121–130 of 407 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope, risks are insignificant. It's extremely irrational to be scared to fly on Boeing.
LOL what? It's at least 4 orders of magnitude more risky to fly 737 MAX compared to Airbus A320 (counting deaths per 100k takeoffs). 4 orders of magnitude are not irrational.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would be extremely hesitant to ever fly on a 737 MAX again because, even when MCAS is fixed, software is being used to fix a fundamental physics problem. I'd fly on other Boeing planes without worry, though.
This is not the case. The 737 MAX has different handling characteristics to a regular 737, but there is nothing inherently unsafe about those handling characteristics. The purpose of MCAS was just to prevent the need for pilots to recertify by masking the difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would be extremely hesitant to ever fly on a 737 MAX again because, even when MCAS is fixed, software is being used to fix a fundamental physics problem. I'd fly on other Boeing planes without worry, though.
The fix for the 787s Lithium battery problems wasn't a whole lot better. Remember those exploding left and right and the 787 fleet grounded? The fix wasn't to reengineer the large amount of electrical systems, lack of bleed air or use of different batteries. The fix was to put them in a stronger container with a hole in it so they can vent outside when they inevitably blow up again. That has worked well. So far. Kind…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I know this is one of the rare few, read I can't recall one, occasions in which EASA didn't accept FAA certification. Usually it is cross- certification between the two. Things are getting interesting and not necessarily in a good way as cooperation is reduced. That it makes sense in this special case is only further proof.
I think EASA doesn't trust the FAA here because the FAA had less involvement in the original certification than some are comfortable with. So rather that asking the FAA to certify the entire plane and maybe risk a similar procedure (Boeing self-certifies most of it), they'll do it themselves. What I'm curious is whether EASA has similar certification shortcu... optimizations for Airbus.
Edit: Don't forget the 737 airframe was already a modified 727 airframe...
Also, I wonder how this will affect the Boeing-Embraer partnership. It would certainly be cheaper to spec-up an E-Jet to have the capacity of a 737 than to design a new airframe from scratch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope, risks are insignificant. It's extremely irrational to be scared to fly on Boeing.
Out 300 Boeing Max delivered since it was release in 2016, there has been 2 full hull losses with full loss of life. I bet if you do the numbers it is the most dangerous way of traveling. Tesla gets shit on for autopilot and it’s killed 4 people but has 100s of thousand of cars on the road with autopilot.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-737-max-8-compares-142...
"Well-known and popular commercial aircraft have been involved in far more fatal accidents than the Boeing 737 Max 8. The 3,065 fatalities onboard the Tupolev Tu-154 are more than any of the 47 aircraft models Quartz analyzed. But commercial staples from Boeing, the 737-200 and 747-200, rank second and third on the list, with 2,910 and 1,664 fatalities respectively."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope, risks are insignificant. It's extremely irrational to be scared to fly on Boeing.
There is the comment below about the 4 order of magnitude difference between A320 vs. 737MAX. And there is confirmation bias that can save your life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I will not fly the 737 MAX unless and until it has its own type certificate... and even then not for at least 3-4 years of commercial service under that condition. It is easy to see the scheduled type of aircraft when you book tickets.
Hold on a minute. Though the 737 MAX issues were caused by the desire to keep the same type rating, making the 737 MAX have a new type rating at this point won't solve the issue . The 737 MAX needed to retain the unusual fuselage design of the 737 to retain the type rating, leading to the unusual positioning of the new, larger engines, leading to MCAS. Even if they gave the 737 MAX a new type rating at this point, th…
It may still have issues hence the “wait a few years” in my response.
Most jets have their quirks. I recall many 727 pilots telling me they put nose down pressure just before or at touchdown to make the plane land more nicely due to the relative location of center of lift and landing gear. Not something i usually do when flying a tricycle gear plane...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not the case. The 737 MAX has different handling characteristics to a regular 737, but there is nothing inherently unsafe about those handling characteristics. The purpose of MCAS was just to prevent the need for pilots to recertify by masking the difference.
They lengthened the plane without redesigning the rest of the components to compensate. This changed fundamental aerodynamics on how it flies. The plane is dynamically unstable and that instability was masked in software.
Not exactly. It's the placement of the newer, larger engines that's largely responsible for the different handling characteristics.
>This changed fundamental aerodynamics on how it flies.
Yes.
>The plane is dynamically unstable.
No, it just has different handling characteristics in some parts of the flight envelope.