8 ms·
Boeing 737 Max Is Cleared by FAA to Resume Flights
- kozak 6y agoI would be 100% comfortable flying the MAX if they either added a third AoA sensor or removed MCAS altogether (introducing a new type). They did neither.
- snarf21 6y agoI also want ALL pilots trained on the differences on this plane. It is not the same as a 737 and we need to stop pretending it is. People should be in jail over this.
- DangitBobby 6y agoTraining is required to my understanding.
- snarf21 6y agoGood, as long as the training teaches them how/when to disable this failed system.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> I would be 100% comfortable flying the MAX if they either added a third AoA sensor or removed MCAS altogether You prefer a plane that stalls?
- salex89 6y agoMCAS is not there to prevent stalls, it's there to make the MAX fly like the NG.
- Tuna-Fish 6y agoWhy is this being downvoted? It is entirely correct. The MAX is an entirely safe plane to fly without MCAS. It stalls more easily, but the safe flight regime is not in any way remarkable -- there are plenty of aircraft that stall even more easily than the MAX in wide use. The problem was never that the plane's flight characteristics were unsafe, it was that they were different enough from the older 737's that it wasn't reasonable to fit them under the same type certificate. So MCAS was added not to make the plane not stall, it was added to make the plane not stall if flown like any other 737. This is both why a failure of this magnitude could slip past the regulators (MCAS was never described as critical for flight, so it could do with less redundancy. In a failure condition, the crew could always just turn it off and fly without.), and why it's failure is so goddamn galling (a barely-tested computer program that was not needed for safe operation was given the controls to literally fly the plane into the ground for reasons that were best described as marketing).
- rootusrootus 6y agoThe MCAS tries to help save a plane that has already gotten in a bad situation. To need it, the pilots have already let the plane get into a dangerous flight regime, your odds of recovery at that point even without MCAS are not ideal.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> your odds of recovery at that point even without MCAS are not ideal That's why they added MCAS. Based on the FAA's testing, it helps when it works. I understand the temptation to lean into anti-intellectualism when a plane crashes. But there is sunlight between criticizing an agency in general and playing armchair aerospace engineer.
- dreamcompiler 6y agoThis is incorrect. Both 737Max crashes took place during normal flight regimes, and they happened because of faulty AOA sensors. Pilots have multiple ways of determining AOA and would never have been fooled by a single bad sensor. Finally, recovering from a stall (even if one happened, which it didn't in either crash) is Day 1 of every flight training course. It is probably the most basic and thoroughly-drilled skill in all of flying.
- rootusrootus 6y ago> Both 737Max crashes took place during normal flight regimes I expected to see this fallacy. MCAS does not operate normally during any flight regime routinely encountered. It should remain entirely inactive until things get more exciting than they should ever get on a passenger flight. What you are talking about is a malfunctioning MCAS, which isn't operating by design. > recovering from a stall (even if one happened, which it didn't in either crash) is Day 1 of every flight training course Yes, of course it is. It is also very rarely encountered by passenger jets, and when it does happen things are very exciting indeed. Your odds of hitting the ground have already gone up quite dramatically at that point, MCAS or not.
- dreamcompiler 6y ago
- kube-system 6y agoAll planes stall. If you are type certified to fly the aircraft, you know how not to do that. MCAS was a type certification workaround, not a stall workaround.
- dreamcompiler 6y agoExactly. Any half-decent pilot could keep the 737Max in the air without MCAS. It would just "feel" slightly different than a previous 737. The problem with MCAS is that it lies to the pilot in about four different ways.
- Darmody 6y agoI won't fly on that thing.
- throwaway4good 6y agoWho will buy this? Are they not being boycotted by the Chinese?
- tartoran 6y agoThey don’t need to be boycotted, they simply have a bad design addressed with a software workaround. The bad early track record is enough to keep a large chunk of people terrified of flying on them that airlines would probablty invest into different planes. Not sure what would happen to the current fleet, they would probably continue to fly successfully having that pilots are now aware of the shortcomings but I don’t see this plane making any further success in sales
- flippyhead 6y agoMy plan is to not fly on these for 6 - 12 month; see if any more crash. On the one hand, I would be terrified because, obviously! But on the other, they must now be extremely safe, with all the scrutiny, right?
