@@aseem7w9 Whenever people talk about "the media" as a singular entity rather than recognizing it as a collective of disperate and mostly autonomous resources of information with varying degrees of validity and factuality are normally the same types of people that call any news they don't agree with as "fake news" irrespective of its content and likely spend too much time indulging in conspiracy theories on sites like 4chan
@@L33tSkE3t Most media don't give people fake news but they misinform people by twisting news heavily in a way that fits their agenda. For example Cnn twists it so that democrats appear good always and fox news twists it in such a way that republicans appear good always.
@@aseem7w9 Yes, it's up to the public to determine what news is actual news and what is spun opinion pieces with an agenda and to never rely solely on one source for that content, also to always do your own fact checking. Unfortunately that has become a second job it seems these days and many people are willing to just eat up the echo-chamber slop from which ever side of the isle news they subscribe to spits out. Unfortunately, many people lack the ability or willingness to distinguish that which is news programing on a network from Opinion pieces and cannot distinguish between the two on that very same network. I would argue Fox and networks like it do more damage in terms of misinformation than say CNN. For example, Hannity and Carlson are Opinion based shows presented as news content and Fox has even been sued for presenting them as such and won in court by successfully arguing that, "no rational viewer would confuse what they do as news or anything other than opinion." Unfortunately people very much do view it as news and some even take it as Gospel. Then there is confirmation bias from people that just search for the news they want to believe, deliberately ignoring any contradictory information... That's where you get stuff like anti-vax morons. I have two cousins on the spectrum and I know it to very much be genetic and has nothing to do with childhood inoculations but people still try arguing with me, saying otherwise.
@Steven Greenberg To fit the new larger and more fuel efficient engines under the wings of the 737 MAX, which has always been designed to be low to the ground for ease of maintenance and for easy accessibility for ground crews, they had to raise the plane and move the engines more forward on the wing to allow for the new larger engines to fit. This changed the flight and stall characteristics of the aircraft and to avoid forcing pilots to have to recertify on the MAX from earlier 737s, the MCAS or maneuverability characteristics augmentation system or MCAS was put into place without the full knowledge of many pilots or Boeing explaining it's function to literally change the way the plane behaved. Engineers warned the higher-ups at Boeing of the dangers of this but unfortunately Boeing isn't run by engineers anymore, and they think that's somehow a good thing because execs can eke out as much profit as possible...
The same thing happened when the DC-10 had several high-profile crashes back in the 70’s. Passengers flat out refused to fly on them. Can you blame them though? Not really.
Even as an Airplane enthusiast, I'm of the belief that perception is reality when it comes to this industry. Sure, this aircraft might very well be free of flaws now. But it took two crashes for Boeing to acknowledge there was a problem and for all aircrafts to be grounded in the first place. Perception is reality and if I'm flying and happen to see the 737-Max name in any iteration, I will naturally look for an alternative if possible.
You know how many aircraft that are currently flying that had major issues upon introduction into fleets? People crack me up with their lack of knowledge on the industry and it’s history.
@@H1TMANactual I’m a airline pilot with over 4,000* hours total time and type rated in three aircraft. I think I have a little more then a rough idea on aircraft and what I’m talking about.
Important thing about this specific plane was that Boeng was very well aware of the issues and actively withheld information from FAA, Airlines and pilots just for $$.. I don't understand how that is not a criminal case of at least manslaughter of hundreds of lives.
To be honest....... I'll have no problem flying on a Max, as you said it's probably the most scrutinised aircraft in modern aviation history. As long as the pilots have been trained properly and there is more than one sensor for the computer to use, it should pose no risk to the aircraft.
The main problem of the 737 max for me ,is that.. it is a plane designed 50 years ago with 2 diferent engines fitted under the wings, that has to be supervised by software...I wil not feel safe on it...
Happened to me just a week ago lol I was one of those who said “will never fly on that thing” and when checking the security info card it said 737max in big letters and I was like “welp what you gonna do”
@@marked4death076 I was terrified during takeoff ngl but after looking up some info about the changes made to the model, I’m confident now. In fact, it was one of the smoothest flights I’ve ever been. I think the max will become a very popular plane in the future.
@@Etherus69 I meant 2 tragic incidents of loss of 2 aircraft and all on board. Don't you dare say I was disrespectful. Understand the context of the statement if possible before you comment.
I would get on board a MAX today. With the amount of separate agencies worldwide investigating to certify the aircraft, I do believe they would have found any coverups.
News Flash (for the naive, the gullible and the trusting): The lying, corporate sociopaths have been caught with their pants down again. Boeing and the FAA colluded to influence recertification and safety standards on the 737 MAX (or the - 8, or whatever they're trying to call it now): www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2020-12-19/senate-report-blasts-faa-and-boeing-over-max-recertification
@@montymatilda Unfortunately, I have, for quite a few years. But this was a bipartisan committee and the conclusions reached were unanimous. Hardly a decision of political expediency, then, as I would assume no US high ranking politician would like to drag a major US business and US Army contractor through the mud in this way, if there was no pressing need to uncover the truth in this matter.
I guess it depends on what your basis for saying it is not up to date is? I mean there is nothing wrong with a 50 year old design structurally speaking. It also depends on your definition of up to date. The A320 is nearly 40 years old.
@@theedorknyt6653 the first flight of the 737 was 53 years ago, the first flight of the A320 was however "only" 33 years ago. That's a difference of 20 years, not 10 as you seem to make it. And those 20 years were very important years, technological speaking. The 737 is the only "modern" plane that still uses old fashioned mechanical flight controls. As far as I'm aware, the A320 has been fly-by-wire from the beginning. The 737 is a fundamentally outdated design. And this old design is the root problem for the whole MCAS desaster.
I'm curious to know where you find the information that the manual controls are the reason for MCAS? As far as I can see the reason for MCAS was the larger engines, and the plane is flyable without it. Personally and you may not agree, but I would consider manual to be safer. It has been used for longer and is a more direct control than a computer interpreting what input the pilot gives. As we have seen it doesn't take much incorrect code to bring the plane down.. And yes it is 20 years older, however that does not make it the basis for being a problem.
@@theedorknyt6653 This is a widely held misunderstanding that the MAX wouldn’t fly without MCAS. Im fact the MAX would fly fine without MCAS and many tests have been run with the system off. MCAS was added to make the MAX and NG handle similarly from a pilot perspective so it could be covered by the same type rating which is a big incentive for carriers with existing 737s to buy the MAX. The crashes were tragic and never should’ve happened but nearly 2 years went into fixing this airplane. I would be happy to fly a MAX now.
Absolutely I would. Now there are redundant AOA sensors and pilots know the runaway stab trim disconnect switches on the back of the pedestal will prevent it from engaging, things just got a hell of a lot safer. Had the pilots just received this small bit of knowledge and normal *differences* training rather than Boeing and the airlines saving a buck and MCAS documented in the POH, neither incident would have been a fatality.
In at least one of the crashes the pilots managed to disconnect MCAS and go manual, but it was too late and to difficult to manually trim the aircraft.
Airbus ftw!! Boeing cuts corners for profits and now worry about safety.. no amount of money can bring the list lives back after giving the family of lost ones, just hurts to spend the money .. I would just burn that money because its useless.. Boeing Is pure evil 😈 I work as a engineering for mill spec electronics and we are very strict about things that have peoples lives on planes and oil rigs..
@@thatonebeone Greed might now work to increase safety though. Boeing's obsession with not losing $$$ will now make the Max a safer plane, because the last two accidents were VERY expensive. They will not make this mistake again.
I am honestly not getting on one for the next few years. Until the changes are actually proven to be reliable for a significant amount of time, I still retain a bad impression of the likely last variants of the 737.
Problem is most aircraft eventually have a whole loss that can be pinned on a design flaw. Particularly if one stretches the definition. The DC-10 and its cargo door for example and if stretching a bit any Airbus and it's highly automated flight control system. My big problem is that no aircraft should be automated to this degree
@@M167A1 thing is, they knew there was a potential issue and tried to hide it, sure there are flaws in lots of planes, but you don't add whole systems, skimp on redundancy to avoid testing requirements and then don't tell the pilots this system exists.
