Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
airnorth wrote:RobK wrote:airnorth wrote:This looks like another test flight, looks similar in profile to some of the others in the past few days. Just from looking at the FR24 data, is there any way to determine if they are "flying at the edge of the envelope" anywhere?
Again, I am speculating that these flights are test flights for MCAS.
https://www.flightradar24.com/BOE693/21ddb7bf
Your speculation couldn't be more wrong. It was a T'way Air first flight, as reported by several online production tracking blogs.
Can you please provide a source, I would be interested in following. Thanks
Revelation wrote:The crash rate of modern standards doesn't come from small fleets flying small numbers of hours with serious flaws then flying in that condition till the end of their service life.
PixelFlight wrote:What is uncomfortable is statements about release date from Boeing or some operators while the agencies are actually totally silent on this very date. The reality is that the agencies have there authority to control this date, and this can't be avoided by Boeing nor bey the operators.
marcelh wrote:Fact is Boeings initial response was arrogant and heartless.
rheinwaldner wrote:The crash rate of the MAX comes from the MAX flights. The crash rate of modern standards comes from all the aircraft flying. Between the two, there are orders of magnitudes. Therefore the statement ("Fact is theres a death toll and a crash rate orders of magnitude higher than the modern standard.") was 100% correct. The fallacy is on your end.
MSPNWA wrote:if the FAA laid out any sort of timeline, they'd be accused of a flawed process.
MSPNWA wrote:I believe the proper way to look at this is that the FAA is already indirectly speaking to you through Boeing, AA, WN, etc.
MSPNWA wrote:marcelh wrote:Fact is Boeings initial response was arrogant and heartless.
That's an opinion, not a fact.
.
Ertro wrote:MSPNWA wrote:if the FAA laid out any sort of timeline, they'd be accused of a flawed process.
This is right.
FAA can not set any sort of timeline even internally. The flawed process accusations that FAA needs to mind come from internally from all FAA employees as well as from other regulatory bodies around the planet. They would loath if EASA comes to know that FAA has spoken even internally about any timeline. That would be the end of FAA credibility.
Boeing has not even submitted the final complete fix for approval. Most probably the SW architecture change to fix the CPU HW issue is not even finished even if some version of MCAS algorithm could already be in FAA for testing.MSPNWA wrote:I believe the proper way to look at this is that the FAA is already indirectly speaking to you through Boeing, AA, WN, etc.
FAA has not laid out any sort of timeline.
They don't have it and on top of that they have zero need to speak to any outsider about this stuff. Quite the opposite.
Boeing, AA, WN on the other hand are perfectly capable to guessing stuff on their own.
They have to have some sort of a guess. That is how businesses operate. Not having a guess is unacceptable. They can even have several. Wild guess, optimistic guess, pessimistic guess, worst case, best case and on top of that a public one for somebody that happens to ask in a situation where "I haven't got a clue" is not the best possible answer for whatever the goal happens to be. And the the reality is going to be something different from any of these guesses.
jmry888 wrote:was not caught by the maintenance or flight crew.
h1fl1er wrote:JetBuddy wrote:They all lie. Der Spiegel, The New York Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian, FOX, CNN.
They're all very selective with what facts they choose to tell, and what truths they omit - all creating a narrative that fits their world view.
Der Spiegel? The operation that had an award-winning plagiarist and headline maker who fabricated stories? That operation?
rheinwaldner wrote:Revelation wrote:The crash rate of modern standards doesn't come from small fleets flying small numbers of hours with serious flaws then flying in that condition till the end of their service life.
The crash rate of the MAX comes from the MAX flights. The crash rate of modern standards comes from all the aircraft flying. Between the two, there are orders of magnitudes. Therefore the statement ("Fact is theres a death toll and a crash rate orders of magnitude higher than the modern standard.") was 100% correct. The fallacy is on your end.
Dutchy wrote:this analysis shows that the probable bill for the MAX disaster is around 8bn at the moment and that is if production rates will be back to pre-grounding quantities soon and of course planes can be delivered again.
brindabella wrote:MSPNWA wrote:I believe the proper way to look at this is that the FAA is already indirectly speaking to you through Boeing, AA, WN, etc.
FAA has not laid out any sort of timeline.
They don't have it and on top of that they have zero need to speak to any outsider about this stuff. Quite the opposite.
Boeing, AA, WN on the other hand are perfectly capable to guessing stuff on their own.
