oreocookies

We don't need to have this argument yet again here. Your username is 737MAX8, so it's clear how you feel. The simple fact is that this plane was the result of a fundamentally flawed, rushed design with corners cut and safety given lower priority. Just think of how many design decisions would've been made differently if they actually cared about making the best, safest, most reliable plane possible instead of trying to make a plane to use less fuel with the fastest turnaround time possible. The 737 MAX would be something else entirely. So they can try to slap a bunch of fixes over it, but I would rather fly on a plane that wasn't designed to be unbalanced and doesn't have an innate tendency to stall.

Boeing knew the plane's physical design was fundamentally flawed, which is why they went out of their way to hide the details and "patch" it with software they didn't tell anyone about. As one of Boeing's own employees said in an email that only came out in investigations: "This airplane is designed by clowns who in turn are supervised by monkeys."

737MAX8

I try to avoid any emotional responses. It's just a fact over 18 months has been spent working on this issue. This is a good article:

https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...-jet-now-safe/

expert7700

“The modified aircraft will be fully compliant with the applicable rules, using the most conservative means of compliance,” the FAA said.

​​​​​If FAA is so conservative, then where is the 3rd physical AoA sensor that Europe was going to require? Too little, too late!

Article on airliners seems to say that Europe will require it to be phased in and retrofitted over time (which could be years or a decade).

Section 107

I am coming late to this thread, but what an ironic comment now in retrospect....

ursine1

Looks like a few different interested parties think the fixes don't go far enough.

FAA’s Own Engineers Say Proposed Fixes to Max Aren’t Enough

DenverBrian

And just why would a company need over 18 months to "work on the issue" after the plane was fully certified and in service? Hmmm.

737MAX8

I am not debating anything about the original max. The issues are well documented. My point was there has been a ton of time and work on max 2.0, which is now different from max 1.0 with all of the applied changes. The MCAS software will obviously not act like 1.0

DenverBrian

Cool. But redesigns on an airplane carrying 150-200 people at a time demand orders of magnitude different scrutiny than, say, redesigns on a coffee maker that spits coffee out the sides once in a while. This has always been a distinction in arguments among FTers, IMO. There is a faction that essentially says "it's software, we'll fix it, everything peachy," and a faction that essentially says "hundreds of people are dead, this has to be absolutely ironclad before I'll get on that machine."

I'm in the second group. I'll let other passengers serve as test subjects for a year or so before I'll get on a MAX.

lougord99

I have such mixed feelings about this. I think I still come down on the side of: If the pilot is willing to fly it, then so am I.

LegalTender

With "Max" no longer captioned on the side, which carrier will volunteer the new alias? "Formerly unairworthy" is out.

Very few will give "737-8" a second thought.

spongenotbob

737XJ-700/800/900 (Xtra Janky)

737MAX8

Exactly my feelings. They know the airplane better than all of us.

Well yeah, I don't think a coffee maker would go through 18+ months of extreme scrutiny like this airplane has.

LegalTender

Like there's ever unanimity. ALPA on Monday said the loss-of-control checklist needs work to “more rapidly isolate the problem." Female pilots must be physically able to move the trim wheel in extremis. Boeing test pilots could not meet the performance standard (reaction time) required for MCAS to be safe as certified. What NTSB praised as "positive progress" is not conclusive.

DenverBrian

Conversely, I didn't think an airplane manufacturer would push through a plane that killed 350 people in two separate accidents of the exact same type before realizing they needed to go through 18+ months of extreme scrutiny. <shrugs>

ursine1

Well, they're not there yet. Even the pilots have additional concerns not addressed by the FAA plan.

From the link I posted earlier: