horrible part off a job.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Well, given the pilots didn't know there was an MCAS until after the fact, how would they publish it before the fact?

Fits perfectly with the provision of information.

A potentially unforeseen incident has occured. The measures an airline puts in place to respond to that incident can help inform prospective passengers.

At the moment we assume, as passengers, that lessons would have been learned from a previous major incident. It may turn out, if these are connected, that that wasn't the case.

 

[Quickstatus]

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.

That’s why there are regulators. In OZ it’s CASA. Some would say it’s not doing a very good job. Unfortunately with international travel and airlines, consequences of Australian regulations have international ramifications - likely political.

I would like CASA to raise minimum pilot hours. But this will likely have many unintended consequences

 

[JB expat]

Very curious to know the difference between Qantas and Jetstar re: pilot hours and safety features (comparing like aircraft types with like). I can figure out which seats I think are more comfortable, which food I like better, whether I want something where I have to pay for every little thing or pay a bit more and have it all included - etc. I'd like to know the difference in what I cannot see.

 

[Quickstatus]

So of the "majors", Air France and Garuda are still in my no-fly bucket....

Mine are AirAsia, Asiana
I have doubts about EK, AF and most other LCC

What is my minimum flight hours?. I don’t know. I would accept a lower hour FO if they are trained in an airline with robust training and operational safety culture. But pilot hours are not visible to the flying public

 

[JB expat]

Mine are AirAsia, Asiana
I have doubts about EK, AF and most other LCC

What LCC would you fly? They are all on my personal no-fly list...except for perhaps Jet Star as sometimes I cannot find a Q flight that adequately substitutes which is why I asked about Jet Star above.

 

[Quickstatus]

What LCC would you fly? They are all on my personal no-fly list...except for perhaps Jet Star as sometimes I cannot find a Q flight that adequately substitutes which is why I asked about Jet Star above.

When there is a choice no LCC. When there is no choice and JQ is the only service then I would fly JQ.
Sometimes there is no choice in which case air is often better than road.

MissQS flew with Kenya Airways. She said a lot of duct tape was used in the cabin. In Africa most airlines a safer than going by road.
I would fly ET - unless the FO is 200 hr cadet. But I won’t know that fact

 

[juddles]

Responding to various posts, but without quoting....

It is to me ironic that a major issue in aviation is fatigue - yet we also want pilots who have flown the most hours

As for LCC's, without looking into the actual numbers, is there evidence to support a theory that they are more dangerous?? If my recollection is correct, many of the significant crashes over the past few years were not LCC's.

Regarding disclosure, or whatever that notion is, I think this is an area where some of my overwhelming communist feelings are outweighed by capitalist notions of reality - in essence, let market forces work out what happens. If there is is a significant desire by pax to get whatever info, then (1) the only people who could provide even vaguely impartial info would be third parties - any airline will obviously expouse their own virtues. Does anyone really think an airline or any company would proactively provide negative info on themselves???

And (2) for a third party to analyse and provide such data would be if a real desire (commercially viable) is out there.

Overall I think that air travel touches upon fears and sensitivities that are a fallacy in real terms. Statistics (as evil as they are by themselves) show that your airplane adventures are probably the least dangerous activity that you do. Do cab companies give pax details of the vehicles and service records? Do they tell you the experience levels or fatigue issues of the driver? Do they tell you if they avoid roads where crashes are more common? Do they advise you if every safety feature that has been invented is adopted by the specific cab you will get when you call one?

No. No. No.

 

[JB expat]

Overall I think that air travel touches upon fears and sensitivities that are a fallacy in real terms. Statistics (as evil as they are by themselves) show that your airplane adventures are probably the least dangerous activity that you do. Do cab companies give pax details of the vehicles and service records? Do they tell you the experience levels or fatigue issues of the driver? Do they tell you if they avoid roads where crashes are more common? Do they advise you if every safety feature that has been invented is adopted by the specific cab you will get when you call one?

I find the taxi analogy helpful. I posted way above about never asking whether a taxi had anti lock brakes. Nor do I ask how many hours of driving experience they have; nor do I ask how tired they are/what hour of driving are they in; nor do I ask how old their tires are, when their car was last serviced etc. Makes me wonder about the sanity of ever getting in one (which I do often). Convenience wins I guess. However, for those of us who are fortunate enough not to worry about a $50-200+ dollar difference between a LCC and a regular carrier, the price premium for safety is a no brainer. The big question - are you actually getting better safety - or just not having to guess how much luggage you will have, know which seats etc. etc.

 

[juddles]

I find the taxi analogy helpful. I posted way above about never asking whether a taxi had anti lock brakes. Nor do I ask how many hours of driving experience they have; nor do I ask how tired they are/what hour of driving are they in; nor do I ask how old their tires are, when their car was last serviced etc. Makes me wonder about the sanity of ever getting in one (which I do often). Convenience wins I guess. However, for those of us who are fortunate enough not to worry about a $50-200+ dollar difference between a LCC and a regular carrier, the price premium for safety is a no brainer. The big question - are you actually getting better safety - or just not having to guess how much luggage you will have, know which seats etc. etc.

