Next time you fly, check which aircraft you're getting on

[wazzickle]

And if it's a 737-max, don't get on it.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/...loper.amp.html

[Nelke]

The chance to fly anywhere would be nice

But really, seems like a nice read will have a proper look later today. Thanks for sharing

[TeePee]

Better a Max than a -800 or -900. I'll take a small chance of death over a certainty of wishing for death...

[[GSV]Trig]

Its not just about the plane, its the airline..

[Solex]

good to know, thanks.

[wazzickle]

Its not just about the plane, its the airline..

Right, and also it's not just about the airline, it's about the pilots, but in both those cases the information might not be as clear as the actual plane you're getting on - given the article, I wouldn't get on a 737-max from any airline, and also given what TeePee says probably not an 800 or 900 either, but I haven't done any research into airlines at all. Guessing it's roughly in line with the general safety records of the country from which they fly, but that could be fairly wrong.

[idasbot]

i read somwhere they paid millions to cover up 737max has a constaction fault

[Spud1]

Better a Max than a -800 or -900. I'll take a small chance of death over a certainty of wishing for death...

edit: I misread this as a 747-800....which is a much better airliner. The 737-800 has indeed had several fatal crashes & hull losses. I would still fly on them though Original comment deleted as not relevant, but the gist was that a 747-800 has an excellent safety record

I'd still happily fly on a 737-MAX too, with a reputable airline that crucially has a good maintenance & compliance record. The guy who wrote the article linked in this thread is fully entitled to his opinion, but that does not in any way mean the Max is unsafe to fly in.

[ik9000]

I'd still happily fly on a 737-MAX too, with a reputable airline that crucially has a good maintenance & compliance record. The guy who wrote the article linked in this thread is fully entitled to his opinion, but that does not in any way mean the Max is unsafe to fly in.

It is if they haven't added any additional pitot tubes or updated the die-by-wire software or any of the other fixes recommended so far. I wouldn't board one given a choice.

[wazzickle]

edit: I misread this as a 747-800....which is a much better airliner. The 737-800 has indeed had several fatal crashes & hull losses. I would still fly on them though Original comment deleted as not relevant, but the gist was that a 747-800 has an excellent safety record

I'd still happily fly on a 737-MAX too, with a reputable airline that crucially has a good maintenance & compliance record. The guy who wrote the article linked in this thread is fully entitled to his opinion, but that does not in any way mean the Max is unsafe to fly in.

All respect due but I'll defer to his opinion - partly based on the clear level of depth of knowledge and understanding he has vs I don't know what your qualifications are, but also, when it comes to risking your life, I'll take the safer option as the penalties for being wrong are quite high!

[ik9000]

it is worth noting that the article dates from april 2019 and there have been findings and recommendations released since to improve things, however the fundamental issues he discusses remain SFAIK and it's why I will give these planes a wide bearth wherever possible, and also why it highlights the impotence/incompetence of the FAA to not reclassify the plane as something different to a 737 even after the fact of these two crashes.

[TeePee]

edit: I misread this as a 747-800....which is a much better airliner. The 737-800 has indeed had several fatal crashes & hull losses. I would still fly on them though Original comment deleted as not relevant, but the gist was that a 747-800 has an excellent safety record

I'd still happily fly on a 737-MAX too, with a reputable airline that crucially has a good maintenance & compliance record. The guy who wrote the article linked in this thread is fully entitled to his opinion, but that does not in any way mean the Max is unsafe to fly in.

It's actually a 747-8, rather than -800. It actually has a stability system called PACS, which is designed to make it feel like a -400, as well as providing a degree of stall protection, flare assist and tail strike prevention. There are some big differences from MCAS, not least that is uses both AoA probes, and provides elevator deflection rather than Hstab. But it's transparent to the pilot. The control column doesn't move when PACS is moving the elevator. There's no indication to the pilot that it's active and no means to turn it off. Theoretically, it's simply overridden by more control pressure.

As a passenger, the -8 has one of the most enjoyable flying experiences. It's smooth and quiet, and fantastic in turbulence. It's a great airplane to fly too, with an excellent safety record, pod strikes aside. Queen of the Skies!

[TeePee]

All respect due but I'll defer to his opinion - partly based on the clear level of depth of knowledge and understanding he has vs I don't know what your qualifications are, but also, when it comes to risking your life, I'll take the safer option as the penalties for being wrong are quite high!

My hatred of the 737-800 and -900 relates to a specific problem that is a product of the development history. The constant stretching of the airplane for more seats has left the packs completely insufficient to provide acceptable air conditioning. Instead of the eyeball vent you get in most airplanes, in the 737-800 and -900 you get a small disc vent that barely makes a breeze. But that's just the visible part of the problem. The air that is supplied is insufficiently cooled by the undersized system. Passengers are roasted at the gate in hot weather, and slowly cooked for the entire duration of the flight.

I had to endure a 739 last week and I'll be in a 738 on Friday. There is no escape..

[Zak33]

good article, written well and concise.
As with all writing, if something is explained sufficienctly well that I understand it, then I believe it.

[ik9000]

good article, written well and concise.
As with all writing, if something is explained sufficienctly well that I understand it, then I believe it.

and that's why dem votes were stolen darn it, and watch out for those 5G rays dem lizard people be infecting us with. <kidding... runs>

[Spud1]

All respect due but I'll defer to his opinion - partly based on the clear level of depth of knowledge and understanding he has vs I don't know what your qualifications are, but also, when it comes to risking your life, I'll take the safer option as the penalties for being wrong are quite high!

Yep and thats fine, I am indeed no expert in commercial aviation. It's up to each of us to agree or disagree with what he says - or more accurately the impact of what he is saying (as the facts were likely correct at the time of writing). The Max would not be allowed to fly again if the authorities were not convinced that specific problem had been solved or mitigated. Most aircraft have a number of design flaws and actively fly with many faults - but they are not dangerous enough to life or operation of the aircraft.

That said however, you as a passenger do not get a choice of aircraft type, and even if you can select routes & airlines that fly specific planes, you can always get screwed over at the last minute and get stuck in an uncomfortable plane so it's largely irrelevant. Sure you can refuse to board etc when you get to the gate and your plane is confirmed, but for 99.9999% of us, that is far too late.

E2A thanks to @TeePee for the above explanations, interesting stuff to read up on