SLF avoid travel on 737 max

[autoflight]

As SLF, how can I best avoid future travel on 737 max?
There are some obvious ways, like book on an airline that doesn't have 737 max. Then could finish up on code share 737 max . Or in the event of overbooking or unserviceability etc, I am asked to travel with another operator who does have 737 max. Will an insurance company provide a policy that guarantees no financial loss if I have to refuse unplanned 737 max travel?
And will life insurance companies ask if I intend to travel on a 737 max when determining my premium? Will travel agents charge more if they guarantee no 737 max travel and will travel insurance companies then charge less?
All of this assumes that this grandfather will be permitted to fly again.

[James 1077]

I'll be avoiding anyone who flies the plane and, if that isn't possible, then checking routes to see if they fly the Max on it. That doesn't help when/if the Max is switched on to the route at late notice; and I'll have to cross that bridge when I get to it. After a good three/four years of trouble-free service I'll change my mind - but wild horses wouldn't drag me onto one in the near future!

[Jetman346]

Hi

The max will fly again and at least you will know its safe, there could be other manufacturers planes flying around with yet to be known issues so there is no guarantee in any plane or even life for that matter,you have a much greater chance of being killed some other way. If you do refuse to fly the max simply check what equipment they use when booking

Wayne

[wheels_down]

MCAS isn’t a feature on the Dash 10 (which is largely what Virgin is getting and potentially the entire order might be converted) not sure about the -9

[James 1077]

Hi

The max will fly again and at least you will know its safe
Wayne

That is part of the problem though - as SLF I really don't trust the FAA on this matter. If it was given a full top to bottom sign-off by EASA or an independent regulator, as if it were an entirely new plane, then I would have more comfort. But FAA have shown themselves to be in Boeing's pocket so I will need experience of lots of them flying around without incident before I will trust it.

[Jetman346]

Yes thats fair enough but makes you wonder what other shortcuts were taken with other models or manufacturers also, merry christmas

Wayne

[Icarus2001]

After a good three/four years of trouble-free service I'll change my mind - but wild horses wouldn't drag me onto one in the near future!

Noting that the type did have nearly two years of "trouble free service" prior to the first accident.

sign-off by EASA or an independent regulator

Can you tell us who an independent regulator is please?

As far as I know all of the regulators are owned and operated by the governments of sovereign states and as such are an instrument of government policy. Separating politics from this is impossible.

[Luke SkyToddler]

Don't worry, the airlines are already taking the necessary steps to ensure that you'll never even know you're flying on it :ok:
https://simpleflying.com/vietjet-boeing-737-max/amp/

[George Glass]

I have over 10,000 hours flying the B737. I would fly on a Max in a heartbeat. I would let my family fly on a Max in a heartbeat.
What has been lost in the billions of words that have been written since the Max accidents is that you need 3 simultaneous events;
1. An angle of attack sensor failure
2. An inappropriate ( I’m being sensitive here) response by the flight crew.
3. Flight crew allowing the scenario to develop beyond the point where it was recoverable.
Since the events , every B737 pilot on the planet has been briefed on the failure mode and the correct response.
Most will , if they work for a reputable carrier , have already conducted simulator training.
In short , it won’t happen again.
Whats way more important is choosing which carrier you fly on.
Boeing is in a world of pain but the anxiety that prompts the posters question is panic , pure and simple.
Whether or not the Max is recoverable is debatable . But hysteria has taken over. Very sad.

[Stickshift3000]

Don't worry, the airlines are already taking the necessary steps to ensure that you'll never even know you're flying on it :ok:
https://simpleflying.com/vietjet-boeing-737-max/amp/

Possibly following Trump’s expert advice to ‘rebrand’ the type and all will be well with passengers. Sadly, there’s probably some truth in that.

[rudestuff]

I have over 10,000 hours flying the B737. I would fly on a Max in a heartbeat. I would let my family fly on a Max in a heartbeat.
What has been lost in the billions of words that have been written since the Max accidents is that you need 3 simultaneous events;
1. An angle of attack sensor failure
2. An inappropriate ( I’m being sensitive here) response by the flight crew.
3. Flight crew allowing the scenario to develop beyond the point where it was recoverable.
Since the events , every B737 pilot on the planet has been briefed on the failure mode and the correct response.
Most will , if they work for a reputable carrier , have already conducted simulator training.
In short , it won’t happen again.
Whats way more important is choosing which carrier you fly on.
Boeing is in a world of pain but the anxiety that prompts the posters question is panic , pure and simple.
Whether or not the Max is recoverable is debatable . But hysteria has taken over. Very sad.
Well said!

[27/09]

autoflight and James 1077

Your concerns are an over reaction

George Glass hit the nail on the head when he said

Whats way more important is choosing which carrier you fly on.

[vancouv]

Whatever the issues with the Max I'd spend more time worrying about the drive to the airport - that's much more likely to kill you.

[speedrestriction]

autoflight and James 1077

Your concerns are an over reaction

George Glass hit the nail on the head when he said

Whats way more important is choosing which carrier you fly on.



The specific fault is not nearly so worrying as the corporate priorities at Boeing. There is something rotten at the core of the company which needs serious surgery.

The other worrying issue is the FAA’s lack of competence.

[glider]

Forget the aircraft. Be picky with the operator.

[pax britanica]

I think its all very well for experienced crew and engineers to comment about the Max but we live in an age of hysterical mass media which often panics politians. Not helped by Boeings dodgy business culture and the FAA becomeing a tool of the industry it reglates,gosh whoever thought that regualtors might be honest or impartial?

But give a dog a bad name these days and it sticks for along time and lets face it the poor old Max is just that -old, it is like derivate number 10 of the stubby little thing I first saw land at LHR in Lufthansa colours close on 50 years ago. the Max seems like a digital version of the Beech 1900 which had about 8 extra aerofoil surfaces to cancel out what were no doubt all kinds of aerdynamic puzzles that arose from turning a little King Air into a mini airliner

[gliderman2]

Not that any paintwork is visibly by SLF from the boarding tunnels and in any event by that time it is too late as your baggage is already loaded and refusing to follow it would cause all sorts of issues. Much better to check at the time of booking.

[gliderman2]

Maybe they should rebrand it the "Mad Max"?

[Dark Knight]

I would let my family fly on a Max in a heartbeat.
What has been lost in the billions of words that have been written since the Max accidents is that you need 3 simultaneous events;
1. An angle of attack sensor failure
2. An inappropriate ( I’m being sensitive here) response by the flight crew.
3. Flight crew allowing the scenario to develop beyond the point where it was recoverable.
Since the events , every B737 pilot on the planet has been briefed on the failure mode and the correct response.
Most will , if they work for a reputable carrier , have already conducted simulator training.
In short , it won’t happen again.
Whats way more important is choosing which carrier you fly on.
Boeing is in a world of pain but the anxiety that prompts the posters question is panic , pure and simple.
Whether or not the Max is recoverable is debatable . But hysteria has taken over. Very sad.

And; What every pax, etc.particularly those wishing to peddle anti Boeing propaganda need to ask themselves is:

Have they checked to see if their motor vehicle is subject to any recalls and if so. have they ensured they have done something about it?
Do they actually have their vehicle regularly serviced according to the manufactures laid down procedures by an approved manufacturers service organisation?
Do the drive their vehicle exactly a laid down by the manufacturer?
Do they fully obey the laws and rules of the road?

When booking an airline ticket is price the primary consideration?
Do they check the world airline accident and incident statistics of airlines chosen to fly with prior to purchasing their ticket?
Does the choice of airline include the airlines accident/incident history?

How do they know whether the quality of the airline training or quality of it's pilots is of a continuous world high standard?

