Would you fly on a 737 Max?
Discussion
I wouldn't knowingly book a flight on one..
Boeing should be leading the way in safety and all for all the smoke and mirrors it's recently been intent on leading a race to the bottom.
Pleasing investors, lobbying and getting into bed with the regulators has always been a capitalist sport, being good at this has led Boeing into a nasty downturn and there's no cavalary around the corner to sort this one out.
Boeing should be leading the way in safety and all for all the smoke and mirrors it's recently been intent on leading a race to the bottom.
Pleasing investors, lobbying and getting into bed with the regulators has always been a capitalist sport, being good at this has led Boeing into a nasty downturn and there's no cavalary around the corner to sort this one out.
Eric Mc said:
What problem did the DC-10 have?
Does nobody remember the song “Albert Hammond Bootleg” by Half Man Half Biscuit?“I hope your plane back home’s a DC10”
Full lyrics here:
https://halfmanhalfbiscuit.uk/back-in-the-dhss/alb...
GliderRider said:
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
Yes - we all know about that and it was fixed very quickly and fairly easily. The issue was that the Turkish aircraft was in storage at the time the "fix" was being enacted and it got missed. So that accident was fundamentally caused by poor administration and checking.American Airlines Flight 96
Turkish Airlines Flight 981
Edited by GliderRider on Monday 2nd November 18:38
Apart from those two door incidents, all other DC-10 accidents were pretty much unrelated and not due to any inherent fault with the basic design.
Eric Mc said:
Apart from those two door incidents,
Eric Mc, that's got to be on a par with, 'Apart from that, Mrs Lincoln, did you enjoy the play?'Do you remember the 'Not the Nine O'Clock News' song, 'I believe'?
...
I am prepared to say Col. Sanders can fry!
And that pigs and even DC-10s can fly!
...
And I believe that the devil is ready to repent!
But I can't believe Ronald Reagan is president!
Full version here: I Believe - Not the Nine O'Clock News
GliderRider said:
Eric Mc, that's got to be on a par with, 'Apart from that, Mrs Lincoln, did you enjoy the play?'
Do you remember the 'Not the Nine O'Clock News' song, 'I believe'?
...
I am prepared to say Col. Sanders can fry!
And that pigs and even DC-10s can fly!
...
And I believe that the devil is ready to repent!
But I can't believe Ronald Reagan is president!
Full version here: I Believe - Not the Nine O'Clock News
Well, if you are going to base your knowledge on a topic by listening to a comedy song, then I suppose you probably can claim to be an expert on the topic.Do you remember the 'Not the Nine O'Clock News' song, 'I believe'?
...
I am prepared to say Col. Sanders can fry!
And that pigs and even DC-10s can fly!
...
And I believe that the devil is ready to repent!
But I can't believe Ronald Reagan is president!
Full version here: I Believe - Not the Nine O'Clock News
There were TWO accidents over the almost 50 year service life of the DC-10/KC-10 caused by one specific and common issue - a faulty cargo door. The fault was fixed in 1973/74 and that never happened again to a DC-10 or a KC-10. Indeed, the fault was already being fixed before the second accident. The issue with the second accident is that that one aeroplane had been omitted from being fixed because it was parked up and not in use when the cargo doors on aircraft already in service were being upgraded. It was a failure of administering the fix properly that caused the second crash.
In 1979 there were two very bad DC-10 accidents (the American Airlines crash at Chicago O'Hare and the Air New Zealand crash into Mount Erebus) Both these accidents had absolutely nothing to do with the design or construction of the aeroplane and everything to do with poorly managed maintenance procedures (in the case of the American Airlines crash) and sloppy management procedures and poor training at Air New Zealand.
However, there was a bit of a panic in 1979 as a result of these two big accidents and the DC-10s were grounded. That's is why the "Not the 9 O' Clock News" team would have thought it was a suitable target for a funny song, I guess.
After a couple of months, DC-10s were quietly re-introduced back into service with no further issues.
I've flown some ropey old stuff myself in my time and flown on some airlines with less that immaculate service records. I race motorbikes, ski, board, do trackdays etc, so am not risk averse. But if i was waiting to board and saw it was a 737 Max, i think i'd be very cautious getting on! I can see myself thinking, "nope" and finding an alternative route / aircraft. Not 100%, but likely.
I'd certainly try to avoid one when booking a flight!
I'd certainly try to avoid one when booking a flight!
When the DC-10 was modified with updated engines and a modern cockpit it was rebranded the MD-11.
Hold on, is that a DC-10? No Siree, that is a completely different plane, an MD-11! Nothing to do with the plane that was perceived to be a death trap! Any resemblance is purely coincidental!
When the 747 was modified it was just called the 747-200, 747-400, 747-SP etc.
Hold on, is that a DC-10? No Siree, that is a completely different plane, an MD-11! Nothing to do with the plane that was perceived to be a death trap! Any resemblance is purely coincidental!
When the 747 was modified it was just called the 747-200, 747-400, 747-SP etc.
poo at Paul's said:
I've flown some ropey old stuff myself in my time and flown on some airlines with less that immaculate service records. I race motorbikes, ski, board, do trackdays etc, so am not risk averse. But if i was waiting to board and saw it was a 737 Max, i think i'd be very cautious getting on! I can see myself thinking, "nope" and finding an alternative route / aircraft. Not 100%, but likely.
I'd certainly try to avoid one when booking a flight!
When you say ropey what do you mean? I'd certainly try to avoid one when booking a flight!
Everything you have listed seems like a much bigger risk to personal safety than flying on an aircraft with an issue that every pilot in the world must be aware of.
Ayahuasca said:
Interested in why you say that. The history of aviation is one of identifying design problems (ideally before they kill people, admittedly) and engineering solutions. Why is this different?
The problem with the 737 Max is rather more subtle. It turns out that the Max has been modified to such an extent from the older 737 designs that the basic airframe now has a major aerodynamic flaw which, it seems, can only be cured by a software fix.It's one thing designing a new locking mechanism for a cargo door. It's another where the plane is fundamentally aerodynamically flawed and dependent on code to stay safe in certain, not even extreme, flight regimes.
Ayahuasca said:
When the DC-10 was modified with updated engines and a modern cockpit it was rebranded the MD-11.
Hold on, is that a DC-10? No Siree, that is a completely different plane, an MD-11! Nothing to do with the plane that was perceived to be a death trap! Any resemblance is purely coincidental!
When the 747 was modified it was just called the 747-200, 747-400, 747-SP etc.
The MD-11 was actually a major departure from the DC-10. It was the equivalent of the 737 Max by McDonnell Douglas - taking a basically sound design and amending it so much it was no longer sound. I would suggest that the MD-11 was inherently far more dangerous than the DC-10 because of certain instabilities during landing. A number of MD-11s were destroyed by becoming unstable on approach.Hold on, is that a DC-10? No Siree, that is a completely different plane, an MD-11! Nothing to do with the plane that was perceived to be a death trap! Any resemblance is purely coincidental!
When the 747 was modified it was just called the 747-200, 747-400, 747-SP etc.
In fact, I would also suggest that it was the MD-11 that was instrumental in killing McDonnell Douglas as an airliner manufacturer.
Eric Mc said:
Ayahuasca said:
Interested in why you say that. The history of aviation is one of identifying design problems (ideally before they kill people, admittedly) and engineering solutions. Why is this different?
The problem with the 737 Max is rather more subtle. It turns out that the Max has been modified to such an extent from the older 737 designs that the basic airframe now has a major aerodynamic flaw which, it seems, can only be cured by a software fix.It's one thing designing a new locking mechanism for a cargo door. It's another where the plane is fundamentally aerodynamically flawed and dependent on code to stay safe in certain, not even extreme, flight regimes.
Incidentally the MD-11 seems to have been designed with a ‘stability augmentation system’ to keep it stable in pitch when it was found that the traditional controls were not up to the job.
Ayahuasca said:
When the DC-10 was modified with updated engines and a modern cockpit it was rebranded the MD-11.