- donkeyd 6y agoNot flying at all for the next 6-12 months seems reasonable too, in light of the ongoing pandemic.
- DennisP 6y agoThey crashed because they made an unstable airframe and tried to make up for it with sensors and software. They've presumably improved the sensors and software, along with training, but the airframe is the same. I'd much rather ride some boring old design that's been flying safely for decades without needing fancy software to keep it in the air.
- mumblemumble 6y agoMy understanding is that the airframe wasn't unstable in a way that's particularly unusual for commercial aircraft, and these sorts of things are regularly handled just fine with pilot training. The problem was that it was unstable in a way that wasn't exactly like previous 737 models. Except actually that probably wasn't a problem so much as an annoyance. The problem was that, since retraining pilots for the MAX's quirks would have been unpalatable for customers, they decided to try and use software to sweep it under the carpet. Except perhaps the even more fundamental problem was that the FAA was so deeply asleep on their post that this glaring snow job apparently flew past them without notice.
- tzs 6y agoIt is not an unstable airframe. See this prior thread for more detail: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21245975 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21245975
- VBprogrammer 6y ago
- danpalmer 6y agoThe hot take is "I won't fly on these anymore", and I totally get it. However, this is a plane with a ton of recent scrutiny from the FAA, and the product of Boeing cultural failings. Is the better version of this take "I won't fly Boeing anymore"? With the possible exception of this plane given its recent scrutiny. The other planes in use are updated on a rolling basis, they've had "minor" changes here and there, potentially the same level of "minor" that the Max was – and we know how that performed.
- Dirlewanger 6y ago>Is the better version of this take "I won't fly Boeing anymore"? I'd love not to, but that basically means not flying domestically anymore ever, only directly out of the US, and even then it may still be Boeing.
- syshum 6y agopre-covid almost all of the flights I took where on bombardier CRJ regional Jets Uncomfortable as hell.... I hate them
- rootusrootus 6y ago> Uncomfortable as hell.... I hate them And usually old and beat to hell. Plastic interiors melting from contact with people's heads, creaking interiors, creaking structure (actually had one make a terrific crack that reverbrated through the airframe during some turbulence on my last flight). I'm not really a fan of the CRJ either.
- kube-system 6y agoIf you are really serious about not flying Boeing, you could always book flights at small regional airports. Not sure I’d personally prefer a Cessna 208 to a MAX 8, though.
- amyjess 6y agoSpirit operates an all-Airbus fleet and has extensive domestic coverage.
- capableweb 6y ago> The agency’s chief, Stephen Dickson, signed an order Wednesday formally lifting the grounding [...] “I am 100 percent comfortable with my family flying on it.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_5cpPGEj1Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_5cpPGEj1Q I'm looking forward to seeing a video of him and his family on this plane, unless this is just marketing speak. It sure would help raise the public image of the FAA and Boeing slightly if they put their money (family?) where their mouth is.
- inquirerofsorts 6y agoThis seems like an excellent gofundme cause, I'll chip in for him and his family to go cross-continental while happily smiling for the cameras.
- capableweb 6y agoWhat? How is funding a executive and the current administrator of the FAA a good cause? Now I know people in general like capitalism, but to fund the very people on the top with your money? He surely get free travels as the admin for the FAA, but if he doesn't, he can surely afford travelling many times over with his family without making a dent in his own economy. Maybe your comment was sarcastic and I missed that. Sorry if that was the case.
- nottorp 6y agoYou missed the whole point of this thread :) To spell it out again, the idea is to put the dude on a long flight with the 737MAX he just recertified.
- capableweb 6y agoI can hardly miss the point if I started the thread, can I? :) I'm not against my idea of putting this man and his family on a flight. I'm against starting a gofundme (basically raise money for him) to fund this adventure, when he or his employer should be able to pay for this just fine.
- asciimov 6y agoBoeing needs to do some publicity stunts to get the public interested in flying on these. Best thing they could do I put their Board of Directors and their families one one and fly it around the world.
- walls 6y agoThat's a good start, then they need to send it into the ocean. The negligence of that group of individuals led to the deaths of over 300 people.
- yk 6y agoOP suggested they fly 737 Max
- rootusrootus 6y agoIf I were in charge of PR for Boeing, I'd do exactly the opposite. I'd quietly get them back into production and I'd happily pony up for every last plane to have the paint scheme altered so it didn't say MAX anywhere on it.
- robotnikman 6y agoOr have a stunt pilot fly some crazy maneuvers in one, pushing it to its limits. They have actually done this with some of their other planes before.
- yummypaint 6y agoThe fundamental reason these planes have killed so many people is because of structural problems at boeing and the FAA. Technical band-aids have fixed none of the factors that caused such an unconscionably unsafe aircraft to be produced and rammed through certification in the first place. Engineers are still taking a back seat to MBAs on critical design and safety decisions. Every step of the way in this saga Boeing has shown itself to be a bad faith actor unworthy of the public's trust. They know they are too big to fail, and are cynically exploiting their position.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago> They know they are too big to fail, and are cynically exploiting their position. They aren't going to bust over this, sure, but this has still been a very costly black eye for them, no? Even if they get their FAA approval, I imagine fewer airlines will be buying Boeing. (Discounting the enormous impact of the pandemic, that is.)
- drcross 6y agoProbably. And we all know what Boeing will prioritise to minimise these losses when faced with the chance of these two options: making a demonstratively better and safer plane which increases profits or reducing costs.
- dingaling 6y ago> I imagine fewer airlines will be buying Boeing. Why? Plenty of airlines kept ordering the DC-10 after its grounding was lifted. If the aircraft is certificated it's good to buy, in business terms. Buying Boeing right now is an excellent idea for most airlines since discounts will be deep in order to get the order book filled. I'll bet Ryanair will announce a big top-up order soon.
- raverbashing 6y agoJust to be clear: No, it is not cleared to resume flights yet, airlines still have to approve their supplementary 737MAX training with the FAA, and they have to take the planes out of storage, which requires some maintenance work. So no MAX planes flying immediately. But soon.
- cm2187 6y agoPlus I think air traffic was picking up in the US, but in Europe, with all the new lockdowns, there cannot be a huge appetite to get those planes out of storage.
- interestica 6y agoThe storage/maintenance issue is of greatest concern to me. It's an easy way to cut corners for smaller airlines during a pandemic. And if a plane goes down due to faults in that process, Boeing may again see criticism if it just happens to be one of theirs (even if it was an airline maintenance fault). I really don't feel like flying for a while.
- DennisP 6y agoOk so who's going to build the travel site that helps you avoid riding a 737 Max? I know the airlines can switch planes without notice, but it seems possible to improve your odds at least.
- frutiger 6y agoThat site already exists: delta.com.
- Kaibeezy 6y agoThanks for that. I feel better already.
- LittlePeter 6y agoYou can look up the aircraft used for last 7 flights of a particular flight on flightradar24.com. The aircraft type serving a route typically stays fixed. Additionally you can look up an airline's fleet on Wikipedia and avoid ones with the Max.
- amyjess 6y agoFly Spirit exclusively. They have an all-Airbus fleet.
- kayoone 6y agoThis might be one of the safest planes now though.
- comeonseriously 6y agoMy cynical take is they know they're going to get the planes back in the air eventually, so do it during a pandemic so when one does go down again it will presumably have fewer casualties.
