Another Boeing 737 Max just crashed after landing

Should Boeing 737 Max continue to operate or grounded until further investigation?


  • Total voters
    45
Aug 12, 2018
892
783
265
#1
US plane maker Boeing is facing questions after an Ethiopian Airlines 737 crash on Sunday killed all 157 people on board.

It was the second crash in five months involving a 737 Max 8, and comparisons are being drawn with a Lion Air accident in Indonesia last October .

In response, a number of airlines have now grounded all planes of the same model.

However, experts warn it is too early to say what caused the latest disaster.

How did Sunday's accident happen?
Ethiopian Airlines says the plane, flight ET302, crashed at 08:44 local time (05:44 GMT), just six minutes after it left Addis Ababa. The aircraft, bound for Nairobi, came down near the town of Bishoftu, 60km (37 miles) south-east of the capital.

The pilot had reported difficulties and had asked to return to Addis Ababa, the airline said.

"At this stage, we cannot rule out anything," Ethiopian Airlines CEO Tewolde Gebremariam told reporters at Bole International Airport in the capital.

Passengers from more than 30 countries were on board the flight, including 32 Kenyans, 18 Canadians, and seven Britons.

At least 19 victims were affiliated with the United Nations, according to a UN official.

Some passengers were heading to a session of the UN Environment Assembly in Nairobi which began with a minute's silence on Monday.

Slovak MP Anton Hrnko also confirmed via Facebook that his wife and two children were on the plane.

Meanwhile, a Greek man has said that he was due to board the flight but arrived at the gate two minutes late.

In a Facebook post, Antonis Mavropoulos shared an image of his ticket and said it was his "lucky day".

"I was angry because nobody helped me to reach the gate on time," he wrote. "I'm grateful to be alive."

In Ethiopia, Monday has been declared as a national day of mourning.

What do we know about the plane?

The 737 Max-8 aircraft has only been in commercial use since 2017.

The plane that crashed was among six of 30 that Ethiopian Airlines had ordered as part of its expansion. It underwent a "rigorous first check maintenance" on 4 February, the airline tweeted.

Boeing said it was "deeply saddened" by the crash and is sending a team to provide technical assistance

Following the Lion Air crash last October, investigators said the pilots had appeared to struggle with an automated system designed to keep the plane from stalling - a new feature of the Boeing 737 Max.

The anti-stall system repeatedly forced the plane's nose down, despite efforts by pilots to correct this, preliminary findings suggest. The crash killed 189 people.

The Lion Air plane was also new and the accident happened soon after take-off.

"It's highly suspicious," Mary Schiavo, former Inspector General of the US Transportation Department, told CNN.

"Here we have a brand-new aircraft that's gone down twice in a year. That rings alarm bells in the aviation industry, because that just doesn't happen."

After last October's crash, Boeing sent an emergency notice to airlines warning them of a problem with the anti-stall system.

Boeing is expected to release a software patch to the system to deal with this issue, according to Reuters.

However, with the Ethiopian Airlines investigation at an early stage, it is not clear whether the anti-stall system was the cause of Sunday's crash. Aviation experts say other technical issues or human error cannot be discounted.

Ethiopian Airlines has a good safety reputation, although in 2010 one of the company's aeroplanes crashed in the Mediterranean Sea shortly after leaving Beirut

What happens next?
The investigation will be led by Ethiopian authorities co-ordinating with teams of experts from Boeing and the US National Transportation Safety Board.

An urgent priority for investigators will be to find the plane's two cockpit recorders - one for data and another for pilots' voice recordings.

Ethiopian Airlines said in a tweet on Monday morning that it had grounded all of its 737 MAX 8s "until further notice."

"Although we don't know the cause of the accident, we had to decide to ground the particular fleet as an extra safety precaution."

The airline used a different model of plane for its first flight to Kenya since the crash which landed at 10:25 local time on Monday.

China's aviation regulator has also ordered local airlines to halt the flights of 737 Max 8s.

More than 90 are in use by Chinese carriers including Air China, China Eastern Airlines, and China Southern Airlines.

Cayman Airways also grounded its two Boeings of the same type.

But a spokeswoman for FlyDubai, which operates a number of 737 Max 8s, told Reuters that the company continues to have confidence in the aircraft.