@@RobertPlattBell last time I flew, we flew southwest from Phoenix AZ to Seatle to go on our cruise that was summer of 2019 but havent been on a plane since then.
@@RobertPlattBell Yeah buddy it was better back then because every seat was first class and kidney cost. Nothing much has changed from back then, it’s just that there’s more classes in an airplane than just first class.
What the MAX scandal really showed up was the utterly terrible corporate culture at Boeing and I'm not sure they have fixed that. Add to that that several airlines are now refusing jets made in their Kentucky factory for bad build quality. I'll be avoiding them and flying Airbus instead , for the next few years. I do hope that Boeing get back to being an aircraft maker, rather than greedy and reckless corporation .
No reason to avoid the NG generation. Those actually have a pretty good track record (and if I have to fly, I'll probably be on one on account of having built up status on Southwest before the pandemic and being very appreciative of how they run their business)
@@northwestthrills3453 dont forget transport canada and the brazilian one. I find it hard to imagine that all 4 of these countries (europe continent) are wrong
This aircraft will be the safest aircraft in the sky. Remember so many years ago what happened with the DC10? There were 2 incidents killing 400 odd people and the plane was grounded for months. After mcdonnel went back and fixed the issues there wasn't a mechanical related crash ever again and it has flown to this date without any issues
As a professional mechanical engineer I will not board 737 Max planes. The problem in my opinion is not fixed properly as there is a fatal flaw in the overall design of the plane which is how the larger engine was installed , and this flaw was not fixed. It is still installed the same way as before. Patch fixing is not proper solution when the lives of people on the line. Boeing acted out iof greed and their engineers forgot to follow their responsibility as a professional engineer to push back and yielded to the pressure of the executives to come up with a low cost solution to increase the profit of the company. The Boeing engineers are guilty as much as the executives of Boeing for the loss of human life. The federal aviation agency is also responsible to not do their due diligence before certifying the plane. Unfortunately the US system is becoming more corrupt everyday and the big corporations buy the law makers through lobbyists and campaign money, hence the Congress and Senate are more faithful to corporate interests rather than people interest.
I Remember the Comet. Two of them crashed and they did some patches but whoops they didn’t. When they finally fixed the real problem most airlines didn’t buy it because passengers didn’t want to fly on it. I’ll just pick my carrier by their equipment and if they have this aircraft I’ll choose another for five years or so. I don’t want to be a test subject. Oh remember the tail flutter that took a few 737s down?
So they fixed the 60 year old design that they “fixed” to put the big engines on it ? I’m not getting on board until they have flown for 5 years without problems...
I couldn’t agree more. This thing is a flying coffin. The notion of using software to try to ameliorate the problems of a flawed airframe design is preposterous. Boeing’s insistence on profit at the expense of safety is unforgivable. I’ll be flying Airbus.
Call it engines missplaced, too big too heavy or landing gear too short or elevons too small, it's only safe under two condition, don't board one and don't stay under its flight path. It has only one feature, it is cheap to build...but that's about it.
Nope its physical design is spot on and perfect. MCAS was made so that it controls in similar way as 737 ng which is something CNN doesnt tell you because they want the juicy money and createcontroversies.
Aseem Nakarmi perfect design! You place the bar well below sea level because the only real feature of this plane is an optimized assembly system and exceptional low cost of manufacturing, not really a tangible benefit to travelers, crew and potential victims. The MCAS (developped for another purpose on tankers) was added here because heavier and bigger PW1000G or GE Safran Leap engines had to be moved up and forward to be high enough and this new position generates a huge twisting moment and instability of the plane lifting the nose up so quickly that it stalls as soon as you throttle up sufficiently. This behavior it totally disgusting and should have never been certified by the FAA. The MCAS system overrides pilots actions so that pilots sense a lack of moment reaction similar to NG's but for the most of them, they were unaware of the system function and action and in case the single mechanical angle of attack sensor was icing or failing, plane was getting out of control by the MCAS acting against the pilots actions on the elevons....None of this poorly engineered crap was added on A320s to become NEO's new engine options , well positioned with the sufficient landing gear length sufficient elevon size as well, so that std A320 trained crew could fly NEO's flawlessly so that it is strictly by competitive pressure and poor design that the Max disasters occurred and design failure persists.
@@philgooddr.7850 HAHAHAH IT STALLS!?!?! WHERE DID YOU GET THAT INFO FROM XDDDD. MCAS is there only for pilots of ng to have a similar control with the max. Where the fuck are you getting this false info from? CNN?
Aseem Nakarmi I CAN also use CAPITALS... Of course the engines were moved FORWARD ...a big way....and ,proper counterweights not added or moved... it is obvious to anyone with a pair of eyes and moreover now, the additional cabin shield layer at the fan level is missplaced too far behind...another flaw...un-certifiable...so they said the fan shield is enough...till the next victim I guess... if you don't see all the obvious, change glasses.. Not sure the kamikase philosophy and spirit should apply to civilian airborne mobility specially since much better options exists already. Life's too short for that kind of flying crap...
@@philgooddr.7850 ah yes because seeing is everything. The ge90 looks way too big for the 777-200lr which is obvious to anyone with a pair of parts which means its uncertifiable and flawed too according to your logic right?? Plus if the max cant be fixed at all, what the fuck are Transport Canada, EASA and all others in the world doing by certifying the max unless they have worse knowledge of aviation than you?
@@bertdejonghe3303 butter in Aviation means planes landing either smooth or rough... It basically when you spread (Land) butter (Plane) on bread (Runway)
I would fly on the MAX!! Since the two accidents almost two years ago the Boeing company and the FAA have gone over the aircraft with a fine tooth comb. I trust the aircraft with US trained Pilots more than some of the third world Pilots. I have been an aviation mechanic for over 35 years and can comfortably say that 90% of all aircraft accidents are pilot induced.
I will never fly on the MAX. After the 787 fiasko and now the MAX disaster, I do not trust Boeing or the authorities anymore. I can’t be 100% certain what is on the airplane I’m flying, so I will gladly choose the A320neo or older 737 instead of the MAX.
@@iffinland9321 Obviously every plane has problems, however the problems shouldn’t be this severe, and so many! There have been several tens of extremely serious issues with the MAX when the normal/acceptable is 2 minor issues on safe aircraft, and a flying coffin should never have been certified
I think some redesign would be prudent, as the engine size and further forward position caused the requirement for MCAS. To increase size of landing gear to move engines farther back under wing would remove the COG issue and remove the need for MCAS. What would have cost more, all the money they lost from cancelled orders plus penalty by FAA or redesign and retooling? just a thought.
For further the center of gravity is from the center of pressure, the more stable it is. So by moving the engines back it makes the plane more unstable.
How does it look like on their website? Im gonna be flying RyanAir soon and it says it's gonna be a B738 which Im assuming is the 737 800 and not the Max.
@@carlosandleon you can tell the difference by the engines. if the engines have the chevrons (the little spikes by the exhaust) on the engines then its a max.
No. After hearing the denial from Boeing and blaming the pilots. I refuse to get on a Boeing 737 MAX. Call me paranoid but I’d like to live till I’m old and contributed to society. The damage has been done. Luckily. I’m poor.
Airbus please ... i would never trust this aircraft ... they should have started again from scratch and not merely tweaked an aircraft that is 40 plus years old (or whatever the time is) ..
I wonder why they couldnt extend the length of the landing gear to give the engines clearance, anyways, it’s flawed to me, like u said, the MCAS only operating once could mean it will stall if the nose pitches up again, thankfully the MCAS is now known to pilots and how to turn it off, but i still think if those sensors get blocked there will be issues. I also suspect thete will be different issues not involving the MCAS, boeing deserve more backlash than they are receiving, lost all respect for the company.
