Ethiopian 737 Max 8 crash and Fallout

Let's go with it this way. Entry into service was March 8. 2017. By March 10, 2019 (so 2 years and 2 days) there had been two catastrophic crashes of the type, with the aircraft itself setting off the chain of events. How many models have that record?

DeHavilland Comet lost three in 12 months. It remained in service but was hardly a roaring success. Of note was ~5 years from grounding to re-entry to commercial service in modified (Comet 4) form.

The wiki article is a decent summary.
 
Thanks for sharing, a rare voice of reason. Nader is actually quite a powerful voice in US consumer issues so him having lost a relative himself is not good news for Boeing!
... and all the more reason why he is not impartial. His comments reek of a lot pure emotion rather than logic. For this reason his comments need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Nader always has an agenda and in this case it is obvious.
 
Last edited:
... and all the more reason why he is not impartial. His comments reek of a lot pure emotion rather than logic. For this reason his comments need to be taken approximately.
Nader always has an agenda and in this case it is obvious.
Too bad that he's factually correct- that airplane should never have been built with this basic design fault and hence should never fly again.
 
Too bad that he's factually correct- that airplane should never have been built with this basic design fault and hence should never fly again.
That’s all I have ever said.

Let the a/c pass or fail on its own merits and not from trial by media and/or voices who have little or no aviation knowledge.

Is he totally factually correct?
 
Let the a/c pass or fail on its own merits and not from trial by media and/or voices who have little or no aviation knowledge.

Nader is just a distraction.

It’s going to be very interesting to see if other regulators around the world rethink the 737’s grandfathered provisions. I also suspect that at least some will make it a separate endorsement. I still can’t believe they got away with such a tiny amount of training for such a vastly different coughpit. I’ve had more training thrown at me for a small change to one system.
 
Nader is just a distraction.

It’s going to be very interesting to see if other regulators around the world rethink the 737’s grandfathered provisions. I also suspect that at least some will make it a separate endorsement. I still can’t believe they got away with such a tiny amount of training for such a vastly different coughpit. I’ve had more training thrown at me for a small change to one system.
Fair enough, let's just wait and see. I just hope you're right and at least some regulators will be stricter than in the past.
 
IF I add wings to a brick will it be certifiable if I add enough electronics ?
Seems to me that Boeing need to revisit first principles : aviate safely and stop pressing the talk button so much
 
That’s all I have ever said.

Let the a/c pass or fail on its own merits and not from trial by media and/or voices who have little or no aviation knowledge.

Is he totally factually correct?

Well, the people with aviation knowledge gave us MCAS. They are properly being held to account for that.
 
I'll post the remainder later as I'm currently having issues with the link.

Michael Bruno | Aviation Daily

Two crashes, 346 deaths, almost three months of groundings and a steady stream of new revelations about the Boeing 737 MAX still may have not much dented the aircraft’s image in the public’s mind, a public poll run by part of investment company UBS has suggested. “The net result is the survey suggests 8% of the flying public would never fly the 737 MAX, but when coupled with booking habits also captured in the survey, the percentage drops ....
 
MCAS is not exclusive to the 737 MAX. It is how it was applied to the 737 MAX that is the issue.

and it's application to the 737 MAX was done by people knowledgeable in aviation.And the problem is there seems to be nothing from any of those knoweldgeable people to suggest they are even looking at how it happened. They are being forced into it by those from the outside.
 
and it's application to the 737 MAX was done by people knowledgeable in aviation.And the problem is there seems to be nothing from any of those knoweldgeable people to suggest they are even looking at how it happened. They are being forced into it by those from the outside.
Sorry woodborer but I have no idea what you mean.
 
EXCLUSIVE OFFER - Offer expires: 20 Jan 2025

- Earn up to 200,000 bonus Velocity Points*
- Enjoy unlimited complimentary access to Priority Pass lounges worldwide
- Earn up to 3 Citi reward Points per dollar uncapped

*Terms And Conditions Apply

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

It’s going to be very interesting to see if other regulators around the world rethink the 737’s grandfathered provisions. I also suspect that at least some will make it a separate endorsement.

If a particular country does require a separate endorsement for this aircraft, does that mean a pilot flying from a country that doesn't require one is not allowed to fly in the one which does? (e.g. if the US regulator grandfathered it provision for the Max but Europe didn't, would a US pilot with no endorsement be able to fly the plane to Europe?)
 
Well, the people with aviation knowledge gave us MCAS. They are properly being held to account for that.

Boeing dropped the ball.
The FAA dropped the ball
The safety assessment team drop the ball
The design engineers dropped the ball
The testers dropped the ball

but trust them. they have aviation knowledge :)
 
With the upcoming 777-X, is there any risk of similar issues there? Or is it being recertified as an entirely new airframe?
 
If a particular country does require a separate endorsement for this aircraft, does that mean a pilot flying from a country that doesn't require one is not allowed to fly in the one which does? (e.g. if the US regulator grandfathered it provision for the Max but Europe didn't, would a US pilot with no endorsement be able to fly the plane to Europe?)

Lets look at this another way, Virgin have given me a co-pilot endorsement on the 777. I could take that around the world and it’s recognised. Cathay SOs get a P2X endorsement (only recognised in HKG). Even though they’ve effectively operated on the 777, the endorsement isn’t recognised anywhere else and they would need to do another 777 type rating in that country.
 
Just to put a slightly different perspective out there.

When manufacturers have an issue they put out, in association with the FAA, an Airworthiness Directive (AD) or a for something less critical a Service Directive (SD). These are a reasonably regular occurrence and must be complied with.

On or around 3rd June there was a SD and AD issued for specific 737 MAX and 737 NG aircraft.


Boeing on Sunday said some of its 737 planes, including many 737 Max aircraft, may have faulty parts on their wings. It's the latest problem Boeing faces as it tries to get its most important and popular airplane, the grounded 737 Max, back in the air.

Working with the Federal Aviation Administration, Boeing said it has reached out to airlines that fly 737 planes, advising them to inspect their slat track assemblies on Max and NG aircraft. The 737 NG series includes the 737-600, -700, -800 and -900 planes.

Leading edge slats are an aerodynamic control surface that extend from the front of the wing. Some the tracks may not meet manufacturing standards and may need to be replaced, Boeing and the FAA said. They said if the parts are found to be defective, airlines should replace them before returning the planes to service.

The faulty parts could fail prematurely or crack. The FAA said a part failure would not bring down a plane, but it could damage an aircraft while in flight.
Boeing has sent out a service bulletin and the FAA will issue an airworthiness directive requiring airlines to inspect and repair its slat track assemblies within 10 days.

The company discovered the problem Friday, when Boeing was meeting with the parts supplier. Boeing employees noticed some of the parts were not heat treated, which led them to believe there might be a safety issue.

The newly discovered issue affects 148 slat tracks produced by a single supplier, Boeing said. The company said it believes 20 737 Max and 21 737 NG planes may have defective slat tracks. But the FAA advised airlines to check an additional 179 Max planes and 133 NGs to determine if their parts are also faulty. Of the group that needs to be inspected, 33 Max and 32 NG planes are in the United States.

The company and the FAA said it has not been notified of any incidents related to the tracks on operating flights, and the fix should take a couple days to complete.

"We are committed to supporting our customers in every way possible as they identify and replace these potentially non-conforming tracks," said Kevin McAllister, CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, in a statement.
 

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.
Back
Top