Are they able to fully identify which aircraft they have flown in or will fly in?
What will they do if the airline changes the aircraft type after booking or prior to boarding? And will they know what type has been substituted?

Many more questions should be asked however, if the SLF and others promoting anti Boeing propaganda cannot at least answer all of the above perhaps they require a substantial rethink of their personal safety!

[Australopithecus]

Anti Boeing propaganda? Seriously? Boeing does a fine job of that without any help.

Also, there is a distinction, both in perception and in law between personally undertaken risk and the undue risk that someone sells you without full disclosure.

Your points about choice of airline are spot-on, but where does a concerned layman go for accurate airline information?

[Preemo]

Personally, I'd rather wait a couple of years to see how the Max goes. I'd happily fly any other Boeing plane, but I can wait a few years before I entrust my life to it.

All the reasons given to fly it when it enters service are logical just as they were before each of those two planes crashed. I'm happy to wait for a bit of real world evidence.

[UltraFan]

Yes thats fair enough but makes you wonder what other shortcuts were taken with other models or manufacturers also, merry christmas

Wayne

A man moves into an apartment next to you. You see him load a dead body into his trunk. He asks you to help him move a large box in the basement. And it's 3am. Makes you wonder what Mrs.Morrison from the third floor could do with her knitting kit. Merry Christmas to you, too!

[UltraFan]

Maybe they should rebrand it the "Mad Max"?

Where's the Like button when you need one! :)

[UltraFan]

I would let my family fly on a Max in a heartbeat.

I'm with you! You need a change every once in a while.

[UltraFan]

The max will fly again

Nope.

(10 characters)

[27/09]

Nope.

(10 characters)
Nope what?

[Harry Wayfarers]

Getting back to the OP's original questions, or some of them, Wikipedia is a pretty good source of identifying, not just the current and forthcoming types they operate but also, their codeshare partners, then a further Wikipedia search identifies the types that codeshare partner operates etc.

[PAXboy]

EASA are going to hold Boeing 'to the fire' in this but the company will survive.

How the Max makes it through is still a case of wait and see. But, I think, it will survive.

[S.o.S.]

This may be one of the most important topics in aviation history - so please reply thoughtfully. From Day 1, PPRuNe has had the rule, 'Play the Ball - not the Player'.

[autoflight]

All genuine responses have been “on message”, particularly those from James 1077, Jetman346, wheels down, Luke SkyToddler, Stickshift3000, Gliderman2 and Preemo.

My post was never intended to develop into accusations of anti Boeing propaganda, but to explore the alternatives to default 737 max travel. It is more than the company deserves, but any current anti 737 max sentiment is suppressed in this thread, and for the moment, I travel on 787, 777 and other 737 models without special concern.

I also continue to carefully drive my diligently maintained car in accordance with the law (allowing adequate time for traffic etc), trust my chosen family doctor (to a degree) and keep a good eye on those airlines with multiple serious incidents and accidents. In a life before retirement from airlines, free worldwide travel was offered by a flag carrier. I did not take up the offer due their poor safety history. Airlines that unsafely fly over warlike missile equipped areas, due to laziness, lack of research or for fuel savings are permanently on my no-fly list. So are those with ultra cheap fares that, IMHO, cannot support quality staff and robust safety.

I have considered the issue of renaming MCAS equipped 737 to avoid ready recognition by pax. While I am confident that I can personally see through such smokescreens, most SLF will not be able to do so. Without publicity, of those who last minute realise their mistake, there will only be the occasional failure to board.

Geoge Glass, rude stuff, 27/09 and Dark Knight 19 will have a lot of humble pie to consume if there is another 737 max flight control system related accident. Any surviving passengers and the relatives of the deceased will be possibly a little more upset?

On the other hand, those who inconveniently make the hard decision to avoid 737 max will sit down to Christmas dinner with their loved ones, year after year. Their only regret will be that a handful of 737 pilots had to retire early and perhaps drive a taxi at 2 am in pouring rain with drunk and vomiting passengers. I suggest that some those 737 max advocates face humiliation and financial loss. Otherwise why would they jump into propaganda mode on a thread that just seeks reasonable personal solutions. They are not simple solution seekers.

[George Glass]

auto flight , what is driving your anxiety ? Do you fully understand what happened in those accidents ? My informed position is based on almost 40 years in aviation and than 15,000 hours flying Boeing aircraft.

[S.o.S.]

autoflight
any current anti 737 max sentiment is suppressed in this thread
No.
Both this thread and a previous one in the forum, have allowed plangent criticism and that will continue to be allowed. What is not allowed, is wild speculation, unfounded criticism and personal attacks on others posting.

[UltraFan]

My post was never intended to develop into accusations of anti Boeing propaganda, but to explore the alternatives to default 737 max travel. It is more than the company deserves, but any current anti 737 max sentiment is suppressed in this thread

First, it's NOT "propaganda". This word is so overused and even more misunderstood. "Propaganda" against something that kills people is FINE. Even more so against the company that manufactures something knowing that it will kill people. It's called caution and it should be appreciated.

Second, max sentiment is NOT suppressed here, I assure you. I've only been here for a few a months and I honestly don't know what kind of people local admins are. But I've just come from a.nother forum where I got a 3-month ban for saying that Airbus sells more planes than Boeing. Admins there REALLY suppress anything that even hints that their beloved Boeing isn't the "greatest planemaker in the world". THAT's bad. And I don't really see this here. Yet?

Third, and maybe foremost, OF COURSE there are people here who love Boeing. And OF COURSE you got some knee-jerk reaction. Some of the people here flew or fly Boeing. Some of them LOVE the company. For some what's happening to it is a personal tragedy. Of course they are angry at you for saying you won't fly "the Max". Just calm down and fly Airbus. :)

PS How, in the name of everything that's holy, did you manage to only write 300 posts in TWENTY years!? :)

[27/09]

autoflight

I think you miss the point I made.

While no one can say any aircraft will not crash for any particular reason, however with the changes to the 737 Max system and the training that will most definitely be mandated there are other factors that are significantly more likley to cause an accident on Air Transport jet aircaft in the future than a control problem on a 737 Max.

[rog747]

The MAX name is tainted, and I doubt any UK/Euro airline will ever use that tag again, if and when at the RTS of the aircraft.

The OP states he does not wish to fly in a MAX and lives in OZ - A fair few OZ, Pacific and Asian airlines have or (edit) will have the aircraft so he if wants to avoid booking on one then he needs to research his booking and airline options.

TUI UK have removed any reference in their online holiday and flight brochures (and also the Our Fleet section) that they have the MAX...
TUI's CEO has already said to the Press they are mooting a name change.
TUI's social media erupted in March after the 2nd crash with 1000's of it's UK customers demanding to cancel/amend their Hols, and vociferous demands that TUI voluntarily grounded the plane.
Customers are now ''informed'' so don't be fooled that airlines will not have an issue when they do reintroduce their fleets.
This is not 1979, we had no social media at the time of the DC-10 groundings 40 years ago, and the fleet then re-entered venerable service.
The MAX debacle coverage in the Press and SM now means the public are hearing in real-time the trials and tribulations within Boeing, the aviation and regulatory authorities, and also what is playing out in the Senate and in the Courts.

Ryanair CEO MOL has already crassly stated 'no refunds' if you are booked on a MAX with them.
FR have now painted out the word ''MAX'' off the noses of their new aircraft sitting at Boeing awaiting delivery.
FR have ordered a unique version known as the 737 MAX 8 -200.
Their planes now have just Boeing 737 8-200 on their noses - Pax will only know from the differing seat map when booking, but not all pax pay to reserve a seat.

I personally (in the UK) would not go on a MAX in a hurry, I am only likely ever to see one if I booked a TUI package holiday (or take a Ryanair flight and that is not likely lol)
I am not in the market to book West jet, AC or Norwegian for my travel plans (all of whom have the type)
BA Comair I do use, and they have a sole example for now.

