DL747400 wrote:Indy wrote:LAX772LR wrote:What's unbelievable is such idiotic levels of assumption are taken even remotely seriously.
Repeat after me:
You... Don't... Yet... Know... What... Caused... This... Crash.
You can't even say what the primary contribution (human, mechanical, aeronatical, combination) was on the most *basic* level, yet.
But you want to ground a worldwide fleet?
Exactly. We don't know what caused the crash yet. So let's keep flying them and see if another crashes. A few hundred people have already lost their lives to this new plane. How many more should be lost before we determine the cause? Are you comfortable allowing the plane to keep flying knowing there is a possibility the cause may have been the same and there may be more planes flying around with the same problem? Remember when the DC-10 got grounded? Was that jumping the gun too?
INDY: Thank you for this post. You said exactly what I (and many thousands of others) are thinking right now. We are now at 300+ dead in 2 very similar crashes. How many more 737MAX jets will crash before someone will consider grounding the MAX fleet? How many more 737MAX passengers need to lost their lives before that happens? In a world where we all like data, these are now unreasonable questions to raise. I am 100% comfortable saying that neither I nor my family will be boarding a 737MAX operated by any carrier (sorry WN, AA and UA) until this issue is fully understood and resolved.
I’m quite certain all official parties involved are considering a grounding. Or are you only talking about a.net?
There is a subtle but important distinction between those calling for it to be grounded and those open to a grounding. As much as we might see similarities between these two accidents, we know very little about this second one.
Would waiting a week to see if information can be garnered from the CVR/FDR be unreasonable? Or perhaps ACARS data? Or something more detailed about what they said to ATC (as we’ve seen so many false comments in that regard in previous crashes)?
The last thing I want to see is a design flaw be once again responsible for a MAX crash, but you have to consider the possibility and be prepared to act on it. At the same time, how many times have we thought we had it all figured out in the hours/days after a crash only to find out it was an entirely different scenario?