Hold on, is that a DC-10? No Siree, that is a completely different plane, an MD-11! Nothing to do with the plane that was perceived to be a death trap! Any resemblance is purely coincidental!
It was a bigger change than just engines and a glass cockpit, as greater wingspan with winglets, significantly longer fuselage and greater MTOW etc.Hold on, is that a DC-10? No Siree, that is a completely different plane, an MD-11! Nothing to do with the plane that was perceived to be a death trap! Any resemblance is purely coincidental!
McD changed the naming of all their aircraft around the same time, MD-80 and MD-90 were just next gen developments of the DC-9 in the same way, and the designation changes reflected the fact that it these were McD designs now and not the old Douglas Aircraft Company....which had effectively disappeared many years earlier. It was a mute point though in its struggles to survive, as it merged with Boeing, and Boeing forced to cessation of production of the MD-90 and MD-11.
On the OP’s original question, flying these days is such a monumental ball-ache - working out changing COVID restrictions, getting tested, layover times, baggage allowances, costs, overnight hotels, face masks, taxis, etc, etc that the very last thing I would do is cancel and start all over again if it happened to be a 737Max.
Ayahuasca said:
When the DC-10 was modified with updated engines and a modern cockpit it was rebranded the MD-11.
Hold on, is that a DC-10? No Siree, that is a completely different plane, an MD-11! Nothing to do with the plane that was perceived to be a death trap! Any resemblance is purely coincidental!
When the 747 was modified it was just called the 747-200, 747-400, 747-SP etc.
My first ever long-haul flight was on an MD-11. Schiphol to Vancouver. I'd never heard of an MD-11, far less its safety record. I do remember a fault being discovered (generator of some sort?) just as we were ready to push back from the airbridges, and we had a three or four hour delay.Hold on, is that a DC-10? No Siree, that is a completely different plane, an MD-11! Nothing to do with the plane that was perceived to be a death trap! Any resemblance is purely coincidental!
When the 747 was modified it was just called the 747-200, 747-400, 747-SP etc.
I also remember the aircraft (operated by KLM) was named 'Audrey Hepburn'. Audrey Hepburn's last film, Always, released a few years before my flight, featured her as a spirit guide for dead pilots.
Halmyre said:
Ayahuasca said:
When the DC-10 was modified with updated engines and a modern cockpit it was rebranded the MD-11.
Hold on, is that a DC-10? No Siree, that is a completely different plane, an MD-11! Nothing to do with the plane that was perceived to be a death trap! Any resemblance is purely coincidental!
When the 747 was modified it was just called the 747-200, 747-400, 747-SP etc.
My first ever long-haul flight was on an MD-11. Schiphol to Vancouver. I'd never heard of an MD-11, far less its safety record. I do remember a fault being discovered (generator of some sort?) just as we were ready to push back from the airbridges, and we had a three or four hour delay.Hold on, is that a DC-10? No Siree, that is a completely different plane, an MD-11! Nothing to do with the plane that was perceived to be a death trap! Any resemblance is purely coincidental!
When the 747 was modified it was just called the 747-200, 747-400, 747-SP etc.
I also remember the aircraft (operated by KLM) was named 'Audrey Hepburn'. Audrey Hepburn's last film, Always, released a few years before my flight, featured her as a spirit guide for dead pilots.
Eric Mc said:
The problem with the 737 Max is rather more subtle. It turns out that the Max has been modified to such an extent from the older 737 designs that the basic airframe now has a major aerodynamic flaw which, it seems, can only be cured by a software fix.
It's one thing designing a new locking mechanism for a cargo door. It's another where the plane is fundamentally aerodynamically flawed and dependent on code to stay safe in certain, not even extreme, flight regimes.
Is the 737 Max issue any more fundamental than the stall issue with certain jets that was 'solved' by fitting a tick shaker to discourage the pilots from getting anywhere near a stall? It seems to me the big problem with the Max was largely that the bodge didn't warn the pilots of an apparent problem but simply took over.It's one thing designing a new locking mechanism for a cargo door. It's another where the plane is fundamentally aerodynamically flawed and dependent on code to stay safe in certain, not even extreme, flight regimes.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff