Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Ethiopian Airlines 737 crashes on way to Kenya 157 onboard.

I would tend to avoid 737s altogether if it becomes too hard to tell which are rebranded Max versions. Perhaps easier in fact to have a fly Airbus only policy.

I assume it might at least be possible to specify what plane maker I will fly on before travelling to and queuing for the flight?

They're dead easy to spot, if you're that bothered you'll be able to find out easily. Its just for people who wouldn't be bothered unless someone told them.

You can see what the plane is likely to be before booking, loads of sites on the web for that. Sadly you can't tell an airline what plane they must use on a given route.

Given there are really only two major plane manufacturers its going to be bloody hard to avoid 737's unless you go on same crazy long and expensive routes.
 
They're dead easy to spot, if you're that bothered you'll be able to find out easily. Its just for people who wouldn't be bothered unless someone told them.

You can see what the plane is likely to be before booking, loads of sites on the web for that. Sadly you can't tell an airline what plane they must use on a given route.

Given there are really only two major plane manufacturers its going to be bloody hard to avoid 737's unless you go on same crazy long and expensive routes.

Short haul you can currently fly any IAG airline and avoid the 737. They are looking to change that though.
 
New name

_107890713_d_fclx0u0aa4_vz.jpg
 
To be fair, while the design of the MAX is certainly sub-optimal it is not inherently dangerous. If Boeing hadn’t fucked up the MCAS design parameters, hidden its very existence from airlines and pilots, or linked said MCAS system to just the one sensor instead of two or three, the crashes would almost certainly have not happened.

Or to put it in a different way, provided there are no further problems we don’t know about, if/when the MAX is ungrounded with all its issues fixed, and with pilots now receiving adequate training, the MAX should be a perfectly safe plane. Perhaps the pilots here can either confirm this or correct me, but even if the MAX is not as stable and forgiving as its predecessor it’ll be no less safe or difficult to pilot than the likes of most 1960s and 70s planes we were all happy to fly then, and indeed now if we found ourselves on one today.

Boeing should still be put through hell for such appalling catalogue of negligence though.
 
Or to put it in a different way, provided there are no further problems we don’t know about,

Given they've already found some other problems, that might be wishful thinking. Boeing are known to have rushed this through, are also known to have hidden the problems until a few hundred people getting killed forced it out, and we know the CAA didn't watch Boeing properly, pretty much leaving the safety testing to a manufacturer we now know lied about extremely serious issues.
I'm unsure I'd fly on one if I knew what the thing was, even if the name has been changed in the hope of fooling passengers. As for the name change, I'm looking at that as just one more con job.
I've hardly had any spare time of late, but has anyone posted the accusations Boeing are only giving out compo if the family sign an agreement not to take them to court?
 
To be fair, while the design of the MAX is certainly sub-optimal it is not inherently dangerous. If Boeing hadn’t fucked up the MCAS design parameters, hidden its very existence from airlines and pilots, or linked said MCAS system to just the one sensor instead of two or three, the crashes would almost certainly have not happened.

Or to put it in a different way, provided there are no further problems we don’t know about, if/when the MAX is ungrounded with all its issues fixed, and with pilots now receiving adequate training, the MAX should be a perfectly safe plane. Perhaps the pilots here can either confirm this or correct me, but even if the MAX is not as stable and forgiving as its predecessor it’ll be no less safe or difficult to pilot than the likes of most 1960s and 70s planes we were all happy to fly then, and indeed now if we found ourselves on one today.

Boeing should still be put through hell for such appalling catalogue of negligence though.


Not sure 60’s or 70’s standards of safety is really selling it to me.




Given they've already found some other problems, that might be wishful thinking. Boeing are known to have rushed this through, are also known to have hidden the problems until a few hundred people getting killed forced it out, and we know the CAA didn't watch Boeing properly, pretty much leaving the safety testing to a manufacturer we now know lied about extremely serious issues.
I'm unsure I'd fly on one if I knew what the thing was, even if the name has been changed in the hope of fooling passengers. As for the name change, I'm looking at that as just one more con job.
I've hardly had any spare time of late, but has anyone posted the accusations Boeing are only giving out compo if the family sign an agreement not to take them to court?

FAA.

But yeah, Boeing is guilty as hell over this.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/o...g-737-max.html
Quote:
The Boeing 737 Max Crisis Is a Leadership Failure
Safety begins at the top, and the top officials at Boeing and the Federal Aviation Administration have let us down.

By Jim Hall and Peter Goelz
Mr. Hall was chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board from 1994 to 2001. Mr. Goelz was managing director of the board from 1996 to 2000.

July 17, 2019

We’ve seen this before: A Boeing airliner crashes, killing all aboard. Investigators believe a design flaw in the aircraft played a major role in the accident, but Boeing blames the pilots. Eventually, the design flaw is corrected, but not before another plane crashes, leaving more deaths in its wake.

In our time at the National Transportation Safety Board we saw this happen — long before the two Boeing crashes in the past year.

On March 3, 1991, a United Airlines Boeing 737 crashed on approach to Colorado Springs, killing all 25 people aboard. After an investigation of almost two years, the N.T.S.B. concluded that one of the two likely causes was a malfunctioning rudder power control unit, which moved the rudder in the opposite direction to that intended by the pilots. The agency recommended that the Federal Aviation Administration require airlines to install a modified part, to prevent future rudder reversals, as soon as Boeing made them available, but Boeing failed to do that.

On Sept. 8, 1994, a USAir 737 crashed as it neared Pittsburgh, killing all 132 people aboard. Despite the obvious similarities between the two crashes that were revealed during the investigation, Boeing insisted even to the final stages of the second inquiry that there was nothing wrong with the design of the aircraft, and the company again pointed to improper pilot rudder commands as the cause.

In the end, the rudder was indeed determined to have malfunctioned and caused both crashes. Boeing redesigned the part, and it was retrofitted in all 737s. There has not been a crash caused by that issue since then.

But this disturbing culture of denial persists today at Boeing, as shown by the revelations following the crashes of two 737 Max 8 aircraft in Indonesia and Ethiopia, which killed 346 people. The company has an institutional reluctance to even examine potential design flaws in its product.

Boeing’s stubborn resistance to admit its mistakes — even as those mistakes have delayed the return to operation of 737 Max planes by several months, according to The Wall Street Journal — are turning into a disaster for the company and its customers. Some of the families of the victims testified before Congress on Wednesday.

Even worse, Boeing has found a willing partner in the F.A.A., which allowed the company to circumvent standard certification processes so it could sell aircraft more quickly. Boeing’s inadequate regard for safety and the F.A.A.’s complicity display an unconscionable lack of leadership at both organizations.

Boeing’s first public statements after the Indonesia crash in October, supported by the F.A.A., questioned the abilities of the pilots, even though subsequent reporting has shown that pilots were not given the information they needed to properly react to the aircraft’s unexpected descents. Only after the crash of the second Max 8 in Ethiopia, in March, did Boeing acknowledge that software in the planes’ cockpits played a major role in the accidents.

The 737 Max of today — a 143-foot-long plane seating more than 230 people — is a very different aircraft from the humble 737 of the 1960s, which was only 94 feet long and seated no more than 118. But the current regulatory system allows for significant modifications of an aircraft design without requiring a new certification review. Even though the new plane had different flight characteristics, larger engines and a new flight management system, no simulator training was required for pilots familiar with older model 737s, a marketing move designed by Boeing to increase sales. And the F.A.A. allowed this.

Safety begins at the top, and the top at both Boeing and the F.A.A. has let us down. Boeing’s board must find out who has enabled and encouraged this corporate culture, and hold those leaders accountable, beginning with the chief executive, Dennis Muilenburg.

But this is bigger than the Max 8. We now have an airline safety agency that has become less and less forceful in exercising its regulatory authority over an aircraft manufacturer, even one that appears to be aggressively prioritizing profits over safety. It hasn’t helped that, like many government agencies, the F.A.A. has been without a permanent leader for 18 months.

Congress has permitted this to occur, but it can make the system much stronger. Two decades ago, lawmakers wisely sought to remove the F.A.A. from the political process by giving its administrator a five-year term so that the agency would have continuity of leadership. Congress can push for a permanent F.A.A. administrator, and use its oversight authority to make sure that the new leadership re-establishes the proper relationship between the regulator and the regulated.

The bottom line is that two nearly new, American-built airliners crashed within a few months of each other and nearly 350 people died. No one should be proud of the regulatory structure that put these planes in the air. We need major changes now.

Jim Hall was chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board from 1994 to 2001. Peter Goelz was managing director of the board from 1996 to 2000.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
user_offline.gif

Quote Quick Reply
 
The NYT has published a claim that is fucking appalling. Apparently (in yet another safety issue that has come to light), the different position of the engines on the MAX means that in case of an uncontained engine failure (when a fan blade becomes dislodged and breaks through the engine casing and pierces the fuselage), the debris could sever the steel rudder cable that allows pilots to control the rudder, which would almost certainly result in the plane crashing.

When the FAA pointed this to Boeing and advised strengthening work on the fuselage area facing the engines, Boeing allegedly said ‘we’d rather not, as it will cost time and money’, and the FAA allegedly replied ‘ erm... okay then, we’ll let it pass’.

If this was really so, everyone in the FAA involved in the certification process should be fired and prosecuted.

But a cluster of cunts all round...

MoA - 737 MAX Rudder Control Does Not Meet Safety Guidelines - It Was Still Certified
 
Uncontained engine failure and all bets are off. That's a whole different kettle of fish to MCAS. It's a complex technical issue, which may or may not also reveal fundamental problems with the FAA/regulatory regime.
 
Someone pointed out that the CFM56 engine is approaching a billion hours of operation, and so far its failures have killed one person, a passenger on Southwest in an accident that happened in the last few years. It's not a significant level of risk and nothing is significantly different on the Max either.
 
Someone pointed out that the CFM56 engine is approaching a billion hours of operation, and so far its failures have killed one person, a passenger on Southwest in an accident that happened in the last few years. It's not a significant level of risk and nothing is significantly different on the Max either.

The report suggests the positioning of the engine on the Max is indeed a significant difference.

Anyway this just highlights the problems Boeing have now. In the cloud of rumour and secret briefings its hard to know what is actually true and if true whether it makes much of a difference. For the first time I'm beginning to wonder like some others whether this plane will actually fly again.
 
The report suggests the positioning of the engine on the Max is indeed a significant difference.

Anyway this just highlights the problems Boeing have now. In the cloud of rumour and secret briefings its hard to know what is actually true and if true whether it makes much of a difference. For the first time I'm beginning to wonder like some others whether this plane will actually fly again.
PPRuNE is worth a read, lots of technical opinion. Moving the engine doesn't seem significant, it being physically larger is perhaps a factor, but if I had to bet then on this occasion my money would probably be on a fairly commonplace approvals disagreement that on balance of probabilities got legitimately decided in Boeing's favour.
 
I think I heard somewhere that Ryanair has hundreds of 737 on order, now stalled, and this could be a reason why they are now talking about redundancies because they apparently have too many aircrew. I would be worried about persuading passengers to ride the planes when they do get delivered rather than anything else.
 
Nah. If you're on Ryanair you're there for one reason only - cost.

Ryanair got into trouble a few years ago because their aircraft were declaring fuel emergencies at several times the industry average - que chaos at airports - because, in order to save fuel, and therefore money, their aircraft were carrying significantly less reserve fuel than the other airlines.

Their bookings didn't fall, because their customers are only flying on Ryanair for one reason - cost.
 
Nah. If you're on Ryanair you're there for one reason only - cost.

Ryanair got into trouble a few years ago because their aircraft were declaring fuel emergencies at several times the industry average - que chaos at airports - because, in order to save fuel, and therefore money, their aircraft were carrying significantly less reserve fuel than the other airlines.

Their bookings didn't fall, because their customers are only flying on Ryanair for one reason - cost.

As I mentioned on the other thread this isn't always true. Sure if you're flying a major route like London to Barcelona you're probably going on cost. Ryanair though, operate a lot of services where they are the only direct option. Check out their route map there are lots or relatively small places they fly to especially in Poland and Spain.

Sure there may be connecting services or people can just get in their car or onto a train to the capital but that kind of defeats the point of regional airports.

Personally I can't abide Ryanair but if I want to go somewhere for a short weekend and they are the only direct option then I'm not going to lose half a day on a connecting flight when a direct option is available.
 
Nah. If you're on Ryanair you're there for one reason only - cost.

Ryanair got into trouble a few years ago because their aircraft were declaring fuel emergencies at several times the industry average - que chaos at airports - because, in order to save fuel, and therefore money, their aircraft were carrying significantly less reserve fuel than the other airlines.

Their bookings didn't fall, because their customers are only flying on Ryanair for one reason - cost.
And yet annoyingly very often the savings end up being minuscule if not wiped out altogether after the extra charges Ryanair applies but other carriers don’t (hand luggage, or de facto compulsory seat purchase as the fucking cunts are now said to often split your party and seat you separately unless you buy seats together).

Add that the spiteful customer service, and often a departure airport that costs more to reach by train or takes 2.5h on the cheaper bus option (Stanstead being a classic option for anyone who doesn’t live in the extreme NE of London), and again the often absurdly early departure times) and you have to wonder what the fuck are a lot of their passengers thinking if other airlines are available even if still a bit more pricey at the checkout. Fair enough if no other carriers do the route though.
 
Nah. If you're on Ryanair you're there for one reason only - cost.

Ryanair got into trouble a few years ago because their aircraft were declaring fuel emergencies at several times the industry average - que chaos at airports - because, in order to save fuel, and therefore money, their aircraft were carrying significantly less reserve fuel than the other airlines.

Their bookings didn't fall, because their customers are only flying on Ryanair for one reason - cost.

It's not up to Ryanair how much fuel they load for a given flight plan as that is mandated by EASA regs. Every RYR captain can take a few hundred kg on top of the mandated minimum. The Ryanair/Valencia fuel emergency was because the captain had elected NOT to take any additional fuel and then abandoned two approaches due to crosswinds.

Statistically Ryanair are the safest airline in the world presumably because MO'L knows unsafe airlines don't make money.
 
I wonder what Ryanair are going to do about their order. Assuming Boeing is paying compo, it's in their interest to let the delays ride as they'll make the same amount of money but not actually have to do anything to earn it. However, when the things are finally delivered that could well go pear shaped if the public won't fly on the things.
Renaming is one thing, but the press will drag all this up again if there's the slightest hit of a max being even slightly unsafe for any reason.
 
Looks like Lion are taking the groundings in a less than happy way

Lion Air plans to renegotiate remaining 737 MAX orders with Boeing

Batam, Indonesia - Indonesian low-cost carrier Lion Air may need more Boeing 737 MAX jets to maintain upon the manfacturer's grounded aircraft is allowed by regulators to fly again.

The statement made by the airline's co-founder Rusdi Kirana during an interview with Reuters news agency.

Lion Air had threatened Boeing to cancel its remaining orders for 187 aircraft worth $21 billion after one of its 737 MAX 8s crashed in Jakarta last year in October.

He said the low-cost airline, which had previously threatened to cancel its order for 187 jets worth $21 billion at list prices.

Kirana said they would need to be satisfied by Boeing's offer during negotiations before taking the planes currently on order.
 
Also ...

Flights for sale on ‘deathtrap’ 737s

Thousands of passengers are being sold tickets for flights on Boeing aircraft that are still officially grounded after two crashes took the lives of 346 people.

TUI, United Airlines and other airlines have scheduled more than 32,600 flights on 737 Max 8 and Max 9 aircraft for later this year — although regulators have not yet approved their return to the skies.

One British tourist said he felt like a “guinea pig” when he discovered last week that his American Airlines flight to the Caribbean would be on a 737 Max 8. Chuni Kahan, a property manager from north London, had been told at the time of booking that he would fly on an earlier Boeing 737 model. He has been denied a refund.

Hundreds…

EDIT - What would happen if a passenger sued the airline? The ticket was sold as a ride on another type, so would that break the contract? Even if there's small print to say the airline can change the type, what about the lousy publicity and people refusing to use the airline because of it?
 
Last edited:
They would lose and be financially ruined when they had to pay the airline's costs.

Maybe, but the state of the aircraft and its many faults might be enough to convince a judge it's unreasonable to force people to use what is very possibly still and unsafe aircraft, or even it's justified to think it's unsafe until proven otherwise.
Even if he lost, could that be appealed successfully in the event of any future crash involving that aircraft IF it was proven the design is still subject to serious faults?
 
Also ...

Flights for sale on ‘deathtrap’ 737s



EDIT - What would happen if a passenger sued the airline? The ticket was sold as a ride on another type, so would that break the contract? Even if there's small print to say the airline can change the type, what about the lousy publicity and people refusing to use the airline because of it?

When you buy a ticket you enter in to a contract. The airline agrees to get you to a certain place. That’s it, they are not compelled to send you on a specific aircraft, or even one operated by them, and outside of the EU they don’t need to specify a time or even a date that you will get there.

So yeah, as DownwardDog says, you’d lose.
 
This particular element of the story is a ensconce. Loads of airlines have been selling tickets for the Max even though its not flying. It has to be part of their schedules because they have to assume it will fly again soon.

When it does get back in the air it'll most likely be the safest plane out there because given the amount of time its been grounded they must have checked every single component by now.
 
Pushing It to the Max: Boeing's Crashes Expose Systemic Failings - SPIEGEL ONLINE - International

In the coming proceedings and investigations, particular attention will be paid to the time between the crash in Indonesia and the one in Ethiopia. This will be the most dangerous window for Boeing. If the prosecution can prove or find witnesses to say that people at Boeing or aviation regulators had cautioned against the further operation of the 737 Max after the Lion Air crash, it could make the company look extremely culpable. If anyone at Boeing had even the slightest inkling of the new system's inherent risks, things could get tricky.
 
United Airlines CEO on Boeing 737 Max return: 'No one knows'

Still no clue of when the plane will return to service. By the sound of things, some of the the software fixes and additional safety modifications required by various air safety authorities from around the world haven’t even been finished or submitted for approval yet. Best estimates now for actual entry back into revenue service are around Feb-March at the earliest.

Boeing has all this time been keeping the production line running at around 44 frames per month, and parking them anywhere they can. Surely they’re going to temporarily shut down the line soon?
 
Back
Top Bottom