Don't fly on a 737-MAX

Chalky

ICBM said:

Danny1969 said:

Flying isn't as safe as people think it is. It is statistically safe but there's a lot more close shaves than people are aware off.

It isn't the safest form of transport as popularly believed, because the statistic that apparently shows it to be (deaths per passenger mile) is skewed in favour of longer journeys, which most flights are simply by the nature of air travel. If you compare deaths per passenger *journey* - really the most important, ie are you likely to survive this particular journey or not - then it's actually more dangerous than driving.

The statistics for very rare events can be misleading even within aviation, and very dependent on the precise measure chosen - for example, Concorde went from being the safest aircraft type (by total miles flown with no fatalities) to the most dangerous (by proportion of crashes to number built) in one accident - there just weren't enough of them for its inherently high risk to become obvious earlier.

It *is* a very well-regulated industry with a good safety culture in general and rigorous procedures to try to eliminate repeat failures, but this fell down with the 737MAX - the two crashes had exactly the same cause.

It is only well-regulated in first world countries.  For example, about 10 years ago, Pakistan admitted it had a rather large percentage of working pilots who were not actually qualified to fly the planes they were flying, and many had apparently 'bought' their qualifications.  And don't be fooled by third- world countries whose airline has the latest airliners - being able to buy aircraft bears no relation to the quality of maintenance or flight crew.

Edit: Sorry, the Pakistan bit was much more recent than 10 years!

"Following the 2018 crash, it was discovered that the test date on the pilot's licence was a public holiday, suggesting that testing could not have taken place on that day. Mr Khan said investigations had found that more than 260 of the country's 860 active pilots had either fake licences or had cheated in their exams.25 Jun 2020".

CavemanGrogg

Musical_Mystery_Tour said:

Generally speaking the 737 MAX is okay. This is probably more of a construction/maintenance issue. The fatal incidents which led to its extended grounding when it was brand new, were a combination of Boeing's short cuts in terms of more robust system redundancy, and some pilot traing not being what it could be. But this is nothing new with aeroplanes, it even has a name - when fatalities occur and changes are made, it is called tombstone technology. This has all now been addressed.

The gist of what happened with the MAX when it was grounded for a long time following those crashes, is that the larger and lower-slung engines on the MAX could cause the lower thrust line to make the aircraft pitch up in certain flight regimes, and in combination with the fact that there was only one AoA indicator and the aggressive pitch down control of the MCAS system following the discovery of this, could lead to a situation where the elevator trim could 'run away' and implement a full nose down trim setting. In order to allow the 737 MAX to get the same certification rating so that airlines would buy it and not require their classic and NG rated 737 pilots to be retrained, Boeing didn't really focus as much on making pilots aware of what might occur and how best to deal with it if it did so.

There are several ways to deal with that potential occurrence, and whilst at the time Boeing didn't make a point of ensuring all pilots knew how to combat such a situation, now that solution is common knowledge for all 737 MAX pilots and the AoA system is more robust too, so it's not a big deal. You can either make regular trim inputs on the yoke, which inhibits MCAS, you can turn off the autotrim entirely and fly it manually, or you can literally grab the trim wheel and stop it from spinning forwards to prevent automatic nose down trim. 

The really annoying thing with the MAX, is the fact that they lengthened the landing gear to allow more clearance for those bigger engines, so now it is harder to reach the GPU socket and the socket for headset when working on them! The split scimitar winglets are also annoying when you have to drive around them. Note the irony of which word the winglet has gone through:

https://metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/PRC_216565456.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=644%2C338

Isn't the sentence that I've bolded from your quote not the very definition of an unsafe aircraft, sure as shit is shit, but a construction issue sounds a hell of a lot to me that an aircraft was unsafe for use as it was leaving the factory before it has even been delivered, never mind has gone into service yet and has actually been put through it's paces for the required safety and insurance checks.

