Given the recent crash of the 737-MAX and a few airlines grounding them again, I was wondering if you guys thought it was safe to travel in?
The original crashes and grounding coupled with recent events has me on edge.
I have a flight booked on one for VA in a few weeks and was considering canceling it given what’s transpired.
I wouldn't trust it for mainly the following reason (from CNN)
“Boeing needed to combat what Airbus were doing with the A320neo, a version of the plane with a new engine that was quite substantially more fuel efficient,” says Simons.
To do so, however, the company ran into a problem it had encountered before: the new, much bigger engines it wanted for the 737 Max wouldn’t fit under the plane’s low wings – an issue Airbus didn’t have, because the A320 was already a much taller plane than the 737.
The solution was to add some length to the front landing gear and mount the engines further forward and higher on the wings, giving them the clearance they needed.
But, as Boeing later found out in simulators, this altered the plane’s aerodynamics, making it tilt up dangerously in certain situations.
To counter the problem, the company devised a safety system called MCAS, which would immediately push the 737’s nose down if it tilted too high.
Because MCAS was designed to make the 737 Max fly just like previous 737s, and because Boeing believed that it would come into action only in extreme flying circumstances, it was kept almost secret.
Boeing decided against including it in the brief lesson that pilots already certified for previous 737s needed to take to fly the 737 Max.
Furthermore, MCAS relied on a single sensor, a heresy in aviation where redundancy is always preferred."
“In my view, the Max was a series of modifications too far. They should have never come out with it in the first place. They should have sat down with a blank computer screen to design an entirely new aircraft,” says Simons.
According to internal documents released in early 2020, one Boeing employee described the airplane as “designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys.”
The Story Behind a Troubled Aircraft https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/boeing-737-story-behind-t…
yep, not worth it. I always check when booking flights that its not a 737 Max.
Some pay extra for a convertible.
Are there many that fly into/within Australia?
@banana365: Not much here yet. I believe virgin have a few and Bonza have plenty, Max8 though not Max9 which was involved in the Alaska Airlines incident
Designed by clowns managed by monkeys… Sounds like more of the DEI hiring practices coming into play. All well and good when it's the social media company hiring based on DEI… Not so much when it's the aerospace engineer who designed the aircraft you are flying across the planet on 🤔
This is hilarious because Boeing ranks very poorly for D&I, while Airbus ranks very highly (top 25% for Airbus vs bottom 35% for Boeing).
Nothing to do with aerospace engineers either, they sounded the alarm about this terrible design internally, but were shut down by corporate execs who went ahead with it out of short-sighted greed and profit.
Almost all disasters like this come from business-school buffoons who couldn't explain basic aerospace mechanics if they had a month to study, somehow we've put the know-nots in charge of the know-hows
and outsourcing critical code:
Boeing's 737 Max Software Outsourced to $9-an-Hour Engineers
https://www.industryweek.com/supply-chain/article/22027840/b…
@Binchicken22, Why bring unwanted hatred that is clearly not founded given the very next comment? Do you think engineers from diverse backgrounds are less skilled or that they can magically side step quality assurance, testing and extensive regulations or do you think that your reasoning is perhaps wrong?
There appears to be a distinct similarity between your comment and the spin of Boeing execs when rolling out the max, that they had developed a next gen air craft with no additional pilot training or certification requirements. Appealing statements based on false information which lead to dangerous consequences. Do better!
@guster33: In my experience, absolutely, people are being hired because they meet certain physical criteria, vagina, skin colour etc and more qualified people are overlooked. If you aren't seeing this you are absolutely delusional.
I'm not saying they are hiring cleaners to do engineering work, but they are hiring say, a graduate female engineer over a male engineer with 20 years experience. This is absolutely happening, stop trying to gaslight people into thinking it's not, do better!
and now?
Shouldn't they be MORE careful now?
The core problem is too many components and software worth limited testing, unlike the original 737 series.
no, no. The core problem is bad design, bad workmanship, corner cutting, then bribing their way through the FAA certification process by essentially self certifying it.
Profit above lifes sums it up.
What do you expect from Made in USA? The illusion of quality when they produce crap.
Drive an American made car and you’ll realise.
Sounds like NSW apartment building industry.
It has nothing to do with human error, there are some hardware/software issues causing this.
I guess that hardware and software was not designed by humans?