They have to have some sort of a guess. That is how businesses operate. Not having a guess is unacceptable. They can even have several. Wild guess, optimistic guess, pessimistic guess, worst case, best case and on top of that a public one for somebody that happens to ask in a situation where "I haven't got a clue" is not the best possible answer for whatever the goal happens to be. And the the reality is going to be something different from any of these guesses.
Heartfelt thanks. Still smiling.
Worthy of "Yes Minister", if you ever caught that show.
RobK wrote:airnorth wrote:RobK wrote:
Your speculation couldn't be more wrong. It was a T'way Air first flight, as reported by several online production tracking blogs.
Can you please provide a source, I would be interested in following. Thanks
Tyke blog site is one - Click.
Revelation wrote:rheinwaldner wrote:Revelation wrote:The crash rate of modern standards doesn't come from small fleets flying small numbers of hours with serious flaws then flying in that condition till the end of their service life.
The crash rate of the MAX comes from the MAX flights. The crash rate of modern standards comes from all the aircraft flying. Between the two, there are orders of magnitudes. Therefore the statement ("Fact is theres a death toll and a crash rate orders of magnitude higher than the modern standard.") was 100% correct. The fallacy is on your end.
Go tell this to any statistics teacher and be prepared for them to laugh in your face, or maybe even slap you in your face.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fallacy gives one definition of fallacy as "logically unsound", and that's a perfect fit for this situation.
You can't use a small data set gathered under one set of conditions to compare against a large data set gathered under different conditions and make a conclusion, it's logically unsound.
It's like saying you could use the data set of the Airbus A320 the day after the Habsheim crash to draw conclusions about A320 hull loss relative to the entire set of mature aircraft.
FluidFlow wrote:As Revelation said you cannot use the current crash rate of the MAX to compare it to other airliners. All you can do is scale it up to get a possible best case szenario for the MAX after a statistically significant amount of flights.
Revelation wrote:FluidFlow wrote:As Revelation said you cannot use the current crash rate of the MAX to compare it to other airliners. All you can do is scale it up to get a possible best case szenario for the MAX after a statistically significant amount of flights.
Nonsense, this is akin to saying we could "scale up" the data set of the Airbus A320 the day after the Habsheim crash to project the hull loss rate for the rest of the A320 family going forward, which we know is false because we have the actual hull loss rate of the A320 family and they are different, of course!
Revelation wrote:FluidFlow wrote:As Revelation said you cannot use the current crash rate of the MAX to compare it to other airliners. All you can do is scale it up to get a possible best case szenario for the MAX after a statistically significant amount of flights.
Nonsense, this is akin to saying we could "scale up" the data set of the Airbus A320 the day after the Habsheim crash to project the hull loss rate for the rest of the A320 family going forward, then we can reach a conclusion by comparing that projection of the young A320 to data taken from orders of magnitude more flights and hours from mature aircraft whose early problems get straightened out over time.
We know this is false because we have the actual hull loss rate of the A320 family and it is very different from the one the day after the Habsheim crash, of course!
FluidFlow wrote:Revelation wrote:FluidFlow wrote:As Revelation said you cannot use the current crash rate of the MAX to compare it to other airliners. All you can do is scale it up to get a possible best case szenario for the MAX after a statistically significant amount of flights.
Nonsense, this is akin to saying we could "scale up" the data set of the Airbus A320 the day after the Habsheim crash to project the hull loss rate for the rest of the A320 family going forward, then we can reach a conclusion by comparing that projection of the young A320 to data taken from orders of magnitude more flights and hours from mature aircraft whose early problems get straightened out over time.
We know this is false because we have the actual hull loss rate of the A320 family and it is very different from the one the day after the Habsheim crash, of course!
Please read my post again, i added no additional crash because that is hypothetical. I just calculated how many departures it needs to reduce the crash rate and where it is after a certain amount of departures.
The same can be done for the A320 after Habsheim. It needed exactly 16.6m departures (with no fatal hull loss) to reach a crash rate of 0.06 (NG level). Unfortunately this did not happen, there were more fatal hull losses.
You can upscale always with certain assumptions. After 1m departures the MAX will have a crash rate of at least 2.0 fatal hull losses per 1m departure. That is a mathematical fact and after 33m departures it will have the same rate as the NG if it does not suffer another fatal hull loss. That is a mathematical fact.
Ertro wrote:FAA has not laid out any sort of timeline.
They don't have it and on top of that they have zero need to speak to any outsider about this stuff. Quite the opposite.
Boeing, AA, WN on the other hand are perfectly capable to guessing stuff on their own.
They have to have some sort of a guess. That is how businesses operate. Not having a guess is unacceptable. They can even have several. Wild guess, optimistic guess, pessimistic guess, worst case, best case and on top of that a public one for somebody that happens to ask in a situation where "I haven't got a clue" is not the best possible answer for whatever the goal happens to be. And the the reality is going to be something different from any of these guesses.
XRAYretired wrote:I'm sure the bereaved would be much happier if they were told that the loss of loved ones was a statistical aberration that will be fixed with another 20 years of data.
Revelation wrote:XRAYretired wrote:I'm sure the bereaved would be much happier if they were told that the loss of loved ones was a statistical aberration that will be fixed with another 20 years of data.
There would be an astonishing number of bereaved if the faults that cause the high initial hull rate aren't addressed in any way, which is exactly what comparing the data from the immature aircraft to the data from the set of all mature aircraft implies.
MSPNWA wrote:Ertro wrote:FAA has not laid out any sort of timeline.
They don't have it and on top of that they have zero need to speak to any outsider about this stuff. Quite the opposite.
Boeing, AA, WN on the other hand are perfectly capable to guessing stuff on their own.
They have to have some sort of a guess. That is how businesses operate. Not having a guess is unacceptable. They can even have several. Wild guess, optimistic guess, pessimistic guess, worst case, best case and on top of that a public one for somebody that happens to ask in a situation where "I haven't got a clue" is not the best possible answer for whatever the goal happens to be. And the the reality is going to be something different from any of these guesses.
In other words, you think the FAA is that judge on the game show, not having any communication with the contestant until the finished product is presented for a yes/no decision, and the contestants could be just guessing with their timeline. There's been some wild beliefs in this thread, and this is a new one.
Revelation wrote:rheinwaldner wrote:Revelation wrote:The crash rate of modern standards doesn't come from small fleets flying small numbers of hours with serious flaws then flying in that condition till the end of their service life.
The crash rate of the MAX comes from the MAX flights. The crash rate of modern standards comes from all the aircraft flying. Between the two, there are orders of magnitudes. Therefore the statement ("Fact is theres a death toll and a crash rate orders of magnitude higher than the modern standard.") was 100% correct. The fallacy is on your end.
Go tell this to any statistics teacher and be prepared for them to laugh in your face, or maybe even slap you in your face.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fallacy gives one definition of fallacy as "logically unsound", and that's a perfect fit for this situation.
You can't use a small data set gathered under one set of conditions to compare against a large data set gathered under different conditions and make a conclusion, it's logically unsound.
It's like saying you could use the data set of the Airbus A320 the day after the Habsheim crash to draw conclusions about A320 hull loss relative to the entire set of mature aircraft.
.
MSPNWA wrote:rheinwaldner wrote:The crash rate of the MAX comes from the MAX flights. The crash rate of modern standards comes from all the aircraft flying. Between the two, there are orders of magnitudes. Therefore the statement ("Fact is theres a death toll and a crash rate orders of magnitude higher than the modern standard.") was 100% correct. The fallacy is on your end.
With stats, one can be factual and irrelevant at the same time. It's a useful strategy for some purposes though.
Revelation wrote:You can't use a small data set gathered under one set of conditions to compare against a large data set gathered under different conditions and make a conclusion, it's logically unsound.
It's like saying you could use the data set of the Airbus A320 the day after the Habsheim crash to draw conclusions about A320 hull loss relative to the entire set of mature aircraft.
Revelation wrote:XRAYretired wrote:I'm sure the bereaved would be much happier if they were told that the loss of loved ones was a statistical aberration that will be fixed with another 20 years of data.
There would be an astonishing number of bereaved if the faults that cause the high initial hull rate aren't addressed in any way, which is exactly what comparing the data from the immature aircraft to the data from the set of all mature aircraft implies.
MSPNWA wrote:In other words, you think the FAA is that judge on the game show, not having any communication with the contestant until the finished product is presented for a yes/no decision, and the contestants could be just guessing with their timeline. There's been some wild beliefs in this thread, and this is a new one.
MSPNWA wrote:contestants could be just guessing with their timeline.
MSPNWA wrote:if the FAA laid out any sort of timeline, they'd be accused of a flawed process.
Revelation wrote:XRAYretired wrote:I'm sure the bereaved would be much happier if they were told that the loss of loved ones was a statistical aberration that will be fixed with another 20 years of data.
There would be an astonishing number of bereaved if the faults that cause the high initial hull rate aren't addressed in any way, which is exactly what comparing the data from the immature aircraft to the data from the set of all mature aircraft implies.
airnorth wrote:RobK wrote:airnorth wrote:Can you please provide a source, I would be interested in following. Thanks
Tyke blog site is one - Click.
Thanks! After following the AC flights a few days back where they flew about 6 segments in one day, I have been trying to track MAX flights. Some of them, like the AC flights seem very odd, I still have no idea what those were all about. Others around WA state with Boeing registered aircraft are probably storage, or normal test flights, but others have really strange flight paths, but again, I suppose these could be normal tests?
rheinwaldner wrote:That's rubbish on any level. Any flying aircraft has a crash rate. Even the MAX.
rheinwaldner wrote:Nobody is saying, the MAX will always have this crash rate. That would be nonsense.
rheinwaldner wrote:Habsheim was not due to a technical flaw. Therefore there could not be a second crash for the same technical reason. Therefore it bares no relevance to this discussion.
rheinwaldner wrote:But yes, the overall safety record of the A320 was bad too for a period back then.
Ertro wrote:Absolutely not. I cannot fathom where you got such an idea. Certainly not from me.
Ertro wrote:FAA and Boeing go back and forth many times and do whatever is needed to get the design acceptable.
What does not happen is FAA have any set date in mind when this work is going to end with a stamp of approval at that date.
It takes as long as it takes and ends when it ends when the design is acceptable irregardless of what the calendar says.
Ertro wrote:Boeing might make an internal guess when it is all going to end but that carries no importance to FAA and FAA should not even be made aware of what the Boeing guess is as that might be considered improper pressuring.
Ertro wrote:I don't understand what makes you write such a sentence.
Maybe you think the timeline has some significance to FAA and to the process. It does not. Or at least it should not.
Revelation wrote:rheinwaldner wrote:That's rubbish on any level. Any flying aircraft has a crash rate. Even the MAX.
Right, and the day after the A320's first flight it had a 0 crash for 1 flight or 0.0000000% crash rate, a perfect aircraft, but not forever, nor was its post-Habsheim rate a sound basis for comparison with the set of all mature aircraft.
Revelation wrote:rheinwaldner wrote:Nobody is saying, the MAX will always have this crash rate. That would be nonsense.
They are saying that, the post that I responded to that kicked this off was in the context of the MAX returning to service yet saying the MCAS 1.0 crash rate was representative.
Revelation wrote:rheinwaldner wrote:Habsheim was not due to a technical flaw. Therefore there could not be a second crash for the same technical reason. Therefore it bares no relevance to this discussion.
Habsheim was a case of pilots crashing a flyable plane because they did not understand the automation ( ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Franc ... 96#Flyover ), and that certainly can happen again and has relevance.
Revelation wrote:rheinwaldner wrote:But yes, the overall safety record of the A320 was bad too for a period back then.
And yes, the overall safety record of the 737 was unacceptably bad with MCAS 1.0, but once that and other issues have been addressed it should meet if not exceed the mature NG rate rather than continuet the MCAS 1.0 rate.
jmry888 wrote:The maintenance guys also said the 737 max does not have to have the mcas sub system to fly it can fly with out it.
rheinwaldner wrote:
Because how the safety record of the MAX developped (which caused the grounding of the MAX), you wont find in the history of any other jet airliner. And certainly not in the history of the A320.
kalvado wrote:rheinwaldner wrote:
Because how the safety record of the MAX developped (which caused the grounding of the MAX), you wont find in the history of any other jet airliner. And certainly not in the history of the A320.
Tu-104 and Comet may be quite close to MAX in this respect.
WIederling wrote:jmry888 wrote:The maintenance guys also said the 737 max does not have to have the mcas sub system to fly it can fly with out it.
you can fly anything if you want to.
But can you fly it safely, without any risk?
I think not. ( 2 crashes for prove around.)
WIederling wrote:kalvado wrote:rheinwaldner wrote:
Because how the safety record of the MAX developped (which caused the grounding of the MAX), you wont find in the history of any other jet airliner. And certainly not in the history of the A320.
Tu-104 and Comet may be quite close to MAX in this respect.
