|
China Ground 737MAX
SHANGHAI (Reuters) - China's aviation regulator has ordered domestic airlines to suspend their Boeing 737 Max aircraft, Chinese media outlet Caijing reported on Monday, following a deadly crash on Sunday of a 737 MAX 8 operated by Ethiopian Airlines.
Citing industry sources familiar with the matter, Caijing said domestic airlines, which operate some 60 such airplanes, had received orders from the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) and halted their use on Sunday. A Boeing spokesman declined to comment. The CAAC could not be immediately reached for comment. An Ethiopian Airlines 737 Max 8 bound for Nairobi crashed minutes after take-off on Sunday, killing all 157 people on board. This is the second crash of the 737 MAX, the latest version of Boeing’s workhorse narrowbody jet that first entered service in 2017. In October, a 737 MAX flown by Indonesian budget carrier Lion Air flying from Jakarta on a domestic flight crashed 13 minutes after take-off, killing all 189 passengers and crew on board. The cause of that crash is still being investigated. A preliminary report issued in November, before the cockpit voice recorder was recovered, focused on airline maintenance and training and the response of a Boeing anti-stall system to a recently replaced sensor but did not give a reason for the crash. Caijing, a state-run news outlet that covers finance and economics, said many flights scheduled to use 737 Max planes would instead use the 737-800 models. China Business News also reported on its website the 737 Max suspension, saying the regulators' order had been issued orally. According to flight tracking website FlightRadar24 there were no Boeing 737 Max 8 planes flying over China as of 0043 GMT on Monday. Most of Air China's 737 MAX fleet of 15 jets landed on Sunday evening, with the exception of two that landed on Monday morning from international destinations, according to FlightRadar24. It did not list any upcoming scheduled flights for the planes. China Eastern’s four 737 MAX jets landed on Sunday evening and no further flights were scheduled until Tuesday, FlightRadar24 data showed. Cayman Airways has grounded both of its new 737 MAX 8 jets until more information was received, the Cayman Islands airline said in a statement on its website. Fiji Airways said it had followed a comprehensive induction process for its new Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft and it had full confidence in the airworthiness of its fleet. "We continue to ensure that our maintenance and training programme for pilots and engineers meets the highest safety standards," the airline said. |
Never thought for a second that the Chinese would be the first to do this. |
And why not? Anything to embarrass the US. They are in a trade war with the US, and in a virtual cold war over the South China Sea.
|
Originally Posted by gulliBell
(Post 10413158)
And why not? Anything to embarrass the US. They are in a trade war with the US, and in a virtual cold war over the South China Sea.
|
Originally Posted by gulliBell
(Post 10413158)
And why not? Anything to embarrass the US. They are in a trade war with the US, and in a virtual cold war over the South China Sea.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/internat...thiopian-crash It is the second time in six months that the aircraft model has been involved in a horrific crash shortly after takeoff. Ethiopian Airlines and Cayman Airways announced both airlines were suspending the use of the Boeing 737 MAX-8 until further notice |
Originally Posted by gulliBell
(Post 10413158)
And why not? Anything to embarrass the US. They are in a trade war with the US, and in a virtual cold war over the South China Sea.
|
Cayman Airlines have also suspended MAX operations |
The next thing to with Boeing to go down rapidly is going to be their share price today.
|
Just hope no Made in China stickers are found on aftermarket parts. That would be serious egg on their faces.
|
trade war
Originally Posted by gulliBell
(Post 10413158)
And why not? Anything to embarrass the US. They are in a trade war with the US, and in a virtual cold war over the South China Sea.
|
Originally Posted by gulliBell
(Post 10413158)
And why not? Anything to embarrass the US. They are in a trade war with the US, and in a virtual cold war over the South China Sea.
|
Originally Posted by gulliBell
(Post 10413158)
And why not? Anything to embarrass the US. They are in a trade war with the US, and in a virtual cold war over the South China Sea.
You can see this happen all the time. Terrorist attack in Paris? Tourism absolutely plummets for six months. Turkish Airlines has an incident? Get ready for major discounts because the loads evaporate. The reaction is much more massive than in the US, which has to do with the Chinese internet being nearly 100% social media. Massive recalls had to be launched by companies from all over the planet because that's how finicky Chinese consumers are. Go ask Volkswagen. This has nothing to do with the US. Not everything is about you. |
Originally Posted by krautland
(Post 10413362)
This has nothing to do with the US. Not everything is about you.
|
This is Absolutely justified. I too am a little surprised that China is the first country to do this, but politics aside, this is a brand new "state of the art" 737 that's had 2 crashes in the same phase of flight literally months apart. Both brand new aircraft fresh off the production line. All new aircaft go through teething problems but this problem has cost 340 lives.
