Ethiopian Airlines plane's black box recovered after deadly crash, but is reportedly damaged

[Unidentified 2,930]

16 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Thousands of hours with no errors do not give a clue as to what is wrong.  They need evidence of what went wrong to fix it.  Nothing worse than trying to track down an intermittent electrical problem...

Still, don't need to risk human lives to figure that out. Planes went through rigorus testing before it was even allowed to do test flights. I'm sure they'll figure it out eventually as soon as they start going through the CVR and the FDR as well as putting the pieces of the wreckage together. 

[Dashinka 23,238]

9 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

Well, it may have been a good thing after all.  Evidently, they decided to ground our US fleet because:

 

”as a result of the data-gathering process and new evidence collected at the site and analyzed today."

 

Hopefully they found something tangible that will allow the problem to be fixed.

Now if you want more evidence of media bias, just look at the rags (NYTimes, etc.) that blame the delay by the US on President Trump in their headlines.  Of course you have to dig into the stories to find that it wasn't pressure, but like you mentioned, analyzed data of the last two incidents that drove the FAA and CAA to finally make the decision.

 

Boeing Planes Are Grounded in U.S. After Days of Pressure

 

That changed Wednesday when, in relatively quick succession, Canadian and American aviation authorities said they were grounding the planes after newly available satellite-tracking data suggested similarities between Sunday’s crash in Ethiopia and one involving a Boeing 737 Max 8 in Indonesia in October.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/business/canada-737-max.html

[Dashinka 23,238]

8 hours ago, Unidentified said:

Still, don't need to risk human lives to figure that out. Planes went through rigorus testing before it was even allowed to do test flights. I'm sure they'll figure it out eventually as soon as they start going through the CVR and the FDR as well as putting the pieces of the wreckage together. 

So Ethiopia is going with France to review the data.  Doesn't France have a vested interest in seeing Boeing go down?

[Unidentified 2,930]

12 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So Ethiopia is going with France to review the data.  Doesn't France have a vested interest in seeing Boeing go down?

Boeing is imploding by itself at the moment. 

 

Just by a quick Google search it seems like France and Ethiopia have a pretty good relationship at the moment. Probably why they were picked. 

[Dashinka 23,238]

1 minute ago, Unidentified said:

Boeing is imploding by itself at the moment. 

 

Just by a quick Google search it seems like France and Ethiopia have a pretty good relationship at the moment. Probably why they were picked. 

Boeing quite possibly will go down.  That would be sad, but a very real possibility.  I suppose the Green New Deal types would applaud that.

[Unidentified 2,930]

14 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Boeing quite possibly will go down.  That would be sad, but a very real possibility.  I suppose the Green New Deal types would applaud that.

Yeah, they're not doing so hot. Even before this incident, they weren't doing so well either. Airworthiness directives for other types of aircraft, the Atlas Air crash, the C-130 getting old and dangerous, helicopters being delivered with parts that don't fit. 

 

If our earth really is going to hell and we only have a few more years to fiix it before it spirals out of control it would be good if we could reduce flying drastically. But I am not sure this is enough to make Boeing go completely bye bye unless the trust for them, in general, is ruined. Boeing being this late with saying "hey, we should probably not use these" hurt them the most especially since they didn't make that decision themselves, Trump did it for them. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, Unidentified said:

Yeah, they're not doing so hot. Even before this incident, they weren't doing so well either. Airworthiness directives for other types of aircraft, the Atlas Air crash, the C-130 getting old and dangerous, helicopters being delivered with parts that don't fit. 

 

If our earth really is going to hell and we only have a few more years to fiix it before it spirals out of control it would be good if we could reduce flying drastically. But I am not sure this is enough to make Boeing go completely bye bye unless the trust for them, in general, is ruined. Boeing being this late with saying "hey, we should probably not use these" hurt them the most especially since they didn't make that decision themselves, Trump did it for them. 

No offense, but me thinks this post is way off base, considering your former factual statements.

[Unidentified 2,930]

51 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

No offense, but me thinks this post is way off base, considering your former factual statements.

