• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Would you fly on a Boeing 737Max?

Status
Not open for further replies.

applepie2100

Member
Joined
16 Aug 2011
Messages
167
No, I wouldn't fly on one and if I inadvertently ended up being booked onto one then I'd look to change my plans.

It's a fundamentally flawed aircraft using electronics to overcome airframe instability created by bodging an old design to work in a new era. As another poster has already mentioned several of the new Boeing aircraft types have been beset with issues which would make me seriously consider flying *any* of new models they're producing.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

peteb

Member
Joined
30 Mar 2011
Messages
1,073
I'm not keen to fly on one of these, yet because airlines can and will change aircraft type operating on a route at short notice I'm not so flight-phobic that I'd remove myself from a flight over the equipment (especially at the start of a holiday).
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Boeing & the FAA predicted 1 crash per 3 years.

That wasnt the crash rate, its what they set as the acceptable level of losses in their safety model TARAM and assumed Boeing safety alert would ensure only 1% of pilots would fail to recover from a malfunctioning MCAS activation (they would have grounded it after the first crash if the model indicated 2% of pilots would fail to save the aircraft in that situation).

The 737 max had two fatal accidents in 800,000 flights, the average for new western planes is one fatal accident per 3 million flights and on the 737 classic it had a crash rate of one per 10 million flights. If you magnified the number of MAX flying when the two crashes occurred (200) by the 4,800 orders at the time (and assuming they were all still flying after 10 years since introduction) then there would have been 24 crashes per year or one every two weeks.

MIT Professor Says FAA Estimate Of 15 Catastrophic Boeing MAX Crashes Is Way Too Low (forbes.com)
 

TravelDream

Member
Joined
7 Aug 2016
Messages
677
I'd quite honestly have no issue whatsoever flying in the Max.
I realise than MCAS has issues, but, in reality, the 737 MAX handled by a competent crew was an incredibly safe aircraft even when it was launched. With the understanding now of what caused the crash and additional training, I don't see why others have any issue.

Maybe I am odd though as I have no issue at all flying third world carriers or in Soviet era aircraft. Life is full of risk and flying these aircraft is bottom tier in comparison to other risks we take all of the time.
 

greatvoyager

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2019
Messages
2,426
Location
Exeter
I’m not really sure if I would fly on a max, or not.
Whilst I’m glad they have introduced a fix for the problem, I think I’d rather wait and see a good year or so of solid performance.
 

Jozhua

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2019
Messages
1,856
It is safe and it always was safe. However, as stated above, it was the training that was the major flaw. The pilots couldn't be expected to manage a failed system if they didn't know said system existed! I'd have no issue flying on one. The media have had a bit of a field day with it, whilst in the past the manufacturer would quietly solve the issue and no-one would be any the wiser.

With regards to Bletchleyite's point about building it in the first place, Boeing were working on an all new design to follow the 737NG. However, Airbus then announced the A320Neo which was going to be available far sooner than the 737 replacement, so they were forced to bodge the 737 again to stop Airbus stealing the market
I mean the key issue is the plane had an automatically activating "crash" feature. No amount of training makes up for a plane deciding to randomly pitch the nose down and then continue to repeatedly do so, with no clear way to de-activate it...
I’m not really sure if I would fly on a max, or not.
Whilst I’m glad they have introduced a fix for the problem, I think I’d rather wait and see a good year or so of solid performance.
I mean, we'll probably not be able to fly for another year anyway, considering how covid is going, so I think that'll be a safe bet! I'm not leaving the UK until I can be sure there won't be any possibility of shenanigans at the border.
 

greatvoyager

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2019
Messages
2,426
Location
Exeter
I mean, we'll probably not be able to fly for another year anyway, considering how covid is going, so I think that'll be a safe bet! I'm not leaving the UK until I can be sure there won't be any possibility of shenanigans at the border.
Which is why I’m going to wait for a solid year to begin, whenever that is.
 

Ted633

Member
Joined
15 Mar 2018
Messages
270
I mean the key issue is the plane had an automatically activating "crash" feature. No amount of training makes up for a plane deciding to randomly pitch the nose down and then continue to repeatedly do so, with no clear way to de-activate it...
Something called the stab trim cutout switches, located just aft of the throttles, would stop the horizontal stabiliser moving (just like all modern aircraft.) As has been described previously, adequate training would of prevented the accidents. Without going over the same discussion again, the system isn't exactly brilliant, but to say it would crash and there is nothing any pilot could of done about it (trained or not) is completely false.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
Honestly I’d be sceptical after what I’ve seen
Absolutely. My issue is less with the safety of the aircraft and more with the cover-ups and the jiggery-pokery that Boeing went through to prevent airlines needing to re-certify and retrain pilots. Those factors mean that if I have to book a flight, I'll do my best to avoid flying on ANY Boeing aircraft rather than specifically the Max. It's a boycott rather than a phobia.
 

Fat Gaz

Member
Joined
25 Sep 2020
Messages
65
Location
Sunny East Seax
Something called the stab trim cutout switches, located just aft of the throttles, would stop the horizontal stabiliser moving (just like all modern aircraft.) As has been described previously, adequate training would of prevented the accidents. Without going over the same discussion again, the system isn't exactly brilliant, but to say it would crash and there is nothing any pilot could of done about it (trained or not) is completely false.
It wasn't anything like all modern aircraft at all. MCAS disabled the ability to stop the stabiliser moving like any other aircraft. Link You're right about one thing, adequate training may have prevented the accidents but that is in a perfect world where boeing are to be believed. History now shows us boeing aren't to be believed.

I won't be getting on one any time soon. I can get where I need to on an airbus and I'm happy to pay the extra to do so.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,545
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It wasn't anything like all modern aircraft at all. MCAS disabled the ability to stop the stabiliser moving like any other aircraft. Link You're right about one thing, adequate training may have prevented the accidents but that is in a perfect world where boeing are to be believed. History now shows us boeing aren't to be believed.

I think it's fair to say that the best types of safety system are the ones that are intuitive. It shouldn't, even something complex and requiring training like an aircraft, do anything that would not be intuitive. The 737 MAX failed this spectacularly. The Airbus control philosophy, by contrast, is the opposite - you pull back on the stick and the aircraft will give you the best climb it safely can given its condition. Not perfect, though.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,165
It wasn't anything like all modern aircraft at all. MCAS disabled the ability to stop the stabiliser moving like any other aircraft. Link You're right about one thing, adequate training may have prevented the accidents but that is in a perfect world where boeing are to be believed. History now shows us boeing aren't to be believed.
But the lack of training was because Boeing were desperate to avoid the 737Max needing pilot re-training as it would tip the balance on orders between 737Max and A320neo as re-training costs would be a cost of buying Boeing.

Fundamentally, Boeing were trying to fix a hardware design issue by using software.
 

Ted633

Member
Joined
15 Mar 2018
Messages
270
It wasn't anything like all modern aircraft at all. MCAS disabled the ability to stop the stabiliser moving like any other aircraft. Link You're right about one thing, adequate training may have prevented the accidents but that is in a perfect world where boeing are to be believed. History now shows us boeing aren't to be believed.

I won't be getting on one any time soon. I can get where I need to on an airbus and I'm happy to pay the extra to do so.
I wasn't aware of how the cutoff switches worked on 737's (not my type), but reading your link that actually makes the switches on the Max operate like other aircraft. (i.e. switch to cutoff and that's it, not movement). Proper training would have prevented it, as shown by the Lion air flight previous to the accident one, where the same problem occured but a pilot in the observers seat recognised the problem and prevented an accident.
Unfortunately, money talks, as common type recognition saves money. Hopefully this will make Boeing get there act together and get more actual engineers in instead of accountants. I do wonder if any other manufacturers have skeletons in the closet though...
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,545
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
But the lack of training was because Boeing were desperate to avoid the 737Max needing pilot re-training as it would tip the balance on orders between 737Max and A320neo as re-training costs would be a cost of buying Boeing.

Fundamentally, Boeing were trying to fix a hardware design issue by using software.

Which is no problem in itself. Problem is the software was bodged.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,165
Which is no problem in itself. Problem is the software was bodged.
Disagree. Not addressing hardware design issues and leaving it to software puts another hole in the safety Swiss cheese. If the physical design of the 737Max had been better, then those two fatal crashes would never have happened.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,545
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Disagree. Not addressing hardware design issues and leaving it to software puts another hole in the safety Swiss cheese. If the physical design of the 737Max had been better, then those two fatal crashes would never have happened.

Out of interest, do you have an issue with "fly by wire" as Airbus use, then? The point there is that the user interface layer is abstracted - it doesn't matter what the hardware does, just what the software translates the inputs to.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,037
Location
No longer here
Yeah, I'll be flying on a MAX, as will just about everyone. What people say they'll do and what they actually do when it comes to consumer choice are quite different.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,165
Out of interest, do you have an issue with "fly by wire" as Airbus use, then? The point there is that the user interface layer is abstracted - it doesn't matter what the hardware does, just what the software translates the inputs to.
I don't know enough about it, to be honest.
 

TRAX

Established Member
Joined
2 Dec 2015
Messages
1,648
Location
France
Remember when Boeing criticised Airbus’ decision to give more control to the plane’s computers when the A320 came out ?
This didn’t age well did it :D
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,545
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Remember when Boeing criticised Airbus’ decision to give more control to the plane’s computers when the A320 came out ?
This didn’t age well did it :D

Of course what Airbus did was a proper abstraction layer - you design how you want the aircraft to behave based on given control inputs, then you write the software to translate that, so the aircraft does what is expected. That's the same as the PC I'm typing this on - what is going on on the keyboard and display bears no direct resemblance to what is going on inside the CPU etc.

What Boeing did was just a plain bodge. A fly by wire abstraction layer to make a totally different aircraft behave like a classic 737 with multiple redundancy would have been fine (i.e. the controls connect to the computer, and the computer controls the control surfaces) - but that wasn't quite what they did - they bodged a bit on with no redundancy. If you bought a car and they'd done that you'd take it back.

Of course Airbus's approach isn't perfect, and people have died when that abstraction layer has changed due to instrument failures - a bit like an inexperienced PC user can mess things up if they get dumped at the "safe mode" DOS prompt, but with peoples' lives at stake rather than their Word documents and spreadsheets.
 

Jozhua

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2019
Messages
1,856
Of course what Airbus did was a proper abstraction layer - you design how you want the aircraft to behave based on given control inputs, then you write the software to translate that, so the aircraft does what is expected. That's the same as the PC I'm typing this on - what is going on on the keyboard and display bears no direct resemblance to what is going on inside the CPU etc.

What Boeing did was just a plain bodge. A fly by wire abstraction layer to make a totally different aircraft behave like a classic 737 with multiple redundancy would have been fine (i.e. the controls connect to the computer, and the computer controls the control surfaces) - but that wasn't quite what they did - they bodged a bit on with no redundancy. If you bought a car and they'd done that you'd take it back.

Of course Airbus's approach isn't perfect, and people have died when that abstraction layer has changed due to instrument failures - a bit like an inexperienced PC user can mess things up if they get dumped at the "safe mode" DOS prompt, but with peoples' lives at stake rather than their Word documents and spreadsheets.
I generally dislike software for software's sake as a personal feeling, although I recognise that Airbus probably doesn't use any off the shelf type stuff when building their aircraft, at least software-wise.

I think the key issue is that Boeing was also cutting corners, using single sensors, not notifying pilots.

I can see why people would be concerned if they bodged MCAS, what else could possibly be waiting to go wrong?

This is probably why they have had to undergo full re-certification.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,192
Location
St Albans
I generally dislike software for software's sake as a personal feeling, although I recognise that Airbus probably doesn't use any off the shelf type stuff when building their aircraft, at least software-wise.

I think the key issue is that Boeing was also cutting corners, using single sensors, not notifying pilots.

I can see why people would be concerned if they bodged MCAS, what else could possibly be waiting to go wrong?

This is probably why they have had to undergo full re-certification.
Far more serious is the collusion between Boeing with its cynical view of safety vis a vis profit, and the FAA trusting the company to 'responsibly mark its own exam papers'. That is an abject failure of a globally respected administration to perform its fundamental duty. I suspect that the CAA and other regulators will be sceptical in the future to blindly accept skimped certification from the FAA.
 
Last edited:

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,192
Location
St Albans
It has opened up peoples' eyes to how some processes work. I wouldn't be surprised if Airbus surpasses Boeing in this decade.
I agree. Although multi-national corporations can sometimes have layer upon layer of process that extend timescales, in many cases, the mere presence of those serial activities can ensure that critical aspects of performance are thoroughly verified. In a bilateral relationship where the company is a major breadwinner for the nation the temptation for regulators to relax rules to speed the income must be much greater.
The long-term damage caused by this disasterous corner-cutting will prove to be a very expensive lesson.
 

greatvoyager

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2019
Messages
2,426
Location
Exeter
I agree. Although multi-national corporations can sometimes have layer upon layer of process that extend timescales, in many cases, the mere presence of those serial activities can ensure that critical aspects of performance are thoroughly verified. In a bilateral relationship where the company is a major breadwinner for the nation the temptation for regulators to relax rules to speed the income must be much greater.
The long-term damage caused by this disasterous corner-cutting will prove to be a very expensive lesson.
Absolutely, I just hope lessons will be learned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top