SLF avoid travel on 737 max

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Originally Posted by Dark Knight

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]

Originally Posted by 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 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]

Originally Posted by Gertrude the Wombat

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]

Originally Posted by rog747

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]

Originally Posted by 27/09

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 27/09

.... 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]

Originally Posted by autoflight

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]

Originally Posted by davidjpowell

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by rog747

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]

Originally Posted by NWA SLF

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]

Originally Posted by 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......

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!