Breaking:POTUS Trump just ordered all 737-8 and 9 MAX's grounded.

B747forever wrote:

invertalon wrote:

B747forever wrote:

Source?

If true, this will be massively embarrassing for the FAA/Boeing being basically forced to ground the airplane and not doing it themselves.

https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/boe ... index.html

Thanks.

Seems to be happening live as we post!

As I said, truly embarrassing for the FAA/Boeing.

It’s going to be embarrassing for the whole world when the accident cause is unrelated.

It’s definitely verified:

US to ground all Boeing crash aircraft http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47562727

vfw614 wrote:

Are US airports free to decide to allow airlines or aircraft types in? In many jurisdictions airports do not have freedom of contract as airports are seen as something akin to a public utility.

Yes, so long as they are not in receipt of public funds e.g. FAA Airport Improvements Grants

32andBelow wrote:

It’s going to be embarrassing for the whole world when the accident cause is unrelated.

Not at all. There should be no margin for doubt when a 'new' aircraft type falls under suspicion. It's better to ground 350 of them now and potentially find no fault than to do so when 5,000 are in service.

Just seen this from The Telegraph. The headline runs thus:

"Pilots complained several times about 737 MAX problems before latest crash"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news ... ns-safety/

Sincere apologies if it's been posted already (huge rush here, no time to check), please delete/move as appropriate.

B747forever wrote:

dampfnudel wrote:

Breaking news!!! President Trump has ordered the grounding of the 737 MAX 8 and 737 MAX 9.

Source?

If true, this will be massively embarrassing for the FAA/Boeing being basically forced to ground the airplane and not doing it themselves.

There should be a bunch of sources now. I was watching CNN when the news broke and posted immediately.

Do planes currently flying have to land at nearest airport? (That's what CNN is reporting)

They can't complete their current flight?

How many are in the air right now?

It’s going to be embarrassing for the whole world when the accident cause is unrelated.

better safe than sorry, they will rightfully say

US is going to ground the Max

We are always told to keep politics out of these posts by the mods and, well, this time the post IS politics. Has a president ever took a direct action like this with the exception of the Sept 11 grounding?

Social media hysteria rules the day. American Airlines reported in 14,000 flights, there have be NO REPORTS of any flight management irregularities with the MAX 8. I repeat, no irregularities. I would fly on a MAX 8 in the hands of a WN or AA pilot today. We still have zero data on what happened on ET. We have no idea what happened. The flight recorders are on there way to Europe for analysis. This is taking way too long. When the plan is fully exonerated, which IMHO it will be, there will be a lot of egg on many hysterical faces.

What a dilemma this is.

So my understanding of 737 history is this -

When first designed in the mid-60's it came out as relatively short distance plane. The engines were rather slim and look a little like the ones on an Airbus A340-300.
Then came the 300 - 600 series planes with bigger engines and more range. Makes sense! However, because of the orginial design, the clerance under the wing necessitates the unique engine design with the flat bottom (for clearance).
Move forward a few more years and the NG comes out with more range and yet powerful engines, but the general design of the engine doesn't change. Success again!
Now the MAX. More range and power, but a newly designed engine in the fight against the Airbus A320 NEO. Again the basic clearance under the wing is still an issue, so the engines are relocated slightly which in turn has necessitated the need for monitors and software to make sure the plane doesn't take off at too steep an angle (due to the new engine design).
If this is the bases of the concern with the MAX, then that is indeed a red flag.

Is the MAX (at least the 8) too sensitive based on the design of the engines?

Park an A320 next to a 737 it instantly becomes obvious how much lower the wings and engines sit in comparison.

So does Boeing have to think about the engine layout as well as software and sensors to make the MAX a safer plane?
I find it so unlikely a company with the history and capabilities of Boeing would designed the MAX to rely on software essentially to compensate for what sounds a little like a suspect engine design.
Very unlikely, but yet here we are.
Thoughts?

I wonder if the 'new data ' that Transport Canada got this morning is what motivated the Americans to ground the planes. I'm thinking it's a combination of the data and mounting pressure.

Sent from my BBD100-2 using Tapatalk

Honestly, this is good news, but I hope we see a turn towards facts - which he seemed to allude to. There does seem to be some not-public information out there, and the fact that apparently Boeing/FAA were already working on a significant mcas fix that was delayed by the shutdown might be also pertinent as well.

