Would you fly on a 737 Max?
Discussion
Going back a while, the DC10 originally had a more fundamental problem but that went on to have a long and successful career, but I think that social media opinion and wider question marks over Boeing's conduct will likely doom the Max- I'd certainly look to fly an A320/321and avoid the Max.
Eric Mc said:
What problem did the DC-10 have?
Cargo door locking mechanisms at the start. It had outward opening doors. Very unusual most aircraft doors open inwards. Effectively like a plug in a gap so as it pressurises the door is pushed tighter in to the frame. This was made worse by the fact the locking mechanism were made of cheese. The handle could appear in the locked position but in reality it had bent the locking jaws. This resulted in the doors opening in flight.
Piginapoke said:
Going back a while, the DC10 originally had a more fundamental problem but that went on to have a long and successful career, but I think that social media opinion and wider question marks over Boeing's conduct will likely doom the Max- I'd certainly look to fly an A320/321and avoid the Max.
The DC10 went on to become the MD-11 and still had issues. A Swissair one crashed due to flammable materials being present since construction and an unidentified electric arc caused a fire rendering the systems useless - the circuit breakers not designed to trip to to arcing. There are always lessons to be learned from accidents like this, but I can't get over an "Invisible" anti-stall system being installed to the 737 Max, saying the plane was essentially no different than other current variants. .
Eric Mc said:
What problem did the DC-10 have?
The outward opening cargo door which could appear shut, but wasn't. If it opened in flight explosive decompression caused the floor to collapse, cutting control runs.American Airlines Flight 96
Turkish Airlines Flight 981
Edited by GliderRider on Monday 2nd November 18:38
DC10 was the only aircraft I've been genuinely concerned about flying in. Only after we landed did I tell the oblivious Mrs and her friends about it's appalling safety record. Happily the return flight was massively delayed 15 hours and we came back on an unbranded chartered TriStar with bits of interior trim missing. Felt a million times more comfortable although that wasn't a view shared by most on the flight.
Anyway I'd rather not fly on 737max given the choice at least in the short term.
Anyway I'd rather not fly on 737max given the choice at least in the short term.
Edited by dantournay on Monday 2nd November 18:48
dantournay said:
DC10 was the only aircraft I've been genuinely concerned about flying in. Only after we landed did I tell the oblivious Mrs and her friends about its safety record. Happily the return flight was massively delayed 15 hours and we came back on an unbranded chartered TriStar with bits of interior trim missing. Felt a million times more comfortable although that wasn't a view shared by most on the flight.
I only flew on a DC-10 once, well twice in reality with the return trip. It was back in 1991, and I flew from Gatwick to Atlanta on one (and back to LGW) but I doubt I gave to a thought back then, and I can't even remember which airline it was! I think it would have been Delta?I can't honestly see me getting on a flight that would be serviced by 737 or anything similar for a considerable time because of Covid, so when I eventually do I expect that they will have flown millions of safe passenger miles and I will be happy to do so, provided no further stall incidents.
As I understand it this was a MCAS sensor issue which was not fail safe, and they've now introduced a further sensor to deal with that problem?
I'm sure it's all been well thought through but .....
As I understand it this was a MCAS sensor issue which was not fail safe, and they've now introduced a further sensor to deal with that problem?
I'm sure it's all been well thought through but .....
PurpleTurtle said:
I can't honestly see me getting on a flight that would be serviced by 737 or anything similar for a considerable time because of Covid, so when I eventually do I expect that they will have flown millions of safe passenger miles and I will be happy to do so, provided no further stall incidents.
As I understand it this was a MCAS sensor issue which was not fail safe, and they've now introduced a further sensor to deal with that problem?
I'm sure it's all been well thought through but .....
Not only will there be at least another sensor, but every pilot now knows about the system and will recognise what's happening if it runs amok.As I understand it this was a MCAS sensor issue which was not fail safe, and they've now introduced a further sensor to deal with that problem?
I'm sure it's all been well thought through but .....
The issue isn't that Boeing were prepared to accept this level of risk on a single angle of attack sensor it is the company's willingness to accept this level of risk, full stop. What other single component failures on the aircraft will have catastrophic consequences in the future?
Some companies test their product until it passes, others test their product until it can't fail.
Some companies test their product until it passes, others test their product until it can't fail.
dantournay said:
The one I flew on was operated by Martinair and must have been one of the last in their fleet as I was aware of their Faro crash. They replaced them with MD11 which I wouldn't was to fly on either.
When I was about 12 I flew on a Garuda Indonesia DC10 from Denpassar to Auckland which, knowing what I know now, is mildly terrifying. I still remember the landing as being the worst I have ever experienced aeropilot said:
And yet regarding the DC-10.....
The USAF have been operating a fleet of 60 odd KC-10 tankers for 40 years now with only one lost, and that was as a result of a ground incident, not a crash.
They will likely be operating them for another 20 years as well.
They are also exceptionally well maintained with no expense spared as they don’t have to turn a profit. There not really comparable to early dc10s and have extensively modified for the task. The USAF have been operating a fleet of 60 odd KC-10 tankers for 40 years now with only one lost, and that was as a result of a ground incident, not a crash.
They will likely be operating them for another 20 years as well.
I currently fly on really old 707s. Again they have been maintained above and beyond with no expense spared for safety. They are low hours and don’t have to be operated for a profit.
For example we had a smell of fuel onboard a few weeks ago. Once the issue was identified Fleet grounded for a week. To check them all. No questions asked.
Boeing have been involved in covering up investigations into counterfeit components in their systems. Some single-point-of-failure systems have bootleg electronic components fitted, which is worrying.
The MAX issue seems to come down to poorly debugged code fired out by junior developers. They have dealt with the runaway trim issue, but I do wonder what other dodgy cut 'n' shut code sits behind other functions on these aircraft.
In general I don't like how close Boeing and the US government are, and the insular unwillingness and general sluggishness to address issues head-on.
The MAX issue seems to come down to poorly debugged code fired out by junior developers. They have dealt with the runaway trim issue, but I do wonder what other dodgy cut 'n' shut code sits behind other functions on these aircraft.
In general I don't like how close Boeing and the US government are, and the insular unwillingness and general sluggishness to address issues head-on.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff