Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
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?
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"
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
lightsaber wrote:Please post respectfully.
Post links on facts.
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.
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.