Ethiopian has just confirmed the Captain had 8000 total hours but the FO only had 200 total hours. That’s one inexperienced FO.

Also for the same scenario as the LionAir crash then the plane would have to take off with 0 flap which then becomes a pilot error and not an aircraft issue as the 737 MAX is not certified for that.

Pavlakakos wrote:

MrBren wrote:

Time to ground all 737MAX, too many casualties.

Grounding entire fleets are not viable options. There are companies which have an all-737 fleet. Would you shut them down?

Nobody has an all 737MAX fleet.

Pavlakakos wrote:

Grounding entire fleets are not viable options. There are companies which have an all-737 fleet. Would you shut them down?

Nobody is talking about grounding all 737s, only the 350 or so 737MAXs. There are also no 737MAX exclusive airlines, all 737MAX operators already have 737NGs or A320CEOs. Like with the 787 grounding, there are ACMI charter companies with A320s and 737 Classic/NGs that can easily cover for the grounded aircraft.

The 787 grounding had far more impact on the airlines than a 737MAX grounding will. That was a plane that airlines could ill afford to lose. The DC-10 grounding was even worse.

anshabhi wrote:

Was it carrying a UN delegation or something? .... I guess 8/9 Ethiopians would be crew only

4 UN passports holders were from Slovakia and were going to some kind of conference. 3 of them are close family of well known politician ( it is big news over here ).

VSMUT wrote:

Pavlakakos wrote:

Grounding entire fleets are not viable options. There are companies which have an all-737 fleet. Would you shut them down?

Nobody is talking about grounding all 737s, only the 350 or so 737MAXs. There are also no 737MAX exclusive airlines, all 737MAX operators already have 737NGs or A320CEOs. Like with the 787 grounding, there are ACMI charter companies with A320s and 737 Classic/NGs that can easily cover for the grounded aircraft.

The 787 grounding had far more impact on the airlines than a 737MAX grounding will. That was a plane that airlines could ill afford to lose. The DC-10 grounding was even worse.

IF a grounding is warranted it should be done period. However there is not enough evidence to support the grounding AT THIS TIME.

Pavlakakos wrote:

Grounding entire fleets are not viable options.

The 787 was grounded a few years ago.

Pavlakakos wrote:

There are companies which have an all-737 fleet. Would you shut them down?

Grounding the 737MAX =/= Grounding the 737NG/Classic/Jurassic. There's lots of 737NGs in storage and the scrapyard. P

Pavlakakos wrote:

What is needed with urgency is the that investigation proceeds at record paces. AFAIK the final report on Lion 610 has not yet been released.

The final report won't be released for 2-3 years. Ifthe Lionair crash was MCAS caused and this Ethiopian crash was also, how long are you going to take before taking proactive action? Do you wait until someone is convicted of double homicide before you arrest them (inorder to protect the public)? Like crash investigations, trials can take years. If there is a serious safety issue with the MAX and you wait another two or three years before the final reports of Lionair and Ethiopian, how many more 737MAX aircraft will have been delivered since then and now have to be grounded? How many more passengers lives will have been put at risk?

As I said above, I'm not in the "ground the 737MAX immediately" camp by any means, but people's aversion to the aircraft being grounded, whatever the circumstances, it is a little worrisome. As said above, even if you don't think that grounding is appropriate in this situation, the discussion about doing so or not is absolutely relevant. I would think that all 737MAX operators would start to make contingency plans incase the aircraft does get grounded for a while.

anshabhi wrote:

ADD has 3.7km long runways. I don't see why would they need flaps for takeoff here

Even if ADD was at sealevel (it isn't and in fact is a long way above sea level where the air is much thinner), a 737-8 is going to need flaps for departure.

anshabhi wrote:

ADD has 3.7km long runways. I don't see why would they need flaps for takeoff here

Adding to other posts above - every time I've taken off on a 737 from Addis flaps were always deployed.

Two crashes could be a coincidence, we should know soon assuming the recorders are readable - they are not under the sea this time.

Three would look more like a trend - let's hope we don't get to that point.

Just to clarify, so this aircraft was flying in clear conditions at night? Is that correct?
I’m just trying to figure out what the pilots may have been dealing with visually speaking if they had any outside visual references.

zkojq wrote:

Even if ADD was at sealevel (it isn't and in fact is a long way above sea level where the air is much thinner), a 737-8 is going to need flaps for departure.

Well not to get in the air. I am pretty sure a Max could rotate and get out with no flaps. That doesn't mean it ever should. But physically with enough speed the aircraft will generate enough lift to get off the ground.

I do note some pretty rapidly acceleration in the fr data.

18 Canadians, 8 Americans, 7 UK, 8 Chinese on board.

trnswrld wrote:

Just to clarify, so this aircraft was flying in clear conditions at night? Is that correct?
I’m just trying to figure out what the pilots may have been dealing with visually speaking if they had any outside visual references.

It was an ~8am morning flight in simple weather.

ArtV wrote:

Scarebus34 wrote:

Yes, there is a procedure to recover from an MCAS fault, however, on departure the margin for error is so slim. Not a lot of room to recover.

(With that said, not making any conclusions as to this accident)

That is the exact issue that is being ignored - at that stage of the flight, flaps would have been extended and MCAS would not have been active - unless there was pilot error and flaps retracted too early.

At 6 minutes in to the flight, the flaps would have normally already been retracted.

Not another one... Rest In Peace to all that passed in this crash. My condolences to their families.

trnswrld wrote:

Just to clarify, so this aircraft was flying in clear conditions at night? Is that correct?
I’m just trying to figure out what the pilots may have been dealing with visually speaking if they had any outside visual references.

It was 8:40 AM not dark really

barney captain wrote:

ArtV wrote:

Scarebus34 wrote:

Yes, there is a procedure to recover from an MCAS fault, however, on departure the margin for error is so slim. Not a lot of room to recover.

(With that said, not making any conclusions as to this accident)

That is the exact issue that is being ignored - at that stage of the flight, flaps would have been extended and MCAS would not have been active - unless there was pilot error and flaps retracted too early.

At 6 minutes in to the flight, the flaps would have normally already been retracted.

Issues started below like 1000ft. Flaps should have been extended then. Mcas should not have been active.

GRJGeorge wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I'm not on the grounding bandwagon, but then again I'm in France, not that many 737Max flying here, and I don't have a flight scheduled on one, nor anyone I know.

Are people here scheduled to fly soon on one and if so what are your thoughts ?

Yes...in fact on ET...on Thursday 14th March this week.
Actually feeling very eerie about this now...have flown to Kenya (MBA) on Wednesday night with ET on JNB-ADD, specifically chosen the night flight to experience first Max flight...on ET-AVK, guess then the one delivered after the crashed one. Also boarded the morning for ADD-MBA right next to that morning's ET302 flight.
So guess will have to see if my return flight remains Max.
Must say, when departing JNB we were going out reasonably low for a while, but i figured it had to do with possibly being heavily loaded (having seen the stuff checked in while queue) and almost full out of a high altitude airport on a long(ish) flight for narrowbody. Also a strange vibrating sound at first, which i've never experienced on NG before.

Me too! I have my first Max flight this Thursday on ET (didn’t choose for the plane type...).

I currently have absolutely Zero concerns (my only worry now is the possibility of the flight being cancelled due to the obvious fleet management issues). Also flying to Addis tonight an an A350, zero worries.

TBH, it is probably safer now than it was yesterday as every horrible incident generates learnings and (above all) increased attention to details.

RIP those on board, regrettably it was probably 6 minutes of terror.

osiris30 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Pavlakakos wrote:

Grounding entire fleets are not viable options. There are companies which have an all-737 fleet. Would you shut them down?

Nobody is talking about grounding all 737s, only the 350 or so 737MAXs. There are also no 737MAX exclusive airlines, all 737MAX operators already have 737NGs or A320CEOs. Like with the 787 grounding, there are ACMI charter companies with A320s and 737 Classic/NGs that can easily cover for the grounded aircraft.

The 787 grounding had far more impact on the airlines than a 737MAX grounding will. That was a plane that airlines could ill afford to lose. The DC-10 grounding was even worse.

IF a grounding is warranted it should be done period. However there is not enough evidence to support the grounding AT THIS TIME.

I am if the mindset that you don’t wait for the answer to ground. When something appears extremely wrong with the aircraft, grounding may be appropriate BECAUSE we don’t know what is killing people. Almost 400 dead for a brand new plane. That is a horrific record and grounding is the right question.

anshabhi wrote:

trnswrld wrote:

Just to clarify, so this aircraft was flying in clear conditions at night? Is that correct?
I’m just trying to figure out what the pilots may have been dealing with visually speaking if they had any outside visual references.

It was 8:40 AM not dark really

Keep in mind that Ethiopia is near the equator as well, takeoff was more than 2 hours after sunrise.

zkojq wrote:

PW100 wrote:

MD80Ttail wrote:

Again just ground Ethiopian and Lion Air. Looking at crash percentages that’s a better argument than grounding the Max. (Sarcasm). But that’s essentially the argument pro grounding folks are making. Why don’t they make the argument to ground the airlines..

Perhaps because the common denominator of these crashes, is not the airline, not the crash area (Asia, Africa), but rather the [exact] airplane type . . . ?

Right, but mentioning that is politically incorrect it seems. Whilst I'm not one calling for the MAX to be grounded, I do take issue with all the people insisting that it is not an option.

Indonesian aviation is definitely a bit dodgy.

Ethiopian however has an excellent reputation and is well known for their quality of maintenance - their adherence to western quality standards is a significant reason they've grown to be as large as they are as they've been able to establish trust that was previously lacking in African aviation.

On a brand new plane, with Ethiopian, I think maintenance issues would be the least-likely cause. Pilot error, or technical malfunction (or both) seem to be more likely.

osiris30 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Pavlakakos wrote:

Grounding entire fleets are not viable options. There are companies which have an all-737 fleet. Would you shut them down?

Nobody is talking about grounding all 737s, only the 350 or so 737MAXs. There are also no 737MAX exclusive airlines, all 737MAX operators already have 737NGs or A320CEOs. Like with the 787 grounding, there are ACMI charter companies with A320s and 737 Classic/NGs that can easily cover for the grounded aircraft.

The 787 grounding had far more impact on the airlines than a 737MAX grounding will. That was a plane that airlines could ill afford to lose. The DC-10 grounding was even worse.

IF a grounding is warranted it should be done period. However there is not enough evidence to support the grounding AT THIS TIME.

Groundings are usually done as result of lack of evidence. See the DH Comet crashes. It was only after the fleet had been grounded that they found the cause of the crashes.

seahawk wrote:

The data we have is to conflicting to draw any conclusion from it.

We know the plane did not climb out as it should, but we also see a very high energy impact scene. That together with the speed increase indicates that the engines should have been delivering thrust as normal. At the moment everything is possible, from pilot error to technical problems or sabotage or even crew committed suicide.

One set of Twitter pics of the “Crash Scene” includes the tail section of a Jabiru light plane that crashed in South Africa last year, so use caution. Lots of ID’s tweeting lots of stuff.

D L X wrote:

osiris30 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Nobody is talking about grounding all 737s, only the 350 or so 737MAXs. There are also no 737MAX exclusive airlines, all 737MAX operators already have 737NGs or A320CEOs. Like with the 787 grounding, there are ACMI charter companies with A320s and 737 Classic/NGs that can easily cover for the grounded aircraft.

The 787 grounding had far more impact on the airlines than a 737MAX grounding will. That was a plane that airlines could ill afford to lose. The DC-10 grounding was even worse.

IF a grounding is warranted it should be done period. However there is not enough evidence to support the grounding AT THIS TIME.

I am if the mindset that you don’t wait for the answer to ground. When something appears extremely wrong with the aircraft, grounding may be appropriate BECAUSE we don’t know what is killing people. Almost 400 dead for a brand new plane. That is a horrific record and grounding is the right question.

You know nothing of this crash though. There is not enough data yet to ground anything. Using your logic if we lose two 320s in a week do we ground the fleet? I say no. You wait to ensure there isn't more to it.

Again:. The lion air plane should probably not have even been flying based on previous issues. A bit more rigorous MX and we would be talking about on Max crashing. And what of it turns out this was pilot error. Then we are talking about none. Even setting aside MX issues with Lion, procedures properly followed should have prevented that crash.

You do not ground a type over human errors. We have multiple possible human error causes for lion and no possible causes for this crash yet.

AirlineCritic wrote:

FWIW, I'm bothered by the ground-the-max-without-knowing-what-happened crowd. But I have to say I'm also bothered by the rather defensive and repeated posts from the other side. It *is* clear that losing two brand new aircraft within months is a remarkable deviation from the safety record we've been used to.

And some of the arguments from the defence side make very little sense. Not picking on you Cubsrule but pointing out an issue:

Cubsrule wrote:

AA, UA, and WN (and most other operators) would not have been flying the JT airplane in the condition it was in.

It is possibly true that other airlines might have done a better maintenance job. Depending on what actually was wrong... but, no matter what, the argument above makes very little sense. Obviously aircraft and sensors and sensor-reading computers and wiring can _also_ break while in the air. So clearly, AA, UA and WN could easily get a non-working AoA sensor system on one of their flights. It is what one does *after* this happens that determines whether the flight continues safely. Piloting technique, having the training to do the right thing, the plane itself being able to deal with single failures, etc.

Can you guys on both sides just stop? The arguments either way are very silly.

Maintenance isn’t the issue with JT. Stuff breaks. That’s fine. MELing broken stuff is fine if done sensibly. What’s not fine is the same problem recurring without additional investigation.

VSMUT wrote:

osiris30 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Nobody is talking about grounding all 737s, only the 350 or so 737MAXs. There are also no 737MAX exclusive airlines, all 737MAX operators already have 737NGs or A320CEOs. Like with the 787 grounding, there are ACMI charter companies with A320s and 737 Classic/NGs that can easily cover for the grounded aircraft.

The 787 grounding had far more impact on the airlines than a 737MAX grounding will. That was a plane that airlines could ill afford to lose. The DC-10 grounding was even worse.

IF a grounding is warranted it should be done period. However there is not enough evidence to support the grounding AT THIS TIME.

Groundings are usually done as result of lack of evidence. See the DH Comet crashes. It was only after the fleet had been grounded that they found the cause of the crashes.

STOP referencing the comet. The failure rate of those aircraft was MUCH higher than the max. The max is probably flying 1000 sectors a day if not more right now. The comet likely flew 1000 sectors total with all the crashes.

Edit for autocorrect error

george77300 wrote:

Ethiopian has just confirmed the Captain had 8000 total hours but the FO only had 200 total hours. That’s one inexperienced FO.

Maybe they meant the FO had 200 hours on type, or 2000 total hours... You need 200 hours for a commercial pilots license, so if he had 200 TT that means he went from Cessna's straight to a 737. Not likely.

Putting the thrust levers forward on the runway for a take off will trigger the “take off configuration” alarm. Thats a very loud alarm. Almost 0%chance they would ingnore that and continue with the take off without flaps. Its an almost deafening alarm sound. The chance they forgot to selecy flaps AND at the same time that alarm was defect is almost below 0% chance.

Slovakian MP Anton Hrnko, the vice-chairman of the Slovak National Party, has posted on Facebook to say his wife and two children were among the four Slovakians killed in the crash

Oh my goodness

Let's see this situation from a different perspective. Obviously, involved commercial entities will try to do dammage control as good as possible. And there will be a lot of meetings behind closed doors on C-Level. One question that will for sure come on the table, more than once; "are we ready to take the chance to risk a 3rd incident with the same aircraft? Is the outcome measurable?". That discussion will happen at Boeing, at the NTSB (spelled well?) and for sure at some airlines.

I'm sorry for this objectiveness, what happend to the people on this airplane saddens very much. I just hope that the economic terms in risk management will make the companies do the right decision which will please everyone.

downdata wrote:

Imagine if this was the MC21 or C919 in their 2nd year of service, everyone on this board would be calling for their grounding and shut down of assembly lines...

Absolutely true. And of course there were the issues with SSJ which were the cause for grounding too.

Redd wrote:

george77300 wrote:

Ethiopian has just confirmed the Captain had 8000 total hours but the FO only had 200 total hours. That’s one inexperienced FO.

Maybe they meant the FO had 200 hours on type, or 2000 total hours... You need 200 hours for a commercial pilots license, so if he had 200 TT that means he went from Cessna's straight to a 737. Not likely.

New pilots from flight schools that start at airlines as ab-initios, aka pilots straight from the flight school, is not uncommen. So flight school hours + 0 commercial hours is how many pilots start their careers. They start their line training at an airline on a B737 for example for their first FO position. It could also be on a EMB170/190 or FOKKER70/10 or A320 or whatever. You have to start somewehere.

Finn350 wrote:

There are 350 Boeing 737 MAX delivered as of January 31, 2019. Even if this crash is MCAS related, grounding the fleet will be a difficult decision for the FAA. There is a procedure how to recover the aircraft from the MCAS fault, not to mention the huge inconvenience the grounding would cause to the travelling public.

Less than a third of those 350 deliveries are to North American Airlines, which makes the FAA’s decision easier based on impact to its traveling public.

Those quick to call for a grounding should review the accident history of the A320 during the first years after it was introduced. Case in point, the second crash (Air Inter 148) occurred 667 days after the types' EIS while today is day 663 since the MAX entered service. Granted, the first accident was certainly more avoidable than others (although valuable lessons were learned) but still, two new types crashed twice within the first two years of airline ops (although more than half a century ago and therefore probably not valid for comparison, DH 106 had three fatal crashes within 618 days with a fourth on day 706). The other members of the 737 and 320 family were much luckier...

edited for typos

May their souls rest in peace.

osiris30 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

osiris30 wrote:

IF a grounding is warranted it should be done period. However there is not enough evidence to support the grounding AT THIS TIME.

Groundings are usually done as result of lack of evidence. See the DH Comet crashes. It was only after the fleet had been grounded that they found the cause of the crashes.

STOP referencing the comet. The failure rate of those aircraft was MUCH higher than the max. The max is probably flying 1000 sectors a day if not more right now. The comet likely flew 1000 sectors total with all the crashes.

The 737MAX is doing its best to even out the difference though.

Note, 737NGs didn't have fatal crashes to the same extent, even among 3rd world airlines. Human error and 3rd world incompentence couldn't make those crash at the same rate, so what makes the MAX more prone to it?

Redd wrote:

Maybe they meant the FO had 200 hours on type, or 2000 total hours... You need 200 hours for a commercial pilots license, so if he had 200 TT that means he went from Cessna's straight to a 737. Not likely.

200 isn't far fetched at all. Pretty ordinary to have newly trained pilots go directly to 737s anywhere except the US. What would be more disturbing is that the captain for a low-experience FO has to be even more experienced and be trained as a line-trainer...

MD80Ttail wrote:

Ok so I’ll play along. Ground the Max fleet immediately. Flights will be canceled. More people will end up driving. Driving is exponentially more dangerous than flying even the most unsafe airline in the world flying the most unsafe planes. Due to the grounding more lives are lost on the road than would have been in the air.

Why would people drive from Iceland to France, from the Netherlands to Turkey of from Norway to the Canary Islands when one aircraft type is temporarily grounded? People will end up postponing their travels or changing to other aircraft types.

Right now the Boeing 737 Max 8 has a pretty abysmal safety record, around one passenger fatality for every three thousand flights (conservative estimate, probably even worse). Driving certainly isn't exponentially more dangerous than travelling on board this aircraft type.

Stop spreading fake news!

Cubsrule wrote:

Maintenance isn’t the issue with JT. Stuff breaks. That’s fine. MELing broken stuff is fine if done sensibly. What’s not fine is the same problem recurring without additional investigation.

Again, I may agree you with the need for additional investigations. But your original point was that "reputable" airlines would not have been in the same situation. And that's not true; certainly an error could have occurred even for a reputable airline. Perhaps they would not have _repeatedly_ exposed their crews to the non-working controls, but they certainly would have exposed the situation to _one_ crew.

In any case, both the crew and airplane must be capable of withstanding single failures (a sensor, engine, etc).

In the Jt crash, did we ever get results of the AOA sensors that were faulty? (which lead to the MCAS going nuts)...

Possible defective units?

Again, MCAS is not "faulty" per say... it was just poorly designed to rely on a single data source.
Of course possible it is here too, but I would figure EVERY Max operator would be fully aware and on guard for the possibility of the MCAS taking over.