Well it's not operator fault
I'm in more danger going to/from the airport than in the aeroplane.
stats are going to change very soon - giggle
Not if I'm taking the train to and from the airport
Not if you are in Melbourne
What recent crash?
Probably the Alaska Airlines Window Seat Upgrade
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-06/alaska-airlines-groun…
Yeah but thats not a crash though. Also OP says a few airlines are grounding them again but i can only find news about alaska airlines?
I read the OP as referring to the grounding after the two MCAS-related crashes.
@bdl: That was the 737-MAX8, was it not?
The latest Alaskan incident (which was not a crash) is the 737-MAX9
Delta and others are also grounding the 737
https://www.paddleyourownkanoo.com/2024/01/06/faa-orders-gro…
FAA (US air authority) has grounded all 737-MAX9s until they all get that panelling (that flew off on the Alaskan incident) inspected. So it is a very temporary grounding - some planes have already been inspected and are back in operation.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12982275/Terrifying…
'Mayday, mayday, we have an engine fire': Moment Atlas Air pilot frantically requests clearance to land as flames shoot from Boeing 747 jet after Miami take-off - as inspectors 'find softball size hole' above engine
If it crashed why would I care, I'd be dead. And one of my biggest fears is dying alone. I might actually start making sure my flights are on a 737-MAX from now on actually…
Maybe you should become a bus driver.
"Everyone dies alone…."
"But no matter how many allies you have around you, when you die, you'll be alone."
The great Existential dilemma
Your family might care. But if you have no friends or family then yeh who cares if you die
If it crashed why would I care, I'd be dead. And one of my biggest fears is dying alone. I might actually start making sure my flights are on a 737-MAX from now on actually…
Wtf…
Are you OK?
You seem to have quite a bit of a complex about your hypothetical death there and/or suicidal ideation.
I might be wrong, but I believe the idea of airplanes is that you get from A to B without crashing.
Sure, if I had a licence
And don’t call me shirley
Why blame the plane and not the pilot?
Why would you be on edge? Zero chance of getting on one in Australia so unless you're overseasflying LCC. Honestly, Id be more worried about other things - moron passengers stopping my escape for one…
WTF are you banging on about? Maybe lookup the types used in the Bonza fleet.
Pretty sure virgin have at least 3 flying domestically in Oz at the moment and more incoming.
FFS.
Bonza doesn’t use that specific model nor does Virgin. 9News stated no Australian domestic airline uses the specific model involved in the incident.
Correct. Bonza fly Boeing 737 MAX 8. As opposed to the plane in question which was a Boeing 737 MAX 9.
@HamBoi69: Well that's ok then - we only have the version flying that crashed twice with all souls lost. We want that version, not the version that sometimes loses a window with no casualties.
Not true. I've flown on a 737-MAX when I flew SYD-PER on Virgin.
I think they are referring to the same aircraft as the Alaska Airlines aircraft, in which there is zero chance of getting on one in Australia, as there are no 737 MAX 9's in Australia and none on order.
The question stated by the OP is would you fly a 737-MAX; whilst indeed referring to the recent incident, one could also infer they were referring to the entire 737-MAX family which includes the 737-MAX 8, 737-MAX 9, 737-MAX 10 (and probably others I'm not aware of?
@kerfuffle: Just putting things into perspective with your reply to Benoffie, as clearly the MAX 9 is what their comment was about, as apart from the branding "MAX" & "737" they are completely different aircraft, but I get your point.
We could take it further and say would you get on any 737 series.
The real issue is that this was a modified 737 MAX 9, a door plugged with a window, this will be interesting to see who screwed up fitting that!
@SimAus007: That isn't a modified 737 Max 9. Whether a plug or a door is included is purely a seating layout decision and it is done during the build.
@gromit: It is modified, the door plug is supplied by Spirit Aero Systems, which installed the plug door that fell out on Friday. This aircraft modification is known in the industry as a “nonstandard manufacturing process”.
Next Poll
Would you Pay $$$ Extra for a Exit Row Seat with Extra Leg Room and to chance for a Free Sky Diving Session
It wasn't an exit row. On the Alaska Airlines plane the exit door location that blew out had been replaced with a plug and converted to normal-looking fuselage. Eliminating the exit row and door allowed the airline to have tighter rows of seating and therefore larger passenger capacity. If the row had actually included a door, as it was designed to, then the plane would almost certainly have been fine.
