Boeing 737 Max Resumes Service

The Boeing 737 Max has resumed passenger service in some countries but who is willing to fly in it? I found this "According to a poll from UBS Group, 70% of passengers would hesitate to book a flight on the 737 MAX. Perhaps even more poignant is a study that suggests more than 40% of passengers would be willing to take a more expensive or inconvenient flight to stay off the deadly plane.", dosen't look good for the Max, would you trust it?

I wouldn't want to get on any plane right now - or a ship, a train or a bus.

Boeing must have proved the Max's safety to the airlines, now the public need to see that same proof from Boeing and/or the airlines themselves.

I wouldn't want to get on any plane right now - or a ship, a train or a bus.

Boeing must have proved the Max's safety to the airlines, now the public need to see that same proof from Boeing and/or the airlines themselves.

 

Sure, why not? I cannot think of a more scrutinized aircraft in existence or having ever existed. But like Tim I would not want to fly on ANY commercial airliner right now.

None are sufficiently Virus-protected.

 

I did fly to France before the latest crisis, but that was in a small 4/5 seater personal aircraft, and I, like the other pax, had all just had Corona tests before going anywhere near the aircraft, to comply with French law!

Usage will demonstrate its safety. Let it fly for a year or three, and if no more crashes, then it must be OK.

Usage will demonstrate its safety. Let it fly for a year or three, and if no more crashes, then it must be OK.

 

The question is: Do YOU want to be the guinea-pig?

My thinking is that the vast majority of the flying public can only recognize two different aircraft types, the 747 and all the others. (OK, maybe the 380, too) They certainly can't tell the difference between a MAX and a good old -800.

 

Thanks to the media, if a toilet refuses to flush on a MAX, it will be 'breaking news', at least for a few months.

I hardly fly in RW. In the Australian context, the difficulty is that when booking a ticket on a commercial airline, you don't know what plane you'll be on, and I don't think you can find out easily, unless you ask them before you buy (can't really do that if buying online). I don't think the ticket selling staff will know or be keen to find out for you anyway. The only other way is to know what aircraft fly the standard service that you want to use. Some Australian carriers did have them on order I believe and intend to put them into service as soon as they could once re-certified, and once the COVID thing is diminished and passenger traffic builds again. I certainly wouldn't get on one until that 1 to 3 year proving period is over.

In a sentence or three, what actually was the problem with them, what did the investigation find (really, truthfully). Was it crew not being trained properly in how they flew, with all the automation and the reported flight management setup, or was there also a gremlin deeper in the thing. Was the original flight software design sound or misguided?

In a sentence or three, what actually was the problem with them, what did the investigation find (really, truthfully). Was it crew not being trained properly in how they flew, with all the automation and the reported flight management setup, or was there also a gremlin deeper in the thing. Was the original flight software design sound or misguided?

 

Training was a factor, but the root problem was sticking newer and larger engines onto an airframe not well suited to them. The engines changed the flight characteristics, which should have meant more rigorous certification of the new design and proper simulator training for the pilots. To keep training costs down, Boeing designed the very flawed MCAS software so it would fly similar to previous 737 models and then claimed a one hour training course was enough to update flight crews. Nothing in the original training materials mentioned anything about the MCAS or how it worked. On top of all of this the MCAS software only ran off of one pitot system, which meant it got bad data when that single system failed. The MCAS was also far more aggressive than it should have been. Other issues came out during the investigation too. Basically Boeing tried to cheap out trying to compete with the A320NEO. There are some good videos on YouTube and articles elsewhere online that go into more detail.

Loki has it right, but you might say that Boeing was trying to take shortcuts to keep costs down (and hiding it), the bean counters apparently not caring much about safety, and they certainly must have been ignorant of Murphy's Law.

Yeah, the MCAS was part of it and lack of pilot training. You can completely CUT OFF MCAS so that it doesn't ruin your day.

 

What happened with these air disasters was that MCAS thought the plane was going to stall, so what'd it do? Pitch the plane down, straight the hell done. The PIC tried to pull the plane out of the nose down attitude that MCAS invoked but couldn't due to lack of training to disengage. And as such they went head first into the damn ground.

 

Now if you disengage MCAS, it turns back on again in like 5 seconds. You need to cut it off completely.

 

Would I fly in a Max? If I can help it, probably not. You should see MAX or 737-Max on your ticket. That's been my case when buying air travel. I'd see 767 or CRJ, etc. The airline might know this and just state 737 as to not make their passenger not want to take the flight.

 

You wanna read some rat vomit news?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/01/13/plane-crash-victims-families-sickened-by-fired-boeing-ceos-62-million-payout/

 

Doesn't give too much unless it's dark money. I've seen Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates give more. https://www.opensecrets.org/search?q=Dennis+Muilenburg&type=donors

Edited January 1, 2021 by CRJ_simpilot

Loki has it right, but you might say that Boeing was trying to take shortcuts to keep costs down (and hiding it), the bean counters apparently not caring much about safety, and they certainly must have been ignorant of Murphy's Law.

 

The more that comes out, the worse it looks for Boeing. And the FAA too.

 

https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/18/22189609/faa-boeing-737-max-senate-report-coverup-tests-whistleblowers

I'm with Tim. Over the past 60 years I've flown a bit over 2,000,000 miles. There is positively, without doubt, absolutely no way I'd book a flight on a MAX. Costs more to fly another type? OK. Can't afford it? Gas ain't all that expensive compared to a funeral.