President Trump Issues Emergency Order Grounding Boeing 737 Max 8,9, Aircraft…

Following two similar plane crashes in Indonesia (Oct ’18) and Ethiopia (March ’19) President Trump has issued an emergency order grounding a specific Boeing 737 airliner.  The “Max 8” and “Max 9” models are being grounded out of an abundance of caution while U.S. and international authorities await the findings from crash investigation.

.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. is issuing an emergency order Wednesday grounding all Boeing 737 Max 8 and Max 9 aircraft “effective immediately,” in the wake of the crash of an Ethiopian Airliner that killed 157 people, President Donald Trump said.

“All of those planes are grounded, effective immediately,” Trump said during a scheduled briefing on border security.

Trump said any airplane currently in the air will go to its destination and then be grounded. He added all airlines and affected pilots had been notified.

Trump said the safety of the American people is of “paramount concern,” and added that the FAA would soon put out a statement on the action.

Trump said the decision to ground the aircraft “didn’t have to be made, but we thought it was the right decision.”

The president insisted the announcement was coordinated with aviation officials in Canada, U.S. carriers and aircraft manufacturer Boeing.

“Boeing is an incredible company,” Trump said. “They are working very, very hard right now and hopefully they’ll quickly come up with an answer.” (AP Report Link)

Prior to this decision, it appeared that Boeing was concerned about a specific element to flight software – SEE HERE:

BOEING – March 11, 2018 […] For the past several months and in the aftermath of Lion Air Flight 610, Boeing has been developing a flight control software enhancement for the 737 MAX, designed to make an already safe aircraft even safer. This includes updates to the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) flight control law, pilot displays, operation manuals and crew training. The enhanced flight control law incorporates angle of attack (AOA) inputs, limits stabilizer trim commands in response to an erroneous angle of attack reading, and provides a limit to the stabilizer command in order to retain elevator authority.

Boeing has been working closely with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on development, planning and certification of the software enhancement, and it will be deployed across the 737 MAX fleet in the coming weeks. The update also incorporates feedback received from our customers.

The FAA says it anticipates mandating this software enhancement with an Airworthiness Directive (AD) no later than April. We have worked with the FAA in development of this software enhancement.

[…] A pitch augmentation control law (MCAS) was implemented on the 737 MAX to improve aircraft handling characteristics and decrease pitch-up tendency at elevated angles of attack. It was put through flight testing as part of the certification process prior to the airplane entering service. MCAS does not control the airplane in normal flight; it improves the behavior of the airplane in a non-normal part of the operating envelope. (read more)

Current Boeing Press Release:

(LINK)

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Air Travel, Big Government, media bias, President Trump, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

203 Responses to President Trump Issues Emergency Order Grounding Boeing 737 Max 8,9, Aircraft…

  1. MelH says:

    Trust our brilliant President to be atop EVERY serious threat to our safety, and trust our brilliant Sundance to be atop EVERY bit of news even before the MSM gets around to falsifying it. We Treepers are soooo lucky! Blessings to any of you who might have had a Boeing flight canceled.

    Liked by 20 people

    • Mark L. says:

      So is Mitch gonna question this executive order? Why do we really need to have a POTUS at all?

      Liked by 2 people

    • azgulch says:

      This is a computer glitch. Go to youtube blancolirio, a 777 pilot. He explains it well. If input into the computer is faulty, ie a bad angle of attack, then things go wrong, like a crash, with inexperienced crew. This is new with the 737- Max 8 because the engines are larger and moved forward, changing the dynamics of the plane.

      So Boeing added a component to stop stalling in its electronics for this new configuration. Basically adding trust and lowering the trim to reduce stalling. The pilots have not been trained what to do to override this system in bad situations. I’m not a pilot, but I now know how to overide the system now.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Frankie says:

      Remember wihen Clinton refused to ground Boeing 747s when Flight 800 got hit by a missile, errr, had a fuel tank explosion caused by faulty wiring?

      Air Force One was a Boeing 747. If there was a real malfunction, the FAA would have grouded it and all such aircraft and had a fix installed mandatorially. It didn’t happen because it wasn’t a Boeing problem but a missile problem.

      President Trump was right to say some of these aircraft are over-controlled, and hard to fly by overriding the controls. Pilots do better than nerds because they have better reaction times and better solutions under pressure, even if they aren’t as book-learned.

      He is also right to ground these planes unti the problem is resolved. I am an engineer who has worked in aviation ….. honest criticism and oversight keeps aircraft crashes to a minimum. President Trump worries about people, not profits. He is a blessing and a reprieve to this nation.

      Liked by 3 people

  2. Dora says:

    I bet the rinos in congress wouldn’t dare vote against this Emergency Order!

    Liked by 6 people

    • Blind no longer says:

      Yes Dora, yet those same backstabbing GOP are on the airwaves now complaining about too much executive power!!! McConnell, Lee, Paul and others, saying Congress has given too much power to the President, saying we don’t have Kings, yet not a damn one of them went on camera and railed while Obama was King! I won’t forget what they’ve done or said!!!

      Liked by 10 people

      • Bugsdaddy says:

        Which is too funny, because the FAA can issue an Airworthiness Directive essentially doing the exact same thing the President just did……..only the FAA is not a constitutional entity!!! They create what are essentially “laws” (aka regulations), without any kind of Congressional oversight.

        But the twits would never disagree with the bureaucrats who do so……

        Liked by 7 people

        • rrick says:

          I think it is newsworthy why the FAA did not issue an AD yet the president issued an EO. That it is a safety measure is not the issue because if it were only that there would be an AD. Boeing has a lot of pull in the halls of Congress and the FAA execs are very sensitive to that. That is not to be construed as conclusive evidence but that something other than safety is at play here.

          The FAA has grounded a type-specific fleet before; while it is rare it has happened.

          Liked by 1 person

  3. President Trump knows something, WE, Joe Q public do not.. It hasn’t been disclosed..
    He MUST have a very good reason for doing this..
    MeanWhile short Boeing stocks!
    Or buy the Dip!

    Liked by 4 people

    • John says:

      Is he blocking a possible false flag?

      It looks as if Mueller will do his dump on the “Ides of March” (Friday the 15th).
      et tu Rosenstein?

      Liked by 2 people

    • mike says:

      Reading between the lines, FAA needed to do something and wasn’t. The liberal media, and presumably Boeing, tried to dump all the responsibility on the 3rd world airlines. I see this as more Swampy conflicts of interest that Trump had to overcome with decisive executive action.

      Liked by 16 people

      • Bacall says:

        Mike,
        I second your assessment. In the past any time a US located crash, a US airline crashed, or US made airline crashed our NTSB jumped into action to investigate. The head of the NTSB would take to the airwaves and explain the information as it evolved. It was reassuring. No detail was left unexamined. I have been shocked this hasn’t happened with these two crashes. Is the NTSB corrupted and part of the DC swamp? So much money is at stake; just look at all the recent international Boeing contracts and combine that with the downsizing of Airbus plane contracts, and there is are formidable stakes of human life and safety, litigation, and finance. Get an investigator expert on TV to explain what the heck is going on. Thanks, President Trump, for signaling the seriousness of these accidents.

        Liked by 1 person

        • ristvan says:

          See my justbposted below comment. Looks like you nailed it. Swamp behavior that PDJT had to over ride today.

          Like

        • I think you just hit the proverbial head of the nail with this assessment.

          Nothing against Boeing making a dollar, but when you start getting greedy, bad things happen. Just ask the Cohen thing.

          I work with and program Industrial Computer Controlled Machines. Just one small mistake in one line of thousands in the code combined with less than adequately trained operators can, and does on occasion, cause a cascading failure which leads to damaged equipment and sometimes injured operators. And most Managers really don’t want to expend all the time, effort and money to find that one “Check ON” that should have been a “Check OFF”.

          And that is where the “greedy” part starts.

          And as well, my thanks to President Trump for being that one in a million CEO that says “We Ain’t Playing That Game, FIX IT and FIX IT NOW!!”

          Like

      • Big Jake says:

        Any pilot worth his salt knows that if you have an uncommanded trim activation you are to stop it and disable the system. But that’s why I won’t fly on ANY third world carrier even if my life depended on it, and I say that as a guy who flew in Africa for over two years as a Line Training Captain and Check Airman.

        Liked by 1 person

    • The Deplorable Tina says:

      Hopefully it is not a bad chip from China with malicious software on it… Read about those a while ago. Scary stuff!

      from October 2018:

      https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies

      “Nested on the servers’ motherboards, the testers found a tiny microchip, not much bigger than a grain of rice, that wasn’t part of the boards’ original design. Amazon reported the discovery to U.S. authorities, sending a shudder through the intelligence community. Elemental’s servers could be found in Department of Defense data centers, the CIA’s drone operations, and the onboard networks of Navy warships. And Elemental was just one of hundreds of Supermicro customers.

      During the ensuing top-secret probe, which remains open more than three years later, investigators determined that the chips allowed the attackers to create a stealth doorway into any network that included the altered machines. Multiple people familiar with the matter say investigators found that the chips had been inserted at factories run by manufacturing subcontractors in China.”

      Liked by 1 person

      • DaveK says:

        IIRC, that “malicious” chip from China turned out to be a huge bit of fake news. Not that China wouldn’t do that if they figured out how.

        Like

      • tonyE says:

        Aircraft avionic hardware and software are NOT like a PC. PLEASE, read on RTCA/DO-254 and DO-178B and DO-178C before posting such extremely asinine comments.

        Jeez…. everybody is suddenly an expert.

        BTW, I’m an expert, for real.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Old Codger says:

          So, you can guarantee there are NO such motherboards used in aircraft controls coming from China, that have such chips on them??

          Okay, here’s your chance: Where’s the guarantee? and prove it!

          Like

        • glissmeister says:

          tonyE. I certainly recognize your well apparent expertise.

          What do and others in your domain think? What do you make of the eye witnesses on the ground claiming to hear loud groans (structural failure) especially multiple observations of smoke and flames coming from the aircraft as it was crashing?

          Eye witnesses are typically not reliable but smoke and flames are what they are. It’s not likely so many would lie about it. No one’s talking explosion, but it does cause me to wonder about a possible onboard bomb or shoulder-fired missile strike.

          Like

          • tonyE says:

            I don’t know. I have the same information on this as you do. That part of the World has a lot of upheaval and there is some UN action with people on board the plane that were involved on that.

            To me, this whole thing smells of (a) Chinese trade war and (b) a “Facts don’t Matter” society that is based on feelings not facts.

            My take on this, is that the Fake News Media jumped on it and then the Chinese saw an opening to blow it out of proportion. Then everybody else followed. By acting, Trump stopped the bleeding short term.

            My advice, fly an American of Japanese/Korean flag airline. It’s all about training. Plus the Japanese even give you 36 inches of legroom in coach!

            Liked by 1 person

      • rashomon says:

        Why are American military contractors and other private concerns buying components from foreign countries, especially those parts involving computerized functions on planes, ships, subs and weapons? Are these incidents accidents or warnings? What are the “back doors” built in to some of these functions and exactly who controls them?

        Do we really want our cars and trucks driven by AI? Self-driving is a misnomer; somebody or something is driving. Please let it be a friend.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Maxsman says:

      Perhaps this was a nefarious hack of the software….like the hack of our destroyers in the Black Sea that rendered their radar compromised leading to collision…Who might wish ill on us? VSGPDJT made a sound tweet…old fashioned mechanical controls can be trusted in an experienced pilot’s hands….but if the software has been tampered with…how can you fly by wire and trust the inputs/outputs…

      Liked by 1 person

    • McGuffin says:

      Yes CrossThread! I immediately thought the same thing about POTUS knowing what we don’t.

      Like

      • glissmeister says:

        There’s plenty of room for concern about the sinister. Trump is smart to protect Boeing from bad actors who might bring down a third 737Max in the interim. The entire 737 Max product line (reported to be >5,000 standing orders) is at risk. Whether it arises from a conspiracy to short Boeing stock; adverse or perverse foreign interests; criminal syndicates, fanaticism or rogue factions, we can only wait and see what is identified and confirmed. Many witness reported smoke and fire coming from the crashing Ethiopian plane. Software doesn’t cause that. I suspect there is more here than meets the eye.

        Like

        • JOHN PERKINSON says:

          President Trump is smart to realize that many bad actors homegrown and abroad would love nothing better than to see hundreds of Americans killed and have PDJT to blame.

          Thank you for protecting Americans and putting America First, Mr. President.
          Now we got to listen to all the pundits and their panels analyzing the President’s decision.

          Liked by 2 people

    • Pale rider says:

      Boeing up today 42.

      Like

    • Sceptical Sam says:

      How do you spell Huawei mate?

      Tit for tat.

      Like

    • Therese says:

      https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-tweets-airplanes-becoming-far-too-complex-following-ethiopian-airlines-n982146
      In a video I watched “X22” this tweet was mentioned…It made a lot of sense and comfort knowing such a man is at the Head of USA.. (I;m from NZ) /wwg1WGA

      Like

  4. mike says:

    I support Trump, wtf is the problem with FAA ? (O, we know)

    Even if this is 2/3 other problems like 3rd world airlines, maintenance, and pilots, I’m not feeling good about Boeing or FAA performance here. China surely jumped in front to ding US and Boeing, safety not being 1st, 2nd or 3rd in China…

    Liked by 2 people

    • Guyski says:

      Of course they would move fast to ground boeing aircraft.

      China’s aerospace ambitions are not only about national pride – the country wants to move up the manufacturing value chain. In 2015, President Xi Jinping’s Made in China 2025 strategy identified aerospace equipment as one of 10 targeted industries that will propel it from a middle-income economy to an advanced manufacturing power.

      https://apex.aero/2019/01/23/comac-aims-high

      Like

  5. Publius2016 says:

    like our Navy vessels, there may be software hacks and other vulnerabilities…best to take them off line and then reboot…Major Trade and Peace negotiations underway…many enemies and competitors…

    Liked by 1 person

    • sunnyflower5 says:

      Without listening to the blackbox, just a visual of the crash site(s) and satellite, they seem to have some answers.

      Like

    • SmurfetteX says:

      So much for self-driving car technology too!

      Lest we fall prey also to foreign controlled “drivers” who would now push for buying their cyber-tech security software, possibly a Trojan horse back door key. If any country tries to sell you auto-cars by having the CIA Vault 7 crash more regular cars or Navy ships, US army planes, than normal, or tell us that we need to spend more money by upgrading our military systems and planes with foreign tech …be ware! Every dollar spent on military is not an economic investment dollar (say Raytheon or Lockheed MartinI when it gets ex-filtrated.

      Like

    • Blind no longer says:

      The Chinese were the first thought I had. Maybe something in the software if they had any production in it. All those incidents in the South China Sea with our military makes me one suspicious cat!

      Like

    • Bacall says:

      Look, the obvious issue is whether a manual/mechanical override of a software glitch is part of the operation of these passenger planes AND whether pilot training is done.

