"First Southwest 737 MAX Breaks Down on Flight #2 With CEO on Board." So, problems from the start?

[suffragette]

While searching for more info about the 737 MAX, I came across this blog post from 2017 about the early fights on Southwest when they first aquired the planes.

The blogger was set to fly on the 2nd Southwest flight of this type of plane, but the flight ended up being cancelled due to mechanical issues. I don’t follow this type of blog, so I don’t know how usual or unusual it is for this to occur.

It does make it seem that there were some probelms in using this plane from the start and I think it’s notable that the blame was placed on crew training rather than on the plane from the get-go.


https://thepointsguy.com/2017/10/first-sw-737-max-breaks-down/

However, once everyone had gotten a seat, the captain came on the PA system to alert passengers that a spoiler indicator light had illuminated in the cockpit. It needed to be solved before we could take off.

Not too long thereafter around 9:40am, the issue was corrected. A round of applause followed the captain’s announcement and we thought we were on our way. But the spoiler indicator had other plans. After we had pulled away from the gate and begun taxiing to the runway, the indicator illuminated again and we were forced to turn around and head back to the gate.

~~~
Roughly 20 minutes into this third and final delay, the crew informed us that the carrier would be swapping aircraft. Passengers were asked to deplane and wait in the terminal. Disappointing, but something that was out of the control of many of those on board.

Southwest CEO Gary Kelly, who had been along for the duration of the day’s activities until that point, remained on board and talked to passengers throughout the delays. After we’d returned to the gate on the second go-around, I asked him if he planned on staying on board. He said it depended on the aircraft and whether it was operable. He added that the issues were likely due to the fact that crew and maintenance are getting used to the new plane.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

1. Minor maintenance things happen all the time on airplanes.

Rarely do they result in an accident. Let alone a crash the results in deaths.

So to think that this incident is indicative of whatever caused those recent crashes probably isn't true. Especially since this wasn't even remotely like whatever caused the two crashes.

If you don't have some sort of connection with aviation (I was a ticket agent at National Airport for ten years) you simply never know about these things unless a major accident occurs. Even ones that end well, such as US Air 1549.

What people really don't understand is how incredibly safe commercial aviation is, especially in first world countries. After every accident there's a thorough investigation, and if it was caused, even partially, by something that can be fixed, it gets fixed. As a consequence, most accidents anymore are from human error, which makes pilots look worse than they really are.

I can recall around the time jumbo jets started coming into service, and with the overall increase of commercial aviation, if accidents rates had stayed what they were in the 1960s, there would be a crash nearly every day, with thousands of people dying each year. Instead, flying has steadily gotten safer. The last crash of a U.S. airline that had fatalities was in February, 2009.

If you get the chance, park yourself where you have a good view of the runway of a reasonably busy airport and just watch planes take off and land for a few hours. After a while it gets boring simply because well over 99% of all flights take off and land safely.

[BumRushDaShow]

3. "just watch planes take off and land for a few hours"

You don't even need to do that. If you are like me living in a location under a plane route (i.e., in my case where planes pre-landing and post-takeoff at/from Philly International circle overhead all the way up here some 20 miles from the airport.... and also where I see little plane after little plane after little plane after little plane overhead, all day and almost all night, mere minutes apart, landing/taking off at Philly's Northeast Airport) then that should be enough to convince me of the banality of it.

The biggest bug out for me was the nationwide ground stop after 9/11, from that Tues. 9/11 until I think that Saturday 9/15, when not a single plane or helicopter was in the sky. Nothing. Nada. THAT was eery as hell given I just took for granted that some aircraft was flying overhead somewhere.

I think what happens though is that when one of these goes down, it's taking out quite a few people at once in a dramatic fashion - sortof like what might happen if a cruise ship sank with fatalities (which is also extremely rare), so it focuses attention back on the the complexity of actually "flying".

[dlk]

2. A Close Friend's Husband was an Airline Pilot

She shared that whenever there's a mishap or accident, the airlines like to blame it on "pilot error" for insurance purposes.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

4. No. They don't blame it on "pilot error" for insurance,

and I'm beyond angered and offended at that. If you spend some time looking at the history of aviation and crashes you'll learn that "pilot error" is what's to blame because over the years all other causes have been eliminated. In the early years, and even up to modern times, various flaws in planes or systems or any other kinds of things got fixed up after crashes. Essentially, what was left was "pilot error". Not for insurance purposes.

I'm a former airline employee, ten years at DCA as a ticket agent, and so I'm semi-knowledgeable about such things. To suggest that airlines blame accidents on "pilot error" for insurance purposes shows a profound lack of understanding of how accidents are investigated, and how "probable cause" is eventually arrived at.

Please do some research in this area.

[dlk]

5. That is what my friend, whose husband was a pilot, told me

I was repeating what my friend said. I can’t imagine why she would lie about such a thing. This was not meant in any way to discredit those who do the serious business of accident investigations. I believe her were comments more of a reflection on the corporate suits. I certainly didn’t mean to offend you.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

6. Your friend is wrong.

She's probably not knowingly lying, but that simply isn't true. Again, do a little research into accident investigation and you'll learn that the investigations are incredibly thorough, always have been. And corporate suits are not the ones who write up the final report. It's the NTSB that does that.

If they can't figure out what the cause was, they put that in the final report. They don't just say, "Oh, pilot error." Really. They don't.

[dlk]

7. We Have a Misunderstanding - I Was Not Referring to the NTSB

I believe the NTSB is professional in their assessments, although there is always the possibility of error in any human enterprise. I have no doubt my friend was merely repeating what her husband, an airline pilot told her. I can't imagine why he would lie, either. I'm afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

9. I'm not questioning that you're repeating what your friend said

and that she may have gotten it from her pilot husband, but I stand by my statement that the official cause of crashes is not just blithely written off to pilot error for insurance purposes. And if the pilot husband says that, then he doesn't understand anything about airplane crashes and how they're investigated and what often comes from those investigation. Often procedures are changed specifically to eliminate that same pilot error occurring in the future. Or restrictions are placed on what weather conditions can be prevailing to attempt a landing. Or equipment changes or improvements are recommended. It is the NTSB that determines what really happened, and has done so since 1967. Yes, I'm sure they can make mistakes, but those investigators are quite amazing.

I've had occasion to read the NTSB reports of a couple of crashes, and they've always been fascinating reading. If you wish, you can go to the NTSB site and look at some. Keep in mind that most of the investigations are not commercial plane crashes. What's astonishing just looking at that list is the very wide variety of incidents they do investigate. A lot of the reports exist in PDF format so you can download and read them.

Here's the link: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/AccidentReports.aspx

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

10. Here's a link to aviation accidents only.

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/aviation.aspx

[Blue_Tires]

8. It could have been for another reason entirely?

Nevermind the fact that new models always have teething problems...

(Check out the first commercial flight of Pan-Am's first 747-100)