Maybe not since 1952 with de Havilland DH 106 Comet 1 have we seen such a major aviation story with design flaws.
The Comet 1 was in airline service for just under two years before grounding, the same as the MAX.
In that time it killed 110 souls, compared with the MAX's 346.
Much smaller aircraft but the seriousness of design flaws does not outweigh that.
The Comet 1 was redesigned, reappearing 4 years later as the Comet 4.

MCAS seems so deeply rooted in the 737 MAX's flight control systems is that why Boeing still cannot fathom out a safe fix to ensure the aircraft's stability in all flight envelopes.
Also seem that no MCAS = no type approval using the 1967 737-100/200 type approval Grandfather rights.
To now re-design the air frame to remove the need for MCAS will surely mean a new type approval needed.
The MAX production is now to be halted after almost a year's grounding so we remain to see how the MAX's future will play out.

[Buswinker]

Um, which Oz airlines have the max?!

[rog747]

Um, which Oz airlines have the max?!



Virgin Australia

I was inferring to who has them, or who has ordered them....Sorry I thought my scribe was pretty fulfilling and obviously general, but I have made an edit

[rog747]

Did Virgin cancel their orders or just defer them?

Both Virgin and Qantas need to order for narrow body fleet renewal soon. The whole industry is stuck with the same conundrum: Max with its reputation and legacy issues or A320 Neo with order delays and very expensive training.

Virgin Oz have deferred/delayed their large order until 2021.

Australian regulators will want their own approval if and when the MAX is said to be safe to RTS.

[DaveReidUK]

As SLF, how can I best avoid future travel on 737 max?
There are some obvious ways, like book on an airline that doesn't have 737 max. Then could finish up on code share 737 max .

No, at the time you book, an airline is obliged to tell you if the flight is operated by another carrier and, if so, which one.

[DaveReidUK]

MCAS isn’t a feature on the Dash 10 (which is largely what Virgin is getting and potentially the entire order might be converted) not sure about the -9

I'm pretty sure that all Max variants have/will have MCAS.

What's your source for the statement that the Max 10 won't ?

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Do they check the world airline accident and incident statistics of airlines chosen to fly with prior to purchasing their ticket?
Does the choice of airline include the airlines accident/incident history?
Our next flight is on Air France.

We are making the assumption that they have, by now, taught their pilots stall recovery, at least to PPL standard.

That is, however, easier to do than redesigning an unstable airframe.

[rog747]

autoflight

I think you miss the point I made.

While no one can say any aircraft will not crash for any particular reason, however with the changes to the 737 Max system and the training that will most definitely be mandated there are other factors that are significantly more likely to cause an accident on Air Transport jet aircraft in the future than a control problem on a 737 Max.

Reports released during some recent MAX Court hearings in the USA (whistle-blower?) states that a 737 MAX will be expected to crash every 2-3 years if left as it was...Boeing knew this so it seems. That is significantly more likely to bother me and the pax out there...

[Rwy in Sight]

Our next flight is on Air France.

We are making the assumption that they have, by now, taught their pilots stall recovery, at least to PPL standard.

That is, however, easier to do than redesigning an unstable airframe.

You put a smile in my face..

[27/09]

Reports released during some recent MAX Court hearings in the USA (whistle-blower?) states that a 737 MAX will be expected to crash every 2-3 years if left as it was... .... Rog you left a very important piece out of your post
.......and the pilot training if left as it was.

Did it not occur to you that is was strange that the Ethiopian crew seemed oblivious to the quirks of the MCAS system despite all of the information that came out after the Lion Air crash? Any pilots I know of would have been all over this info, why weren't the Ethiopian crew?

As you know all of the issues you raise will be addressed with the fixes for the Max.

[Nomad2]

My own view is that if / when the Max returns to the skies, it will be just as safe, safer maybe, than anything else.

But that's not really the point, is it?

Airlines are businesses, and they need customers. If the customers are scared to fly on the thing, it doesn't really matter whether their fears are well founded or not.

I'm sure Boeing will find a way to convince the FAA it's safe.

Convincing the public's going to be a bit more difficult.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Did it not occur to you that is was strange that the Ethiopian crew seemed oblivious to the quirks of the MCAS system despite all of the information that came out after the Lion Air crash? Any pilots I know of would have been all over this info, why weren't the Ethiopian crew?
Have you ever heard the phrase "victim blaming"?

[UltraFan]

My own view is that if / when the Max returns to the skies, it will be just as safe, safer maybe, than anything else.
If, by some unbelievable lapse of reason, it flies again (God forbid), it will be anything but "safer than anything else". This whole idea comes from common American misconception that if something has just crashed, people responsible will look at it closely and fix all bugs. But in this particular instance, instead of actually fixing the problem, Boeing twists arms, calls favors from lobbyists and pocket politicians, prepares Powerpoint presentations for safety meetings, and presses FAA to have "a timeline". It's hard to believe, but it looks like Boeing still doesn't realize how deep their troubles run. So please pay attention, Mr.Muilenburg.

In order to get "the max" flying again, they need approval from three countries (China, the EU and, to a lesser extent, Canada) with whom they are currently in a state of trade war (one declared, two apparent). And with two of those countries (Canada and the EU) they have ongoing aviation-related conflicts. China has already stated that they want complete re-certification and pilots retraining. EU wanted to test-fly the "MAX 2.0" in mid-December, which didn't happen (or I wasn't paying attention?). Canada's relationships with Boeing is so badly broken, from CF-105 through De Havilland Canada chew-and-spit to C-series lawsuit, that any help from them is unlikely... nor, I just thought, any significant resistance, but still...

You might run out of oxygen if you hold your breath for this one.

[autoflight]

I am not part of any argument about the possible safety standard of B737 max and it is my own posts that have avoided this issue. I also avoid any reference to my own years, flight hours and types which are also not relevant to the thread.
Such issues may be raised by others in an effort to emphasise the validity of their agressive and demeaning posts. The thread explores the status of those wishing to avoid travel on the type. Simple. Anything else is diversionary thread drift. For those who add to the subject, I urge you to ignore pro 737 max propaganda and continue the thread to expand the SLF 737 avoidance possibilities.
So far, I envisage an easily accessible list of MCAS 737s so that SLF can have the opportunity to exercise democratic right to freedom of choice. No doubt there are some out there who would deny SLF that opportunity, commencing with airlines trying to delete reference to "max".
A poster envisages eventual demonstrated max safe operation over a period of years. In the meantime avoiding it when he can. There is much validity in this approach and finally that would also be my intention and possibly that of many others.
One thing is certain. I will not be embracing the "flight in a heartbeat" advocated.
Could those wishing to defend the max start a new thread?

[rog747]

.... Rog you left a very important piece out of your post
.......and the pilot training if left as it was.

Did it not occur to you that is was strange that the Ethiopian crew seemed oblivious to the quirks of the MCAS system despite all of the information that came out after the Lion Air crash? Any pilots I know of would have been all over this info, why weren't the Ethiopian crew?

As you know all of the issues you raise will be addressed with the fixes for the Max.

Hi there - Yes thank you, I did leave out here in my posts re the facts of intensive pilot training.
We could go on to say that Boeing had no intentions to address pilot training if MCAS was never seen as a culprit in any crashes - Blame it on the pilots?

PLUS we must be minded of the re-training, rewriting of the FCOM, aircraft and Ops manuals etc etc, when and if the MAX returns to service, which will take months....
I did include all those references in my post in R&N but purposely left them out here to keep it simple.

I also left out the fact of Pilot Type rating commonalty with the 737 Classic and NG - Which is another factor in granting the MAX type approval using Grandfather rights of 1967.

I'm sorry but here I am not in the pilot blaming game - I think all the crews were faced with a rather dreadful scenario(s) which overwhelmed them within minutes leading quickly to the deaths of 346.
My pal down here is a 737 SIM instructor (and a 727/737/747 Capt with 15000+ hours) - He has reenacted the MAX scenarios in the SIM - Let's just leave it there shall we....

Back on thread topic - As mentioned I for one (being an (I hope!) informed aviation professional since 1972) would not board a MAX until such a time I felt like it could warrant it.

[andrasz]

As SLF, how can I best avoid future travel on 737 max?

Very simple, stop flying and take the bus. Looking at news headlines from around the world (e.g. today in Guatemala), that is a much quicker way of removing oneself from the gene pool.

[davidjpowell]

I will happily fly on the Max when it or if it is released. It is going to be examined in a lot of detail before the public get near it again.

I personally suspect the issue is far larger than changing a couple of sensors now. Boeing are now billions in the hole with no real prospect of getting out. If the fix was as simple as retraining pilots to fly without MCAS, and amending the type rating that would surely have been done.

[rog747]

I will happily fly on the Max............
If the fix was as simple as retraining pilots to fly without MCAS, and amending the type rating that would surely have been done.

OK here's the thing -
The 737 Max Type approval (gained using the 1967 737-100/200 approval) was eventually granted by the FAA (and the other countries Aviation Regulatory bodies) only on the basis (after flight testing uncovered some handling instability) that the MACS augmentation software is enabled to ensure the new 737 MAX stays within the same handling parameters of the 737-100/200 Classic, right up to the 737-800/900NG to allow all current 737 Pilots with 737 type approval to fly it
This one of the crucial commonality selling points marketed by Boeing, and also demanded by the airlines.

The MAX without MCAS cannot get Type approval using the 1967 rights, and current 737 Type pilots would not be able to fly it.

Remove MCAS (as many keep saying on the forums) and that leaves an unstable 737 MAX family, versus a stable 737NG family and thus needs a redesign and new approval.
It will no longer be a 737, and we do not know if a new type approval would even be given for it.
I doubt Pilots would be trained as how to handle this aircraft to avoid the undesirable pitch/high power characteristics and so on.

United Airlines have now just removed the MAX from their June 2020 flight schedules -
Therefore IMO it is unlikely we will see the MAX in service for any of Summer 2020 with European charter airlines such as TUI, Enter Air and Smartwings.

[ShyTorque]

Irrespective of any future corrective action, whether it takes the form of mechanical or electronic modifications, pilot training or even a manufacturer's pie chart or graph showing how safe it is compared to travelling on a bus; given a choice I will avoid flying in any aircraft with a history of nose diving into the ground killing all on board.

I doubt I'd be alone in that view.

[NWA SLF]

Irrespective of any future corrective action, whether it takes the form of mechanical or electronic modifications, pilot training or even a manufacturer's pie chart or graph showing how safe it is compared to travelling on a bus; given a choice I will avoid flying in any aircraft with a history of nose diving into the ground killing all on board.

I doubt I'd be alone in that view.
I assume you avoid A330s and A320s too then, but wait, they suffered uncommanded nose down incidents when at altitude so although injuring passengers, they did not impact the ground.

I am more concerned about the number of toxic air incidents. Maybe they have been happening a lot in the past and only now are they being reported. I know its been the scheme for years but if the 4 turbo equipped vehicles I drive took the air entering the passenger compartment from the turbo, I'd have second thoughts about it. So the 787 is the only commercial airplane I feel safe in today - but I fly the others anyway.

[DaveReidUK]

The MAX without MCAS cannot get Type approval using the 1967 rights, and current 737 Type pilots would not be able to fly it.

Yes, although the two things (Type Rating and Type Certificate) don't always go in step. For example all 747s are on the same TC, but a Type Rating on the 747 Classic doesn't cover the -400 or the 747-8.

But the 737 does indeed have a single Type Rating covering all variants up to and including the Max.

[ShyTorque]

I assume you avoid A330s and A320s too then, but wait, they suffered uncommanded nose down incidents when at altitude so although injuring passengers, they did not impact the ground.

I am more concerned about the number of toxic air incidents. Maybe they have been happening a lot in the past and only now are they being reported. I know its been the scheme for years but if the 4 turbo equipped vehicles I drive took the air entering the passenger compartment from the turbo, I'd have second thoughts about it. So the 787 is the only commercial airplane I feel safe in today - but I fly the others anyway.

Injury in flight due to an "excursion" is not the same as piling in nose first (although when flying as a passenger I tend to keep my seat belt fastened when sitting, despite the signs being switched off). TBH, I don't think I've ever flown in an A320 or an A330, but then I've never been in a situation where I've been offered the option.

[rog747]

Every SLF has to read this - I thought it was April 1st...
From The New York Times:
Boeing Can’t Fly Its 737 Max, but It’s Ready to Sell Its Safety
The company knows travellers are wary of its plane, so it has prepared presentations with strategies for airlines to help win back the public’s trust.
“Overall awareness of issues surrounding the 737 Max remains very high in all countries, Boeing wrote''

https://nyti.ms/378rfiG

Physiotherapists and social workers at the Crew report desk, and on board for very MAX flight?
Seriously, I think Boeing have lost the plot, and the MAX return to service is doomed.

[Paul Lupp]

^
Possibly it should add that a psychiatrist will be needed on board every flying 737 MAX to calm passenger nerves?

Not only is the737MAX name tainted, but I believe that the acronym "MCAS" is similarly tainted. I would have thought that Boeing would need to come up with a new name for the "modified" software so that any passenger with doubts could be told that MCAS no longer exists but has been replaced by a new improved piece of software. However, re-branding the 737MAX as something else may prove trickier, as it would be very easy to say "ah yes, it's just a 737MAX with a different name" (for those in the UK, a bit like re-naming Sellafield to Winscale).

Let's just hope that the "fix" involves elimination of a single sensor providing a high-priority input for the computers......

[PAXboy]

The more you read (including the statements and actions of B.) the more you realise that they STILL have not got the point. The Board should have resigned en masse, months ago. The company will survive because Washington DC neeeds it to survive but few of the parties at the top have yet realised that (almost certainly) the only way to regain confidence is to pay the compensation, scrap the MAX and start again.

This year has shown (yet again) that ...

enough people inside the company were shouting LOUDLY about the risks long before anyone died.
those people were ignored because the only thing that mattered was money. And money NOW.
many companies think themselves more important than their customers.
the shortcomings of human beings and their ability to think that they are smarter than the preceeding generation.

Think back to other major disasters (such as Titanic) and we can see that humans do not learn from history. They do not listen to their parents or grandparents.

[Sorry S.o.S. thread drift now - but I think it's pertinent]
Which is why, for example, we are soon going to have another truly serious financial crash. That is because the lessons of the last crash (2008) were not learnt and laws put in place to prevent reccurence of 1929 (and other years) have been repealed. Lots of folks have, and are, warning of the problems but they have been ignored. The next financial crash is already built into the system because men did not listen to their parents and think themselves smarter. It is now unavoidable as the sytem will overpower the market and drive it into the ground.

[Harry Wayfarers]

^
Possibly it should add that a psychiatrist will be needed on board every flying 737 MAX to calm passenger nerves?

Not only is the737MAX name tainted, but I believe that the acronym "MCAS" is similarly tainted. I would have thought that Boeing would need to come up with a new name for the "modified" software so that any passenger with doubts could be told that MCAS no longer exists but has been replaced by a new improved piece of software. However, re-branding the 737MAX as something else may prove trickier, as it would be very easy to say "ah yes, it's just a 737MAX with a different name" (for those in the UK, a bit like re-naming Sellafield to Winscale).

Let's just hope that the "fix" involves elimination of a single sensor providing a high-priority input for the computers......

Well after 53 years isn't it about time they ceased calling it a '737' just to avoid full new type certifications when it is nothing like the early 737's!

[Pontius Navigator]

Well after 53 years isn't it about time they ceased calling it a '737' just to avoid full new type certifications when it is nothing like the early 737's!
Run out of numbers?

[Harry Wayfarers]

Run out of numbers?

Funny that they had enough numbers for the DC9, they labelled it a B717 ... Are Airbus going to run out of numbers at A390 when they already have an A220 & A400?

[peter we]

Forget the aircraft. Be picky with the operator.
Indeed, avoid MAX operators.

[pax britanica]

Look at the majority of large companies

CEOs and boards with little or no experience of that industry but lots of political and city connections
Large Legal and PR organisations
Bonus /Stock price fixated

Just for a laugh to myself i wrote to Easyjet (actually a company I like and trust) when they brought out seat selection which for me had been a no no for using them. I asked, tongue in cheek if they achieved their lower fares through savings on operational xpenses, pilots engineers, maintenance etc. needless to say i got back a form letter saying that they dd none of those things complied with all the rules etc and safety was their first priority. To which i replied that I had asked the question because their board members responsibilities listed things like HR Finance market Sales Business development etc etc , but non of them was responsible for safety . No answer. As is aid I am fine with Ez and have used them often but it is this culture where the management distance themselves from the real core fo the business on the a good manager can manage anything principle . That's Ok in business school with fictional widget companies and in the real world with straightforward business enterprises but airlines are not straightforward business enterprises nor is building airliners and there has to be an understanding that sometimes large sums of money need to be invested in new technology, on fixing unforeseen problems or in the case of airlines things like strikes and weather adding zillions to the cost line but still demanding they meet analyst expectations somehow.
Not a problem confined to aviation but one that is often at the heart of various disasters major accidents etc where as someone pointed out no lessons have been learned from the 2008 financial crash because these is too much money at stake and as 2008 proved no ones going to jail over it. And as another poster pointed out we always think our generation is the smartest

[Pontius Navigator]

Harry, don't be obtuse. My comment was tongue in cheek. Boeing, having chosen 7n7 as their model numbers may have resisted a switch to 8n8 as a marketing ploy. They would not be the first company to get hung up on numbers: SAAB with their 9n went to 900 and then 9000 before reusing 90 numbers. Peugeot had a thing with their numbers as did Volvo.

[PHDracing]

As an SLF in the US,I have an advantage. Along with quite a few others we here in the states have an elite crew of Professional Pilots.
I was damned good at my job and they are damned good at theirs.
Every pilot in the US (and hopefully the world) has watched this drama unfold.
THEY will make my decision easy.
If THEY will fly the thing , I am good with that.
The day they refuse is the day I refuse.
I DO expect the thing, if it ever flys again, WILL be rebranded.
Value Jet became Air Tran and all was forgiven.
So guys, don't pilot the thing if there is a problem. Don't worry about my old wrinkled tail bone.
Think of your own, and act as your professional sense tells you.

[Hartington]

I have a very personal "risk analysis" which takes into account not only the airline and aircraft but route, airport(s) etc. I'm not going to write all the rules here (I'm not sure it's well enough developed). However, one thing I consider is the alternative options to flying on what might be considered "something dodgy". Despite the Max crashes if they were still flying, unmodified, and I had the choice between flying on a Max or taking a Filipino or Indonesian ferry or driving from Nairobi to Addis I'd fly. Yes, the risk on the Max is slightly increased but the risk of those surface journeys is even more.

That said, I think I'll try and avoid the Max for a while assuming it comes back into service.

When Boeing and TWA first introduced the idea of 767s across the Atlantic I was offered the opportunity to go to Kansas City via St Louis (from London) using 767s. I declined and we went on 747s via Chicago. Looking back I was probably over cautious, if memory serves they still had to stay within 60 minutes of an airport at the time but I'm here to tell the tale. Then again I was in China in the very early 1980s and among the planes we flew on was an IL14 (or a Chinese copy) and in the late 70s I was in Nepal on Twin Otters in some interesting places.

Like I said it's a personal decision and I should add I'm non technical.

[slf4life]

Hello folks,

Fully agree crews should know their stuff - period, But I don't want well trained snake charmers on the flight deck if it wakes up, I want the 'snake' off the plane. Forgive the invocation of Capt Sully as though he's the final arbiter of all things aviation, but when he recreates the accidents in a Level D Max sim and describes the system as 'pernicious' and 'deadly' in it's initial state, and that focusing on the pilots was wrong, I pay attention. He did of course also emphasize that proper training, maintenance etc is critical as well.

Somewhere on the pro side there was comment about half of air crews responding improperly to some recent test scenarios, don't remember the details. But ultimately resolving the issue anyway. Not good enough of course, but if it means lives are saved, I much prefer the tool, however improperly used, not compound the issue. I'm not convinced either crash would have occurred if the accident crews had been able to focus on the issues arising without a subsystem actively affecting vertical control in that way.

I'd fly the Max once I see concrete evidence MCAS 2 or whatever, is incapable of ever responding as it's predecessor did.

[Harry Wayfarers]

Hello folks,

Fully agree crews should know their stuff - period, But I don't want well trained snake charmers on the flight deck if it wakes up, I want the 'snake' off the plane. Forgive the invocation of Capt Sully as though he's the final arbiter of all things aviation, but when he recreates the accidents in a Level D Max sim and describes the system as 'pernicious' and 'deadly' in it's initial state, and that focusing on the pilots was wrong, I pay attention. He did of course also emphasize that proper training, maintenance etc is critical as well.

Somewhere on the pro side there was comment about half of air crews responding improperly to some recent test scenarios, don't remember the details. But ultimately resolving the issue anyway. Not good enough of course, but if it means lives are saved, I much prefer the tool, however improperly used, not compound the issue. I'm not convinced either crash would have occurred if the accident crews had been able to focus on the issues arising without a subsystem actively affecting vertical control in that way.

I'd fly the Max once I see concrete evidence MCAS 2 or whatever, is incapable of ever responding as it's predecessor did.

It doesn't help when the crews can be flying different variants of B737 from one day to the next, the regular type rating is B737-300-onwards but I think I recall that the FAA even allow the -200 to be flown also, I think UK CAA dictate no more than two variants but even then the crew could be flying a -700 yesterday and a Max8 today and when the excrement may hit the fan the first thing the crew may need to recognise are the differences between the two variants, a similar scenario was blamed for the British Midland -400 incident.

I don't have too much time for "I told you so" whistle blowers, these are often disgruntled ex employees, but what did come out is that the persons responsible were instructed to play down the significance of differences of the Max to the NG, if the regulating authority decide that the differences are too significant then a full new type certification may be ordered and those not only cost money but are an inconvenience to the manufacturer.

[mrdeux]

As an SLF in the US,I have an advantage. Along with quite a few others we here in the states have an elite crew of Professional Pilots.
I was damned good at my job and they are damned good at theirs.
Every pilot in the US (and hopefully the world) has watched this drama unfold.
THEY will make my decision easy.
If THEY will fly the thing , I am good with that.
The day they refuse is the day I refuse.

Well, you probably should do some reading on the pilots of Colgan 3407, Atlas 3591 and AA 587. The USA has plenty of good pilots, and no shortage of bad. Just like the rest of the world.

Pilots will fly the MAX if it’s eventually allowed to fly, not because it’s safe, but because they are captives of their pay cheques. Principles won’t feed your family.

[Harry Wayfarers]

Well, you probably should do some reading on the pilots of Colgan 3407, Atlas 3591 and AA 587. The USA has plenty of good pilots, and no shortage of bad. Just like the rest of the world.

Pilots will fly the MAX if it’s eventually allowed to fly, not because it’s safe, but because they are captives of their pay cheques. Principles won’t feed your family.

Not forgetting Air Florida 90 in to the Washington DC river ... Because the pilots were so damn good at their job!

[ATSA1]

I have watched this story unfold for some time, and what really worries me is that Boeing and the FAA will come up with a MCAS 2.0 or whatever, and try and tell every Airworthiness board and the General Public, that the MAX is "safe and a perfectly good airplane"

It seems the general opinion here and elsewhere, that MCAS is more than a software fix to make the MAX fly like a 737NG, to avoid recertification and all the pitfalls and expense that this would entail...do we know if the MAX can fly to all corners of the envelope without MCAS? If it cannot, then will Boeing re certify it as a "7X7" and train pilots accordingly, or just try a PR campaign to convince everyone that its safe as is? Or will they just say that the whole MAX programme is simply too big to fail, and nearly 5000 orders cannot be cancelled?

How far will Boeing develop the 737 after this, and still insist that intrinsically, its still a good ol 1967 based B737? As someone has already mentioned, when the -400 was introduced to British Midland's fleet in the late 80s, all the -200 rated pilots did was a multi choice exam (not sure about any Sim time) and off they went, flying paying Pax, and still asking each other, "What does this button do?" I thought that Kegworth had put a stop to all that!

If re certification is required, then maybe a lot of customers will simply cancel and buy something else, like an A320NEO or even a Comac C919?

Please dont think that I am anti Boeing, far from it....they have made some truly wonderful aircraft over the years, my favourite is the 757, a true workhorse, even now Airbus struggle to match it with the A321..

Although I am not really a frequent flyer, I have flown in a large number of different types, including Airliners, gliders, microlights, helicopters and a Hawk jet trainer, I have never got in an aircraft that I was afraid of....but now I for one will be avoiding the MAX like the Plague!

Oh, and the comment about all US pilots being damn good pilots without any bad ones, was arrogant beyond belief!

[Harry Wayfarers]

I have watched this story unfold for some time, and what really worries me is that Boeing and the FAA will come up with a MCAS 2.0 or whatever, and try and tell every Airworthiness board and the General Public, that the MAX is "safe and a perfectly good airplane"

It seems the general opinion here and elsewhere, that MCAS is more than a software fix to make the MAX fly like a 737NG, to avoid recertification and all the pitfalls and expense that this would entail...do we know if the MAX can fly to all corners of the envelope without MCAS? If it cannot, then will Boeing re certify it as a "7X7" and train pilots accordingly, or just try a PR campaign to convince everyone that its safe as is? Or will they just say that the whole MAX programme is simply too big to fail, and nearly 5000 orders cannot be cancelled?

How far will Boeing develop the 737 after this, and still insist that intrinsically, its still a good ol 1967 based B737? As someone has already mentioned, when the -400 was introduced to British Midland's fleet in the late 80s, all the -200 rated pilots did was a multi choice exam (not sure about any Sim time) and off they went, flying paying Pax, and still asking each other, "What does this button do?" I thought that Kegworth had put a stop to all that!

If re certification is required, then maybe a lot of customers will simply cancel and buy something else, like an A320NEO or even a Comac C919?

Please dont think that I am anti Boeing, far from it....they have made some truly wonderful aircraft over the years, my favourite is the 757, a true workhorse, even now Airbus struggle to match it with the A321..

Although I am not really a frequent flyer, I have flown in a large number of different types, including Airliners, gliders, microlights, helicopters and a Hawk jet trainer, I have never got in an aircraft that I was afraid of....but now I for one will be avoiding the MAX like the Plague!

Oh, and the comment about all US pilots being damn good pilots without any bad ones, was arrogant beyond belief!

Logically correct and a very good post but just to be technically correct, regarding the British Midland incident, the UK CAA do not consider the -200 and -300 to be of the same type, I believe that the BMA crew had trained on the -300 with just a quickie differences course to the -400 except that the bleed air thingy was different on the -400 so when they received all the excrement hitting the fan warnings in the cockpit they shut down the engine as if it were a -300, but the wrong engine for a -400, Wikipedia explains it better than I can

[ATSA1]

Thanks for the correction...

[ATSA1]

I am also curious as to how Airbus got the A320NEO up and running with far less trouble, except for a niggle with a launch customer! maybe Airbus use of full FBW from the start with the A320 made it far simpler to upgrade with different engines!

[peter we]

I am also curious as to how Airbus got the A320NEO up and running with far less trouble, except for a niggle with a launch customer! maybe Airbus use of full FBW from the start with the A320 made it far simpler to upgrade with different engines!

There is more ground clearance under the wings of a A320.

[Harry Wayfarers]

There is more ground clearance under the wings of a A320.

Much alike the DC8 vs B707 wiith the DC8 being designed to take propellors there wasn't a problem in it's later years taking fan engines for the -70 series.

The B737 was deigned for JT9 'rockets' but ever since the -300 series, with the flat bottomed enginge cowlings, Boeing. have been 'scratching' it.

Airbus came along with a natural sized Y190 (ish) A320, a stretched A321 variant capable of Y230 (ish) but for Boeing's 737 to compete with an A320 they have already stretched it and simply cannot compete with the A321.

A 53 y/o concept designed to take underwing 'rockets' still going today! It's not just the Max's ID that has been tarnished, it's the B737 ID that has been tarnished, we might recognise the different generations of airliners here but, generally speaking, Joe Public don't, were it a particular model of BMW car that were tagged as life threatening do you think that potential cusatomers would remember the precise ID or just avoid that brand of car totally?

Time for a wake-up Boeing, time to start from scratch again, a new aircraft with longer legs to take the fan engines and call it anything except a 737 or even a Boeing.

[DaveReidUK]

Much alike the DC8 vs B707 wiith the DC8 being designed to take propellors there wasn't a problem in it's later years taking fan engines for the -70 series.

To be fair, the 707 can also accommodate the CFM56 underwing.

[ATSA1]

although a B707 with CFM56's is a bit tight on ground clearance, especially on crosswind landings!

[slf4life]

I guess the aviation industry did not foresee that engine advancement would actually mean going back to 'big props' - just inside a cowling :ok:

[Asturias56]

I suspect they were thinking they'd be building completely new designs every 10-15 years . That's the way it was until the 70's and then stretching came into fashion eg the DC-8 and people realised you didn't have to buy or build a risky new design. Not just passenger aircraft - the C-130 and of course the B-52 are even older than the 737 design

[Harry Wayfarers]

I suspect they were thinking they'd be building completely new designs every 10-15 years . That's the way it was until the 70's and then stretching came into fashion eg the DC-8 and people realised you didn't have to buy or build a risky new design. Not just passenger aircraft - the C-130 and of course the B-52 are even older than the 737 design

And the Martin B-57 design is probably even older than the B-52 but they're not still manufacturing them and trying to flog them for fare paying passengers!

[rog747]

Ryanair say they will not now see their new MAX's in service before OCT...

MOL said yesterday -
One of the world’s largest airlines, Ryanair has 135 of the planes on order, but none in service. O’Leary has previously said it would not take orders in July or August because it is the airline’s busiest time of the year.
“We were meant to have 58 planes by the summer,” O’Leary said in the interview, extracts from which were published on Friday. “That went down to 30, then 20, then 10 and the latest is maybe only five. It’s possible we’ll only get the first jets in October 2020.
FR have a 737 MAX 8-200 version unique to them.