People saying that this wasn't a MCAS failure because at this point in time the flaps would have been on, and MCAS doesn't operate then.

However, I'd like to point out that in JT accident the crew was fighting stick shakers etc from the moment they left the runway. It is true that MCAS enters the picture only later. But a faulty AoA sensor and hence unnecessary stick shaker is possible with even the ET accident. Ideally, crews should be able to deal with that of course, but something additional may have occurred or they got confused/forgot to fly. Has happened before to other aviators...

VSMUT wrote:

osiris30 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Groundings are usually done as result of lack of evidence. See the DH Comet crashes. It was only after the fleet had been grounded that they found the cause of the crashes.

STOP referencing the comet. The failure rate of those aircraft was MUCH higher than the max. The max is probably flying 1000 sectors a day if not more right now. The comet likely flew 1000 sectors total with all the crashes.

The 737MAX is doing its best to even out the difference though.

Note, 737NGs didn't have fatal crashes to the same extent, even among 3rd world airlines. Human error and 3rd world incompentence couldn't make those crash at the same rate, so what makes the MAX more prone to it?

Redd wrote:

Maybe they meant the FO had 200 hours on type, or 2000 total hours... You need 200 hours for a commercial pilots license, so if he had 200 TT that means he went from Cessna's straight to a 737. Not likely.

200 isn't far fetched at all. Pretty ordinary to have newly trained pilots go directly to 737s anywhere except the US. What would be more disturbing is that the captain for a low-experience FO has to be even more experienced and be trained as a line-trainer...

Exactly, starting your career on a boeing isnt more special or difficult than on a Fokker, bombardier, embraer, airbus etc.

Speculation (and relatively sure it is true) Every airline flying the MAX is preparing for a possible grounding.

At this point as soon as some hard information comes in it will be assessed. If it shows that something different is the apparent cause that cause will be addressed and grounding the MAX fleet will not be considered. If it cannot be demonstrated that it was something different, grounding is a distinct and perhaps likely possibility.

Cubsrule wrote:

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:

While the plane definitely might have major flaw when taking off ...... maybe it also has to do with pilot training. Are they missing something training wise went the speed indicators are giving them issues?

Does southwest, united, AA, and other major airlines train their pilots differently or prepare them for a air speed issue when taking off?

AA, UA, and WN (and most other operators) would not have been flying the JT airplane in the condition it was in.

That could be a fair point ...... the smaller airlines might have the ability or the money to properly maintain the MAX when compared to the cost of the older 737s.

Of course the big guys at Boeing are thinking about a grounding. Thats their job. They have to keep all options on the table. You can be sure they have a serious crisis meeting right now with all options on the table.

I didn't even think it was possible to take off without flaps. Pretty much always thought they would get a takeoff config fault. For sure, the cause of Lionair and this new incident need to be investigated in an expedited manner.

For all those people talking of engine failure. Three examples of double engine loss spring to mind.

A330 which ran out of fuel at 33,000 feet and glided to land in the Azores. Few elements of luck meant they were close enough.
777 fuel lines iced up on approach to Heathrow, landed short of the runway.
Miracle of the Hudson,

Even with no engines all these planes could be controlled by the pilots.

I don’t get the feeling from initial reports it’s an engine issue.

buzzard302 wrote:

I didn't even think it was possible to take off without flaps. Pretty much always thought they would get a takeoff config fault. For sure, the cause of Lionair and this new incident need to be investigated in an expedited manner.

Of course they will get a loud alarm. Like i said before, the moment they put the thrust levers forward on the runway to initiate take off that alarm will sound and its an almost defeaning alarm. The chance the crew forgot flaps AND that alarm was defect is almost below 0% chance.

anshabhi wrote:

RogerMurdock wrote:

Btblue wrote:

I think it's perfectly reasonable to draw conclusions between this flight, and the LionAir crash last year.
...
Same stage in the flight envelope.

Not at all the same stage in the flight envelope. MCAS, which was the final cause of the LionAir crash, can only operate with flaps retracted.

ADD has 3.7km long runways. I don't see why would they need flaps for takeoff here

It's also at 7600ft ASL. Most likely used flaps and I can say that they do from personal experience