7 ms·

There are ~600 delivered MAX aircraft, and ~4700 still on order (including all the cancelled orders). I don't know where you live and how often you fly and for

by laydn 5y ago

There are ~600 delivered MAX aircraft, and ~4700 still on order (including all the cancelled orders). I don't know where you live and how often you fly and for what purpose, but, chances are, a lot of people be somewhat forced to fly on a 737 Max eventually.

0xy 5y ago
Why would anyone be scared to fly on the most scrutinized plane in history? I certainly don't care. All of the pilots flying the MAX would now receive even more in-depth training on the quirks of the new systems. Chances of critical incident are practically zero. 180 countries have re-certified the plane and design changes were made as well. If you don't trust the FAA or the 179 other authorities, how do you step on ANY plane? Additionally, you don't trust the MAX yet you trust Boeing (you didn't mention their other planes)? If Boeing is negligigent, it's unlikely it's limited to a specific product. How can you then trust maintenance programs and spare parts provided by Boeing for the Dreamliner for example? If Boeing is incompetent, trusting the Dreamliner but not the MAX is irrational.
- CaptainZapp 5y ago
  > All of the pilots flying the MAX would now receive even more in-depth training on the quirks of the new systems. One of the main issues was that, apart from an hour on an iPad pilots didn't receive training at all. "even more training" is disengeneous and makes you sound like a shill. I'm sorry to say. E: spello
  - 0xy 5y ago
    I don't work for nor hold stock in any airline or aviation manufacturer, I can just adequately judge risks. You are the one who thinks 180 separate, independent regulators colluded to protect a company at the risk of the people they are supposed to protect. Any argument against the MAX has to be against the regulators as well as Boeing itself. Why is the Dreamliner acceptable and the MAX is not? Same company manufactured and maintains them, after all.
    - landemva 5y ago
      Different airframes. Different issues here.
    - netjiro 5y ago
      > Why is the Dreamliner acceptable and the MAX is not? I remember [1?] hearing that Emirates threatened refusing 777s & 787s from one of Boeing's plants due to repeated quality control issues. Have not tracked the issue. > 180 separate, independent regulators colluded to protect Not necessarily. But if 180 _independent_ bodies were effectively independent, one of them would probably have found issues with the max. But they are not operating effectively independent. [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/emirates-doubts-first-boeing-777x-will-come-before-2024-2021-05-24/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/emirates-doubts-fi...
      - 0xy 5y ago
        The MAX (before design updates and re-certification) has a fatal crash rate of 3.08 per million. Meanwhile 11.9 per 100,000 people die in car crashes. The MAX, before being fixed, was significantly safer than a car. Do you refuse to get in a car, since it's substantially more deadly than a MAX?
      - jim-jim-jim 5y ago
        The plant with the quality control issues is the non-unionized one.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    Pilots are trained in dealing with stabilizer trim runaway. The first crew to encounter the MCAS problem followed it (turned off the stab trim system), and landed safely. The second crew, on the same airplane, did not and crashed. (They never turned off the stab trim system.) http://knkt.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_aviation/baru/2018%20-%20035%20-%20PK-LQP%20Final%20Report.pdf http://knkt.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_aviation/baru/2018%20-%20... Boeing followed this up with an Emergency Airworthiness Directive, which was distributed to all MAX crews. It included a 2-step process for recovery. The EA crew did not follow that procedure: "Initially, higher control forces may be needed to overcome any stabilizer nose down trim already applied. Electric stabilizer trim can be used to neutralize control column pitch forces before moving the STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches to CUTOUT. Manual stabilizer trim can be used before and after the STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches are moved to CUTOUT." https://theaircurrent.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/B737-MAX-AD-1107.pdf https://theaircurrent.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/B737-MA... This does not absolve Boeing of the design flaw in MCAS where it only read data from one sensor, had too much authority, and would repeatedly engage after the pilot countermanded it.
    - MarcoZavala 5y ago
    - siva7 5y ago