      The FAA change under Obama to affirmative action hires of air traffic controllers is not comforting to air travelers.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Will says:

    It’s about time. I was telling everyone around here on Monday those planes would be grounded within a day or two. Reading some pilot’s blogs made it obvious to me there is a serious design flaw in the flight control software which pushed the nose down under certain conditions and prevented the pilot from taking any actions to override. Dumb, dumb, dumb. One would also think Boeing engineers might be able to come up with a software rule along the lines of “don’t fly the damn thing straight into the ground”. Anyway kudos to President Trump for ignoring the (likely) pleas from Boeing not to ground them and doing it anyway. Finally a President with balls. Now if we could just get the full declass…

    Liked by 8 people

    • MarkInKansas says:

      Will the Democrats try to block this by filing a lawsuit in the 9th Circuit Court?

      Liked by 6 people

    • mazziflol says:

      Listening to talk radio on Monday I think…A pilot called in and described the issue being with an air speed sensor when climbing or something of the sort. At any rate, the computer would push the nose down and the pilot will have to fight it and pull up. He described it as trying to ride a bucking bronco.

      Liked by 3 people

      • thesavvyinvester says:

        Hmmm pitot error, mechanical or aerodynamic? Multiple sensors like on the nose of the F117A might be a big retrofit

        Like

        • tonyE says:

          Pilot error indeed. Mostly a training fault because Boeing, to satisfy Asian airlines which didn’t want to pay for extra training, did not come clean with the new built in firmware control design.

          After the crash by the Lion Air jet, Boeing issued an airworthiness directive: “How to shut off…”. But the root cause was Lion Air’s poor maintenance. They were told about the faulty sensor but did not replace it.

          Now we get a second crash and everyone is ignoring the root causes of the Lion Air crash and making allegations and accusations. IMHO, China is using this for political issues and Airbus can’t say much because their planes are already fully computer controlled.

          It’s as if the “Facts Don’t Matter” world is now catching up to the Aviation World.

          Liked by 5 people

          • glissmeister says:

            Cui Bono.

            It was the false narrative and its intensity that you describe that really got my antennae up on this 2nd crash.

            Smoke and flames observed. Was the eye witness reporting correct?

            Smoke and flames from the crashing plane would seem to affirmatively contraindicate the software causality theory.

            Like

          • Big Jake says:

            The reason for an uncommanded pitch trim actuation is not the issue since the solution is the same as it has always been: override and then deactivate the system through cutout switches/buttons. It’s like this on virtually every jet out there.

            Liked by 1 person

        • Big Jake says:

          The 737 already has multiple AOA sensors.

          Like

    • Thinker says:

      Not just Boeing, but think about the airlines that had substantial fleets with the Max 8. Seems like I read that Southwest has about 30 of these. Now these planes have to undergo expensive maintenance and are no longer producing revenue. And the airlines will be scrambling to find planes to cover those routes. Not a good situation.

      Like

    • Big Jake says:

      Well, you’re wrong. All transport category jets have cutouts for stab trim runaways. The MAX is no different. If the system misbehaves we disable it. Been that way since the first 737 was built as far as this series is concerned.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Skippy says:

        Big Jake, what about a stripping/disassembling of the jack screw/acme nut assembly on the flap that trims and controls the horizontal stablilzer like happened w Alaskan Air 261(vertical nosedive)? I keep reading the Boeing MCAS (flaps-out lockout designed) was of concern in the Lyon Air crash.

        Sincere prayers and support for all the families of those loss.

        Like

  7. astro31 says:

    When a plane with computer-controlled flying ability and 21 UN workers dives into the ground, one should ask who died, and who has control of the computer.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Blind no longer says:

      Good point!!! It’s not a theory if it’s a conspiracy.

      Like

    • Big Jake says:

      It’s not a fly by wire airplane. No computer can override manual reversion.

      Like

      • astro31 says:

        Are you sure about that? Think the pilot decide to nose dive the plane? 21 UN workers just a coincidence?

        Like

        • Big Jake says:

          Poor training.

          The system can be overridden and disabled.

          Liked by 1 person

          • astro31 says:

            That’s not what pilots have said, and what about the 21? What did they know? The data on the black boxes could not be read by officials in Ethiopia, so they sent it to people in Germany. They said they couldn’t read it either, because it was an all new system, and now it is going to France. Don’t you realize that someone is controlling the data, and what’s is released. A data language nobody seems to understand, but thankfully someone claims they have found an interpreter, the only one in the world.

            Like

  8. Spring Break just got more complicated.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. chojun says:

    As a software engineer, I have to wonder why automated regression testing of flight controls (software/hardware and integrated systems) didn’t catch problems. Or did they..?

    Liked by 5 people

    • TeeJay says:

      I heard that part of the problem also is an unreliable angle-of-attack (stall) sensor. Only ONE sensor? REALLY??? Given the importance of this sensor, there should be TWO!!! And if the inputs from both do not agree, the computer takes no action on the signals coming from them. Problem fixed!

      Liked by 2 people

      • Bob Easton says:

        and it could be that the sensors were working perfectly, but the software made the wrong decision about correcting the problem.

        Yes, ~chojun, regression testing is a good software development process, but how does one do actual real-world testing of a quarter million pound airplane operating at the extremes of it flight envelope? How does one know that the trim tab moved up instead of down?

        Liked by 1 person

        • Big Jake says:

          And if the software makes the wrong decision the pilot is expected to override the trim input and disable the system through cutout buttons/switches. This is standard stuff.

          Like

      • chojun says:

        My understanding is that all of what you said is true. Critical systems (almost) always have redundant backups and if one system begins to generate anomalous readings then the avionics suite will ignore them (this, btw, is what led to the crash of that Air France flight in the ocean outside Brazil – the air speed sensor froze up and the pilots didn’t follow procedure when the autopilot automatically disengaged).

        I think the problem is probably much greater than one system – probably a combination of poor training coupled with a bug or bugs in the system.

        I don’t want to sound like an expert in this area because I am definitely NOT.

        Like

        • Big Jake says:

          Training is a HUGE factor. The F/O only had 200 hours and the Captain, while supposedly experienced, was only 29. That may not sound like much of a deal, but it is, particularly when things like the Pitch/Power/Performance Method are no longer being taught.

          Liked by 1 person

      • JAS says:

        There are two….. The problem is that two is not enough for the computer to make a decision as to which one is malfunctioning. That falls on the flight crew. Ideally there should be three, compare them all and use the two that agree. I believe the competitor Airbus 300 series has three.

        Like

        • Big Jake says:

          And perfectly airworthy Airbuses crash all the time regardless of redundancy.

          Pilots need to remember to be pilots. When things go bad, people cannot be afraid to disconnect the automation and downshift to the basics. The reverse can also be true depending on the situation.

          Liked by 2 people

    • The Devilbat says:

      Boing maybe tried to cut costs and used an Arduino board for the electronics.

      Like

    • tonyE says:

      As a firmware engineer with experience in flight avionics, let me tell you…

      I’m sure they caught it. It was likely designed to operate that way. Trust me, there is no way that such behavior would have flown under the radar because fault insertion is one of the most important parts of the testing. Per DO-178B/C you got to test it, over and over and over and over…. and document it.

      The root cause was that the existence and operation of the control subsystem was not properly described because that would have required direct training by the pilots and Asian airlines did not want to have to pay to recertify their pilots on the MAX.

      And then Lion Air had poor maintenance, which was the real root cause. The sensor had been tagged previously by air crews as faulty.

      My understanding is that there are a couple of simulator exercises where the pilots will indirectly handle such a circumstance.. but they still wouldn’t know why it was happening. This is what the Airworthiness Directive months ago fixed. “If this happens, TURN OFF that switch!!”

      Again, training. Airlines are cheap ass when it comes to pilot training.

      Liked by 6 people

      • Shadrach says:

        That was my understanding about why those planes were grounded in countries where pilots don’t have much flight experience.