The B737 MAX branding is now tarnished and all the media and advertising spin is not going make people feel comfortable traveling on the aircraft type. What Boeing needs to do, is to go out all B737 MAX customers and find out who still wants the B737 MAX and who don't, then close of the order book and start working on the all new clean single aisle airframe design using 2nd generation of GTF engines to replace the B737 and B757.
After thorough testing I'll fly on the Max I guess. Frankly I am more concerned about holding those responsible accountable, the entire board at Boeing should be replaced, and the FAA should have a major shakeup. The EU should not simply rubber stamp FAA recommendations in future. The FAA has proven itself in the pocket of Boeing and this corruption has a death toll.
@@SceurdiaStudios yeah the chances of another crash are basically impossible since the 737 is basically boeings most important plane and they are being watched by everyone in the world rn.
In all honesty, I would have little issue flying on a MAX after this. I'm a strange mix of aircraft enthusiast and super nervous flyer, but at the end of the day I don't think the MAX scares me more than any other plane out there. Every flight for me is the same - mild terror from tarmac to tarmac - but like you said, no aircraft has been scrutinized and gone over at this point more than the MAX.
What has gone wrong with Boeing? They developed the gamechanging 707, the first widebody (B747) which is still loved by many people in aviation and they were the first to extensively use composites with the 787 which many people love.
I don't choose the adverts that you see. It seems that youtube has decided that there should be two ads in each break, and that you have seen each one. normally you see one ad per video. can't say for sure why you are getting so many.
@@Perich29. A320 also has timeless in multiple major fatal accidents not even long after its first debut regardless of its milestone achievement as the world's first and fully digitalized state of the art computerized FBW commercial aeroplane.
Well it’s 2022 and everybody is now flying on the max as I did and the plane was packed !! It’s a great a/c and will be flying for decades to come !! Great and safe a/c !! 👍
I'm going to express an opinion that won't be popular. Poor pilot training can cause any aircraft to crash. Have a look at the 737 Quick Reference Handbook (QRH) The Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System or MCAS is a terrible name for a programming routine. MCAS is a singular programming routine. It IS NOT some stand-alone system as the majority of the public believes and as the name implies. MCAS is ONE programming routine out of the thousands of routines that operate many aspects of the plane's autopilot. The idea that the pilots should know the name of every programming routine and how every programming routine operates under normal conditions is absolutely comical. The idea that the pilots should know how a specific programming routine operates under abnormal conditions is beyond absurd. BOTH 737MAX crashes could have been prevented if the pilots had been trained properly when confronted with a runaway trim situation. ALL models of the 737 for the past 52 years REQUIRE the pilots to be trained to recognize and recover from a runaway trim situation. The procedure is a MEMORY item procedure which means the pilots should know how to do the procedure without looking at the QRH manual. This site shows how the QRH Procedure for runaway trim has developed over the past 52 years. www.b737.org.uk/runawaystab.htm#:~:text=If%20nose%2Dup%20trim%20is,until%20the%20airplane%20is%20trim. The Lion Air aircraft that crashed, had flown a few hours earlier with a different set of pilots that experienced the exact same conditions as the pilots that crashed flight 610. The pilots from the earlier flight recognized that the stabilizer trim system was "running away" and they followed the "memory item" procedure for "runaway stabilizer trim", and they recovered the plane. The pilots that recovered the plane had experienced a "stick shaker" event and instead of declaring an emergency and landing at the nearest airfield, they flew on to the next destination. That plane should have been grounded until Lion Air mechanics and engineers had determined why the aircraft had experienced a "stick shaker" event. Instead, that plane was loaded up with passengers and sent on its way as Flight 610 with a new set of pilots. Those pilots experienced the exact same failures as the previous flight but unfortunately, those pilots didn't recognize that the stabilizer trim system was "running away" and they eventually crashed. If the pilots of flight 610 had recognized that the trim system was "running away" and then followed the proper procedure to correct for it, the plane would NOT have crashed. Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 is even more egregious because the FAA had issued an Emergency Airworthiness Directive and sent it to ALL 737Max 8 and 9 owners nearly 3 months before flight 302 crashed. The directive described in detail what an MCAS failure would look like (runaway stabilizer commands) and then the directive reinforced the need for pilots to follow the existing runaway stabilizer procedure to recover the aircraft. How on earth did the Ethiopian Airlines pilots not know about (AD) 2018-23-51? And if they did know, why didn't they follow the proper procedure to get the trim system under control? Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2018-23-51 was sent to all 737Max 8 and 9 owners after black box data showed that the pilots that crashed Lion Air flight 610 failed to follow the existing runaway stabilizer procedure. Boeing’s 737 MAX Flight Crew Operations Manual (FCOM) already outlines an existing procedure to safely handle the unlikely event of erroneous data coming from an angle of attack (AOA) sensor. The pilot will always be able to override the flight control law using electric trim or manual trim. In addition, it can be controlled through the use of the existing runaway stabilizer procedure as reinforced in the Operations Manual Bulletin (OMB) issued on Nov. 6, 2018. Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2018-23-51 reinforces the need for pilots to follow the existing runaway stabilizer procedure and adds more information on how malfunctioning angle of attack or speed sensors can cause runaway stabilizer commands. This AD is effective December 21, 2018, to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD 2018-23-51, issued on November 7, 2018, which contained the requirements of this amendment.
FAA AD #: 2018-23-51 2018-23-51_Emergency.pdf www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/12/06/2018-26365/airworthiness-directives-the-boeing-company-airplanes This video from Mentour Pilot was posted in 2017 BEFORE either 737MAX crashed and explains what a pilot is supposed to do in the event of runaway automated trim stabilization. The trim wheels are 1.18 in wide(30mm)x 8.98 in diameter (228mm) What is that spinning thing? May 4th, 2017 czcams.com/video/l62NvkRWa5E/video.html
@Thomas Browne How many AoA sensors would satisfy you? Both crashes occurred on bright sunny clear days. The captain and the first officer had 2 each angle of attack sensors. They are called eyeballs. So I will ask again, what, in your opinion, would have been the correct number of AoA sensors? One? Two? Three? Airbus and Boeing have entirely different philosophies with regard to autopilot systems. Boeing shows the pilot what the autopilot controls are doing. If the nose needs to be trimmed up the trim wheels move in the direction they move when up trim is applied by the pilot. If the throttles have decreased the pilot will see the throttles pull back. The control column will move just like it would if an actual pilot was moving it. The pilots can easily see what the autopilot is doing because the pilot sees the controls move accordingly. Airbus has a very different philosophy. They have triple redundant computers that monitor and adjust the controls. The A330's have 3 FCPC (flight control primary computers) and 2 FCSC (flight control secondary computers). Despite costs induced by dissimilarity, the five computers are all of different nature to avoid common-mode failures. In other words, the actual microprocessors are different models manufactured by different chip companies. And the programs used to run them were written in different programming languages by different programmers. How is that for redundancy? Is that enough? Air France Flight 447 (A330-203) had three pitot tubes. The pitot tubes are the sensors that give the pilots and the computers the aircraft's airspeed. Flight 447 had triple redundant computers and had triple-redundant pitot tubes and it still crashed because of pilot error. Flight 447 had a Captain and two First Officers. The Captain of flight 447 was not in the cockpit when the pitot tubes failed. He was on a required break. The Captain returned to the flight deck after being summoned by the First Officer. By the time that he returned and realized that the First Officer was holding the aircraft in a stall, it was too late. The A330's triple-redundant FCPC's and triple-redundant pitot tubes weren't enough to prevent the death of 228 passengers and crew. At the end of the day, the pilots should be trained to exceptional levels if they will be flying passengers. Lion Air and Ethiopian Air failed their pilots.
This was a great episode and question. So many issues here. The way Boeing initially handled the two crashes was... POOR. To be kind. I have been a fan of Boeing and after that I questioned what was going on at the company. The other part was the training and abilities of the crews that crashed. Not to be indelicate, but I understand the captain of the Ethiopia aircraft was extremely low time. He followed the procedure and then immediately reset the circuit breaker. So there was a problem. A short term fix (I hope). And then a pilot ignored procedure. Both are at fault for this one, in my opinion. I wonder if EASA also certified the aircraft? RyanAir falls under them, don’t they? Anyway, great content, great question, very stimulating. Thank you.
I like that this report only alluded to the 2 fatal crashes, but didn't take time to recap the events of which I'm reasonably sure everyone is already acutely aware of.
@@FoundAndExplained I'm glad that you didn't go into it because the point of your report was to ask the viewer what should happen moving forward. You got right to the point. We should never forget what happened because It was a horrible tragedy.
Since I usually fly with Ryanair as much as possible, I probably will encounter that plane at some point. Honestly, I put faith into Boeing and the FAA to have solved the issue and that there won’t be any problems soon.
I wonder if Boeing will slap something on the 737 airframe to prolong its life time again to make a Generation 5. Or if they finally will create something free of those limitations of the 60ies airframe.
Sort of silly to say passengers will simply refuse to fly on a Boeing aircraft period. The majority of the flying public will simply not know or not even care they are flying on a 737 of any kind after a few months. Plus the flying public will not stop flying airlines because they are an all Boeing or Airbus fleet. Price per ticket will determine what the flying public buy and fly on.
Agreed, but my money won't be purchasing a seat on a MAX anytime soon. I do pick my flights based on the plane, however I'm probably a freakish minority
I know exactly where you are coming from. On most occasions when I ask friends and family what they flew on they haven't got a clue. With a little information it often possible to work it out (airlines typically use a very limited number of aircraft types on a particular route) - but when they can't even say if the engines were wing or tail mounted, or how many seats across on a single isle what chance is there that they are aware of which model in the range it is!
The flying general public: OMG THE 737 MAX IS SO UNSAFE I WILL NEVER FLY IT Also the flying public when they see a plane: Oh thats a cool Boeing A377! Long Story short, most people wont have a clue what they are flying on. I will have no issue stepping on one even as an AVgeek knowing the full story.
NEVER! I refuse to fly with a plane that killed hundres of people with know flaws. It should never be allowed in the air, EVER! I stick to the other types from boeing and airbus
I don't have an issue with the plane, Ill fly on it just as I would an airbus, however I do have a massive issue with Boeing as a company and why these events were allowed to happen in the first place,
This wasn't due to maintenance, it was design flaw and their software correction was another flaw, and their auto pilot sensor for it, another stupid flaw since it didn't have a back up sensor.
@@nikolaykrotov8673 statistically no. i, and everyone else is so much more likely to die in a car crash so i dont see why everyone is acting like its a death trap.
@@justin.w.06 Not saying modern air travel in general is dangerous, but that quote is an outright lie and has been repeated far too often. If you take as many flights as your everyday car trips, you're more likely to die flying than driving, to nobody's surprise.
No disrespect to the tragedies rip to those who died and I know it can be traumatizing but as long as whatever design flaws that caused the crash has been fixed the plane has been thoroughly tested and checked out even if I was still a little nervous about flying I would give it go what we seem to forget there have been many many years of plane tragedies even before some of us were born and people still fly can't let fear consume us
The design flaw hasn’t been fixed-the configuration of the airframe has not changed. Depending on software rewrites to compensate for a flawed design is obscene. This plane is incapable of being safely flown.
@@MUSCLEPUP44 the plane can be safely flown. What caused issues was the program that made it fly similarly to other 737s and malfunctioned. If MCAS wasn't there, the plane flies almost the same, but slowly pitches the nose up, which isnt a problem. Those crashes couldve been avoided if the pilots were trained how to disable MCAS.
This pilot who flew it before will be happy to fly it again. The redesign, software rewrite, extensive training including having to retrain in a MAX simulator (not an NG), etc, means it will be safe to fly again.
the 737 max has gone through the strictest testing because they cant let another crash happen. also, I know 737 max pilots that are excited to fly again.
Looking forward to trying the Boeing 737 MAX! However, the places I usually fly to are operated by Airbus A330s, not 737s. Let's just see if Qantas gets the 737 MAX.
For me, it will take a few years after resuming the service w/o any incident to trust B737max and FAA again. Before that if airlines assign me to Max, I won’t board the aircraft unless someone put a gun on my head. Sorry, I can’t forgive the attitude like “ Wanna pay less? Then opt out some safety measures! Don’t worry, it’s not standardized (yet).
@Thomas Browne Look at the 737 series of aircraft and the millions upon millions of miles the series has flown.....the airframe has done outstandingly, well.
no way will I fly on the 737 max, i fly a lot with my work,29 flights in 2019 this year not much covid 19 but I will refuse to fly at any airport, i know the difference in 737 type sorry no way
The MAX is probably the most scrutinised aircraft in history. The recertification process was longer than the initial certification process itself and every aspect of the plane has been combed through so thoroughly that it'll probably be one of the safest aircraft to fly.
It's still a 53 year old design. It's the only "modern" plane that still uses mechanical flight controls. It might look modern, both in the cabin and the cockpit, but underneath all that it's still a 53 year old plane that simply shouldn't exist in 2020.
@@xBris Just because the 737 came out in the 60s doesn't mean the MAX is still the 'same design'. Everything from the airframe, wings, materials, flight systems and engines to the interior and exterior design are completely different. That'd be like saying a 1967 Toyota Corolla is the same underneath as a 2020 Corolla; it simply isn't. They're vastly different, despite sharing the same name.
@@waterdrinkingexpert6797 it is more than just sharing the name. The modern fuel efficient engines are too big to fit in the 737 frames... period. They should go back to drawing board and design new one... instead Boeing choose to tweak the software. In other words this planes stability is constantly saved by software.
How does a software upgrade fix fundamental design flaws. MCAS was installed on 737 Max because at full throttle (take off/climb, go around etc) the plane's nose pitches up to a dangerous angle which could stall the plane. Hence, Boeing installed MCAS which automatically brings the nose down. So the pilot is trying to get the plane up and gain altitude while the auto pilot is trying to pitch the nose down.
@@boeingfreak1 There are lots of videos about them it just depends what kind of video you are looking for, there are trip reports or the last KLM F70 flight for example
@@ythinder I know i've seen them for sure!! I'd like to see a video about the history of the aircraft like Skyship Eng's videos we need something bc i feel like ppl are fortgetting about the beauty
I just book flights on Airbus and Embraer. Just that simple. If it’s Boeing I ain’t going. It is not the same company anymore who designed the 747. It’s McDonnell Douglas with a different Name.
I flew on a Lion Air 737 Max 8 to Bali a day after the crash. I won’t lie and say that I wasn’t worried, but i felt better as there was a large group of nuns on the flight as well.
Many people say Boeing 737s are unreliable??? *737-200, -300, -400, -500, -600, -700, -800, -900 arguably the safest 737s in the 737 lineup that ever flown and still flying especially the -200 which would be more than 50 years old and still flying and very reliable wants to know your location*
@@FoundAndExplained technically not you, I mean those that say the 737 is a trash plane when in reality they are one of the most reliable planes out there to the point some of them are use for ASW as P-8 Poseidons by the Navy
People who argue “the MAX has too much software and computers controlling it for me to feel safe on onboard” then turn around and say “Airbus is much better and safer because they don’t have as many computers controlling it!” That cracks me up. The issue with the MAX was not FADEC or any engine orientated flight computers. The Airbus fleet all use a fly by wire design which makes them completely reliant on their FDC’s and has complete reliance on “computers”. I’m not saying the Airbus fleet isn’t safe I’m just saying many of you contradict yourself and don’t understand much about the topic. The issue with the MAX was MCAS’s reliance on the single AOA indicator and software components. The airplane is still safe without the MCAS system. MCAS was implemented for the MAX series to replicate much more of the handling characteristics of the NG series therefore being able to reside in the same type rating and only requiring differences training on new features such as LDG gear lever, avionics, start procedures, engines, emergency procedures, etc. The MAX is a well built machine that did have issues with its software and single AOA indicators communication. I’ve jumpseated on a few pre-grounding and didn’t see a whole lot that was overall different besides the visuals of the avionics and long engine start time. The engines used on the MAX are the almost identical to the NEO series. They’re both LEAP 1 series engines. If you’re gonna do the whole dick measuring contest of who’s better Airbus or Boeing at least have some knowledge on the two fleet types and maybe read the debrief from the test pilots and the FAA inspectors to understand what was wrong and what was fixed.
