No. of Recommendations: 2
This is a link to a very brief interview with former Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Mary Chiavo. In it, she describes exactly what happened, and exactly WHY it happened, in Sunday's Ethiopian Airline disaster -- right down to what a Horror it must have been in the last moments inside the cockpit as this plane, that was intentionally DESIGNED to block and override any Pilot's efforts to gain control of it, fell backwards straight down despite everything attempted to 'tame' it.

The link here is to a page with the interview printed out for reading in shorter form - i.e., with some parts missing .. AND .. with a "Listen" button for hearing an audio of the same entire interview - about 6 minutes long. (When you click on the blue 'Listen' it will bring up the listening controls just down the page).

It is pretty astonishing to hear an expert rendering of what Boeing has created and, thus far, has not stated that they will RE-do for the sake of passenger survival. She states exactly WHY they put the Pilot override system into a plane that was newly and oddly designed. (These specific details are in the audio rendering - not the printed - very close to the end.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/countries-should-ground...



nl
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I saw an expert interview. They say in designing the newest version of an old airframe design, they used a larger engine to increase range and efficiency. But that tended to push the nose up in flight and risked a stall. So they designed software to compensate for this tendency.

Pilots apparently find it confusing or counter intuitive. So investigation wants to learn if its a software flaw, or a problem with sensors sending bad data, etc.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
There also is some conflicting info in the media about what distinguishes the aircraft. I've seen a few that say the "800", and but others say the Max 8 isn't the same as the 800. I'm still not clear on that point.

And I'm flying on an 800 in the near future.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Interesting. Got the option to change flights at no charge. Got an earlier flight on a 700, no change in fare.

Pretty sure that isn't related to the "MAX 8".

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I see you as very fortunate. I really do. And no, the 700's definitely have NOTHING to do with the Max 8, with its inherently faulty design.
This thing has exploded all around the world and it is insane that the FAA is 'holding out' and refuses to ground the Max 8! Word has it that even the Flight Attendants are 'begging' them to ground it until the investigation is complete! Just THINK of what the repercussions are going to be if another one goes down, killing all aboard for the third time, and they will CLEARLY be responsible for the deaths, in their willing failure to 'hold off' on the plane's usage until the final truth is known.

Enjoy your trip!



nl
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I heard on NPR this morning that the CEO of Boeing called Trump and told him the plane was safe, and it seems likely that he then called the FAA chief. No, I'm not going to get political. This is more a case of inappropriate access and influence on the part of the Boeing CEO.

It is interesting that most countries have now grounded the fleet. But not the USA! (And, for some reason, not Canada either.)

https://www.apnews.com/64698c6e79be4e6ca109f9c9d3e5e86a
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Canada has joined the ranks who grounded that plane.

Teri

Glad she doesn't fly carriers who have that equipment
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"We're gonna be issuing an emergency order of prohibition to ground all flights of the 737 Max 8 and the 737 Max 9 and planes associated with that line." President Trump issued an executive order Wednesday, grounding all Boeing 737 Max jets.

now it's everyone

Teri
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Again, not being political here...credit where it's due, that was a sane move, IMHO. At least until they figure out the excessively high failure rate (relative to the rest of the global fleets).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Let's not forget that thousands of these planes make flights, often multiple flights, every day.

There may be a flaw under certain circumstances, but clearly those circumstances are rare. Maybe one in a million.

We note also that both events were foreign airlines. You wonder if crew training, experience, languages (ability to read instructions and or warnings), maintenance, etc, was a factor.

Mostly we are seeing another example of mass hysteria. Driven by media.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
There may be a flaw under certain circumstances, but clearly those circumstances are rare. Maybe one in a million.

Not a chance. They've had two in five months.

I deal with statistics a lot in my job. Whether mean time to failure, or PPM failure, or values deviating some number of IQRs from median. It's part of what I do.

Planes crash, and that rate is measurable. Generally it would be presented as a distribution. The question becomes whether the MAX 8 falls within some set tolerance of the mean. I do not have specific data to crunch, but it seems likely given the size of the MAX fleet (very small...there are only a few hundred planes worldwide with something like a thousand more on order), the short time they've been flying (a couple of years), that the number of crashes associated with this model aircraft is excessive. It's probably several standard deviations away from the mean.

So compared to other aircraft in the global fleet, this particular model has a problem that makes it unsafe, or at least less safe. Doesn't mean every one of them will crash within the next week, just that the probabilities are markedly different from the rest of the population.

Until it is resolved, grounded or not, I would not set foot on one. The risk is higher than typical. Perhaps still lower than driving my car, but higher than the norm for the industry. Better to be sure you're on a model with a better safety record.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Excellent response 1pg!

Thank you.

((btw - I've heard that said all my life .. "a car accident is MUCH more likely to happen than a plane crash". The implication being that the plane is safer travel than the car. But everyone I've ever talked with about that is very clear that they would MUCH rather be in a car accident .. at the end of that you are still sitting there on the ground .. in a plane crash your chance of survival of the impact is a WHOLE different story. (not to mention the agonizing drop-period during which you get the joy of contemplating your immanent mangles death about which you can do absolutely nothing to avoid).

