I failed to understand "outlier", so looked further. "We don't know yet what caused Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 to crash on Sunday, killing all 157 on board, or whether there's a common link to October's crash of Indonesia's Lion Air Flight 610, which claimed 189 lives. But the eerie similarities — both involved Boeing's new 737 Max 8 jetliners plunging to the ground shortly after takeoff — suggest the prudent course is to ground the 737 Max fleet until more is known. More than 30 countries, including China and European Union nations, have already reached this sensible conclusion. As of Tuesday night, however, the Federal Aviation Administration, which regulates U.S. air travel, was a conspicuous outlier. "Thus far, our review shows no systemic performance issues and provides no basis to order grounding the aircraft," said Acting FAA Administrator Daniel K. Elwell in a statement." See: https://www.yahoo.com/news/faa-conspicuous-outlier-boeing-apos-234522141.html So, we ask ourselves who to "side" with. The watch dog who may be "watching over" the well-being of some entity other than the flying passenger, or the media, which is ever-ready to castigate where the predicted results will benefit them. Supported by the media, the airlines are calling for Boeing to pay them back the cost of lost revenue while their fleet is "grounded". Can you imagine the comparison to dangerous faults in personal transportation means? Frank
The FAA, apparently at Trump's insistence, has grounded the 737 Max. Boeing says they encouraged it. Perhaps it is a way for Boeing to avoid damages...I just don't know.
@Don Alaska This sort of news is of far more importance, to me, than my personal allegiance, or lack of it, to Government Agencies. Frank
My understanding is Boeing knew what was wrong with the 737 MAX soon after the Lion crash. They've been in negotiations with FAA on how to handle it since before the gov't shutdown in January. "Investigators in the Lion Air crash suspect it may have been caused by an angle of attack (AOA) sensor on the outside of the plane which transmitted incorrect data that could have triggered automated flight software called the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) that forced the plane's nose down." Some pilots reported similar problems to a federal data base even before that crash "In November, after the Lion Air crash, Boeing issued an "Operations Manual Bulletin" advising airline operators how to address erroneous cockpit readings. It pointed airlines "to existing flight crew procedures to address circumstances where there is erroneous input from an AOA sensor," a Boeing statement said. The FAA later issued its own emergency airworthiness directive that advised pilots about how to respond to similar problems. " The FAA knew about this already, as did 30+ other countries. I don't know why we were pretending to need more information earlier this week. Sounds like they were favoring Boeing.
@Nancy Hart "Sounds like they were favoring Boeing." Of course, but not too surprising. But given that a particular sensor was suspected pretty quickly, it makes sense that they all be checked for possible intermittent malfunction, one of the gremlins most difficult to sort out. Perhaps replacement of the sensors in total MIGHT have averted the second nose-dive. Perhaps the pilots were not trained how to handle such an emergency. Perhaps lots of things. There lies the big imponderable for makers of transportation means: Car quits running, it pulls off to the side of the road and sits. Plane quits running, and it falls from the sky. Neither manufacturer can realistically be expected to pronounce their product "guaranteed to be safe and perform properly", as they hand it over to the buyer/user. Frank