|
Originally Posted by PsiFighter37
(Post 31243058)
Not sure it’s been discussed here - but do folks think there is any kind of chance that the MAX never gets cleared for takeoff, and that no matter what software fixes are put in place, it doesn’t fix the issues at hand? |
Originally Posted by PsiFighter37
(Post 31243058)
Not sure it’s been discussed here - but do folks think there is any kind of chance that the MAX never gets cleared for takeoff, and that no matter what software fixes are put in place, it doesn’t fix the issues at hand? There is is no organization involved in this process that is not motivated by safety. |
New flaw discovered today on the 737max. How many more flaws before carriers dump this in the garbage for good.
|
Originally Posted by fly18725
(Post 31243191)
No. That is absolutely the worst outcome for aviation and the FAA. It is one thing to respond to and correct an unforeseen issue. It is another to have a fatally flawed product make it through the system. This would be severely detrimental to Airbus and would have far reaching repercussions that would impact the miles and points game many hold dear. There is is no organization involved in this process that is not motivated by safety. |
Originally Posted by VegasGambler
(Post 31243172)
One can only hope. But, realistically, no.
Gotta agree ..... while many hate the plane, for all intents and purposes it's a safe frame and once software is taken care of, Max will fly again. This time safely. |
Originally Posted by jmw
(Post 31243222)
New flaw discovered today on the 737max. How many more flaws before carriers dump this in the garbage for good.
An FAA spokesperson would not confirm the specific issue, but told CNN that "the FAA's process is designed to discover and highlight potential risks. The FAA recently found a potential risk that Boeing is required to mitigate." Two comments: (1) that's good to hear, and (2) it would have been great if you had followed this process the first time. |
Originally Posted by VegasGambler
(Post 31243330)
(2) it would have been great if you had followed this process the first time.
This new issue could have been introduced by the changes that Boeing is making, or it could have been missed by the FAA test pilots. Without further information, there's no way to tell how severe the issue is or what the consequences of missing it might have been. Jumping to conclusions helps no-one and simply muddies the waters further. |
Originally Posted by jsloan
(Post 31243352)
Other than Internet conspiracy theories, there is no reason to believe that they didn't follow this process the first time.
This new issue could have been introduced by the changes that Boeing is making, or it could have been missed by the FAA test pilots. Without further information, there's no way to tell how severe the issue is or what the consequences of missing it might have been. Jumping to conclusions helps no-one and simply muddies the waters further. I thought that this sort of hardware was not being added in these changes. I thought that it was mostly a software change, possibly with the addition of an extra sensor? That would imply that this is an existing problem, not a new one. |
Originally Posted by fly18725
(Post 31243191)
... There is is no organization involved in this process that is not motivated by safety. |
Originally Posted by VegasGambler
(Post 31243363)
It says it comes from a faulty microprocessor. My understanding is that this is referring to the chance of a piece of hardware failing.
I don't know that this is true; I don't know that it is false. I do know that there is no benefit to rush to judgment about a plane that is currently grounded. |
Originally Posted by bocastephen
(Post 31243365)
Correction: there is no organization involved in this process that is not motivated by profit, or influenced by lobbying and partisan politics.
Without safety, there will be no profit. Without profit, there would be no mile and points, and no jobs for those in the travel industry... Real life is not so simple. |
Originally Posted by jsloan
(Post 31243392)
I don't know that this is true; I don't know that it is false. I do know that there is no benefit to rush to judgment about a plane that is currently grounded.
|
Originally Posted by chrisl137
(Post 31243550)
And the article was as close to information-free about the issue as it could possibly be.
|
Originally Posted by BF263533
(Post 31243639)
Information-free explanations only cause more suspicion about the 737Max.
|
Has anybody seen/ experienced flight cancellations from UA’s latest pushback of MAX return to service? |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 3:56 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.