737 Max

[jalapeno_pretzel]

I know we had another thread on this back when the crashes happened. I still hear about it in the news with continued delays in getting the problems fixed. It seems like at this point they ought to scrap the line ... I mean are there really a lot of flyers who are going to be happy about being a passenger in one of these?

I know logically and statistically it will probably be an extremely safe plane when they get finished with it, but I still think I would try very hard to avoid one of them!

Would you be ready to fly one once Boeing says they're fine and FAA signs off?

 

[morgan98]

My husband and I discussed this last night at dinner, as a matter of fact. I agree with you about not many people being willing to fly them.

I am generally a very rational person. I can tell you that I honestly would not get on that plane. Not only would I not fly the plane, are airlines really going to be willing to take the risk to fly it? I understand that once it is signed off on the problem is "fixed" but it still makes me skeptical.

 

[JaxDad]

I know we had another thread on this back when the crashes happened. I still hear about it in the news with continued delays in getting the problems fixed. It seems like at this point they ought to scrap the line ... I mean are there really a lot of flyers who are going to be happy about being a passenger in one of these?

I know logically and statistically it will probably be an extremely safe plane when they get finished with it, but I still think I would try very hard to avoid one of them!

Would you be ready to fly one once Boeing says they're fine and FAA signs off?

They did halt production, at least temporarily...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-737max-production-halt-idUSKBN1YK23N

 

[RamblingMad]

I’ll stick with Delta and their French planes.

 

[jalapeno_pretzel]

They did halt production, at least temporarily...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-737max-production-halt-idUSKBN1YK23N

Yeah, I knew that - it's what got me thinking about it.

I'm not meaning should they halt production while they work on the fix; I'm wondering if this model is ever going to be viable given the history and attention it's received?

 

[RamblingMad]

Yeah, I knew that - it's what got me thinking about it.

I'm not meaning should they halt production while they work on the fix; I'm wondering if this model is ever going to be viable given the history and attention it's received?

I’m sure they will rebrand it.

 

[bcla]

Yeah, I knew that - it's what got me thinking about it.

I'm not meaning should they halt production while they work on the fix; I'm wondering if this model is ever going to be viable given the history and attention it's received?

There is no known serious mechanical or electrical defect with the 737 MAX. It's a software issue. All the controls are electronic with various software overrides of human controls. The particular issue that caused the two crashes was one that several pilots had experienced before and they were able to override the automatic systems that were causing the nose to dip. The pilots who crashed weren't aware of how to override the automated system. Obviously that was a huge mistake on the part of Boeing.

No doubt it was poorly implemented, but the there's nothing wrong with the airframe. Scrapping the airframe due to requirements for a software fix would be an extremely costly thing to do, and not likely to result in better results than waiting for the software to be fixed.

I get that the general public doesn't really understand much other than two of these planes crashed. However, I would have no issue riding in one of these with a competent pilot and thoroughly tested software.

 

[morgan98]

There is no known serious mechanical or electrical defect with the 737 MAX. It's a software issue. All the controls are electronic with various software overrides of human controls. The particular issue that caused the two crashes was one that several pilots had experienced before and they were able to override the automatic systems that were causing the nose to dip. The pilots who crashed weren't aware of how to override the automated system. Obviously that was a huge mistake on the part of Boeing.

No doubt it was poorly implemented, but the there's nothing wrong with the airframe. Scrapping the airframe due to requirements for a software fix would be an extremely costly thing to do, and not likely to result in better results than waiting for the software to be fixed.

I get that the general public doesn't really understand much other than two of these planes crashed. However, I would have no issue riding in one of these with a competent pilot and thoroughly tested software.

I get this and this is all perfectly logical. What I am trying to say is that I am not sure I am confident when they say the software issue has been fixed and the fact that software crashed this plane makes me a bit uneasy. How do you know you have a competent pilot?

If the public (and the airlines) are reluctant to fly the plane, Boeing may not have much of a choice. Yes, the airlines may be fine flying the plane, but if you have people that would not book the plane there are going to be problems.

 

[fly girl]

I’ll stick with Delta and their French planes.

FYI, Delta flies a lot of Boeing airplanes. 717, 737NG, 757, 767, 777.

Honestly, if I was flying a mainline carrier in the US I would be ok with flying the MAX after pilots have gone through enhanced simulator training, specifically including the enhanced MCAS system.

US legacy pilots (and Southwest) typically have a lot more training than foreign carriers. As you may already know, a jumpseating pilot told different Lion Air pilots a few days before the crash how to turn off the override.

I do blame Boeing BIG TIME for not explaining the new MCAS system, however of all the pilots I have talked to that fly for US legacy carriers (and I know quite a few of them) they all said they would fly the MAX. They also believe these crashes would not have occurred with US carriers as our requirements and training for pilots is much more intense than Lion and Ethopian Airlines. We will never know if that is true, and I am glad FAA made the right choice to ground the planes until pilots had adequate training on the new software system.

 

[RamblingMad]

FYI, Delta flies a lot of Boeing airplanes. 717, 737NG, 757, 767, 777.

They also fly a lot of Airbus, which I feel better about flying. I don't trust Boeing right now.

 

[fly girl]

They also fly a lot of Airbus, which I feel better about flying. I don't trust Boeing right now.

They do. And I know them very well. (I could get you out of one in less than 90 seconds.)

