This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.
Dismiss
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss
Back to Squawk list
  • 58

Trump Announces Ban of Boeing 737 MAX Flights

Submitted
President Trump announced that the United States was grounding Boeing’s 737 Max aircraft, reversing an earlier decision by American regulators to keep the jets flying in the wake of a second deadly crash involving one of the jets in Ethiopia. (www.nytimes.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


allanrbowman
Allan Bowman 9
Imagine you are in a self driving car on autopilot, admiring the view, and the cars sensors and software determine that a rapid swerve to the left is needed and the car immediately and without warning does this. You crash into oncoming traffic. Imagine there is a button or switch that can disengage the swerve function. According to Boeing, this accident is the drivers fault because you did not active the switch rapidly enough to avoid the collision. Utter crap and rubbish. Boeing is at fault, it is NOT as they claim, a training issue. The aircraft and its design was totally at fault-period.
SteveCutchen
Steve Cutchen 6
Yes! I'm sure the pilots of US-based Max 8 and 9s have been trained on the updated operating procedures for the Angle of Attack sensor causing a Runaway Stabilizer condition (Issued Dec.11).

But the public should not have to rely on a pilot knowing what to do when a known fatal flaw happens during flight. The public should expect that the manufacturer, with oversight by the FAA, will remove the flaw so that human emergency action is not necessary just to keep the aircraft in the air.
DanWentworth
Dan Wentworth 1
What of the Max 9's? My understanding was that they had the same Engine placement changes that required the Angle of Attack Sensor feed. Are the Max 9's still flying?
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 2
No...all MAX's have been grounded till further notice.
baingm
Gary Bain 0
Then why is the pilot even there if the passengers do not relying on him / her know what to do. There is definitely a flaw but not necessarily fatal. I strongly believe that neither flight crew applied the tried and true procedure for runaway trim that has been standard on Boeing aircraft for decades.
SteveCutchen
Steve Cutchen 2
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. The pilot is certainly relied on. Flying an aircraft is by definition a Complex task, meaning that things happen that are not foreseen and that the pilot must deal with in real time. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin_framework) But known flaws in the aircraft that threaten airworthiness except for emergency recognition and then specific action by the pilot should not be in that list
bbabis
Bill Babis 3
Unfortunately Allan it’s worse than that. A button doesn’t stop the problem and the autopilot is off when it happens. Would two crews, particularly a second one after getting a heads up, have rode planes into the ground if a button would have given them control at anytime? The stabilizer trim system which includes MCAS ihas a serious problem and crews do not understand it.
SteveCutchen
Steve Cutchen 3
Very first sentence in the new Operating Procedure issued in the Airworthiness Directive following Lion suggests the autopilot is on:
"Disengage autopilot and control airplane pitch attitude with control column and main electric trim as required. "
Wow.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 11, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63561-63565]
steerts
Ron Streetenberger 2
I am getting the impression that the AP is connected during the take-off roll at the discretion of the pilot in command. I have been retired from aviation for 23 years and this is the first time i've heard of this as being a common practice. Any pilot using an AP on take-off doesn't belong in a cockpit. I can now see why there are F.o.'s with 200 flight hours working for some carriers.
bbabis
Bill Babis 1
Yes, it's very clear that the autopilot has nothing or little to do with this issue.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 0
Not just that Bill, but that "button" placement seems more of an afterthot than an engineered location..1 would think it would be on the yokes so both captain and F/O had it at their disposal. But my understanding is it is down by the center console.
baingm
Gary Bain 1
It's also on the yoke. Two switches you activate together.
JetMech24
JetMech24 1
The two switches on the yoke are for moving the stab trim electrically. To disable the runaway trim there are two guarded toggle switches on the center control stand below the flap handle.
mattwestuk
Matt West 1
A very prescient example sir. I was trying to express a similar example, but you have summed it up perfectly.
Quirkyfrog
Robert Cowling -1
AND they label the switch to disconnect the feature, in your example, something fairly unrelated to the issue being experienced. Like a 'Fog Light' switch. Yeah, this is a horrible example of people that don't fly the planes designing the equipment that flies the plane.
baingm
Gary Bain 1
The switches ARE labeled.
pilotjag
pilotjag 4
I just realized... With this ban, that leaves Panama's Copa Airlines as the sole remaining operator of the Boeing 737 MAX. But my guess is after seeing the US issue a ban, either the airline will ground their fleet or the Panamanian govt will issue a ban as well. Only time will tell what will happen...
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
COPA grounded their MAX 9's just after the US grounded the MAX
thenotoriousrob
rob strong 8
We were the only country in the world still allowing the Max 8 to fly. Was it arrogance? Was it about the potential lost revenue? Or was it justified? Take Trump out of it and try and make a valid point.
nasdisco
Chris B 3
Boeing is the biggest foreign revenue earner in the US.
FAA is run by US Senate president's wife.
Its hard not to see a political cause of the delay.
shenghaohan
Shenghao Han -2
Not surprising because US is also the only developed country pulled out Paris Agreement...
The world is used to United States being special...
btweston
btweston -5
Home cookin’.
raleedy
ALLAN LEEDY 0
All thinking (hoping) that good ol' US airmanship would save the day.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
It usually does!!!

