Title : Trump Grounds The Boeing MAX 8 Fleet - But Black Boxes Going To France? Well, Maybe To Avert A U.S. Whitewash
link : Trump Grounds The Boeing MAX 8 Fleet - But Black Boxes Going To France? Well, Maybe To Avert A U.S. Whitewash
Trump Grounds The Boeing MAX 8 Fleet - But Black Boxes Going To France? Well, Maybe To Avert A U.S. Whitewash
Comparison of vertical speed flight profiles of Ethiopian and Lion Air flights which helped lead aviation authorities to ground the MAX 8. (From NY Times, p. A1)
Finally, the U.S. came to its senses Wednesday, pressured after the rest of the world - and neighbor Canada - took to grounding the Boeing 737 MAX 8. But oddly, this was not done by the FAA but by Trump, aka the Dotard. (Hey, even a broken clock is right twice each day!) But this anomaly has now drawn its own scrutiny over the value of the FAA. As yesterday's noted in The Financial Times' lead story ('Boeing Safety Controversy Puts U.S. Regulator Under Harsh Spotlight'):
"The president’s announcement has only amplified criticism of the US regulator, which some experts allege is losing its grip over the world’s biggest aviation market. According to Mark Slack, an aviation lawyer:
'The Federal Aviation Administration has always been slow to react as an agency. But now we have got to this strange situation where we don’t know who is in charge of aviation regulation in the U.S. Is it the White House or the FAA?'
Critics say the agency is understaffed and underfunded, and the state of the FAA has emerged as a focus of concern on Capitol Hill in recent days. Congressional hearings are being planned to examine airline safety and the response to the Ethiopian crash."
But there is more to it than that. In order to understand the FAA's stance and reluctance to act, one must process the entire warp and woof of the Trumpian yen to eviscerate the "administrative state". Their entire drive has been to kneecap all regulations and thereby expose citizens to more civil, medical, political and other risks. As noted by a WSJ editorial from October, 2017:
"Executive branch agencies have issued 100 directives that either knock down regulations or begin a process to eliminate or shrink them."
For example, gutting EPA regs to allow more mercury to be expelled from coal-fired plants, and also allowing more pollutants (such as perchlorates) in our water. With the FDA, we now know it allowed drug makers to change the labels to allow more frequent use of opiods, which was brought out in a recent 60 Minutes interview, e.g.
The wrecking of regs for the USDA and related agencies has meanwhile allowed less oversight for meat such as pork, risking more infestations by Tania solum solex or the pork tapeworm e,g
And the potential infestation of Americans' brains:
As if we needed more parasitism after the Trump political and propaganda infestation. While some might cheer the sound of the word "deregulation" or mentally conjure up images of freedom and personal liberty, they are woefully misled. As economist George Lakoff has pointed out, e.g.Regulations are protections.
Repeat that as a mantra 50 times each day so you won't forget it when you hear the word "deregulation is good". Now, in the case of the FAA, it has become abundantly clear, they are not proactive for regulation on air safety. We saw this four years ago when they allowed pressure from the drone manufacturers (and congress) to fill the skies with the beasties - now risking drone- commercial aircraft collisions.
We also saw the aversion to regulation reinforced with the appointment of Mitch McConnell's wife Elaine Chao (as head of the Dept. of Transportation (DOT) which oversees the FAA. That there is no incentive to protect the U.S. public on planes - anymore than the FDA has incentive to protect against opiod abuse, or the EPA to protect us from carcinogen-laden water - is self-evident.
Repeat that as a mantra 50 times each day so you won't forget it when you hear the word "deregulation is good". Now, in the case of the FAA, it has become abundantly clear, they are not proactive for regulation on air safety. We saw this four years ago when they allowed pressure from the drone manufacturers (and congress) to fill the skies with the beasties - now risking drone- commercial aircraft collisions.
We also saw the aversion to regulation reinforced with the appointment of Mitch McConnell's wife Elaine Chao (as head of the Dept. of Transportation (DOT) which oversees the FAA. That there is no incentive to protect the U.S. public on planes - anymore than the FDA has incentive to protect against opiod abuse, or the EPA to protect us from carcinogen-laden water - is self-evident.
As Scott McCartney summed the situation in his 'Middle Seat' WSJ column ('Muted Response To Bid For Air Travel Rules', March 13, p. A12):
"The DOT has been loath to issue new regulations."
Of course, the excuse usually trotted out by the Right is there have not been the nominations or appointments needed to fill all the jobs available - hence not enough manpower. This is baloney given the Right only cares about whittling the gov't down ("so it can be sunk in a bathtub" - in Grover Norquist's parlance), not boosting its manpower or purview. McCartney again (ibid.):
"Airlines and many travelers applaud the Trump administration's aversion to regulation and willingness to let consumer choices discipline unpopular business decisions."
Of course, that cavalier model has only worked to a point. Look how quickly many U.S. travelers deluged their reps after the second MAX 8 crash, and especially when they learned they'd have to get to point B on a MAX 8. Panic, anyone?
Oh, and then pay for changing to a different plane! Hardly surprising when we learned (WSJ, yesterday, p. A1, 'Aerospace Giant Tries To Limit The Fallout'):
In other words, this dubious plane is its ATM, it's cash cow, noting there are over 5,000 MAX orders in the pipeline. So why the hell would Boeing be proactive in halting its runs- and why would the FAA cooperate when one of its mandates is to "promote the business of aviation" which has now taken precedence over protecting the flying public.
In the meantime, McCartney's graphs have conveyed all we need to know about the FAA's aversion to regs, including enforcement fines against airlines going down by nearly 90 percent even as domestic three hour delays on tarmacs went up more than 65% since 2016.
- Dozens of U.S. Pilots complained of inadequate training on automation-assisted flying systems, unfamiliarity with the controls, and anxiety that prompted them to engage autopilot earlier than normal. In at least two instances where the plane pitched downward or maneuvered against pilots’ inputs. Much of this was elaborated on in a Rachel Maddow segment Tuesday night, e.g.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUidpjr8Xzw
crash found that a device known as an “angle of attack” sensor had mistakenly indicated the plane’s nose was too high, prompting the plane’s automation software to push the plane downward. The Lion Air pilots fought to raise the plane’s nose but were unable to, sending the plane crashing into the Java Sea. Experts say the Indonesian pilots lost their battle with M.C.A.S. because of the MAX's faulty sensor readings. (WSJ, March 13, p. A13).
Note here that the Lion Air pilots accepting the readings given as correct is not "pilot error". It is instead aircraft (angle of attack) sensor error to which the pilots responded accordingly, i.e. to elevate the nose. (See the graphic on the cusp catastrophe from my post of March 12th)
- A McLean, Va.-based aerospace firm, Aireon, used its plane-tracking technology to help investigators get a clearer idea of the way the Ethiopian Airlines plane was moving and how that compared to the Oct. 29 Lion Air flight. Aireon, with help from Boeing and the National Transportation Safety Board, were able to “refine the initial return of the satellites to create a description of the flight,” This according to Acting FAA chief Elwell adding: “The track of the Ethiopian Airlines flight was very close — and behaved very similarly — to the Lion Air flight.”
Aviation experts said the two planes' noses underwent multiple up and down motions after takeoff. This motion, called "porpoising: by Col. Stephen Gnyard (USMC, Ret.), meant there were changes in the vertical velocity - and these changes were picked up by Aireon's images. Why were these important and critical to the U.S. (as well as Canada) changing their tune on grounding? Because (WSJ, March 14, p. A12) the method:
Such occurrence is plainly visible in the graphs for each airline shown at the top. This was enough to convince first Canada, then the U.S. to act. This Aireon LLC data still saved the day, as we now learned "even if the Canadian government opted to ground the aircraft the FAA planned to refrain from further action." In other words, the FAA was dug in to support Boeing's preservation of profits.
Ethiopia has the capability to read black boxes but not heavily damaged ones as in this case.
Thus the intention of the Ethiopians to send the boxes to France, as a neutral third party - as opposed to letting the U.S. agencies get into it and render conclusions that may not be faithful to the actual fact. This set up an immediate uproar on what the role of U.S. investigators was and why the U.S. wasn't doing the black box analysis. But as Ewell correctly responded: "Ethiopia is taking the lead — their soil, their aircraft, their airline.”
Let's pause here a bit and let me say I also agree with the Ethiopians' decision. After all, what would they have thought after the FAA's unconscionable foot dragging on the grounding of the plane - when all other nations had done it? So, pardon me for being a CT, but they didn't trust U.S. teams not to do a Warren Commission-style whitewash. I.e. ending up with "no real data to prove systemic fault" so "all on pilot error".
This way, with the French, we're vastly more likely to get an objective analysis and conclusion, even if it strikes at Boeing's (and the U.S. carriers) bottom lines. See e.g.
Excerpt:
"Modern aviation is so incredibly safe, so to see two of the same types of new planes crash so close together should be concerning, if nothing else.
But at some point doesn’t the US (and to a lesser extent, Canada) come out of this looking ridiculous? Boeing is standing behind their plane. The FAA is standing behind Boeing. American and Canadian airlines are standing behind the plane. It’s the US and Canada against the world, it seems.
Are they actually 100% certain that there’s nothing systematically wrong with the 737 MAX, including the way pilots are trained to fly it? Do they think the concerns of every other relevant aviation authority in the world are unfounded? If they even have the slightest concern about the integrity of the plane, shouldn’t they put lives ahead of profits?"
Meanwhile, Elwell's claim there is no systemic problem with the MAX 8 is bollocks, even given what we know thus far. Clearly, even his FAA admitted the automated system pushed the nose of the Lion Air plane down, oh, and the sensor displayed inaccurate readings at the outset. The pilots repeatedly counteracted it and pulled the nose back up, only to be overridden by the system again. Each interval took about 15 to 20 seconds.The public data for the Ethiopian flight is less clear and complete, but it appears (from the vertical speed graphs) to show a similar signature — an interval where the plane was gaining altitude and then leveling out. According to MIT aeronautics professor R. John Hansman:
“Even from the available data, there are similarities between the Lion Air case and this case in terms of this 15 second periodicity. That would point toward a similar phenomenon. We’ll know more when we get the flight data recorder,” Planes like the Boeing 737 oscillate naturally, he said, because of turbulence and and other effects. But those swings have different time spans: either between five and eight seconds, or a minute or longer. The variations in the intermediate range of 15 or so seconds have no other obvious explanation."
Don Thoma, the chief executive of Aireon LLC, added that it “certainly showed something was wrong with the aircraft, and something they should take a hard look at.”
Oh, and "they" will. This plane, from my perspective, needs a whole lot more than just a flight manual redo. I look for it to be grounded at least 4-5 months, and maybe even more if the black box analysis reveals what I believe it will: that the circumstances of the two MAX 8 crashes are systemic and directly related. Not "pilot error" which I suspect an FAA, NTSB whitewash might have tried to spin.
Thus Article Trump Grounds The Boeing MAX 8 Fleet - But Black Boxes Going To France? Well, Maybe To Avert A U.S. Whitewash
That's an article Trump Grounds The Boeing MAX 8 Fleet - But Black Boxes Going To France? Well, Maybe To Avert A U.S. Whitewash This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article Trump Grounds The Boeing MAX 8 Fleet - But Black Boxes Going To France? Well, Maybe To Avert A U.S. Whitewash with the link address https://updated-1news.blogspot.com/2019/03/trump-grounds-boeing-max-8-fleet-but.html
0 Response to "Trump Grounds The Boeing MAX 8 Fleet - But Black Boxes Going To France? Well, Maybe To Avert A U.S. Whitewash"
Post a Comment