      And again, victim blaming instead looking at the real perpetrator that is Boeing
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        It is the pilots' responsibility to READ, UNDERSTAND, REMEMBER and FOLLOW any Emergency Airworthiness Directives sent to them. Flying an airplane is not a joke. Pilots who are unwilling to do this should turn in their pilots' wings. Crashes are usually due to a combination of factors. Boeing certainly shares considerable blame for the poorly designed MCAS system. More issues: 1. how did a defective AOA sensor get past checks and be installed? 2. how did a defective AOA sensor pass inspection tests on the airplane? 3. why was the LA flight allowed to fly, when the previous flight experienced stab trim runaway? 4. why was the LA flight crew not informed of the anomalous behavior on the prior flight? Air travel is made safe by addressing all factors that led to an accident.
  - caspper69 5y ago
    I think he means more training now. Not really disingenuous at all.
  - tiahura 5y ago
    What’s remarkable is that MCAS functioned so well that not a single pilot had noticed it prior to Lion Air.
- onion2k 5y ago
  Why would anyone be scared to fly on the most scrutinized plane in history? Finding a bug is not the same as fixing a bug, and finding lots of bugs doesn't mean you've found them all.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    "Most scrutinized" means that you might have a fair chance at finding a higher proportion of them, though.
  - 0xy 5y ago
    So I imagine your position is that the software industry should swear off products altogether when they have a serious bug, right? Did you make a conscious effort to rid yourself of OpenSSL after Heartbleed? After Heartbleed, OpenSSL received mountains of extra funding as well as unprecedented scrutiny. Guess what happened after the MAX disasters? Extra funding and unprecedented scrutiny. In fact, no plane has been scrutinized more.
- kamray23 5y ago
  That's not what was being talked about. Sure, it's the safest aircraft out there, but that's like saying "the safest car". No-one is going to go and seek out the safest car, maybe stay away from unsafe ones, but as long as the general level of safety is high, people will fly on anything. The problem here is just simply ethics. Boeing did a bad thing, therefore I will refuse to use this plane. If enough people think similarly, Boeing will be punished harshly by its clients, as airlines see that the plane is not profitable due to its public image.
- rob74 5y ago
  > If Boeing is incompetent, trusting the Dreamliner but not the MAX is irrational. The 787 has its share of problems, but at least it's newly designed and has to conform to the latest safety regulations, not an over 50 year old design like the 737 MAX. If it wasn't such an old design, the odd placement of the engines which couldn't fit under the wings and therefore the "workaround" for the issues caused by this odd placement (MCAS) would not have been necessary...
- bmking 5y ago
  The problem is not about if the MAX is the safest airplane now. If Boeing can get away with it like that then it lowers the general airplane safety in my opinion. Now that Boeing has designed an airplane by cutting corners to safe money (even though it did cost them a lot, the government saved them), then this means that other airplane manufacturers must also cut corners to stay competitive.
  - FridayoLeary 5y ago
    You seem to be labouring under the illusion that airliner manufacturing is a competetive industry. But i'm not aware that Boeing has any real competitior other then airbus. The phrase "to big too fail" looms very large and is very real here. So no, this won't have an adverse affect outside of Boeing. The real problem is the culture that allows such a disaster and then, worst of all, tries a cover up. With the full aid of a government regulator (for heavens sake!). To the entire world. Apparently not afraid that being caught out would have worse consequences. A massive public breach of trust and hints of corruption. The way the FAA was the last country in the world to ground the MAX, it makes the US look like some 3rd world dictatorship.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  Boeing has never made an airliner that was fully dependent on computer assistance. They have no heritage in this domain and apparently don't care enough to pay for capable testing. It will always be risky to fly these no matter how much scrutiny is applied.
runnerup 5y ago
Indeed, my wife already has had to. Apparently it is uniquely uncomfortable to boot, even for a short (5'2") and thin (110lb) woman. I'm 6' tall and dreading the day I have to fly on this.
- rconti 5y ago
  Depends on how they configure the cabin, but it's been the same as any other 737 whenever I've flown on it (5'10", 180lb)

