5 ms·

> It's probably far safer now than other models. All 737 have an obsolescent fuselage design. It could not be certified given modern regulation and relies on

> It's probably far safer now than other models. All 737 have an obsolescent fuselage design. It could not be certified given modern regulation and relies on being grandfathered for new production. The consequence is the fuselage can shatter on crash landings or runway overruns whereas more modern designs will hold together and protect passengers. The relatively minor training, hardware and software revisions of 737 MAX do not make it safer than other models. Reading the FAA documents one learns there is little interest in pursuing more fundamental problems. For instance, the trim wheel control force issue has been officially handwaved. This means your 737 pilot may need to be an athlete in the midst of dealing with failed systems and reading flight manuals. Modern designs have flight proven fly-by-wire systems and don't involve wrestling with crazy naval vessel-like mechanical wheels to control pitch.

mlindner 6y ago
> All 737 have an obsolescent fuselage design. It could not be certified given modern regulation and relies on being grandfathered for new production. [citation needed] It was never said that it was an unsafe design.
- topspin 6y ago
  > [citation needed] It was never said that it was an unsafe design. [google it] I never claimed it was unsafe. I argued with the claim that, due to the additional scrutiny the 737 was now somehow 'far safer than other models.' It is not and no amount of additional scrutiny will change that.
0xy 6y ago
Do you disagree with the 565 independent pilots and aviation experts who signed off on the Max in Europe alone? It's the most scrutinized plane in aviation history, and has been vetted by multiple regulatory bodies and received thousands of test flights since fixes were made. Honest question: if this isn't enough for you, what is? All other planes have been scrutinized far less. The bar for the Max to return was much much higher.
- topspin 6y ago
  > Do you disagree with the 565 independent pilots and aviation experts who signed off on the Max in Europe alone? No, I do not disagree with any conclusion that the 737, including the MAX, is safe to operate. I disagree with the characterization that, as a result of recent scrutiny, the 737 is now 'far safer than other models.' It is not and no amount of additional scrutiny, and no signoffs by any number of pilots in any nation will change that. > It's the most scrutinized plane in aviation history, and has been vetted by multiple regulatory bodies and received thousands of test flights since fixes were made. I don't disagree with any of this. > Honest question: if this isn't enough for you, what is? All other planes have been scrutinized far less. It's plenty for me. I would happily fly on an 737 MAX. However, I do question whether some count of hours of scrutiny (or whatever you mean by 'far less') is a good proxy for safety. Things that operate safely tend not require so much scrutiny.
  - 0xy 6y ago
    >Things that operate safely tend not require so much scrutiny. I don't understand this statement, it seems fundamentally wrong. Aviation is full of scrutiny. Aircraft maintenance checks happy every 500 flight hours. Engines get overhauled completely every 1,500 hours. Maintenance and scrutiny ensure safety. If the Max has received, at a guess, 200x the scrutiny of any other plane in history, then I'd wager it is the safest. And at this point, pilots will know the Max back to front and front to back in order to avoid issues. Do pilots have such deep knowledge of other planes which almost assuredly have latent bugs which rarely or never crop up due to exceedingly rare conditions?
    - topspin 6y ago
      > Aircraft maintenance checks happy every 500 flight hours. Engines get overhauled completely every 1,500 hours. Maintenance and overhauls don't address design issues. Exactly the opposite; the people that perform checks and maintenance are expressly not supposed to deviate from approved designs and published processes. Conflating these tasks with regulatory scrutiny shows a fundamental misunderstanding about this discussion. And airliner engines are not 'completely overhauled' every 1,500 hours. Figures that low are related to small aircraft engines, usually piston engines.

mlindner 6y ago

> All 737 have an obsolescent fuselage design. It could not be certified given modern regulation and relies on being grandfathered for new production. [citation needed] It was never said that it was an unsafe design.

topspin 6y ago
> [citation needed] It was never said that it was an unsafe design. [google it] I never claimed it was unsafe. I argued with the claim that, due to the additional scrutiny the 737 was now somehow 'far safer than other models.' It is not and no amount of additional scrutiny will change that.

0xy 6y ago

Do you disagree with the 565 independent pilots and aviation experts who signed off on the Max in Europe alone? It's the most scrutinized plane in aviation history, and has been vetted by multiple regulatory bodies and received thousands of test flights since fixes were made. Honest question: if this isn't enough for you, what is? All other planes have been scrutinized far less. The bar for the Max to return was much much higher.

topspin 6y ago
> Do you disagree with the 565 independent pilots and aviation experts who signed off on the Max in Europe alone? No, I do not disagree with any conclusion that the 737, including the MAX, is safe to operate. I disagree with the characterization that, as a result of recent scrutiny, the 737 is now 'far safer than other models.' It is not and no amount of additional scrutiny, and no signoffs by any number of pilots in any nation will change that. > It's the most scrutinized plane in aviation history, and has been vetted by multiple regulatory bodies and received thousands of test flights since fixes were made. I don't disagree with any of this. > Honest question: if this isn't enough for you, what is? All other planes have been scrutinized far less. It's plenty for me. I would happily fly on an 737 MAX. However, I do question whether some count of hours of scrutiny (or whatever you mean by 'far less') is a good proxy for safety. Things that operate safely tend not require so much scrutiny.
- 0xy 6y ago
  >Things that operate safely tend not require so much scrutiny. I don't understand this statement, it seems fundamentally wrong. Aviation is full of scrutiny. Aircraft maintenance checks happy every 500 flight hours. Engines get overhauled completely every 1,500 hours. Maintenance and scrutiny ensure safety. If the Max has received, at a guess, 200x the scrutiny of any other plane in history, then I'd wager it is the safest. And at this point, pilots will know the Max back to front and front to back in order to avoid issues. Do pilots have such deep knowledge of other planes which almost assuredly have latent bugs which rarely or never crop up due to exceedingly rare conditions?
  - topspin 6y ago
    > Aircraft maintenance checks happy every 500 flight hours. Engines get overhauled completely every 1,500 hours. Maintenance and overhauls don't address design issues. Exactly the opposite; the people that perform checks and maintenance are expressly not supposed to deviate from approved designs and published processes. Conflating these tasks with regulatory scrutiny shows a fundamental misunderstanding about this discussion. And airliner engines are not 'completely overhauled' every 1,500 hours. Figures that low are related to small aircraft engines, usually piston engines.