And I do trust our pilots. There is no way in hell they would fly any plane (not just Boeing) if they didn't feel safe. Not only do they put their lives at risk, but the responsibility of all the souls onboard.

 

[jalapeno_pretzel]

Honestly, if I was flying a mainline carrier in the US I would be ok with flying the MAX after pilots have gone through enhanced simulator training, specifically including the enhanced MCAS system.

I think maybe I will eventually feel okay about it, after it goes back in service and stays uneventful. And like I said, I know it will probably be one of the safest planes out there at that point. But if I were at an airline looking to purchase new aircraft, I would have to think that a lot of passengers aren't going to want to be on those for awhile. It would really make me think twice about putting money there.

 

[fly girl]

I think maybe I will eventually feel okay about it, after it goes back in service and stays uneventful. And like I said, I know it will probably be one of the safest planes out there at that point. But if I were at an airline looking to purchase new aircraft, I would have to think that a lot of passengers aren't going to want to be on those for awhile. It would really make me think twice about putting money there.

I agree. I can't imagine any airline wanting to purchase the MAX right now. But I do feel for the airlines that did buy, and are now stuck with them just sitting there.

 

[mnrose]

This article is a bit old at this point, but it makes some excellent points. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/magazine/boeing-737-max-crashes.html

I have a friend who is a stunt pilot and private jet pilot. He's been a stunt pilot since high school, which for both he and I was a very long time ago. I asked him about this article, and he said it was, in his professional opinion, entirely accurate. And, that the lack of pilots' "airworthiness" isn't JUST a problem for foreign carriers....that we have the same problem here. Which did not give me warm fuzzies. LOL. He hires pilots for his private jet business and has had significant problems finding people who ACTUALLY can fly, as opposed to run the computer that flies the plane. He likes pilots who can fly. He said it's kind of joke in the industry that if you can fog a mirror, you can become a pilot....which is definitely not the way it USED to be. Obviously, there are excellent pilots out there. But, he is personally dismayed at the increasing number who are not.

 

[ford family]

I’ll stick with Delta and their French planes.

Airbus is a European multinational corporation.

ford family

 

[Klayfish]

Would you be ready to fly one once Boeing says they're fine and FAA signs off?

Yes, unquestionably. Air travel is by far the safest method of travelling, and I'm quite confident that when they get back in the air they'll be as safe as they could possibly be.

 

[dish rag]

I would have flown it before the upgrade, for most carriers.

 

[fly girl]

This article is a bit old at this point, but it makes some excellent points. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/magazine/boeing-737-max-crashes.html

I have a friend who is a stunt pilot and private jet pilot. He's been a stunt pilot since high school, which for both he and I was a very long time ago. I asked him about this article, and he said it was, in his professional opinion, entirely accurate. And, that the lack of pilots' "airworthiness" isn't JUST a problem for foreign carriers....that we have the same problem here. Which did not give me warm fuzzies. LOL. He hires pilots for his private jet business and has had significant problems finding people who ACTUALLY can fly, as opposed to run the computer that flies the plane. He likes pilots who can fly. He said it's kind of joke in the industry that if you can fog a mirror, you can become a pilot....which is definitely not the way it USED to be. Obviously, there are excellent pilots out there. But, he is personally dismayed at the increasing number who are not.

The key sentence in your reply was PRIVATE JET BUSINESS. He is hiring for private jets, their qualifications for hire may look similar to major carriers on paper, but they are not truly accurate. Major US airlines will only consider those well above the minimum requirements. (Regional carriers are NOT in this equation, they hire with lower hours. Many pilots start at the regionals to gain more hours to then fly for the big airlines.)

If you go on a legacy carrier, the flight hours of those pilots are very high. Your typical pilot has spent 10-15 years getting to the major commercial airline. And then sits in the first officers seat for many years before moving to captain.

Sure, autopilot is a great thing, but I do not know of one major airline first officer or captain that cannot take control of the plane when "George" is turned off. Yes, you have pilots that aren't great. No denying that. Just like you have surgeons that shouldn't be doing their job. I don't feel all are excellent, but there are far more good ones than subpar ones. And bonus, there are 2 pilots in the cockpit. The days of what the captain says rules are out the window. You are a team. Yes, it is ultimately the captains decision, but the first officer can and will speak up.

 

[jalapeno_pretzel]

Yes, unquestionably. Air travel is by far the safest method of travelling, and I'm quite confident that when they get back in the air they'll be as safe as they could possibly be.

OK, I'll let you and dish rag go on it first, and after you've gone a few times, maybe I'll be be ready to try. I may have been on one pre-grounding a year or 2 ago, I know it was a 737 and seemed brand new, but I wasn't aware of the different 737 variants at the time.

 

[bcla]

Sure, autopilot is a great thing, but I do not know of one major airline first officer or captain that cannot take control of the plane when "George" is turned off. Yes, you have pilots that aren't great. No denying that. Just like you have surgeons that shouldn't be doing their job. I don't feel all are excellent, but there are far more good ones than subpar ones. And bonus, there are 2 pilots in the cockpit. The days of what the captain says rules are out the window. You are a team. Yes, it is ultimately the captains decision, but the first officer can and will speak up.

That seemed to be the problem with the Asiana 214 crash. The captain always received deference although the co-pilot was actually a training officer. They had hired some American pilots who saw that many Korean cultural norms overrode basic safety, as well as poor pilot training.