5 ms·

I'm refusing to fly the MAX, period! The plane is flawed by design...

airhead969 6y ago
I have no opinion about flying on this particular plane. It's not so much MCAS, electric trim, this, or that. The bigger issue is it's too complicated, has too many features, and the FAA can't adequately oversee testing and certification all the way down the engineering stack. Furthermore, because of pressures to save a buck, Boeing is willing to cut corners and sacrifice safety by slapping a plane together without properly engineering or testing it. Because of this behavior, it's difficult to know how many other problems are lurking around like in the 787.
- worker767424 6y ago
  This is every commercial plane, though. We've traded more frequent crashes due to human error for fewer, more spectacular crashes due to how complex planes have become.
  - airhead969 6y ago
    False equivalency and hasty generalization that equivocates every plane as having the same risks when they clearly don't, and ignoring testing and training process improvements. Also, an oversimplification that somehow fundamentals of aviation are shifted as a finite resource over to automation when that's clearly not the case. 737 classics are simpler and reliable. The NG's randomly have hidden structural weaknesses exposed during runway overruns and hard landings when the fuselage breaks up because of Ducommun and Boeing negligence. The MAX is a steaming pile that may be a white elephant around Boeing's neck. The 787 is notoriously-bad. The 777 is pretty good. Airbus has had much more automation for years. Are they dropping out of the sky? Maybe they manage their complexity better than Boeing, who hires underpaid engineers to work on things that they're really not qualified to do.
    - bonzini 6y ago
      As a passenger the 787 is a fabulous aircraft.
sneak 6y ago
I have taken a similar stance myself (not that I'm flying anywhere these days) but, out of curiosity: do you also refuse to be a passenger in automobiles? The 737MAX is quite a bit safer than those.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  > do you also refuse to be a passenger in automobiles? The 737MAX is quite a bit safer than those. I expect more from HN users. The 737 MAX has not been demonstrated to be safe, let alone safer than other modes of transportation. All of the original issues (no oversight over ODA process, outsourced software, lack of redundant sensors, etc.) still remain like insects in amber. Source: commercially-rated pilot who has followed this since Day One, and was the only person who said the grounding would take at least a year, primarily because of the involvement of software with hardware.
- speedgoose 6y ago
  If I can chose between a 2021 Polestar or a 1956 Chevrolet, I may go with the Polestar for a long trip.
- spoonjim 6y ago
  The 737MAX is safer than a car per passenger mile, but saying that it's safer than "driving" is false unless you assume that both trips are the same distance. This isn't usually how it works. A Californian who refuses to vacation in New York to avoid the 737MAX usually does not drive to New York instead -- they drive to Point Reyes or something nearby, or just don't go at all.
  - Closi 6y ago
    This is true to some extent, although the difference in safety is so large that in the example you are still more likely to die from a car accident on your way to Point Reyes than your flight to New York. Deaths from car accidents per 100 million miles driven: 1.33 Deaths from plane accidents per 100 million miles by plane: 0.0077 (Note above statistics are from the US) In your example, California to New York would be approx 3k miles while point Reyes is approx 150-300 miles depending on where you start. A 10-20x longer journey via plane is still an order of magnitude safer. Per mile, the car is about 200x more dangerous - in fact the usual statistic is that getting on a plane is safer than driving to the airport, not doing the whole distance in the car.

I have no opinion about flying on this particular plane. It's not so much MCAS, electric trim, this, or that. The bigger issue is it's too complicated, has too many features, and the FAA can't adequately oversee testing and certification all the way down the engineering stack. Furthermore, because of pressures to save a buck, Boeing is willing to cut corners and sacrifice safety by slapping a plane together without properly engineering or testing it. Because of this behavior, it's difficult to know how many other problems are lurking around like in the 787.

worker767424 6y ago
This is every commercial plane, though. We've traded more frequent crashes due to human error for fewer, more spectacular crashes due to how complex planes have become.
- airhead969 6y ago
  False equivalency and hasty generalization that equivocates every plane as having the same risks when they clearly don't, and ignoring testing and training process improvements. Also, an oversimplification that somehow fundamentals of aviation are shifted as a finite resource over to automation when that's clearly not the case. 737 classics are simpler and reliable. The NG's randomly have hidden structural weaknesses exposed during runway overruns and hard landings when the fuselage breaks up because of Ducommun and Boeing negligence. The MAX is a steaming pile that may be a white elephant around Boeing's neck. The 787 is notoriously-bad. The 777 is pretty good. Airbus has had much more automation for years. Are they dropping out of the sky? Maybe they manage their complexity better than Boeing, who hires underpaid engineers to work on things that they're really not qualified to do.
  - bonzini 6y ago
    As a passenger the 787 is a fabulous aircraft.

sneak 6y ago

I have taken a similar stance myself (not that I'm flying anywhere these days) but, out of curiosity: do you also refuse to be a passenger in automobiles? The 737MAX is quite a bit safer than those.

redis_mlc 6y ago
> do you also refuse to be a passenger in automobiles? The 737MAX is quite a bit safer than those. I expect more from HN users. The 737 MAX has not been demonstrated to be safe, let alone safer than other modes of transportation. All of the original issues (no oversight over ODA process, outsourced software, lack of redundant sensors, etc.) still remain like insects in amber. Source: commercially-rated pilot who has followed this since Day One, and was the only person who said the grounding would take at least a year, primarily because of the involvement of software with hardware.
speedgoose 6y ago
If I can chose between a 2021 Polestar or a 1956 Chevrolet, I may go with the Polestar for a long trip.
spoonjim 6y ago
The 737MAX is safer than a car per passenger mile, but saying that it's safer than "driving" is false unless you assume that both trips are the same distance. This isn't usually how it works. A Californian who refuses to vacation in New York to avoid the 737MAX usually does not drive to New York instead -- they drive to Point Reyes or something nearby, or just don't go at all.
- Closi 6y ago
  This is true to some extent, although the difference in safety is so large that in the example you are still more likely to die from a car accident on your way to Point Reyes than your flight to New York. Deaths from car accidents per 100 million miles driven: 1.33 Deaths from plane accidents per 100 million miles by plane: 0.0077 (Note above statistics are from the US) In your example, California to New York would be approx 3k miles while point Reyes is approx 150-300 miles depending on where you start. A 10-20x longer journey via plane is still an order of magnitude safer. Per mile, the car is about 200x more dangerous - in fact the usual statistic is that getting on a plane is safer than driving to the airport, not doing the whole distance in the car.