Maestro Ramen

I see multiple posts proclaiming that the MAX will be the safest plane when back in the air, due to all the scrutiny.

Whilst I appreciate the optimism, and I too believe they will make the plane safe, I don't believe it can ever be the safest. The machine has some bad aerodynamic characteristics that no patch and recert is ever going to fix.

Just like the Osprey (not a bad analogy after all) will never be the safest mil aircraft.

Maestro Ramen

Pedantic corner:
It's "Hear Hear" and not "Here here"
The expression is used in the British parliament to replace applauses as clapping your hands is forbidden

Scrooge McDuck

Regardless if the MAX will be the "saftest" plane or just a rather thourougly tested one ... Remember the fate of the DC-10 after its series of crashes? After the second cargo door incident, the plane was next to unsellable and many passengers avoided that "death trap". Airlines had to react on this.

My understanding is that most - but not all airlines - did not switch orders from the MAX because the A320 familiy has quite a long delivery time line and that the other 737 models are not as efficient as the Airbus neo series. But what will happen if passengers are avoiding the MAX after they are allowed to fly again?

edgewood49

Has anyone seen the NYT today? Apparently some spin doctors are saying that the FAA was to blame, interesting article.

by the by when you type 'hear hear" sometimes spell check attempts to take you back to here here

84fiero

The FAA and Congress share some of the culpability, due to the lack of appropriate oversight, inadequate staffing, and misplaced priorities, for many years (and not just regarding the MAX).

jrl767

chipmaster

OMG they didn't fix it, what a ....

Are you an aeronautical engineer who has seen or have made available the details from windtunnel and computer simulations for the Max with the old and the new MCAS? If not you are speculating like the rest of us.

But if you have an logical deduction you can likely conclude a lot of bureaucrats back by experts as well as good intention experts will be all over the max like flys on $h1t, if it passes all those inspections as well as the ton of focus the airlines will be giving it it will be safe, probably more safe than similar complex software augmented airplanes flying as well as older designs.

Will the airplane ever be fundamentally robust due to the design choices, no, but safe enough, probably and likely yes. Who knows how long or how much it will cost BA, I'm suspecting it'll top 10 Billion before this is all and done, BA would have been far wiser had they not dilly dallied a decade ago and embarked all in on a new airplane. Now after they clean up this mess they will have to do that and we are looking at burning probably 20 billion now.

Maestro Ramen

That's poor form buddy. With that reasoning, only michelin cooks could write tripadvisor reviews and only violinists could be music critics.

I didn't make my own wind tunnel but I am crafty enough to find information from reliable sources who are better aeronautical engineers than me, and that's the conclusion (or speculation as you say) most come to.

I actually agree with the rest of your post so I'll let you off the hook this time. Please dont expect every poster here to have DYKWIA-grade phds before speaking up, that's what forums are all about!

Global321

So far, all the issues cited by regulating agencies seem to be around the MCAS and possible parts that may not meet standards.

A lot of online folks claiming to be engineers make the same claim you are about the airworthiness of the MAX. (The other arguments are around the age of the 737 frame.)

If you have some "information from reliable sources" from " better aeronautical engineers" please share to educate everyone.

DenverBrian

It's a simple logic exercise. If MCAS is not needed on the MAX, why include it? If MCAS IS needed, why?

MCAS exists on the MAX and not earlier versions of the 737 because of some difference between the models. What is this difference? According to numerous articles around the Web (which I'm not going to link to because you seem to be the type of person who will denigrate any article from any source), the difference is a tendency for the MAX to pitch up in certain situations; and this is because the engines on the MAX are more forward, with the nacelles actually protuding above the level of the wing profile, creating more lift in certain situations.

So the argument is either: MCAS is needed because the MAX is unstable in certain situations and needs software to compensate (and as a consumer I'm not excited about this tack at all); or MCAS is needed simply because Boeing and the purchasing airlines were too cost-conscious/hasty/lazy/some combination to ask for a new type certificate for the MAX, and wanted current 737 pilots to just slide into the MAX flight deck and go - none of that pesky simulator or other training needed (and as a consumer I see two fatal crashes, both MCAS related, and I'm not excited about this tack at all either).

edgewood49

Oh I agree with you this issue crosses party lines and has been being for years. It's interesting the NYT mag today has Biden on its front cover essentially inferring he wants to take the party back to where it was now without regard to parties I personally would like to see politic's go back to the says when there was decorum and things got done, the FAA is a prime example of not getting things done for the people.

I sincerely hope that the managers at BA don't use this to escape that would be bad

born sleepy

This plane is done. Toast. I will never set foot on one and neither should you. There's far more awareness of this frame vs say the DC-10 back in the day. Far more people flying too vs 1970s. Kettles will ask what they're flying on from now on I'd expect.

Scrap them all. Those responsible both at FAA and BA go to trial for at least manslaughter.

Global321

Oh my. Your debate seems to be around "I'm right, your wrong."

I made the reasonable request for a link to anything credible to support your argument. You repeated your mantra "According to numerous articles around the Web". Besides a temper tantrum and name-calling, we got nothing.

You can continue to be that guy that shouts your opinion louder and louder with name-calling or you can provide some of the "numerous articles around the Web" and enlighten us.

You seem like the type of guy that will just shout more, and toss a few insults for fun.

1. I sure hope someone is held accountable.
2. If it does go back in service, long term, I highly doubt flyers will keep asking which plane / nor will the airline allow people to opt-out of a flight because of the aircraft.

And what will the airline do when a 737 is swapped for a MAX at the last minute...
Make an announcement and let people switch for free? Doubtful.
Keep quiet and expect flyers to not ask about the plane? Likely.

Maestro Ramen

I know the last post wasn't directed at me, but I've been reading 100s of pages on specialist forums inc. Pprune etc. and it's tiring to be asked to link to particular articles to prove an open fact, by people who obviously didn't read anything about it.

I don't think any engineer disagrees that the max enveloppe is unstable. It's part of the inherent design plan. The argument is between "not as good as classic aircraft but perfectly adequate" for boeing hardline defenders to "certain death" for opponents with the truth most probably somewhere in between.

But the core fact is undisputed afaik so I don't know why one has to relink articles probably already on this very thread everytime they post...

Plato90s

The fact that the aircraft handles differently is not in dispute. Different/unstable in certain situations doesn't necessarily mean dangerous.

I think the 737 Max can indeed be operated safely, but the key point is that it has to be treated as a new aircraft type. That means Boeing needs to be required to remove the software which tries to mask the different handling characteristics and instead have pilots be trained to handle the aircraft's performance envelope.

The key difference in corporate culture is what Boeing management decided to do when their own test pilots identified how the 737 Max handled differently due to the new engine placement. They decided time-to-market was more important and decided to re-program MCAS as a way to mask the difference.

A company where safety and good engineering was of at least equal priority with market-share concerns would NOT have made that decision. The events since the two deadly crashes has amply confirmed that safety/good engineering has taken a back seat in Boeing's corporate decision-making and that's the deadly reputational risk to Boeing.



If Boeing continue to double-down and try to force-feed the 737 Max as an aircraft which require little pilot retraining because of some magical Boeing software pixie-dust... they are fools.