[This poster has been suspended.]

THRUSTT
THRUSTT 6
Ethiopian doesn't have a bad history...

[This poster has been suspended.]

RainbowRiver
RainbowRiver 4
Yes, he is. Ethiopia has a good reputation and safety record.

[This poster has been suspended.]

RainbowRiver
RainbowRiver 4
I've operated into both Asmara and Addis Ababa. They may not be American, Delta, or United, but they try, and there are far worse.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 3
Wiki has a separate page for most airlines accidents and incidents..It's called "Category: ***** airlines accidents and incidents"
Not defending Ethiopian Airlines, but With your way of thinking, American Airlines should not be allowed to fly since they seem to have more accidents and incursions, than Ethiopian Airlines including Ethiopian Airlines hijackings, bombs on board, getting shot at.
RainbowRiver
RainbowRiver 1
A lot of it depends upon where the airlines operate. Southwest operates primarily in the U.S. with very few flights anywhere else. The ATC system is very good, radar coverage is excellent, as are the NAVAIDS, etc. American operates a lot in Latin America. Things aren't as good in Latin America. Besides, the fatal crashes for all of the U.S. carriers are extremely low, so one crash makes a huge difference in the percentages.

[This poster has been suspended.]

rapidwolve
rapidwolve 3
I was using your stupid logic..I know of folks who fly on them frequently, they don't have a huge economic backing but they try damn hard. I lost a few good acquaintances on Ethiopian..so why don't you go back and troll some other forum!!!

[This poster has been suspended.]

rapidwolve
rapidwolve 3
You want an answer and can't seem to let go of any animosity towards a non US company..if I had to fly in Africa, Ethiopian, if I had to fly in North America, NOT American!
steerts
Ron Streetenberger 2
A quick fix would be a flaps 1 position prior to takeoff as part of the checklist and then going to flaps zero at 2oo kts. I think that going from 15-25 degrees of flaps at takeoff could be causing this onset of stick pusher when the flaps go to zero in a stabilized nose-up attitude. I'm not a pilot but I am a professional spacecraft/aircraft simulator individual who spent 31 years at American's simulator department as a problem solver. I also was deep into the Boeing product line.
bbabis
Bill Babis 2
You're thinking there Ron. Generally if the aircraft does something unexpected right after performing some action, you should immediately undo that action. Supposedly the MCAS is disabled with flap deployment but may be sitting there with an erroneous input ready to start doing its thing upon flap retraction. If the crew brings the flaps up close to max speed for that setting and continues to accelerate past that speed they may be hesitant to put them back down and the problem grows.
dav555
dav555 2
Just read an interesting article explaining why the MCAS system is necessary on the Max. I'm not advocating this as the cause of the recent Ethiopian crash, just raising it as a possibly. The 737 was originally designed to be low to the ground to accommodate air stairs before the prolific use of jetways. In its efforts to make the 737 more fuel efficient, and to compete with Airbus, the designers had to modify the design to allow installation of the new large diameter engines while still maintaining a minimal ground clearance. This caused changes in the aerodynamics forcing the designers t implement this automated system which detects excessive pitch up and forces the nose back down. Apparently this MCAS malfunctioned on the Lion Air flight last year resulting in that crash.