Several North American airlines operate the same aircraft and have said they are monitoring the investigation. Southwest Airlines flies 31, while American Airlines and Air Canada each have 24 in their fleet.

Do you think Boeing 737 should be grounded until further investigation ?

Edit , poll was messed up, the word im using should be grounded not continue to operate

and headtitles is crashed moment after take off not landing sorry my bad
 
Last edited:
Jun 8, 2004
33,184
10
1,345
#5
This doesn’t really answer the poll question, but a colleague of mine was on that flight, so I would hope that something productive comes from this investigation.
 

Chittagong

Gold Member
Jun 8, 2004
17,750
782
1,690
#7
* crashed after takeoff

I had to fly LionAir in January and February for my scuba travels, was trying to avoid the Max

Imagine my horror when I saw this on the gate



Not our flight thankfully. Protip - if you see double winglets and a jagged engine.... RUN!!

But they did provide free prayers in each seat pocket:



These two accidents sound awfully similar. 80% of Boeing orderbook is the Max, so the company will be in deep trouble if the Max has a critical failure in design.
 
Last edited:
Mar 3, 2014
5,205
1,168
410
#9
Out of interest, I was reading about the Lion Air crash earlier today, and from what I gather it seems the pilots in that incident were trying to fight the software that was designed to prevent the plane from stalling (apparently they weren't aware of the procedure to disable Boeing's MCAS system or something). Obviously it's a lot more complex than that, but it's crazy when you think about it – they were up against a software program.
 
Likes: mckmas8808
May 30, 2013
2,366
211
350
#10
That poll wording is garbage.

Regardless of the shitty poll by the sounds of it both planes crashed in the same way with plane thinking that the nose of the aircraft was to high and trying to prevent a stall incorrectly by repeatedly dipping the nose and the pilot being unable to override it.

Some new outlets are reporting that Boeing is rushing out a new software update for the planes.
 
Last edited:

Chittagong

Gold Member
Jun 8, 2004
17,750
782
1,690
#11
Out of interest, I was reading about the Lion Air crash earlier today, and from what I gather it seems the pilots in that incident were trying to fight the software that was designed to prevent the plane from stalling (apparently they weren't aware of the procedure to disable Boeing's MCAS system or something). Obviously it's a lot more complex than that, but it's crazy when you think about it – they were up against a software program.
Indeed. If you check at the chart posted, it shows the computer ordered nose dow 26 times, and the FO countered by pulling nose up 26 times until he lost the fight. They didn’t know about the procedure to shut the MCAS and regain control, because they were never trained for it, because the Max was supposedly “so similar”:



In reality, Max is not *similar*, it’s got a different type of engines much more front than the 737, which changes the stall profile. To avoid retraining, they put in that piece of software instead. And didn’t disclose it, so they could avoid retraining.
 
Last edited:
Mar 3, 2014
5,205
1,168
410
#12
Indeed. If you check at the chart posted, it shows the computer ordered nose dow 26 times, and the FO countered by pulling nose up 26 times until he lost the fight. They didn’t know about the procedure to shut the MCAS and regain control, because they were never trained for it, because the Max was supposedly “so similar”:



In reality, Max is not *similar*, it’s got a different type of engines much more front than the 737, which changes the stall profile. To avoid retraining, they put in that piece of software instead. And didn’t disclose it, so they could avoid retraining.
Thanks for the further explanation. All those lives lost because of something that was designed to keep people safe. These incidents really remind me of how fragile life is, and how much we depend on various systems working properly just to make it through the day in one piece.
 

Chittagong

Gold Member
Jun 8, 2004
17,750
782
1,690
#13
Thanks for the further explanation. All those lives lost because of something that was designed to keep people safe. These incidents really remind me of how fragile life is, and how much we depend on various systems working properly just to make it through the day in one piece.
It’s pretty scandalous.

They rushed the 737 Max out because Airbus caught them by surprise with their new, fuel efficient A320 Neo which looked like it’d take huge marketshare.

Boeing promised a new, equally fuel efficient plane, and that no retraining would be necessary for 737 pilots. That combined with the fuel economy made the 737 Max their biggest smash hit ever, with an order book of 5,000 planes. It’s nearly 80% of Boeing’s order book. The 737 Max order book is worth some half a trillion dollars.