        Like

      • Firefly says:

        Design engineers are ambitiously focused on replacing the human pilot instead of augmenting/helping the pilot and letting the technologies evolve as they are proven out. Aerospace industry is in love with AI. However, the aerospace industry won’t invest in basic AI research- just like after and since the challenger accident. So what’s been happening is the software is still only as smart as the programmers who programmed it. When verifying a software -hardware system it is impossible/infeasibe to test every combination. So there are bug in the software everywhere.

        The reluctance to provide pilot override, lessening of pilot training, and pilot complacency of the. Automated system are contributing to the software glitch.

        PTrump is right about the complexity concerns and human pilot overrides. The greed and corruption is so bad that the aerospace industry Is alowing people to fly on a plane that is essentially only been beta tested. Bad enough we have to be beta testers for our cell phones, TVs, and AC systems. The Military and NASA areospace Systems are plagued with this problem too.

        It is disturbing that the U.S. didn’t ground the planes when so many other countries did so. It looks like greed overrides people’s safety. Now we they lost our trust by delaying.

        Liked by 1 person

        • rrick says:

          Firefly, do you have knowledge of the certification process for transport category aircraft? It appears that you do not.

          There are many ‘other nations’ airlines I would not board. It boils down to pilot training. What must be said is that not all pilot training is the same (not just number of flight hours, or, how those hours are gotten, or, training syllabus) and that the U.S. is the singular leader in aviation.

          That the U.S. was ‘slow’ to act is not a factor of greed.

          Liked by 1 person

          • RoninInCA says:

            I don’t have your level of expertise Rick.. But I can give you experience in being around Aircraft most of my life.. I’ve read hundreds of mishap reports.. They almost always follow the same order in a sense.. Engineers blame the pilots, pilots blame maintenance..

            Having also been related to someone who investigated quite a few aircraft accidents over a roughly 15 year period.. One thing he always would say.. Accidents are a chain of events.. So I generally try not to draw conclusions 4 days out or at all. An you are probably correct with conclusion sir.. I do disagree with your assumption that greed does not play role though.. There is always liability with loss of life..

            Like

            • piper567 says:

              Ronin…I like that, “Accidents are a chain of events.”
              now that’s a wise relative you have there.
              thanks for adding this to the mix.

              Like

              • RoninInCA says:

                That guy is my dad Piper.. An you are correct he is wise.. Don’t tell him I said that though.. An that wisdom came from a lot of personal experience.. He has survived a couple of near death aircraft accidents.. One left him pretty badly scared.. At 80 now he still one tough S*B..

                Like

        • tonyE says:

          Oh no, no! NO! YOU ARE SO WRONG.

          Don’t compare avionics with consumer electronics. DO.NOT.

          The FAA requires that all possible firmware paths be tested. The DOD does its own as well and NASA is inherently much more conservative ( can’t really hit that reboot button when the spacecraft is in orbit around Mars, now can we?).

          Think! 100% OF ALL FIRMWARE PATHS MUST BE TESTED. Or you don’t get certification. Indeed there are quite a few tools that will inspect the code and create all kinds of tests that are run automatically. Then you can sit back, look at the report and manually cover the less than 5% then were not covered automatically (usually things like power failures and reboots).

          Also, the FAA, DOD, NASA do not allow Artificial Intelligence in avionics (*). Get that silly notion out of your head. AI is inherently NON DETERMINISTIC. Heck, the FAA doesn’t want you to run multi core firmware either, so that makes stuff like SMP go out the window.

          For fun, go take a look at ARINC 653. You think space partitioning is hard? Try combining that with time partitioning. It really twists your head around in thinking.

          You know, the posts in this forum are downright silly. Too many people who “know” so much and yet so little.

          (*) Well you can do that in a spacecraft but only for things like Navigation and Mission Planning. In an aircraft? Forget about it.

          Liked by 1 person

    • As ALWAYS…trying to “RUSH” testing to get the product out and probably were told “the field engineers will fix it once we send the patch”…!!! Wonder if there was a sub-contractor working on this????

      Liked by 1 person

    • SmurfetteX says:

      I thought the same too. Pretty shoddy if so. I suspect live experimentation going on to test the gadget in the same manner “clinically approved” drugs get launched with terrible side-effects fall out in community. Let Georgia Guidestones replace the 10 commandments.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. MfM says:

    I think it’s the right move, tough to make, but right.

    Like

  11. Harvey Lipschitz says:

    Southwest is an all 737 airline.

    Like

    • Mark McQueen says:

      Not all 737s are grounded.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Texican says:

      Southwest operates 35 MAXs out of a fleet of 750 737s.

      Liked by 1 person

      • GB Bari says:

        Some key pull quotes from an article on Skift:

        So far, Southwest has the largest Max fleet with 34 aircraft, while American has 24. United has just 14.

        American and United have massive fleets, and should be able to continue operating close to their normal schedules even with the groundings. Including regional aircraft, American has more than 1,500 planes, while United has more than 1,300…..

        Southwest likely will have more trouble. It has just 750 aircraft, and its fleet had been stretched already. Southwest, which is locked in a labor dispute with its mechanics, has had far more planes out of service for maintenance than usual in recent months.

        So apparently Southworst will have significantly less than 716 aircraft operational when the Max 8 and 9’s are grounded. That’ll put a squeeze on seat availability.

        Like

  12. Don McAro says:

    I really wish he would Think for a day or 2 before he makes a statement….

    Like

    • Exfiltration of Wealth says:

      I’d say the same about you, Don.

      Liked by 9 people

    • MfM says:

      What did he say that you disagree with? What did he say that the FAA isn’t behind?

      Liked by 2 people

    • Blind no longer says:

      Frankly I couldn’t be happier with President Trumps decision to ground it. I think putting the safety of passengers pilots and personnel first is a great thing!!!! Kinda reminds me of the southern border…. how many people have to die or be injured before you take action???

      Liked by 6 people

      • Texican says:

        I know this won’t be popular here, but this feels like a surrender to media-driven hysteria. One person’s “abundance of caution” is another’s flight cancellation hell. Crash #1 has already been attributed to an error U.S; trained pilots would be highly unlikely to make. I’ll be glad when the Ethiopians finally get around to accessing the flight data and cockpit audio they’ve had possession of for more than 24 hours.

        Liked by 1 person

        • yucki says:

          flight cancellation hell
          …vs. HELL-hell, ETERNITY hell.
          gotta think about that-

          Like

        • mike says:

          Trump sez “Time out until, we get some straight answers” from Boeing and airlines. He could start to unground those airlines with adequate maintenance, upgrades, and training in place, as early next week, if nothing else arises.

          Like

  13. James Carpenter says:

    Guessing problem is software and hardware not playing together reliably and nicely. Flight data recorder will probably have much to say.
    But there is another possibility and I only entertain it because the Max 8 and 9s had many air miles already logged before these very similar crashes. Also, both were flights originating in thirld-world airports (need we consider they have Muslim populations?).
    The remote “hacking” of a Jeep was hot topic some time ago, the vehicle’s software manipulated by signals from a distance.
    Could we also be looking at avionic software vulnerable to attack by remote transmissions?

    Liked by 5 people

  14. ilcon says:

    My first thought after Ethiopian crash: China. Is there Chinese computer software in these jets? Possibilities abound.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Luke of the D says:

    So, I am curious, is this like an automobile recall? Incident occurs, people get killed, investigations, studies, reports, flights grounded until vehicles are fixed. If so, it makes sense. But all this weird “oh Boeing is so evil and American products suck” nonsense I am seeing all over makes no sense. You are more likely to die in an automobile than in a plane, even with faulty equipment. I am not an expert and I am not questioning President Trump’s decision or this reaction, but I want to know the full context of all the anger here. Why do two crashes mean “American products suck” or “this is all President Trumps fault” or the “FAA is messed up.” Two crashes. Two. A couple of hundred people died, terrible, I get that. But more people die in automobile accidents EVERY DAY. Is grounding the airline really worth it?