Kalimna

CavemanGrogg said:

Musical_Mystery_Tour said:

Generally speaking the 737 MAX is okay. This is probably more of a construction/maintenance issue. The fatal incidents which led to its extended grounding when it was brand new, were a combination of Boeing's short cuts in terms of more robust system redundancy, and some pilot traing not being what it could be. But this is nothing new with aeroplanes, it even has a name - when fatalities occur and changes are made, it is called tombstone technology. This has all now been addressed.

The gist of what happened with the MAX when it was grounded for a long time following those crashes, is that the larger and lower-slung engines on the MAX could cause the lower thrust line to make the aircraft pitch up in certain flight regimes, and in combination with the fact that there was only one AoA indicator and the aggressive pitch down control of the MCAS system following the discovery of this, could lead to a situation where the elevator trim could 'run away' and implement a full nose down trim setting. In order to allow the 737 MAX to get the same certification rating so that airlines would buy it and not require their classic and NG rated 737 pilots to be retrained, Boeing didn't really focus as much on making pilots aware of what might occur and how best to deal with it if it did so.

There are several ways to deal with that potential occurrence, and whilst at the time Boeing didn't make a point of ensuring all pilots knew how to combat such a situation, now that solution is common knowledge for all 737 MAX pilots and the AoA system is more robust too, so it's not a big deal. You can either make regular trim inputs on the yoke, which inhibits MCAS, you can turn off the autotrim entirely and fly it manually, or you can literally grab the trim wheel and stop it from spinning forwards to prevent automatic nose down trim. 

The really annoying thing with the MAX, is the fact that they lengthened the landing gear to allow more clearance for those bigger engines, so now it is harder to reach the GPU socket and the socket for headset when working on them! The split scimitar winglets are also annoying when you have to drive around them. Note the irony of which word the winglet has gone through:

https://metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/PRC_216565456.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=644%2C338

Isn't the sentence that I've bolded from your quote not the very definition of an unsafe aircraft, sure as shit is shit, but a construction issue sounds a hell of a lot to me that an aircraft was unsafe for use as it was leaving the factory before it has even been delivered, never mind has gone into service yet and has actually been put through it's paces for the required safety and insurance checks.

Indeed, and Im not sure I'd be keen to be a passenger in a plane that was 'generally OK'.

Emp_Fab

ICBM said:

 If you compare deaths per passenger *journey* - really the most important, ie are you likely to survive this particular journey or not - then it's actually more dangerous than driving.

Do you have a source for that @ICBM ?

Danny1969

Kalimna said:

CavemanGrogg said:

Musical_Mystery_Tour said:

Generally speaking the 737 MAX is okay. This is probably more of a construction/maintenance issue. The fatal incidents which led to its extended grounding when it was brand new, were a combination of Boeing's short cuts in terms of more robust system redundancy, and some pilot traing not being what it could be. But this is nothing new with aeroplanes, it even has a name - when fatalities occur and changes are made, it is called tombstone technology. This has all now been addressed.

The gist of what happened with the MAX when it was grounded for a long time following those crashes, is that the larger and lower-slung engines on the MAX could cause the lower thrust line to make the aircraft pitch up in certain flight regimes, and in combination with the fact that there was only one AoA indicator and the aggressive pitch down control of the MCAS system following the discovery of this, could lead to a situation where the elevator trim could 'run away' and implement a full nose down trim setting. In order to allow the 737 MAX to get the same certification rating so that airlines would buy it and not require their classic and NG rated 737 pilots to be retrained, Boeing didn't really focus as much on making pilots aware of what might occur and how best to deal with it if it did so.

There are several ways to deal with that potential occurrence, and whilst at the time Boeing didn't make a point of ensuring all pilots knew how to combat such a situation, now that solution is common knowledge for all 737 MAX pilots and the AoA system is more robust too, so it's not a big deal. You can either make regular trim inputs on the yoke, which inhibits MCAS, you can turn off the autotrim entirely and fly it manually, or you can literally grab the trim wheel and stop it from spinning forwards to prevent automatic nose down trim. 

The really annoying thing with the MAX, is the fact that they lengthened the landing gear to allow more clearance for those bigger engines, so now it is harder to reach the GPU socket and the socket for headset when working on them! The split scimitar winglets are also annoying when you have to drive around them. Note the irony of which word the winglet has gone through:

https://metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/PRC_216565456.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=644%2C338

Isn't the sentence that I've bolded from your quote not the very definition of an unsafe aircraft, sure as shit is shit, but a construction issue sounds a hell of a lot to me that an aircraft was unsafe for use as it was leaving the factory before it has even been delivered, never mind has gone into service yet and has actually been put through it's paces for the required safety and insurance checks.

Indeed, and Im not sure I'd be keen to be a passenger in a plane that was 'generally OK'.

Me neither but with BA ordering 25 of them and Ryan Air 300  it could be hard to dodge ...   I'm more into cruising these days but there's generally still a flight back to do 

goldtop

Emp_Fab said:

ICBM said:

 If you compare deaths per passenger *journey* - really the most important, ie are you likely to survive this particular journey or not - then it's actually more dangerous than driving.

Do you have a source for that @ICBM ?

The keyword ICBM used was "survive". Due to the low speed and distance-to-ground factors in driving accidents, they are very survivable.

Aircraft accidents ... not so much.

(Although see Vesna Vulović)

menamestom

Boeing.  The Harley Benton of the aircraft world.

S56035

menamestom said:

Boeing.  The Harley Benton of the aircraft world.

Change the engine as soon as you get a new one and they're fine.

CavemanGrogg

Danny1969 said:

Kalimna said:

CavemanGrogg said:

Musical_Mystery_Tour said:

Generally speaking the 737 MAX is okay. This is probably more of a construction/maintenance issue. The fatal incidents which led to its extended grounding when it was brand new, were a combination of Boeing's short cuts in terms of more robust system redundancy, and some pilot traing not being what it could be. But this is nothing new with aeroplanes, it even has a name - when fatalities occur and changes are made, it is called tombstone technology. This has all now been addressed.

The gist of what happened with the MAX when it was grounded for a long time following those crashes, is that the larger and lower-slung engines on the MAX could cause the lower thrust line to make the aircraft pitch up in certain flight regimes, and in combination with the fact that there was only one AoA indicator and the aggressive pitch down control of the MCAS system following the discovery of this, could lead to a situation where the elevator trim could 'run away' and implement a full nose down trim setting. In order to allow the 737 MAX to get the same certification rating so that airlines would buy it and not require their classic and NG rated 737 pilots to be retrained, Boeing didn't really focus as much on making pilots aware of what might occur and how best to deal with it if it did so.

There are several ways to deal with that potential occurrence, and whilst at the time Boeing didn't make a point of ensuring all pilots knew how to combat such a situation, now that solution is common knowledge for all 737 MAX pilots and the AoA system is more robust too, so it's not a big deal. You can either make regular trim inputs on the yoke, which inhibits MCAS, you can turn off the autotrim entirely and fly it manually, or you can literally grab the trim wheel and stop it from spinning forwards to prevent automatic nose down trim. 

The really annoying thing with the MAX, is the fact that they lengthened the landing gear to allow more clearance for those bigger engines, so now it is harder to reach the GPU socket and the socket for headset when working on them! The split scimitar winglets are also annoying when you have to drive around them. Note the irony of which word the winglet has gone through:

https://metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/PRC_216565456.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=644%2C338

Isn't the sentence that I've bolded from your quote not the very definition of an unsafe aircraft, sure as shit is shit, but a construction issue sounds a hell of a lot to me that an aircraft was unsafe for use as it was leaving the factory before it has even been delivered, never mind has gone into service yet and has actually been put through it's paces for the required safety and insurance checks.

Indeed, and Im not sure I'd be keen to be a passenger in a plane that was 'generally OK'.