Implications for TUI UK will be likely the same for them...Therefore I can see any return to service in the main for TUI would be for the following summer in 2021.
TUI would not need new MAX deliveries to be introduced during the winter 20-21 season.
They have 6 grounded in UK/EU plus a handful of brand new ones parked up at Boeing.
TUI also had a large MAX -10 order that was to start to be fulfilled for S20

[Clandestino]

As SLF, how can I best avoid future travel on 737 max?

I would venture a guess that by just booking your flight from A to B at will and at the time of your choice, you will avoid future travel on 737 max.

Yes thats fair enough but makes you wonder what other shortcuts were taken with other models or manufacturers alsoTrue. Every new aeroplane that after a couple of years in service crashes twice, killing 300+ or so pax and crew should be subjected to the same scrutiny as MAX is.

Geoge Glass, rude stuff, 27/09 and Dark Knight 19 will have a lot of humble pie to consume if there is another 737 max flight control system related accident.I guesstimate we won't see any MAX in-service accident ever again, let alone flight control system related one, so there won't be any need for serving the humble pie.


Remove MCAS (as many keep saying on the forums) and that leaves an unstable 737 MAX family, versus a stable 737NG family and thus needs a redesign and new approval.That's not the way I see it; methinks it is pretty stable but not quite in accordance with regulations NG vs. even more unstable MAX. I'll return to that in a moment.

The more you read (including the statements and actions of B.) the more you realise that they STILL have not got the point. The Board should have resigned en masse, months ago. The company will survive because Washington DC neeeds it to survive but few of the parties at the top have yet realised that (almost certainly) the only way to regain confidence is to pay the compensation, scrap the MAX and start again.I beg to differ. The way I see it, Boeing mgmt were very aware what could had gone wrong immediately the Lion Air speared in and had their fears confirmed by the Ethiopian tragedy. While their actions looks unreasonable in isolation, I find them quite rational for someone who is clutching at the straws. They seem to be very aware that under the current regulations the MAX is uncertifiable without MCAS and if it were admitted what MCAS actually is, it would be very doubtful that grandfather rights are still applicable. What they are doing all this time is treading the water while hoping geared fans will turn out to be dissapointing and the world returns to CFM-56 (scrapping the 320NEO in process) or every aviation authority relaxes the certification standards while applying them retroactively to existing designs such as MAX. Of course Washington would like Boeing to survive as the damage from its demise could be so bad to steer the USA into recession, not to mention extreme damage to aerospace industry and the national pride, but the horrible prospect of letting the Boeing die commercial death might be the cheapest option on the table.

Sorry for going overly techy, hopefully someone would be able to translate it into more understandable jargon if needed.

So what are those MCAS and STS? One would expect that something that has "system" in its acronym to be a system. Not quite so. First, the FAA convened the Joint Authorities Technical Review of 737 MAX flight controls. In its final submitta (https://www.faa.gov/news/media/attachments/Final_JATR_Submittal_to_FAA_Oct_2019.pdf)l, it was quite careful not to offend the host so its relevant finding was a bit spiced with doubt:

Finding F3.5-C: The JATR team considers that the STS/MCAS and EFS
functions could be considered as stall identification systems or stall protection
systems, depending on the natural (unaugmented) stall characteristics of the
aircraft. From its data review, the JATR team was unable to completely rule out
the possibility that these augmentation systems function as a stall protection
system.

However, Indonesian accident investigation board, in association with the NTSB, was not mincing words when describing STS/MCAS in its final PQ-LQP crash report (http://knkt.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_aviation/baru/2018%20-%20035%20-%20PK-LQP%20Final%20Report.pdf):
Similar to the Speed Trim Function, the MCAS function is also a flight control law contained within each of the two FCCs.
Wow. STS and MCAS are merely software. Worse, they are there to augment the flight, which is fancy phrase for protecting the aeroplane from going into the parts of the flight envelope from which recovery is difficult or impossible. It could be all good, except the pilots of B737s were not even being told they are flying the flight augmentation devices equipped aeroplanes. At least pilots flying FBW Airbi, 310s or F100s are informed about their control laws, their failures and reversions. Also, the SAS hasn't been introduced on MAX or NG, it is with us since 737-300, nowadays called "classic".

Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with putting the stability augmentation and stall prevention systems in the aeroplanes lacking lawfully prescribed natural stability as long as the risk of failure modes is properly assessed and flightcrews informed what their aeroplane is supposed to do and what to do when it doesn't. Both were sadly lacking in MAX case and I suspect failing to declare STS as stability augmentation system paved the way to MCAS disaster and might imply that FAA was complicit in Boeing (mis)naming games since mid 1980s (it could also explain some of the distrust other aviation authorities displayed towards FAA when requiring separate independent MAX recertifications). If it's indeed so, then the bankruptcy and the liquidation of Boeing Co would neatly sweep the issue under the rug with the whole 737 program dead and any certifying issues rendered irrelevant, especially as the NGs have been proven to be safe in operation. Space, military aircraft and widebodies could be picked up and continued by other aerospace companies.

Pilots will fly the MAX if it’s eventually allowed to fly, not because it’s safe, but because they are captives of their pay cheques. Principles won’t feed your family.Exactly. That's the way it goes with any aircraft and I don't think MAX would be an exception if it ever flies again (small chance).

So, folks, are you offended with the doom & gloom of my post? Do you think I'm Putinist trollbot bent on soiling the reputation of the best narrowbody in the world? Your previous experiences might indeed steer you in that direction. I hate to go autobiographical on the PPRuNe, yet I feel compelled to admit that I really enjoy flying the 738, as I have indeed enjoyed last six years of playing with her NWS tiller. I love working for my current company, especially after some quite unsavoury experiences with the previous one, but as it bet its future entirely on MAX, I'm not totally confident I'll be able to enjoy flying here in the years to come. I learnt to fly 320 a dozen years ago, I can re-learn it again and with 4000 MRJT command hours under the belt, out of total slightly above 10k, I don't think that I'll have problem finding non-type rated captain (or in emergency; F/O) job even in the world that has about thousand less 180seaters than planned and that burned through the remaining hours of low MSN ACMI 320s and 738s during summer 2019 like crazy but I would rather prefer that I won't need to.

However, my feelings towards the 737 or Boeing Co can absolutely make no difference on the outcome of MAX catastrophe. I am afraid that too many pilots and too many passengers will be chasing not enough of their respective seats, pushing the pay and commuting opportunities down. May FSM help us all.

[Harry Wayfarers]

I would venture a guess that by just booking your flight from A to B at will and at the time of your choice, you will avoid future travel on 737 max.

True. Every new aeroplane that after a couple of years in service crashes twice, killing 300+ or so pax and crew should be subjected to the same scrutiny as MAX is.

I guesstimate we won't see any MAX in-service accident ever again, let alone flight control system related one, so there won't be any need for serving the humble pie.

That's not the way I see it; methinks it is pretty stable but not quite in accordance with regulations NG vs. even more unstable MAX. I'll return to that in a moment.

I beg to differ. The way I see it, Boeing mgmt were very aware what could had gone wrong immediately the Lion Air speared in and had their fears confirmed by the Ethiopian tragedy. While their actions looks unreasonable in isolation, I find them quite rational for someone who is clutching at the straws. They seem to be very aware that under the current regulations the MAX is uncertifiable without MCAS and if it were admitted what MCAS actually is, it would be very doubtful that grandfather rights are still applicable. What they are doing all this time is treading the water while hoping geared fans will turn out to be dissapointing and the world returns to CFM-56 (scrapping the 320NEO in process) or every aviation authority relaxes the certification standards while applying them retroactively to existing designs such as MAX. Of course Washington would like Boeing to survive as the damage from its demise could be so bad to steer the USA into recession, not to mention extreme damage to aerospace industry and the national pride, but the horrible prospect of letting the Boeing die commercial death might be the cheapest option on the table.

Sorry for going overly techy, hopefully someone would be able to translate it into more understandable jargon if needed.

So what are those MCAS and STS? One would expect that something that has "system" in its acronym to be a system. Not quite so. First, the FAA convened the Joint Authorities Technical Review of 737 MAX flight controls. In its final submitta (https://www.faa.gov/news/media/attachments/Final_JATR_Submittal_to_FAA_Oct_2019.pdf)l, it was quite careful not to offend the host so its relevant finding was a bit spiced with doubt:



However, Indonesian accident investigation board, in association with the NTSB, was not mincing words when describing STS/MCAS in its final PQ-LQP crash report (http://knkt.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_aviation/baru/2018%20-%20035%20-%20PK-LQP%20Final%20Report.pdf):

Wow. STS and MCAS are merely software. Worse, they are there to augment the flight, which is fancy phrase for protecting the aeroplane from going into the parts of the flight envelope from which recovery is difficult or impossible. It could be all good, except the pilots of B737s were not even being told they are flying the flight augmentation devices equipped aeroplanes. At least pilots flying FBW Airbi, 310s or F100s are informed about their control laws, their failures and reversions. Also, the SAS hasn't been introduced on MAX or NG, it is with us since 737-300, nowadays called "classic".

Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with putting the stability augmentation and stall prevention systems in the aeroplanes lacking lawfully prescribed natural stability as long as the risk of failure modes is properly assessed and flightcrews informed what their aeroplane is supposed to do and what to do when it doesn't. Both were sadly lacking in MAX case and I suspect failing to declare STS as stability augmentation system paved the way to MCAS disaster and might imply that FAA was complicit in Boeing (mis)naming games since mid 1980s (it could also explain some of the distrust other aviation authorities displayed towards FAA when requiring separate independent MAX recertifications). If it's indeed so, then the bankruptcy and the liquidation of Boeing Co would neatly sweep the issue under the rug with the whole 737 program dead and any certifying issues rendered irrelevant, especially as the NGs have been proven to be safe in operation. Space, military aircraft and widebodies could be picked up and continued by other aerospace companies.

Exactly. That's the way it goes with any aircraft and I don't think MAX would be an exception if it ever flies again (small chance).

So, folks, are you offended with the doom & gloom of my post? Do you think I'm Putinist trollbot bent on soiling the reputation of the best narrowbody in the world? Your previous experiences might indeed steer you in that direction. I hate to go autobiographical on the PPRuNe, yet I feel compelled to admit that I really enjoy flying the 738, as I have indeed enjoyed last six years of playing with her NWS tiller. I love working for my current company, especially after some quite unsavoury experiences with the previous one, but as it bet its future entirely on MAX, I'm not totally confident I'll be able to enjoy flying here in the years to come. I learnt to fly 320 a dozen years ago, I can re-learn it again and with 4000 MRJT command hours under the belt, out of total slightly above 10k, I don't think that I'll have problem finding non-type rated captain (or in emergency; F/O) job even in the world that has about thousand less 180seaters than planned and that burned through the remaining hours of low MSN ACMI 320s and 738s during summer 2019 like crazy but I would rather prefer that I won't need to.

However, my feelings towards the 737 or Boeing Co can absolutely make no difference on the outcome of MAX catastrophe. I am afraid that too many pilots and too many passengers will be chasing not enough of their respective seats, pushing the pay and commuting opportunities down. May FSM help us all.

Who said it's the best narrow body in the world, previous generations of B737 might have sold more because they haven't changed the '737' label for 53 years but how can the current 737 be the best narrow body when it is responsible for killing so many people and is grounded woirldwide?

I'd suggest that perhaps what they are labelling to be the 'A220' to be the best current narrow body, by all accounts it is loved by passengers, crews and operators alike, apparently very fuel efficient, 'best' isn't decided upon which has sold more simply because they have never changed the name of series after series after series of different aircraft!

[ATSA1]

I wonder if the 400+ MAX airframes can be remanufactured as NGs with the older engines?
If not, its either A) scrap them?
or
B) re certify them as B797s, if MCAS can be approved?
or
C) get the FAA to sign it off as just another B737, and get a Mega PR exercise to tell everyone how wonderful the MAX really is?
or
D) get Boeing to leave the narrowbody market to Airbus for a few years, and design a real "clean sheet" aircraft to replace the MAX ASAP?

[retiredmecheng]

Hey I'm not sure if this is the right place to post, but there has just been a release of redacted Boeing emails, that at first glance look pretty incriminating. See cnn, or the verge, or npr. Perhaps time for a new thread?

[Harry Wayfarers]

One unnamed employee wrote in an exchange of instant messages in April 2017: "This airplane is designed by clowns who in turn are supervised by monkeys."

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51058929

[slf4life]

This entire Max debacle has become a case study of what happens when self regulation runs amok. Very sobering when every day you see news of the same 'profit at any cost' thinking taking place in multiple large industries, happily enabled by government partners.

[PAXboy]

One of the constants in humans is that: When a disaster happens, it is soon discovered that responsible people within the organisation had been warning of this exact event - and were ignored due to money and politics. {internal politics and/or govt politics}

[PHDracing]

One of the constants in humans is that: When a disaster happens, it is soon discovered that responsible people within the organisation had been warning of this exact event - and were ignored due to money and politics. {internal politics and/or govt politics}
Of course.
But also, quite often with no disaster, malcontents and neer-do-wells are discovered within the organization sabotaging the company on a daily basis. It is often very difficult rooting these people out.

[Clandestino]

Who said it's the best narrow body in the world, previous generations of B737 might have sold more because they haven't changed the '737' label for 53 years but how can the current 737 be the best narrow body when it is responsible for killing so many people and is grounded woirldwide?It was the sentiment dispensed at large in discussions regarding the future of MAX, 737 and Boeing, here and in the rest of the internet.

I'd suggest that perhaps what they are labelling to be the 'A220' to be the best current narrow body, by all accounts it is loved by passengers, crews and operators alike, apparently very fuel efficientQuite so, but then A220 is five-abreast narrowbody with significantly lesser capacity than MAX. MAX'es demise will leave only 320 in 180 seat niche.

I wonder if the 400+ MAX airframes can be remanufactured as NGs with the older engines?Technically, it should be possible. However, convincing the airlines and engine manufacturers to make step back when the world has decided the geared fan is the way to go might be difficult to impossible.

If not, its either A) scrap them?Probably.

B) re certify them as B797s, if MCAS can be approved?It can't. It doesn't comply with overridability required of anti-stall devices such as stickpushers. Removing it and installing proper stickpusher would probably render grandfather certification rights nil and void and make MAX uncertifiable.

C) get the FAA to sign it off as just another B737, and get a Mega PR exercise to tell everyone how wonderful the MAX really is?The rest of the world has already said it won't dance to that tune - aviation authorities will require independent recertification of the MAX, if FAA ever approves it.

D) get Boeing to leave the narrowbody market to Airbus for a few years, and design a real "clean sheet" aircraft to replace the MAX ASAP?For that, it needs to survive the current mess and it is not given.

[Asturias56]

I don't think the US govt would let Boeing go bust.................

[Clandestino]

It's not their intentions I find doubtful but rather their capability.

[Groundloop]

Technically, it should be possible. However, convincing the airlines and engine manufacturers to make step back when the world has decided the geared fan is the way to go might be difficult to impossible.

The LEAP is not a geared fan engine.

[Asturias56]

and has problems all of it's own - as does every modern jet engine - they've pushed the envelope to the limit TBH

[Clandestino]

The LEAP is not a geared fan engine.

Thank you for correction, I should have written " the world has decided the big, slow fan (geared or otherwise) is the way to go" instead.