You don't need an engine placement issue to run into trouble with human response to automated flight systems.

Witness AF447 - the A330 where mode confusion played a role in response to the stall after the pitot tube which had been known to have a faulty design iced over - enough so that AF ordered them replaced just before the crash.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/busi...ight-447-crash

I remember a number of fliers worried about the Airbus after that incident.

Same with Birgenair 301. It was only 6 weeks or so after the AA 757 that crashed in Cali... lots of people started to call the safety of the 757 into question there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birgenair_Flight_301

(1) I seriously doubt that the CAAC would have said that they had reports when none existed. First of all, Boeing would immediately want to have the details on them, as would the FAA. Second, if they did not exist, it would destroy the CAAC's credibility. (2) I would have expected with one accident, not involving a Chinese plane, for the CAAC to keep its powder dry, and expect Boeing and the FAA to be investigating things quickly and professionally.

I am not saying that a trade war did/did not impact their decision to ground the planes (which has now been seconded the EU, so not out in left field...) but I find no reasonable situation where the CAAC would lie about having reports from Chinese pilots of similar issues.

Yes, and as AB Fan noted, Airbus swung into action, going so far as to spend Millions of $$$ to raise the plane off the south Atlantic sea floor. Boeing seems to have gone into a defensive crouch with the LionAir Crash - which I assumed from their statements was a one off, failure of Lion Air to train in a new system. Now that this turns out to be a suspect statement - with a new reflash of the system coming in a few weeks - Boeing has frankly substantially decreased my trust in them. I am getting a sneaking suspicion that having cut corners on the MAX (being beated out of the box by the neo, and lacking the will and engineering resources for a new aircraft) and with it being about 70% of sales, that Boeing is not exactly being forthcoming.

+1

It's barely more than 48 hours since the crash, let's give the A vs. B cheerleading a rest for a moment, and as far as "cutting corners" in aerospace engineering, well, stick to what you know.

Couldn't agree more.

Even during the best of times, it's prudent & standard practice to assume every executive is lying or withholding crucial information--assume everything is a lie until one can independently verify it. Whether there is an issue or not or if they know it or not, at this point, their position will be the same--namely, the aircraft is safe.

Just a data point here, I'm scheduled to fly the MAX 9 tomorrow from OGG to LAX. I'm on the phone with UA right now and being told that the pilots are well trained and the MAX 8 is not the same as the 9, and so on. Resistance to changing me to a different flight (on a 772) even though there's tons of room and it's listed as K9 (I have a K class ticket). Anyone else have a different experience?

Update: After the rep consulted with a supervisor the change was made.

I took spin88's "cutting corners" to be a reference of Boeing not doing a total redesign of the 737 when they added the new engines. The MAX-8 engines were too large to fit the existing frame (too low), so they either had to do a full redesign (costly in time and money) or do a less significant change to raise the wings and create a software solution to resolve the resulting tendency to pull up in certain situations. Several aviation experts have used similar though perhaps less pejorative words (compromise, for example) in describing the decision Boeing made.

HUCA. That is not what UA put out yesterday. Maybe she was just trying to allay any fears you had, not necessarily denying you the change? UA was actually the first domestic airline to say they would "work with" anyone who had concerns flying on a MAX (even though they do not fly the MAX 8)

Edit: Just saw your update. Looks like the word is slowly getting down to the agents.

She was clearly given a script to read to me about how the MAX8 is not the MAX9 that United flies and the pilots are well trained. When I resisted that and persisted and started saying more technical things she said that she would ask a supervisor. The supervisor approved the change. I'm waiting now for everything to get done (for me, minor daughter, and husband, unfortunately all on different PNRs due to upgrade autosplitting).

Every single airplane in commercial aviation uses software solutions to correct inherent aircraft tendencies, some of which are unpleasant or even deadly. FBW systems even correct human tendencies in control inputs.

The MCAS has been sufficiently demonized, but at the end of the day it's a safeguard to provide stall protection in a very narrow area of flying. The Lion Air crash did not involve a unique set of circumstances that had never been contemplated, nor did it give rise a situation pilots were not equipped to handle. The mechanism of the presentation of the failure was unique to the MAX, and I argue the system can theoretically be made safer with certain modifications. But that's not to say it would have changed the ET302 outcome, and it's not evidence that Boeing "cut corners" in the design process.

No manufacturer is immune to incidents and accidents which expose weaknesses in a design; we've seen it constantly throughout aviation history, in varying degrees of severity. The hallmark of safety in this industry has been the deliberate, careful process by which accidents are investigated, studied and analyzed, with recommendations made to prevent future occurrences. This also extends to litigation, which has identified flaws in investigations and initial investigative findings. The point is, drawing conclusions in the immediate wake of these events is simply foolish.

Oh man, you all will just love this. The CSR comes back on and says that she made the change, but "my supervisor said that there is nothing wrong with the plane and if there were the FAA would have grounded them. That crash happened because the pilots made mistakes and in those countries the pilots aren't well trained. So everyone here is perfectly safe flying the MAX." This made me VERY angry and I said that it was outrageous and unfair for them to blame the pilots while the investigation is ongoing and that she and her supervisor should not be saying this to people. She then just said "okay okay" to get me off the phone.

I'm not in the "cutting corners" camp by any means. OTOH, it's well known Boeing didn't want to design an entirely new main landing gear to raise the airframe because it would have required a fully new certification process.