by laydn 5y ago

0xy 5y ago

Why would anyone be scared to fly on the most scrutinized plane in history? I certainly don't care. All of the pilots flying the MAX would now receive even more in-depth training on the quirks of the new systems. Chances of critical incident are practically zero. 180 countries have re-certified the plane and design changes were made as well. If you don't trust the FAA or the 179 other authorities, how do you step on ANY plane? Additionally, you don't trust the MAX yet you trust Boeing (you didn't mention their other planes)? If Boeing is negligigent, it's unlikely it's limited to a specific product. How can you then trust maintenance programs and spare parts provided by Boeing for the Dreamliner for example? If Boeing is incompetent, trusting the Dreamliner but not the MAX is irrational.

CaptainZapp 5y ago
> All of the pilots flying the MAX would now receive even more in-depth training on the quirks of the new systems. One of the main issues was that, apart from an hour on an iPad pilots didn't receive training at all. "even more training" is disengeneous and makes you sound like a shill. I'm sorry to say. E: spello
- 0xy 5y ago
  I don't work for nor hold stock in any airline or aviation manufacturer, I can just adequately judge risks. You are the one who thinks 180 separate, independent regulators colluded to protect a company at the risk of the people they are supposed to protect. Any argument against the MAX has to be against the regulators as well as Boeing itself. Why is the Dreamliner acceptable and the MAX is not? Same company manufactured and maintains them, after all.
  - landemva 5y ago
    Different airframes. Different issues here.
  - netjiro 5y ago
    > Why is the Dreamliner acceptable and the MAX is not? I remember [1?] hearing that Emirates threatened refusing 777s & 787s from one of Boeing's plants due to repeated quality control issues. Have not tracked the issue. > 180 separate, independent regulators colluded to protect Not necessarily. But if 180 _independent_ bodies were effectively independent, one of them would probably have found issues with the max. But they are not operating effectively independent. [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/emirates-doubts-first-boeing-777x-will-come-before-2024-2021-05-24/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/emirates-doubts-fi...
    - 0xy 5y ago
      The MAX (before design updates and re-certification) has a fatal crash rate of 3.08 per million. Meanwhile 11.9 per 100,000 people die in car crashes. The MAX, before being fixed, was significantly safer than a car. Do you refuse to get in a car, since it's substantially more deadly than a MAX?
    - jim-jim-jim 5y ago
      The plant with the quality control issues is the non-unionized one.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  Pilots are trained in dealing with stabilizer trim runaway. The first crew to encounter the MCAS problem followed it (turned off the stab trim system), and landed safely. The second crew, on the same airplane, did not and crashed. (They never turned off the stab trim system.) http://knkt.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_aviation/baru/2018%20-%20035%20-%20PK-LQP%20Final%20Report.pdf http://knkt.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_aviation/baru/2018%20-%20... Boeing followed this up with an Emergency Airworthiness Directive, which was distributed to all MAX crews. It included a 2-step process for recovery. The EA crew did not follow that procedure: "Initially, higher control forces may be needed to overcome any stabilizer nose down trim already applied. Electric stabilizer trim can be used to neutralize control column pitch forces before moving the STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches to CUTOUT. Manual stabilizer trim can be used before and after the STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches are moved to CUTOUT." https://theaircurrent.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/B737-MAX-AD-1107.pdf https://theaircurrent.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/B737-MA... This does not absolve Boeing of the design flaw in MCAS where it only read data from one sensor, had too much authority, and would repeatedly engage after the pilot countermanded it.
  - MarcoZavala 5y ago
  - siva7 5y ago
    And again, victim blaming instead looking at the real perpetrator that is Boeing
