Are you going to fly on the 737-MAX/8200 when it comes back in November? Is it a safe plane?
No. I only fly Airbased
>>1363678>Are you going to fly on the 737-MAX/8200 when it comes back in November?No.>Is it a safe plane?Hell no.Its the DC-10 of this generation and i wont ever set foot on one. Its basicaly a flying casket that burries itself when it crashes. The entire MAX catastrophe has shone light on Boeing's engineering practices and it makes me want to avoid flying on any new Boeing plane that has been made in the past 2 decades.
>>1363678Only if pilots are white, and there are three of them.
If it's Boeing, I aint going
They're going to fix it soon. It's gonna be a hell of a business for airlines negotiating to buy a new boeing for cheaper than its competitors due to the discredit this incident has created. As an airline with a long and prosperous history of sucess and competent professionals I doubt it will be reapeated soon.
Yes because I always book the cheapest practical flight and pay no attention to what plane I'll be flying on until I board. This is true for me and for everyone reading this.
>>1363678>Novemberwon't happen>are you going to fly on MAXYes. It will recieve a certification equivalent of TSA "random checking" a brown guy at the airport from both EASA and FAA. When it flies again, it will be completely safe.
did boeing intentionally make the MAX a deathtrap so they could sell it for pennies without being accused of dumping, thus undercutting the one competitive aircraft airbus manufactures?
>>1363893This is as retarded as the claim Trump is playing 42 dimensional chess.
>>1363678>when it comes back in Novemberyeah, November of 2050.that thing is never flying again and that is fact.
>>1363766737 cockpit crew is 2
>>1364036I know. But they should make it three.
>>1363955>I'm a millennial and know jack shit about aviationMany airplanes had some problems at the beginning of their service, even groundings, MAX is not the first nor the last. All of them came back to service, so will MAX.
It's not a death trap. Boeing certainly had fault in what happened but shitty training of foreign pilots had a big role in what happened. The pilots were pants on head retarded and didn't disconnect the stab trim when it started to runaway. In training here in the US, they run it though our heads over and over to disconnect the stab trim any time you experience an un-commanded pitching motion. In my aircraft its a simple switch on the top of the yoke. In the 737 max its a toggle switch directly next to the thrust lever quadrant. The second they started panicking, everyone on board was doomed.Boeing needs to work in a bit more redundancy into the system and once they do, it will be cleared for service once more. Give it 2 years and the general public will forget all about it. This isn't the first time this has happened to a new aircraft and it certainly won't be the last. Don't like it? Take a car
>>1364208>BullshitStop trying to blame the pilots. Boeing fucked up with the training, they fucked up with a non-compliant design, and they actively hid the existence of their hack from regulators to try to skate by.I understand the attitude in aviation tends to be "no fault" in the interests of safety for everyone, but in this case, it wasn't half as much the aviation section as it was the business side putting pressure on the engineering side to deliver the unattainable. If, and it's a big if, this plane flies again, it had best damn well be with a guarantee that this type of certification hack is rendered unenviable in the future.With enough training of the pilots, I'd probably get on one myself, but not without grilling the captain to make damn sure he knows what to do.
>>1364208>Don't like it? Take a carI think I can order tickets for Airbus A320 or something.
>>1363678>when it comes back in Novemberlol good joke>Is it a safe plane?even funnier
>>1363678We really don't have a choice do we.
>>1364077no other planes have had as many problems as the MAX-casualties. Boeing cant recover from this.
less worried about the 737 MAX, more worried about the shitty airlines I've flown with pilots that either cannot recognize a stall or dont know how to get out of a stall. I dont know which is worse.
>>1365755Don't worry, I don't have a pilot license yet.
>>1365755They expect the aircraft to basically fly itself and when it does they can perform maneuvers that people with even ten hours should at least be familiar with.I'm not saying all new pilots, but its a sizable chunk. Its not even their fault. The authorities have relaxed requirements too much.
>>1363872>When it flies again, it will be completely safe.I wouldn't go that far, but it will certainly be as safe as any other commercial airliner, and more so than several.
>>1365742I think the Death Contraption 10 had a higher kill count.
>>1365742Lots of commercial aircraft have had significantly more problems.
>>1367827In 1960's. Not in fucking 2k19
>>1367829this. no one is going to set foot on a MAX now that they know whats wrong with it. same with any other Boeing plane.
>>1367829>>1367838Except for that part where it was happening well into the 90s.99.9% of people won't care because they won't know and/or have any other choice.
>>1367875Again, with Boeing shitplanes only. Airbus had no issues.
>>1367887Aerflot 593Kenya 431AF 447Thai 261Thai 311American 587China 140Garuda 152
>>1363678I'll make note of it when buying a ticket, and avoid if they're an equivalent alternative.It's more the general sense of 'fuck it' from Boeing around the 737 Max (and presumably their other planes) has me spooked. It's come out that the FAA wanted Boeing to do something about the potential for the now-repositioned and enlarged Max's engines to slice through all the hydraulics in the case of unconfined engine failure, but Boeing as usual got its way and did nothing (immediately employing the regulator who give them the pass as a lobbyist).Basically, it's emerged that the fox has been managing the henhouse (i.e. Boeing tell the FAA how things would be, not the other way around). I'm hoping other agencies (European, Canadian, etc.) give all Boeing's planes a thorough re-evaluation, since they may have been assuming the FAA was checking into stuff they haven't been.tl;dr: Boeing is corrupt and money-grubbing, if you have alternatives use them
>>1365761Who is responsible for requiring pilots to have simulator time? Is it in regulation (whose?) or is it up to the airlines?I want to fly on planes where the pilot has had every oh-shit scenario thrown at them multiple times in a sim.
>>1367896>Aerflot 593Underaged pilots>Kenya 431Piloting error>AF 447Well, apparently flying into storm in order to save some time wasn't a good idea... Pilot error for not knowing how to fly a plane without nanny-helping systems.>Thai 261Pilot error>Thai 311Pilot was pissed off and accidentally terrain ahea->American 587Pilot error. To be fair, Boeing had protection against that abuse. >China 140Well, Airbus had warned them. >Garuda 152Pilot error.Only one (1) is Airbus fault, and they had warned all airline to fix the shit, yet chinks decided they are good. Also this was caused by pilot mistake in first place.
>>1368018you dont need to be in a simulator to know how to break out of a stall. its a requirment for a PPL in some countries.
>>1363678No fucking way. Not for several years at least.
>>1368062Isn't the issue that they didn't know how to turn off the MCAS system when it was trying to kill them? (if that was possible?)
>>1363821Not me. I'll pay extra if I think safety calls for it.
>>1368062So, how do you break out of a stall?
>>1368113>>1368120You have to decrease your angle of attack below the stall angle, so the wing starts providing lift again. This is generally done through manipulation of non stalled control surfaces such that the wings are reoriented towards the wind. Stalls where the control surfaces are concluded by the stalling wing are extremely difficult to recover from, and are known as deep stalls. If your ailerons aren't fully stalled you might be able to roll out and induce enough sideslip to get a control surface into some clean air, but you're basic ally in God's hands at that point.>>1368113The problem was multi-faceted.Lion Air didn't even know the system existed, and it wasn't presenting as a classic trim runaway due to the duty cycle of the system.Ethiopian Air knew it existed, but the point in the flight where shit went fits up resulted in them not being able to recover the plane with the manual reversion, and they weren't aware that retrimming via thumb switch reset the timer on the MCAS activation.At no point was either plane actually stalling. It just thought it was because the AoA sensors were fucked, and 404 sanity check not found due to Boeing not wanting to get required to have pilots do SIM time.
>>1368220Isn't the issue that there's not actually a stall, the computer just erroneously thinks there's one (because the one sensor broke / was inoperable) and no it insists on 'nosing down' the plane right into the ground?
>>1368580Not him, but I think yes.$9 pajeets that Boeing hired, had no experience with avionics or anything like that (they are more into SAP and similar non-critical stuff), they used only one AoA sensor to detect nose-up, do one thing, and trim nose down. Also Boeing engineers didn't add any kill switch to this system. Pajeets are not to blame here. Boeing management is to blame, since saving money on mission critical stuff is retarded. Pajeets are being Pajeets, said that they can program it. (I mean, all Asian (and probably Spics) people do this, they have little to no clue, yet they will try, while saying they are professionals). It is like asking plumber or electrician to design structure of a house, just because they have salary less than a proper architect.
>>1368589Source on Indian programming on Boeing planes. Keep seeing it. Sounds like a farsical trope, and have never seen it sourced.
>>1368592https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-28/boeing-s-737-max-software-outsourced-to-9-an-hour-engineersBtw, Airbus has pajeet coders too, but they don't outsource, they hire them directly, which in my opinion is better, since they are probably teaching them a thing or two about planes before allowing them to work. While HCL pajeets, who made needful software for Boeing, are not specializing on aviation stuff, which means they are general purpose code monkeys.
AFAIK there was never any 'need' for this system in the first place. It exists to make the 737 Max 'handle' like the previous 737 generations (despite relocated engines) so that pilots who are already qualified on the 737 wouldn't need any training to get up to speed on the Max. This is so that Boeing can market it to airlines as a no-cost-in-retraining upgrade.(the engines had to be repositioned forward because the 737 is so low to the ground because it was designed in the 60s, and Boeing is too cheap to do a redesign)
>>1363678I know a 777 pilot who flies for BA.Before the 737-MAX was put into service, all BA pilots were given a manual of the unique control characteristics of the planes, which included discussion of the automatic tail trim system, how it was distinct from the conventional autopilot, how it could be dangerous if used on takeoff, and how to disable it.One of these incidents was rescued by a pilot in the jump seat who had actually bothered to read this manual. The reason why the crashes happened in 3rd world shitholes, is because the quality of pilots from said shitholes is shit.By the way, I'm not arguing that Boeing aren't to blame. There's a principle in Engineering called design for use, which was clearly an afterthought in the decision to require pilots to use a separate automated system specifically for the tail attitude. It's retarded and shouldn't have happened, but the planes crashed because the pilots were fucking lazy.
>>1368633>Before the 737-MAX was put into service, all BA pilots were given a manual of the unique control characteristics of the planes, which included discussion of the automatic tail trim system, how it was distinct from the conventional autopilot, how it could be dangerous if used on takeoff, and how to disable it.Really? It was in manual?>One of these incidents was rescued by a pilot in the jump seat who had actually bothered to read this manual.I guess I know why Tupolev 204 has three pilot crews.
>>1368633in todays world you have to idiot proof a plane more than ever.
>>1368029>this level of cope
>>1368633You literally just need to be able to recognize and know how to get out of a stall. That's it. The fact that these pilots couldn't do it is the really dangerous thing here, but that doesn't play in the media.
>>1368652normies are too dumb to think that an accident can have more than one cause
I want to fly with the scariest company out there, which country has the bare minimum requirements for a pilot in order to fly a plane? I want a ticket with that Uganda flying death trap NOW. I can pay very high ugandian dollars to them. God I want to crash so bad in an airplane
>>1368654I will be your pilot. 9000 hours in fsx, over 9000 type ratings.
>when it comes back in November
>>1363678>Boeing: hey guys heres this new airplane>Airlines: cool thanks>Boeing: wait you need to train your pilots on it because it has a odd system>Airlines: nah we're good training is expensive>Airlines: *multiple crashes*
>>1371790>Boeing: hey guys here's this new airplane>Airlines: cool, wait how much training do our pilots need for this new model>Boeing: we didn't add any new systems to this model so all you need is this 1 hour training session on iPads>Airlines: amazing, we'll order them>Lion Air: *crashes*>Airlines: wtf Boeing?>Boeing: Oh yeah we added this new MCAS system that can make the plane nose dive and can't be disabled, sorry about not telling you guys>FAA: No need to worry airlines, the plane is fine.>Ethiopian Airlines: *crashes*>Everyone: WTF BOEING?!>Boeing: Third world pilots, amirite lads? Absolutely nothing wrong with he plane.>FAA: the plane is fine and no need to ground it.>Every other aviation administrator: Ground it>FAA: The plane is still fine but I guess we'll have to ground it if literally everyone else is doing soFixed that for you lad
>>1371808>>Boeing: we didn't add any new systems to this model so all you need is this 1 hour training session on iPadsEvery BA pilot, regardless of the plane they currently flew, had a manual made available to them which explained the new system, it's dangers, and how to disable it.>>Boeing: Oh yeah we added this new MCAS system that can make the plane nose dive and can't be disabled, sorry about not telling you guysIt can, and was, disabled during a similar incident on the Lion Air plane, the day before the crash.https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/doomed-lion-air-737-flight-14160762Dumb fucking cunt.
>>1371811Planes are too complicated. Can't we have simple things? Like an automatic transmission, you put it to fly, and it does everything you need, like flaps, gear, and shit?
>>1371790Imagine being so blinded by fanboyism for a corporation that you actually believe this is an accurate portrayal of the events.
>>1364208Boeing shill detected
>>1363678>Is it a safe plane?No, flawed design and aerodynamics. It's a fundamentally dangerous plane
>>1373647The red line on the engines is the axis of the main turbine blades. When they moved the engines they didn't re-work the control cable protection, so now if it throws the blades it can easily disable control entirely.
>>1368655You got me beat, I only have 3500 hours.
>>1368580MCAS was not stall-related and was only installed to balance out the pitch-up moment caused by the new engines of the MAX 8.
>>1363678If it's Boeing I ain't flying
>>1373667The red line has nothing to do with the blades, it's the line for danger you gon get succed if you stand forward of the line while it's running.
>>1363678>737MAX: kills 346 people for no reason>A320(1): crash lands without the engines and saves 388 peopleIs the Airbus secretly made of adamantium?