The problem is that it was hard to build a more fuel efficient 737 and not have to retrain pilots. The new engines would sit more front and fly differently in some (dangerous) circumstances. So they put in some code to take over from the pilots in those situations, since they wouldn’t be trained for it. But because they sold it on no training, they wouldn’t train the pilots for the software cocking up.

NYT has an excellent write up:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/03/world/asia/lion-air-plane-crash-pilots.html
 
Last edited:

Chittagong

Gold Member
Jun 8, 2004
17,750
782
1,690
#14


The FAA has now mandated urgent design changes to the Max, but say that it’s still totally airworthy until that.

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2...ure-alarmed-passengers-about-boeing-737-max-8

So airworthy that it’s mandatory to fix it by April. I guess they did the math that they come down every three months, so a few weeks should be fine.

If there is a genuine issue, Boeing would be wise to ground the fleet until April. Only 350 planes are out there, and they grounded all Dreamliners with the battery issue a few years back. Risking a third crash, that would likely kill the Max dead.
 
Apr 21, 2012
1,676
119
525
twitter.com
#16


The FAA has now mandated urgent design changes to the Max, but say that it’s still totally airworthy until that.

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2...ure-alarmed-passengers-about-boeing-737-max-8

So airworthy that it’s mandatory to fix it by April. I guess they did the math that they come down every three months, so a few weeks should be fine.

If there is a genuine issue, Boeing would be wise to ground the fleet until April. Only 350 planes are out there, and they grounded all Dreamliners with the battery issue a few years back. Risking a third crash, that would likely kill the Max dead.
Fuck sakes. They just need to ground the entire fleet of them world wide before these fixes can be implemented. FAA is playing a really fucked up lottery with peoples lives, and they're probably going to end up losing.
 
Likes: mckmas8808
Apr 18, 2018
8,016
13,029
555
USA
dunpachi.com
#20
Indeed. If you check at the chart posted, it shows the computer ordered nose dow 26 times, and the FO countered by pulling nose up 26 times until he lost the fight. They didn’t know about the procedure to shut the MCAS and regain control, because they were never trained for it, because the Max was supposedly “so similar”:



In reality, Max is not *similar*, it’s got a different type of engines much more front than the 737, which changes the stall profile. To avoid retraining, they put in that piece of software instead. And didn’t disclose it, so they could avoid retraining.
Oops.

This sounds like a huge fuckup. A record of a pilot actively fighting against an automated system is a pretty cut-and-dry explanation as to why this may be happening, in my opinion, and hopefully it will lead to the necessary investigations and discipline for the people responsible. It would be one things if the planes caused delays, but people are dead. That needs to be answered for if this was due to human negligence and/or greed.
 
Mar 3, 2014
5,205
1,168
410
#21
So several countries have banned the 737 MAX. But I was watching the news earlier today and saw that Boeing put out a statement saying that they still have full confidence in the safety of this model.
 
Mar 12, 2014
3,663
2,193
415
#30
So several countries have banned the 737 MAX. But I was watching the news earlier today and saw that Boeing put out a statement saying that they still have full confidence in the safety of this model.
I recognize that it's possible the design and manufacturing crisis had nothing to do with the crashes. But unless that is proven, I see their statement more as stock price protection than anything else.
 

Chittagong

Gold Member
Jun 8, 2004
17,750
782
1,690
#32
Some fun stats for the “crossing the street is more dangerous than flying a 737 Max” crowd:

- Max does some 8,500 flights weekly
- a total of some 500,000 Max flights have been completed, 2 crashed
- Likelihood of dying in a Max thus seems to be 2 : 500,000

Now some back of the envelope math

- There is some 9 million people in London
- Let’s assume each person crosses the street 4 times daily, a total of 36 million crossings daily
- If the people died at the same rate crossing streets of London as flying the Max, 144 people would die daily crossing roads in London
- That equals 52,560 people annually. In reality, 76 pedestrians died in 2017 in London

Thus crossing the street in London is 691x safer than flying the Max.
 
Last edited:
May 24, 2005
39,798
2,685
1,320
#33
Some fun stats for the “crossing the street is more dangerous than flying a 737 Max” crowd:

- Max does some 8,500 flights weekly
- a total of some 500,000 Max flights have been completed, 2 crashed
- Likelihood of dying in a Max thus seems to be 2 : 500,000

Now some back of the envelope math

- There is some 9 million people in London
- Let’s assume each person crosses the street 4 times daily, a total of 36 million crossings daily
- If the people died at the same rate crossing streets of London as flying the Max, 144 people would die daily crossing roads in London
- That equals 52,560 people annually. In reality, 76 pedestrians died in 2017 in London

Thus crossing the street in Lonon is 691x safer than flying the Max.
LOL! I like this math and example.
 
Likes: Liberty4all
Aug 26, 2018
509
535
255
#36
Of course you landed safely. Accidents are unfortunate but people need to stop being paranoid thinking if one plane crashes, all 1000+ will. Until we get better evidence, we dont know for sure why this happened. All you need is an engineer with a bad day or change of shift for mechanics where one screw is not tight enough and a few months later it goes terribly wrong. The A380 officially had cracking wing spans and door seals leaking on all aircrasfts. They didnt ground them but just one by one, remove/fixing the issues and still keeping them operational. Dont forget you are dealing with clickbait media who are making millions running these stories and conspiracies.
 
Last edited:
Sep 26, 2009
11,827
387
725
St. Louis
#37
It's really not the plane itself that is dangerous, is that that pilots expect it to act like the old 737 and not an entirely new plane and aren't trained to deal with it's apparently sometimes dodgy anti-stall system (which needs to be disabled if it acts up)

Apparently on the first plane that crashed, the previous flight's pilots had the same problem but they had read the manual so they knew how to turn off the anti-stall system (but then never mentioned it to the airline for some reason)
 
Last edited:
Likes: mckmas8808
Nov 14, 2009
2,673
111
695
#43
Hard to say what's going on.

Skimming through the first post reminds me of an episode of Mayday I saw a year or two ago. Basically the co-pilot accidentally activated the autopilot when taking off (or landing, I don't remember). The captain told the copilot to push the stick forward (or pull back), which was to deactivate the autopilot. This didn't seem to work so the captain took the controls and did the same thing, which eventually led to the plain crashing. The captain had a good flight record and a lot of experience. What happened? The captain trained on a simulator for this new plane. The procedure he learned was exactly the method he used to deactivate the autopilot. Deactivating the autopilot in the simulator did not correspond to how it was deactivated in the plane. I forget which, but he either trained on a slightly out of date or more up to date simulator.

Since my memory is a bit foggy the story isn't exactly how it was presented in the show. Still, the scenario I presented should give an idea of how things can get messed up in the chain of transporting passengers through the air. This is not to say Boeing has no fault with the design of their plane as there may very well be an issue on their end.
 
Dec 1, 2017
1,645
739
240
#46
Plane crashes scare the shit out of me now. I never used to have a problem with flying when I was younger.

Speaking of which, have any of you ever came across this website?

http://planecrashinfo.com/lastwords.htm

It's got the final cockpit recordings from multiple plane crashes. Some spooky stuff!
Oh, yeah. I remember this site. It's disturbing.

I'm not a fan on planes either, especially the small ones.

But I'll fly anyday before getting on a cruise ship.
 
May 24, 2005
39,798
2,685
1,320
#48
You may actually be right, but still seems risky. They lost a ton of value. They cannot afford more incidents.

It could take quite a few years for them to recuperate. I suppose it depends on the investigation.
Imagine if they lost another 20% of value if the investigation came back with some bad results.
 

Mr Nash

square pies = communism
Jun 8, 2004
4,280
320
1,505
#49
Looks like Canada is grounding the plane and banning it from its airspace as well now. For a while it was sounding like they wouldn't, but I guess the Transport Minister bowed to public pressure. It'll be interesting to see how Air Canada and West Jet deal with it because they have quite a few of the 737 Max 8.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/garneau-boeing-ethiopia-crash-1.5054234
 
Dec 1, 2017
1,645
739
240
#50
Imagine if they lost another 20% of value if the investigation came back with some bad results.
I'm honestly not sure if they could recover from that.

The financial effort it would take for them to then have to check every plane, every system, retraining ... then they would have to work on public perception.


I am guessing that it's coincidence, but I feel bad for anyone deeply invested in Boeing!