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      It is the pilots' responsibility to READ, UNDERSTAND, REMEMBER and FOLLOW any Emergency Airworthiness Directives sent to them. Flying an airplane is not a joke. Pilots who are unwilling to do this should turn in their pilots' wings. Crashes are usually due to a combination of factors. Boeing certainly shares considerable blame for the poorly designed MCAS system. More issues: 1. how did a defective AOA sensor get past checks and be installed? 2. how did a defective AOA sensor pass inspection tests on the airplane? 3. why was the LA flight allowed to fly, when the previous flight experienced stab trim runaway? 4. why was the LA flight crew not informed of the anomalous behavior on the prior flight? Air travel is made safe by addressing all factors that led to an accident.
- caspper69 5y ago
  I think he means more training now. Not really disingenuous at all.
- tiahura 5y ago
  What’s remarkable is that MCAS functioned so well that not a single pilot had noticed it prior to Lion Air.
onion2k 5y ago
Why would anyone be scared to fly on the most scrutinized plane in history? Finding a bug is not the same as fixing a bug, and finding lots of bugs doesn't mean you've found them all.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  "Most scrutinized" means that you might have a fair chance at finding a higher proportion of them, though.
- 0xy 5y ago
  So I imagine your position is that the software industry should swear off products altogether when they have a serious bug, right? Did you make a conscious effort to rid yourself of OpenSSL after Heartbleed? After Heartbleed, OpenSSL received mountains of extra funding as well as unprecedented scrutiny. Guess what happened after the MAX disasters? Extra funding and unprecedented scrutiny. In fact, no plane has been scrutinized more.
kamray23 5y ago
That's not what was being talked about. Sure, it's the safest aircraft out there, but that's like saying "the safest car". No-one is going to go and seek out the safest car, maybe stay away from unsafe ones, but as long as the general level of safety is high, people will fly on anything. The problem here is just simply ethics. Boeing did a bad thing, therefore I will refuse to use this plane. If enough people think similarly, Boeing will be punished harshly by its clients, as airlines see that the plane is not profitable due to its public image.
rob74 5y ago
> If Boeing is incompetent, trusting the Dreamliner but not the MAX is irrational. The 787 has its share of problems, but at least it's newly designed and has to conform to the latest safety regulations, not an over 50 year old design like the 737 MAX. If it wasn't such an old design, the odd placement of the engines which couldn't fit under the wings and therefore the "workaround" for the issues caused by this odd placement (MCAS) would not have been necessary...
bmking 5y ago
The problem is not about if the MAX is the safest airplane now. If Boeing can get away with it like that then it lowers the general airplane safety in my opinion. Now that Boeing has designed an airplane by cutting corners to safe money (even though it did cost them a lot, the government saved them), then this means that other airplane manufacturers must also cut corners to stay competitive.
- FridayoLeary 5y ago
  You seem to be labouring under the illusion that airliner manufacturing is a competetive industry. But i'm not aware that Boeing has any real competitior other then airbus. The phrase "to big too fail" looms very large and is very real here. So no, this won't have an adverse affect outside of Boeing. The real problem is the culture that allows such a disaster and then, worst of all, tries a cover up. With the full aid of a government regulator (for heavens sake!). To the entire world. Apparently not afraid that being caught out would have worse consequences. A massive public breach of trust and hints of corruption. The way the FAA was the last country in the world to ground the MAX, it makes the US look like some 3rd world dictatorship.
kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
Boeing has never made an airliner that was fully dependent on computer assistance. They have no heritage in this domain and apparently don't care enough to pay for capable testing. It will always be risky to fly these no matter how much scrutiny is applied.

runnerup 5y ago

Indeed, my wife already has had to. Apparently it is uniquely uncomfortable to boot, even for a short (5'2") and thin (110lb) woman. I'm 6' tall and dreading the day I have to fly on this.

rconti 5y ago
Depends on how they configure the cabin, but it's been the same as any other 737 whenever I've flown on it (5'10", 180lb)