# Fear Of Flying?



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

is it me? or does there seem to be an ongoing rash of plane crashes lately...led, of course by Boeing...
1 in Florida yesterday, 1 in Moscow today...others?
what to make of it all?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ You are not alone ... in your fear ... of flying. As for flying in a "Boeing-made" aircraft, not for a million bucks.

Off topic: I would be more fearful when driver-less cars become the reality. Not as a passenger, but as a pedestrian.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Much safer than driving. I understand that flying was, or is, statistically safer that being a pedestrian.

We fly often. Never really think about it. Cannot really, otherwise we might make an unsafe decision to stay home. I think I am used to flying. Traveled frequently on business. Flew all over BC and Alberta on smaller planes from the Dash 8, Fokers, down to the seaplanes and once a small private jet (customers, not mine).


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

Beaver101 said:


> As for flying in a "Boeing-made" aircraft, not for a million bucks.


Care to expand on your rationale behind that statement?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Lion Air disaster, then Ethiopian Air crash


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

That doesn't condemn all Boeing aircraft, not even the venerable 737. Just the 737MAX series.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Yea, you're right since do we have other choices of flying with a non-Boeing aircraft? But I would want to avoid the brand where (super) corporate greed overrides customers' safety.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

This thread is a good example of emotions taking control of rational, numbers-based decisions. Much like stock investing.

I have no issues flying. We have flights in the summer booked on 25+ yr old 767's and brand new 787's.
I think the airline (in a global sense) has a bigger impact on customer safety than the plane brand. Which is why safety awards are given out to airlines and not aircraft manufacturers.


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

jargey3000 said:


> is it me? or does there seem to be an ongoing rash of plane crashes lately...led, of course by Boeing...
> 1 in Florida yesterday, 1 in Moscow today...others?
> what to make of it all?


Commercial air transport since the introduction of the jet engine has become safer and safer every year since the late 50's even with a substantial increase in exposure. The moving average of fatal accidents is less than 1 in 10 million flights. I believe 2017 was the safest year plotting 0.03 deaths per million flights with over 35 million departures made globally. 

The amount of lift each year keeps going up. The number of aircraft keeps increasing. The number of flights keep going up. But the accident rates keep trending down. Volume doubles every 15 years or so and we keep proving an increase in safety. 

Over the last 20 years accident rates have reduced by 95%. Keep in mind there are over 40 definitions of an accident --- 9 times out of 10 these "accidents" don't even make the news. 

So in short, no. There is no increased rash of plane crashes led by Boeing. 

Boeing is responsible for the largest number of aircraft in commercial service in the world. Airbus follows as a close number 2. Over the last 20 years, the leading cause of crashes are Loss of Control in flight (not due to system malfunctions). Regardless of the manufacturer, we still have yet to eliminate human error...which is the leading cause of accidents over the last 20 years....not a manufacturer.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Oh hear we go again a la 'don't buy a Kia/Hyundai since one of their engines have recalls for going on fire. You don't not fly all Boeing aircraft because of one specific problem, you avoid the problem, not everything a company makes. 

Jargey3000, statistically flying is no riskier today than it was yesterday or last year. If you think about it, there are more planes flying every year and so there will be a corresponding rise in the number of accidents that's all. When there were 1 million flights per year and 1 accident per year the odds were 1 in 1,000,000. When there are 10 million flights per year and 10 accidents, the odds remain the same but the number of media reports goes up 10 fold.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Beaver, why would you think Airbus's profit motive is any different? 

Hate to keep going over the Boeing MAX issue but the 737MAX is a unique issue caused by design bastardization of a perfectly excellent aircraft (737) in the interest of greed and a regulator asleep at the switch. Almost all aircraft designs start from scratch for a specific function, whether an A320, regular issue 737 or (pick your model). The only variations in those basic designs would be 'extended length' or 'extended range'. The MAX changed the aerodynamic characteristics completely and that is the inherent flaw in the MAX. What is most egregious is their additional attempt to sell the MAX as just an 'improved' 737 not requiring unique pilot simulator training.

Expediency, compromise and misrepresentation is an expensive lesson that Boeing will not soon forget.


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ Yea, you're right since do we have other choices of flying with a non-Boeing aircraft? But I would want to avoid the brand where (super) corporate greed overrides customers' safety.


If Boeing was in the business (since 1916) of making aircraft that kill people, it wouldn't be around. 

Here is the short and dirty of your irrational decision based on 2 crashes. Both crew of the Lion Air and Ethiopian flights operated the aircraft outside of Boeing recommended procedures and ultimately wrote off an airplane with a number of passengers on board. You will see this in the accident report if you have done ANY homework at all.

This is the first time in History that an aircraft type was grounded due to social media outcry/public perception/emotion and not FACTS. The accident investigation was barely underway let alone complete before the public came running with pitch forks and tiki torches after a political move (China) banned the aircraft in their airspace. Almost like they have an aircraft hitting the markets that is in direct competition with Boeing and Airbus....oh wait, they do (C919)...but that's just a fun fact and something to think about.


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

AltaRed said:


> Beaver, why would you think Airbus's profit motive is any different?
> 
> Hate to keep going over the Boeing MAX issue but the 737MAX is a unique issue caused by design bastardization of a perfectly excellent aircraft (737) in the interest of greed and a regulator asleep at the switch. Almost all aircraft designs start from scratch for a specific function, whether an A320, regular issue 737 or (pick your model). The only variations in those basic designs would be 'extended length' or 'extended range'. The MAX changed the aerodynamic characteristics completely and that is the inherent flaw in the MAX. What is most egregious is their additional attempt to sell the MAX as just an 'improved' 737 not requiring unique pilot simulator training.
> 
> Expediency, compromise and misrepresentation is an expensive lesson that Boeing will not soon forget.


Dat-dat-dat...I wouldn't be so quick to point the greedy finger at Boeing. The manufacturer must also satisfy customer demands. Many customers of the world (I'm mainly looking at Southwest) wanted a new aircraft with the SAME type rating. This reduced training costs for the client, and a cost reduction for the manufacturer happens to be a by product. Southwest alone has over 700 737's and likely has just shy of 10 000 pilots to fill those seats. At roughly 30-40k in training per pilot that's a nice cost savings of $300-400M if you can maintain the same type rating and renew your fleet at the same time.

You can't tell me with a straight face that customers didn't demand Boeing produce an aircraft with the same type rating....there are over 10 000 737's in use today. So with 4-12 pilots to crew each plane -- that's what?.... $1.6-4.8B in training costs floating around if old 37's are going to be replaced and require additional training?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Well, sure customers have a demand, but Boeing does not have to oblige with a compromise solution. That doesn't forgive Boeing from inherently changing the flying characteristics of the aircraft without appropriate training requirements, i.e. it IS their name on the aircraft after all. IMO, the fundamental flaw in the sequence of events was not having duplicate sensors and a warning light as standard in such a 'critical' system. There is little doubt Boeing wishes they had made a few different decisions along the way. The ultimate test will be whether the 737MAX can survive this mess in numbers of such models to be sold.

Ultimately, I suspect Boeing will develop a 'new' 737 replacement over time - they have too to be on the same playing field with Airbus. The MAX is likely an interim measure to fill near term demand.


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

AltaRed said:


> Well, sure customers have a demand, but Boeing does not have to oblige with a compromise solution. That doesn't forgive Boeing from inherently changing the flying characteristics of the aircraft without appropriate training requirements, i.e. it IS their name on the aircraft after all. IMO, the fundamental flaw in the sequence of events was not having duplicate sensors and a warning light as standard in such a 'critical' system. There is little doubt Boeing wishes they had made a few different decisions along the way. The ultimate test will be whether the 737MAX can survive this mess in numbers of such models to be sold.
> 
> Ultimately, I suspect Boeing will develop a 'new' 737 replacement over time - they have too to be on the same playing field with Airbus. The MAX is likely an interim measure to fill near term demand.


It you strap anything to the outside of an aircraft it's going to modify the flying characteristics. Boeing (much like since the first 737) has once again put a bigger engine on the 737. Boeing installed MCAS such that the aircraft would fly very similar to the NG in all sectors of the flying envelope. The MAX only had subtle differences at high angles of attack, hence the birth of MCAS. I think the other option would be to install a larger tail and introduce a new type rating. Boeing and customers did not go down that road. I will agree that they failed in not having MCAS run off of more than once source, but not to the point that it would solely down an aircraft. Typically you will see 2/4/or/6 fail safes when it comes to manipulation of primary control surfaces. Yes, that's a slap on the wrist, and I'm glad to see this being rectified. 

I will agree that there is no denying that Boeing could have done better in having a more than one source of air data for MCAS, but I wouldn't waver that finger pointing to far from the crew. You should not have to dumb down aviation to the point that you don't have to use your noggin'. If only ONE stick shaker is going off, and you are climbing out in visual conditions --- are you really stalling? Do you really need a flashy light to tell you there is an angle of attack disagree?; After both of these crashes maybe we do have to dumb down aviation. Those of us that learned to fly before GPS call these inexperienced pilots/new age pilots "Children of the Magenta Line" that have just blindly followed automation since day one. 