    Liked by 2 people

    • stats guy says:

      I’m sure the EU decision to ground the planes had nothing to do with this:

      Two months into 2019, Airbus SE has logged cancellations for 103 jetliners and garnered a grand total of four new sales — and those orders were for the A220 plane manufactured in Canada by Bombardier Inc.

      https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-07/airbus-ends-february-with-four-orders-103-cancellations-in-2019

      That’s not to say I disagree with the groundings everywhere, an abundance of caution indeed.

      But the Max line of planes has gotten an enormous amount of good press, and a huge backlog of almost 5000 planes. Boeing is striving to build 1000+ per year. 737 has been around forever and has built 10,478 so far (per wikipedia). Massively popular airplane

      Like

    • GB Bari says:

      Would you put your loved ones on a flight using this model of plane knowing what you know now?

      When the car malfunctions, unless you’re driving like a moron, you can usually pull over and stop, and there you are..

      When a plane malfunctions….there you ain’t.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Maquis says:

        Gravity always wins.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Big Jake says:

        Flown by an American air carrier yes. Flown by an African one no.

        Like

      • Luke of the D says:

        More people die in automobiles every day than die in planes crashes in a year – and many due to faulty equipment. I and my family still drive. The reward outways the risk. But as I said in my initial post, I am not arguing against the decision to ground the planes, I am just trying to figure out why Boeing would not be allowed to simply fix the planes without a major grounding. When an automobile is found faulty, the DOT does not “ground” every automobile and ban them from the roads, they simply demand the automobile manufacturer issue a re-call and fix the problem.

        Like

  16. stats guy says:

    here’s some detail on the MCAS system and why BA didn’t put it in the Operating Manual, dated from Nov.

    https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/what-is-the-boeing-737-max-maneuvering-characteristics-augmentation-system-mcas-jt610/

    According to this guy (a pilot i think) there’s some new info that prompted the grounding

    This software can be manually over ridden and is supposed to activate only in unusual circumstances…so we’ll see.

    Liked by 3 people

    • MfM says:

      Yes he’s a pilot, he’s got some great videos of that dam in California that collapsed last year and the repair. Also some of the fire areas.

      Liked by 2 people

      • John says:

        Juan Brown is a commercial 747 pilot. I believe he regularly flies between San Francisco and China. He is also probably “The Best” nonprofessional reporter around.
        Here is his report on the crash of March 10.

        Liked by 2 people

        • glissmeister says:

          This is absolutely excellent. Ya’ll should give this a careful listen.

          Liked by 1 person

        • rrick says:

          Juan is currently a 777 co-pilot and holds multiple type certificates for transport category aircraft. He has been involved in civilian and military aviation for decades.

          ‘(t)hat dam’ is the Oroville Dam which is the kingpin for the California state water system. The near disaster at the dam was primarily caused by neglect and mismanagement. Juan was already reporting locally but when the dam became news, Juan was primed to jump into action. He is a long time resident of the area, has the technological background to make accurate statements and had already but his teeth in journalism, albeit at a smaller scale.

          Liked by 1 person

          • John says:

            I stand corrected – he is a 777 co-pilot.
            He is still an excellent reporter.
            Dam note:
            Gov. Pat Brown “shortchanged” the construction of Oroville Dam, while Gov. Jerry Brown (and every Cal. Gov. in between) “shortchanged” the Dam’s maintenance. Dam shame!

            Like

    • waltherppk says:

      The only thing that should be necessary to “over ride” any automatic system is control yoke pressure ……just like a cruise control in a car disengages when the brake is even lightly pressed. No pilot should have to fight a damn Hal 9000 computer for control of an aircraft.

      Hal …..Open the pod bay door

      I’m sorry Dave I can’t let you do that.

      Dave ……are you still there Dave ? Dave ????…..

      Liked by 3 people

  17. Concerned Virginian says:

    Ethiopian Air 302: First Officer: Ahmednur Mohammed. Pilot did not report any problems prior to the crash.
    Lion Air 610: Co-Pilot, Indonesian national, ONLY last name of “Harvino” listed. Pilot reported “technical difficulties” just before the crash and requested clearance to return.
    Just putting this information out there. Nothing implied.
    I agree with POTUS in grounding the 737 Max 8 and 9 until many questions are answered.

    Like

  18. MfM says:

    The Canadians did it also here’s their video. They just called it a ‘safety notice’.

    Like

  19. Bob Easton says:

    Ground observers in both crashes describe typical stall and dive behaviors. Knowing only a little bit about aerodynamics, one can see from Boeing’s information that in certain conditions software that kicks in only in conditions beyond normal attitudes (excessive climb rate?) is not reading stall indications correctly. In fact, it might be increasing stall likelihood.

    Like

  20. ilcon says:

    Common sense to me.

    Liked by 4 people

  21. Goedhart says:

    The problem with comparing car fatalities with aircraft fatalities is that 100’s of millions of cars driven by unskilled people travel daily and the number of aircraft is much, much smaller.
    When an aircraft does crash, it attracts attention because of the number of casualties in one accident.
    I read the worldwide accident/incident reports daily as I have an interest not in the numbers but in the causation.
    I think with the newer Boeings and Airbus’, if you could look deep into managements head you would see them yearning for the day when the aircraft will be fully automated and they will no longer have the cost of a flight crew nibbling at their bottom line.
    I’m betting that the cost of that transition is a large number of accidents that will be blamed on a “software anomaly”.
    Surely, when they reach the point of having fully automated flight control but temporarily have a pilot in the cockpit “just in case”, how can the pilot maintain the skills to take over if he spends all his “flying time” watching the aircraft fly itself?

    Liked by 4 people

  22. sundance says:

    Liked by 5 people

  23. bofh says:

    The generally-offered opinion about the Lion Air crash seems to relate to the attitude control system. Witnesses to the Ethiopian crash talk about smoke, flames, and strange noises from the falling aircraft. I don’t see the connection, other than that they were the same relatively new model.

    Like

    • tonyE says:

      Facts don’t matter in this World.

      And the Chinese can easily manipulate this in their trade war. It was the Chinese who first grounded the planes, huh?

      Like

    • keeler says:

      “The aircraft was used on a flight from Ngurah Rai International Airport, Bali to Soekarno-Hatta International Airport, Jakarta the night before the crash. Passengers on that flight recounted that the aircraft had suffered an engine problem and were told not to board it as engineers tried to fix the problem. While the aircraft was en route to Jakarta, it had problems maintaining a constant altitude, with passengers stating that it was like ‘a roller-coaster ride…’

      “Detailed reports regarding the aircraft’s last flight prior to Flight 610 (from Denpasar to Jakarta), revealed that the aircraft had suffered a serious incident. Passengers in the cabin reported ****heavy shaking and a smell of burnt rubber inside the cabin*****.”

      That was Lion Air 620. Heavy shaking. Burning smell. Very similar to how ground reports of Flight 302.

      “The 737 MAX’s Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), implicated for reacting to faulty angle-of-attack readings in the Lion Air accident, came under renewed scrutiny due to the apparent similarity of the Ethiopian Airlines crash.[ On March 12, Boeing announced that it had been working on a flight control software upgrade for the 737 MAX fleet, partly in response to the Lion Air crash, that includes updates to the MCAS flight control law, pilot displays, operation manuals and crew training. The upgrade is to be deployed in “the coming weeks”, and is expected to be made mandatory by April by an FAA airworthiness directive. On March 13, 2019 it emerged that pilots on at least two 2018 flights in the US filed safety concerns after the nose of a 737 MAX tilted down suddenly when they engaged the autopilot. However, MCAS only activates if the autopilot is turned off. Boeing had advised pilots to dis-engage autopilot in nose-down incidents, though MCAS actually initiates nose-down in response to stall incidents.”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#737_MAX_8

      Like

  24. Maquis says:

    “MCAS does not control the airplane in normal flight; it improves the behavior of the airplane in a non-normal part of the operating envelope.”

    No, it attempts to control flight behavior it THINKS are non-normal parts of the operating envelope.

    Climbing immediately upon take-off is normal.
    Sticking the nose down and firewalling the throttles mere hundreds of feet from the ground in response to a “too high” angle of attack is the very definition of a “non-normal” flight condition, but that’s the electronic nanny solution Boeing created.

    Hot-dogging on initial climb-out is not an uncommon behavior, especially, I suspect, in cultures that thrive on displays of bravado, generally not First-Worlders, so certain cultures are more at risk from an over-aggressive flying aid. cough…Third World…cough

    These kinds of systems essentially permit the piloting of aircraft by crews that have no business in a cockpit, I’m looking at you, again, Third-World.

    These kinds of systems make the maintenance and inspection of associated sensors which ultimately determine the fate of the aircraft all that more critical, yet, these are the very things unqualified incurious maintenance personnel suck at. Again, looking at you, Third-World.

    I think at base we need to consider if these systems are truly created to enhance flight safety, or to allow the sale of airliners to marginally competent cultures.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. ristvan says:

    My father was a senior AF command pilot, and I flew with him in Aeroclub WW2 T-6 trainers after he retired while he flew acrobatics. So was curious about this and did some digging today.

    The MCAS was put in the 737 Max because its larger more efficient new engines only fit the low slung aircraft by moving them slightly forward and higher on the engine pylon (while making the nose wheel strut 8” longer). This engine reposition caused the plane to tend to pitch up during banked turns (higher Gs) at slower airspeeds once flaps are retracted (all three coditions are very likely after takeoff and before cruising altitude—a commonality in both crashes). That could lead to stall.
    MCAS was intended to be a fully automatic gentle ‘patch’ to this unforeseen bad tendancy that pilots would not notice, so Boeing didn’t put it in the manual. Was added during flight testing for Part 25 certification; not a part of the original design or flight control scheme. The ‘patch’ was based only on the single nose pitch sensor that may have been defectively replaced on the Lion Air plane (requires a full recalibration after maintenance or replacement).

    After Lion crash, Southwest got very concerned and in November its senior pilots got a full Boeing briefing. MCAS cannot be overridden by the control yoke. Cannot be overriden by the electric stabilizer control knob on the yoke. Can only be overridden by physically turning the backup manual stabilizer control wheel behind and between the pilots at the aft end of the control console (Treeps can google pictures and pilot info). That such a manual backup is even needed shows how important the stabilizer (which is the aircraft pitch control) is.

    I can imagine experienced but less well trained Lion Air and Ethiopia Air pilots struggling with the yoke, struggling with the electric stabilizer control knob, failing to override until the MCAS ‘thinks’ things are ok and deactivates, pilots starting to climb back—then rinse and repeat while the plane porposes into the ground. If this is correct, bad for Boeing and another brilliant call by PDJT, overriding an FAA than cannot admit they goofed a ‘patched’ Part 25 certification any more than DoJ and FBI can admit to an ‘insurance policy’.

    Liked by 12 people

    • Blind no longer says:

      Thank you once again ristvan!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Maquis says:

      Thanks Ristvan, excellent synopsis as usual.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Big Jake says:

      ^^^^^^ Incorrect information.

      This bulletin directs flight crews to existing procedures to address this condition. In the event of erroneous AOA data, the pitch trim system can trim the stabilizer nose down in increments lasting up to 10 seconds. The nose down stabilizer trim movement can be stopped and reversed with the use of the electric stabilizer trim switches but may restart 5 seconds after the electric stabilizer trim switches are released. Repetitive cycles of uncommanded nose down stabilizer continue to occur unless the stabilizer trim system is deactivated through use of both STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches in accordance with the existing procedures in the Runaway Stabilizer NNC. It is possible for the stabilizer to reach the nose down limit unless the system inputs are counteracted completely by pilot trim inputs and both STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches are moved to CUTOUT.

      Additionally, pilots are reminded that an erroneous AOA can cause some or all of the following indications and effects:

      – Continuous or intermittent stick shaker on the affected side only.
      – Minimum speed bar (red and black) on the affected side only.
      – Increasing nose down control forces.
      – Inability to engage autopilot.
      – Automatic disengagement of autopilot.
      – IAS DISAGREE alert.
      – ALT DISAGREE alert.
      – AOA DISAGREE alert (if the AOA indicator option is installed)
      – FEEL DIFF PRESS light.

      In the event an uncommanded nose down stabilizer trim is experienced on the 737 – 8 / – 9, in conjunction with one or more of the above indications or effects, do the Runaway Stabilizer NNC ensuring that the STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches are set to CUTOUT and stay in the CUTOUT position for the remainder of the flight.

      Like

      • Big Jake says:

        Testing. Finally decided to just create an account.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Skippy says:

          I posted this far above to you & am taking license to repost it so you see it. Admin please delete if you object! I understand redundancy is not desirable:

          Big Jake, what about a stripping/disassembling of the jack screw/acme nut assembly on the flap that trims and controls the horizontal stablilzer like happened w Alaskan Air 261(vertical nosedive)? I keep reading the Boeing MCAS (flaps-out lockout designed) was of concern in the Lyon Air crash.

          Sincere prayers and support for all the families of those loss.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Big Jake says:

            The jack screw issue on Alaska’s MD-80 was due to faulty maintenance. The thing was basically stripped out and being held together by metal shavings. I do not think that would be an issue on an airplane as new as this 737 MAX was.

            Does that answer your question?

            Like

      • ristvan says:

        BJ, I assume you are a commercial airline pilot (you inferred such). I also assume you fly/flew 737s. I am not and have not.

        But my reference was to specifically to what Boeing reportedly told Southwest Airlines about the 737 Max 8/9 (only) MCAS. That is readily findable on line because of concerned SW pilots.

        Now, there are three,possibilities concerning our credibility gap:
        1. The Southwest pilots have misstated what Boeing said to them in November. Unlikely, since Boeing itself has said elsewhere there is only a manual override and nothing was in the 737 Max pilot manual.
        2. I mistated what the Southwes pilots said Boeing said. Unlikely, since I always archive and hand note before composing a post.
        3. You mistated, most likely concerning which 737 aircraft version. This patch is only for the new Max version, which we know from Lion and from Boeing admission had NONE of the information you cite in its pilots manual. ZERO, per Boeing.

        Like

        • Big Jake says:

          I am a Captain, but not on 737s. My dad is, however. I can’t go into any more detail for privacy reasons.

          It is SOP in every 737 (or any other jet, for that matter) to disable a runaway trim system through cutout buttons or other similar means. In the Embraer for example we use the quick disconnect first then disable both affected systems through cutouts. The 737 MAX is similar except that the trim system will override the MCAS. It is up to the crew to disable the system when an uncommanded pitch trim event occurs. This has been so since the airplane was first built and remains so to this day.

          Like

          • ristvan says:

            I completely agree with you, Captain. Except the regretable facts say the only way to do do this on an 737 Max 8/9 is via engaging the backup manual override. Which they evidently did not do. Assuming the crews did not have a death wish, then Boeing condemned them to it by disinformation. Sorry, just is the facts as currently known.

            BTW, am no stranger to Boeing airplanes. Over 4 million miles on American, 2 on United, and just under 1 on NW— all accumulated despite flying ‘ big corporate air’ on several French Dessault ‘3s’ corporate and a corporate G4 for half a decade.
            Am so as ‘unfortunate’ result a lifetime AA Platinum. See you at the boarding gate…

            Like

            • Big Jake says:

              I hate riding in the back so I feel your pain.

