[Cranford61]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Dilligas

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]

Originally Posted by Rosebud1949

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]

Originally Posted by biker1

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

.
.
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.

Originally Posted by Silliness

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

[DeanFL]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[perrjojo]

Originally Posted by DeanFL

??? 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.

Originally Posted by perrjojo

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.

Originally Posted by DeanFL

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

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by RoadToad

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.