I've said for years that it's time for Boeing to create a brand new single-aisle 737 replacement to compete with Airbus' A32X series. The new A321s are even viable replacements for the 757s. Instead all Boeing decides to do is make yet another "upgraded" 737 variant. Boeing needs to stop trying to do things on the cheap and get serious about creating 21st century aircraft that can outperform and outsell anything that heavily subsidized Airbus can put out. My advice would be to focus heavily on the new mid-sized 797 that they've proposed. Airline traffic is going to increase greatly in the future and even short domestic flights will need to use higher capacity aircraft in order to be efficient.
Quirkyfrog
Robert Cowling 6
Why did trump announce this? Sure, he owns a plane, but it doesn't make him an expert. By that logic, I'm a veterinarian because I own two dogs.

This was an AGENCY decision, and should NOT involve the executive branch. This is incredibly unusual...

How long can real republicans tolerate what is going on? Was he behind the FAA dragging their feet to begin with? Would Americans have had to die before 'he' moved on it? Does it require human carnage to get him to do what is right?
DanWentworth
Dan Wentworth 6
Begs the Question when will Trump nominate an FAA administrator? All three are acting...
Obviously not a priority for this administration.

https://www.faa.gov/about/key_officials/
http://fortune.com/2018/01/05/faa-chief-steps-down-donald-trump-tweet/
SteveCutchen
Steve Cutchen 6
"Acting" folks seem widespread. I guess this eliminates Senate confirmation hearings...
Quirkyfrog
Robert Cowling 2
Nothing about this administration is 'normal'...
carmineventura
Carmine Ventura -4
I guess you would rather have more planes crash because you are a liberal bed wetter who doesn’t like Trump .
SteveCutchen
Steve Cutchen 2
Yay! Here's your non sequitur gold medal.

[This poster has been suspended.]

SteveCutchen
Steve Cutchen 3
Odd fact is that Trump announced it.
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/trump-issues-order-to-ground-boeing-737-max-jets-1457411651717
RainbowRiver
RainbowRiver 3
Are you an airline pilot? Would YOU feel comfortable in the left seat of one of these 737's that have possibly killed four pilots despite their best efforts, and hundreds of passengers? There have been reports from other (U.S.) crews on an NTSB website, who say that upon engaging the autopilot just after takeoff, a nose down input was commanded, causing the GPWS to annunciate "Don't Sink", "Don't Sink". They've had to immediately disengage the A/P, hand fly it for a bit; then re-engage it.

Boeing put this poorly thought-out, buggy system on the airplane without even telling the customers and the pilots. Unfortunately, Boeing isn't the company it used to be. The Air Force has just begun re-accepting the Boeing KC-46 tanker, based on the 767, after halting deliveries due to finding trash, loose parts, and debris left inside aircraft coming off the production line; making them unsafe to fly.

The MCAS software on the 737 MAX has bugs in it and there are only two AOA sensors on the aircraft. A problem with one stall vane causes the nose down command, even if it's a bad vane - and the system won't shut off. It's always armed even without the autopilot on. In order to kill the system, you have to disable it electrically, which involves several steps and takes time, which you don't have when it's trying to kill you.

So leave the politics out of this.
TamaraBirch
Tamara Birch 5
As a mother,with a son that flies international flights,I’m worried and wondering: Doyou comments getto FAA,considered as vital input,to correct,investigate your observations and understandings?
I just want crew and passengers to be safe.
What happens,if his flight is cancelled,will they offer him am
Nother flight in exchange for free.
This should not be political,with lives at stake. People are the priority,not profit.
I respect pilots,crew,staff and pray the problems are resolved,your safety assured and your input is respected.
A flightaware member,that appreciates tracking every flight my son avails.
Thanks for your skills and service.
Tamara Birch. tamisup@gmail.com
I hope ,I wasn’t overstepping ,by making comments. I’m just a concerned mother.
RainbowRiver
RainbowRiver 2
No, you're not overstepping.

Despite the FAA bashing that occurs in the press and on the internet sometimes, there are many, many great FAA people who listen and do a fantastic job, and the U.S. air safety record is in no small part attributable to them.

As for what happens to your son if some of his flights are cancelled depends upon the individual airline(s).

As you know from your son, for the pilots at least, passenger safety is always the first priority.