              The reality is that the AFM specifically addresses uncommanded pitch trim actuation. Any pilot worth his salt KNOWS that you disable the system if it does something you do not want.

              The 737-7/-8/-9 AFM mentions it and the Airworthiness Directive emphasizes that the procedure contained within it is correct.

              While this system may indeed have bugs there is no reason for a properly trained crew to mess this up. You trim against the unwanted command. If it returns you disable the system through cutouts on the pedestal.

              Like

      • RoninInCA says:

        As a commercial pilot Jake.. Is this something based on your experience that you want to deal with? 2 accidents in a 5 month period same aircraft/model.. The aircraft has been certified for service or in service for less than 2 years I believe.. I agree US pilots are superior..

        Like

        • Big Jake says:

          I am not in the least bit concerned about flying this airplane on a US Carrier or even a European one. Having spent more than two years in Africa as a Training Captain, however, I can tell you unequivocally that I would not set foot aboard an African airliner of any kind. Period.

          Liked by 2 people

          • RoninInCA says:

            I get you.. An like you I grew around aviation.. Mainly test pilots and fighter pilots.. Although one brother flew KC-135s for about 20 years.. Just seems odd 2 crashes in 5 months.. An I get pilots in Africa aren’t as talented.. Maybe they didn’t get the Nov 2018 update you posted up thread.. Just a thought.. An like you I trust aviation in general.. Sounds like these pilots in both accidents went jungle in the cockpit.. As my dad would say.. But it’s to early to now IMO.. Thanks for your input.. An don’t be to hard on ristvan he’s a very sharp guy and we all enjoy his comments..

            Liked by 1 person

            • Big Jake says:

              I’m only as hard on him as he is trying to be on me.

              I get very annoyed by people commenting on aviation-related topics without an understanding of the subject.

              We have NO IDEA what the cause was. At the end of the day, an uncommanded pitch trim activation is always treated the same way: OVERRIDE the system and then DEACTIVATE it. Trim runaways can happen with any airplane, not just because of an MCAS. We train on this stuff in the simulator every six months. Those pilots didn’t need an AD to inform them of that. It’s a basic thing any jet pilot should know before they get signed off on their Type Rating or SIC Check Ride.

              As for Africa… We had a saying over there, “TIA” (“This Is Africa”) which was a catch-all for the almost unending nonsense and stupidity encountered on a daily basis. I had a blast over there and made a lot of wonderful friends, but good grief… The stories I could tell.

              Liked by 1 person

              • BJ,
                Regarding flights in Africa–here is one of mine. We were in Kenya in the early nineties, flying between various locations via private plane as the road system was close to non-existent. One flight originated in Nairobi to private strip in Masai Mara area. We had grown accustomed to the hot dog maneuvers when the pilots buzzed the runway in advance of landing–so that the wild animals would leave the runway.
                But, we weren’t prepared for the pilot, who had a brown paper bag from which he took frequent and long drinks…and he had the requisite prosbiscus of an alcoholic. It was a bit of a nail biter.
                LOL this was an extra flight required because our luxury hotel in Lake Nakuru had given our U.S. passports to a bunch of Brits–and we had their passports. Luckily we had close contacts at the U.S. embassy, so they worked with UK embassy to track down these tourists’ location.Total cl*str and when we found the Brits, they were blasé–had never even looked at the passports when they rec’d them–so did not even know they had ours!
                Oh, and the hotel had limited telephone capabilities along with the rest of the entire district, when President Moi confiscated the equipment for his personal villa in the area.

                Corruption, thy name is Africa (at least in my experience).

                Like

    • Dekester says:

      If you are ever up this way ( Vancouver B.C.) we are three PDJT supporting Canadians that would love to treat you to a first class dinner and drinks. We don’t need to be at the restaurant so as to leave you in peace.

      Cheers, and God bless PDJT

      Like

    • piper567 says:

      ristvan,thank a million for this input

      Like

      • Big Jake says:

        Too bad most of it is dead wrong.

        Like

        • piper567 says:

          Big Jake, I for one have come to rely on ristvan’s take on several issues.
          He has given me little reason to think he is not thoughtful and informed ab the matters he addresses here on CTH.
          Your expertise has no such credence at this point.
          Maybe work a bit to establish your authority in the eyes of others.

          Like

          • rrick says:

            Allow me to explain. Most aviators have grown quite annoyed of the myriad people who express all manner of opinion after every accident. Much of those opinions is gotten from a passing familiarity with the aviation industry, most is gotten from online searches. And most are uninformed.

            Even the TV news trots out their aviation ‘experts’. Pilots everywhere groan because gross ignorance is bandied about as fact while an unknowing public takes it as gospel. Then the newspapers run article sourced primarily from…their own ‘experts’, or more likely, they simply repeat one another to the point that one is the source of the other.

            Picture the industry in which you work becomes a subject of such concern. People who are ignorant of your profession will think the reports must have some credibility. Meanwhile, you groan, appalled at the stream of misinformation. Then, of course, everyone and his brother, knowing that you work in that industry, beseeches you with the crap they have heard or read. Imagine this happens every time some event happens, or is merely dramatically drummed up by the media. It seems that whatever you had said after a past event is now forgotten and you are tasked by others to repeat it all at least for the sake of accuracy.

            Unlike most professions, commercial aviation excites the attention of people. It is because aviation itself is exciting. Everyone will have an opinion and many will vociferously argue in support of their opinion even if that opinion only half correct or entirely bereft of facts. An accident in aviation brings opinions out of the woodwork. Every time.

            It is very tiresome and because it is so repetitious it becomes quite offensive. It is more than a personal annoyance, it effects the very industry. A market can suffer because of misinformation.

            With respect to Ristvan, in the general sense I respect his various comments, I wish he would comment more often simply because of the learned insight he offers. It is needed to have his voice here. However, where it comes to commercial aviation, please let the industry insiders – the engineers and the required flight crew – do the talking, and directed only to one.

            Liked by 2 people

            • rrick says:

              Correction: “…and that is not directed only to one.”

              Liked by 1 person

            • Big Jake says:

              Well said.

              Like

            • RoninInCA says:

              I agree with your comment with a slight caveat.. I truly enjoy this site for many reasons.. My primary reason is the depth of knowledge that lurks behind many of the comments I’ve read on this forum… We all bring our life’s experience to the table.. So I generally defer from making definitive statements here.. Because there are varying opinions and facts that stimulate open discussion.. Both you and Jake have unique experiences that add value to this thread topic.. It is much appreciated..

              Aviation like you said intranses many people for many reasons.. An if you read ristvan’s comment you can understand why he might venture into this subject.. An as jake has pointed out he may not have all the up to date facts.. I guess what I’m trying say is the knowledge both of you bring can enlighten people to the reality of your unique professions.. Thanks to both of you again for your input..

              Like

          • Big Jake says:

            I do not have to prove my credibility over a person posting false information.

            I’ve posted enough in this thread to prove my bona fides. You can take it or leave it. (I’ve been on here for years as it is, myself—which is utterly irrelevant.)

            Like

  26. I’ve “heard” Scarebus pilots can’t fly but they can type 120 words per minute.

    I hope Boeing will never get to that point…

    Like

  27. Boeing stock actually ticked upward today.

    Like

    • Firefly says:

      The people who know the aerospace industry is more profitable when it screws up. They will get money to look into this and fix it.

      Like

  28. JAS says:

    The reason that this software, called MCAS for Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, was installed on these new aircraft is a bit complex and also has to do with how the airplane was originally designed. This is the software that everyone is eyeing. In certain situations it will take over “ptich” trim of the aircraft, and quite aggressively. Trim control is a necessary function on ALL aircraft.

