°µÍø½ûÇø

Agree completely! I will not go on one with foreknowledge. Very uncomfortable flight on one to China before the 2 crashes. Now Boeing is also not hiring necessarily the most talented as they indicated a 20% hiring on diversity grounds!

Transparency would be nice!
Need to know type and age of plane and command crew's experience via flight hours on plane traveling on.
Ideally before buying ticket.

No problem for me

Dated design fitted with engines the airframe was never intended to use. Rather than retrain aircrew Boeing opted for a software fix but didn't bother telling pilots about it.

It’s been a good life. I would get on one without a worry!

Hooked wrote:

It’s been a good life. I would get on one without a worry!

Jlgarbutt wrote:

Dated design fitted with engines the airframe was never intended to use. Rather than retrain aircrew Boeing opted for a software fix but didn't bother telling pilots about it.

I saw a documentary about that & it was scary.  Originally the engines were slung too low & would hit the ground when landing I think it said, so the quick fix was to raise the engines which made them partly above the top edge of the wing & that's why they had to do the software thingy......well it was something like that it said. Found this on YouTube its not the documentary I saw but it explains better than my ramble.

Definitive ID of 737 Max is scalloped engine cowling.

Hooked wrote:

It’s been a good life. I would get on one without a worry!

Mine has been good also, but I wouldn't want to end it in sheer terror. 

If I ever get to fly again, I'll avoid them for a year or more to make sure there are no more crashes, because their design is a complete kludge that should have never have been approved.

Kettlebellrick wrote:

Now Boeing is also not hiring necessarily the most talented as they indicated a 20% hiring on diversity grounds!

Except for testing, I am pretty sure that Boeing is not hiring the pilots.  Pilots are hired by the airlines although Boeing may train them.  I saw that Boeing has made a dedicated flight simulator/trainer for the 737 Max.   

On the subject of diversity hiring generally, you are making the assumption that some of those hired are not qualified.  What if 100% of those hired are well qualified and most all of those not hired are well qualified as well?  Similarly, almost all of the rejected applicants to Ivy League schools are fully qualified to attend.

goodolboy wrote:

Jlgarbutt wrote:

Dated design fitted with engines the airframe was never intended to use. Rather than retrain aircrew Boeing opted for a software fix but didn't bother telling pilots about it.

I saw a documentary about that & it was scary.  Originally the engines were slung too low & would hit the ground when landing I think it said, so the quick fix was to raise the engines which made them partly above the top edge of the wing & that's why they had to do the software thingy......well it was something like that it said. Found this on YouTube its not the documentary I saw but it explains better than my ramble.

Cheap Boeing junk. The 737 has been arpund so long now that they shpild really scrap it, Airbus has had the ipper hand for design for a while now. A350 thrashes the dreamliner in terms of refinement, A380 destroyed the 747...

In the aussie media.

Hooked wrote:

It’s been a good life. I would get on one without a worry!

paulmsn wrote:

Mine has been good also, but I wouldn't want to end it in sheer terror.

Quote of the day! 

Jlgarbutt wrote:

Dated design fitted with engines the airframe was never intended to use. Rather than retrain aircrew Boeing opted for a software fix but didn't bother telling pilots about it.

The crashes were not because of the engines.  They were caused by faulty angle-of-attack sensors and the pilots not having been trained for that scenario.  Training of the pilots may be done by the manufacturer, but the airline must request it and pay for it.  It was an option to have two A-o-A sensors, which was not exercised.  I suspect the FAA now requires two on all those planes.

Jlgarbutt wrote:

A380 destroyed the 747...

Yes to the A380 vs 747.  It's a bit like my Honda 160 (bought 1967) vs my Honda Lead (now using it).  1969 vs 2007 for first customer deliveries.  37 years of refinements will make a better product.  Customers are not ordering any more now, though.

Travelfar wrote:

Jlgarbutt wrote:

Dated design fitted with engines the airframe was never intended to use. Rather than retrain aircrew Boeing opted for a software fix but didn't bother telling pilots about it.

The crashes were not because of the engines.  They were caused by faulty angle-of-attack sensors and the pilots not having been trained for that scenario.  Training of the pilots may be done by the manufacturer, but the airline must request it and pay for it.  It was an option to have two A-o-A sensors, which was not exercised.  I suspect the FAA now requires two on all those planes.

Adding bigger engines to an old airframe caused instability during takeoff, Boeing's solution to prevent the aircraft from stalling lead to the crashes.

Indirectly the engines were responsible, but the software fix was the reason pilots couldn't control the aircraft

Boeing did the fix of bigger engines rather than redesign the entire aircraft such as Airbus did. The suits were smirking all the way to the bank until several hundred people were killed. They were also smirking about training savings by keeping the software issue a secret. They were also smirking by not installing extra pitot tubes. What are they smirking about that could kill me now?

Never ever I will set my feet inside this crippled engineered aircraft. I will not expose myself to a suicide mission.

goodolboy wrote:

Just interested to know
how many of us would willingly get on a flight knowing its a 737MAX

1..........would you even check what model of aircraft you were traveling in.

2...........if there was another suitable flight available with a different aircraft.

3..........would you just think " sod it" I have had a good life & if my time is up, its up!

personally I think I would be a bit reluctant but if I did I would be crapping myself at every turbulence  bump! & probably would would not last the flight duration unless there was free flowing whiskey on demand.

I always know and check the aircraft equipment type when making airline reservations.  The 737 MAX equipment codes are listed in any of these codes:  7M7, 7M8,7M9,7MJ.

The biggest mistake Boeing made was to call it the "Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS)", which really has no meaning, they should have called it simply "Automatic Anti Stall System"  so that pilots & engineers would know what it was.

Nothing that wll be done to the MAX to improve safety matters to me.  I ain't never flying in one.

Didnt matter what they called it most pilots didnt even know MCAS existed

I had it pointed out to me by a pilot that all of the 737 Max crashes were with non-western pilots.  His observation was that western (or at least North American) pilots knew how to fly by the "seat of their pants" and just reflexively took over the controls to stop the stall.  By contrast, he said, Asian pilots fly by the rule book.   He worked for Continental but had spent a few years on loan to JAL to do 747 simulator training for them.  He said he would never fly with them himself.  I know at first this sounds racist, but if you think about it, it's a cultural criticism.

Read deeply into the causes of the crash of the Asiana 777 at SFO sometime between 2010 and 2015 -- can't remember off the top of my head. The cockpit culture of the Koreans was such that a younger, less experienced pilot would not dare to contradict or point out a problem to an older, more experience pilot at the controls. And this was cited as *one* of the (many) causes of that crash. Remarkably, something like 3 or 4 (?) people died but the plane was a total loss. A US pilot I know said that the plane missed the ideal runway touch-down point by a third of a mile (and tore the landing gear off the plane by striking the sea wall at the end of the runway).