- neom 6y agoFAA, EASA, Transport Canada and ANAC have all not only re-certified the planes but also checked all each others work. I'm sure the 737 Max is as safe as any other plane to fly in. What's still troubling to me is that the FAA was allowing Boeing to parlay it's way into 2017 using 1967 certifications. "The 737 was first certified by the FAA in 1967. Like every new 737 model since then, the MAX has been approved partially with the original requirements and partially with more current regulations, enabling certain rules and requirements to be grandfathered in. Chief executive Dai Whittingham of the independent trade group UK Flight Safety Committee disputed the idea that the MAX was just another 737, saying, "It is a different body and aircraft but certifiers gave it the same type rating."
- eaandkw 6y agoJust understand that the 737 Max was approved by the same government that tried running an election. Thanks but nope.
- capableweb 6y agoAgree fully. While the US never been 100% trustworthy, the election of Donald Trump, the handling of the pandemic, the handling of the 737 Max fiasco and the handling of this years election are very embarrassing and has made the trust hit rock bottom for the nation.
- dariusj18 6y agoWhat do you mean? Elections are run by the states, individually, in the US.
- jug 6y agoI honestly don't think an unstable airframe 100% relying on proper pilot education synchronized with software feels great. But I must also admit that I'm not sure if this is the norm nowadays as aircraft keep being pushed for higher efficiency (and the Max simply had poor education and software), or if this indeed is a very special aircraft.
- wil421 6y agoPilots have been relying on software to fly commercial planes for ages. When a pilot is given clearance to land they punch numbers into the flight computer corresponding to the airport and approach. The plane will automatically line up with the correct runway. The glideslope will also tell the plane where it needs to be as it is descending. The planes are also able to land themselves. Pilots are there to make people feel comfortable and handle rare edge cases. They will be monitoring the autopilot at all times.
- drcross 6y agoI think Op was more referring to fly by wire.
- rootusrootus 6y agoNow the question is ... how long are people's memories? This isn't the first time Boeing has been in this position, and they came back just fine. My guess is that people will forget very quickly. The planes will be rebranded to de-emphasize the MAX name, and flying will return to normal in 2021. Boeing will benefit from the cluster of a year 2020 has been. People have had plenty of distractions since the crashes.
- samsa 6y agoI for one will continue my post-737 Max strategy of only flying Delta (Airbus). Not that I fly often.
- dingaling 6y agoDelta have been in talks to take some of the stored, unallocated 737 Max ( 'whitetails' ) to replace their MD-95 / 717 fleet.
- hourislate 6y agoBoeing has an interesting relationship with many Agencies and the US Government. They're like part of the Family. Their failures are overlooked and even rewarded. The MAX could crash again and the circus will continue, they will pretend to fix it and move on. Their Starliner Space Craft was a failure and they were given more Government funds and time. People should have went to jail, massive fines or Boeing should have been forced to scrap the entire fleet of 737 MAX and never allowed to create an abomination like that again. This Companies products are designed by clowns, who are in turn supervised by monkeys.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- bmking 6y agoI won't fly on it and I don't care how safe it is. The precedent it sets is terrifying. I know people say Boeing got a "black eye" from it, but in reality getting out of this that easy sets them up to a dangerous advantage over competitors in my perspective. Competitors can't compete on safe terms and will have to reduce safety to stay competitive, which ignites a very bad spiral...
- dreamcompiler 6y agoI wouldn't mind flying on it if I was the pilot, because I'd know how to disconnect the stupid MCAS and fly the damned plane. But as a passenger I have no idea how well the pilot has been trained or whether he/she has sense enough to disconnect the MCAS and rely on piloting skills. Although in reality it's kind of hard to imagine any qualified pilot missing the 737Max memo, so I'm probably awfulizing. It's still a poorly-designed plane built by a poorly-managed company with its flaws spackled over by software, and that alone makes me want to avoid it.
- alkonaut 6y agoI’m 100% happy to fly on it if both the US and EU authorities deem it safe. Has the EASA said anything yet?
- detaro 6y agoEASA said in September that they'll likely lift the ban this month.
- zero_deg_kevin 6y agoI’ll fly it as soon as we’ve fixed the legal/regulatory issues that led to its initial certification. Until the process is fixed, I refuse to accept its conclusions.