While we don't know the cause at the present time, it is extremely concerning. I mean, as a pilot how would you honestly feel walking down the aerobridge getting on one of these things? No thanks. |
I see the US has responded 'unsure what information China is acting on' regarding the grounding of the MAX ? Err maybe the two similar crashes in 5 months of a new model is enough for airlines to be cautious until the problem is no more.
|
Newish only
Originally Posted by MajorLemond
(Post 10413401)
This is Absolutely justified. I too am a little surprised that China is the first country to do this, but politics aside, this is a brand new "state of the art" 737 that's had 2 crashes in the same phase of flight literally months apart. Both brand new aircraft fresh off the production line. All new aircaft go through teething problems but this problem has cost 340 lives.
While we don't know the cause at the present time, it is extremely concerning. I mean, as a pilot how would you honestly feel walking down the aerobridge getting on one of these things? No thanks. |
Originally Posted by MajorLemond
(Post 10413401)
This is Absolutely justified. I too am a little surprised that China is the first country to do this, but politics aside, this is a brand new "state of the art" 737 that's had 2 crashes in the same phase of flight literally months apart. Both brand new aircraft fresh off the production line. All new aircaft go through teething problems but this problem has cost 340 lives.
While we don't know the cause at the present time, it is extremely concerning. I mean, as a pilot how would you honestly feel walking down the aerobridge getting on one of these things? No thanks. Ground and make sure it's not mcas related first. If it's something completely unrelated, lift the ban if it seems appropriate. In the mean time, everybody is gambling with people's lives. |
Originally Posted by MajorLemond
(Post 10413401)
This is Absolutely justified. I too am a little surprised that China is the first country to do this, but politics aside, this is a brand new "state of the art" 737 that's had 2 crashes in the same phase of flight literally months apart. Both brand new aircraft fresh off the production line. All new aircaft go through teething problems but this problem has cost 340 lives.
Were the shoe on the other foot Boeing and the US would be crowing about Airbus failures. The Comet and Concorde were written of with a lot less fatalities. |
Originally Posted by Mike Flynn
(Post 10413424)
Sorry to disagree with you but this is a very old design that has been modified many times to the point where it no longer resembles the original but relies on its grandfather certification. Were the shoe on the other foot Boeing and the US would be crowing about Airbus failures. The Comet and Concorde were written of with a lot less fatalities. |
The talk about China embarresing Boeing, then the same could be said about US Airforce that has halted all deliveries of the Boeing tanker, due to tools and scrap found on delivered aircraft. Seems like Boeing needs to get their house in order. |
Originally Posted by derjodel
(Post 10413413)
It's puzzling that EASA and FAA have not grounded it as well. And to those saying "we must first know the reason to justify grounding", I deeply disagree. E.g. the reason for Comet crashes was not understood as well (square windows and resultant forces at the edges). Should they just kept them flying and crashing saying "well it's a perfctly flying airplane, there should not be reason for them to just fall apart mid-air"? :=
Ground and make sure it's not mcas related first. If it's something completely unrelated, lift the ban if it seems appropriate. In the mean time, everybody is gambling with people's lives. |
I am surprised that other regulators haven’t acted more quickly. This is supposed to be a safety first industry and the responsibity should now be on Boeing to prove their aircraft is safe. Not for the investigators to prove it isn’t. On the face of intial reports, these seem eerily similar events. If this is MCAS related then; If I understand the MCAS logic correctly, it relies on only one set of AoA instrumentation and does not fail safely? If a system critical to the continued safe operation of the aircraft does not fail safe, then IMO, it is unsafe and should not have been certified. That is very black and white, I am not a pilot, just an interested bystander. But, people are losing their lives over what appears a poorly designed system. Blaming pilots for not following the manual is a cyncial get out of jail free card. Address the root cause which by all accounts to date is a flawed MCAS implementation. If an MCAS issue happens at altitude, it affords flight crew time to react. When altitude is limited as has been the case in Lion and Ethiopian cases, it could be that there just isn’t enough time to diagnose and save the day. Remember the US Airways into the Hudson, investigators were about to blame the flight crew for not returning to an airfield. They even had sim sessions to prove the aircraft could have made Teterboro. What those sim sessions did not account for was thinking time, the extra 30 seconds delay added befoe the sim pilots were allowed to head for Teterboro was enough to cause them to be unable to make it. It’s all well and good having a procedure to disable MCAS but MCAS would need to be identied as the issue before switching it off. At low altitudes, how much time does that give the crew before they are doomed? I’ve read elsewhere that SWA have installed additional AoA instrumentation on their MAX’s to help pilots in a situation where MCAS decides a nose first dive is an appropriate course of action. That seems enough evidence to me to conclude that SWA see the threat worthy of at least some additional protection to help their pilots in a scenario where MCAS decides an aircraft is in danger of stalling, when infact it isn’t. |
