Comparing Recent 737 MAX Accidents to the Qantas Flight 72 Incident

The recent series of accidents involving the Boeing 737 MAX aircraft have raised numerous questions and comparisons with past incidents. One of the most notable references has been to the Qantas Flight 72 incident in October 2008. While both incidents are deeply concerning, there are several areas where they might be compared, offering valuable insights into the potential causes and regulatory responses.

Introduction to the Qantas Flight 72 Incident

The October 2008 incident with Qantas Flight 72, a Boeing 747-400, is often cited as a precedent for the current 737 MAX issues. On that day, the aircraft experienced a series of unexplained malfunctions that led to a rapid descent and ultimately the need for an emergency landing in Jakarta, Indonesia. The incident report revealed that the plane reported losing speed and altitude, and the causes were initially blamed on a Gulfstream G-550 jet that had flown ahead of it.

Comparison Between 737 MAX Accidents and Qantas Flight 72

1. Initial Investigation and Uncertainty

Both the Qantas Flight 72 incident and the current 737 MAX accidents share a common pattern of uncertainty in the initial stages of the investigation. In the case of Qantas Flight 72, the cause of the malfunction was initially attributed to interference from a nearby aircraft, but further investigation ultimately found no evidence to support this claim. Similarly, the initial investigations into the 737 MAX accidents suggested potential software or hardware issues, but the thoroughness of these findings is still under scrutiny.

Key Considerations: The shared uncertainty highlights the complexity of investigating aviation incidents, requiring meticulous and thorough analysis of both technical and human factors.

2. Technical Issues: Hardware vs. Software

An important aspect of both incidents is the involvement of technical issues. The Qantas Flight 72 incident hinted at a possible hardware failure or defect, similar to the recent hypothesis that a hardware or software malfunction could have caused the 737 MAX accidents. Specifically, the Lion Air flight 610 had reportedly encountered 'gremlins' (unplanned electronic issues) recently, which could have contributed to its crash.

Key Considerations: Understanding the distinction and overlap between hardware and software issues is crucial in unraveling the root cause of these accidents.

3. Human Factors and Crew Preparedness

The response of the crew in both incidents can be seen as a critical factor. In the Qantas Flight 72 incident, the crew was able to handle the emergency successfully, resulting in a safe landing. However, in both the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 and Lion Air Flight 610 crashes, the crew's actions were not enough to prevent the accidents. This raises questions about the preparedness and training of crews in dealing with unexpected technical issues.

Key Considerations: The role of human factors, including training, experience, and situational awareness, in preventing and responding to incidents must be addressed.

Regulatory and Aircraft Design Implications

The similarities in the nature of these incidents have sparked discussions about the regulatory framework and aircraft design. The Qantas Flight 72 incident, initially attributed to another aircraft, led to increased scrutiny of the maintenance practices and communication protocols. Similarly, the 737 MAX accidents have brought into question the effectiveness of current regulatory oversight and the adequacy of Boeing's design processes.

Key Considerations: The need for robust and transparent regulatory practices that can quickly identify and address potential design flaws is essential to maintaining aviation safety.

Conclusion

While the direct causative factors of the Qantas Flight 72 incident and the 737 MAX accidents remain to be fully determined, the parallels in terms of initial uncertainty, technical issues, and crew response provide valuable insights into the challenges of aviation safety. As detailed investigations continue, it is crucial for the industry to learn from these incidents and implement measures to prevent similar occurrences in the future.