Thank you for your concern.
camardomr
RALPH CAMARDO 2
Didn't Boeing move their production out of Washington to save money on Union costs...just sayin.
RainbowRiver
RainbowRiver 1
Correction: The MCAS functions only when the A/P is off. It's purpose is to provide stall protection while being hand flown, similar to what the autopilot provides.
jcw1953
jcw1953 3
Robert, do you think that his conversation with the Boeing CEO had anything to do with it and he may have access to information that you and I do not know?
carmineventura
Carmine Ventura -2
You are obviously a democrat .
Lol .
Quirkyfrog
Robert Cowling 0
No I just realize that there are AGENCIES to deal with this kind of stuff, and that this decision s an AGENCY matter, and the AGENCY should be releasing the decision, NOT the president. How would you feel if it came out that the reason the planes weren't grounded earlier was because the president overruled the agencies decision to immediately ground them?

He isn't a politician, he's a money hungry 'businessman', and not a very good one at that. Everything he's done has benefited business over citizens. He shouldn't be involved in decisions that are AGENCY DECISIONS!

And I know that if Obama had done this, you would be shitting plaid cows over it. So pull your political victimization blinders down, and realize This Is Not Right... He's micromanaging the entire government, like he's running one of his corporations. And for so many, that tenancy ran them into the ground.
buckeyeflyer1
RONALD Likover 4
All the testing during the cirtification process how was this missed.
bbabis
Bill Babis 4
The planes used for certification may not have had the issue. A software or vendor change may be the cause.
jcw1953
jcw1953 -1
To: Bill Babis-- I think you are in the right area... my logic is this...I am recently retired in IT support ( in it for 35+ years) in the hardware and software area.. my logic progression is this...
I see there are about 350 Max's in service... for all the total flights they completed successfully both in test flights and live commercial flights, why have only two crashed? Same basic software and same basic hardware.... yes, who subcontracts the Boeing operating system updates to the aircraft hard drives...and what changes were made... True, pilots were filing reports of items of interest on takes when in auto-pilot mode... Now, I am getting into a darker area of possible inspection..is it not out of the question that a disgruntled employee of Boeing or one of their subcontractors could have manipulated the software to induce these two crashes? Hopefully Boeing and maybe the FBI looks at each employee that had access to software changes and who was responsible for software uploads..etc.... Again, only two flights went down... and none others exhibited the same radical behavior as these two did but were able to pull out. Is it not possible that this may have been a lone wolf revenge against Boeing? ----
bbabis
Bill Babis 3
I would think, hope, that it is an unintentional consequence of some change and may only affect a certain block of aircraft. Either way the investigation must be thorough.
JetFeeder
JetFeeder 2
"is it not out of the question that a disgruntled employee of Boeing or one of their subcontractors could have manipulated the software to induce these two crashes? Hopefully Boeing and maybe the FBI looks at each employee that had access to software changes and who was responsible for software uploads..etc.... Again, only two flights went down... and none others exhibited the same radical behavior as these two did but were able to pull out. Is it not possible that this may have been a lone wolf revenge against Boeing? ----" jcw1953

Following your logic, it is also not out of the question if aliens were involved. Let's avoid conspiracy theories, jumping to conclusions and let the facts reveal the truth.
DanWentworth
Dan Wentworth 1
Having been involved in the early years of the 737 as a BSEE developing automated test systems for the aircraft I can say that the development\testing\review\approval of the software systems is more stringent then anything I have seen in my 30 year career.

I would say it is impossible for a single disgruntled person to affect any change after approval.
jcw1953
jcw1953 0
Here...Here....
hanman6
Michael Tedor 4
Boeing’s last two new airliners have had major problems on introduction. The 787 had battery fire problems and the 737 Max has got as yet undetermined issues. In my years in management I have found that companies that inspect themselves don’t find a lot of major problems. The FAA apparently reviews the manufacturer’s test results. This doesn’t seem to work, does it?

[This poster has been suspended.]

steerts
Ron Streetenberger 1
Do you recall an Airbus flying into a forest with test flight personnel at the controls?
thenotoriousrob
rob strong 4
Very interesting article explaining why the FAA caved...

https://apnews.com/582d4da75deb4bcdac7472b1ccdd5a12
wopri
Wolfgang Prigge 5
There are reports that the raw data was given to US agencies on Monday, but the data was not shared with their allies. The same raw data was given by Aireon, an American company, to the Canadian transport ministry on Wednesday. It took the Canadians only a few hours to conclude that there were too many similarities between the Lion Air and Ethiopian crash and that the MAX had to be grounded, and only after the Canadian decision did the FAA also ground the aircraft. It is true that the Canadian Minister of Transport is a former military pilot and astronaut, probably a lot more qualified than his American counterpart, but still, the whole situation could well mean that someone somewhere wanted to cover for Boeing.
Beaso
Mick Beasley 3
Aireon is owned by Nav Canada - might explain why Canada moved first
wopri
Wolfgang Prigge 2
The report say that NavCanada reminded the Canadians of the existence of Aireon, and the data was transmitted by the company to the Canadian Ministry of Transport on Wednesday morning around 6 am. The US had received the same data set on Monday, and even though there were at least three high level contacts between the two governments per day on this matter, and Canada had asked several times if the Americans had any info that Canada might not have, this info was not shared by the US. The whole thing looks like somebody close to the decision making leaked the info to the press because they were pissed off because this vital info was not shared. There is just too much detail given to not suspect a targeted leak.
wopri
Wolfgang Prigge 2
Here’s a translation of the first paragraph of the newspaper report:

The US government had held for two days the data that convinced Wednesday the federal Minister of Transport, Marc Garneau, to ground the Boeing 737 MAX, but did not communicate them, despite frequent high-level discussions between the two countries.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 3
That is interesting, Wolfgang. If US had the data Monday, and Canada only received it Wednesday, someone has a hell of a lot of explaining to do. Especially if the same data had to come via the actual company.
wopri
Wolfgang Prigge 1
Here’s a link to the newspaper article, it’s in French and too long to translate.

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/201903/15/01-5218321-boeing-737-max-les-e-u-nauraient-pas-partage-des-donnees-avec-ottawa.php
pilotjag
pilotjag 3
Another great article...
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/13/boeing-shares-fall-after-report-says-us-expected-to-ground-737-max-fleet.html
MH839
Mike Hallas 2
Very sad development- is Boeing still the vanguard for cutting edge development?
raleedy
ALLAN LEEDY 1
Alternate theory: FAA said "no flying" and Trump heard "no lying" so overruled them.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT -3
There are billions and billions of Max's flying!!!
lynx318
lynx318 1
And yet another post that should be relegated to a political forum...
dav555
dav555 1
Link to the article in my previous post:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/boeing-is-haunted-by-a-50-year-old-feature-of-737-jets/ar-BBUOl5M?li=BBnb7Kz
bbabis
Bill Babis 1
A few questions:
1. Does Boeing have enough information that one way or another this issue is the MCAS system or its components?
2. Was this aircraft uncertifiable without MCAS?
3. Does Boeing or FAA think that this aircraft is unsafe without MCAS?
4. Can MCAS be 100% disabled and allow the MAX back into the air?
gsuburban
Garth Clark 1
I have to wonder, since the first crash the word was "we have no evidence the plane has issues". Then, the second crash occurs and the announcement is "we have no evidence the plane has issues". From a plain folk observation, I see some evidence the plane has issues simply because two of them hit the ground during take off. Isn't htat good enough evidence?
1stAndy
Andrew Kessie 1
According to latest FA data, there are three 737 MAX flying right now....
speshulk99
john kilcher 1
From what I've been reading the past 2-3 years re: the FAA, the organization no longer issues punitive damages against offenses. The Allegiant crash from clevelend,(Ithink), that crashed on the way to Las Vegas a few years ago was glossed over by the FAA with the FAA spokesperson indicating that the FAA would speak to Allegiant Management. allegiant is one of the biggest violators of air regs in recent history, why should the FAA be proactive leading an investigation against Boeing? thanks for the NTSB taking the lead on investigating the Ethiopean tragedy?
thenotoriousrob
rob strong 0
Why are there so many flying all over the world if we're the last remaining country to ban?
https://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/B38M
Cade2005
Cade Emtage 8
Go on to FlightRadar24 and check the same flight e.g. Norwegian IBK 1763 from Dublin to New York. It is supposed to be a 737 MAX, but because of the groundings, this flight is now a B789. Silk AIr and FlyDubai flights are regular 737-800 aircraft that say it is a B737 MAX 8. Was wondering the same thing too!
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
Followed suit, thanks Cade...Flightaware showed many flights as B38M, so called Westjet AND went on Flightradar...waited for almost an hour with Westjet but they stated the same..eg WS1116 YYZ to LAS showed here as a B38M. It was originally but with the ban it is now C-FLSF, a B738.
Another, WS118 was originally suppose to be C-GRAX, a B38M but was cancelled and is now C-FBWI, a B738. Erroneous data here is going to make a lot of talk, as already seen.
ebrites
scott ebrite 3
The MAX is not the only operational version of the 737.
thenotoriousrob
rob strong 1
No kidding. But the link above is specifically for the Max 8.
mbrews
mbrews 2
Good question, Rob. Might be the airlines are so new, perhaps a MAX heavy fleet, they cant afford to be put out of business with an indeterminate grounding ? I have no facts on that, only a guess
bbabis
Bill Babis 0
Some are going to available and affordable places to park. Others were originally filed as max but are actually other types. And for whatever reason many aircraft on FA are not what it says they are.

[This poster has been suspended.]

[This poster has been suspended.]

[This poster has been suspended.]

[This poster has been suspended.]

[This poster has been suspended.]

lynx318
lynx318 1
'competent' not 'combat', I want to fly with an airliner pilot, not a gun-ho maverick pilot.

[This poster has been suspended.]

rdgc
robin cooper 0
i am somewhat disgusted with both AA and Southwest who continued to fly these planes until they were grounded by executive order. American even made passengers who wanted to change plane types to pay the change fees. Do they have that little concern for their customers? I would have thought that the liability risk if something had happened to another plane could have bankrupted the company.
yarnoca1
John Yarno 0
If I had owned Boeing stocks a few days ago. I would be Boeing free right now. I am actually a big Boeing fan, but it sounds like arrogance has caught up with them. The Lion air crash should have triggered an instant effort to re-evaluate this system. What can go wrong, will.

[This poster has been suspended.]

thenotoriousrob
rob strong 8
Stay on topic. I don't come here to see low IQ posts like this one.
btweston
btweston 2
You are not a real person.

[This poster has been suspended.]


[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

jdries
Jim Ries -3
Ethiopian, Lion, and China Southern are currently(as of this post) lying the MAX8. Thought they were the first to ground them? YEA, I thought.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 4
No Jim they are not..it's erroneous data..eg FDB1783 shows here as a B38M, yet airport data and other data show it is now A6-FEC, a B738.
jdries
Jim Ries -3
Sooooo, who is really grounded? WE really do not know do we? ANND do we believe Flightradar24 OR Flightaware, Or neither?
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
I called into Westjet, stayed on hold for almost an hour. Flightaware showed WS1116 to be a B38M yet Flightradar said it was a NG B738....and the rep confirmed they had grounded all MAX and were using their B737 and B738.
A few other sites also use ADS-B for tracking and WS1117 is C-FLSF, a B738...so my money is on Flightradar24 and the other sites
Decibel
Jim Nasby -5
Currently still a lot of 738s flying in the US and Europe: https://preview.tinyurl.com/y34tdyo7
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 2
That link takes me to B738's/737-800 not B38M
Decibel
Jim Nasby 1
I got the type identifier wrong ☹️
ehlerts01
David Ehlert 2
Could they be ferry flights getting them back to a specific base of operation..?? I think the ban was for any 737-MAX 8 carrying passengers.
nasdisco
Chris B 7
Many apparently Max flights were replaced by Non max aircraft. But the data flowing to FlightAware etc hadn't been updated.
mbrews
mbrews 1
I agree that's the likely problem. The incorrect type IDs are still showing up Sunday March 17. Noticed on a handful of Southwest Airlines flights
thenotoriousrob
rob strong 4
That's what I was saying.

https://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/B38M
carmineventura
Carmine Ventura -9
I’m sure Democrats are hard at work getting this order reversed , they of coarse will say Trump
Is exaggerating a crisis .
Nultech
Nultech 5
Thanks for being a shining example of why the GOP is perceived as stupid by the sane world.
ebrites
scott ebrite 2
Take your political drivel to a political forum.
lynx318
lynx318 1
'course' not 'coarse'. Your world 'leader' has just shown he is only a follower.

Login

Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!