Really would have sucked if it was another type of emergency that required an evacuation on the ground and there are less doors.
How was that even approved?
there are less doors.
Less doors than what? The doors required are related to the number of seats on board. This aircraft would have had less than the maximum number of seats configured, thus they did not require that additional emergency exit door to be active.
For example, if a plane can physically be installed with 200 economy seats, some airlines could choose to only install only 150 seats (including first class) and an extra bathroom for passenger comfort, thus there are less emergency exit door(s) required.
How was that even approved?
The problem is that Boeing did not screw on the door safely.
And in case you were curious as to why to install them in the first place? Airlines buy them like this because:
"it's easier to sell later on or reuse an aircraft that is fully capable of passenger use than one that is cargo only or limited in capacity.".
It was approved because the fuselages are all made the same - with the exit door cut out. If an airline wants a very high density configuration, there is a door placed there. If the airline has fewer seats (as is the case with Alaska Airlines), the door cutout is plugged.
It's all to do with regulations, The number of exits corresponds to the number of seats. That's why for example the A321 (which is a longer aircraft therefore higher capacity), has 8 standard door exits, whilst the A320 has 4 standard door exits, and 4 overing exits.
It's perfectly safe, it's just the way Boeing decided to plug the door cutout isn't how it's usually done.
Really would have sucked…
Indeed!
While the F.A.A. has yet to publicly discuss the cause of the incident, in its grounding order to the airlines, it asked that they inspect what it called a “mid cabin door plug.” Some of the Boeing 737 Max 9s are configured with fewer seats and, therefore, do not need all the emergency exits originally designed for the plane. The unneeded exits are filled with a plug.
edit: this quote may be wrong. Another source said it was "plug door" that blew out, and the door was just covered with a plastic panel as not in use.
Not only that - but most fuselage plugs are exactly that - plugs. They can't physically be blown out as they are bigger than the hole they are filling. Boeing, to cut costs, simply bolted this panel in instead of using a plug, which meant that any weakness would severely compromise the structure.
This isn't quite correct by my understanding. The door is in the design for configurations with a higher seat count where an extra exit is needed by law. Most planes will have these doors plugged except on the most budget of carries.
Sorry, my license is for 737-8 only…
Yes I’d fly one for the adrenaline rush
Isle seat only :)
Aisle?
The meaning of ISLE is island; especially : a small island.
Unless you mean a deck chair on a beach.
I think they meant seat on a beach after the crash, right next to Wilson.
So long as it's not Kevin Bl**dy Wilson.
Oof, whatever meds you're on, double the dosage.
Sir, you're rambling
Sir, this is a Wendy’s
you attempt to mate with Wendy?
For starters, there are no 737 MAX 9 aircraft in Australia, which is what the Alaska Airlines aircraft was with the converted door to window, but MAX 8's, yes, I have flown on them several times and wouldn't give it a second thought, they are probably one of the safest aircraft out there now after the accidents they had a few years back and there are almost 1000 of them currently in service around the world with zero further issues since.
They are essentially the same plane- going through the same aircraft design and manufacturing process. If Boeing were so thorough with the Max 8s to make them the "safest aircraft out there" why did they not do same quality inspections and checks on the Max 9?
If its Boeing I'm not going
If it's an Airbus I'm not making a fuss
I'd rather be shot on the spot than fly Aeroflot.
There's no point of asking the question. Anyone who says they're still alive is just basing that on Survivorship bias.
Better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than in the air wishing you were on the ground.
I mean, you will eventually be on the ground - or in the sea. Not knowing at what velocity is the fun part.
if it is a Boeing i ain't going
When they were flying into the ground I remember checking this out. The 737-MAX is a bit of a cobbled together monster. Ancient airframe + new heavier engines + software to correct the inherent compromised design … hopefully.
Something like that.
How easy is it to get an Airbus flying out of Australia?
Easy as pie.
Just point it in the right direction.
Somewhere about 10 years ago, Boeing design and quality control fell by the wayside… happy to fly the Dreamliners but nothing after that.
Seems to coincide with the big DEI hiring push over the last decade 🤔… Couldn't possibly be related though.
Does outsourcing to non-union factories with poor labor regulations count as DEI? I suppose it does make them more diverse
Did so recently, didn’t give it a second thought.