Would be a bit strange if it's the President and not the FAA that grounds them. Doesnt look very professional..

alan3 wrote:

Do planes currently flying have to land at nearest airport? (That's what CNN is reporting)

They can't complete their current flight?

How many are in the air right now?

Since both crashes happened on take-off you would think they would be able to continue to their destination. However logic is probably not being applied with this decision.

[
It’s going to be embarrassing for the whole world when the accident cause is unrelated.[/quote]

I'd prefer to be embarrassed than have another 180 dead bodies. Wouldn't you agree?

skyharborshome wrote:

We are always told to keep politics out of these posts by the mods and, well, this time the post IS politics. Has a president ever took a direct action like this with the exception of the Sept 11 grounding?

The Sept 11 Stop was ordered by FAA National Operations Manager Ben Sliney.

1ffb2002 wrote:

Social media hysteria rules the day. American Airlines reported in 14,000 flights, there have be NO REPORTS of any flight management irregularities with the MAX 8. I repeat, no irregularities. I would fly on a MAX 8 in the hands of a WN or AA pilot today. We still have zero data on what happened on ET. We have no idea what happened. The flight recorders are on there way to Europe for analysis. This is taking way too long. When the plan is fully exonerated, which IMHO it will be, there will be a lot of egg on many hysterical faces.

Better to have the possibility of egg on the face than dead bodies on the ground.

32andBelow wrote:

It’s going to be embarrassing for the whole world when the accident cause is unrelated.

It will not be embarrassing for anyone.
There is circumstantial evidence that both crashes may have something in common and it may have something to do with the aircraft type.Even if the chance is only 1/1000 that the aircraft type had an influence
on these two crashes this - for me - justifies the grounding. If the result will be that the aircraft type has not played a significant role then you can always say "better safe than sorry".

SimonL wrote:

Would be a bit strange if it's the President and not the FAA that grounds them. Doesnt look very professional..

Which is exactly what has happened:

alan3 wrote:

CNN reporting that "planes currently in the air will ordered to land"

That is going to make for a very messy day.

I expect that's just a Trumpism to sound authoritative, because that plan is beyond ridiculous. The planes should be allowed to complete their flights.

DominikR83 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

It’s going to be embarrassing for the whole world when the accident cause is unrelated.

It will not be embarrassing for anyone.
There is circumstantial evidence that both crashes may have something in common and it may have something to do with the aircraft type.Even if the chance is only 1/1000 that the aircraft type had an influence
on these two crashes this - for me - justifies the grounding. If the result will be that the aircraft type has not played a significant role then you can always say "better safe than sorry".

Tell that to the Boeing Employees whose livelihood is on the line and the stockholders whose retirement is getting wiped out. I'm sure they think grounding a plane based on nothing more than conjecture is a great thing too right ?

The most interesting aspect in this is that the decision by Trump to ground the MAX was probably the least educated decision of all grounding decision, given his style of governing and his dislike for file reading and longish briefings.

I would not be surprised if a FAA grounding was forthcoming and Trump hijacked the process as it makes good PR for him.

TWA902fly wrote:

So despite these groundings, I currently see 3 Ethiopian 737 MAX 8's in flight, 6 in China (from 3 different airlines), 3 Norwegian, 4 Thomson, etc. What gives?

'902

If you are on flightradar24, use the aircraft filter and enter the value B3. (Stands for B3*, which means either B37M8 or B37M9, the ICAO codes and not the IATA ones).

My friends and I were just saying to each does the office of POTUS have the authority to ground an airliner? Well apparently it does.
I hope this is due to more information that has come to light and not a jump the gun due to pressure.

The impression left is that Trump (or someone close to him) has taken this decision over the heads of the FAA

Either way, it's the only credible decision to take. Once Canada grounded them, there's no way that the US could have continued as the only country allowing the Max to fly.

Floridaguy74656 wrote:

DominikR83 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

It’s going to be embarrassing for the whole world when the accident cause is unrelated.

It will not be embarrassing for anyone.
There is circumstantial evidence that both crashes may have something in common and it may have something to do with the aircraft type.Even if the chance is only 1/1000 that the aircraft type had an influence
on these two crashes this - for me - justifies the grounding. If the result will be that the aircraft type has not played a significant role then you can always say "better safe than sorry".

Tell that to the Boeing Employees whose livelihood is on the line and the stockholders whose retirement is getting wiped out. I'm sure they think grounding a plane based on nothing more than conjecture is a great thing too right ?

At the present moment, Boeing stock is almost exactly where it was after it dropped immediately following the crash, well before there were any groundings. Yes, it recovered a little from there, but they've taken a substantial hit primarily because of the crash, not the groundings.

1ffb2002 wrote:

Social media hysteria rules the day. American Airlines reported in 14,000 flights, there have be NO REPORTS of any flight management irregularities with the MAX 8. I repeat, no irregularities. I would fly on a MAX 8 in the hands of a WN or AA pilot today. We still have zero data on what happened on ET. We have no idea what happened. The flight recorders are on there way to Europe for analysis. This is taking way too long. When the plan is fully exonerated, which IMHO it will be, there will be a lot of egg on many hysterical faces.

I think you need to see this from a different viewpoint.
Who cares about egg on the face if this turns out to a false narrative. Better to error on the side of caution. What if there was another crash?
There are enough similiarities that a line has been crossed, as the Canadians said today.

And pilots from US airliners have complained as well. A plane might not have crashed, but just the fact that there have been incidents of strange pitching is rather alarming, wouldn't you say?
Boeing is looking a lot like GM lately, refusing to recall cars until it is too late. Very arrogant.
By the way, look up how much that cost GM in the long run.

Floridaguy74656 wrote:

DominikR83 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

It’s going to be embarrassing for the whole world when the accident cause is unrelated.

It will not be embarrassing for anyone.
There is circumstantial evidence that both crashes may have something in common and it may have something to do with the aircraft type.Even if the chance is only 1/1000 that the aircraft type had an influence
on these two crashes this - for me - justifies the grounding. If the result will be that the aircraft type has not played a significant role then you can always say "better safe than sorry".

Tell that to the Boeing Employees whose livelihood is on the line and the stockholders whose retirement is getting wiped out. I'm sure they think grounding a plane based on nothing more than conjecture is a great thing too right ?

That's the risk of building planes. As many have said, the 787 was grounded worldwide for less. The A380 was also partially grounded at one point. The aviation industry reacts based on an abundance of caution, and I think any of us would be happy to find out that this isn't a fundamental design flaw.

DominikR83 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

It’s going to be embarrassing for the whole world when the accident cause is unrelated.

It will not be embarrassing for anyone.
There is circumstantial evidence that both crashes may have something in common and it may have something to do with the aircraft type.Even if the chance is only 1/1000 that the aircraft type had an influence
on these two crashes this - for me - justifies the grounding. If the result will be that the aircraft type has not played a significant role then you can always say "better safe than sorry".

Total agreee with the sentiment that planes should be grounded. People on here if wanted to avoid could but more difficult to general public.

Trump may also have been influenced by businesses that wanted to protect employees. In a normal world he’d lean on Boeing to self impose but this is Trump.

Floridaguy74656 wrote:

DominikR83 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

It’s going to be embarrassing for the whole world when the accident cause is unrelated.

It will not be embarrassing for anyone.
There is circumstantial evidence that both crashes may have something in common and it may have something to do with the aircraft type.Even if the chance is only 1/1000 that the aircraft type had an influence
on these two crashes this - for me - justifies the grounding. If the result will be that the aircraft type has not played a significant role then you can always say "better safe than sorry".

Tell that to the Boeing Employees whose livelihood is on the line and the stockholders whose retirement is getting wiped out. I'm sure they think grounding a plane based on nothing more than conjecture is a great thing too right ?

First of all, anyone whose entire retirement is dependent on one stock deserves what they get. Second, unless they are selling their stock right now, if it is proven that the plane was not at fault, the stock will rebound and they will be fine. The only way they will be wiped out is if the plane is shown to be at fault and multiple airlines cancel their Max orders. In which case, they made a bad choice buying stock in a company that builds poorly designed airplanes and they were eventually going to suffer that loss anyway.

vfw614 wrote:

The most interesting aspect in this is that the decision by Trump to ground the MAX was probably the least educated decision of all grounding decision, given his style of governing and his dislike for file reading and longish briefings.

I would not be surprised if a FAA grounding was forthcoming and Trump hijacked the process as it makes good PR for him.

I am FOR the grounding, and I agree with you. This shouldn't come from Trump. It should come from the FAA.

Floridaguy74656 wrote:

DominikR83 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

It’s going to be embarrassing for the whole world when the accident cause is unrelated.

It will not be embarrassing for anyone.
There is circumstantial evidence that both crashes may have something in common and it may have something to do with the aircraft type.Even if the chance is only 1/1000 that the aircraft type had an influence
on these two crashes this - for me - justifies the grounding. If the result will be that the aircraft type has not played a significant role then you can always say "better safe than sorry".

Tell that to the Boeing Employees whose livelihood is on the line and the stockholders whose retirement is getting wiped out. I'm sure they think grounding a plane based on nothing more than conjecture is a great thing too right ?

Sorry but what a pointeless question to pose. No Boeing jobs are being cut (yet) and no one has lost their retirement savings either. It will be sad if either of those do happen of course, but if they do, it will have been necessary. Jobs can be found elsewhere and savings covered by insurance, lives cannot be reinstated unfortunately. Surely you grasp the concept of that?

flybynight wrote:

What a dilemma this is.

So my understanding of 737 history is this -

When first designed in the mid-60's it came out as relatively short distance plane. The engines were rather slim and look a little like the ones on an Airbus A340-300.
Then came the 300 - 600 series planes with bigger engines and more range. Makes sense! However, because of the orginial design, the clerance under the wing necessitates the unique engine design with the flat bottom (for clearance).
Move forward a few more years and the NG comes out with more range and yet powerful engines, but the general design of the engine doesn't change. Success again!
Now the MAX. More range and power, but a newly designed engine in the fight against the Airbus A320 NEO. Again the basic clearance under the wing is still an issue, so the engines are relocated slightly which in turn has necessitated the need for monitors and software to make sure the plane doesn't take off at too steep an angle (due to the new engine design).
If this is the bases of the concern with the MAX, then that is indeed a red flag.

Is the MAX (at least the 8) too sensitive based on the design of the engines?

Park an A320 next to a 737 it instantly becomes obvious how much lower the wings and engines sit in comparison.

So does Boeing have to think about the engine layout as well as software and sensors to make the MAX a safer plane?
I find it so unlikely a company with the history and capabilities of Boeing would designed the MAX to rely on software essentially to compensate for what sounds a little like a suspect engine design.
Very unlikely, but yet here we are.
Thoughts?

I'm not an aviation engineer let alone a B73 specialist. But extending the landing gear length (to get larger engines fitted to the wings) would also require a re-design of the wing to allow for the longer gear to retract- the segments inside of the landing gear would need to be lengthened, I assume. That then means that the engines are further out on the wing and the issue of asymmetric thrust becomes addressed, with a longer moment to the good engine in case of an engine failure- which in turn I assume requires a rudder re-design. Everything is interactive. But as huge and as costly as that project may have been, it might be less than what Boeing is going to have to deal with now. With Canada and the US grounding these aircraft today, there must be some new information that we don't know yet that triggered this. A bad day for everyone involved with the B73 MAX, whether Boeing, airlines that have them, etc.

Floridaguy74656 wrote:

DominikR83 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

It’s going to be embarrassing for the whole world when the accident cause is unrelated.

It will not be embarrassing for anyone.
There is circumstantial evidence that both crashes may have something in common and it may have something to do with the aircraft type.Even if the chance is only 1/1000 that the aircraft type had an influence
on these two crashes this - for me - justifies the grounding. If the result will be that the aircraft type has not played a significant role then you can always say "better safe than sorry".

Tell that to the Boeing Employees whose livelihood is on the line and the stockholders whose retirement is getting wiped out. I'm sure they think grounding a plane based on nothing more than conjecture is a great thing too right ?

Hyperbole much? Even after the recent stock drop, their stock is still up over 300% in the past 5 years. No one's retirement is getting "wiped out." Quit spouting nonsense.

vfw614 wrote:

The most interesting aspect in this is that the decision by Trump to ground the MAX was probably the least educated decision of all grounding decision, given his style of governing and his dislike for file reading and longish briefings.

I would not be surprised if a FAA grounding was forthcoming and Trump hijacked the process as it makes good PR for him.

Of course it was. While I generally agree with the decision, the way it was taken was absolutely wrong. This makes it look completely political and not safety related. Is the president going to decide when they can fly again too?

So who made the decision?

Trump
FAA
Boeing
?

Interesting from the BBC website. I wonder is this data the anonymous pilot feedback database mentioned earlier and then a review of flight data:

Earlier on Wednesday, Canada grounded the planes after its transport minister Marc Garneau said he had received new evidence about the crash.
He said that satellite data showed possible similarities between flight patterns of Boeing 737 Max planes operating in Canada and the Ethiopian Airlines plane that crashed.
He said: "As a result of new data that we received this morning, and had the chance to analyze, and on the advice of my experts and as a precautionary measure, I issued a safety notice.

So far they seem to be continuing on their normal routes
https://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/B38M

EChid wrote:

alan3 wrote:

CNN reporting that "planes currently in the air will ordered to land"

That is going to make for a very messy day.

I expect that's just a Trumpism to sound authoritative, because that plan is beyond ridiculous. The planes should be allowed to complete their flights.

CNN is not reporting that planes will be order to land, but it's reporting that all MAX flying will be allowed to reach its destination and will be grounded there.

CNN wrote:

He added that both the FAA and Boeing were "in agreement with the action," and any planes currently in the air would continue to their destination where they will be grounded.

https://us.cnn.com/world/live-news/boei ... index.html

Greetings

Boeing has now recommended they are all grounded also. Source Sky news.

SimonL wrote:

Would be a bit strange if it's the President and not the FAA that grounds them. Doesnt look very professional..

I think this was more about appearing to put any risk to passengers above the airlines and manufacturers. Pretty much every other country had done that. There wasn't really a choice once the UK and then Canada grounded it. Yes it all makes the FAA look bad, but they looked bad before Trump overruled them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_2Uqke5nf4

video of the press conference

OB1504 wrote:

Given that the US is still claiming that the 737 MAX is perfectly safe when the rest of the world disagrees...

I don't think this statement is fair at all, and only perpetuates the bickering and fighting in here. No one is claiming the MAX isn't safe, they're just taking a "better safe than sorry" approach until more information is known due to similarity of both crashes. Whether this is an overreaction or not is a matter of opinion.

Extremely smart move from the Americans. Probably coordinated between the FAA, Boeing and Trump. Like that, juridically you can't knock at the the door of Boeing to ask for compensation, as they could say "hey, we didn't want that, that was the idea of this guy up there". Trump protecting American companies.

Now you can tell me that I'm wrong . I was only guessing, have no facts in my hands. But if feels like that.

Floridaguy74656 wrote:

DominikR83 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

It’s going to be embarrassing for the whole world when the accident cause is unrelated.

It will not be embarrassing for anyone.
There is circumstantial evidence that both crashes may have something in common and it may have something to do with the aircraft type.Even if the chance is only 1/1000 that the aircraft type had an influence
on these two crashes this - for me - justifies the grounding. If the result will be that the aircraft type has not played a significant role then you can always say "better safe than sorry".

Tell that to the Boeing Employees whose livelihood is on the line and the stockholders whose retirement is getting wiped out. I'm sure they think grounding a plane based on nothing more than conjecture is a great thing too right ?

Simply wow. Tell that to the families who had loved ones die. I have stock in Boeing. I live 15 minutes from Everett. But I sure as hell won't compromise people's lives over the stocks.
Pretty shameful.
And I'd argue it would hurt Boeing a lot more if this is a design issue and they didn't stop the planes from flying. I bet the stock would fall a lot further and a lot of people would loose their jobs or move to Alabama to assemble A320's.

Floridaguy74656 wrote:

DominikR83 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

It’s going to be embarrassing for the whole world when the accident cause is unrelated.

It will not be embarrassing for anyone.
There is circumstantial evidence that both crashes may have something in common and it may have something to do with the aircraft type.Even if the chance is only 1/1000 that the aircraft type had an influence
on these two crashes this - for me - justifies the grounding. If the result will be that the aircraft type has not played a significant role then you can always say "better safe than sorry".

Tell that to the Boeing Employees whose livelihood is on the line and the stockholders whose retirement is getting wiped out. I'm sure they think grounding a plane based on nothing more than conjecture is a great thing too right ?

tell that to the families of the 349 victims.