737 max... what now?

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by c502cid
I'm a 3 million mile flyer... 2.2 of it with United. I certainly like some aircraft over others, and some airlines over others. I won't have a second thought getting on a 737 max, even if it was the first one released to fly again.




I agree. While I prefer some aircraft over others it has never prompted me to refuse to get on. I wonder how many of these people that say they will never fly a certain aircraft will actually follow through on that?


I wonder how many of those who say they'll never fly a certain type even know what they're booked on.
With the big four domestic carriers, you might catch anything from a recent delivery Boeing or Airbus to an MD-80 built before God made dirt and you'd have no legitimate worries about any of them.

 

[4WD]

Originally Posted by c502cid
I'm a 3 million mile flyer... 2.2 of it with United. I certainly like some aircraft over others, and some airlines over others. I won't have a second thought getting on a 737 max, even if it was the first one released to fly again.


I'm easily that but spread over many international/US airlines … and agree 100% …

 

[bunnspecial]

I don't have a lot of time spent flying, although planes do interest me a lot(I enjoy the flight itself, but everything involved in getting on it).

In any case, I have a trip planned with SWA in October. When first booked it, I thought there was a decent chance the MAX would be back in service and that I would fly on it for that trip. Now, it's looking like they won't be flying again.

Regardless, even if they are back, I will have zero hesitation about them. The aircraft seems fundamentally sound, and when it DOES return it will be under the microscope probably more than any commercial airplane currently in the skies. So, in that sense, I'd almost feel safer flying on one than anything else.

 

[emg]

Originally Posted by bunnspecial
The aircraft seems fundamentally sound


If it was, it wouldn't need a kludge like this.

As I understand it, the problem is that they couldn't fit larger engines in a position where they wouldn't interfere with flight stability without a significant redesign, so instead of spending the money on that, they introduced a software kludge to deal with that engine-induced instability.

I'm not saying I won't fly on one, but I won't fly on one for several years until the new kludge has been proven to not cause any more crashes.

 

[4WD]

Actually Astro explained this better …

 

[PimTac]

"I'm not saying I won't fly on one, but I won't fly on one for several years until the new kludge has been proven to not cause any more crashes."





So if you show up at the gate for your flight and your aircraft is a Max then you will not go?

 

[emg]

Originally Posted by PimTac
So if you show up at the gate for your flight and your aircraft is a Max then you will not go?


No, but I won't book a flight that's scheduled to use one. Just like I avoided 787s for the first few years when they kept catching fire.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted by emg
Originally Posted by PimTac
So if you show up at the gate for your flight and your aircraft is a Max then you will not go?


No, but I won't book a flight that's scheduled to use one. Just like I avoided 787s for the first few years when they kept catching fire.


You should worry more about who is sitting up front than the model of airplane. Your best bet for safety: two experienced, well trained, well rested pilots with the authority to make the right decision.

Fatigued, overworked, inexperienced, pressured and poorly trained pilots abound. Particularly on some carriers (that offer really cheap fares.)

It is pure idiocy that says, "I won't fly on that kind of airplane" but that WILL buy a ticket on an airline that uses outsourced, third-world trained pilots, working without a contract, who are inadequately rested and being pressured to fly despite fatigue, mechanical issues, and weather.

The threat doesn't come from the airplane alone.

Neither does safety.

 

[emg]

Originally Posted by Astro14
It is pure idiocy that says, "I won't fly on that kind of airplane" but that WILL buy a ticket on an airline that uses outsourced, third-world trained pilots, working without a contract, who are inadequately rested and being pressured to fly despite fatigue, mechanical issues, and weather.


And... I didn't say that.

 

[The_Eric]

Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by emg
Originally Posted by PimTac
So if you show up at the gate for your flight and your aircraft is a Max then you will not go?


No, but I won't book a flight that's scheduled to use one. Just like I avoided 787s for the first few years when they kept catching fire.


You should worry more about who is sitting up front than the model of airplane. Your best bet for safety: two experienced, well trained, well rested pilots with the authority to make the right decision.

Fatigued, overworked, inexperienced, pressured and poorly trained pilots abound. Particularly on some carriers (that offer really cheap fares.)

It is pure idiocy that says, "I won't fly on that kind of airplane" but that WILL buy a ticket on an airline that uses outsourced, third-world trained pilots, working without a contract, who are inadequately rested and being pressured to fly despite fatigue, mechanical issues, and weather.

The threat doesn't come from the airplane alone.

Neither does safety.



I wish there was a way to up vote posts, because I think you nailed it.

I watch lots of accident videos on various topics and the majority of the time with the aviation ones, it comes down to pilot error in both fatal and non fatal accidents. Also, to support your above statement, there have been several that I've seen where problems arise (from a wide range of causes) where well trained and very experienced pilots have averted complete disaster or worked to minimize it.

You strike me as a well learned and solid thinking person and if you were rated on a max, I'd jump on board without hesitation if you were piloting it.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by emg
Originally Posted by Astro14
It is pure idiocy that says, "I won't fly on that kind of airplane" but that WILL buy a ticket on an airline that uses outsourced, third-world trained pilots, working without a contract, who are inadequately rested and being pressured to fly despite fatigue, mechanical issues, and weather.


