6 ms·

It’s a sad statement about falling social trust, but I would not fly on a re-certified 737 Max. I do not have enough faith in Boeing and the FAA, which appears

It’s a sad statement about falling social trust, but I would not fly on a re-certified 737 Max. I do not have enough faith in Boeing and the FAA, which appears to be completely captured by Boeing, to properly value my safety above short term profits. I’d abandon a ticket at the airport if I found out that it was on a 737 Max; no trip I take is worth risking my life for. Practically speaking this might require that I start buying more tickets with airlines that prefer Airbus aircraft.

kube-system 6y ago
Personally, I think my trust of US pilots is enough to outweigh my concerns about MCAS. I feel pretty confident that if I get into a MAX8 in the US that the pilots in the cockpit know their shit. The most common reason that planes crash is still pilot error. I'd rather fly in a MAX8 operated by a reputable airline than a perfect airplane operated by a sketchy third-world airline.
- tigershark 6y ago
  No, it wasn’t in the case of the 737 Max.
- thatswrong0 6y ago
  https://www.npr.org/2019/06/19/734248714/pilots-criticize-boeing-saying-737-max-should-never-have-been-approved https://www.npr.org/2019/06/19/734248714/pilots-criticize-bo... > [Chesley] Sullenberger says he recently experienced scenarios similar to those facing the pilots of the doomed Ethiopian and Lion Air jetliners in a simulator and says he understands the difficulties they had trying to maintain control of the planes. "Even knowing what was going to happen, I could see how crews could have run out of time and altitude before they could have solved the problems," he said.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    For sure, the issue is bad, should be resolved, and should have never been certified in the first place. But given the amount of attention the problem has received from all stakeholders, I think any further worries about MCAS from the flying public are misguided. The least likely thing to kill you is usually the issue that everyone is thinking about and is actively working to mitigate. Mechanical issues are especially terrifying because they remove any sense of human agency, but the good thing is that humans are good at fixing them. Human fallibility is a much tougher problem to solve and is still by far the most common reason airplanes crash.
  - blackflame7000 6y ago
    Turns out pilots were able to successfully save their aircraft in this situation if they recognized the symptoms of runaway trim quickly enough https://qz.com/1576597/off-duty-pilot-saved-lion-airs-737-max-the-day-before-its-fatal-flight/ https://qz.com/1576597/off-duty-pilot-saved-lion-airs-737-ma...
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      If the plane tries to crash itself during take off, it’s only a matter of time before a pilot doesn’t react quickly enough to prevent the plane from killing everyone on board. Blaming the pilot for not reacting quickly enough is really to miss the point. Really the plane shouldn’t be trying to dive into the ground after takeoff, this is an undesirable property for an airplane to have. The fact that the same plane kept repeatedly trying to plow itself into the ground after takeoff really underscores the basic premise that the 737 Max is a bad aircraft, and should have never been certified.
- na85 6y ago
  The flight crew on Lion Air 610 were experienced. They had a combined total of nearly 10000 hours on 737s. These guys "knew their shit". American Exceptionalism is a dangerous myth. They didn't crash because they were Indian/Indonesian. What happened to these guys is that they faced a situation that tested the limits of human abilities, and it's the reason a whole domain of engineering called Human Factors exists.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    Forgive me if I made any impression otherwise -- I am not saying those specific pilots were inexperienced. (I mentioned the US solely because I am familiar with their safety record, not because I don't think other high-income nations don't also have good pilots) I am saying, in general, if you are going to get on a plane today, you are much more likely to be killed because of human error than any other reason. Humans are good at fixing, mitigating, and recognizing mechanical issues. Other planes in the past have had mechanical issues and later returned to service with a good safety record. Human error is really what you should be worried about, both statistically, and in terms of mitigation difficulty.
    - na85 6y ago
      >I am saying, in general, if you are going to get on a plane today, you are much more likely to be killed because of human error than any other reason. Sure, but the issue with the 737 MAX in particular is that the aircraft is unsafe from a design perspective, so I find your arguments that US aircrews are less likely to make a mistake to be both nonsensical and irrelevant (from a 737 MAX perspective). The 737 MAX is flawed in a way that was not only concealed from the operators, but in a way that causes a failure mode that is not easily avoided or averted because of Human Factors, even by an aircrew that "knows their shit". Your faith in the MAX 8 flown by US operators is unfounded.
      - kube-system 6y ago
        The DC10 also had design flaws. Mitigations were implemented and it returned to service with a safety record similar to its peers. Both planes had an engineering problem, both can be solved by engineering a solution.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  You're approaching this wrong. Yes, pilot error is the most common cause of aircraft incidents. But poor aircraft design is additive to that risk. If you genuinely believe that the Max 8 is a bad airplane, as I do, then you're accepting the risk of the pilots making a mistake plus the risk of bad aircraft design killing you. With that in mind, I would still choose to fly a regular 737, even if I already trust the pilots to "know their shit", since adding risk for no gain is a silly thing to do.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    I am addressing the idea that the plane type would make-or-break someone's decision to fly. If human error is the larger factor, then why would you make the decision based on a smaller factor? I wouldn't get off a MAX8 operated by Quantas and instead board an A320 operated by PIA
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      I was never going to fly with an airline with a bad track record, so this is a false dichotomy you’re putting up. For me the question is would I fly with one reputable airline on a max 8, or on another with a a321neo. The answer here is clear.