    The 737 was designed in the 1960’s. It has been constantly upgraded and modified but some of the basics remain, that because to change those would mean pretty much tossing it and building a whole new aircraft.

    One in particular leads to the MCAS fix – the main landing gear. The main gear on the 737 is very short when compared to modern aircraft. This was done with good reason to allow baggage handlers to reach the compartments from the ground, thus allowing the 737 to reach more of the regional markets that might have lacked belts for loading.

    The problem is that with the short legs, the engines needed to make the 737 MAX more powerful and super efficient would not fit under the wings, as in most other aircraft. Short legs, no room for the engines. So, Boeing moved the engines forward of the wing to make them fit.

    This brought in another set of problems. All jet aircraft with engines under the wings have a particular issue. The engines are always trying to loop up and around the top of the wings. It’s simple physics. Airplanes designed with long legs can keep the engines as far back below the wing as possible. That’s built into the design and works perfectly. Pilots nevertheless will notice a pitching up of the nose when applying power, and will trim for that.

    In the MAX series, with the engines in front of the wing the pitch up of the nose becomes more severe, especially under full power with an already high pitch angle. Not a normal flying envelope but it can happen. That’s where MCAS comes in. It’s supposed to control that. The problem is that apparently it is doing it when it shouldn’t and not enough information and training was given to the pilots on how to handle that.

    Finally, Southwest, with one of the largest 737 fleets, decided to spend and extra $60,000 or so per MAX to install optional Angle of attack indicators, one for each pilot, being one for each angle of attack sensor (two sensors). Smart.

    MCAS info graphic:

    Liked by 3 people

  29. I believe this sort of thing is what has everyone concerned. Fear that life may, in all probability, be imitating the art of the possible. Certainly it is something that can’t be ruled out.

    Trailer for the second season of the BBC/PBS series “The Tunnel: Sabotage” (2017) https://youtu.be/hXqaGgoZia8

    Like

  30. Mandy says:

    Complete mess, the whole situation….

    Like

  31. Mandy says:

    Couple of links I came across as I read around the ‘net on this topic…

    “Ali Bahrami
    Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety

    Long-time aviation executive Ali Bahrami became the FAA’s Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety on July 10, 2017. Previously, he was Vice President for Civil Aviation at Aerospace Industries Association, a Washington, D.C.-based trade association that represents the nation’s leading aerospace and defense manufacturers and suppliers.

    As Associate Administrator, Bahrami leads the organization responsible for setting safety standards and overseeing all parts of the aviation industry — airlines, manufacturers, repair stations, pilots, mechanics, air traffic controllers, flight attendants, and any person or product that operates in aviation. These programs have a direct impact on every facet of domestic and international civil aviation safety.”

    more at the link:

    https://www.faa.gov/about/key_officials/bahrami_avs/

    When I saw the name, I did a quick check at Forebears (a site I use all the time for genealogy research)

    https://forebears.io/surnames/bahrami

    Approximately 156,920 people bear this surname

    Most prevalent in: Iran
    Highest density in: Iran

    Liked by 1 person

  32. George True says:

    I think this grounding might be premature. The Lion Air crash was caused by the MCAS flight control software and the pilots not having received training on it. With the Ethiopian Air crash, multiple eyewitnesses on the ground describe the aircraft trailing smoke and airplane parts, and making a rattling sound. These two occurrences do not seem to be the same problem at all.

    In any case, I am reminded of the ‘joke’ about the cockpit of the future. It will contain a pilot, a computer, and a Rottweiler. The computer will fly the plane. The Rottweiler is there to bite the pilot if he attempts to touch the controls. And the pilot? He is there to feed the Rottweiler.

    Liked by 2 people

    • covfefe999 says:

      That first article is really interesting. (I haven’t yet read the other two.) Seems like this aircraft handles differently than others and Boeing tried to compensate for that. Maybe they weren’t entirely successful or pilots felt the need to defeat the compensation?

      Like

  33. Fool Gold says:

    Not enough info hear for me to speculate. I do know Electronic AOA probes are fairly new in aviation industry but haven’t heard of a failed probe causing a crash yet. However, I’ve been out of Aviation industry since 2013 and quit keeping up pretty much from that point. Also, all I ever dealt with was military fighter aircraft such as f16, 22 and 35. The new electronic probes eliminated ground test involving humans and test equipment such as TTU-205. The electronic probes were. Apable of performing their on self test whenever Built In Test (BIT) was initiated by the pilot or ground test personal.

    Like

  34. uptothere says:

    Software engineers have been creating packages for all sorts of AI applications that make things easier for end users. In the process, they are actually making it more dangerous. Think driverless cars for example.

    Like

    • Fools Gold says:

      You do realize our nuclear missiles (and pretty much every missle out there) drives itself after launch, and have since inception prior to Apollo missions…

      Like

  35. covfefe999 says:

    I would have waited for more info but I love my President so much I don’t mind that he did this. 🙂

    Like

  36. covfefe999 says:

    Lion Air crash was the first Max 8 crash. Check out this list of Lion Air crashes, does it seem excessive? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_Air#Incidents_and_accidents This is a low cost airline out of Indonesia, they probably don’t have the most experienced pilots. The second crash airline is out of Ethiopia and it’s government owned. Uh, I don’t think Ethopia is doing very well as a country, is it? If the Max 8 is a finicky aircraft that’s not good, used by a sub-par airline would be worse.

    Like

  37. I am scratching my head on this.
    Boeing = A private company.
    Being’s customers = Mostly private Airline companies.
    Question – Why President of the United States has to give an executive order to ground all flights of a particular model because of two accidents?
    Meaning – why is executive branch overreaching in private business affairs? Did not see executive order when Ford Explorers were exploding their tires or when there were runaway cars on the roads or dangerous airbags affecting millions of people.
    I am reserving my judgment on this. Does anybody knows how much of Chinese materials, including electronics, AKA parts from Mexico, Canada, EU, etc. is in use in these planes?
    I trust Sundance will be having his spidey sense tingling on this.

    Like

  38. Johnny Dollar says:

    I am familiar with an airplane accident where the elevator actuator became physically disconnected from the elevator.

    When that happened, the pilot could no longer control the up down movement of the aircraft and the aircraft began to porpoise in the air. The pilot attempted to control the up down motion of the airplane by varying engine speed and managed to keep the airplane in the air for a while. But with each successive porpoising, the airplane went lower and lower until it crashed.

    What they later discovered was the actuator bolts which held the actuator attached to the elevator cabling were improperly installed. Because of the heavy vibration in the back end of the airplane, the bolts slowly unthreaded themselves, eventually falling off. And the elevators were just flapping in the wind.

    Notice, if the elevators are physically disconnected, an airplane will crash. No matter how much back up electronics you have, the airplane will hit the ground.

    IMO, the fault may eventually be found in what the maintenance people did to that actuator.

    Like

  39. Texian says:

    Software cover story..
    Software patch band-aid..

    It’s in the engines..

    https://money.cnn.com/2017/05/10/news/companies/boeing-halts-737-max-flying-engine-issue/index.html

    Like

  40. sat0422 says:

    OK, So flying has been a terrible mess since Friday, March 9 and from what I hear, with the weather, labor disputes and now this grounding, one has to wonder if this is a preview of the dream AOC is supporting? I fly again on Saturday with my grandson and I am fearful of running into delays and required stays overnight at a hotel. My little one will go bananas if that happens.

    Reality check is that this across the board Spring Break is creating more traffic than the airports can handle.
    Family after family trying to reach Denver was epidemic with delays and cancelled flights.
    Time to rethink “Spring Break dates and determine if taking a flying vacation is necessary.
    At least during the Christmas Holidays, travel is spread out over about three weeks.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s