4 ms·

This is an excellent example. The 737 used to crash a LOT MORE than it does now, and even the version with MCAS is a safer airplane than your average 1990s jet

by SR2Z 2y ago

This is an excellent example. The 737 used to crash a LOT MORE than it does now, and even the version with MCAS is a safer airplane than your average 1990s jetliner (which was also probably a 737, which is kind of my point)[1]. So it's a slightly less safe (in the grand scheme of things) airliner that's vastly more fuel efficient and cheaper to run than any in the past. Obviously this is of no comfort to the families of the people who died in the crash! But to suggest that Boeing has somehow regressed decades in technical capabilities is just plain wrong. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Boeing_737 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident...

sidewndr46 2y ago
When you look at how type acceptance works, all Boeing planes are going to be a "737". When you actually look at the 737 MAX and compare it to earlier aircraft, it's pretty obvious that they've created a whole new aircraft. Hence MCAS trying to pretend like that didn't happen & dead people.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
gcanyon 2y ago
Thanks for that list/link. It's so easy to forget how awful the past was.
oxfordmale 2y ago
The problem isn't that Boeing is less safe; it is that the company's culture shifted to the extent that technical staff could no longer report perceived safety issues.
ekianjo 2y ago
This is an excellent example of design failure. So in reality, yes, Boeing has regressed as 90s Boeing would never have released a plane like that.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues
uppost 2y ago
The market is very wrong if that's the case you can get rich easy buying BA at a discount. Please do!
- echoangle 2y ago
  Maybe the world has just moved on and standards from the past just aren't as valuable now as they once were? Boeing being better now than in the 90s doesn't mean that the stock shouldn't drop, because competitors and expectations are higher now than in the 90s.
hylaride 2y ago
It wasn't that the 737 MAX isn't (or can't be) a safe aircraft, but that Boeing prioritized making it fly like its predecessor over all else - including safety. The fact that two brand new MAX's crashed killing all aboard within 2 years of its commercial introduction (out of only ~600 models flying at the time) is a brutal safety record for the jet age, especially as the cause of the crash was the plane itself. That list you post includes any and all reported incidents that merely involve 737s (and involve incidents that were caused by factors that aren't necessarily related to the safety of the place itself).
- SR2Z 2y ago
  > It wasn't that the 737 MAX isn't (or can't be) a safe aircraft, but that Boeing prioritized making it fly like its predecessor over all else - including safety. It's misleading to say they prioritized making it fly like its predecessor over safety. In theory there was absolutely nothing wrong with a system LIKE MCAS. In fact the 737 MAX is still approved to fly with it. The flaws were in the specific implementation and documentation around it, not with the idea of the system itself. > The fact that two brand new MAX's crashed killing all aboard within 2 years of its commercial introduction (out of only ~600 models flying at the time) is a brutal safety record for the jet age, especially as the cause of the crash was the plane itself. If you want to be pedantic about it, the reason for the crashes is that the pilots failed to recognize trim runaway during takeoff. The trim runaway was caused by MCAS, but this is not a new failure mode for ANY aircraft and pilots get extensive training on how to manage it [1]. MCAS failing was not an unrecoverable error [2]. It failed several times in the US, as well, but American pilot training standards are very high compared to the places where there WERE disasters and the pilots recognized and recovered quickly. I say this not to deflect blame from MCAS. Its original implementation was unsafe and should never have been approved. A large part of why modern jetliners are so safe is exactly because of flight control augmentations like this - both Boeing and Airbus have been implementing these for decades and they have made flying much safer. Your suggestion that any system like MCAS is always unsafe (or that Boeing was somehow doing something wrong by adding it) is totally wrong. 1: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/july/pilot/turbine-pitch-trim-runaway https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/july/pilot... 2: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/magazine/boeing-737-max-crashes.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/magazine/boeing-737-max-c...

by SR2Z 2y ago

sidewndr46 2y ago

When you look at how type acceptance works, all Boeing planes are going to be a "737". When you actually look at the 737 MAX and compare it to earlier aircraft, it's pretty obvious that they've created a whole new aircraft. Hence MCAS trying to pretend like that didn't happen & dead people.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

gcanyon 2y ago

Thanks for that list/link. It's so easy to forget how awful the past was.

oxfordmale 2y ago

The problem isn't that Boeing is less safe; it is that the company's culture shifted to the extent that technical staff could no longer report perceived safety issues.

ekianjo 2y ago

This is an excellent example of design failure. So in reality, yes, Boeing has regressed as 90s Boeing would never have released a plane like that.

SoftTalker 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues

uppost 2y ago

The market is very wrong if that's the case you can get rich easy buying BA at a discount. Please do!

echoangle 2y ago
Maybe the world has just moved on and standards from the past just aren't as valuable now as they once were? Boeing being better now than in the 90s doesn't mean that the stock shouldn't drop, because competitors and expectations are higher now than in the 90s.

hylaride 2y ago

It wasn't that the 737 MAX isn't (or can't be) a safe aircraft, but that Boeing prioritized making it fly like its predecessor over all else - including safety. The fact that two brand new MAX's crashed killing all aboard within 2 years of its commercial introduction (out of only ~600 models flying at the time) is a brutal safety record for the jet age, especially as the cause of the crash was the plane itself. That list you post includes any and all reported incidents that merely involve 737s (and involve incidents that were caused by factors that aren't necessarily related to the safety of the place itself).

SR2Z 2y ago
> It wasn't that the 737 MAX isn't (or can't be) a safe aircraft, but that Boeing prioritized making it fly like its predecessor over all else - including safety. It's misleading to say they prioritized making it fly like its predecessor over safety. In theory there was absolutely nothing wrong with a system LIKE MCAS. In fact the 737 MAX is still approved to fly with it. The flaws were in the specific implementation and documentation around it, not with the idea of the system itself. > The fact that two brand new MAX's crashed killing all aboard within 2 years of its commercial introduction (out of only ~600 models flying at the time) is a brutal safety record for the jet age, especially as the cause of the crash was the plane itself. If you want to be pedantic about it, the reason for the crashes is that the pilots failed to recognize trim runaway during takeoff. The trim runaway was caused by MCAS, but this is not a new failure mode for ANY aircraft and pilots get extensive training on how to manage it [1]. MCAS failing was not an unrecoverable error [2]. It failed several times in the US, as well, but American pilot training standards are very high compared to the places where there WERE disasters and the pilots recognized and recovered quickly. I say this not to deflect blame from MCAS. Its original implementation was unsafe and should never have been approved. A large part of why modern jetliners are so safe is exactly because of flight control augmentations like this - both Boeing and Airbus have been implementing these for decades and they have made flying much safer. Your suggestion that any system like MCAS is always unsafe (or that Boeing was somehow doing something wrong by adding it) is totally wrong. 1: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/july/pilot/turbine-pitch-trim-runaway https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/july/pilot... 2: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/magazine/boeing-737-max-crashes.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/magazine/boeing-737-max-c...