See: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59420570

Is there any danger that such incidents, along with earlier accidents and production issues, will affect insurance rates to the point where these aircraft become uneconomic to fly. Given the earlier problems, if there was another crash, would victim's relatives be abled to sue airlines for buying aircraft with a known history of issues?

The organisation that gave us MCAS gave us the whole plane so it doesn’t really make sense to think everything else about the Max is going to be perfect and not a buggy and compromised lash-up like MCAS was/is. Also remember a lot of these planes have sat in the parking lot in wet and humid Washington state for a year or two, that alone is going to spell trouble for operators. What would you expect from a new car that was parked outside in Seattle for a year before you took delivery?

This entire report is useless without comparisons to other aircraft and the rate they have reported in-flight issues. Without the comparison it reads as someone without much knowledge of aviation scrutinizing publicly available Max data because it is the Max.

DartHerald wrote:

See: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59420570

Is there any danger that such incidents, along with earlier accidents and production issues, will affect insurance rates to the point where these aircraft become uneconomic to fly. Given the earlier problems, if there was another crash, would victim's relatives be abled to sue airlines for buying aircraft with a known history of issues?

Did you see this comment from the article?

However, not all experts are so alarmed. Dai Whittingham, chief executive of the UK Flight Safety Committee, has also seen the data.
"I don't think it's an unreasonable rate of occurrences," he explains. "With a fleet that size, it's not an unexpected level of problems, for the length of time.
"They are complex systems, so these things happen"

The list of reportable items for Service Difficulty Reports is rather long. What is important is the rate of these events. These events happen in the worldwide fleet on a daily basis

14 CFR § 135.415 - Service difficulty reports

Each certificate holder shall report the occurrence or detection of each failure, malfunction, or defect in an aircraft concerning -

(1) Fires during flight and whether the related fire-warning system functioned properly;

(2) Fires during flight not protected by related fire-warning system;

(3) False fire-warning during flight;

(4) An exhaust system that causes damage during flight to the engine, adjacent structure, equipment, or components;

(5) An aircraft component that causes accumulation or circulation of smoke, vapor, or toxic or noxious fumes in the crew compartment or passenger cabin during flight;

(6) Engine shutdown during flight because of flameout;

(7) Engine shutdown during flight when external damage to the engine or aircraft structure occurs;

(8) Engine shutdown during flight due to foreign object ingestion or icing;

(9) Shutdown of more than one engine during flight;

(10) A propeller feathering system or ability of the system to control overspeed during flight;

(11) A fuel or fuel-dumping system that affects fuel flow or causes hazardous leakage during flight;

(12) An unwanted landing gear extension or retraction or opening or closing of landing gear doors during flight;

(13) Brake system components that result in loss of brake actuating force when the aircraft is in motion on the ground;

(14) Aircraft structure that requires major repair;

(15) Cracks, permanent deformation, or corrosion of aircraft structures, if more than the maximum acceptable to the manufacturer or the FAA; and

(16) Aircraft components or systems that result in taking emergency actions during flight (except action to shut-down an engine).

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR ... 35-413.pdf

This document does a hood job describing what happens with the SDR reports

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/med ... 0.107A.pdf

Purpose of the MSAD [Monitor Safety Analyze Data] Process. We (FAA) designed the MSAD process to filter, review, analyze and trend aviation safety data. The MSAD process helps us identify safety issues in the in-service aircraft fleets, and identify corrective actions to mitigate safety risks across the fleet. The process also identifies other causes of safety issues that cannot be addressed by fleet (product/part) corrective actions. MSAD users should submit these causes to the appropriate organization and/or process owner (whether inside or outside AIR) for further analysis and action.

Everything starts with the SDR and gets analyzed by both Boeing and the FAA.

I read it as mostly scaremongering.

Yes I want authorities to keep a damn close eye on the MAX. But I suspect most of these issues are pretty standard or related to storage issues.

cedarjet wrote:

The organisation that gave us MCAS gave us the whole plane so it doesn’t really make sense to think everything else about the Max is going to be perfect and not a buggy and compromised lash-up like MCAS was/is. Also remember a lot of these planes have sat in the parking lot in wet and humid Washington state for a year or two, that alone is going to spell trouble for operators. What would you expect from a new car that was parked outside in Seattle for a year before you took delivery?

It’s hard for me to think of a product launch by any manufacturer in the last 20 years that wasn’t buggy. Remember how much trouble various carriers had with early E90s? Nobody serious says that Embraer is a bad or dangerous manufacturer because of that.

Honestly, as a pilot-in-training and a paying passenger who has been observing the case, this hardly alarms me at all.

It was to be expected that some 737 MAXs could present mechanical problems on some flights after the ban lifting, due to the long time they sat idle in the tarmacs worldwide. But this is something that can be fixed by the manufacturer and/or the airline's maintenance section.

So in short, that note reveals nothing new and seriously concerning about the safety of the plane. When it comes to that, I rather prefer to cross-check with other, more formal sources on the matter to see if the information is complete and accurate or something is amiss, as well as consulting with people that works closely to the plane.

Cubsrule wrote:

cedarjet wrote:

The organisation that gave us MCAS gave us the whole plane so it doesn’t really make sense to think everything else about the Max is going to be perfect and not a buggy and compromised lash-up like MCAS was/is. Also remember a lot of these planes have sat in the parking lot in wet and humid Washington state for a year or two, that alone is going to spell trouble for operators. What would you expect from a new car that was parked outside in Seattle for a year before you took delivery?

It’s hard for me to think of a product launch by any manufacturer in the last 20 years that wasn’t buggy. Remember how much trouble various carriers had with early E90s? Nobody serious says that Embraer is a bad or dangerous manufacturer because of that.

You cant think like that, you are basically saying these things to make out the Max issues aren't that bad.

A Max nosedived twice into the ground and was grounded for nearly 2 years, and still not deemed safe to fly everywhere in the world yet. That isn't comparable to normal "bugs and issues" when launching a new plane, like Embraer and the E90. The max was unsafe at launch, rushed, horrendous, "designed by clowns" I think people inside boeing said. Its not the same, so stop acting like it is.

Is the MAX safe to fly now? I think it is now. I understand people who are "in the know" like us on here, being a bit sceptical and thats 100% fine.

In a walks of life there are sophisticated folk, who understand risk, and unsophisticated ones who do not. Unfortunately, the latter usually predominate, and it is those ones who will be worried by this type of report, although as yet if the report is intended to be scaremongering it has not yet delivered the desired effect.

Cubsrule wrote:

It’s hard for me to think of a product launch by any manufacturer in the last 20 years that wasn’t buggy. Remember how much trouble various carriers had with early E90s? Nobody serious says that Embraer is a bad or dangerous manufacturer because of that.

Well no - the Embraer E190 teething troubles didn't kill anyone, did they, so that's a different kettle of fish. Did the teething problems even result in a 'media worthy' high profile incident?

SEU wrote:

Is the MAX safe to fly now? I think it is now. I understand people who are "in the know" like us on here, being a bit sceptical and thats 100% fine.

Exactly. It's safe today but you can't say that what happened in the past doesn't effect the aircraft's safety record.

What really grinds my gears though is people bringing out the "most scrutinized aircraft in history" line and trying to twist that into implying (either explicitly or implicitly) that 1) it's the safest plane in history and/or 2) that the scrutiny was somehow undeserved. Both of those are categorically false. The Bombardier CSeries, Airbus A340/A350/A380 never had to be grounded for two years and recertified due to a fraudulent design/certification effort which killed hundreds of passengers.

SEU wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

cedarjet wrote:

The organisation that gave us MCAS gave us the whole plane so it doesn’t really make sense to think everything else about the Max is going to be perfect and not a buggy and compromised lash-up like MCAS was/is. Also remember a lot of these planes have sat in the parking lot in wet and humid Washington state for a year or two, that alone is going to spell trouble for operators. What would you expect from a new car that was parked outside in Seattle for a year before you took delivery?

It’s hard for me to think of a product launch by any manufacturer in the last 20 years that wasn’t buggy. Remember how much trouble various carriers had with early E90s? Nobody serious says that Embraer is a bad or dangerous manufacturer because of that.

You cant think like that, you are basically saying these things to make out the Max issues aren't that bad.

A Max nosedived twice into the ground and was grounded for nearly 2 years, and still not deemed safe to fly everywhere in the world yet. That isn't comparable to normal "bugs and issues" when launching a new plane, like Embraer and the E90. The max was unsafe at launch, rushed, horrendous, "designed by clowns" I think people inside boeing said. Its not the same, so stop acting like it is.

Is the MAX safe to fly now? I think it is now. I understand people who are "in the know" like us on here, being a bit sceptical and thats 100% fine.

Also, remember, the two that nosedived in to the ground aren’t known for their stellar safety record and training. The operators with the largest fleets have yet to have any serious issues… it’s rather unfortunate those two airlines were allowed to be two of the first with the aircraft type in their fleet without sufficient training.

SEU wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

cedarjet wrote:

The organisation that gave us MCAS gave us the whole plane so it doesn’t really make sense to think everything else about the Max is going to be perfect and not a buggy and compromised lash-up like MCAS was/is. Also remember a lot of these planes have sat in the parking lot in wet and humid Washington state for a year or two, that alone is going to spell trouble for operators. What would you expect from a new car that was parked outside in Seattle for a year before you took delivery?

It’s hard for me to think of a product launch by any manufacturer in the last 20 years that wasn’t buggy. Remember how much trouble various carriers had with early E90s? Nobody serious says that Embraer is a bad or dangerous manufacturer because of that.

You cant think like that, you are basically saying these things to make out the Max issues aren't that bad.

A Max nosedived twice into the ground and was grounded for nearly 2 years, and still not deemed safe to fly everywhere in the world yet. That isn't comparable to normal "bugs and issues" when launching a new plane, like Embraer and the E90. The max was unsafe at launch, rushed, horrendous, "designed by clowns" I think people inside boeing said. Its not the same, so stop acting like it is.

Is the MAX safe to fly now? I think it is now. I understand people who are "in the know" like us on here, being a bit sceptical and thats 100% fine.

Sorry, you’ve lost me totally. The question is “are these SDRs evidence that the aircraft is unsafe?” not “were the (now, by all accounts, solved) MCAS/training issues of two years ago evidence that the aircraft was unsafe two years ago?”

I’m certainly sympathetic to both sides of the MCAS question but unless you want to live in the past or bash Boeing for the sake of bashing Boeing the MCAS argument is simply irrelevant to the aircraft’s safety today.

Also, remember, the two that nosedived in to the ground aren’t known for their stellar safety record and training. The operators with the largest fleets have yet to have any serious issues… it’s rather unfortunate those two airlines were allowed to be two of the first with the aircraft type in their fleet without sufficient training.

Totally unjustified cliché. Lion Air used to be one of the biggest customers and even managed to avoid a first crash and ET even owned a MAX sim. The old narrative of the stupid customers has been proven to be wrong. Other airlines tried the same in the sim and crashed as well. Boeing hid the radical system to the pilots that went far beyond what had been planned because it started over and over again.

Flflyer83 wrote:

SEU wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

It’s hard for me to think of a product launch by any manufacturer in the last 20 years that wasn’t buggy. Remember how much trouble various carriers had with early E90s? Nobody serious says that Embraer is a bad or dangerous manufacturer because of that.

You cant think like that, you are basically saying these things to make out the Max issues aren't that bad.

A Max nosedived twice into the ground and was grounded for nearly 2 years, and still not deemed safe to fly everywhere in the world yet. That isn't comparable to normal "bugs and issues" when launching a new plane, like Embraer and the E90. The max was unsafe at launch, rushed, horrendous, "designed by clowns" I think people inside boeing said. Its not the same, so stop acting like it is.

Is the MAX safe to fly now? I think it is now. I understand people who are "in the know" like us on here, being a bit sceptical and thats 100% fine.

Also, remember, the two that nosedived in to the ground aren’t known for their stellar safety record and training. The operators with the largest fleets have yet to have any serious issues… it’s rather unfortunate those two airlines were allowed to be two of the first with the aircraft type in their fleet without sufficient training.

Completely false narrative, Boeing was at fault in every single way, not the Airlines or pilots in question. Remember read the facts and youll get the right conclusion.

Noshow wrote:

Also, remember, the two that nosedived in to the ground aren’t known for their stellar safety record and training. The operators with the largest fleets have yet to have any serious issues… it’s rather unfortunate those two airlines were allowed to be two of the first with the aircraft type in their fleet without sufficient training.

Totally unjustified cliché. Lion Air used to be one of the biggest customers and even managed to avoid a first crash and ET even owned a MAX sim. The old narrative of the stupid customers has been proven to be wrong. Other airlines tried the same in the sim and crashed as well.

That’s odd then… why would carriers with single digit frames of the type have so many more issues than carriers with many more frames of the type? Maybe the piloting skills that put them in the position that MCAS had to kick in could have been prevented altogether.

Also, did they all use the same training tools prior to sun time and the same scenarios in the sim?

Flflyer83 wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Also, remember, the two that nosedived in to the ground aren’t known for their stellar safety record and training. The operators with the largest fleets have yet to have any serious issues… it’s rather unfortunate those two airlines were allowed to be two of the first with the aircraft type in their fleet without sufficient training.

Totally unjustified cliché. Lion Air used to be one of the biggest customers and even managed to avoid a first crash and ET even owned a MAX sim. The old narrative of the stupid customers has been proven to be wrong. Other airlines tried the same in the sim and crashed as well.

That’s odd then… why would carriers with single digit frames of the type have so many more issues than carriers with many more frames of the type? Maybe the piloting skills that put them in the position that MCAS had to kick in could have been prevented altogether.

Also, did they all use the same training tools prior to sun time and the same scenarios in the sim?

Remember that the bigger operators had more AoA sensor redundancy because they had taken the additional sensor option.

SEU wrote:

Flflyer83 wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Totally unjustified cliché. Lion Air used to be one of the biggest customers and even managed to avoid a first crash and ET even owned a MAX sim. The old narrative of the stupid customers has been proven to be wrong. Other airlines tried the same in the sim and crashed as well.

That’s odd then… why would carriers with single digit frames of the type have so many more issues than carriers with many more frames of the type? Maybe the piloting skills that put them in the position that MCAS had to kick in could have been prevented altogether.

Also, did they all use the same training tools prior to sun time and the same scenarios in the sim?

Simply because its not true at all in the slightest?. If you are a flag waving US person, then maybe its easier for you to blame "third world countries" training as you think their pilots are below the mighty USA/Western pilots, but I assure you, its not the case, anywhere in the world. Remember lots of Western pilots tried and failed in the simulators in the same situation. Can you answer why that is please?

At least in the case of the JT crash, it’s as much about safety culture and maintenance control as it is about piloting. That airplane would have been grounded by any airline that cared even a little bit about safety.

And because they did not perform a procedure for something else within four seconds.

It got grounded globally for a reason. I am glad it is fixed now but lets not mix up what has happened before.

Cubsrule wrote:

SEU wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

At least in the case of the JT crash, it’s as much about safety culture and maintenance control as it is about piloting. That airplane would have been grounded by any airline that cared even a little bit about safety.

Yes okay, it was Lion airs fault the plane flew into the ground 100%. The plane was safe and flyable, and not unsafe at all. It had loads of sensors on the plane and faultless software, that should anything have had gone wrong with, the pilots and airline 100% knew what to do, but they just didnt because they're "Lion air"

Got it.

This right here. That aircraft that crashed with Lion Aircraft wouldn’t have been redispatched for revenue flight with the reported flight control issues from the previous flight here in the US (for certain), Canada, and Europe for that matter. Folks with experience with airline experience with working working with airline maintenance control and dispatching requirements here in the US will see how Lion Air dispatching that aircraft for revenue flight after those reported issues lined the holes up perfectly with the Swiss cheese model.

By all means, that crash brought to light a lot of bad practices at Boeing which has been going on for a long period of time and Boeing shouldn’t be let off the hook. But to act as if Lion Air and ET maintenance standards and piloting training standards didn’t play a role in these accidents are willfully failing to see the bigger picture.

What was the root cause again? A system gone crazy. A system kept secret from the pilots and finally doing something different from what the manufacturer had intended.

bigb wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

SEU wrote:

Yes okay, it was Lion airs fault the plane flew into the ground 100%. The plane was safe and flyable, and not unsafe at all. It had loads of sensors on the plane and faultless software, that should anything have had gone wrong with, the pilots and airline 100% knew what to do, but they just didnt because they're "Lion air"

Got it.

This right here. That aircraft that crashed with Lion Aircraft wouldn’t have been redispatched for revenue flight with the reported flight control issues from the previous flight here in the US (for certain), Canada, and Europe for that matter. Folks with experience with airline experience with working working with airline maintenance control and dispatching requirements here in the US will see how Lion Air dispatching that aircraft for revenue flight after those reported issues lined the holes up perfectly with the Swiss cheese model.

By all means, that crash brought to light a lot of bad practices at Boeing which has been going on for a long period of time and Boeing shouldn’t be let off the hook. But to act as if Lion Air and ET maintenance standards and piloting training standards didn’t play a role in these accidents are willfully failing to see the bigger picture.

This.

By analyzing the minute-by-minute information that has come out over time about the MAX debacle, it's quite clear that there were other parties besides Boeing and the FAA that also played a role (either direct or indirect, as well as major or minor) that culminated with the crashes and which unfortunately, did not go through enough scrutiny and they got away with it instead of taking responsability. And that's what bothers me. And above all, what bothers me the most is that there are people who continue to fixate too much on the crashes' primary cause at this point and without considering the contributing factors.

As my university Aviation Safety professor once said: "Crashes have more than one cause".

Noshow wrote:

What was the root cause again? A system gone crazy. A system kept secret from the pilots and finally doing something different from what the manufacturer had intended.

That is pretty much exactly what happened.

SEU wrote:

Flflyer83 wrote:

SEU wrote:

You cant think like that, you are basically saying these things to make out the Max issues aren't that bad.

A Max nosedived twice into the ground and was grounded for nearly 2 years, and still not deemed safe to fly everywhere in the world yet. That isn't comparable to normal "bugs and issues" when launching a new plane, like Embraer and the E90. The max was unsafe at launch, rushed, horrendous, "designed by clowns" I think people inside boeing said. Its not the same, so stop acting like it is.

Is the MAX safe to fly now? I think it is now. I understand people who are "in the know" like us on here, being a bit sceptical and thats 100% fine.

Also, remember, the two that nosedived in to the ground aren’t known for their stellar safety record and training. The operators with the largest fleets have yet to have any serious issues… it’s rather unfortunate those two airlines were allowed to be two of the first with the aircraft type in their fleet without sufficient training.

Completely false narrative, Boeing was at fault in every single way, not the Airlines or pilots in question. Remember read the facts and youll get the right conclusion.

This is the completely false narrative. This constant Boeing bashing gets old. Lion Air’s poor maintenance and pilot training played a part too. Not in anyway saying that Boeing didn’t badly screw up and conceal MCAS, but the airline and pilots most certainly had shared fault.

LionAir dispatched an non-airworthy airplane with an improperly maintained and installed AOA Vane. Word of the prior stick shaker event wasn’t even properly passed on.

The Lion Air first officer didn’t even know what are the Airspeed Unreliable or Runaway Trim procedures or where to find them. This is despite each procedure having memory recall items that are required to be memorized as part of your type rating. He didn’t even a clue to look at the index on the front cover of the QRH. He wasn’t qualified to be in that seat.

I wouldn’t have flown LionAir even before the accident knowing what I know in the industry. I would fly Ethiopian though.

Please post respectfully.

Post links on facts.

REDHL wrote:

bigb wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

This right here. That aircraft that crashed with Lion Aircraft wouldn’t have been redispatched for revenue flight with the reported flight control issues from the previous flight here in the US (for certain), Canada, and Europe for that matter. Folks with experience with airline experience with working working with airline maintenance control and dispatching requirements here in the US will see how Lion Air dispatching that aircraft for revenue flight after those reported issues lined the holes up perfectly with the Swiss cheese model.

By all means, that crash brought to light a lot of bad practices at Boeing which has been going on for a long period of time and Boeing shouldn’t be let off the hook. But to act as if Lion Air and ET maintenance standards and piloting training standards didn’t play a role in these accidents are willfully failing to see the bigger picture.

This.

By analyzing the minute-by-minute information that has come out over time about the MAX debacle, it's quite clear that there were other parties besides Boeing and the FAA that also played a role (either direct or indirect, as well as major or minor) that culminated with the crashes and which unfortunately, did not go through enough scrutiny and they got away with it instead of taking responsability. And that's what bothers me. And above all, what bothers me the most is that there are people who continue to fixate too much on the crashes' primary cause at this point and without considering the contributing factors.

As my university Aviation Safety professor once said: "Crashes have more than one cause".

Consider where we would be if those crashes had been avoided by "superior airmanship" or by preventing fare paying flights in "badly maintained" aircraft. The roll out of the Max would have continued; that is the unmodified Max that would soon have been flying in great numbers with airlines all over the world. We will never know what the consequences would have been because those crashes exposed the problems and they were grounded.

Noshow wrote:

What was the root cause again? A system gone crazy. A system kept secret from the pilots and finally doing something different from what the manufacturer had intended.

Systems go crazy. I mentioned (in a post that was deleted for no link) the YX pitch runaway a few years ago, which led to zero injuries or deaths and no damage to the aircraft.

That is the whole point of having maintenance control and responsible dispatching. As detailed on Pages 165 to 168 and 174 to 178 of the accident report, the JT aircraft had had serious pitch control issues that were reported to the company, but the company dispatched it on the accident flight anyway. That failure is not the fault of anyone but JT and arguably the Indonesian regulator.

Cubsrule wrote:

Noshow wrote:

What was the root cause again? A system gone crazy. A system kept secret from the pilots and finally doing something different from what the manufacturer had intended.

Systems go crazy. I mentioned (in a post that was deleted for no link) the YX pitch runaway a few years ago, which led to zero injuries or deaths and no damage to the aircraft.

That is the whole point of having maintenance control and responsible dispatching. As detailed on Pages 165 to 168 and 174 to 178 of the accident report, the JT aircraft had had serious pitch control issues that were reported to the company, but the company dispatched it on the accident flight anyway. That failure is not the fault of anyone but JT and arguably the Indonesian regulator.

YX experienced a trim runaway

https://avherald.com/h?article=4cef2f7b

bigb wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Noshow wrote:

What was the root cause again? A system gone crazy. A system kept secret from the pilots and finally doing something different from what the manufacturer had intended.

Systems go crazy. I mentioned (in a post that was deleted for no link) the YX pitch runaway a few years ago, which led to zero injuries or deaths and no damage to the aircraft.

That is the whole point of having maintenance control and responsible dispatching. As detailed on Pages 165 to 168 and 174 to 178 of the accident report, the JT aircraft had had serious pitch control issues that were reported to the company, but the company dispatched it on the accident flight anyway. That failure is not the fault of anyone but JT and arguably the Indonesian regulator.

YX experienced a trim runaway

https://avherald.com/h?article=4cef2f7b

Thank you . . . One of those short I words but that’s exactly the incident I was thinking of. It’s been a long weekend.

Cubsrule wrote:

It’s hard for me to think of a product launch by any manufacturer in the last 20 years that wasn’t buggy. Remember how much trouble various carriers had with early E90s? Nobody serious says that Embraer is a bad or dangerous manufacturer because of that.

Even the 747-100 had a rocky start. It had less than a year of flight tests before certification. I can't imagine that happening today. In addition to the PW JT9D, it had numerous issues including airworthiness directives. Boeing took a couple of years to develop fixes that were incorporated into the 747-100B and 747-200B. Existing aircraft were modified during C and D checks.

journeyperson wrote:

REDHL wrote:

bigb wrote:

This right here. That aircraft that crashed with Lion Aircraft wouldn’t have been redispatched for revenue flight with the reported flight control issues from the previous flight here in the US (for certain), Canada, and Europe for that matter. Folks with experience with airline experience with working working with airline maintenance control and dispatching requirements here in the US will see how Lion Air dispatching that aircraft for revenue flight after those reported issues lined the holes up perfectly with the Swiss cheese model.

By all means, that crash brought to light a lot of bad practices at Boeing which has been going on for a long period of time and Boeing shouldn’t be let off the hook. But to act as if Lion Air and ET maintenance standards and piloting training standards didn’t play a role in these accidents are willfully failing to see the bigger picture.

This.

By analyzing the minute-by-minute information that has come out over time about the MAX debacle, it's quite clear that there were other parties besides Boeing and the FAA that also played a role (either direct or indirect, as well as major or minor) that culminated with the crashes and which unfortunately, did not go through enough scrutiny and they got away with it instead of taking responsability. And that's what bothers me. And above all, what bothers me the most is that there are people who continue to fixate too much on the crashes' primary cause at this point and without considering the contributing factors.

As my university Aviation Safety professor once said: "Crashes have more than one cause".

Consider where we would be if those crashes had been avoided by "superior airmanship" or by preventing fare paying flights in "badly maintained" aircraft. The roll out of the Max would have continued; that is the unmodified Max that would soon have been flying in great numbers with airlines all over the world. We will never know what the consequences would have been because those crashes exposed the problems and they were grounded.

Absolutely, I have no problem with folks taking a crap on Boeing right now. They deserve it, however. Lion air and ET roles to those crashes must also be acknowledged as they were contributing factors to those aircraft crashing….

One of those aircraft, shouldn’t have been dispatched for revenue flight and need to be grounded and troubleshot, went up for a operational test flight without any passengers. This problem could have still came about without lives being lost and service bulletins and Airworthiness Directories would have have been deployed to resolve such issues (it would have taken longer)…. Who knows….

You have to look at the chain links that leads to the accidents. I guess that is the irritation of industry professionals on here. Industry professionals aren’t sticking up for Boeing and the FAA, however, industry professional aren’t letting ET and Lion Air off the hook either like a lot of folks on this site seems to be doing…

There is a saying in this industry that the regulations are written in blood. Usually and unfortunately it takes plane crashes to bring about positive change in the industry.

journeyperson wrote:

REDHL wrote:

bigb wrote:

This right here. That aircraft that crashed with Lion Aircraft wouldn’t have been redispatched for revenue flight with the reported flight control issues from the previous flight here in the US (for certain), Canada, and Europe for that matter. Folks with experience with airline experience with working working with airline maintenance control and dispatching requirements here in the US will see how Lion Air dispatching that aircraft for revenue flight after those reported issues lined the holes up perfectly with the Swiss cheese model.

By all means, that crash brought to light a lot of bad practices at Boeing which has been going on for a long period of time and Boeing shouldn’t be let off the hook. But to act as if Lion Air and ET maintenance standards and piloting training standards didn’t play a role in these accidents are willfully failing to see the bigger picture.

This.

By analyzing the minute-by-minute information that has come out over time about the MAX debacle, it's quite clear that there were other parties besides Boeing and the FAA that also played a role (either direct or indirect, as well as major or minor) that culminated with the crashes and which unfortunately, did not go through enough scrutiny and they got away with it instead of taking responsability. And that's what bothers me. And above all, what bothers me the most is that there are people who continue to fixate too much on the crashes' primary cause at this point and without considering the contributing factors.

As my university Aviation Safety professor once said: "Crashes have more than one cause".

Consider where we would be if those crashes had been avoided by "superior airmanship" or by preventing fare paying flights in "badly maintained" aircraft. The roll out of the Max would have continued; that is the unmodified Max that would soon have been flying in great numbers with airlines all over the world. We will never know what the consequences would have been because those crashes exposed the problems and they were grounded.

Personally, they wouldn't necessarily have stayed unmodified.

If the scenario had occurred in which both flights had returned safely and investigators found through the data that they suffered similar issues, I believe that the regulatory entities worldwide would have done an throughout, stricter inquiry about the plane and, if necessary, would have demanded or even proceeded to ground it until all the issues were properly addressed like what happened with the 787 battery issues.

However, and taking into account that it was the second time that problems had been found in a commercial program of the company in less than a decade, there would have been pressure from the rest of the regulators towards the FAA or even Congress to investigate further and I think everything would have been uncovered to the point of carrying out reforms in the aviation industry worldwide in favor of safety, and without blood of people involved.

But unfortunately, it was not the case.

cedarjet wrote:

The organisation that gave us MCAS gave us the whole plane so it doesn’t really make sense to think everything else about the Max is going to be perfect and not a buggy and compromised lash-up like MCAS was/is. Also remember a lot of these planes have sat in the parking lot in wet and humid Washington state for a year or two, that alone is going to spell trouble for operators. What would you expect from a new car that was parked outside in Seattle for a year before you took delivery?

You realize the Max were all either in Eastern Washington or Victorville right? Eastern Washington is arid. Dry. Not like Western Washington.

SEU wrote:

Flflyer83 wrote:

SEU wrote:

You cant think like that, you are basically saying these things to make out the Max issues aren't that bad.

A Max nosedived twice into the ground and was grounded for nearly 2 years, and still not deemed safe to fly everywhere in the world yet. That isn't comparable to normal "bugs and issues" when launching a new plane, like Embraer and the E90. The max was unsafe at launch, rushed, horrendous, "designed by clowns" I think people inside boeing said. Its not the same, so stop acting like it is.

Is the MAX safe to fly now? I think it is now. I understand people who are "in the know" like us on here, being a bit sceptical and thats 100% fine.

Also, remember, the two that nosedived in to the ground aren’t known for their stellar safety record and training. The operators with the largest fleets have yet to have any serious issues… it’s rather unfortunate those two airlines were allowed to be two of the first with the aircraft type in their fleet without sufficient training.

Completely false narrative, Boeing was at fault in every single way, not the Airlines or pilots in question. Remember read the facts and youll get the right conclusion.

Partially agree (Boeing is at fault) but disagree about about Airlines not having fault…. LionAir dispatched in my opinion a unairworthy aircraft…..

Please just discuss the topic and leave the personal insults and flamebait out of the discussion

Additionally the thread is about issues raised since the aircraft has returned to service, so keep the discussion related to that

SECU

I have some questions to ask you.
What kind of professional aviation experience do you have?

You see an aircraft come to you with pitch control write up in your aircraft? Do you honestly think that aircraft should have dispatched the next flight without pulling it out of service?

Forget about who makes the aircraft, it can be any manufacturer. If you were a pilot, and a E-175 aircraft that had a runaway pitch trim problem happen prior to your flight? Are you ok with taking that plane flying afterwards without a operational check flight recorded in the maintenance logbook before your flight?

I am not here to shit on 3rd world countries here, but simply highlighting another part of the problem. That seems to be ignored here as well. I already acknowledge Boeings fault in this madness.

Regarding the ET302 case, there are some important details that I found online and that I would like to share in case they were not discussed in the forums over the last two years. I will leave the links at the end of the post so that you can review them. These are articles from 2019.

The first is about the Canadian pilot Bernd Kai von Hoesslin, who worked as a 737 captain and instructor in Ethiopian. Months before the second crash, he was pressuring the airline management and some colleagues to carry out additional training with the 737 MAX to avoid a situation similar to that which occurred with JT610, apart from reinforcing communications between the pilots. He also expressed concerns regarding aircraft maintenance and pilot fatigue. Three months after issuing the warning, the crash occurred. He retired from the airline shortly thereafter and subsequently published a book called "Wasted Warnings: A Whistleblower Tells the Truth About the Fatal Crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302" in which he gives his point of view.

The second is about Yonas Yeshanew, who was the chief engineer of the airline. In a whistleblower report he filed with international regulators, he had complained with management (including the CEO) regarding questionable and unethical maintenance practices, overworked staff, and insufficient training, which could lead to an accident. His complaints were ignored. After the ET302 accident, he reported that someone had entered the records of the crashed plane and that they were possibly tampered. Later, he resigned from Ethiopian, left the country and applied for asylum in the US. Some former employees of the company also reported similar situations regarding aircraft maintenance and working conditions. All of them urged investigators to look beyond MCAS.

Although Ethiopian was somewhat dismissive of the allegations, that leaves a lot of questioning regarding its organizational and safety culture in recent years.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/compani ... 52hpu.html
https://berndkaivonhoesslin.com/
https://apnews.com/article/immigration- ... 680e8c907d

7673mech wrote:

cedarjet wrote:

The organisation that gave us MCAS gave us the whole plane so it doesn’t really make sense to think everything else about the Max is going to be perfect and not a buggy and compromised lash-up like MCAS was/is. Also remember a lot of these planes have sat in the parking lot in wet and humid Washington state for a year or two, that alone is going to spell trouble for operators. What would you expect from a new car that was parked outside in Seattle for a year before you took delivery?

You realize the Max were all either in Eastern Washington or Victorville right? Eastern Washington is arid. Dry. Not like Western Washington.

Actually, Boeing repurposed a large parking lot to store a fairly substantial number of MAX at BFI. Last I drove by, there were still quite a few there. There were several on PAE's closed runway as well.

lightsaber wrote:

Please post respectfully.

Post links on facts.

So far, the debate has been pretty civil (maybe not polite, but civil) and each side is making a really good point.

Boeing's undocumented MCAS system had egregious flaws. Egregious.

Lion Air's maintenance (dispatch, really) was also truly negligent. Truly.

Both things are true. And each of them radically multiplied the probability of a crash.

180 SDR's .. 22 of them in flight, 4 emergencies declared in what 250,000 or so flights and 500,000 or so hours the type has flown since being returned to service? YAWN. This is not news at all. A sensational nothing-burger of an article written to get clicks out of the uninformed, unfamiliar public.

LCDFlight wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Please post respectfully.

Post links on facts.

So far, the debate has been pretty civil (maybe not polite, but civil) and each side is making a really good point.

Boeing's undocumented MCAS system had egregious flaws. Egregious.

Lion Air's maintenance (dispatch, really) was also truly negligent. Truly.

Both things are true. And each of them radically multiplied the probability of a crash.

Both may or may not be true, but one of them is irrelevant...
The fault was there, and if a more experienced/competent operator might have warded off the accidents for longer, they would have eventually happened one day or the other as it is clear that Boeing had no intention of even admitting to a design error before the crashes, much less fix it.

That the accidents happened to these operators first may not be a coincidence but over time, they would have happened anyway. That's how probability works, also known as Murphy's law.

As for the article, it's just useless figures without a proper frame of reference.

Francoflier wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Please post respectfully.

Post links on facts.

So far, the debate has been pretty civil (maybe not polite, but civil) and each side is making a really good point.

Boeing's undocumented MCAS system had egregious flaws. Egregious.

Lion Air's maintenance (dispatch, really) was also truly negligent. Truly.

Both things are true. And each of them radically multiplied the probability of a crash.

Both may or may not be true, but one of them is irrelevant...
The fault was there, and if a more experienced/competent operator might have warded off the accidents for longer, they would have eventually happened one day or the other as it is clear that Boeing had no intention of even admitting to a design error before the crashes, much less fix it.

That the accidents happened to these operators first may not be a coincidence but over time, they would have happened anyway. That's how probability works, also known as Murphy's law.

As for the article, it's just useless figures without a proper frame of reference.

I mean I alluded and another poster alluded to it earlier. It’s not like the issue wouldn’t have come up. They would have came up without the plane crash part killing people.

If you experience a flight control issue on one of your flights you ground that particular plane to troubleshoot the problem. If that problems arises again and report the issue to your regulatory authorities which then will get the necessary bulletins and ADs issue to resolve such issues. Think the 787 battery fire issue.

If an aircraft experienced a flight control issue, it’s not something that maintenance personnel should just sign off in the AML with the concurrence of mx controller “ops check ok” return the aircraft to service.

In response, it isn’t irrelevant as it was the one of the final links in the chain that could have prevent that crash.