[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.

Originally Posted by 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.

[DeanFL]

Originally Posted by 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.

.
.
..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.

Originally Posted by DeanFL

.
.
..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]

Originally Posted by 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.

.
.
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]

Originally Posted by DeanFL

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

[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.

Originally Posted by DeanFL

.
.
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.

Originally Posted by New Englander

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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



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



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.



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]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

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]

Originally Posted by John_W

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



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



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.



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

[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)