In other words, one involves hitting something else but remaining grounded - the other involves an agonizing fall and a degree of impact that is very seldom survivable. I'll bet that pretty much everyone on this board has at some point suffered a car accident .. one hears about detouring to avoid them, on the radio, nearly daily! But I'll bet there's no one here who has suffered a plane crash .. they wouldn't have survived to tell the story. So I've never really understood that comparison.))


nl
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I could be wrong, but I think the actual statistics say you are more likely to die in a car crash than a plane crash. I think that is looking at deaths per passenger mile, but I'm not sure (seems likely, though). But, yes, given a crash the odds of surviving a plane crash are probably much lower than surviving a car crash (again, I don't have data so could be wrong on that point).

I hedge that a bit just because sometimes "common sense" turns out to be wrong. That last statement is just my intuition about survivability given a crash. The velocities involved with auto accidents are much lower, and the safety features are better (air bags, three-point seat belts, crumple zones, etc).

1pg
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3

Thank you.

((btw - I've heard that said all my life .. "a car accident is MUCH more likely to happen than a plane crash". The implication being that the plane is safer travel than the car. But everyone I've ever talked with about that is very clear that they would MUCH rather be in a car accident .. at the end of that you are still sitting there on the ground .. in a plane crash your chance of survival of the impact is a WHOLE different story. (not to mention the agonizing drop-period during which you get the joy of contemplating your immanent mangles death about which you can do absolutely nothing to avoid).

In other words, one involves hitting something else but remaining grounded - the other involves an agonizing fall and a degree of impact that is very seldom survivable. I'll bet that pretty much everyone on this board has at some point suffered a car accident .. one hears about detouring to avoid them, on the radio, nearly daily! But I'll bet there's no one here who has suffered a plane crash .. they wouldn't have survived to tell the story. So I've never really understood that comparison.))


You are horribly wrong. There have been a lot of survivors from plane crashes.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-45030345

But when the US National Transportation Safety Board did a review of national aviation accidents from 1983-1999, it found that more than 95% of aircraft occupants survived accidents, including 55% in the most serious incidents.


A simply online search would show the odds of dying in an airplane crash is extremely rare.

If you have a fear of flying that is your issue but propagating myths is just stupid.

Rich
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
On a statistical basis, it's something like being frightened of terrorist acts. They make great news coverage, but the likelihood of you standing within ten meters of the guy who pushes the red button is pretty slim. Same thing with plane crashes.

Jeff
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Agreed. I'm not particularly concerned about terrorist attacks.

But since I have the option I would book a flight using different "equipment" until they sort out the MAX problem. I would have, but the FAA just took care of it today anyway.

I expect they'll sort it out. Maybe it's just buggy software. Dunno.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I expect they'll sort it out. Maybe it's just buggy software. Dunno. -1pg


Ya know, the fact is that they knew from the moment the plane went down on Sunday that the cause was the very same problem that brought down the first Max-8 5 months ago. The FAA spokesperson, in the very brief talk that I linked to above, the first posting of this thread, specifically cited what the problem was/is -- new oversized engines on the Max 8 add unusual weight, so they created and added in new software coding to combat the effects of this extra weight and that overrules the pilot's efforts beyond a certain point. InnnnnSANE!!! to take away the Pilot's means of flying the plane he is there to fly!!!

Again, in the talk that is linked to, which I'll re-add below, she says "Here is what happens with this new Boeing built situation...." and yet, for the past few days I've heard report after report saying "we don't know yet whether there are actually any similarities between these two incidents! .. so we can't be sure whether a grounding of M8's makes sense.." Again, SO crazy, when it was in fact known from the start!
FINALLY, just an hour ago, I heard a little mini interview in which the woman being asked about it 'dares' to say, "Well, it's becoming quite clear now that these two incidents were extremely similar in how they transpired. In fact, this is what we largely suspected all along, since Sunday's event, but we were waiting to be sure.." I call total Bullshit on this, since, again, former Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Mary Chiavo already made it absolutely clear that the two events mirrored one another.

Here is her commenting early on after the incident .. just click on the blue "Listen" directly under the picture of a Max 8 at the top of the page:
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/countries-should-ground...



nl
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Here is a new, very brief but compelling little vid from ABC news
out of the Ethiopian crash site saying exactly what the original post from
this thread said days ago - that the two planes behaved in exactly the same
way at exactly the same point in their flight and are both the result of the
same flaw in the software of the Max 8. Why it took days to see and say this
when the woman on the link provided in the post that began this thread is an
absurd question to have to consider, but it has.
Here is the report, the spooky thing in it is the visual reproduction of both
planes, taken from their separate black box records of exactly what happened
.
It appears that if these planes were NOT grounded the likelihood of another
going down in the exact same way due to the exact same factors before the end
of this year would be 100%. And now the Criminal Fraud Division of the Justice
Dept. is looking into the FAA relative to its cutting corners in the process
of OK'ing this plane in the first place!
Relative to our safety as travelers, thank god for this total grounding of the M-8.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kgG03pVQRg




nl
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The summary at the bottom of this article is the best I've seen, as are the rest of the tweets shown... Pretty much lays it on the poor designed update...

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-17/best-analysis-what...
Print the post Back To Top