Why The FAA Should Be Grounding Boeing's MAX 8 Planes - Not Waiting Around For A U.S. Crash
The patter of PR from the FAA and its Neoliberal enablers is that (WSJ today, p. A1):
"The investigation has just begun and to date we have not been provided data to draw any conclusions or take any actions."
Which is utter bollocks, and indeed in the wake of Britain and EU nations now taking action, i.e. in the former not only grounding its own MAX 8 flights, but barring others (from other nations) from entering- is less and less cogent as an excuse. Not to mention after the Chinese aviation authority explained their grounding decision - of their entire fleet of MAX 8 jetliners- was based not only on the Ethiopian crash that took 159 lives. It was also based on (ibid.):
"previously unreported incidents in which Chinese 737 Max pilots received unreliable readings from sensors used to ensure the aircraft is flying at the correct angle."
Let us also quickly note the same dismissal -what I call "first world chauvinism"- cannot be invoked here, i.e. "this is just a training and culture issue, ya know black and brown people lack proper experience and training.". It can't because nearly all Chinese commercial pilots are former military jet aircraft pilots with thousands of hours experience in all manner of conditions, weather etc. That the sensors gave "unreliable" readings is also extremely concerning given a correct response to incorrect readings could well trigger the computerized MCAS ("Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System') that was tagged in the earlier Lion Air crash. It is almost certainly implicated in the Ethiopian crash as well, given the observed steep angle and difficulty reported in vertical attitude, control. Which suggests a factor directly connected to the plane's "angle of attack".
Another aspect: both crashes occurred soon after take off, within minutes - when the aircraft is trying to attain a proper lift and ascent angle... This is also the interval when other factors most directly come into play, namely the plane's load (weight) , as well as g- forces and how these combine to either enable sufficient liftoff speed, or - possibly in the case of the Ethiopian crash -- create too slow a speed, interpreted as a stall by the MCAS. In this case, the MCAS will automatically kick in to aim the jet downwards and affect vertical stability. It can also kick in if the pilot is manually flying the plane and sensors detect the nose of the plane is too high, i.e. the angle of attack is too great. In such an event the nose of the plane is automatically pushed down.. It is interesting here that in both the Lion Air and Ethiopian crashes the ends arrived in literal nose dives - one into the Java Sea, the other into land (leaving a crater). This attests to the fact the MCAS was indeed responsible, for whatever reason.
Here is something to think about: What if - as in the case of the Chinese pilots who reported "unreliable readings from sensors" - the Ethiopian pilot beheld the sensors relaying (mistakenly) that the angle of attack for takeoff was too low.. Then, taking the sensors to be accurate, he attempted to correct the angle by manually pointing the nose upward? Well, as noted before, the MCAS would be triggered, forcing the nose downward. The pilot at this point may panic, and make an even greater effort to force the nose upward - but be overridden by the MCAS.
What about the much touted Boeing "fix" (circulated in 'bulletins' following the Lion Air crash), i.e. to disable the MCAS if it should malfunction? Well, one experienced American pilot on the ABC Evening News Monday night admitted he might not remember to do that, especially in an emergency situation.
All of this suggests a major design flaw in the aircraft which - it is true - may only be manifested in 10 out of 10,000 flights. But even that is too many given we are now supposedly in an era of unrivaled safety for commercial aviation. That is essentially zero crashes unless the piloting human goes "haywire" and acts to take the plane down himself. (The classic case was Andreas Lubitz, Germanwings pilot who crashed his jet into a mountain on Oct. 9, 2015. A similar situation likely accounted for Malaysian Flight 370 which vanished in 2014. Almost certainly one or both pilots deliberately flew the jet way out of its intended course - for whatever reason.)
All of this is why the FAA is making a major error in not immediately following the advice of Sens. Diane Feinstein and Blumenthal to ground the jets This is especially pertinent now as we learn European authorities have now grounded the planes, following earlier moves by aviation regulators in China, Indonesia, Singapore and Australia to prohibit the jets from flying. In all, more than half of the 737 Max 8 aircraft in the world have been pulled from use since an Ethiopian Airlines plane crashed on Sunday, killing 157 people.
"The investigation has just begun and to date we have not been provided data to draw any conclusions or take any actions."
Which is utter bollocks, and indeed in the wake of Britain and EU nations now taking action, i.e. in the former not only grounding its own MAX 8 flights, but barring others (from other nations) from entering- is less and less cogent as an excuse. Not to mention after the Chinese aviation authority explained their grounding decision - of their entire fleet of MAX 8 jetliners- was based not only on the Ethiopian crash that took 159 lives. It was also based on (ibid.):
"previously unreported incidents in which Chinese 737 Max pilots received unreliable readings from sensors used to ensure the aircraft is flying at the correct angle."
Let us also quickly note the same dismissal -what I call "first world chauvinism"- cannot be invoked here, i.e. "this is just a training and culture issue, ya know black and brown people lack proper experience and training.". It can't because nearly all Chinese commercial pilots are former military jet aircraft pilots with thousands of hours experience in all manner of conditions, weather etc. That the sensors gave "unreliable" readings is also extremely concerning given a correct response to incorrect readings could well trigger the computerized MCAS ("Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System') that was tagged in the earlier Lion Air crash. It is almost certainly implicated in the Ethiopian crash as well, given the observed steep angle and difficulty reported in vertical attitude, control. Which suggests a factor directly connected to the plane's "angle of attack".
Another aspect: both crashes occurred soon after take off, within minutes - when the aircraft is trying to attain a proper lift and ascent angle... This is also the interval when other factors most directly come into play, namely the plane's load (weight) , as well as g- forces and how these combine to either enable sufficient liftoff speed, or - possibly in the case of the Ethiopian crash -- create too slow a speed, interpreted as a stall by the MCAS. In this case, the MCAS will automatically kick in to aim the jet downwards and affect vertical stability. It can also kick in if the pilot is manually flying the plane and sensors detect the nose of the plane is too high, i.e. the angle of attack is too great. In such an event the nose of the plane is automatically pushed down.. It is interesting here that in both the Lion Air and Ethiopian crashes the ends arrived in literal nose dives - one into the Java Sea, the other into land (leaving a crater). This attests to the fact the MCAS was indeed responsible, for whatever reason.
Here is something to think about: What if - as in the case of the Chinese pilots who reported "unreliable readings from sensors" - the Ethiopian pilot beheld the sensors relaying (mistakenly) that the angle of attack for takeoff was too low.. Then, taking the sensors to be accurate, he attempted to correct the angle by manually pointing the nose upward? Well, as noted before, the MCAS would be triggered, forcing the nose downward. The pilot at this point may panic, and make an even greater effort to force the nose upward - but be overridden by the MCAS.
What about the much touted Boeing "fix" (circulated in 'bulletins' following the Lion Air crash), i.e. to disable the MCAS if it should malfunction? Well, one experienced American pilot on the ABC Evening News Monday night admitted he might not remember to do that, especially in an emergency situation.
All of this suggests a major design flaw in the aircraft which - it is true - may only be manifested in 10 out of 10,000 flights. But even that is too many given we are now supposedly in an era of unrivaled safety for commercial aviation. That is essentially zero crashes unless the piloting human goes "haywire" and acts to take the plane down himself. (The classic case was Andreas Lubitz, Germanwings pilot who crashed his jet into a mountain on Oct. 9, 2015. A similar situation likely accounted for Malaysian Flight 370 which vanished in 2014. Almost certainly one or both pilots deliberately flew the jet way out of its intended course - for whatever reason.)
All of this is why the FAA is making a major error in not immediately following the advice of Sens. Diane Feinstein and Blumenthal to ground the jets This is especially pertinent now as we learn European authorities have now grounded the planes, following earlier moves by aviation regulators in China, Indonesia, Singapore and Australia to prohibit the jets from flying. In all, more than half of the 737 Max 8 aircraft in the world have been pulled from use since an Ethiopian Airlines plane crashed on Sunday, killing 157 people.
The one country holding back? The United States. Why? Because it doesn't give two shits about its citizens' safety, only profits from share prices. (A WaPo piece Monday noted that an FAA grounding would easily trigger a $5 billion loss in Boeing stocks, shares. There you have the fucking reason in a nutshell).
As with the case of privacy sharing of all our data, not to mention GMO foods, the Neoliberal narrative is that money matters over all else. This is in direct contradiction to the precautionary principle, i.e. it is the duty of the manufacturer to prove his product is safe, not for others to try prove it isn't. Invoking this principle in good faith, the FAA as a genuine regulator invested first in public safety would ground all MAX 8 planes until the current investigation is complete. By continuing to fly these planes despite the cumulative incidents (including the Chinese reports of inaccurate sensor readings) the FAA's actions border on the reckless and criminal.
But not too dissimilar from the FDA's when they agreed to corporate pressure (see '^60 Minutes' and the interview with former FDA commissioner David Kessler) to change the label on Oxycontin and other opioids (in 2000) from "use only short term" to "approved for long term use" - which "opened the floodgates" to the opioid crisis (in Dr. Kessler's words).
Thus, in each case, FAA and FDA, we behold federal agencies rendered captives to corporate powers, forces This is likely on account of the revolving door between corporate lobbies and the agencies - with employees of the latter constantly moving to the former and back again. At least Sen. Elizabeth Warren seems to grasp the principle, as she said earlier today:
"The world has now witnessed the second tragic crash of one of these planes in less than six months. While we do not know the causes of these crashes, serious questions have been raised about whether these planes were pressed into service without additional pilot training in order to save money. Today, immediately, the F.A.A. needs to get these planes out of the sky.”
The UK civil aviation authority also respects its citizens, as it announced as prelude to its grounding the planes:
"“Given the similarity of the two accidents, it has been decided that as a precautionary measure that all” 737 MAX flights “should stop until appropriate safeguards are in place. This is needed to assure the that the aircraft involved are fully compliant with internationally recognized standards.”
We essentially KNOW the FAA will act as well if there's another crash of the MAX 8, especially with an American based airline. But the question for many of us is: Why wait for that to happen? Why not act now as a precautionary response, until all the data come in?
"“Given the similarity of the two accidents, it has been decided that as a precautionary measure that all” 737 MAX flights “should stop until appropriate safeguards are in place. This is needed to assure the that the aircraft involved are fully compliant with internationally recognized standards.”
We essentially KNOW the FAA will act as well if there's another crash of the MAX 8, especially with an American based airline. But the question for many of us is: Why wait for that to happen? Why not act now as a precautionary response, until all the data come in?
Well, money is the answer, of course! It's all about the Benjamins!
0 Response to "Why The FAA Should Be Grounding Boeing's MAX 8 Planes - Not Waiting Around For A U.S. Crash"
Post a Comment