Me neither but with BA ordering 25 of them and Ryan Air 300  it could be hard to dodge ...   I'm more into cruising these days but there's generally still a flight back to do 

Look at when they where ordered though, literally when Boeing couldn't give them away, had every order cancelled, their stock price had crashed and had been flushed down the toilet several times over, and they where seriously discounted to below Boeing's own manufacturing costs.  These aren't things that you order on a Monday morning for delivery on the Friday, the lead times on these orders are measured in years, and that's for a staggered delivery - ie you order 300 off of them and the first 50 of your order will be delivered in roughly 12 months time the next 50 6 months later and another 6 months for the next 50 and so forth.  These orders where very much a case of ''Fuck me that's cheap, by the time our orders are being delivered Boeing will have hopefully sorted out all the issues that they have, and if not we'll get our money back''.

Jetsam1

US Corporate Culture fully emboldened after the previous president and then the years of general fall out.

What value is a Human? Human's have no value against some extra dollars on the balance sheet. Cut some corners and it will be a fine. AAALLLLLLLL fine. US Corporate for the WIN! Yay.

It was the killed people's own silly fault for getting on a plane, not anything to do with the manufacture or maintenance nope. No death benefits for the crew, if they survived then lets take their houses and everything they own for that tiny extra profit.

I am tired and fed up with the world.

RobDavies

Never ever take your seatbelt off on a plane.  Loosen it by all means but unless you need a wee, buckle up.  

elstoof

Very fortunate it happened during the climb eh

mrkb

elstoof said:

Very fortunate it happened during the climb eh

Yep, if it happened when sat at the gate the passengers would think it’s a bit shoddy

Danny1969

RobDavies said:

Never ever take your seatbelt off on a plane.  Loosen it by all means but unless you need a wee, buckle up.  

Yep me and the wife are the same ... we keep belted up, it can literally be the difference between serious injury if the plane suddenly drops and no injury at all. Let alone being sucked out the plane if a window or door goes 

greggreg66

Emp_Fab said:

ICBM said:

 If you compare deaths per passenger *journey* - really the most important, ie are you likely to survive this particular journey or not - then it's actually more dangerous than driving.

Do you have a source for that @ICBM ?

I wondered if this includes General Aviation too? 

danishbacon

FAA has now grounded over 100 max

roundthebend

Thing is, if I turn up at the airport and find out the plane is a 737 MAX what rights do I have to get a refund on my ticket? I'm probably gonna risk it and fly.

m_c

It's nice to see that Boeing have learnt their lesson from the previous MAX crashes, and aren't trying to still get special allowances for a 60s airframe past the regulators...
 Boeing wants FAA to exempt MAX 7 from safety rules to get it in the air | The Seattle Times

Tannin

roundthebend said:

Thing is, if I turn up at the airport and find out the plane is a 737 MAX what rights do I have to get a refund on my ticket? I'm probably gonna risk it and fly.

Actually it's easy to avoid a particular type if you want to. Nearly all airlines have a very small number of aircraft types in service, quite often all from the same manufacturer. (They do this because it is much cheaper and easier to crew and service a single type or a family of related types than two different ones. Also they get bulk-buy and loyalty discounts from the manufacturer, so cheaper to buy as well.)

Simply look up your prospective airline before you buy a ticket. Let's take KLM as an example: The first hit from a search for "KLM fleet" tells us that in their narrow-body fleet they have 42 737 of the previous generation (737 NG, not the new MAX ones) and are replacing them with Airbus A320s and A321s. So, if you want to avoid the problem child, KLM is OK. 

What about (picking airlines at random here) Delta? Delta has a mixed fleet of older 737NGs and A320/A321s so they are fine too, but they have 100 &37 MAXes on order. 

And so on.

Is it worth actually avoiding the 737 MAX? Well maybe not. It is undoubtedly more useful to avoid crappy airlines and never mind what aircraft they have. 

elstoof

The airline web page will tell you the plane model for the route you’re booking, right around the point it asks you to select your seats. You can also check the flight number in flightradar24 and see the equipment used for the last 7 days