Despite the recent Max crashes, air travel is overwhelmingly safe, be it full service airlines or LCC's. I fly a fair bit, and even if there was a crash the day before, I take it all in with some perspective.

I am all for the best safety procedures, I always desire airlines and aircraft manufacturers to always seek to improve. But really, they have done an amazing job over the years in safety, despite being an industry where the real power players, the pax, just buy ever and ever the cheapest fare.......

 

[oz_mark]

Overall I think that air travel touches upon fears and sensitivities that are a fallacy in real terms. Statistics (as evil as they are by themselves) show that your airplane adventures are probably the least dangerous activity that you do. Do cab companies give pax details of the vehicles and service records? Do they tell you the experience levels or fatigue issues of the driver? Do they tell you if they avoid roads where crashes are more common? Do they advise you if every safety feature that has been invented is adopted by the specific cab you will get when you call one?

No. No. No.

Society by and large works on the notion of 'trust'. We trust that engineers build bridges than don't fall down, we trust that when we go into a stadium, it won't collapse.
Largely, it has to be this way. We can't possibly analyse it all ourselves and make decisions. Of course, someone has to, and in the we put our trust, That's how society works.

In the case of the MAX, our trust in Boeing and the FAA has been severely challenged.

LionAir not so much, as many of us didn't trust them in the first place.

 

[juddles]

Society by and large works on the notion of 'trust'. We trust that engineers build bridges than don't fall down, we trust that when we go into a stadium, it won't collapse.
Largely, it has to be this way. We can't possibly analyse it all ourselves and make decisions. Of course, someone has to, and in the we put our trust, That's how society works.

In the case of the MAX, our trust in Boeing and the FAA has been severely challenged.

LionAir not so much, as many of us didn't trust them in the first place.

Very true. But....

I feel, as all AFF members should, much more informed than the general public. Despite my dislike of the Max issues, I would still feel far safer flying one of those aircraft on ANY airline, than going on a hot air balloon experience with some tiny company in Alice Springs....

 

[Quickstatus]

I am all for the best safety procedures,

Some say there is no point of safety procedures - especially the cabin kind - because no one pays any attention.
Then for similar passengers to crucify the airline or aircraft for a crash? a bit hypocritical I say.

 

[Quickstatus]

As for LCC's, without looking into the actual numbers, is there evidence to support a theory that they are more dangerous?? If my recollection is correct, many of the significant crashes over the past few years were not LCC's.

Well a non LCC nearly took out an entire suburb of New York City

My supposition of LCC is that they are Cheap and Nasty rather than Cheap and Cheerful. Its personally difficult separating Safety from that.

 

[cambriamarsh]

When there is a choice no LCC. When there is no choice and JQ is the only service then I would fly JQ.
Sometimes there is no choice in which case air is often better than road.

MissQS flew with Kenya Airways. She said a lot of duct tape was used in the cabin. In Africa most airlines a safer than going by road.
I would fly ET - unless the FO is 200 hr cadet. But I won’t know that fact

You wouldn't know the actual pilots hours until immediately before the flight. In reality would a 200 hr FO on an otherwise reputable airline stop you flying that flight if the alternative was to cancel, no refund and pay double, triple or more for the same flight?

Maybe I'm being a bit cavalier but I take the approach that if the airline is generally ok I'll trust their judgement otherwise not.

FWIW my personal no fly list is Lion, Air France and Asiana. Having said that I'm unlikely to have the opportunity to fly any of those, living and working in Australasia and preferring 1W.

 

[Franky]

You wouldn't know the actual pilots hours until immediately before the flight. In reality would a 200 hr FO on an otherwise reputable airline stop you flying that flight if the alternative was to cancel, no refund and pay double, triple or more for the same flight?

Maybe I'm being a bit cavalier but I take the approach that if the airline is generally ok I'll trust their judgement otherwise not.

FWIW my personal no fly list is Lion, Air France and Asiana. Having said that I'm unlikely to have the opportunity to fly any of those, living and working in Australasia and preferring 1W.

1W doesn't appear in my ExpertFlyer list of airlines...

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Despite the recent Max crashes, air travel is overwhelmingly safe, be it full service airlines or LCC's. I fly a fair bit, and even if there was a crash the day before, I take it all in with some perspective.

But think for a moment how your perspective might change if your family was in one of those crashes. What if they were on MH17? An incident that was totally avoidable if the airline had chosen to follow the example of other airlines and avoid that air route.

(1) the only people who could provide even vaguely impartial info would be third parties - any airline will obviously expouse their own virtues. Does anyone really think an airline or any company would proactively provide negative info on themselves???

A policy statement by an airline that they will not fly over a war zone, or that they will not carry dangerous goods as cargo, does not require third party analysis. Airlines would need to take a commercial decision as to whether they published their policies.

 

[oz_mark]

But think for a moment how your perspective might change if your family was in one of those crashes. What if they were on MH17? An incident that was totally avoidable if the airline had chosen to follow the example of other airlines and avoid that air route.

But by the same token, plenty of other airlines were flying over the same space (e.g. Singapore Airlines). How do you assess between who is right and who is wrong?

 

[Franky]

Not all airlines avoided that route then, but I'm sure many did shortly thereafter...