4 ms·

Then you’re going to have to ground all the 737-900ERs (in service since 2007) out there as well, since they use the exact same part. Or maybe, just maybe, thi

Then you’re going to have to ground all the 737-900ERs (in service since 2007) out there as well, since they use the exact same part. Or maybe, just maybe, this is 1,000x more likely to be a maintenance issue than it is a faulty design. If there were a genuine, ongoing safety issue worth worrying about pilots would stop flying them. People seem to entirely forget that the crew up in the cockpit are humans with an interest in self-preservation.

cjbprime 3y ago
A maintenance issue on a ten week old plane?
- stouset 3y ago
  That plane was literally at their OKC facility for maintenance on Dec 31, so… yes? Planes are not cars. They don’t go in once a year to change the oil filter and tighten a few bolts.
  - inferiorhuman 3y ago
    Doubtful. https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n704al#3374196f https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n704al#3374196f
  - Dah00n 3y ago
    How often are those plugs maintained? As far as I know it is around zero times in the lifetime of the plane and maybe a quick look at 5k hours?
  - philwelch 3y ago
    You should probably get your oil changed more frequently than once a year…but yes, aircraft do need a lot of maintenance.
    - mikem69 3y ago
      What modern car calls for oil changes more than once a year, assuming you’re not exceeding the mileage?
      - jbm 3y ago
        My 2016 Toyota Sienna for one.
        mikem69 3y ago
        If you use synthetic oil, the interval is 10,000 miles or 1 year, even for your Sienna.
        jbm 3y ago
        It was 7k kilometers according to my local dealer. Thanks for the info (I use synthetic oil too)
inferiorhuman 3y ago
Then you’re going to have to ground all the 737-900ERs (in service since 2007) out there as well, since they use the exact same part. Well, no. a.) The -900ER has exit doors where the -9 has plugs blocking off the doors. b.) If the problem was installation related then it would still make sense to ground the planes and inspect the potentially faulty aircraft.
- stouset 3y ago
  > a.) The -900ER has exit doors where the -9 has plugs blocking off the doors. The -900ER can and has come configured with the exact same plugs in those doors.
vlovich123 3y ago
Because even if it is just a maintenance issue (which as others point out is weird for a a permanent part on a 10 week old plane that shouldn’t need maintenance on this part ever), Boeing and the FAA have completely shot their credibility over the 737. Both in terms of original certification and also doubling down on “no issue planes are fine” until it became incontrovertible that the planes were the problem and then all the collusion and shadiness about how the 737 came to be came out. So with that history, even if it would be an overreaction, rebuilding trust would look like immediately grounding in a situation like this out of an abundance of caution. Btw the 737 has had other maintenance problems crop up since they put it back in service since the fleet was grounded to retrofit the part that was needed to fix the original fatal-causing defect. Honestly this just looks like an unsafe plane top to bottom that could sink Boeing (except they’re not allowed to sink because they’re critical partners to the national defense industry)
benrow 3y ago
My first thought was that the pilots and crew would lose their jobs if they refused to fly. But perhaps pilots would be less likely to get rated for Max aircraft if (hypothetically) there's a perceived broad issue with their safety? This could cause those who have a choice (stronger pilots) to go airbus. Not saying it's the case, just pondering here.
salawat 3y ago
The pilots have nothing to worry about. They're locked onto the cockpit. You'll forgive me if I find your assertion strains credulity.
- stouset 3y ago
  The cockpit is—as I’m sure you’ll be shocked to learn—actually integrally connected to the rest of the plane. If the MAX is as likely to fall out of the sky as the armchair experts at HN believe, pilots wouldn’t fly them.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    From what I understand, most pilots generally consider the famous MAX crashes to be “bad pilot crashes” and, of course, all pilots know they’re not bad pilots.

cjbprime 3y ago

A maintenance issue on a ten week old plane?

stouset 3y ago
That plane was literally at their OKC facility for maintenance on Dec 31, so… yes? Planes are not cars. They don’t go in once a year to change the oil filter and tighten a few bolts.
- inferiorhuman 3y ago
  Doubtful. https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n704al#3374196f https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n704al#3374196f
- Dah00n 3y ago
  How often are those plugs maintained? As far as I know it is around zero times in the lifetime of the plane and maybe a quick look at 5k hours?
- philwelch 3y ago
  You should probably get your oil changed more frequently than once a year…but yes, aircraft do need a lot of maintenance.
  - mikem69 3y ago
    What modern car calls for oil changes more than once a year, assuming you’re not exceeding the mileage?
    - jbm 3y ago
      My 2016 Toyota Sienna for one.
      - mikem69 3y ago
        If you use synthetic oil, the interval is 10,000 miles or 1 year, even for your Sienna.
        jbm 3y ago
        It was 7k kilometers according to my local dealer. Thanks for the info (I use synthetic oil too)

inferiorhuman 3y ago

Then you’re going to have to ground all the 737-900ERs (in service since 2007) out there as well, since they use the exact same part. Well, no. a.) The -900ER has exit doors where the -9 has plugs blocking off the doors. b.) If the problem was installation related then it would still make sense to ground the planes and inspect the potentially faulty aircraft.

stouset 3y ago
> a.) The -900ER has exit doors where the -9 has plugs blocking off the doors. The -900ER can and has come configured with the exact same plugs in those doors.

vlovich123 3y ago

Because even if it is just a maintenance issue (which as others point out is weird for a a permanent part on a 10 week old plane that shouldn’t need maintenance on this part ever), Boeing and the FAA have completely shot their credibility over the 737. Both in terms of original certification and also doubling down on “no issue planes are fine” until it became incontrovertible that the planes were the problem and then all the collusion and shadiness about how the 737 came to be came out. So with that history, even if it would be an overreaction, rebuilding trust would look like immediately grounding in a situation like this out of an abundance of caution. Btw the 737 has had other maintenance problems crop up since they put it back in service since the fleet was grounded to retrofit the part that was needed to fix the original fatal-causing defect. Honestly this just looks like an unsafe plane top to bottom that could sink Boeing (except they’re not allowed to sink because they’re critical partners to the national defense industry)

benrow 3y ago

My first thought was that the pilots and crew would lose their jobs if they refused to fly. But perhaps pilots would be less likely to get rated for Max aircraft if (hypothetically) there's a perceived broad issue with their safety? This could cause those who have a choice (stronger pilots) to go airbus. Not saying it's the case, just pondering here.

salawat 3y ago

The pilots have nothing to worry about. They're locked onto the cockpit. You'll forgive me if I find your assertion strains credulity.

stouset 3y ago
The cockpit is—as I’m sure you’ll be shocked to learn—actually integrally connected to the rest of the plane. If the MAX is as likely to fall out of the sky as the armchair experts at HN believe, pilots wouldn’t fly them.
- bombcar 3y ago
  From what I understand, most pilots generally consider the famous MAX crashes to be “bad pilot crashes” and, of course, all pilots know they’re not bad pilots.