kube-system 6y ago

Personally, I think my trust of US pilots is enough to outweigh my concerns about MCAS. I feel pretty confident that if I get into a MAX8 in the US that the pilots in the cockpit know their shit. The most common reason that planes crash is still pilot error. I'd rather fly in a MAX8 operated by a reputable airline than a perfect airplane operated by a sketchy third-world airline.

tigershark 6y ago
No, it wasn’t in the case of the 737 Max.
thatswrong0 6y ago
https://www.npr.org/2019/06/19/734248714/pilots-criticize-boeing-saying-737-max-should-never-have-been-approved https://www.npr.org/2019/06/19/734248714/pilots-criticize-bo... > [Chesley] Sullenberger says he recently experienced scenarios similar to those facing the pilots of the doomed Ethiopian and Lion Air jetliners in a simulator and says he understands the difficulties they had trying to maintain control of the planes. "Even knowing what was going to happen, I could see how crews could have run out of time and altitude before they could have solved the problems," he said.
- kube-system 6y ago
  For sure, the issue is bad, should be resolved, and should have never been certified in the first place. But given the amount of attention the problem has received from all stakeholders, I think any further worries about MCAS from the flying public are misguided. The least likely thing to kill you is usually the issue that everyone is thinking about and is actively working to mitigate. Mechanical issues are especially terrifying because they remove any sense of human agency, but the good thing is that humans are good at fixing them. Human fallibility is a much tougher problem to solve and is still by far the most common reason airplanes crash.
- blackflame7000 6y ago
  Turns out pilots were able to successfully save their aircraft in this situation if they recognized the symptoms of runaway trim quickly enough https://qz.com/1576597/off-duty-pilot-saved-lion-airs-737-max-the-day-before-its-fatal-flight/ https://qz.com/1576597/off-duty-pilot-saved-lion-airs-737-ma...
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    If the plane tries to crash itself during take off, it’s only a matter of time before a pilot doesn’t react quickly enough to prevent the plane from killing everyone on board. Blaming the pilot for not reacting quickly enough is really to miss the point. Really the plane shouldn’t be trying to dive into the ground after takeoff, this is an undesirable property for an airplane to have. The fact that the same plane kept repeatedly trying to plow itself into the ground after takeoff really underscores the basic premise that the 737 Max is a bad aircraft, and should have never been certified.
na85 6y ago
The flight crew on Lion Air 610 were experienced. They had a combined total of nearly 10000 hours on 737s. These guys "knew their shit". American Exceptionalism is a dangerous myth. They didn't crash because they were Indian/Indonesian. What happened to these guys is that they faced a situation that tested the limits of human abilities, and it's the reason a whole domain of engineering called Human Factors exists.
- kube-system 6y ago
  Forgive me if I made any impression otherwise -- I am not saying those specific pilots were inexperienced. (I mentioned the US solely because I am familiar with their safety record, not because I don't think other high-income nations don't also have good pilots) I am saying, in general, if you are going to get on a plane today, you are much more likely to be killed because of human error than any other reason. Humans are good at fixing, mitigating, and recognizing mechanical issues. Other planes in the past have had mechanical issues and later returned to service with a good safety record. Human error is really what you should be worried about, both statistically, and in terms of mitigation difficulty.
  - na85 6y ago
    >I am saying, in general, if you are going to get on a plane today, you are much more likely to be killed because of human error than any other reason. Sure, but the issue with the 737 MAX in particular is that the aircraft is unsafe from a design perspective, so I find your arguments that US aircrews are less likely to make a mistake to be both nonsensical and irrelevant (from a 737 MAX perspective). The 737 MAX is flawed in a way that was not only concealed from the operators, but in a way that causes a failure mode that is not easily avoided or averted because of Human Factors, even by an aircrew that "knows their shit". Your faith in the MAX 8 flown by US operators is unfounded.
    - kube-system 6y ago
      The DC10 also had design flaws. Mitigations were implemented and it returned to service with a safety record similar to its peers. Both planes had an engineering problem, both can be solved by engineering a solution.
ashtonkem 6y ago
You're approaching this wrong. Yes, pilot error is the most common cause of aircraft incidents. But poor aircraft design is additive to that risk. If you genuinely believe that the Max 8 is a bad airplane, as I do, then you're accepting the risk of the pilots making a mistake plus the risk of bad aircraft design killing you. With that in mind, I would still choose to fly a regular 737, even if I already trust the pilots to "know their shit", since adding risk for no gain is a silly thing to do.
- kube-system 6y ago
  I am addressing the idea that the plane type would make-or-break someone's decision to fly. If human error is the larger factor, then why would you make the decision based on a smaller factor? I wouldn't get off a MAX8 operated by Quantas and instead board an A320 operated by PIA
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    I was never going to fly with an airline with a bad track record, so this is a false dichotomy you’re putting up. For me the question is would I fly with one reputable airline on a max 8, or on another with a a321neo. The answer here is clear.