7 ms·

The sad thing is that we'll probably see this plane fly again by the end of the year, because the millions of dollars in retrofits will still be cheaper than ha

The sad thing is that we'll probably see this plane fly again by the end of the year, because the millions of dollars in retrofits will still be cheaper than having to scrap all existing planes. We have no idea what other potentially lethal corners have been cut. What if they go back into service, after several months of retrofitting all of them at Boeing maintenance hangers, and then the following year there are two more deadly crashes from some other overlooked hack. Really, these planes need to be scrapped. The engines, equipment, seats, etc can all be stripped and used in other planes, but the air frames will need to be recycled and this line of planes should end here. Even if it doesn't (probably won't), I highly doubt we'll see another generation of 737s. They did survive the rudder problems way back from the... 80s? or 90s? .. So their reputation might recover, but they still can't make the types of planes airlines want and keep that name/certification.

sk5t 7y ago
In what world is scrapping the airframes due to a (serious) software fault the best and most sensible solution? Do you believe there could be undiagnosed problems with the wings, fuselage, tail, hydraulics, electrics, fueling system, gear, etc.?
- inferiorhuman 7y ago
  In what world is scrapping the airframes due to a (serious) software fault the best and most sensible solution? A world in which the faulty software was required to fix faulty hardware.
  - na85 7y ago
    The hardware isn't faulty. The problem is the way Boeing tried to achieve a zero training delta so pilots wouldn't have to get a second type rating.
    - nopzor 7y ago
      the airplane did not have stable flight characteristics because of its physical design. that’s a hardware problem. MCAS only exists because of that hardware problem. the fact that boeing also did not train or tell pilots about MCAS, in order to make the airplane more financially appealing by retaining the 737 type rating, is a separate (also bad) issue.
      - na85 7y ago
        >the airplane did not have stable flight characteristics because of its physical design. This is a gross oversimplification of the problem. In most of the flight envelope the aircraft is stable. At high alpha the aircraft has pitch problems. There are myriad ways to address this, and MCAS was one (bad) choice of many available to Boeing.
        leoc 7y ago
        That's the devilish thing, I think. Making the plane unstable then patching things up with MCAS, or something else, isn't a fault in any straightforward way. But it is taking a risk, and the source of risk isn't simply the risk that eg. MCAS will fail on any given flight, it's also the higher-order risk that eg. the MCAS system will have a faulty design. (A bit like rewriting code in C for performance, or keeping on generally unloved code to satisfy a paying customer, presumably.) I assume that makes the ethical and safety decisions a lot more murky for the engineers than having a specific fault to point to, especially in an organisation afflicted with go fever.
        sokoloff 7y ago
        I believe the airplane is aerodynamically stable even at high alpha. What it fails in certification is the requirement to have continually increasing pitch feedback forces. I believe the pitch feedback forces are still in the stable region, just too low. This is not a flying wing or intentionally unstable airplane (as the F-16).
        leoc 7y ago
  - sslayer 7y ago
    Maybe we should just scrap all airplanes due to the inherient risk of strapping jet engines on metal tubes and forcing them 10's of thousands of feet into the air.
- FabHK 7y ago
  I think a better alternative would be to deny it a shared type certification with the prior 737 and requiring recertification (and pilot retraining), thus removing the incentive to use shortcuts.
zenzen 7y ago
I had forgotten about the rudder problems! Worth a read: https://imgur.com/a/5wcFx8M https://imgur.com/a/5wcFx8M > Perhaps the single most complex, insidious, and long-lasting mechanical problem in the history of commercial aviation was the mysterious rudder issue that plagued the Boeing 737 throughout the 1990s. Although it had long been rumoured to exist, the defect was suddenly thrust into the spotlight when United Airlines flight 585 crashed on approach to Colorado Springs on the third of March, 1991, killing all 25 people on board. The crash resulted in the longest investigation in NTSB history, years of arduous litigation, and a battle with Boeing over the safety of its most popular plane.
- EdwardDiego 7y ago
  For anyone who enjoyed the write up, it's from reddit user AdmiralCloudberg who has a bunch of them, and they're all good: https://www.reddit.com/r/AdmiralCloudberg/comments/a4ckhv/plane_crash_series_archive_part_2/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AdmiralCloudberg/comments/a4ckhv/pl...
  - jmkni 7y ago
    Those images are blocked for me at work, would have been helpful if they had added the text itself to the Reddit posts!
Haga 7y ago
It will fly only to be voted down with customers feet. I know a lot of people who looked on the plane type for the first time during their holiday bookings. This plane is finished.
- dhimes 7y ago
  Is there a requirement to fly the plane advertised? In other words, if I book specifically a non-737 800 Max plane, and the airline switches, can I get my money back, or make them fly me on a different airline?
  - jMyles 7y ago
    Interesting question. I have never had this happen, and I think I'll be asking a lot of questions if it does. It's not something an airline can do hastily, as different aircraft (well, at least those of differing type rating) require different crews to operate. So the airline will have to grab a totally different crew to match their replacement aircraft.
    - dhimes 7y ago
      When it has happened to me, the crew came with the plane.
    - moritzplassnig 7y ago
      I assume it happens regularly. I had a couple of flights myself on other plans than initially advertised. I always assumed that the airline canceled/delayed other flights because of it (taking plane a and crew a from flight a to do flight b with plane a). Before the 737 Max got grounded (after the 2nd crash), I remember reports that some airlines allowed passengers to rebook their flights for free (to end up on a different plane). I doubt they will continue doing it once the 737 Max is allowed to fly again. Eg, Southwest is too dependent on it.
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    Why did you put the 800 in there? The 737-800 is a separate plane from the 737-MAX, and doesn't suffer from these problems (and is still operating; I just flew one cross-country last week). You might be referring to the 737-MAX 8 (not 800), which is the only variant of the 737-MAX delivered so far.
user5994461 7y ago
>>> The sad thing is that we'll probably see this plane fly again by the end of the year, because the millions of dollars in retrofits will still be cheaper than having to scrap all existing planes. In the US maybe. In Europe and Asia, I don't think so. The planes have been grounded pending investigation. Given the speed of investigations and the political ramifications of all of this, I bet they won't be ungrounded anytime soon.