What part of it don't you agree with? And what part don't you think is based on facts? 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

3 hours ago, Unidentified said:

Yeah, they're not doing so hot. Even before this incident, they weren't doing so well either. Airworthiness directives for other types of aircraft, the Atlas Air crash, the C-130 getting old and dangerous, helicopters being delivered with parts that don't fit. 

 

If our earth really is going to hell and we only have a few more years to fiix it before it spirals out of control it would be good if we could reduce flying drastically. But I am not sure this is enough to make Boeing go completely bye bye unless the trust for them, in general, is ruined. Boeing being this late with saying "hey, we should probably not use these" hurt them the most especially since they didn't make that decision themselves, Trump did it for them. 

How do you know the Atlas crash is Boeing's fault?  What about a modern airliner would cause an abrupt nose downward pitching moment AND max thrust on both engines?

 

It's NOT Boeing's fault that the C-130 is such a proven airframe that it's still in use.  What about the B-52? C-5?

 

ADs happen ALL THE TIME,  and for all manufacturers,  not just Boeing.

 

It's also not Boeing's option to ground airplanes; that decision lies with individual airlines or the FAA in the USA.  Boeing thus far had had no data that I am aware of to indicate that the MAX line had dangerous issues as a passenger airliner.

 

And I doubt Boeing will be "going anywhere" anytime soon. 

 

Other than those points, we agree.  😎

[Dashinka 23,238]

37 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

How do you know the Atlas crash is Boeing's fault?  What about a modern airliner would cause an abrupt nose downward pitching moment AND max thrust on both engines?

 

It's NOT Boeing's fault that the C-130 is such a proven airframe that it's still in use.  What about the B-52? C-5?

 

ADs happen ALL THE TIME,  and for all manufacturers,  not just Boeing.

 

It's also not Boeing's option to ground airplanes; that decision lies with individual airlines or the FAA in the USA.  Boeing thus far had had no data that I am aware of to indicate that the MAX line had dangerous issues as a passenger airliner.

 

And I doubt Boeing will be "going anywhere" anytime soon. 

 

Other than those points, we agree.  😎

Didn't Airbus have an A330 or 340 take a nosedive into the Atlantic?  I don't believe they ever completely figured out the root cause of that one other than pitot tubes possibly freezing causing the autopilot to fly the plan into the ocean potentially pilots that really did not know how to fly.  Accidents do happen.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

35 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Didn't Airbus have an A330 or 340 take a nosedive into the Atlantic?  I don't believe they ever completely figured out the root cause of that one other than pitot tubes possibly freezing causing the autopilot to fly the plan into the ocean potentially pilots that really did not know how to fly.  Accidents do happen.

Don't remember that one, will hafta research it.  I believe the pitot tubes have separate power sources for heat, so all three freezing?  Hmmm.

[Dashinka 23,238]

19 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Don't remember that one, will hafta research it.  I believe the pitot tubes have separate power sources for heat, so all three freezing?  Hmmm.

I believe it was either Rio to Paris, or Sao Paolo to Paris.  I saw it on Air Disasters a while ago, and essentially the autopilot flew the plane into the ocean at least according to the best swag.

 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

I remember when a 737 went into the potomac because of several pilot errors 

[Dashinka 23,238]

20 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I remember when a 737 went into the potomac because of several pilot errors 

Wasn't this related to some frozen substance as well?  There was a flight out of Detroit that killed all but one infant because it wasn't configured properly for TO.  I also remember a Canada Air 767 that glided into a landing with not a drop of fuel because someone could not convert English to Metric.

 

One thing we do well is investigate airline issues, they don't always find the specific root cause, but they do usually come to at least a 99% conclusion.

[Unidentified 2,930]

Yeah, I read about the 737 in DC in my Air Disaster book. There were several factors. First, they de-iced (with the wrong de-icing mixture.) it and got stuck on the taxiway for an hour before take-off and it was still snowing.  He stayed to close to the plane in front of him that made the snow turn into slush. Finally, on the runway he was told to expedite his take off because another plane was coming into land, so even though the pilot felt during take-off that something was wrong he didn't feel he had the option to abort. The plane behind landed before he had even started to gain altitude.