737 MAX

Old Sep 16, 20, 5:19 pm
  #121  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 114
Originally Posted by 737MAX8 View Post
But that variation of the plane you curse is not the same as what will be flying after the ungrounding.
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."
oreocookies is offline  
Old Sep 16, 20, 7:57 pm
  #122  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 327
Originally Posted by oreocookies View Post
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."
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/
CA1900, steved5480 and Newman55 like this.
737MAX8 is offline  
Old Sep 17, 20, 12:57 pm
  #123  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: USA
Programs: Frontier 100K, AC SE100K, BA Gold, WN A-/CP, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 3,998
Originally Posted by 737MAX8 View Post
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:
“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).
expert7700 is offline  
Old Sep 18, 20, 10:21 am
  #124  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 1,790
Originally Posted by birdiedouble View Post
Maybe he can get after the norovirus on the cruise ships that come into port there while he's at it.
I am coming late to this thread, but what an ironic comment now in retrospect....
Section 107 is offline  
Old Sep 21, 20, 8:49 pm
  #125  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,878
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
The NATCA comments include five separate recommendations. They range from relatively minor changes in emergency procedures to a call for what appear to be more extensive revisions to the plane’s cockpit alerting system.

Despite proposed changes to the plane, it would still be subject to erroneous warnings from a single sensor, the union said. “This design does not comply” with FAA regulations and could lead to pilot confusion, it said.
Boraxo and screeton like this.
ursine1 is offline  
Old Sep 23, 20, 10:29 am
  #126  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Proud Charter Member of the OUM
Posts: 22,763
Originally Posted by 737MAX8 View Post
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/
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.
screeton and flyer4512 like this.
DenverBrian is online now  
Old Sep 23, 20, 11:54 am
  #127  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 327
Originally Posted by DenverBrian View Post
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.
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
737MAX8 is offline  
Old Sep 24, 20, 7:09 am
  #128  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Proud Charter Member of the OUM
Posts: 22,763
Originally Posted by 737MAX8 View Post
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
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.
screeton likes this.
DenverBrian is online now  
Old Sep 24, 20, 7:19 am
  #129  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: ORD, MDW or MKE
Programs: No change fees keep me tied to WN. Hilton and Choice hotels primarily.
Posts: 6,155
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.
steved5480 likes this.
lougord99 is offline  
Old Sep 24, 20, 8:34 am
  #130  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Blue Ridge, GA
Posts: 4,685
Originally Posted by lougord99 View Post
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.
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.
LegalTender is online now  
Old Sep 24, 20, 9:30 am
  #131  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 707
Originally Posted by LegalTender View Post
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.
737XJ-700/800/900 (Xtra Janky)
spongenotbob is online now  
Old Sep 24, 20, 10:54 am
  #132  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 327
Originally Posted by lougord99 View Post
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.
Exactly my feelings. They know the airplane better than all of us.

Originally Posted by DenverBrian View Post
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.
Well yeah, I don't think a coffee maker would go through 18+ months of extreme scrutiny like this airplane has.
737MAX8 is offline  
Old Sep 24, 20, 11:21 am
  #133  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Blue Ridge, GA
Posts: 4,685
Originally Posted by 737MAX8 View Post
They know the airplane better than all of us..
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.
screeton likes this.
LegalTender is online now  
Old Sep 24, 20, 12:05 pm
  #134  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Proud Charter Member of the OUM
Posts: 22,763
Originally Posted by 737MAX8 View Post
Well yeah, I don't think a coffee maker would go through 18+ months of extreme scrutiny like this airplane has.
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>
screeton likes this.

Last edited by DenverBrian; Sep 27, 20 at 8:37 am
DenverBrian is online now  
Old Sep 24, 20, 3:15 pm
  #135  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,878
Originally Posted by lougord99 View Post
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.
Well, they're not there yet. Even the pilots have additional concerns not addressed by the FAA plan.

From the link I posted earlier:

The Air Line Pilots Association, which represents more than 60,000 flight crew members in North America, proposed several changes to the FAA plan, such as giving pilots the ability to disable the loud thumping warning that occurs when a plane is about to enter an aerodynamic stall.
ursine1 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: