Would YOU fly on the Boeing 737MAX- JUST re-certified by FAA?

[DeanFL]

.
.
ABC's 20/20 had a special program on the issues around the Boeing 737Max airplane - the 2 international fatal crashes 2 years ago, the investigations, Boeing Corp failures, impact on families, and possible internal Boeing Design coverups and prosecution. FAA just re-certified the 737MAX to fly again.

Oct. 29, 2018 Lion Air flight crashes, killing 189 people

March 10, 2019 Ethiopian Airlines jet crashes, killing 157 people

1. Little doubt, with uncovered evidence, that (IMO) Boeing is responsible and that some Boeing execs should be personally prosecuted. Internal Boeing design data on the 737Max uncovered that Engineers estimated about 13 fatal crashes for the 737MAX over its lifetime. (OMG - and STILL built it with these known problems).

2. I am an "America First" person, and it would be devastating if Boeing goes Chapter 11, or worse. The 737MAX is critical to Boeing's future. AirBus would increase their worldwide lead in airframe mfr.

Boeing and FAA is betting that the MAX re-designs will correct the issues.

Would YOU or YOUR FAMILY go into a 737MAX for a flight?


How Boeing 737 MAX'''s flawed flight control system led to 2 crashes that killed 346 - ABC News (https://abcnews.go.com/US/boeing-737-maxs-flawed-flight-control-system-led/story?id=74321424)
.
.

[dewilson58]

yep

[bilcon]

No Problem.

[Arctic Fox]

It's like using an airport that has recently been attacked by terrorists - probably the safest airport in the World for the next month or so, but many people will avoid using it (making it even safer for me).

[Stu from NYC]

Some day when we are comfortable traveling again would do so as long as there were no more incidents between now and than

[charlieo1126@gmail.com]

For years I was transported during the war in Laos especially in the early years in C-47 ‘s flown some times by drunken pilots of different nationalities using dead reckoning when the beacons went out in mountains which was most of the time . I’LL FLY IN ANYTHING

[EastCoastDawg]

Some day when we are comfortable traveling again would do so as long as there were more incidents between now and than

Do you have a death wish?

[Topspinmo]

.
.
ABC's 20/20 had a special program on the issues around the Boeing 737Max airplane - the 2 international fatal crashes 2 years ago, the investigations, Boeing Corp failures, impact on families, and possible internal Boeing Design coverups and prosecution. FAA just re-certified the 737MAX to fly again.

Oct. 29, 2018 Lion Air flight crashes, killing 189 people

March 10, 2019 Ethiopian Airlines jet crashes, killing 157 people

1. Little doubt, with uncovered evidence, that (IMO) Boeing is responsible and that some Boeing execs should be personally prosecuted. Internal Boeing design data on the 737Max uncovered that Engineers estimated about 13 fatal crashes for the 737MAX over its lifetime. (OMG - and STILL built it with these known problems).

2. I am an "America First" person, and it would be devastating if Boeing goes Chapter 11, or worse. The 737MAX is critical to Boeing's future. AirBus would increase their worldwide lead in airframe mfr.

Boeing and FAA is betting that the MAX re-designs will correct the issues.

Would YOU or YOUR FAMILY go into a 737MAX for a flight?


How Boeing 737 MAX'''s flawed flight control system led to 2 crashes that killed 346 - ABC News (https://abcnews.go.com/US/boeing-737-maxs-flawed-flight-control-system-led/story?id=74321424)
.
.


As long as it’s domestic flight with American carriers

[Topspinmo]

For years I was transported during the war in Laos especially in the early years in C-47 ‘s flown some times by drunken pilots of different nationalities using dead reckoning when the beacons went out in mountains which was most of the time . I’LL FLY IN ANYTHING

Apples vs oranges, cable controls vs undertrained computer pilots.

[Number 10 GI]

No way even if it was free!

[tophcfa]

I would once vaccinated, but until then no way.

[Kenswing]

As long as it’s domestic flight with American carriers
I would even extend that to most European carriers. Just no third world carriers with third world pilots and third world maintenance practices.

[Rosebud1949]

.
.
ABC's 20/20 had a special program on the issues around the Boeing 737Max airplane - the 2 international fatal crashes 2 years ago, the investigations, Boeing Corp failures, impact on families, and possible internal Boeing Design coverups and prosecution. FAA just re-certified the 737MAX to fly again.

Oct. 29, 2018 Lion Air flight crashes, killing 189 people

March 10, 2019 Ethiopian Airlines jet crashes, killing 157 people

1. Little doubt, with uncovered evidence, that (IMO) Boeing is responsible and that some Boeing execs should be personally prosecuted. Internal Boeing design data on the 737Max uncovered that Engineers estimated about 13 fatal crashes for the 737MAX over its lifetime. (OMG - and STILL built it with these known problems).

2. I am an "America First" person, and it would be devastating if Boeing goes Chapter 11, or worse. The 737MAX is critical to Boeing's future. AirBus would increase their worldwide lead in airframe mfr.

Boeing and FAA is betting that the MAX re-designs will correct the issues.

Would YOU or YOUR FAMILY go into a 737MAX for a flight?


How Boeing 737 MAX'''s flawed flight control system led to 2 crashes that killed 346 - ABC News (https://abcnews.go.com/US/boeing-737-maxs-flawed-flight-control-system-led/story?id=74321424)
.
.

No way , not even if free. Not with a vaccine, which I may not take until proved really effective. Double Jeopardy. Get the Virus then die or just die in a plane crash. I value my life.

[kathyspear]

No way even if it was free!

What he/she said. Not happening.

kathy

[Gulfcoast]

Yes.

[DeanFL]

.
.
Folks - no big deal - but, just to clarify... the question is solely regarding flying in the Boeing 737MAX. Not COVID, not general air travel.

Personally, I would - if that's the airframe on the day/route/airline I booked.
FAA and Boeing absolutely know - a crash on the MAX, and FAA would be under serious suspicion, and Boeing would be close-to-fatal.

I am not an aircraft engineer by any means, but Boeing's (unbelievably STUPID) decision to include a single point of failure (only one AOA sensor as sole input activating the MCAS system), MCAS coverup, and Boeing's decision to not require pilot training.

[STLRAY]

Definitely

[Mrprez]

There are very few mass produced airliners that have never crashed.

[DeanFL]

There are very few mass produced airliners that have never crashed.

??? NEVER out-of-the-gate NEW aircraft designed by a major mfr. TWICE in a short period of time.

BOTH crashes SOLELY due to design flaws - NOT training/pilot error/malfunction/weather etc etc.

Have you read anything about 737Max troubled history? The entire fleet was grounded worldwide.
.
.

[John41]

.
.
ABC's 20/20 had a special program on the issues around the Boeing 737Max airplane - the 2 international fatal crashes 2 years ago, the investigations, Boeing Corp failures, impact on families, and possible internal Boeing Design coverups and prosecution. FAA just re-certified the 737MAX to fly again.

Oct. 29, 2018 Lion Air flight crashes, killing 189 people

March 10, 2019 Ethiopian Airlines jet crashes, killing 157 people

1. Little doubt, with uncovered evidence, that (IMO) Boeing is responsible and that some Boeing execs should be personally prosecuted. Internal Boeing design data on the 737Max uncovered that Engineers estimated about 13 fatal crashes for the 737MAX over its lifetime. (OMG - and STILL built it with these known problems).

2. I am an "America First" person, and it would be devastating if Boeing goes Chapter 11, or worse. The 737MAX is critical to Boeing's future. AirBus would increase their worldwide lead in airframe mfr.

Boeing and FAA is betting that the MAX re-designs will correct the issues.

Would YOU or YOUR FAMILY go into a 737MAX for a flight?


How Boeing 737 MAX'''s flawed flight control system led to 2 crashes that killed 346 - ABC News (https://abcnews.go.com/US/boeing-737-maxs-flawed-flight-control-system-led/story?id=74321424)
.
.

I would wait a year then fly if no further incidents. But the accident was the result of a change in Boeing’s corporate culture from one of safety foremost to profit foremost, due to the executive after Calhoun, Dennis Muilenberg who was afraid Airbus would eat their lunch if there were safety related delays in production. Execs need to be criminally charged and also face civil courts damages.

[JoMar]

After all the scrutiny, probably the safest airplane flying now.

[Stu from NYC]

Do you have a death wish?

No, Boeing cannot afford another deadly crash with this plane. Should be the safest in the sky.

I do agree senior executives who were responsible should be in prison

[New Englander]

When I get the Covid Vaccine I'll fly in one. They went through the MAX over and over again and corrected the flaw.

[ONTAP15]

Now and THEN, Stu..

[Topspinmo]

I would wait a year then fly if no further incidents. But the accident was the result of a change in Boeing’s corporate culture from one of safety foremost to profit foremost, due to the executive after Calhoun, Dennis Muilenberg who was afraid Airbus would eat their lunch if there were safety related delays in production. Execs need to be criminally charged and also face civil courts damages.


You do know the first air bus flew into forest at end of runway.

[Topspinmo]

??? NEVER out-of-the-gate NEW aircraft designed by a major mfr. TWICE in a short period of time.

BOTH crashes SOLELY due to design flaws - NOT training/pilot error/malfunction/weather etc etc.

Have you read anything about 737Max troubled history? The entire fleet was grounded worldwide.
.
.

Airbus

First Airbus A320 Crash - French Air show.

[Mrsmac4]

737 Max?? No Way. Boeing needs to scrap that plane and get back to the drawing board if they ever want to compete with AirBus again in the future.

[N44125]

Yes...with an USA airline.

[Mrprez]

??? NEVER out-of-the-gate NEW aircraft designed by a major mfr. TWICE in a short period of time.

BOTH crashes SOLELY due to design flaws - NOT training/pilot error/malfunction/weather etc etc.

Have you read anything about 737Max troubled history? The entire fleet was grounded worldwide.
.
.

Yeah, it was in the paper. I am aware. If Boeing deliberately put a bad plane on the market then they should be roasted until a golden brown. The fact remains. There are less than 10 airliners without any crashes. When your plane goes down what difference does it make the cause. You are pretty likely to die. Do you base your reservations on the type of plane that they will be using? If they make a last minute change and you don’t like that model are you going to go at a later date? I doubt it. Give me a break. I have zero affection for Boeing. My father worked there for 30 years. He retired at 55, but was too young to draw his pension. He died at 58, not getting a dime. Screw them.

[B-flat]

Yes I would fly on it. The way I figure it if it's my time it's my time.

[Stu from NYC]

Now and THEN, Stu..

Sorry do not understand what you are saying.

[MandoMan]

.
.
ABC's 20/20 had a special program on the issues around the Boeing 737Max airplane - the 2 international fatal crashes 2 years ago, the investigations, Boeing Corp failures, impact on families, and possible internal Boeing Design coverups and prosecution. FAA just re-certified the 737MAX to fly again.

Oct. 29, 2018 Lion Air flight crashes, killing 189 people

March 10, 2019 Ethiopian Airlines jet crashes, killing 157 people

1. Little doubt, with uncovered evidence, that (IMO) Boeing is responsible and that some Boeing execs should be personally prosecuted. Internal Boeing design data on the 737Max uncovered that Engineers estimated about 13 fatal crashes for the 737MAX over its lifetime. (OMG - and STILL built it with these known problems).

2. I am an "America First" person, and it would be devastating if Boeing goes Chapter 11, or worse. The 737MAX is critical to Boeing's future. AirBus would increase their worldwide lead in airframe mfr.

Boeing and FAA is betting that the MAX re-designs will correct the issues.

Would YOU or YOUR FAMILY go into a 737MAX for a flight?


How Boeing 737 MAX'''s flawed flight control system led to 2 crashes that killed 346 - ABC News (https://abcnews.go.com/US/boeing-737-maxs-flawed-flight-control-system-led/story?id=74321424)
.
.

Yes, once I’ve been vaccinated.

[jedalton]

.
.
ABC's 20/20 had a special program on the issues around the Boeing 737Max airplane - the 2 international fatal crashes 2 years ago, the investigations, Boeing Corp failures, impact on families, and possible internal Boeing Design coverups and prosecution. FAA just re-certified the 737MAX to fly again.

Oct. 29, 2018 Lion Air flight crashes, killing 189 people

March 10, 2019 Ethiopian Airlines jet crashes, killing 157 people

1. Little doubt, with uncovered evidence, that (IMO) Boeing is responsible and that some Boeing execs should be personally prosecuted. Internal Boeing design data on the 737Max uncovered that Engineers estimated about 13 fatal crashes for the 737MAX over its lifetime. (OMG - and STILL built it with these known problems).

2. I am an "America First" person, and it would be devastating if Boeing goes Chapter 11, or worse. The 737MAX is critical to Boeing's future. AirBus would increase their worldwide lead in airframe mfr.

Boeing and FAA is betting that the MAX re-designs will correct the issues.

Would YOU or YOUR FAMILY go into a 737MAX for a flight?


How Boeing 737 MAX'''s flawed flight control system led to 2 crashes that killed 346 - ABC News (https://abcnews.go.com/US/boeing-737-maxs-flawed-flight-control-system-led/story?id=74321424)
.
.
no way

[ts12755]

Both were unskilled pilots.

[nick demis]

As long as it’s domestic flight with American carriers

Where the pilots are properly trained, unlike most other countries.

[RoadToad]

No, Boeing cannot afford another deadly crash with this plane. Should be the safest in the sky.

I do agree senior executives who were responsible should be in prison

STU ... What is being referred to is that in your original post you left out a NOT.

You meant not had additional events but you omitted the NOT .. lol

[jamorela]

Not for a while!

[richs631]

.
.
ABC's 20/20 had a special program on the issues around the Boeing 737Max airplane - the 2 international fatal crashes 2 years ago, the investigations, Boeing Corp failures, impact on families, and possible internal Boeing Design coverups and prosecution. FAA just re-certified the 737MAX to fly again.

Oct. 29, 2018 Lion Air flight crashes, killing 189 people

March 10, 2019 Ethiopian Airlines jet crashes, killing 157 people



1. Little doubt, with uncovered evidence, that (IMO) Boeing is responsible and that some Boeing execs should be personally prosecuted. Internal Boeing design data on the 737Max uncovered that Engineers estimated about 13 fatal crashes for the 737MAX over its lifetime. (OMG - and STILL built it with these known problems).

2. I am an "America First" person, and it would be devastating if Boeing goes Chapter 11, or worse. The 737MAX is critical to Boeing's future. AirBus would increase their worldwide lead in airframe mfr.

Boeing and FAA is betting that the MAX re-designs will correct the issues.

Would YOU or YOUR FAMILY go into a 737MAX for a flight?


How Boeing 737 MAX'''s flawed flight control system led to 2 crashes that killed 346 - ABC News (https://abcnews.go.com/US/boeing-737-maxs-flawed-flight-control-system-led/story?id=74321424)
.
.

I definitely would. I would say it’s probably one of the safest aircrafts. I’m sure they went over that plane with a fine tooth comb

[toeser]

.
.
ABC's 20/20 had a special program on the issues around the Boeing 737Max airplane - the 2 international fatal crashes 2 years ago, the investigations, Boeing Corp failures, impact on families, and possible internal Boeing Design coverups and prosecution. FAA just re-certified the 737MAX to fly again.

Oct. 29, 2018 Lion Air flight crashes, killing 189 people

March 10, 2019 Ethiopian Airlines jet crashes, killing 157 people

1. Little doubt, with uncovered evidence, that (IMO) Boeing is responsible and that some Boeing execs should be personally prosecuted. Internal Boeing design data on the 737Max uncovered that Engineers estimated about 13 fatal crashes for the 737MAX over its lifetime. (OMG - and STILL built it with these known problems).

2. I am an "America First" person, and it would be devastating if Boeing goes Chapter 11, or worse. The 737MAX is critical to Boeing's future. AirBus would increase their worldwide lead in airframe mfr.

Boeing and FAA is betting that the MAX re-designs will correct the issues.

Would YOU or YOUR FAMILY go into a 737MAX for a flight?


How Boeing 737 MAX'''s flawed flight control system led to 2 crashes that killed 346 - ABC News (https://abcnews.go.com/US/boeing-737-maxs-flawed-flight-control-system-led/story?id=74321424)
.
.

I once flew Burma Air. They bought their planes used from India. Half way through the flight a couple of guys came down the aisle with a toolbox. They pulled up floor boards and worked on something. So yeah, I would fly the 737MAX,

[rjn5656]

Sure, not a problem for me.

[asianthree]

Planes are safe, no matter the model, until the next one crashes. With many businesses having productive meetings online, instead in person, business may continue practice. I no longer travel for work so it’s not as big a deal for me.

Question is you may not know what plane you are flying until pre boarding. Then what do you do? Fly, or refuse

[jamorela]

Interesting article about the seating on American Airlines.

The Boeing 737 MAX Is Safe, But I Don't Want To Fly It With American Airlines - View from the Wing (https://viewfromthewing.com/the-boeing-737-max-is-safe-but-i-dont-want-to-fly-it-with-american-airlines/?utm_source=BoardingArea&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_campaign=BA_Email_Nov2520)

[PennBF]

Why fly on a plane that has had a history of problems without waiting for a reasonable length of time to ensure it is safe. I use to fly to Paris and London on a regular basis. Knew about the plane I was on and took the appropriate action to avoid potential exposures, (e.g. at the time Icelandic Airline was the safest airline so used it even though it added an hour or more to Paris via Luxembourg, etc.) A good website to see airline/airplane history is FCC.Org. Had a lot of experience on flying as once was on an attempted hijacking on flight to Vienna, another where there was a major mechanical problem, etc. My opinion is if you can reduce risk then do. I still believe the 737 Mask is a risk and would not fly on it without a year or more proving itself!!:ohdear:

[riley2011]

No way!!

[riley2011]

Planes are safe, no matter the model, until the next one crashes. With many businesses having productive meetings online, instead in person, business may continue practice. I no longer travel for work so it’s not as big a deal for me.

Question is you may not know what plane you are flying until pre boarding. Then what do you do? Fly, or refuse

Apparently you didn’t see 20/20 the other night. It wasn’t a safe aircraft and the top guy at Boeing knew it.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

I think that with all that it's been through and all of the scrutiny that it's been given, it may be the safest commercial jet out there.

[Rosebud1949]

What he/she said. Not happening.

kathy
Thanks Kathy Spear some sane folk live here at least

[NoMoSno]

Yes

[Aacosner]

.

Would YOU or YOUR FAMILY go into a 737MAX for a flight? [/I][/B]

.

Most certainly. The design and its operating procedures are the most scrutinized of any airplane out there.

[collie1228]

It will certainly be the safest airliner in history after all the scrutiny. And who believes what they see on 20/20? All I've ever seen there are half-truth hit jobs. You can't sell a news magazine with positive news.

[DeanFL]

Apparently you didn’t see 20/20 the other night. It wasn’t a safe aircraft and the top guy at Boeing knew it.
.
.
yes - absolutely. The 20/20 special on the 737MAX was NOT a 'hit piece' on Boeing IMO. Simply reported the facts of the airframe, engineering development, focusing on the 2 crashes and impact on familes affected. 20/20 also reported on Boeing internal emails and docs, showing engineers knew of the MCAS problem, and one actually joked about it. Some engineers voiced strong concerns about the MCAS single point of failure and Boeing not requiring pilot training, and lack of documention on it for pilots.

All in-flight recorders were found for both fatal flights and determined the plane's forced nose-down while the pilots struggled until the end. BOTH crashes, and Boeing NEVER admitted the first MCAS failure while keeping the fleet up until the 2nd. Both crashes were determined NOT to be caused by anything BUT the 737MAX design flaw of MCAS. The pilots were unaware and helpless.

So, for those that are not aware of the details of the Max issues and history - pause a bit - and DON'T blame other potential causes when FACTS do not support.

I want Boeing to succeed and put this horrible episode behind them - but apparent coverups at the very top continue. sad and angry - for the families impacted worldwide, innocent Boeing employees and stockholders, and US the American public...Boeing execs intentially put their company and passenger lives in jeopardy for years.

If you don't believe what 20/20 resported - do your own research - I did...and the bottom line is what I detailed above and in previous posts. Boeing IS responsible.
.
.

[kendi]

First line of thought imo would be, is ABC reporting accurately. That should be the first consideration with any media report these days.

[charlieo1126@gmail.com]

First line of thought imo would be, is ABC reporting accurately. That should be the first consideration with any media report these days.
Major network report , I only believe things I read on the internet hmmmm

[WindyCityzen]

Couldnt agree with you more. Boeing is guilty of manslaughter. The company known for engineering and innovation got greedy, too Wall Street focused, fired their best talent to boost stock prices, and milked a 45-year old aircraft design way past its capacity. There are also problems with the 777. They should replace the 737 with the 797 ASAP.

[donfey]

Absolutely! And, the most dangerous leg of the trip remains the drive to the airport.

[Baywayric]

Can't wait!

[rmd2]

No, I will not fly the 737 MAX because using the MCAS to try to "correct" a bad aerodynamic design is no way to go and I believe using a software "fix" makes it even worse. When you have a bad aerodynamic design the planes should be scrapped, but here they are with a completely new fleet of planes with this design so they are doing anything they can think of to avoid scrapping the planes. It was not safe and is still not safe. It has nothing to do with pilot training, it is all about a very poorly designed plane. The problem is when you buy a ticket for a flight on a certain plane (non-MAX) and you get to the airport, they can put you on a MAX plane at the last minute. So I will be trying to fly other airlines like Delta which have no MAX planes in their fleet. Both Southwest and American have MAX planes.
I thought I read where they were selling the MAX planes to countries in Europe but I guess that fell through.

[dewilson58]

. Boeing is guilty of manslaughter. The company known for engineering and innovation got greedy, too Wall Street focused,
One person's opinion.
:ohdear:

[DeanFL]

One person's opinion.
:ohdear:

.
.
One person's opinion.
.
.
We all can have opinions - some can be based upon facts rather than one liners.

bit demeaning much???
.

[dewilson58]

.One person's opinion.
We all can have opinions - some can be based upon facts rather than one liners.
bit demeaning much???
.
:coolsmiley:

[Cranford61]

No, I will not fly the 737 MAX because using the MCAS to try to "correct" a bad aerodynamic design is no way to go and I believe using a software "fix" makes it even worse. When you have a bad aerodynamic design the planes should be scrapped, but here they are with a completely new fleet of planes with this design so they are doing anything they can think of to avoid scrapping the planes. It was not safe and is still not safe. It has nothing to do with pilot training, it is all about a very poorly designed plane. The problem is when you buy a ticket for a flight on a certain plane (non-MAX) and you get to the airport, they can put you on a MAX plane at the last minute. So I will be trying to fly other airlines like Delta which have no MAX planes in their fleet. Both Southwest and American have MAX planes.
I thought I read where they were selling the MAX planes to countries in Europe but I guess that fell through.
United flies them too.

[Dilligas]

What most are missing is the forest for the trees. Yes the MCAS pushed the planes into nose dive and crash.....however, the MCAS was installed to correct a major design flaw. Boeing was making and selling a lot of 737s, then as engines became bigger and stronger, instead of redesigning a different plane, they simply addeed the oversize engine to the basically current 737. Because of the weight of the engine, they had to shift the engine forward of the wings. That move allowed the plane to become unbalanced in flight, in which the nose began to rise to a point of possible stall. To conteract that rise, they installed MCAS and software to bring the nose back down. Boeing is a major important company to USA economy....however, by not notifying pilots of the MCAS and training them for it's malfunctioning, Boeing is responsible, and those who covered the problem should be prosecuted. The fact that the engineers determined the life of 737 Max could have 13 fatal crashes is meaningless without the additional information of 1) how many Maxs in service, 2) how many flight hours, 3) how often service is required, $) how does the 13/total Maxs compare to other models/crashes....etc. There are so many Maxs in service and production, the 13 becomes an insignificant fact. It is a published fact that commercial flying is safer than walking, driving, trains, or boats.
If Boeing rectified the Max problem with simply software....there is still a problem. If Boeing has revised the design of the engine mount and can retrofit existing planes, and FAA approves, then it would be safe.

[Stu from NYC]

What most are missing is the forest for the trees. Yes the MCAS pushed the planes into nose dive and crash.....however, the MCAS was installed to correct a major design flaw. Boeing was making and selling a lot of 737s, then as engines became bigger and stronger, instead of redesigning a different plane, they simply addeed the oversize engine to the basically current 737. Because of the weight of the engine, they had to shift the engine forward of the wings. That move allowed the plane to become unbalanced in flight, in which the nose began to rise to a point of possible stall. To conteract that rise, they installed MCAS and software to bring the nose back down. Boeing is a major important company to USA economy....however, by not notifying pilots of the MCAS and training them for it's malfunctioning, Boeing is responsible, and those who covered the problem should be prosecuted. The fact that the engineers determined the life of 737 Max could have 13 fatal crashes is meaningless without the additional information of 1) how many Maxs in service, 2) how many flight hours, 3) how often service is required, $) how does the 13/total Maxs compare to other models/crashes....etc. There are so many Maxs in service and production, the 13 becomes an insignificant fact. It is a published fact that commercial flying is safer than walking, driving, trains, or boats.
If Boeing rectified the Max problem with simply software....there is still a problem. If Boeing has revised the design of the engine mount and can retrofit existing planes, and FAA approves, then it would be safe.

Very interesting thanks for sharing

[biker1]

Boeing has not revised the engine mount and the FAA has determined that the Boeing changes have now made the 737MAX safe.


If Boeing rectified the Max problem with simply software....there is still a problem. If Boeing has revised the design of the engine mount and can retrofit existing planes, and FAA approves, then it would be safe.

[kathyspear]

Thanks Kathy Spear some sane folk live here at least

I'm surprised so many people are willing to fly that plane. [shrug]

I'm also sorry that Southwest has these planes. We fly into Chicago somewhat often to visit my family in NW IN and Midway (Southwest territory) is much more convenient than O'Hare. We also fly to Philly, frequently on Southwest. Bummer.

k.

[Silliness]

Boeing has not revised the engine mount and the FAA has determined that the Boeing changes have now made the 737MAX safe.

The FAA also said that the original iteration of MCAS was “safe”

[DeanFL]

What most are missing is the forest for the trees. Yes the MCAS pushed the planes into nose dive and crash.....however, the MCAS was installed to correct a major design flaw. Boeing was making and selling a lot of 737s, then as engines became bigger and stronger, instead of redesigning a different plane, they simply addeed the oversize engine to the basically current 737. Because of the weight of the engine, they had to shift the engine forward of the wings. That move allowed the plane to become unbalanced in flight, in which the nose began to rise to a point of possible stall. To conteract that rise, they installed MCAS and software to bring the nose back down. Boeing is a major important company to USA economy....however, by not notifying pilots of the MCAS and training them for it's malfunctioning, Boeing is responsible, and those who covered the problem should be prosecuted. The fact that the engineers determined the life of 737 Max could have 13 fatal crashes is meaningless without the additional information of 1) how many Maxs in service, 2) how many flight hours, 3) how often service is required, $) how does the 13/total Maxs compare to other models/crashes....etc. There are so many Maxs in service and production, the 13 becomes an insignificant fact. It is a published fact that commercial flying is safer than walking, driving, trains, or boats.
If Boeing rectified the Max problem with simply software....there is still a problem. If Boeing has revised the design of the engine mount and can retrofit existing planes, and FAA approves, then it would be safe.

.
.
totally agree with first part of your comment - ALL of this was brought out in the 20/20 piece - and countless other public documents. The patchwork need by Boeing to NOT re-engineer the ENTIRE 737 airframe to take the new much larger, efficient, and powerful engines.

As for the '13', that was part of a detailed analysis by BOEING engineers and statisticians, as detailed in documents uncovered. Can't explain their math - but the result, based on the original MAX was 13 fatal crashes over the lifetime (NOT caused by any other issue other than the original design).

And as for your last point - it is a FACT that Boeing has "corrected" the problem with updated MCAS software, using BOTH attitude instruments as input rather than one, updated documention explaining MCAS, pilot training, and ability of the pilots to TURN MCAS OFF if it noses down. The MAX HARDWARE/engines et al are UNCHANGED. Call it patches, SW updates, documented operation and training... pray that it all comes together and works - for the sake of Boeing, MAX passengers, and the country.
.
.

[biker1]

Yep, there were FAA certification issues that have been corrected, also. It is absurd when people who are not involved in the certification process express an opinion about whether something they know nothing about is safe or unsafe or what Boeing should do to make something safe.


The FAA also said that the original iteration of MCAS was “safe”

[DeanFL]

Yep, there were FAA certification issues that have been corrected, also. It is absurd when people who are not involved in the certification process express an opinion about whether something they know nothing about is safe or unsafe or what Boeing should do to make something safe.

.
.
ABSURD???? Yep - if a GOVERNMENT AGENCY says so- IT MUST BE TRUE???? And ABSURD to comment or question it? really?
.
.

[perrjojo]

??? NEVER out-of-the-gate NEW aircraft designed by a major mfr. TWICE in a short period of time.

BOTH crashes SOLELY due to design flaws - NOT training/pilot error/malfunction/weather etc etc.

Have you read anything about 737Max troubled history? The entire fleet was grounded worldwide.
.
.
Yes, there was a design flaw but basically it was pilot error. All the pilot had to do was turn off auto pilot which should have been done as soon as a problem presented. No, I don’t work for Boeing

[biker1]

I asked a friend of mine, a recently retired commercial pilot, what he thought happened with the two crashes. He stated that it was lack of training as the pilots could have easily turned off the malfunctioning MCAS system.

Yes, there was a design flaw but basically it was pilot error. All the pilot had to do was turn off auto pilot which should have been done as soon as a problem presented. No, I don’t work for Boeing

[biker1]

Yes, it is absurd when people without domain expertise offer their opinion. Let's limit the discussion to actual facts. There was a design issue with the MCAS system and the FAA relied too much on Boeing input for the 737MAX certification. The root cause of both problems have been identified and remedied. If you truly believe that there is still an issue with the FAA then you might want to consider not flying on any plane.

.
.
ABSURD???? Yep - if a GOVERNMENT AGENCY says so- IT MUST BE TRUE???? And ABSURD to comment or question it? really?
.
.

[John41]

What most are missing is the forest for the trees. Yes the MCAS pushed the planes into nose dive and crash.....however, the MCAS was installed to correct a major design flaw. Boeing was making and selling a lot of 737s, then as engines became bigger and stronger, instead of redesigning a different plane, they simply addeed the oversize engine to the basically current 737. Because of the weight of the engine, they had to shift the engine forward of the wings. That move allowed the plane to become unbalanced in flight, in which the nose began to rise to a point of possible stall. To conteract that rise, they installed MCAS and software to bring the nose back down. Boeing is a major important company to USA economy....however, by not notifying pilots of the MCAS and training them for it's malfunctioning, Boeing is responsible, and those who covered the problem should be prosecuted. The fact that the engineers determined the life of 737 Max could have 13 fatal crashes is meaningless without the additional information of 1) how many Maxs in service, 2) how many flight hours, 3) how often service is required, $) how does the 13/total Maxs compare to other models/crashes....etc. There are so many Maxs in service and production, the 13 becomes an insignificant fact. It is a published fact that commercial flying is safer than walking, driving, trains, or boats.
If Boeing rectified the Max problem with simply software....there is still a problem. If Boeing has revised the design of the engine mount and can retrofit existing planes, and FAA approves, then it would be safe.

The crashes were due to a faulty angle of attack sensor that caused the software to put the plane into a dive. The pilots were, in some cases, not given the training and manuals to override the software, unless the airline paid extra for it as an option. And Boeing did not inform some airlines this even was an option. Thus the crashes. In those cases where the pilots had the training crashes were averted. The biggest design flaw was not aerodynamic related but the failure to provide a backup angle of attack sensor to automatically correct the software. This was done to save money and was again an option some airlines paid for. Software routinely can fly frames that are not optimally aerodynamic designs per the space shuttle and landers. The frame does not have to be redesigned . Boeing’s culture change back to an emphasis on safety first will take some time and meanwhile additional close monitoring is necessary by outside inspectors.

[patfla06]

Absolutely not!!!

[Stu from NYC]

STU ... What is being referred to is that in your original post you left out a NOT.

You meant not had additional events but you omitted the NOT .. lol

Got it now. Went back and edited post. One little two letter word meant so much.

Thanks for pointing this out for me.

[DeanFL]

I asked a friend of mine, a recently retired commercial pilot, what he thought happened with the two crashes. He stated that it was lack of training as the pilots could have easily turned off the malfunctioning MCAS system.
.
.
THAT is NOT TRUE - as documented in many places. The MCAS system was designed initially to NOT be 'turned off' - SOLELY automatic to avoid a stall. The first crash-Lion Air- the pilots had NO idea about the MCAS system - in ALL Boeing pilot literature the ONLY mention of MCAS was in the footnote as an acronym.

Apparently Boeing made a SW update after the Lion Air crash but it STILL did not allow the pilots of the 2nd crash to disengage. This is all documented in Boeing internal docs and flight recorders. The evidence had showed that the pilots CONTINUALLY tried to turn off the circuit breaker/power to the rear stabilizer to attempt to PULL UP, but when re-engaing the MCAS CONTINUALLY pushed the nose down, the pilots simply could not maintain control over the MCAS.

NOW - Boeing has the ability to disengage MCAS, on the latest one FAA 'certified'.

It would be as if Tesla had a serious design issue with its autonomous feature in its cars - but allowed the driver to turn the system off if it malfuntioned in any way....hopefully before a crash.
As mentioned prior, all this MCAS-stuff was incorporated to overcome basic design functions in placing the new larger engines more ahead of the wings and higher, causing aero balance stability issues. period.
.
.

[biker1]

Sorry sport. I will believe my friend since he has domain expertise (as opposed to "Google experts"). Also, please stop yelling.

.
.
THAT is NOT TRUE - as documented in many places. The MCAS system was designed initially to NOT be 'turned off' - SOLELY automatic to avoid a stall. The first crash-Lion Air- the pilots had NO idea about the MCAS system - in ALL Boeing pilot literature the ONLY mention of MCAS was in the footnote as an acronym.

Apparently Boeing made a SW update after the Lion Air crash but it STILL did not allow the pilots of the 2nd crash to disengage. This is all documented in Boeing internal docs and flight recorders. The evidence had showed that the pilots CONTINUALLY tried to turn off the circuit breaker/power to the rear stabilizer to attempt to PULL UP, but when re-engaing the MCAS CONTINUALLY pushed the nose down, the pilots simply could not maintain control over the MCAS.

NOW - Boeing has the ability to disengage MCAS, on the latest one FAA 'certified'.

It would be as if Tesla had a serious design issue with its autonomous feature in its cars - but allowed the driver to turn the system off if it malfuntioned in any way....hopefully before a crash.
As mentioned prior, all this MCAS-stuff was incorporated to overcome basic design functions in placing the new larger engines more ahead of the wings and higher, causing aero balance stability issues. period.
.
.

[New Englander]

Yes, there was a design flaw but basically it was pilot error. All the pilot had to do was turn off auto pilot which should have been done as soon as a problem presented. No, I don’t work for Boeing

How do you know that the pilots didn't turn the auto pilot off?

[twoplanekid]

I would fly in the Boeing 737MAX as I once owned and flew an Eipper Quicksilver Weigh Shift all around Urbana, Ohio back in the days. :icon_wink:



Eipper Formance Quicksilver Weight Shift antique ultralight vintage ultralight aircraft. - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3n069FCalo)

[DeanFL]

Sorry sport. I will believe my friend since he has domain expertise (as opposed to "Google experts"). Also, please stop yelling.

.
.
sorry - emphasis - I mean EMPHASIS. The info & data related in my posts are not solely from so-called Google experts.

The pilots of Ethiopia Airlines Flight 302 apparently followed the proper steps to shut down an errant flight control system as they struggled to regain control of the 737 MAX aircraft shortly after takeoff. But according to multiple reports, data from the ill-fated aircraft’s flight recorder revealed that the anti-stall feature of the aircraft’s Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) was triggered at least three times—and at least one time after the pilots followed the correct steps to shut it down.

Both Reuters and The Wall Street Journal report that the air crew followed procedures laid out by Boeing following the crash of a Lion Air 737 MAX in October, according to officials briefed on the initial findings of the investigation. But the pilots failed to regain control of the system, and the MCAS was reactivated again—triggering yet another automated correction of the aircraft’s stabilizers that would have pushed the nose of the plane down.

The Joint Authorities Technical Review (JATR) was commissioned by the Federal Aviation Authority in April to look into the agency’s oversight of the MCAS system.

An international panel of air safety regulators on Friday harshly criticized the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) review of a safety system on Boeing Co’s 737 Max jet that was later tied to two crashes that killed 346 people.

The Joint Authorities Technical Review (JATR) was commissioned by the FAA in April to look into the agency’s oversight and approval of the so-called MCAS anti-stall system before the fatal crashes.

“The JATR team found that the MCAS was not evaluated as a complete and integrated function in the certification documents that were submitted to the FAA,” the 69-page report said.

“The lack of a unified top-down development and evaluation of the system function and its safety analyses, combined with the extensive and fragmented documentation, made it difficult to assess whether compliance was fully demonstrated.”

Boeing’s top-selling airplane has been grounded worldwide since a March 10 crash in Ethiopia killed 157 people, five months after a Lion Air 737 MAX crashed in Indonesia, killing 189 people on board.

The JATR draft report, obtained by Reuters ahead of its release on Friday, also said the FAA’s long-standing practice of delegating “a high level” of certification tasks to manufacturers like Boeing needs significant reforms to ensure adequate safety oversight.

“With adequate FAA engagement and oversight, the extent of delegation does not in itself compromise safety,” the report said. “However, in the B737 MAX program, the FAA had inadequate awareness of the MCAS function which, coupled with limited involvement, resulted in an inability of the FAA to provide an independent assessment of the adequacy of the Boeing proposed certification activities associated with MCAS.”

FAA Administrator Steve DIckson said in a statement he would review the panel’s recommendations and take appropriate action following the “unvarnished and independent review of the certification of the Boeing 737 MAX.”


BTW - below a very good article explaining the issues>

Access Denied (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/the-inside-story-of-mcas-how-boeings-737-max-system-gained-power-and-lost-safeguards/)

[Challenger]

Yes However I am very picky about what airlines , I would fly on . No third world operators. These accidents would not have occurred with fully and appropriately trained pilots. Not absolving Boeing for their errors.

[biker1]

The MCAS system controls the trim. As I understand the system, the pilots can disable the automatic trim control. I believe that is what they should have done but failed to do. I will, of course, defer to any pilots who can expand on that, not “google experts”.


.
.
sorry - emphasis - I mean EMPHASIS. The info & data related in my posts are not solely from so-called Google experts.

The pilots of Ethiopia Airlines Flight 302 apparently followed the proper steps to shut down an errant flight control system as they struggled to regain control of the 737 MAX aircraft shortly after takeoff. But according to multiple reports, data from the ill-fated aircraft’s flight recorder revealed that the anti-stall feature of the aircraft’s Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) was triggered at least three times—and at least one time after the pilots followed the correct steps to shut it down.

Both Reuters and The Wall Street Journal report that the air crew followed procedures laid out by Boeing following the crash of a Lion Air 737 MAX in October, according to officials briefed on the initial findings of the investigation. But the pilots failed to regain control of the system, and the MCAS was reactivated again—triggering yet another automated correction of the aircraft’s stabilizers that would have pushed the nose of the plane down.

The Joint Authorities Technical Review (JATR) was commissioned by the Federal Aviation Authority in April to look into the agency’s oversight of the MCAS system.

An international panel of air safety regulators on Friday harshly criticized the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) review of a safety system on Boeing Co’s 737 Max jet that was later tied to two crashes that killed 346 people.

The Joint Authorities Technical Review (JATR) was commissioned by the FAA in April to look into the agency’s oversight and approval of the so-called MCAS anti-stall system before the fatal crashes.

“The JATR team found that the MCAS was not evaluated as a complete and integrated function in the certification documents that were submitted to the FAA,” the 69-page report said.

“The lack of a unified top-down development and evaluation of the system function and its safety analyses, combined with the extensive and fragmented documentation, made it difficult to assess whether compliance was fully demonstrated.”

Boeing’s top-selling airplane has been grounded worldwide since a March 10 crash in Ethiopia killed 157 people, five months after a Lion Air 737 MAX crashed in Indonesia, killing 189 people on board.

The JATR draft report, obtained by Reuters ahead of its release on Friday, also said the FAA’s long-standing practice of delegating “a high level” of certification tasks to manufacturers like Boeing needs significant reforms to ensure adequate safety oversight.

“With adequate FAA engagement and oversight, the extent of delegation does not in itself compromise safety,” the report said. “However, in the B737 MAX program, the FAA had inadequate awareness of the MCAS function which, coupled with limited involvement, resulted in an inability of the FAA to provide an independent assessment of the adequacy of the Boeing proposed certification activities associated with MCAS.”

FAA Administrator Steve DIckson said in a statement he would review the panel’s recommendations and take appropriate action following the “unvarnished and independent review of the certification of the Boeing 737 MAX.”


BTW - below a very good article explaining the issues>

Access Denied (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/the-inside-story-of-mcas-how-boeings-737-max-system-gained-power-and-lost-safeguards/)

[DeanFL]

The MCAS system controls the trim. As I understand the system, the pilots can disable the automatic trim control. I believe that is what they should have done but failed to do. I will, of course, defer to any pilots who can expand on that, not “google experts”.

.
.
not really>>>

The JATR said, "MCAS used the stabilizer to change the column force feel, not trim the aircraft. This is a case of using the control surface in a new way that the regulations never accounted for and should have required an issue paper for further analysis by the FAA. If the FAA technical staff had been fully aware of the details of the MCAS function, the JATR team believes the agency likely would have required an issue paper for using the stabilizer in a way that it had not previously been used; this [might have] identified the potential for the stabilizer to overpower the elevator

The Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) is an automated flight control developed by Boeing which became notorious for its role in two fatal accidents of the Boeing 737 MAX before the aircraft was grounded worldwide. First deployed on the Boeing KC-46 Air Force tanker, the MCAS software flight control law adjusts the horizontal stabilizer to push the nose down when the aircraft is operating in manual flight with flaps up at an elevated angle of attack (AoA), so the pilot will not inadvertently pull the airplane up too steeply, potentially causing a stall. In both crashes, MCAS was activated by an erroneous indication from an AoA sensor on the exterior of the airplane. (that single point of failure - stupidly intergrated into the MCAS system software).

During certification of the MAX, Boeing removed a description of MCAS from the flight manuals, leaving pilots unaware of the system when the airplane entered service. On November 10, 2018, twelve days after the first crash, Lion Air Flight 610, Boeing publicly revealed MCAS in a discussion with airline operators and other aviation interests. A recovery procedure highlighted by Boeing and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) after the Lion Air accident failed to prevent the crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, which led to the global grounding of all 737 MAX aircraft pending investigations and software fixes.

In April 2019, Boeing admitted that the MCAS played a role in both accidents and asserted that MCAS is not an anti-stall system. On the Boeing 737 MAX, MCAS was intended to mimic pitching behavior similar to aircraft in the previous generation of the series, the Boeing 737 NG. The investigations identified numerous defects with associated systems, including a non-functioning AoA disagree message that could have alerted pilots to a problem. The Wall Street Journal reported that Boeing had failed to share information about that issue for "about a year" before the Lion Air crash. The Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) flight control law was implemented on the 737 MAX to mitigate the aircraft's tendency to pitch up because of the aerodynamic effect of its larger, heavier, and more powerful CFM LEAP-1B engines and nacelles. The stated goal of MCAS, according to Boeing, was to provide consistent aircraft handling characteristics at elevated angles of attack in certain unusual flight conditions only and hence make the 737 MAX perform similarly to its immediate predecessor, the 737NG. (Thus Boeing's attempt to NOT include MCAS in any MAX operational documention for airlines and pilots , fast-track the FAA approvals, and not requiring airlines to invest $$$$ in additional pilot training for the MAX.)
.
.

[biker1]

Not what my commercial pilot friend stated. Again, a real pilot vs. "google expert". MCAS does trim out the plane and this can be deactivated. Better trained pilots would have meant no crashes. Straight from the horse's mouth.

.
.
not really>>>

The JATR said, "MCAS used the stabilizer to change the column force feel, not trim the aircraft. This is a case of using the control surface in a new way that the regulations never accounted for and should have required an issue paper for further analysis by the FAA. If the FAA technical staff had been fully aware of the details of the MCAS function, the JATR team believes the agency likely would have required an issue paper for using the stabilizer in a way that it had not previously been used; this [might have] identified the potential for the stabilizer to overpower the elevator

The Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) is an automated flight control developed by Boeing which became notorious for its role in two fatal accidents of the Boeing 737 MAX before the aircraft was grounded worldwide. First deployed on the Boeing KC-46 Air Force tanker, the MCAS software flight control law adjusts the horizontal stabilizer to push the nose down when the aircraft is operating in manual flight with flaps up at an elevated angle of attack (AoA), so the pilot will not inadvertently pull the airplane up too steeply, potentially causing a stall. In both crashes, MCAS was activated by an erroneous indication from an AoA sensor on the exterior of the airplane. (that single point of failure - stupidly intergrated into the MCAS system software).

During certification of the MAX, Boeing removed a description of MCAS from the flight manuals, leaving pilots unaware of the system when the airplane entered service. On November 10, 2018, twelve days after the first crash, Lion Air Flight 610, Boeing publicly revealed MCAS in a discussion with airline operators and other aviation interests. A recovery procedure highlighted by Boeing and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) after the Lion Air accident failed to prevent the crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, which led to the global grounding of all 737 MAX aircraft pending investigations and software fixes.

In April 2019, Boeing admitted that the MCAS played a role in both accidents and asserted that MCAS is not an anti-stall system. On the Boeing 737 MAX, MCAS was intended to mimic pitching behavior similar to aircraft in the previous generation of the series, the Boeing 737 NG. The investigations identified numerous defects with associated systems, including a non-functioning AoA disagree message that could have alerted pilots to a problem. The Wall Street Journal reported that Boeing had failed to share information about that issue for "about a year" before the Lion Air crash. The Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) flight control law was implemented on the 737 MAX to mitigate the aircraft's tendency to pitch up because of the aerodynamic effect of its larger, heavier, and more powerful CFM LEAP-1B engines and nacelles. The stated goal of MCAS, according to Boeing, was to provide consistent aircraft handling characteristics at elevated angles of attack in certain unusual flight conditions only and hence make the 737 MAX perform similarly to its immediate predecessor, the 737NG. (Thus Boeing's attempt to NOT include MCAS in any MAX operational documention for airlines and pilots , fast-track the FAA approvals, and not requiring airlines to invest $$$$ in additional pilot training for the MAX.)
.
.

[dewilson58]

Not what my commercial pilot friend stated. Again, a real pilot vs. "google expert". MCAS does trim out the plane and this can be deactivated. Better trained pilots would have meant no crashes. Straight from the horse's mouth.
Heard the same from a pilot friend (yes, I have friends). :ho:

[JoMar]

Not what my commercial pilot friend stated. Again, a real pilot vs. "google expert". MCAS does trim out the plane and this can be deactivated. Better trained pilots would have meant no crashes. Straight from the horse's mouth.

Just a curious question......has your real pilot every flown the MAX or operated the MCAS system? I suspect not and he is providing information based on his experience in older Boeing aircraft? I also have a real pilot friend, retired Delta captain, and his comment is he wouldn't comment because he never flew the plane or the system and anything he would say would be speculation. He retired 12 years ago. There are also two youtube channels, one is Mentour Pilot who is a 737 pilot and he has done extensive coverage of the system and the other is the blancolirio channel, a current 777 pilot who dissects the NTSB and FAA reports.

[DeanFL]

Not what my commercial pilot friend stated. Again, a real pilot vs. "google expert". MCAS does trim out the plane and this can be deactivated. Better trained pilots would have meant no crashes. Straight from the horse's mouth.

.
.
please - it's very demeaning - the google expert crap.
Why must folks be so angry?

please do YOUR research as I did and many others. Read the Boeing documents, read the FAA reports, read the Investigative Committee's findings, read independent Aeronautical experts findings, and so much more information and data.

The 'better pilot training' argument is just hollow and untrue - this has been completely rebunked. It was determined to be a scapegoat attempt early on in the initial investigations, but proved untrue.

September 16, 2020
After 18-Month Investigation, Chairs DeFazio and Larsen Release Final Committee Report on Boeing 737 MAX
From the Report: “The MAX crashes were… a horrific culmination of a series of faulty technical assumptions by Boeing’s engineers, a lack of transparency on the part of Boeing’s management, and grossly insufficient oversight by the FAA”

Washington, D.C. — Today, Chair of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and Chair of the Subcommittee on Aviation Rick Larsen (D-WA) released the Committee’s final report on the Boeing 737 MAX. This report, prepared by Majority Staff, lays out the serious flaws and missteps in the design, development, and certification of the aircraft, which entered commercial service in 2017 before suffering two deadly crashes within five months of each other that killed a total of 346 people, including eight Americans.

The Committee’s 238-page report, which points to repeated and serious failures by both The Boeing Company (Boeing) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), contains five central themes and includes more than six dozen investigative findings. These themes include:

Production pressures that jeopardized the safety of the flying public. There was tremendous financial pressure on Boeing and the 737 MAX program to compete with Airbus’ new A320neo aircraft. Among other things, this pressure resulted in extensive efforts to cut costs, maintain the 737 MAX program schedule, and avoid slowing the 737 MAX production line.
Faulty Design and Performance Assumptions. Boeing made fundamentally faulty assumptions about critical technologies on the 737 MAX, most notably with MCAS, the software designed to automatically push the airplane’s nose down in certain conditions. Boeing also expected that pilots, who were largely unaware that MCAS existed, would be able to mitigate any potential malfunction.
Culture of Concealment. Boeing withheld crucial information from the FAA, its customers, and 737 MAX pilots, including internal test data that revealed it took a Boeing test pilot more than 10 seconds to diagnose and respond to uncommanded MCAS activation in a flight simulator, a condition the pilot described as “catastrophic.” Federal guidelines assume pilots will respond to this condition within four seconds.
Conflicted Representation. The FAA’s current oversight structure with respect to Boeing creates inherent conflicts of interest that have jeopardized the safety of the flying public. The report documents multiple instances in which Boeing employees who have been authorized to perform work on behalf of the FAA failed to alert the FAA to potential safety and/or certification issues.
Boeing’s Influence Over the FAA’s Oversight Structure. Multiple career FAA officials have documented examples where FAA management overruled a determination of the FAA’s own technical experts at the behest of Boeing. These examples are consistent with results of a recent draft FAA employee “safety culture” survey that showed many FAA employees believed its senior leaders are more concerned with helping industry achieve its goals and are not held accountable for safety-related decisions.
“Our report lays out disturbing revelations about how Boeing—under pressure to compete with Airbus and deliver profits for Wall Street—escaped scrutiny from the FAA, withheld critical information from pilots, and ultimately put planes into service that killed 346 innocent people. What’s particularly infuriating is how Boeing and FAA both gambled with public safety in the critical time period between the two crashes,” Chair DeFazio said. “On behalf of the families of the victims of both crashes, as well as anyone who steps on a plane expecting to arrive at their destination safely, we are making this report public to put a spotlight not only on the broken safety culture at Boeing but also the gaps in the regulatory system at the FAA that allowed this fatally-flawed plane into service. Critically, our report gives Congress a roadmap on the steps we must take to reinforce aviation safety and regulatory transparency, increase Federal oversight, and improve corporate accountability to help ensure the story of the Boeing 737 MAX is never, ever repeated.”

“The Committee’s thorough investigation uncovered errors that are difficult to hear, but necessary to confront about the 737 MAX certification,” Chair Larsen said. “This report, combined with the findings and recommendations from the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines investigations, National Transportation Safety Board, Joint Authorities Technical Review and other entities, serve as a roadmap for changes to the FAA certification process. The 346 victims of the two tragic crashes and their families, as well as the traveling public rightfully expect Congress to act. As the Committee moves into the next phase of oversight, I will continue to work with Chair DeFazio and my colleagues to address the significant cultural and structural deficiencies identified in the report in order to improve safety.”
.
.

[biker1]

There is nothing that you posted that is contrary to what my pilot friend told me. If anyone appears to be angry, it is you, as demonstrated by your yelling in posts. I am simply relying what someone with domain expertise told me. If you don't want to believe him then fine but please stop with the OCD behavior.

.
.
please - it's very demeaning - the google expert crap.
Why must folks be so angry?

please do YOUR research as I did and many others. Read the Boeing documents, read the FAA reports, read the Investigative Committee's findings, read independent Aeronautical experts findings, and so much more information and data.

The 'better pilot training' argument is just hollow and untrue - this has been completely rebunked. It was determined to be a scapegoat attempt early on in the initial investigations, but proved untrue.

September 16, 2020
After 18-Month Investigation, Chairs DeFazio and Larsen Release Final Committee Report on Boeing 737 MAX
From the Report: “The MAX crashes were… a horrific culmination of a series of faulty technical assumptions by Boeing’s engineers, a lack of transparency on the part of Boeing’s management, and grossly insufficient oversight by the FAA”

Washington, D.C. — Today, Chair of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and Chair of the Subcommittee on Aviation Rick Larsen (D-WA) released the Committee’s final report on the Boeing 737 MAX. This report, prepared by Majority Staff, lays out the serious flaws and missteps in the design, development, and certification of the aircraft, which entered commercial service in 2017 before suffering two deadly crashes within five months of each other that killed a total of 346 people, including eight Americans.

The Committee’s 238-page report, which points to repeated and serious failures by both The Boeing Company (Boeing) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), contains five central themes and includes more than six dozen investigative findings. These themes include:

Production pressures that jeopardized the safety of the flying public. There was tremendous financial pressure on Boeing and the 737 MAX program to compete with Airbus’ new A320neo aircraft. Among other things, this pressure resulted in extensive efforts to cut costs, maintain the 737 MAX program schedule, and avoid slowing the 737 MAX production line.
Faulty Design and Performance Assumptions. Boeing made fundamentally faulty assumptions about critical technologies on the 737 MAX, most notably with MCAS, the software designed to automatically push the airplane’s nose down in certain conditions. Boeing also expected that pilots, who were largely unaware that MCAS existed, would be able to mitigate any potential malfunction.
Culture of Concealment. Boeing withheld crucial information from the FAA, its customers, and 737 MAX pilots, including internal test data that revealed it took a Boeing test pilot more than 10 seconds to diagnose and respond to uncommanded MCAS activation in a flight simulator, a condition the pilot described as “catastrophic.” Federal guidelines assume pilots will respond to this condition within four seconds.
Conflicted Representation. The FAA’s current oversight structure with respect to Boeing creates inherent conflicts of interest that have jeopardized the safety of the flying public. The report documents multiple instances in which Boeing employees who have been authorized to perform work on behalf of the FAA failed to alert the FAA to potential safety and/or certification issues.
Boeing’s Influence Over the FAA’s Oversight Structure. Multiple career FAA officials have documented examples where FAA management overruled a determination of the FAA’s own technical experts at the behest of Boeing. These examples are consistent with results of a recent draft FAA employee “safety culture” survey that showed many FAA employees believed its senior leaders are more concerned with helping industry achieve its goals and are not held accountable for safety-related decisions.
“Our report lays out disturbing revelations about how Boeing—under pressure to compete with Airbus and deliver profits for Wall Street—escaped scrutiny from the FAA, withheld critical information from pilots, and ultimately put planes into service that killed 346 innocent people. What’s particularly infuriating is how Boeing and FAA both gambled with public safety in the critical time period between the two crashes,” Chair DeFazio said. “On behalf of the families of the victims of both crashes, as well as anyone who steps on a plane expecting to arrive at their destination safely, we are making this report public to put a spotlight not only on the broken safety culture at Boeing but also the gaps in the regulatory system at the FAA that allowed this fatally-flawed plane into service. Critically, our report gives Congress a roadmap on the steps we must take to reinforce aviation safety and regulatory transparency, increase Federal oversight, and improve corporate accountability to help ensure the story of the Boeing 737 MAX is never, ever repeated.”

“The Committee’s thorough investigation uncovered errors that are difficult to hear, but necessary to confront about the 737 MAX certification,” Chair Larsen said. “This report, combined with the findings and recommendations from the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines investigations, National Transportation Safety Board, Joint Authorities Technical Review and other entities, serve as a roadmap for changes to the FAA certification process. The 346 victims of the two tragic crashes and their families, as well as the traveling public rightfully expect Congress to act. As the Committee moves into the next phase of oversight, I will continue to work with Chair DeFazio and my colleagues to address the significant cultural and structural deficiencies identified in the report in order to improve safety.”
.
.

[biker1]

There is nothing that you posted that is contrary to what my pilot friend told me. I will repeat: he told me that if the pilots were better trained there would not have been crashes. He did not say the plane did not have a serious design problem. If anyone appears to be angry, it is you, as demonstrated by your yelling in posts. I am simply relying what someone with domain expertise told me. If you don't want to believe him then fine but please stop with the OCD behavior. I find it interesting that the crashes were with airlines from third-world countries.

.
.
please - it's very demeaning - the google expert crap.
Why must folks be so angry?

please do YOUR research as I did and many others. Read the Boeing documents, read the FAA reports, read the Investigative Committee's findings, read independent Aeronautical experts findings, and so much more information and data.

The 'better pilot training' argument is just hollow and untrue - this has been completely rebunked. It was determined to be a scapegoat attempt early on in the initial investigations, but proved untrue.

September 16, 2020
After 18-Month Investigation, Chairs DeFazio and Larsen Release Final Committee Report on Boeing 737 MAX
From the Report: “The MAX crashes were… a horrific culmination of a series of faulty technical assumptions by Boeing’s engineers, a lack of transparency on the part of Boeing’s management, and grossly insufficient oversight by the FAA”

Washington, D.C. — Today, Chair of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and Chair of the Subcommittee on Aviation Rick Larsen (D-WA) released the Committee’s final report on the Boeing 737 MAX. This report, prepared by Majority Staff, lays out the serious flaws and missteps in the design, development, and certification of the aircraft, which entered commercial service in 2017 before suffering two deadly crashes within five months of each other that killed a total of 346 people, including eight Americans.

The Committee’s 238-page report, which points to repeated and serious failures by both The Boeing Company (Boeing) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), contains five central themes and includes more than six dozen investigative findings. These themes include:

Production pressures that jeopardized the safety of the flying public. There was tremendous financial pressure on Boeing and the 737 MAX program to compete with Airbus’ new A320neo aircraft. Among other things, this pressure resulted in extensive efforts to cut costs, maintain the 737 MAX program schedule, and avoid slowing the 737 MAX production line.
Faulty Design and Performance Assumptions. Boeing made fundamentally faulty assumptions about critical technologies on the 737 MAX, most notably with MCAS, the software designed to automatically push the airplane’s nose down in certain conditions. Boeing also expected that pilots, who were largely unaware that MCAS existed, would be able to mitigate any potential malfunction.
Culture of Concealment. Boeing withheld crucial information from the FAA, its customers, and 737 MAX pilots, including internal test data that revealed it took a Boeing test pilot more than 10 seconds to diagnose and respond to uncommanded MCAS activation in a flight simulator, a condition the pilot described as “catastrophic.” Federal guidelines assume pilots will respond to this condition within four seconds.
Conflicted Representation. The FAA’s current oversight structure with respect to Boeing creates inherent conflicts of interest that have jeopardized the safety of the flying public. The report documents multiple instances in which Boeing employees who have been authorized to perform work on behalf of the FAA failed to alert the FAA to potential safety and/or certification issues.
Boeing’s Influence Over the FAA’s Oversight Structure. Multiple career FAA officials have documented examples where FAA management overruled a determination of the FAA’s own technical experts at the behest of Boeing. These examples are consistent with results of a recent draft FAA employee “safety culture” survey that showed many FAA employees believed its senior leaders are more concerned with helping industry achieve its goals and are not held accountable for safety-related decisions.
“Our report lays out disturbing revelations about how Boeing—under pressure to compete with Airbus and deliver profits for Wall Street—escaped scrutiny from the FAA, withheld critical information from pilots, and ultimately put planes into service that killed 346 innocent people. What’s particularly infuriating is how Boeing and FAA both gambled with public safety in the critical time period between the two crashes,” Chair DeFazio said. “On behalf of the families of the victims of both crashes, as well as anyone who steps on a plane expecting to arrive at their destination safely, we are making this report public to put a spotlight not only on the broken safety culture at Boeing but also the gaps in the regulatory system at the FAA that allowed this fatally-flawed plane into service. Critically, our report gives Congress a roadmap on the steps we must take to reinforce aviation safety and regulatory transparency, increase Federal oversight, and improve corporate accountability to help ensure the story of the Boeing 737 MAX is never, ever repeated.”

“The Committee’s thorough investigation uncovered errors that are difficult to hear, but necessary to confront about the 737 MAX certification,” Chair Larsen said. “This report, combined with the findings and recommendations from the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines investigations, National Transportation Safety Board, Joint Authorities Technical Review and other entities, serve as a roadmap for changes to the FAA certification process. The 346 victims of the two tragic crashes and their families, as well as the traveling public rightfully expect Congress to act. As the Committee moves into the next phase of oversight, I will continue to work with Chair DeFazio and my colleagues to address the significant cultural and structural deficiencies identified in the report in order to improve safety.”
.
.

[PennBF]

As a very frequent flyer and experienced many many issue with flights, as they say the bottom line is why risk your life with out knowing the aircraft is totally safe? I have read some comments which have said, "in my opinion", "CBS has reported", "the pilots could have...", "I know a pilot and he/she said", etc etc. Not one of these person's and the many others who commented were on the plane, or in the cockpit so all is a guess! Some poster's say it was the MCAS, some say it was pilot error, some blame the stabilizer, some say it could have been be avoided if only the pilots did XYZ, some say it was moving the engines up on the wings, some even say it was all these things. Again, bottom line..Why ever get on a plane that "may have one or many" of these potential faults? Proof is in the pudding. Show me 2 or more years of flight time without any serious report able problems and it "may" be prudent to fly on that aircraft!!! Otherwise, why risk your life without solid facts and multi hours of problem free aircraft issues. I then may get on one of these suspect planes. :ho:

[biker1]

There is no such thing as "totally safe". That would imply a zero chance of an incident that causes death or injury. What you can say is that a serious design flaw was corrected and the plane has been certified by the FAA and EASA, just like every other plane that is in commercial use today. About 80% of plane accidents are caused by human error. If you want to reduce your risk of death then don't fly airlines from third-world countries. There is a significantly higher rate of incidents than with airlines from developed countries. The make and model of the plane is not nearly as important as who is flying the plane and maintaining the plane.

As a very frequent flyer and experienced many many issue with flights, as they say the bottom line is why risk your life with out knowing the aircraft is totally safe? I have read some comments which have said, "in my opinion", "CBS has reported", "the pilots could have...", "I know a pilot and he/she said", etc etc. Not one of these person's and the many others who commented were on the plane, or in the cockpit so all is a guess! Some poster's say it was the MCAS, some say it was pilot error, some blame the stabilizer, some say it could have been be avoided if only the pilots did XYZ, some say it was moving the engines up on the wings, some even say it was all these things. Again, bottom line..Why ever get on a plane that "may have one or many" of these potential faults? Proof is in the pudding. Show me 2 or more years of flight time without any serious report able problems and it "may" be prudent to fly on that aircraft!!! Otherwise, why risk your life without solid facts and multi hours of problem free aircraft issues. I then may get on one of these suspect planes. :ho:

[DeanFL]

There is no such thing as "totally safe". That would imply a zero chance of an incident that causes death or injury. What you can say is that a serious design flaw was corrected and the plane has been certified by the FAA and EASA, just like every other plane that is in commercial use today.
.
.
..it was certified by the FAA & EASA before the 2 crashes... and the airframe "design flaw" is not "corrected" (placement of the engines etc), simply a system to respond to unwanted aerodynamics. ...hard to argue with facts.

The Boeing 737 MAX was initially certified in March 2017 by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Boeing used a new software, the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) to enable a commonality, ensuring that the MAX shared the same type certificate as the 737NG, the immediate predecessor, thereby reducing pilot training requirements and saving money for airline customers. Following two fatal accidents where MCAS was implicated, Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, the MAX was grounded worldwide in March 2019.

Investigations of the certification process determined that Boeing and the FAA favored cost-saving solutions, but ultimately produced a flawed design. The FAA's Organization Designation Authorization program, allowing manufacturers to act on its behalf, was also questioned for weakening its oversight of Boeing. In November 2019, the FAA suspended Boeing's authority to issue individual airworthiness certificates for MAX aircraft. In February 2020, the DOJ investigated Boeing's internal emails, suspecting that Boeing lied to the FAA. In June 2020, the U.S. Inspector General's report revealed that MCAS problems dated several years before the accidents. The FAA found that Boeing had violated regulations in deciding to not fix a known defect with the aircraft.

The U.S. House of Representatives unanimously approved legislation on Tuesday to reform the Federal Aviation Administration’s aircraft certification process after two fatal Boeing 737 Max crashes killed 346 people.

The 737 Max has been grounded since March 2019 but the FAA is set on Wednesday to approve the plane’s return to service after a lengthy review, new software safeguards and training upgrades, Reuters reported earlier.

The House bill, approved on a voice vote, requires an expert panel to evaluate Boeing’s safety culture and to recommend improvements, and mandates that aircraft manufacturers adopt safety management systems and complete system safety assessments for significant design changes.

It also requires that risk calculations be based on realistic assumptions of pilot response time, and that risk assessments are shared with regulators.

Boeing and the FAA declined to comment on the legislation. The Senate Commerce Committee plans to vote on Wednesday on a similar FAA certification reform bill.
.
.

[Neils]

Sure. Likely the best checked and tested plane in the world now

[biker1]

Yep, and as I already stated, the FAA relied too much on Boeing for the original certification. The EASA pretty much rubber stamped their certification based on the FAA. They won’t be doing that anymore and it appears that the FAA will not rely as much on plane manufacturers in the future. The plane is now certified again after being scrutinized to the nth degree. Problems were identified and corrected.


.
.
..it was certified by the FAA & EASA before the 2 crashes... and the airframe "design flaw" is not "corrected" (placement of the engines etc), simply a system to respond to unwanted aerodynamics. ...hard to argue with facts.

The Boeing 737 MAX was initially certified in March 2017 by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Boeing used a new software, the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) to enable a commonality, ensuring that the MAX shared the same type certificate as the 737NG, the immediate predecessor, thereby reducing pilot training requirements and saving money for airline customers. Following two fatal accidents where MCAS was implicated, Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, the MAX was grounded worldwide in March 2019.

Investigations of the certification process determined that Boeing and the FAA favored cost-saving solutions, but ultimately produced a flawed design. The FAA's Organization Designation Authorization program, allowing manufacturers to act on its behalf, was also questioned for weakening its oversight of Boeing. In November 2019, the FAA suspended Boeing's authority to issue individual airworthiness certificates for MAX aircraft. In February 2020, the DOJ investigated Boeing's internal emails, suspecting that Boeing lied to the FAA. In June 2020, the U.S. Inspector General's report revealed that MCAS problems dated several years before the accidents. The FAA found that Boeing had violated regulations in deciding to not fix a known defect with the aircraft.

The U.S. House of Representatives unanimously approved legislation on Tuesday to reform the Federal Aviation Administration’s aircraft certification process after two fatal Boeing 737 Max crashes killed 346 people.

The 737 Max has been grounded since March 2019 but the FAA is set on Wednesday to approve the plane’s return to service after a lengthy review, new software safeguards and training upgrades, Reuters reported earlier.

The House bill, approved on a voice vote, requires an expert panel to evaluate Boeing’s safety culture and to recommend improvements, and mandates that aircraft manufacturers adopt safety management systems and complete system safety assessments for significant design changes.

It also requires that risk calculations be based on realistic assumptions of pilot response time, and that risk assessments are shared with regulators.

Boeing and the FAA declined to comment on the legislation. The Senate Commerce Committee plans to vote on Wednesday on a similar FAA certification reform bill.
.
.

[DeanFL]

Yep, and as I already stated, the FAA relied too much on Boeing for the original certification. The EASA pretty much rubber stamped their certification based on the FAA. They won’t be doing that anymore and it appears that the FAA will not rely as much on plane manufacturers in the future. The plane is now certified again after being scrutinized to the nth degree. Problems were identified and corrected.

.
.
again - the CORE design flaw is not 'corrected', simply masked with a corrective system, MCAS.

I'm done with the back<>forth.

Bottom line for me - I love new aircraft/aerospace development. And to fly, although so limited recently of course. Sincerely hope that Boeing can restore its luster and reputation - a LOT depends upon that. And that the airlines and public build faith with the restored MAX. If not, Airbus will continue to take more market share, and who knows what China may do?

Would I fly on it? yes.
.
.

[dewilson58]

.
I'm done with the back<>forth.
.


:clap2:

[biker1]

Actually the purpose of MCAS was to provide essentially the same performance characteristics as the previous generation of 737s so that training could be minimized. The MAX, because of the new engine location, would tend to fly at a higher angle of attack than previous generations under some circumstances. This does not impact the airworthiness of the plane. If the plane had airworthiness issues associated with the engine placement it would not have received the new certification. The problem was with the design of the MCAS system itself and Boeing’s desire to eliminate training as a sales impediment.


.
.
again - the CORE design flaw is not 'corrected', simply masked with a corrective system, MCAS.

I'm done with the back<>forth.

Bottom line for me - I love new aircraft/aerospace development. And to fly, although so limited recently of course. Sincerely hope that Boeing can restore its luster and reputation - a LOT depends upon that. And that the airlines and public build faith with the restored MAX. If not, Airbus will continue to take more market share, and who knows what China may do?

Would I fly on it? yes.
.
.

[New Englander]

Okay, can someone explain to me in a simple way what is the design flaw of the 737 Max?

[biker1]

As stated in my previous post, the MCAS system (software and hardware), which was implemented in the new MAX so it would present the same flying characteristics as the previous generation of 737s, had serious design flaws. The reason for wanting similar flying characteristics was to reduce training requirements for the new MAX. The reason the MAX has different flying characteristics than previous 737s is because of a change in the engine mounting location to accept the newer, more efficient Leap engines. The difference in flying characteristics is that the MAX will tend towards a higher angle of attack under certain circumstances. The nature of the design flaw was MCAS would essentially over correct the trim, repeatedly, when the angle of attack sensor was faulty. MCAS would try to bring the nose down when it sensed too high of an angle of attack. The MCAS system has been modified (software changes and use of redundant angle of attack sensors) to prevent the situations that resulted in 2 crashes and the plane has received new certifications from the FAA and ESAS.


Okay, can someone explain to me in a simple way what is the design flaw of the 737 Max?

[Viperguy]

Thousands of hours in the 73. New models have different software/hardware and TRAINING. The training was a big issue with the Max. Foreign pilots have different training. 100% confidence in the fix and training. BTW statistically you would need to fly every day for 11000 years to be killed in an aircraft accident. More dangerous in a traffic circle in TV. Just saying

[Topspinmo]

As a very frequent flyer and experienced many many issue with flights, as they say the bottom line is why risk your life with out knowing the aircraft is totally safe? I have read some comments which have said, "in my opinion", "CBS has reported", "the pilots could have...", "I know a pilot and he/she said", etc etc. Not one of these person's and the many others who commented were on the plane, or in the cockpit so all is a guess! Some poster's say it was the MCAS, some say it was pilot error, some blame the stabilizer, some say it could have been be avoided if only the pilots did XYZ, some say it was moving the engines up on the wings, some even say it was all these things. Again, bottom line..Why ever get on a plane that "may have one or many" of these potential faults? Proof is in the pudding. Show me 2 or more years of flight time without any serious report able problems and it "may" be prudent to fly on that aircraft!!! Otherwise, why risk your life without solid facts and multi hours of problem free aircraft issues. I then may get on one of these suspect planes. :ho:

It took awhile for the Havilland Comet to develop fatal flaw. Bottom line, anytime you step foot on plane ✈️ it could be the beginning of new fatal flaw, now add maintenance complications, cycle stresses, and weather formality it’s risky no matter how you figure it.

[John_W]

Traditional Boeing 737, notice the location of the engine under the wing

https://cnet4.cbsistatic.com/img/KxwBlfJeTZG8c1ChtkKP-vcSPFs=/1200x675/2019/04/30/3332fb1d-73c2-408b-a8e8-0ddb13900a51/boeing-737-100.jpg

Boeing 737 Max with the engine more forward ahead of the wing

https://dmn-dallas-news-prod.cdn.arcpublishing.com/resizer/XF9Yxk70a6tJPi-utksS6g8vbVo=/1660x934/smart/filters:no_upscale()/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-dmn.s3.amazonaws.com/public/QOYASZYBJDSHIUKO5BPNCUDJIQ.jpg

With the engine moved forward they created a more nose heavy situation. The nose is controlled by the elevator in the tail rudder, moving the elevator up and down will move the tail up and down but also will raise or lower the nose of the aircraft.

https://www.aircraftcompare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Cessna-172-Skyhawk-Elevator-and-trim-tab-730x484.jpg

Boeing was concerned about pilots getting into a nose position that would cause a stall. The nose is raised too high and the wing cannot support lift and you stall, fall out of the sky. They built into the software a program called MCAS, which will take control away from the pilot without his knowledge. In fact the MCAS was not mentioned in the pilot's 737 Max handbook except for the definition and they were never told or trained for MCAS. The MCAS is counteracting the pilot's commands and they get into a porpoising situation and the pilot loses control.

[EastCoastDawg]

No, Boeing cannot afford another deadly crash with this plane.

Ah, but you have edited your first post to make it say the opposite of what it originally said :-)

[Topspinmo]

Traditional Boeing 737, notice the location of the engine under the wing

https://cnet4.cbsistatic.com/img/KxwBlfJeTZG8c1ChtkKP-vcSPFs=/1200x675/2019/04/30/3332fb1d-73c2-408b-a8e8-0ddb13900a51/boeing-737-100.jpg

Boeing 737 Max with the engine more forward ahead of the wing

https://dmn-dallas-news-prod.cdn.arcpublishing.com/resizer/XF9Yxk70a6tJPi-utksS6g8vbVo=/1660x934/smart/filters:no_upscale()/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-dmn.s3.amazonaws.com/public/QOYASZYBJDSHIUKO5BPNCUDJIQ.jpg

With the engine moved forward they created a more nose heavy situation. The nose is controlled by the elevator in the tail rudder, moving the elevator up and down will move the tail up and down but also will raise or lower the nose of the aircraft.

https://www.aircraftcompare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Cessna-172-Skyhawk-Elevator-and-trim-tab-730x484.jpg

Boeing was concerned about pilots getting into a nose position that would cause a stall. The nose is raised too high and the wing cannot support lift and you stall, fall out of the sky. They built into the software a program called MCAS, which will take control away from the pilot without his knowledge. In fact the MCAS was not mentioned in the pilot's 737 Max handbook except for the definition and they were never told or trained for MCAS. The MCAS is counteracting the pilot's commands and they get into a porpoising situation and the pilot loses control.


737 has been modified several times including stretching. 737 300/700s and max engine pod had to be raised so intakes wouldn’t drag ground. Even the CMF 56 Engines was extended along with fuselage. The max got extend again along with new engines.

It not even close to 737-100 with JT8D low bypass engines. They found the problem and corrected it. AirBus had similar control problems when first introduced.

Ref:

Boeing 737 - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737)

[CoachKandSportsguy]

How does one protect oneself against a terrorist bomb on an airplane?

Bring your own bomb . . . .

Why?

The probability of two independent bombers on the same flight is ZERO!

(statistician probability joke)

[karostay]

maybe in 10 years

[Topspinmo]

How about 787 Dreamliner made in South Carolina? No I won’t do the research for you?:)

[Altavia]

.
.
Folks - no big deal - but, just to clarify... the question is solely regarding flying in the Boeing 737MAX. Not COVID, not general air travel.

Personally, I would - if that's the airframe on the day/route/airline I booked.
FAA and Boeing absolutely know - a crash on the MAX, and FAA would be under serious suspicion, and Boeing would be close-to-fatal.

I am not an aircraft engineer by any means, but Boeing's (unbelievably STUPID) decision to include a single point of failure (only one AOA sensor as sole input activating the MCAS system), MCAS coverup, and Boeing's decision to not require pilot training.

Exactly, bottom line - highly experienced (and well paid) avionics engineers were "retired" and systems design work sent to contract engineers in India who never even rode on an aircraft.

It's a beautiful aircraft and I'd fly now that the design has thoroughly analyzed and corrected

Boeing 737 Max Safety System Was Vetoed, Engineer Says - The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/business/boeing-737-max-crashes.html)

[collie1228]

Both were unskilled pilots.

That may be true, but their lack of training didn't cause the accidents. Boeing designed and installed a system (MCAS) that would automatically push the plane's nose down if the system detected a possible stall. And they designed a single point of failure system, which is a giant no-no in the aeronautics business. And to make things even worse, they never mentioned this system in the plane's documentation nor required any special training for pilots. The sensor failed in both cases, the planes detected a stall that wasn't there, and the planes MCAS systems continued to push the nose down over and over again, completely overwhelming the pilots. Boeing also had a corporate culture that was punishing to whistle blowers, at the same time that Boeing executives were involved in cozy relationships with the FAA regulators, who were supposed to be looking over Boeing's shoulder as they designed such systems. This was a major fiasco, not caused by anything done or not done by the pilots.

[biker1]

Partially true. Better pilots may have realized there was a trim problem and disabled the automatic trim (switch behind the trim wheels) and manually trimmed out the plane. Kind of curious that the crashes occurred with airlines from 3rd world countries. This is not to suggest that Boeing is without fault.

That may be true, but their lack of training didn't cause the accidents. Boeing designed and installed a system (MCAS) that would automatically push the plane's nose down if the system detected a possible stall. And they designed a single point of failure system, which is a giant no-no in the aeronautics business. And to make things even worse, they never mentioned this system in the plane's documentation nor required any special training for pilots. The sensor failed in both cases, the planes detected a stall that wasn't there, and the planes MCAS systems continued to push the nose down over and over again, completely overwhelming the pilots. Boeing also had a corporate culture that was punishing to whistle blowers, at the same time that Boeing executives were involved in cozy relationships with the FAA regulators, who were supposed to be looking over Boeing's shoulder as they designed such systems. This was a major fiasco, not caused by anything done or not done by the pilots.

[Velvet]

Yes, but just in case, I’d make sure my will is updated. ;)

[Topspinmo]

On some route’s you probably don’t have choice?

[FenneyGuy]

Absolutely.