Australia has temporarily banned the 737 MAX.
China, which is in a trade dispute with the U.S., was quick to ground the plane. Indonesia, which argues that Boeing rather than Lion Air is primarily at fault for the October occurrence, did so as well. Others have followed.
In the case of Australia, the ‘abundance of caution’ approach is largely a low cost stance to take.
- Neither Qantas nor Air New Zealand has ordered any 737 MAX aircraft.
- Virgin Australia placed an order but hasn’t taken delivery.
- Air Niugini placed orders for some but hasn’t taken delivery either.
Singapore Airlines subsidiary SilkAir operates Boeing 737 MAXs, but Singapore already grounded the jet so Australia’s move is simply redundant.
As a result this affects only Fiji Airways which operates Boeing 737 MAX 8s on Australia routes. It’s heavily on the schedule in the coming week though set to fly Nadi – Brisbane just twice a week (and not on their Sydney or Melbourne routes) at the start of April. The action taken by the Australian government, then, largely means a reshuffling of which aircraft fly which routes.
Aeromexico has grounded its 737 MAX aircraft. Groundings have occurred in Argentina and Brazil. In the US Senators Diane Feinstein and Richard Blumenthal, clearly aviation experts themselves, have called for the grounding of the plane.
These are the “Stab trim cutout switches” that Media is referring to everywhere.
They form part of the “Runaway stabilizer” memory items that will stop most unwanted movements of the stabilizer, including the mentioned MCAS system.All of us B737 pilots practice using them. pic.twitter.com/P1mc8KIWog
— Mentour Pilot (@MenTourPilot) March 11, 2019
In the Lion Air crash concerns were raised about the 737 MAX’s Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) system pushing the plane’s nose down. We don’t know why the Lion Air pilots could not or did not combat this. However every 737 MAX pilot knows about the issue at this point, and knows how to override it. It should be a very simple thing to do.
At this point we do not know whether the MCAS system was the issue with the Ethiopian Airlines flight. If it was, we do not know if the pilots tried to disable it. We do not know if the two crashes were related in any way, and if there’s any implication whatsoever for other MAX aircraft.
The Airbus A320 had early issues that raised questions about the program. The 787 had battery concerns and was grounded by the FAA in 2013, at which point United was the only US operator of the aircraft. The DC-10 had been grounded as well. Historically regulators have, if anything, been overly conservative. Where the plane has been grounded by government authorities it’s on the basis on limited information from news reports.
Sound move. These things are lethal WMDs. And real ones unlike the faked ones from SH.
I guess more countries/airlines are going to follow until Boeing comes clear.
Not surprisingly FAA sees no reason to take action. Making its independence questionable.
Just politics as usual. And Diane Feinstein is an expert of nothing except how get fill her pockets with cash at tax payers expense.
Are you a pilot?
Gary,
Not sure what your angle has been on these posts. Boeing has already said it would release a “software updates” for the planes in April. This suggests that there is something they would like to address or fix. If a regulator or airline wants to ground the planes until this software update is installed and understood, it makes sense to me.
Here’s a pilot’s take on the issue, Gary:
Friends have been asking whether they should fly the B737 MAX. With about 350 delivered so far and all during the last two years, the plane is developing a worse safety record (per year, if not per flight hour) than the four/five-seat Cirrus SR22. My advice: take the Airbus, if one is available. The Airbus fly-by-wire computer-in-the-middle philosophy is to protect the aircraft and passengers from pilots who aren’t at their best, for whatever reason. (Example: Captain Sully had the yoke full back during his famous approach into the Hudson River; a B737 would have stalled and spun given that control input, but the Airbus software kept everyone safe.)
https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2019/03/11/conventional-to-have-a-200-hour-copilot-on-a-boeing/
Add UK, Malaysia, Korea. So it’s no longer axe-to-grind malcontents but now rather significant aviation markets.
@Gary, politics has no place in your commentary. One could, conversely, say the FAA decision to “not” ground the 737 MAX is politically motivated, also.
The Points Guy has a graphic on one of his recent posts that illustrates the Ethiopian flight, it was porpoising while attempting to climb. Prior to seeing the graphic I, too, had pooh-poohed the suggestion of a problem with the MCAS or the aircraft itself. But the graphic clearly indicated the likelihood of an issue with the aircraft.
You know, if you don’t like other civil aviation authorities to take measures, maybe you should ask Boeing not to sell the planes that carry their citizens.
@KimmieA – I am not at all ‘poo pooing’ the suggestion of an MCAS issue. But there’s too much we don’t know to have any sense if it’s replicable, as I note in the post.
I’m not arguing that the decisions to ground the MAX are politically motivated. Although the FAA may face pressure to support Boeing, regulators usually have a bias towards being too conservative and have been at the FAA in the past. I’m arguing that in the case of Australia it’s a low cost decision to take. And that for China and Indonesia there’s a background against which the decision is being made which, even if there’s genuine concern, it’s a decision that’s consonant with other interests.
Add me to the “don’t get the angle” of Gary’s posts on this topic. When it comes to these types of decisions, there is always, always, always a political element at play.
@Paolo – Australia isn’t an axe to grind. I never said it was. Read the post.
@Anthony – value in a software update does not imply a need for grounding until the update is rolled out. there are required fixes to aircraft all the time where airlines are given a specified time to complete, not ‘prior to next flight’. that’s standard procedure.
Gary – how about a “perspective” post. How many safe MAX flights have there been since it was launched?
Legitimate safety concerns or not, some people are not comfortable flying the plane. Airlines are not issuing waivers. A government grounding solves the issue.
Gary just stop. You clearly dont know what you are talking about and your constant injection of politics into this is absurd. Something is up with these planes and grounding them is appropriate with over a hundred lives at risk each time one flies. The UK just banned this plane from its airspace. It would not suprise me if the EU and US follow suit.
@Bill — and the US might follow suit, regulatory agencies are inherently conservative and may act in the absence of evidence
@Gary
And what’s your definition of evidence? So far, we have two planes of the same model crash during the same phase of flight within six months of each other. That’s evidence in my book. Proof? That’s a different word, but there is *evidence* of a potential safety concern. The fact that these are new planes with a boat load in the assembly line just compounds the potential problem.
One reason we may not have enough evidence to suit your tastes is because aviation on the whole is pretty darned safe, and we simply have a lack of fatal crashes from which to draw too many conclusions. Pretty much any crash can be written off as a “one off” if one so desires.
@Gary
I gotta ask, with a minimal amount of snark:
When it comes to “privatizing” ATC, you’re a proponent. And your only “evidence” is that “other countries do it”. You trot out some stats and figured that fit your agenda, but the reality is that European and Canadian airspace and airports are structured very differently — you can’t prove that the privatization is a causal factor. What if the simplicity just makes privatization doable, in ways it’s not in the US?
Yet, on this subject, “other countries doing it” is low risk/politically motivated/something that can be considered a safety reason.
Why the difference in opinion?
Maybe it is just me but I didn’t see the overtly political slant in the article everyone seems to be up in arms about (minus the ‘senator’ snark which I took as…snark).
If a guy got into two DUI crashes in six months, would you think that he had a bit of a problem? Even if during those six months he had hundreds of other trips without incident? I think the answer is “yes”. Our hypothetical guy should not drive until the matter is investigated further.
Likewise, the argument about the many safe flight the Max made during the last six months is completely meaningless in the face of two similar fatal crashes. I’m not saying that the Max is a bad or a dangerous plane. Only that it should not be up in the air until a thorough investigation is completed.
The childhood engine issues on the A380 and battery issues on the 787 were not the same. They were dangerous and expensive to fix, but both planes had enough redundancy and safety mechanism to bring the planes back to the runway in one piece. Even so, both models were grounded until investigated and fixed. It is amazing that some countries still allow the Max to fly after the two fatal crashes.
More amazing than the FAA is the attitude of the airlines. My wife is scheduled to fly from LAX to OGG on a major US airline. I called to change the flight to an earlier one (same day) which is operated by a 757. The agent’s response: “No. Your wife’s flight is on the 737-Max-9, the plane which crashed are the 737-Max-8”. Perhaps that agent should leave the airline and go work for the NTSB. Obviously, she already got it all figured out!
The lack of FAA airworthiness directives notwithstanding, all airlines should park their MAXes and take their older planes out of dry storage until we totally understand the issue with the Max, and until we have that issue resolved. After all, the airlines have more beef in this game than the FAA. And we, the passengers who willingly climb into a Max, have even more beef in there. Literally.
Boeing should focus on salvaging the brand, not the product. The Lion Air black box was recovered about two months ago. What is its status? That particular plane had the same symptoms for one to three flights before its final flight. A critical part was replaced.
Boeing needs to work with those inputs and recreate the problem. If one or two instruments can confuse the software, the planes that use that software get grounded.
After Boeing figures out what happened and why, kill the Max line. All of them. Listen to the skeptics that told you the 737 Max was over designed, figure out why they were right, and figure out to avoid this problem on your other models.
No one can protect you from the attorneys and jury’s that will drain your entire company if there is a 3rd incident. And someone from Boeing will face criminal prosecution if incriminating evidence is discovered.