[Inquisitive]

Recently I took a short vacation and travelled after 2 years.
It was a funny feeling for me but at Airports (cover 3 airports, 4 sectors) the crowd is like normal and looks like business as usual and all travellers seems forgotten about Covid 19. Masks were mandatory but most of the time passengers were eating and obviously without mask.

But most importantly, the aircraft for 2 sectors of my travel was with B737 Max. I boarded the flight with some trepidation and did some extra prayers.

The journey was very smooth, sitting at window seat in both directions right above the engines. The engines looks large compared to fuselage.

I am sure all the precautions and mitigations are done, e.g. 2 sets of air sensors, more training, override button to MCAS etc. However could any knowledgeable person enlighten if any other safety features are incorporated?

1 user thanked author for this post.

LuganoPirate

[SimonS1]

[quote quote=1218122]However could any knowledgeable person enlighten if any other safety features are incorporated?[/quote]

https://www.boeing.com/737-max-updates/

1 user thanked author for this post.

Inquisitive

[Inquisitive]

[postquote quote=1218126]

Hi SimonS1, thanks for the link. However I read these information immediately after my booking, when I noted the aircraft type.

From past posts, I guess this Forum has some pilots and aviation engineers, so I thought I may get some independent view from them.

[FormerBA]

Flew Iceland air to KEF back in October on the 737 Max, and was impressed by the interior.

Had I known it was a 737 max I would never have booked and even now would not book onto any service operated by that aircraft.

Irrational perhaps but this is a blighted aircraft in my view.

2 users thanked author for this post.

tomwjsimpson, cwoodward

[JamesTC]

What I’m uncomfortable about with the Max, is the fact that the aircraft was never designed for engines of that size. They’ve had to be re-positioned on the wings and flattened at the bottom to allow enough ground clearance. Then there are all the electronic pilot aids just to enable the aircraft to fly correctly, rather than how it would naturally want to fly.

BA have a huge order for them, as does Ryanair, and I’m sure many people won’t bat an eyelid flying on them; but for me I would still rather fly on an alternative aircraft.

1 user thanked author for this post.

cwoodward

[AMcWhirter]

Hello jameswils, one other point to mention is the age of the B737.

Yes I realise it’s been modified and upgraded over the years but the fact remains it entered service with Lufthansa in 1968. Lufthansa was the first airline outside N America to operate the B737.

In June of that year I flew Lufthansa’s B737 between ZRH and FRA.

At that time as a teenager I was in awe of the B737. Until then it was quite a different aircraft to any other short-haul jet of that time.

1 user thanked author for this post.

JamesTC

[IanFromHKG]

Many safety features were incorporated, @Inquisitive, but let’s remember that MCAS was itself supposed to be a safety feature (to overcome an inherent instability problem caused by the new placement of the larger engines), and that Boeing decided to conceal the existence of the system from pilots (apparently in order to sell the aircraft to airlines on the basis that significant new pilot training would not be required – reportedly, pilots transitioning from the previous generation of 737 got their training not in an aircraft, or even a simulator, but in one hour on an iPad).

Admittedly, the B737 MAX is now probably the most examined aircraft in history (possible exception for the Comet, where extraordinary tests (including a flood tank where the airframe was pressurised and depressurised 16,000 times) revealed the then little-understood concept of metal fatigue).

Do I trust new safety features that Boeing introduces? Well, let’s just remember that at the moment Boeing is desperately trying to rush certification for the MAX-10 through by the end of the year, under grandfathering rules, because if they don’t they will have to comply with new crew-alerting regulations. To put it another way, Boeing are deliberately trying to rush through a new model in order to avoid new regulatory requirements designed to enhance safety and the need for a redesign of the aircraft. Does that sound to you like a manufacturer to which safety is the number one priority?

Oh, and there’s the failed test on the 777X where the fuselage ruptured. From a news report at the time: “The FAA requirement says that forces need to be piled upon the airframe up to 1.5 times the maximum load that would ever be experienced in normal flight. It then has to be held there for at least three seconds. The 777X had reached a load of 1.48 times the maximum, around 99% of the target, when the structure gave way.” When they say “the structure gave way” – well, see the picture.

So what did the regulators do? They decided it passed the test. Even though it didn’t reach the 1.5 x maximum load, let alone stay there for three seconds (which was the standard to be achieved). It’s a bit like saying “Congratulations, you passed your underwater breath-holding contest! You needed to hold your breath underwater at 1.5 metres for three seconds and less than three seconds in, before you even got to 1.5 metres, your lungs exploded! Well done!”

3 users thanked author for this post.

cwoodward, Inquisitive, JamesTC

[CathayLoyalist2]

So how does Boeing get away with this? Bribery?

[Inquisitive]

[postquote quote=1218850]

May be the approves remember only the rounding up rules from lower primary maths.

1.48 can be rounded up to 1.5

And for that matter 1.47 can be considered 1.5 and nothing happened at 1.47 times pressure!

[woodyhoo]

This is an Airframe which is continually under stress when flying because of design features that cause the aircraft to “fight itself”.

[cwoodward]

In my opinion B737M is still a potential death trap and perhaps the US government is of a similar view:

‘US plane builder Boeing faces further US Government scrutiny with Congress reportedly preparing to request an audit of Boeing’s production oversight following some 60 in-flight problems, including six emergencies, involving the 737 MAX in the 12 months since the FAA cleared the plane to fly again. An email from the US National Transportation
Safety Bureau (NTSB) says the US Congress has requested the Inspector General’s Office of the Department of Transportation (DOT) undertake the audit’

*from simply flying

[AMcWhirter]

As I noted many times before this aircraft dates from 1968.

Boeing has tinkered and modified the design since then in place of investing in the development of a brand new aircraft.

Fussy airlines like Qatar Airways prefer the Airbus over the Boeing product … witness the recent court case in London.

1 user thanked author for this post.

cwoodward

[IanFromHKG]

[postquote quote=1219073]

Although Qatar hasn’t really done itself any favours with the court case so far…

2 users thanked author for this post.

Jacob, cwoodward

[Mister SB]

I flew the Max from HKT to SIN with SQ recently and it was a delight! Quietest, smoothest flight I’ve had in a long time…

[cwoodward]

I imagine that the passengers that died in the 2 fatal crashes thought that that it was a very nice aircraft until………

2 users thanked author for this post.

esselle, IanFromHKG

[Author]

Posts