Had the crew run the unreliable airspeed and the runaway stabilizer trim memory items as per Boeing procedures, the aircraft would have landed safely regardless of MCAS being installed or not. Type rated 737 pilots are trained on and are required to know memory items for the NG and MAX for these two issues that they would have encountered. 

I don't want to say MCAS wasn't a _contributing _factor in the swiss cheese model, but lets be clear that MCAS did not cause these crashes. 

The fact that FOUR, that's right, count them....FOUR crews prior to the Lion Air crash all ran into the same issues, ran the memory items, and returned the aircraft safely to the ground. But the news doesn't publish that because that's boring and doesn't end in a smoking hole in the ground. 

The fact that the Ethiopian crews left the thrust levers fire walled when that is step 2 of unreliable airspeed and step 3 of runaway stabilizer trim memory items tells you something. The fact that they tried to reengage the auto pilot when the memory and checklist items tell you not to, the fact that they re-engaged the stabilizer trim cut off switches when Boeing outlines you shall NOT.....the list goes on. I think these crashes surfaced some issues with MCAS, but I feel like it's hard direct even a majority blame on Boeing. I imagine we will see this filed away along with the number one leading cause of accidents in the past 20 years -- a loss of control in flight. 

I hope the MAX get's back in service soon. I would confidently fly it tomorrow without additional training, but I appreciate any information moving forward. It sounds like Marc Garneau wants us back in the sim anyways to train on the same things we already train on. 

-ex Ag Driver, current MAX8 Driver


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I must say I really enjoyed all the episodes of the Mayday series and the conclusion is that accidents result in improvements so that the same thing doesn't happen again, human error excepted. The same will now be true with the MAX aircraft. Pilots will know the quirks, the MCAS will be more robust, and we won't have this situation happen again...well, maybe in some third world countries like Indonesia where they have disproportionately more accidents than most other countries.

I certainly don't exonerate the crews of those 2 tragic flights, but like many things, it is often a combination of events that results in tragedy. Removing equipment issues would be a solid first step in the sequence of events.


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

It's refreshing to see someone who has done their homework beyond just the headlines. Sure is nice to have a rational discussion outside of work about the MAX for once. Looks like you are one of the few who "get it"....even as far as recognizing Lion Air/Indonesian carriers with a very poor track record! I'm impressed!


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

AltaRed said:


> I must say I really enjoyed all the episodes of the Mayday series and the conclusion is that accidents result in improvements so that the same thing doesn't happen again, human error excepted.


I also love watching Mayday. I fly a lot, already 40,000 km this year (50 - 60 hours in flight) which would be one loop around the world if done in a single trip. Most of those km were logged on Boeing 777 and 787.

I find Mayday comforting, not frightening. An amazing amount of forensic work goes into accident investigations and regulators ensure that lessons are learned, and mistakes are fixed. As an engineer, I think these flying machines are reliable. Additionally, I think aircraft makers, airlines, flight crew, and airports all take safety seriously. It takes a combination of multiple bad events to lead to a catastrophic accident.

I generally feel safer in the larger aircraft but even some of the small ones are incredibly reliable. Take the Bombardier Dash-8 for example, something I fly in pretty often. There was an incident a year ago where a suicidal baggage handler in Seattle stole one of these planes and took it on a joy ride. The darn thing is so stable in the air, flies so naturally, that even without any training the man took it up over the mountains, flew it around for 75 minutes, did barrel rolls and stunts. (He ultimately crashed the plane but it was intentional, suicide). I know this may be a strange reaction, but think of how reliable this plane must be, and how it naturally stays in the sky... even with a novice at the stick. He had to _work_ to crash it.

Between 2009 and 2018 (10 years) there was only 1 death due to a flight accident on a commercial flight in the US. One death! How many people die in car accidents each year? I don't have the stats for Canada but it's probably just as safe, on big planes.

I'm not scared of flying, even with the recent Boeing problems.

The Boeing news/groundings happened just a few days before I got on a Boeing aircraft for a 15 hour flight across the Pacific ocean. And yes, it made me nervous. I double checked the stats, and saw that there were 0 fatalities on this aircraft model. Plus, Air Canada has a great safety track record and I ultimately trust the airline for safety and maintenance. My drive to the airport was probably more dangerous than the Transpacific flight.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ Yea, you're right since do we have other choices of flying with a non-Boeing aircraft? But I would want to avoid the brand where (super) corporate greed overrides customers' safety.


It's worth considering the aircraft model. Here are different models with stats for fatal crashes per million flights. The "Rate" column is the important one: http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm

For example, a Westjet flight is about to depart from Toronto to Calgary on a Boeing 737-700. The all-time accident rate for that aircraft is 0.06 fatal crashes per million flights... it's an extremely reliable plane. One of the safest in the world. In comparison, the 737 MAX has a fatal crash rate of 3.08 or 51x as high.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Ag Driver said:


> If Boeing was in the business (since 1916) of making aircraft that kill people, it wouldn't be around ...


Agreed.




Ag Driver said:


> ... Here is the short and dirty of your irrational decision based on 2 crashes. Both crew of the Lion Air and Ethiopian flights operated the aircraft outside of Boeing recommended procedures and ultimately wrote off an airplane with a number of passengers on board. You will see this in the accident report if you have done ANY homework at all ...


While I agree it is a poor decision to avoid Boeing aircraft, there are several reports that Boeing knew they had a problem that they decided was not all that important before either crash occurred. Apparently not important enough to notify management or IIRC, the FAA until after a crash.



> Boeing knew that there was a problem with one of the safety features on its 737 Max planes back in 2017 – well before the Lion Air crash in October 2018 and the Ethiopian Airlines crash in March. But it did not disclose the issue to airlines or safety regulators until after the Lion Air plane crashed off the Indonesian coast, killing all 189 aboard.
> 
> In a statement Sunday, Boeing said its engineers discovered a problem with a key safety indicator within months of Boeing delivering the first 737 Max planes to airlines.


https://www.npr.org/2019/05/06/7205...ensor-problem-before-plane-crash-in-indonesia


As for ignoring Boeing recommended procedures, why did it take three pilots where the third one gave a shot in the dark suggestion to have the correct fix?
https://qz.com/1576597/off-duty-pilot-saved-lion-airs-737-max-the-day-before-its-fatal-flight/


Why do pilots from both American Airlines and SouthWest say they were not informed or trained on the new anti-stall system?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11...ot-training-needed-on-boeing-737-max/10493470
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/lion-air-crash-scenario-wasn-t-covered-boeing-737-max-n935521


And I guess it doesn't concern you that the Boeing's safety analysis understated the power?
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/how-did-the-faa-allow-the-boeing-737-max-to-fly




Ag Driver said:


> ... This is the first time in History that an aircraft type was grounded due to social media outcry/public perception/emotion and not FACTS ...


With Canada and the US waiting so long to ground them, I doubt this was the case. For some posters wanting to avoid Boeing aircraft all together, this is likely true.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> ... The ultimate test will be whether the 737MAX can survive this mess in numbers of such models to be sold.


The bad news for Boeing is that at least one airline seems to be planning to cancel an order for forty nine 737 Max planes.

The good news is that they seem to be open to swapping over to the other models.


Cheers


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

A bit of a paint brush splatter of news articles, but I'll touch on them. 

Boeing is likely aware of many problems that are not worth while mentioning. One that comes to mind is the Vertical Navigation (VNAV). On some versions of the software, the aircraft will dive for a specific path with zero regard for speed and the automation will actually send the aircraft beyond the Vne (Never Exceed Speed) and put the structure at risk and set off the over speed clackers. This is why pilots are paid to monitor and manage the systems. You can not blindly follow automation. As I said earlier, had the pilots followed Boeing procedures the aircraft would not have crashed whether MCAS was installed or not.

As for why the crews did not follow Boeing procedures, and a 3rd pilot "saved the day"? -- You will have to ask them why they do not know the memory items required for their type rating. Possibly ask the examiner why he/she signed off their type rating if they did not have sufficient knowledge or adequate skill sets to operate the aircraft. A more appropriate response/guess on my part is complacency. The industry is full of it, and usually is the root of pilot error. The 737 does the exact same thing every day....until it doesn't one day. 

Boeing 100% included the mention of MCAS in the MAX differences training. Albeit it was literally a one liner and not much in depth about it. Provided you follow Boeing recommended procedures, it would be a non event if it went rogue (whether you know MCAS was in the background or not). I'll give you an example with the NG. Do I need to know how many seconds the autopilot trims the aircraft for? Do I need to know the tolerances? Do I need to know the intervals? Do I need to know the reset? No -- I just need to know how to shut it off if it runs away. These questions are strikingly similar to MCAS and the MAX. Gone are the days of cause checking and trouble shooting...this isn't a 727 with a flight engineer on board. These are extremely advanced machines and we don't need to know the absolute ins and outs. Nice to know, sure. Need to know? Not really...but you need to know your procedures.

The 737 manual was a fraction of the size (including normal and non-normal checklists and memory items) when it first came out. Most of these manuals are written in blood. Sad, but very true. Bizarre checklists such as "Engine Separation" are included because once upon a time it happened. There is nice to know, and need to know. 

As for the concern about how "powerful" MCAS is....it doesn't particularly concern me -- If you follow Boeing's procedures. Do you see the pattern? MCAS can be turned on and off. If the automation is trimming you into the ground. Run the memory item and turn it off and LEAVE it off. Do I appreciate that they are limiting the system and including additional fail safes? Absolutely. The more bubble wrap the better. Boring is good, and safe is boring. 

These articles are LITTERED with garbage and wrong information. It boils down to the fact that had the crews followed Boeing procedures the aircraft would have returned with an uneventful, hand flown, manually trimmed, safe landing.....you know, like we did in the old days before the Children of the Magenta Line started hitting the airlines. You can not blindly follow automation and hope it's going to save your bacon, because sometimes its best to dump everything and hand fly.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Ag Driver said:


> You can not blindly follow automation and hope it's going to save your bacon, because sometimes its best to dump everything and hand fly.


Well said Ag and this last line says it all. As long as the pilot has a clear option to turn it all off and just "Fly the plane" all should be fine. 

One thing maybe you can touch on is how important would it be with the MAX8 to have an AOA display when flying manually?


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

cainvest said:


> Well said Ag and this last line says it all. As long as the pilot has a clear option to turn it all off and just "Fly the plane" all should be fine.
> 
> One thing maybe you can touch on is how important would it be with the MAX8 to have an AOA display when flying manually?


Boeing outlines known, safe, pitch and power settings as starting points when it comes to unreliable airspeed both in the clean and dirty configurations (memory items). With the additional AOA vane to provide air data, you should be able to identify the display that is giving proper data. That being said, an AOA indicator would never hurt. I think the additional information would be useful in more than one scenario and would go hand in hand with pitch limit indicators.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> It's worth considering the aircraft model. Here are different models with stats for fatal crashes per million flights. The "Rate" column is the important one: http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm
> 
> For example, a Westjet flight is about to depart from Toronto to Calgary on a Boeing 737-700. The all-time accident rate for that aircraft is 0.06 fatal crashes per million flights... it's an extremely reliable plane. One of the safest in the world. In comparison, the 737 MAX has a fatal crash rate of 3.08 or 51x as high.


Just for a bad comparison, traffic fatality rates in Canada and the US are about 5 or 7 deaths per billion km travelled.
I'll leave it to you to convert flights to km, but it seems air travel is likely still a bit safer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
As much as everyone freaks out about this stuff, the rates are very low.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

nobleea said:


> This thread is a good example of emotions taking control of rational, numbers-based decisions. Much like stock investing.


 ... huh? what does stock-investing has to do with "fear" of flying? How do you quantify "fear" with "rational, numbers-based decisions"? Artificial intelligence?



> I have no issues flying. We have flights in the summer booked on 25+ yr old 767's and brand new 787's.
> I think the airline (in a global sense) has a bigger impact on customer safety than the plane brand. Which is why safety awards are given out to airlines and not aircraft manufacturers.


 ... not sure you can place the "safety" reputation on the airline(s) and its pilots(s) in the case of Boeing's MAX disasters.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

AltaRed said:


> Beaver, why would you think *Airbus's profit motive* is any different?


 ... perhaps not from a bottom-line standpoint. However, Airbus hasn't made it on the front page that safety feature (MCAS or whatever you call it - I ain't no aircraft technician) an "option" to purchase. I would think Airbus will take a cue from these two preventable disasters at the expense of Boeing.



> Hate to keep going over the Boeing MAX issue but the 737MAX is a unique issue caused by design bastardization of a perfectly excellent aircraft (737) in the interest of greed and a regulator asleep at the switch. Almost all aircraft designs start from scratch for a specific function, whether an A320, regular issue 737 or (pick your model). The only variations in those basic designs would be 'extended length' or 'extended range'. The MAX changed the aerodynamic characteristics completely and that is the inherent flaw in the MAX. What is most egregious is their additional attempt to sell the MAX as just an 'improved' 737 not requiring unique pilot simulator training.
> *
> Expediency, compromise and misrepresentation is an expensive lesson that Boeing will not soon forget.*


 ... let's hope so but then the usual corporate bean-counting-decision-makers don't care.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

Beaver101 said:


> ... huh? what does stock-investing has to do with "fear" of flying? How do you quantify "fear" with "rational, numbers-based decisions"? Artificial intelligence?
> 
> ... not sure you can place the "safety" reputation on the airline(s) and its pilots(s) in the case of Boeing's MAX disasters.