Comet 21%
TU-104 18.5%
707 17%
kalvado wrote:Flying 73MAX transcon is still safer than driving NYC to California. BOS-IAD trim on MAX is pretty close to break-even in terms of flight risk vs car crash. Does it mean that driving long haul is unsafe? It may worth noting that truck drivers have the highest job mortality rate of all professions in US, though.
Revelation wrote:FluidFlow wrote:You can upscale always with certain assumptions. After 1m departures the MAX will have a crash rate of at least 2.0 fatal hull losses per 1m departure. That is a mathematical fact and after 33m departures it will have the same rate as the NG if it does not suffer another fatal hull loss. That is a mathematical fact.
2 + 2 = 4 is also a mathematical fact, yet not a very relevant one.
As Einstein once said, "Your calculations are correct, but your physics is atrocious!".
WIederling wrote:kalvado wrote:Flying 73MAX transcon is still safer than driving NYC to California. BOS-IAD trim on MAX is pretty close to break-even in terms of flight risk vs car crash. Does it mean that driving long haul is unsafe? It may worth noting that truck drivers have the highest job mortality rate of all professions in US, though.
Is there anything around that is not deadlier in the US than elsewhere ?
Truck drivers:
High number of death is unsurprising if you transport everything by road. Lots of truck drivers at work.
But accident _rate_ as such is low.
Farming, forestry and fishing is even more dangerous but the occupational groups are much smaller.
rheinwaldner wrote:
B.t.w. why exceed? The NG has the advantage that control forces didn't need to be manipulated to accomplish certifyable flight characteristics. The NG has an outstanding safety record, is flown by all flavors of pilots and its safety record will probably never be beaten by the MAX anymore.
PW100 wrote:Revelation wrote:rheinwaldner wrote:The crash rate of the MAX comes from the MAX flights. The crash rate of modern standards comes from all the aircraft flying. Between the two, there are orders of magnitudes. Therefore the statement ("Fact is theres a death toll and a crash rate orders of magnitude higher than the modern standard.") was 100% correct. The fallacy is on your end.
Go tell this to any statistics teacher and be prepared for them to laugh in your face, or maybe even slap you in your face.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fallacy gives one definition of fallacy as "logically unsound", and that's a perfect fit for this situation.
You can't use a small data set gathered under one set of conditions to compare against a large data set gathered under different conditions and make a conclusion, it's logically unsound.
It's like saying you could use the data set of the Airbus A320 the day after the Habsheim crash to draw conclusions about A320 hull loss relative to the entire set of mature aircraft.
.
How many crashes (and what deathtoll) would you deem necessary to start considering such statiscally relevant?
You might have had a point if we were discussing one single MAX accident (ie. before Ethopian).
Once we had two accidents in extremely short succession, with identical charateristics, bringing up single unique events (like Hapsheim) make you sound like Boeing PR department being in damage control mode; it doesn't help your credibility to put it politely.
Revelation wrote:statements 100%
I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect the post-MCAS MAX to have a safety record that meets or exceeds NG.
MCAS was a tragic, epic screw up but despite what many think here, tragedies can be overcome.
Revelation wrote:rheinwaldner wrote:
B.t.w. why exceed? The NG has the advantage that control forces didn't need to be manipulated to accomplish certifyable flight characteristics. The NG has an outstanding safety record, is flown by all flavors of pilots and its safety record will probably never be beaten by the MAX anymore.
If you were being more reasonable I would ask how often you expect pilots will be doing wind-up turns and other maneuvers with alpha high enough for nacelle lift to kick in to be ever in the potential hull loss category, and for that number, how often do you think MCAS 2.0 would be expected to fail after all the testing it is now going through.
I'm surprised you're still hanging your hat on the "certifyable flight characteristics" hook, but I guess if you're happy to allow comparisons of uncomparable data sets then that too can be claimed to be problematic.
I'd then point out that the 'cosmic ray' fix is providing coverage for additional scenarios beyond NG, and yes, even the bloody AOA disagree text will show up on the displays so all the people screaming about its significance beyond one of two stick shakers going off will be now satisfied.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect the post-MCAS MAX to have a safety record that meets or exceeds NG.
MCAS was a tragic, epic screw up but despite what many think here, tragedies can be overcome.
lightsaber wrote:
It cost Boeing billions.
Checklist787 wrote:Absheim is a very good example why deny it?
MrBretz wrote:Sgrow787, you said “They're sorry for the loss of life. But its just business.”. Did you just see The Godfather?