Originally Posted by
CurtainTwitcher
Simple facts: Same crews, Same training, Same Angle of Attack vane (identical part number) for the NG and the MAX.
Fatal accident rate: NG 0.06 per million departures (100+ million departures), MAX 3.08 per million departures (0.65 million departures). No know flight control fatal accidents for NG.
Same everything EXCEPT additional software in the MAX controlling the stabiliser trim.
If we took out over-runs, undershoots, loss of control and a mid air due to human errors, the rate for the NG would be even lower, the NG is an amazingly safe aircraft. The MAX as certified was not regardless of where the accidents occurred. The NG is just as capable of killing when crewed by incompetent pilots. Ten fatal accidents for the NG since 1997, two for the MAX in less than 2 years.
Put yourself in the position of the airworthiness authorities with the above comparable accident rate. Would you allow it to fly in your jurisdiction based on those numbers? How could you have justify allowing this to fly if there was an accident on your watch?
That is why the MAX is still grounded.
Hi curtain twitcher
Another slant
The sample rate for Max is very small outside USA. So percentage crash rates are not comparable. How did the USA rate compare? What was the max accident rate per million USA departures where most of The flying took place?
The 737 100/200 had a poor start like the 727. Both went on to be a success. Reminds me of an ad in Ireland last year
” Dacia, Ireland’s biggest selling car since last year” . It’s true. They sold ten last year and 20 this year. That’s double. 200% increase ( figures not accurate but makes the point). Ford sold 50,000 or so.
Since 1997 you say. Well what has been the biggest change since then? It’s not MCAS . It’s the change in training requirements. In my view. But I do wear glasses.
all the best and thanks for your own viewpoint which I accept is a valuable to as mine is to me
R Guy