5 ms·

You should probably not fly any 737, then, because it's had just as many bad, bad design flaws that killed people. Oh, and it's also the most successful commer

You should probably not fly any 737, then, because it's had just as many bad, bad design flaws that killed people. Oh, and it's also the most successful commercial aircraft in history.

mantap 7y ago
The 737 had those rudder issues but it didn't have the incompetent design of the 737 MAX.
- jhayward 7y ago
  I'm not sure the plane loads of passengers killed would agree with your professional opinion of design competence. Edited to add: the rudder design was "new" to the industry, in that it had a single control surface activated by a single control mechanism with no redundancy (sound familiar?). The rudder control valve in question had been found to malfunction on 747-200's earlier and was replaced in the entire 747 fleet. The 737's were not replaced until after more fatalities. The point of all this is that there are "incompetence" narratives that can be woven around all major design issues in commercial aircraft. To say "I'll ever fly one" displays a lack of understanding of what makes commercial aviation the safest way to travel, and what the risks actually are.
  - mantap 7y ago
    The point is that the MAX design flaw is so shallow. It uses a single sensor. If the sensor malfunctions during flight, then the software instructs the aircraft to dive into the ground. No right-minded person would ever design a flight control system like that. It's not merely wrong but wrong in such a basic way, as if designed by a child. Such a situation reasonably makes people question whether the MAX project was managed by competent individuals, which is obviously a prerequisite for many people to fly in one.
hugi 7y ago
What are you talking about? The crash rate of the MAX is about 13 times higher than that of other 737 models combined.
- jhayward 7y ago
  It doesn't have the crash rate now. At one time early in its introduction it had a very bad crash rate. Which is my point.
  - hugi 7y ago
    That's just plain wrong. The crash rates of the older 737 don't even approach the 737 MAX, which is an outlier. https://i.imgur.com/lLLeldA.png https://i.imgur.com/lLLeldA.png Source: https://qz.com/1571820/deaths-on-the-boeing-737-max-8-vs-other-commercial-aircraft/ https://qz.com/1571820/deaths-on-the-boeing-737-max-8-vs-oth...
    - fromthestart 7y ago
      That's pretty misleading. The image is looking at cumulative fatalities over a period, and those planes are all different sizes. The question here is likelihood of fatal accident, which is not addressed by your source.
      - hugi 7y ago
        Can you show me the numbers you're talking about?
    - jhayward 7y ago
      Those are fatalities, not crashes. They had the exact same number of crashes, plus one near-crash. Very similar to me. Planes flew with much lower passenger loads in those days so total fatalities can differ. I don't know what the exact crash rate (i.e., % flights that end in hull loss) was.
      - 7y ago
danmaz74 7y ago
Yes, you shouldn't fly on the original 737 either. But no companies are flying that one now...

You should probably not fly any 737, then, because it's had just as many bad, bad design flaws that killed people. Oh, and it's also the most successful commercial aircraft in history.

mantap 7y ago

The 737 had those rudder issues but it didn't have the incompetent design of the 737 MAX.

jhayward 7y ago
I'm not sure the plane loads of passengers killed would agree with your professional opinion of design competence. Edited to add: the rudder design was "new" to the industry, in that it had a single control surface activated by a single control mechanism with no redundancy (sound familiar?). The rudder control valve in question had been found to malfunction on 747-200's earlier and was replaced in the entire 747 fleet. The 737's were not replaced until after more fatalities. The point of all this is that there are "incompetence" narratives that can be woven around all major design issues in commercial aircraft. To say "I'll ever fly one" displays a lack of understanding of what makes commercial aviation the safest way to travel, and what the risks actually are.
- mantap 7y ago
  The point is that the MAX design flaw is so shallow. It uses a single sensor. If the sensor malfunctions during flight, then the software instructs the aircraft to dive into the ground. No right-minded person would ever design a flight control system like that. It's not merely wrong but wrong in such a basic way, as if designed by a child. Such a situation reasonably makes people question whether the MAX project was managed by competent individuals, which is obviously a prerequisite for many people to fly in one.

hugi 7y ago

What are you talking about? The crash rate of the MAX is about 13 times higher than that of other 737 models combined.

jhayward 7y ago
It doesn't have the crash rate now. At one time early in its introduction it had a very bad crash rate. Which is my point.
- hugi 7y ago
  That's just plain wrong. The crash rates of the older 737 don't even approach the 737 MAX, which is an outlier. https://i.imgur.com/lLLeldA.png https://i.imgur.com/lLLeldA.png Source: https://qz.com/1571820/deaths-on-the-boeing-737-max-8-vs-other-commercial-aircraft/ https://qz.com/1571820/deaths-on-the-boeing-737-max-8-vs-oth...
  - fromthestart 7y ago
    That's pretty misleading. The image is looking at cumulative fatalities over a period, and those planes are all different sizes. The question here is likelihood of fatal accident, which is not addressed by your source.
    - hugi 7y ago
      Can you show me the numbers you're talking about?
  - jhayward 7y ago
    Those are fatalities, not crashes. They had the exact same number of crashes, plus one near-crash. Very similar to me. Planes flew with much lower passenger loads in those days so total fatalities can differ. I don't know what the exact crash rate (i.e., % flights that end in hull loss) was.
    - 7y ago

danmaz74 7y ago

Yes, you shouldn't fly on the original 737 either. But no companies are flying that one now...