I am not a pilot, just an interested bystander If you perform the memory items as prescribed by Boeing the aircraft will fly trim misbehaviour or not. They are not complicated 10 degree pitch and 80%n1, if while doing that the trim keeps getting away from you and you cannot maintain 10 degrees pitch just override the trim by the disconnecting the switches. Maybe there is a training issue. Why did 4 crews manage to fly their way out of the lion air failure yet the fifth one couldn´t. Maybe years and years of accountants telling anyone that would listen that modern aircraft will fly themselves are coming home to roost. Maybe a 200 cadet should not be doing his training with 150 pax behind them. Maybe Ethiopian´s rostering system is a fatigue inducing disaster. I wonder if China would ground the Comac c919 after two crashes with a fleet of 300 flying. I very much doubt it somehow. |
It seems Indonesia has grounded them as well:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...thiopian-crash |
Originally Posted by calypso
(Post 10413521)
says it all really. Yet you are surprised regulators, that know infinitely more on the subject matter than you, have not acted more quickly.
|
If a system critical to the continued safe operation of the aircraft does not fail safe, then IMO, it is unsafe and should not have been certified |
Originally Posted by calypso
(Post 10413581)
But is not critical is it? there is certified procedure that enables the flight to continue safely if it is followed as proven by the flights previous to the crash in the lion air case. In the current accident we do not yet know what was the cause therefore blaming MCAS is jumping to conclusions.
I’m not jumping to conclusions. If you read my post it is very clear in stating that ‘if’ MCAS is the issue. It’s remains to be determined if that is the case but so far, these seem very similar incidents. My follow up questions were related to the McAS system and whether those questions were relevant to a potential fleet grounding. I’ve now seen your edit of the original post. If other crews have flown out of this, it doesn’t really help. Can you implement that memory item you mention on climb out from ADD where high terrain is a consideration? Or, is that just going to fly you into another world of pain? My point is simple and it is not based on this Ethiopian crash. MCAS is a botched implementation of a system which has a single point of failure. That the crew can switch it of is irrelevant. It is there for a reason and just switching it off removes a protection that one can only assume was required to ensure the aircraft was certifiable. Otherwise why would Boeing spend the $$$’s developing it? Eg. Lets say my car had a flaw where it decided I was driving over a centre line into oncoming traffic therefore it was designed to steer me away from a ‘hazard’. The car gets it wrong and it steers me into a ditch. I don’t just sit around and wait for it to happen again and override it. I bring it back to the manufacturer and tell them to fix the dangerous behavior of the system. In the meantime they can provide me with a safe alternative. Why is it any different here? Boeing have in effect admitted previously, by their emergency directives, that MCAS is flawed. A ’fix’ has yet to be released by all accounts. EDIT: FDR’s have now been recovered. It shouldn’t take long now to have some initial hypothesis around the potential cause. |
Is it really the case that the A of A information fed to the stall protection system, which can cause full nose down stab trim, which cannot be overcome by elevator input, has only ONE source of data? Many years ago, in the RAF, the Canberra had a number of tpi runaways, with fat al results, caused by malfunction if the single trim switch. This was cured by adding another switch in series, problem solved. Similarly we had an issue with stab trim runaways in the Valiant, and were trained to deal with the known problem, which could be overcome by elevator input. But if Boeing are not giving crews the very last detail of the flight control system, they need to seriously review that decision. With 20 years as a Boeing captain (73, 75 and 76) I have always held, and hold, Boeings in the highest regard, BUT, not giving pilots the full story about the most inportant system on the airplane seems a very strange decision indeed. |
Originally Posted by RetiredBA/BY
(Post 10413633)
Is it really the case that the A of A information fed to the stall protection system, which can cause full nose down stab trim, which cannot be overcome by elevator input, has only ONE source of data? Many years ago, in the RAF, the Canberra had a number of tpi runaways, with fat al results, caused by malfunction if the single trim switch. This was cured by adding another switch in series, problem solved. Similarly we had an issue with stab trim runaways in the Valiant, and were trained to deal with the known problem, which could be overcome by elevator input. But if Boeing are not giving crews the very last detail of the flight control system, they need to seriously review that decision. With 20 years as a Boeing captain (73, 75 and 76) I have always held, and hold, Boeings in the highest regard, BUT, not giving pilots the full story about the most inportant system on the airplane seems a very strange decision indeed. up much of what I have read. In essence each side of the aircraft operates independently from the other. The AoA is not cross checked with the other side. So, eg. if the Captain is flying and their AoA fails, MCAS can command nose down without cross checking with the other functioning AoA sensor. One broken AoA can lead to an incorrect action and intervention by MCAS. That’s how I read it at the time of JT610. Unfortunately I can’t find the exact article right now. |
Originally Posted by EGAC is Better
(Post 10413514)
Remember the US Airways into the Hudson, investigators were about to blame the flight crew for not returning to an airfield. They even had sim sessions to prove the aircraft could have made Teterboro.. |
Originally Posted by calypso
(Post 10413521)
says it all really. Yet you are surprised regulators, that know infinitely more on the subject matter than you, have not acted more quickly.
Why did 4 crews manage to fly their way out of the lion air failure yet the fifth one couldn´t. |
Originally Posted by Daysleeper
(Post 10413703)
That was a film... it’s about as real as most Hollywood films where the USA captures the enigma machine, sinks the Bismarck or blows up the sodding guns of Navarone. of artistic licence, the fact there was a belief in the investigation team that the aircraft could have returned to LGA or made TEB, rather than ditch in the Hudson. If my memory serves, the pilots union representing the crew raised the issue with regard to thinking time required to make a decision. After that, low and behold the sims are re-run and they vindicated (in the circumstances) the crews decisions that the only safe place to go was the Hudson. Anyway, that’s off topic. I only used it as example to demostrate the humans need thinking time. Time that in some scenario’s will make a critical situation a fatal one. |
|
Interesting, while the regulators are sleeping, the market is moving. My bet is there are cancellations going on behind the scenes. Perhaps even pilots refusing to fly? Also the companies who decided to stop Max operations are creating pressure to the ones who have not. I predict that even if the regulators don't ground it, the dominos will continue rolling and we'll se more and more suspensions until almost all operators suspend flights, at least until the fdr/cvr are read.
|
Memory items are put in place when there is a requirement to perform a procedure in a prompt manner to return the aircraft to a safe state without sufficient time to refer to a paper procedure. Modern airliners have on average 8 or 9 such procedures which include such things as emergency descents, unreliable airspeed, engine failures, etc. The failure of a crew to perform such a procedure when required unsurprisingly might have fatal consequences but does not render that aircraft type un-airworthy. Unreliable airspeed in particular requires the sort of hand to eye coordination and instrument scan that seldom gets practiced by some pilots and that is actively discouraged by some airlines.
While I am not saying that is the cause for this accident unreliable airspeed is not the sort of failure one would like if inexperienced or rusty on your hand flying. Of course if the failure did not happen in the first place there would be no accident but we, as pilots, should be able to survive an unreliable airspeed incident even if coupled with an undesirable runaway stabiliser. Grounding the fleet does not address the core issue which goes beyond one aircraft type or one manufacturer. |
Originally Posted by EGAC is Better
(Post 10413733)
No. I think you’ll find it portrayed, maybe with a bit of artistic licence, the fact there was a belief in the investigation team that the aircraft could have returned to LGA or made TEB, rather than ditch in the Hudson. If my memory serves, the pilots union representing the crew raised the issue with regard to thinking time required to make a decision. After that, low and behold the sims are re-run and they vindicated (in the circumstances) the crews decisions that the only safe place to go was the Hudson. Anyway, that’s off topic. I only used it as example to demostrate the humans need thinking time. Time that in some scenario’s will make a critical situation a fatal one. |
Originally Posted by EGAC is Better
(Post 10413733)
the fact there was a belief in the investigation team that the aircraft could have returned to LGA or made TEB, rather than ditch in the Hudson. If my memory serves, the pilots union representing the crew raised the issue with regard to thinking time required to make a decision. After that, low and behold the sims are re-run and they vindicated (in the circumstances) the crews decisions that the only safe place to go was the Hudson. Even if it would have been an option, it would have carried a lot of risk. Remember that there are people on the ground as well; failing to make the runway would also have caused harm below. That by itself should be sufficient reason to not have decided to go back, and ditch instead. I'm sure the NTSB would have evaluated the risks in the same manner and not have blamed the crew. The real NTSB that is, not the Hollywood version. |
Royal Air Maroc just stop it too...
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:48. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.