sk5t 7y ago

In what world is scrapping the airframes due to a (serious) software fault the best and most sensible solution? Do you believe there could be undiagnosed problems with the wings, fuselage, tail, hydraulics, electrics, fueling system, gear, etc.?

inferiorhuman 7y ago
In what world is scrapping the airframes due to a (serious) software fault the best and most sensible solution? A world in which the faulty software was required to fix faulty hardware.
- na85 7y ago
  The hardware isn't faulty. The problem is the way Boeing tried to achieve a zero training delta so pilots wouldn't have to get a second type rating.
  - nopzor 7y ago
    the airplane did not have stable flight characteristics because of its physical design. that’s a hardware problem. MCAS only exists because of that hardware problem. the fact that boeing also did not train or tell pilots about MCAS, in order to make the airplane more financially appealing by retaining the 737 type rating, is a separate (also bad) issue.
    - na85 7y ago
      >the airplane did not have stable flight characteristics because of its physical design. This is a gross oversimplification of the problem. In most of the flight envelope the aircraft is stable. At high alpha the aircraft has pitch problems. There are myriad ways to address this, and MCAS was one (bad) choice of many available to Boeing.
      - leoc 7y ago
        That's the devilish thing, I think. Making the plane unstable then patching things up with MCAS, or something else, isn't a fault in any straightforward way. But it is taking a risk, and the source of risk isn't simply the risk that eg. MCAS will fail on any given flight, it's also the higher-order risk that eg. the MCAS system will have a faulty design. (A bit like rewriting code in C for performance, or keeping on generally unloved code to satisfy a paying customer, presumably.) I assume that makes the ethical and safety decisions a lot more murky for the engineers than having a specific fault to point to, especially in an organisation afflicted with go fever.
      - sokoloff 7y ago
        I believe the airplane is aerodynamically stable even at high alpha. What it fails in certification is the requirement to have continually increasing pitch feedback forces. I believe the pitch feedback forces are still in the stable region, just too low. This is not a flying wing or intentionally unstable airplane (as the F-16).
        leoc 7y ago
- sslayer 7y ago
  Maybe we should just scrap all airplanes due to the inherient risk of strapping jet engines on metal tubes and forcing them 10's of thousands of feet into the air.
FabHK 7y ago
I think a better alternative would be to deny it a shared type certification with the prior 737 and requiring recertification (and pilot retraining), thus removing the incentive to use shortcuts.

zenzen 7y ago

I had forgotten about the rudder problems! Worth a read: https://imgur.com/a/5wcFx8M https://imgur.com/a/5wcFx8M > Perhaps the single most complex, insidious, and long-lasting mechanical problem in the history of commercial aviation was the mysterious rudder issue that plagued the Boeing 737 throughout the 1990s. Although it had long been rumoured to exist, the defect was suddenly thrust into the spotlight when United Airlines flight 585 crashed on approach to Colorado Springs on the third of March, 1991, killing all 25 people on board. The crash resulted in the longest investigation in NTSB history, years of arduous litigation, and a battle with Boeing over the safety of its most popular plane.

EdwardDiego 7y ago
For anyone who enjoyed the write up, it's from reddit user AdmiralCloudberg who has a bunch of them, and they're all good: https://www.reddit.com/r/AdmiralCloudberg/comments/a4ckhv/plane_crash_series_archive_part_2/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AdmiralCloudberg/comments/a4ckhv/pl...
- jmkni 7y ago
  Those images are blocked for me at work, would have been helpful if they had added the text itself to the Reddit posts!

Haga 7y ago

It will fly only to be voted down with customers feet. I know a lot of people who looked on the plane type for the first time during their holiday bookings. This plane is finished.

dhimes 7y ago
Is there a requirement to fly the plane advertised? In other words, if I book specifically a non-737 800 Max plane, and the airline switches, can I get my money back, or make them fly me on a different airline?
- jMyles 7y ago
  Interesting question. I have never had this happen, and I think I'll be asking a lot of questions if it does. It's not something an airline can do hastily, as different aircraft (well, at least those of differing type rating) require different crews to operate. So the airline will have to grab a totally different crew to match their replacement aircraft.
  - dhimes 7y ago
    When it has happened to me, the crew came with the plane.
  - moritzplassnig 7y ago
    I assume it happens regularly. I had a couple of flights myself on other plans than initially advertised. I always assumed that the airline canceled/delayed other flights because of it (taking plane a and crew a from flight a to do flight b with plane a). Before the 737 Max got grounded (after the 2nd crash), I remember reports that some airlines allowed passengers to rebook their flights for free (to end up on a different plane). I doubt they will continue doing it once the 737 Max is allowed to fly again. Eg, Southwest is too dependent on it.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  Why did you put the 800 in there? The 737-800 is a separate plane from the 737-MAX, and doesn't suffer from these problems (and is still operating; I just flew one cross-country last week). You might be referring to the 737-MAX 8 (not 800), which is the only variant of the 737-MAX delivered so far.

user5994461 7y ago

>>> The sad thing is that we'll probably see this plane fly again by the end of the year, because the millions of dollars in retrofits will still be cheaper than having to scrap all existing planes. In the US maybe. In Europe and Asia, I don't think so. The planes have been grounded pending investigation. Given the speed of investigations and the political ramifications of all of this, I bet they won't be ungrounded anytime soon.