And... I didn't say that.





You didn't but Astro14 was making the point that the crew up front is very important.

It happens more on domestic flights than international but aircraft get switched all the time due to one reason or another. Someday you will have to make the decision when your 737-800 suddenly gets switched to a Max. Your refusal to board might delay the flight for everyone else plus come at a financial loss for you.

 

[AdmdeVilleneuve]

The WSJ recent story on the MAX is no longer behind a paywall. The article here goes into detail on the ripple effect of the current situation.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing...r-into-economy-weighs-on-gdp-11563815426

 

[BusyLittleShop]

Commercial air travel is a lot safer due to the automated warning systems... rarely due pilots augur perfectly good birds... but when it occurs expect the geese to squawk...

MCAS Maneuver Characteristics Augmentation System
GPWS Ground Proximity Warning System
TCAS Terrain Collision Avoidance System
ECAM Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor
EICAS Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System

Configuration warning: An intermittent horn or beeping tone warns when
flaps, slats, stabilizer trim, or speed brakes are improperly
configured prior to takeoff.

Altitude alerter: A single chime or other distinctive tone,
accompanied by a light, alerts pilots when they are leaving the
current altitude or approaching a new one. Some alerter designs omit
the tone, utilizing only the light itself.

Landing gear: A horn sounds and appropriate gear position indicator
lights illuminate when an unsafe gear configuration exists. Once
landing flaps have been selected, the horn normally cannot be silenced
until the landing gear is properly extended.

Stabilizer trim movement: On some aircraft continuous beeping or
clicking sounds indicate that stabilizer trim is operating

Autopilot disconnect: Various kinds of siren, klaxon, or chime sounds,
accompanied by red warning lights, signal that the autopilot has
disconnected. On some aircraft, warning lights illuminate, but there
are no aural warning sounds.

Overspeed: An overspeed "clacker" sounds when a limiting mach or
airspeed is exceeded. Some aircraft also combine clackers with
synthetic voice warnings that further clarify what speed is being
exceeded (e.g., "Slat overspeed! Flap overspeed!").

Stall: Approach to stall is indicated by a stick shaker, which
physically vibrates both control columns, creating a rattling or
shaking sound when aircraft speed is a minimum of 7 percent above the
actual stall speed. Some stall warning systems also generate synthetic
voice warnings ("Stall!") to indicate an approaching stall.

Engine or APU fire: FARs require that engine and APU fires be
indicated by a bell accompanied by red fire warning lights. No other
cockpit warning uses the bell sound.

 

[KD0AXS]

Originally Posted by emg
Originally Posted by bunnspecial
The aircraft seems fundamentally sound


If it was, it wouldn't need a kludge like this.

As I understand it, the problem is that they couldn't fit larger engines in a position where they wouldn't interfere with flight stability without a significant redesign, so instead of spending the money on that, they introduced a software kludge to deal with that engine-induced instability.


The aircraft isn't unstable, the problem was that the new engine position changed the handling characteristics to the point that a new type rating would be required for pilots to fly it. The airlines didn't want this, they wanted an aircraft that their current 737 pilots could fly with their current type rating. MCAS was designed to make the 737 Max handle similarly enough to the previous 737s that current 737 pilots could fly it without needing a new type rating.

 

[BusyLittleShop]

Originally Posted by KD0AXS


The aircraft isn't unstable, the problem was that the new engine position changed the handling characteristics to the point that a new type rating would be required for pilots to fly it. The airlines didn't want this, they wanted an aircraft that their current 737 pilots could fly with their current type rating. MCAS was designed to make the 737 Max handle similarly enough to the previous 737s that current 737 pilots could fly it without needing a new type rating.


True... Boeing gave the airlines exactly what they wanted...

 

[Exhaustgases]

The whole thing makes no sense. If the plane is truly a fly by cable plane, there should not be something connected to a automatic or auto pilot that can not be disconnected. The simple software fix is a huge red button that completely removes any form of electric control from the cable control system. Easy fix.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by Exhaustgases
The whole thing makes no sense. If the plane is truly a fly by cable plane, there should not be something connected to a automatic or auto pilot that can not be disconnected. The simple software fix is a huge red button that completely removes any form of electric control from the cable control system. Easy fix.

Perhaps you should contact Boeing and tell them that since they appear to be struggling a bit.

But I don't know, if the plane is "fly by wire" and then you disconnect the wire, that doesn't sound like a very good idea.

 

[Mr Nice]

This is a big black eye for Boeing. Hopefully Boeing stock drops 40%.

I wonder how much revenue all the airlines will lose with all the aircraft grounded ?

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by Mr Nice
This is a big black eye for Boeing. Hopefully Boeing stock drops 40%.

I wonder how much revenue all the airlines will lose with all the aircraft grounded ?





Why would you wish that?

 

[AC1DD]

I believe that Boeing is going to have to replace the oversize engines with smaller units and redesigned mounting pylons as well before the craft is allowed back in the air. I think that's why the delay keeps getting longer and longer. A software change won't eliminate the poor balance of the current design as the result of oversize engines.