Boeing 737 Max ordered by Ryanair undergoes name change

Can't blame Ryanair by themselves too much. Their whole company and business depends on the 737, and their foreseeable future on the Max. Not a pleasant situation to be in. Even Ryanair is not that big to handle the dumpster fire Boeing started.

I'm more irritated with IAG who is ordering a bunch of Maxes while they are still grounded and who knows when will fly again, and what the hell is wrong with them. Even giving up a part of their Airbus fleet maintenance to Boeing. Truth be told, the Max will probably fly again and it will be a very scrutinized aircraft so this is a wise business decision. Just don't mind me considering it joining the dark side.

There are pieces beyond just equipment failure and operator error: things like infrastructure and process. Infrastructure has less of an impact in the sky, where the plane is pretty self-reliant, but process is huge, with maintenance schedules, co-pilots, ATC, etc all making the flying experience safer.

On the ground, it's the opposite. There's very little process around driving your car, but there's a lot of infrastructure. How roads and intersections are built, what signage is used and where, how and how much different modes are protected and isolated from each other, all have an enormous impact on road safety.

This is one of the key tenets of "Vision Zero", that blaming driver error is not an acceptable answer for why people die on the road. People make mistakes all the time, including while driving, and we have a moral responsibility to design systems and infrastructure that eliminate or minimize human death and suffering, even in the face of human error.

> "Apples and oranges" is a metaphor for things that shouldn't be compared.

No it's a reference to comparisons that don't make sense.

You can compare as many apples you'd like with oranges, just as you can compare air travel with roadway traffic, but you'd be making absurd and meaningless comparisons.

It should be noted that for the Air Show, the Airbus had most of it’s software safety features disabled and on top of that, the pilots flying the plane actually didn’t know the airport they were performing at. The latter is a major red flag.

In the end, software didn’t bring down that flight (as in, the software didn’t pitch the plane down into the ground). Disabled safety features stopped the plane from correcting a situation it would normally be protecting pilots from. And the pilots where unaware of any obstructions past the runway. Coupled with long spool up times for jet engine (any jet engine, I might add), and that flight was basically doomed once it was over the runway.

Mind you, I’m not trying to put the blame on anyone here, but to compare that crash with the recent MAX crashes is just not right. More comparable would be something like Qantas Flight 72, where the autopilot did in fact result in an uncommanded pitch down. Although the pilots recovered from that situation and the plane landed safely.

This.

I'm surprised by the number of HN readers going bananas about never flying in this plane again. Every pilot on the planet knows about this issue now, and commercial pilots are already used to broad differences in airplane handling characteristics and how to avoid a stall in different configurations, as long as they're not forced to fight against 120 lbs of pitch trim.

If the only thing Boeing does is add an "MCAS off" button, pilots will be able to get the thing back on the ground in an emergency, even without new type rating, and even if pitch is a little bit squirley for ten minutes.

This is the same mistake we accuse the public of making when they freak out over terrorism and demand more TSA theater. We have steel cockpit doors and a new cultural understanding of what a hijacker can do. This is what prevents a 9/11 style hijacking from happening again, not the TSA.