It's clear isn't it? PEople sell when stocks go down, even if the underlying numbers are good. Fear causes people to make uninformed decisions or strictly emotional decisions. Some of the people worrying about flying in this very thread are the same ones that start posting threads on 'should I sell?' 'what's going on with XXX stock?' when the market goes a bit south.
For the better part of 30 years, flying has been the safest way to travel, and still is. 

While the model certainly is faulty, how the pilots respond to the faults shows the training and safety reputation of the company/country. And how they report those faults. Both WJ and AC fly these planes and certainly have encountered the issue at least once. But they know how to deal with it and what procedures to follow.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

...how 'bout that Onex / Westjet deal, eh? wish i had some WJA today!


----------



## faline (Feb 10, 2011)

If you had WestJet stock would you sell today or wait?


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

....judging by my past record, I would make the wrong choice...


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... let's hope so but then the usual corporate bean-counting-decision-makers don't care.


 ... as guessed: 

*Boeing executives resisted pilots’ calls for urgent fix of 737 Max jets*

https://www.thestar.com/business/2019/05/15/boeing-resisted-pilots-calls-for-urgent-fix-of-737-max-jets.html



> _...The hour-long November meeting, inside a windowless conference room at the Fort Worth headquarters of the American Airlines pilots’ union, was confrontational at times. At the table was Sinnett, along with Craig Bomben, a top Boeing test pilot, and one of the company’s senior lobbyists, John Moloney. They faced several union leaders, many of them angry at the company.
> 
> *Michael Michaelis, an American pilot, argued that Boeing should push the FAA to issue what is known as an emergency airworthiness directive.*
> 
> ...


 ... hard not to feel sorry for the employees (especially the pilots) caught in this holy mess.



> _As the meeting was concluding, Dennis Tajer, spokesman for the union, asked the Boeing executives whether they were still confident in the Max.
> 
> “*Do you feel comfortable that the situation is under control today*, before any software fix is implemented?” he asked.
> 
> Sinnett replied immediately: “Absolutely.”_


 ...


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

Now read the article again ... But the parts you did not highlight.

The pilots were trained regardless of MCAS existence or not. The article actually supports everything I have been saying. The accident report is on going and inconclusive, but what we do know is that Boeing procedures were not followed. 

As for comfortability levels? I flew the MAX last week without hesitation. I haven't flown a Max in some time, and I comfortability sat in the seat, followed my procedures and flew it like an NG. 

What's your experience and knowledge in the matter? I'm type rated and current on the aircraft.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Isn't the 737 and variants the backbone of all (most?) of the successful discount airlines that focus on keeping the fleets to minimal types

I just sat next to the engine of a shiny new Alaska Airlines 737. Interesting to see the added aero tweaks to the engine and wingtips. Canada added similar aero tweaks to the F-18 apparently to get more life out of the v stabs. I imagine they make the 737 even more efficient, like the lightweight bugatti carbon brakes. Alaska apparently even uses some biofuel as well. A full new 737 is probably more efficient travel than an SUV with 2 PAX

737 is also the choice of the next generation of military airborne command and control platforms, previously built around boeing 707s. Those only get selected every 4 or 5 decades, no small decision


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

*Pilots slam Boeing's handling of 737 Max problems at congressional hearing*

https://www.cp24.com/world/pilots-slam-boeing-s-handling-of-737-max-problems-at-congressional-hearing-1.4473805



> Airline union leaders and a famed former pilot said Wednesday that Boeing made mistakes while developing the 737 Max, and the biggest was not telling anybody about new flight-control software so pilots could train for it.
> 
> Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger, who landed a crippled airliner safely on the Hudson River in 2009, said he doubted that any U.S. pilots practiced handling a specific malfunction until it happened on two Max jets that crashed, killing 346 people. *Max pilots should train for such emergencies in simulators - not just on computers, as Boeing proposes, he said.*
> 
> ...


 ... can't find a better, actually, genuine real-life hero "Sully" to chastise the administrative aviation "experts".


----------