@@idkhowtoright479 I do get to choose planes, if i want to fly somewhere I look for airlines that operate airbus aircraft on that route. Besides that in germany most airlines have airbus aircrafts.
Just took my first flight on a 737 MAX9 this last week - absolutely no problem. I happened to talk to a few different pilots while I was waiting for my flight departure and all of them said they had absolute confidence in the MAX. After seeing all the scrutiny and review the plane went through before its recertification, I wasn't any more worried about sitting on the MAX than I was sitting on my living room sofa.
I would fly on it again. I am confident that with all the scrutiny and all Boeing has to lose if another MAX goes down, they checked every little thing on these aircrafts! I live in Seattle and it is sad to drive by the factory and see hundreds of the MAX planes parked awaiting recertification :-/ Now, Boeing needs a to be responsible, own to their mistake, admit guilt and pay their dues to the families who died in the two crashes that grounded the MAX. Lesson learned... you can’t skip safety over profits because profits will be eaten away by lawsuits...
LOL! Nice one! Believe me, I'm worried about getting on board a lame duck Ryanair (or any) 737 Max! Luckily Wizz Air have started flying to my small airport Bulgaria regular destination. Airbus fleet currently
All consumers and aviation enthusiast should want a healthy Airbus AND Boeing. Competition is good monopolies are not. Boeing screwed up- big time. But corporations are made of flawed human beings and corporations are in business to make money. Airbus could easily find itself in a similar situation as Boeing. Because of the international attention on this aircraft, I believe that the Max design has been thoroughly tested and is safe. Besides, these are the good days in aviation, wait until China floods the market with cheap airliners.......
Honestly covid 19 might be the best thing for Boeing because it sure pulled a lot of bad press away from them.
Thats good because the media doesnt know anything
@@aseem7w9 Whenever people talk about "the media" as a singular entity rather than recognizing it as a collective of disperate and mostly autonomous resources of information with varying degrees of validity and factuality are normally the same types of people that call any news they don't agree with as "fake news" irrespective of its content and likely spend too much time indulging in conspiracy theories on sites like 4chan
@@L33tSkE3t Most media don't give people fake news but they misinform people by twisting news heavily in a way that fits their agenda. For example Cnn twists it so that democrats appear good always and fox news twists it in such a way that republicans appear good always.
@@aseem7w9 Yes, it's up to the public to determine what news is actual news and what is spun opinion pieces with an agenda and to never rely solely on one source for that content, also to always do your own fact checking. Unfortunately that has become a second job it seems these days and many people are willing to just eat up the echo-chamber slop from which ever side of the isle news they subscribe to spits out. Unfortunately, many people lack the ability or willingness to distinguish that which is news programing on a network from Opinion pieces and cannot distinguish between the two on that very same network. I would argue Fox and networks like it do more damage in terms of misinformation than say CNN. For example, Hannity and Carlson are Opinion based shows presented as news content and Fox has even been sued for presenting them as such and won in court by successfully arguing that, "no rational viewer would confuse what they do as news or anything other than opinion." Unfortunately people very much do view it as news and some even take it as Gospel. Then there is confirmation bias from people that just search for the news they want to believe, deliberately ignoring any contradictory information... That's where you get stuff like anti-vax morons. I have two cousins on the spectrum and I know it to very much be genetic and has nothing to do with childhood inoculations but people still try arguing with me, saying otherwise.
@Steven Greenberg To fit the new larger and more fuel efficient engines under the wings of the 737 MAX, which has always been designed to be low to the ground for ease of maintenance and for easy accessibility for ground crews, they had to raise the plane and move the engines more forward on the wing to allow for the new larger engines to fit. This changed the flight and stall characteristics of the aircraft and to avoid forcing pilots to have to recertify on the MAX from earlier 737s, the MCAS or maneuverability characteristics augmentation system or MCAS was put into place without the full knowledge of many pilots or Boeing explaining it's function to literally change the way the plane behaved. Engineers warned the higher-ups at Boeing of the dangers of this but unfortunately Boeing isn't run by engineers anymore, and they think that's somehow a good thing because execs can eke out as much profit as possible...
The same thing happened when the DC-10 had several high-profile crashes back in the 70’s. Passengers flat out refused to fly on them.
Can you blame them though? Not really.
Even as an Airplane enthusiast, I'm of the belief that perception is reality when it comes to this industry. Sure, this aircraft might very well be free of flaws now. But it took two crashes for Boeing to acknowledge there was a problem and for all aircrafts to be grounded in the first place. Perception is reality and if I'm flying and happen to see the 737-Max name in any iteration, I will naturally look for an alternative if possible.
Not just that, I would like to avoid all Boeing airplanes if possible, but unfortunately not possible.
You know how many aircraft that are currently flying that had major issues upon introduction into fleets? People crack me up with their lack of knowledge on the industry and it’s history.
@@SidestickPilot
I can tell you don't know anything about planes.
@@H1TMANactual I’m a airline pilot with over 4,000* hours total time and type rated in three aircraft. I think I have a little more then a rough idea on aircraft and what I’m talking about.
@@SidestickPilot
Bro nobody cares about the number of hours you flew your RC plane
Important thing about this specific plane was that Boeng was very well aware of the issues and actively withheld information from FAA, Airlines and pilots just for $$.. I don't understand how that is not a criminal case of at least manslaughter of hundreds of lives.
To be honest....... I'll have no problem flying on a Max, as you said it's probably the most scrutinised aircraft in modern aviation history.
As long as the pilots have been trained properly and there is more than one sensor for the computer to use, it should pose no risk to the aircraft.
The main problem of the 737 max for me ,is that.. it is a plane designed 50 years ago with 2 diferent engines fitted under the wings, that has to be supervised by software...I wil not feel safe on it...
Any software driven systems on an Airbus, do you know?
@@ACPilot completely irrelevant. There's no system on an Airbus designed to deliberately crash the plane the way MCAS did. Twice.
All modern turbofan engines are supervised by software. Welcome to FADEC and the modern day.
@@visionist7 - Nor is there on the MAX
Every engine is supervised by software even on airbus engines.
Chances are, most people will say they'll never fly on it and will end up not realizing they already have until long after they've landed.
Not me, i always check when getting a ticket to see what exactly im getting on. Not sure most people even know how to or care tho
*In a casket.
Happened to me just a week ago lol I was one of those who said “will never fly on that thing” and when checking the security info card it said 737max in big letters and I was like “welp what you gonna do”
@@MrMauricioGG haha were you all nervy for the whole flight or what? How did it go? Im sure its handled now, its just the fear in everyones head
@@marked4death076 I was terrified during takeoff ngl but after looking up some info about the changes made to the model, I’m confident now. In fact, it was one of the smoothest flights I’ve ever been. I think the max will become a very popular plane in the future.
I will wait and see. Don't trust anyone now after these two tragic losses of life. Such a shame
2 tragic loses? It's 300+ losses, how disrespectful
@@Etherus69 I meant 2 tragic incidents of loss of 2 aircraft and all on board. Don't you dare say I was disrespectful. Understand the context of the statement if possible before you comment.
@@Etherus69
Quit making shit up to climb on people. You know what he meant.
I just hope no more single incident again.
If it's failed due to the plane problem. It will be nuclear backlash for Boeing.
@@Etherus69 lookin like a clown we all know what he meant
I would get on board a MAX today. With the amount of separate agencies worldwide investigating to certify the aircraft, I do believe they would have found any coverups.
News Flash (for the naive, the gullible and the trusting): The lying, corporate sociopaths have been caught with their pants down again. Boeing and the FAA colluded to influence recertification and safety standards on the 737 MAX (or the - 8, or whatever they're trying to call it now): www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2020-12-19/senate-report-blasts-faa-and-boeing-over-max-recertification
We'll see about that
@@cuttight Have you been following our senate? are they that reliable themselves?
@@montymatilda Unfortunately, I have, for quite a few years. But this was a bipartisan committee and the conclusions reached were unanimous. Hardly a decision of political expediency, then, as I would assume no US high ranking politician would like to drag a major US business and US Army contractor through the mud in this way, if there was no pressing need to uncover the truth in this matter.
Don't be naive...Boeing and the FAA are cheaters and liars!
RIP to the passengers and crew
None of them deserved what happen to them, all of this could have been prevented.
The 737 is a more than 50 year old design. It's simply not up to date and a fourth-generation 737 should have never been build.
I guess it depends on what your basis for saying it is not up to date is? I mean there is nothing wrong with a 50 year old design structurally speaking. It also depends on your definition of up to date. The A320 is nearly 40 years old.
Not like 50yrs design is bad, rather the rushed newest iteration is to blame. Sorry if my English is bad
@@theedorknyt6653 the first flight of the 737 was 53 years ago, the first flight of the A320 was however "only" 33 years ago. That's a difference of 20 years, not 10 as you seem to make it. And those 20 years were very important years, technological speaking. The 737 is the only "modern" plane that still uses old fashioned mechanical flight controls. As far as I'm aware, the A320 has been fly-by-wire from the beginning. The 737 is a fundamentally outdated design. And this old design is the root problem for the whole MCAS desaster.
I'm curious to know where you find the information that the manual controls are the reason for MCAS? As far as I can see the reason for MCAS was the larger engines, and the plane is flyable without it. Personally and you may not agree, but I would consider manual to be safer. It has been used for longer and is a more direct control than a computer interpreting what input the pilot gives. As we have seen it doesn't take much incorrect code to bring the plane down.. And yes it is 20 years older, however that does not make it the basis for being a problem.
@@theedorknyt6653 This is a widely held misunderstanding that the MAX wouldn’t fly without MCAS. Im fact the MAX would fly fine without MCAS and many tests have been run with the system off. MCAS was added to make the MAX and NG handle similarly from a pilot perspective so it could be covered by the same type rating which is a big incentive for carriers with existing 737s to buy the MAX. The crashes were tragic and never should’ve happened but nearly 2 years went into fixing this airplane. I would be happy to fly a MAX now.
The DC 10 had a massive design flaw that killed a shit ton of people too. People still flew on it after the FAA revoked its type certification
Thank you for mentioning this. We so quickly forget about the past
And it went on to become one of the safest aircraft in the skies
Very true. I’m shocked nobody else has mentioned this.
The plane is still in use by FedEx for cargoCrashes involving the aircraft were mostly due to pilot error.
747 also had the same door problem, but 747’s floor didn’t collapse like the DC-10. That made DC-10:s image really bad at the time.
Absolutely I would. Now there are redundant AOA sensors and pilots know the runaway stab trim disconnect switches on the back of the pedestal will prevent it from engaging, things just got a hell of a lot safer. Had the pilots just received this small bit of knowledge and normal *differences* training rather than Boeing and the airlines saving a buck and MCAS documented in the POH, neither incident would have been a fatality.
In at least one of the crashes the pilots managed to disconnect MCAS and go manual, but it was too late and to difficult to manually trim the aircraft.
I’m an airline pilot and I’ll avoid airlines that operate the max to never be on one ever.
Airbus ftw!! Boeing cuts corners for profits and now worry about safety.. no amount of money can bring the list lives back after giving the family of lost ones, just hurts to spend the money .. I would just burn that money because its useless.. Boeing Is pure evil 😈 I work as a engineering for mill spec electronics and we are very strict about things that have peoples lives on planes and oil rigs..
@@thatonebeone Greed might now work to increase safety though. Boeing's obsession with not losing $$$ will now make the Max a safer plane, because the last two accidents were VERY expensive. They will not make this mistake again.
Coward
@@ZC.Andrew Have they? Is it the same old small computer or did they do actual upgrades to the hardware?
@@thatonebeone I refuse to fly on airbuses after QF72.
I am honestly not getting on one for the next few years. Until the changes are actually proven to be reliable for a significant amount of time, I still retain a bad impression of the likely last variants of the 737.
They are proven, Canada and Europe did their own extensive research
I'll fly on it after all the executives that had a hand in this are in prison for several hundred cases of negligent homicide.
Problem is most aircraft eventually have a whole loss that can be pinned on a design flaw. Particularly if one stretches the definition.
The DC-10 and its cargo door for example and if stretching a bit any Airbus and it's highly automated flight control system.
My big problem is that no aircraft should be automated to this degree
@@M167A1 thing is, they knew there was a potential issue and tried to hide it, sure there are flaws in lots of planes, but you don't add whole systems, skimp on redundancy to avoid testing requirements and then don't tell the pilots this system exists.
Idk, I have no plans on flying anywhere anytime soon sadly.
@@RobertPlattBell go blog it
I only drive my car or the truck at work when I travel, I'm never flying anytime soon.
@@RobertPlattBell last time I flew, we flew southwest from Phoenix AZ to Seatle to go on our cruise that was summer of 2019 but havent been on a plane since then.
@@RobertPlattBell Yeah buddy it was better back then because every seat was first class and kidney cost. Nothing much has changed from back then, it’s just that there’s more classes in an airplane than just first class.
Trains > Planes
I have an obvious bias.
Less fuel, good performance, kills people
Corporation: we'll take it
The takeaway from this video is that the max has a design flaw. I'll let others be the guinea pigs for it.
even guinea pigs can project a better plane than 737 max, in my opinion, I also still fear to fly a 737 max
@@haroldomiyaura912 why is that?
What the MAX scandal really showed up was the utterly terrible corporate culture at Boeing and I'm not sure they have fixed that. Add to that that several airlines are now refusing jets made in their Kentucky factory for bad build quality. I'll be avoiding them and flying Airbus instead , for the next few years. I do hope that Boeing get back to being an aircraft maker, rather than greedy and reckless corporation
.
No reason to avoid the NG generation. Those actually have a pretty good track record (and if I have to fly, I'll probably be on one on account of having built up status on Southwest before the pandemic and being very appreciative of how they run their business)
The corporate culture at Boeing won't change. Put a fork in Boeing, it's done.
@@ExaltedDuck but that's the issue for me. the NG was designed and built by Boeing the aircraft maker, the MAX under Boeing the corporate beast.
@@DanL57 it looks like that
@@ExaltedDuck NG yes but latest Boeing planes aren't good 😕
Not going to happen for me!
Will not be trusting my life to it, what else are they covering up, or did they skimp on?
Probably nothing, FAA and EASA say nothings wrong now.
@@northwestthrills3453 dont forget transport canada and the brazilian one. I find it hard to imagine that all 4 of these countries (europe continent) are wrong
age and confidence in flight is the real demographic.
This aircraft will be the safest aircraft in the sky. Remember so many years ago what happened with the DC10? There were 2 incidents killing 400 odd people and the plane was grounded for months. After mcdonnel went back and fixed the issues there wasn't a mechanical related crash ever again and it has flown to this date without any issues
@@aseem7w9 that too
As a professional mechanical engineer I will not board 737 Max planes. The problem in my opinion is not fixed properly as there is a fatal flaw in the overall design of the plane which is how the larger engine was installed , and this flaw was not fixed. It is still installed the same way as before. Patch fixing is not proper solution when the lives of people on the line. Boeing acted out iof greed and their engineers forgot to follow their responsibility as a professional engineer to push back and yielded to the pressure of the executives to come up with a low cost solution to increase the profit of the company. The Boeing engineers are guilty as much as the executives of Boeing for the loss of human life. The federal aviation agency is also responsible to not do their due diligence before certifying the plane.
Unfortunately the US system is becoming more corrupt everyday and the big corporations buy the law makers through lobbyists and campaign money, hence the Congress and Senate are more faithful to corporate interests rather than people interest.
If I plan on flying, I would take a wait and see attitude on the Max.
I Remember the Comet. Two of them crashed and they did some patches but whoops they didn’t. When they finally fixed the real problem most airlines didn’t buy it because passengers didn’t want to fly on it. I’ll just pick my carrier by their equipment and if they have this aircraft I’ll choose another for five years or so. I don’t want to be a test subject. Oh remember the tail flutter that took a few 737s down?
Agreed
They did not crash because of tail flutter, but a malfunction in the rudder actuator.
The max is literally safe to fly on and people need to calm down
Long answer is more complicated than you think!
Short answer: No Way Jose!!
So they fixed the 60 year old design that they “fixed” to put the big engines on it ? I’m not getting on board until they have flown for 5 years without problems...
I couldn’t agree more. This thing is a flying coffin. The notion of using software to try to ameliorate the problems of a flawed airframe design is preposterous. Boeing’s insistence on profit at the expense of safety is unforgivable. I’ll be flying Airbus.
Boeing still hasn't address the fundamental problem of the max design. The over sized engine causes the front nose to dive up.
Breaking news: a cheap Ryanair flight 57737374748838474 had crashed into a LAX building due to the MCAS System.
Ryanair to LAX?! Sign me up!
Call it engines missplaced, too big too heavy or landing gear too short or elevons too small, it's only safe under two condition, don't board one and don't stay under its flight path. It has only one feature, it is cheap to build...but that's about it.
Nope its physical design is spot on and perfect. MCAS was made so that it controls in similar way as 737 ng which is something CNN doesnt tell you because they want the juicy money and createcontroversies.
Aseem Nakarmi perfect design! You place the bar well below sea level because the only real feature of this plane is an optimized assembly system and exceptional low cost of manufacturing, not really a tangible benefit to travelers, crew and potential victims. The MCAS (developped for another purpose on tankers) was added here because heavier and bigger PW1000G or GE Safran Leap engines had to be moved up and forward to be high enough and this new position generates a huge twisting moment and instability of the plane lifting the nose up so quickly that it stalls as soon as you throttle up sufficiently. This behavior it totally disgusting and should have never been certified by the FAA. The MCAS system overrides pilots actions so that pilots sense a lack of moment reaction similar to NG's but for the most of them, they were unaware of the system function and action and in case the single mechanical angle of attack sensor was icing or failing, plane was getting out of control by the MCAS acting against the pilots actions on the elevons....None of this poorly engineered crap was added on A320s to become NEO's new engine options , well positioned with the sufficient landing gear length sufficient elevon size as well, so that std A320 trained crew could fly NEO's flawlessly so that it is strictly by competitive pressure and poor design that the Max disasters occurred and design failure persists.
@@philgooddr.7850 HAHAHAH IT STALLS!?!?! WHERE DID YOU GET THAT INFO FROM XDDDD. MCAS is there only for pilots of ng to have a similar control with the max. Where the fuck are you getting this false info from? CNN?
Aseem Nakarmi I CAN also use CAPITALS... Of course the engines were moved FORWARD ...a big way....and ,proper counterweights not added or moved... it is obvious to anyone with a pair of eyes and moreover now, the additional cabin shield layer at the fan level is missplaced too far behind...another flaw...un-certifiable...so they said the fan shield is enough...till the next victim I guess... if you don't see all the obvious, change glasses.. Not sure the kamikase philosophy and spirit should apply to civilian airborne mobility specially since much better options exists already. Life's too short for that kind of flying crap...
@@philgooddr.7850 ah yes because seeing is everything. The ge90 looks way too big for the 777-200lr which is obvious to anyone with a pair of parts which means its uncertifiable and flawed too according to your logic right?? Plus if the max cant be fixed at all, what the fuck are Transport Canada, EASA and all others in the world doing by certifying the max unless they have worse knowledge of aviation than you?
The bean-counters at Boeing Sold the company"s Integrity for a few dollars of extra profit.
*a few months later*
Breaking news: a Ryanair 737Max crashed while trying to perform a "butterus" landing
It's probably gonna happen tbh
What does "butterus" mean? Is this a joke or is this real?
@@bertdejonghe3303 butter in Aviation means planes landing either smooth or rough... It basically when you spread (Land) butter (Plane) on bread (Runway)
Fake news!!!
That would be ryanairs fault
I would fly on the MAX!! Since the two accidents almost two years ago the Boeing company and the FAA have gone over the aircraft with a fine tooth comb. I trust the aircraft with US trained Pilots more than some of the third world Pilots. I have been an aviation mechanic for over 35 years and can comfortably say that 90% of all aircraft accidents are pilot induced.
I will never fly on the MAX. After the 787 fiasko and now the MAX disaster, I do not trust Boeing or the authorities anymore. I can’t be 100% certain what is on the airplane I’m flying, so I will gladly choose the A320neo or older 737 instead of the MAX.
Every plane have problems... I don't know any plane who dont have had problems
@@iffinland9321 Obviously every plane has problems, however the problems shouldn’t be this severe, and so many! There have been several tens of extremely serious issues with the MAX when the normal/acceptable is 2 minor issues on safe aircraft, and a flying coffin should never have been certified
@@mv6677 think about a plane like the dc-10, it had its crashes and problems which were fixed, and it came to be a very safe plane.
I think some redesign would be prudent, as the engine size and further forward position caused the requirement for MCAS. To increase size of landing gear to move engines farther back under wing would remove the COG issue and remove the need for MCAS. What would have cost more, all the money they lost from cancelled orders plus penalty by FAA or redesign and retooling? just a thought.
For further the center of gravity is from the center of pressure, the more stable it is.
So by moving the engines back it makes the plane more unstable.
Hiring the manager of Boeing was a mistake as he used to work for MC donnel Douglas
Well Ryanair already renamed their aircraft to „Boeing 737-8200“
How does it look like on their website? Im gonna be flying RyanAir soon and it says it's gonna be a B738 which Im assuming is the 737 800 and not the Max.
@@carlosandleon Yes, the 8 at the end is the Boeing Costumer number for Ryanair, that means you are flying on a regular 737-800!
@@carlosandleon Yep! The 737-800 is a really great airplane. The 737 MAX 8 is completely different.
@@carlosandleon you can tell the difference by the engines. if the engines have the chevrons (the little spikes by the exhaust) on the engines then its a max.
The 737MAX 8-200 is another type of the MAX. It fits more people
MCAS: May Crash Any Second
Wish good luck to Boeing with the 737 MAX!
No. After hearing the denial from Boeing and blaming the pilots. I refuse to get on a Boeing 737 MAX. Call me paranoid but I’d like to live till I’m old and contributed to society. The damage has been done. Luckily. I’m poor.
It´s so many Ads on the video, that´s impossible to subscribe and even watch other videos of this channel. Unfortunatly.
Move the slider to the end and hit replay it will play with no ads.
Airbus please ... i would never trust this aircraft ... they should have started again from scratch and not merely tweaked an aircraft that is 40 plus years old (or whatever the time is) ..
Has it been tested taking off, fully loaded in wet conditions, low temperatures with a ground clearance under its engines of 17 inches?
I wonder why they couldnt extend the length of the landing gear to give the engines clearance, anyways, it’s flawed to me, like u said, the MCAS only operating once could mean it will stall if the nose pitches up again, thankfully the MCAS is now known to pilots and how to turn it off, but i still think if those sensors get blocked there will be issues. I also suspect thete will be different issues not involving the MCAS, boeing deserve more backlash than they are receiving, lost all respect for the company.
Love the channel but ads ads ads at inappropriate moments ruins it. Its not the ads, its the badly timed interruptions. Sorry. I've had enough.
Bitch at You Tube, not this guy. He has almost no control of the ads unless he gets his money from us.
The B737 MAX branding is now tarnished and all the media and advertising spin is not going make people feel comfortable traveling on the aircraft type. What Boeing needs to do, is to go out all B737 MAX customers and find out who still wants the B737 MAX and who don't, then close of the order book and start working on the all new clean single aisle airframe design using 2nd generation of GTF engines to replace the B737 and B757.
I'm calling BS on the "comfortable" thing. On the contrary, same seat width but tighter pitch whan all Boeing 6-abreast planes since the 707.
After thorough testing I'll fly on the Max I guess. Frankly I am more concerned about holding those responsible accountable, the entire board at Boeing should be replaced, and the FAA should have a major shakeup. The EU should not simply rubber stamp FAA recommendations in future. The FAA has proven itself in the pocket of Boeing and this corruption has a death toll.
If there is another crash then it's done.
Yeah people will remember that forever
I think it would be safer then other aircrafts because it got double tests, but yeah, another crash and it's the end of the line
There will be more crashes, that's inevitable, like other airplanes. But it won't be for the same reason as the
first two, I think.
That would be sad if the next incident isn't Boeing's fault (missile shootdown, pilot error, engine failure, etc.)
@@SceurdiaStudios yeah the chances of another crash are basically impossible since the 737 is basically boeings most important plane and they are being watched by everyone in the world rn.
In all honesty, I would have little issue flying on a MAX after this. I'm a strange mix of aircraft enthusiast and super nervous flyer, but at the end of the day I don't think the MAX scares me more than any other plane out there. Every flight for me is the same - mild terror from tarmac to tarmac - but like you said, no aircraft has been scrutinized and gone over at this point more than the MAX.
What has gone wrong with Boeing? They developed the gamechanging 707, the first widebody (B747) which is still loved by many people in aviation and they were the first to extensively use composites with the 787 which many people love.
Wtf with advert in your videos? 5 section, 2 in each for 9 minute video ?! Doesn't like a bit too much?
I don't choose the adverts that you see. It seems that youtube has decided that there should be two ads in each break, and that you have seen each one. normally you see one ad per video. can't say for sure why you are getting so many.
What I think will happen
A year later:
The boeing 737max is officially consider safe but the 797 is to wait
the 3 little pigs, the 737 max are made out of straws, and sticks, but the airbus A319neo are made out of bricks.
@@Perich29. A320 also has timeless in multiple major fatal accidents not even long after its first debut regardless of its milestone achievement as the world's first and fully digitalized state of the art computerized FBW commercial aeroplane.
Well it’s 2022 and everybody is now flying on the max as I did and the plane was packed !! It’s a great a/c and will be flying for decades to come !! Great and safe a/c !! 👍
I have a flight to Mexico City from LAX coming up on Tuesday the 29th, it’s on a 737 max, I’ve been a little worried, how was your flight?
@@GC-rt3wi same here, I'm flying in one of these in a couple of weeks and I'm actually very nervous.
I'm going to express an opinion that won't be popular. Poor pilot training can cause any aircraft to crash.
Have a look at the 737 Quick Reference Handbook (QRH)
The Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System or MCAS is a terrible name for a programming routine. MCAS is a singular programming routine. It IS NOT some stand-alone system as the majority of the public believes and as the name implies. MCAS is ONE programming routine out of the thousands of routines that operate many aspects of the plane's autopilot. The idea that the pilots should know the name of every programming routine and how every programming routine operates under normal conditions is absolutely comical. The idea that the pilots should know how a specific programming routine operates under abnormal conditions is beyond absurd. BOTH 737MAX crashes could have been prevented if the pilots had been trained properly when confronted with a runaway trim situation. ALL models of the 737 for the past 52 years REQUIRE the pilots to be trained to recognize and recover from a runaway trim situation. The procedure is a MEMORY item procedure which means the pilots should know how to do the procedure without looking at the QRH manual.
This site shows how the QRH Procedure for runaway trim has developed over the past 52 years.
www.b737.org.uk/runawaystab.htm#:~:text=If%20nose%2Dup%20trim%20is,until%20the%20airplane%20is%20trim.
The Lion Air aircraft that crashed, had flown a few hours earlier with a different set of pilots that experienced the exact same conditions as the pilots that crashed flight 610. The pilots from the earlier flight recognized that the stabilizer trim system was "running away" and they followed the "memory item" procedure for "runaway stabilizer trim", and they recovered the plane. The pilots that recovered the plane had experienced a "stick shaker" event and instead of declaring an emergency and landing at the nearest airfield, they flew on to the next destination. That plane should have been grounded until Lion Air mechanics and engineers had determined why the aircraft had experienced a "stick shaker" event. Instead, that plane was loaded up with passengers and sent on its way as Flight 610 with a new set of pilots. Those pilots experienced the exact same failures as the previous flight but unfortunately, those pilots didn't recognize that the stabilizer trim system was "running away" and they eventually crashed. If the pilots of flight 610 had recognized that the trim system was "running away" and then followed the proper procedure to correct for it, the plane would NOT have crashed.
Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 is even more egregious because the FAA had issued an Emergency Airworthiness Directive and sent it to ALL 737Max 8 and 9 owners nearly 3 months before flight 302 crashed. The directive described in detail what an MCAS failure would look like (runaway stabilizer commands) and then the directive reinforced the need for pilots to follow the existing runaway stabilizer procedure to recover the aircraft. How on earth did the Ethiopian Airlines pilots not know about (AD) 2018-23-51? And if they did know, why didn't they follow the proper procedure to get the trim system under control?
Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2018-23-51 was sent to all 737Max 8 and 9 owners after black box data showed that the pilots that crashed Lion Air flight 610 failed to follow the existing runaway stabilizer procedure.
Boeing’s 737 MAX Flight Crew Operations Manual (FCOM) already outlines an existing procedure to safely handle the unlikely event of erroneous data coming from an angle of attack (AOA) sensor. The pilot will always be able to override the flight control law using electric trim or manual trim. In addition, it can be controlled through the use of the existing runaway stabilizer procedure as reinforced in the Operations Manual Bulletin (OMB) issued on Nov. 6, 2018.
Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2018-23-51 reinforces the need for pilots to follow the existing runaway stabilizer procedure and adds more information on how malfunctioning angle of attack or speed sensors can cause runaway stabilizer commands.
This AD is effective December 21, 2018, to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD 2018-23-51, issued on November 7, 2018, which contained the requirements of this amendment.
FAA AD #: 2018-23-51
2018-23-51_Emergency.pdf
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/12/06/2018-26365/airworthiness-directives-the-boeing-company-airplanes
This video from Mentour Pilot was posted in 2017 BEFORE either 737MAX crashed and explains what a pilot is supposed to do in the event of runaway automated trim stabilization. The trim wheels are 1.18 in wide(30mm)x 8.98 in diameter (228mm)
What is that spinning thing?
May 4th, 2017
czcams.com/video/l62NvkRWa5E/video.html
RJ: - very detailed explanation, thank you
@Thomas Browne How many AoA sensors would satisfy you? Both crashes occurred on bright sunny clear days. The captain and the first officer had 2 each angle of attack sensors. They are called eyeballs. So I will ask again, what, in your opinion, would have been the correct number of AoA sensors? One? Two? Three?
Airbus and Boeing have entirely different philosophies with regard to autopilot systems. Boeing shows the pilot what the autopilot controls are doing. If the nose needs to be trimmed up the trim wheels move in the direction they move when up trim is applied by the pilot. If the throttles have decreased the pilot will see the throttles pull back. The control column will move just like it would if an actual pilot was moving it. The pilots can easily see what the autopilot is doing because the pilot sees the controls move accordingly. Airbus has a very different philosophy. They have triple redundant computers that monitor and adjust the controls. The A330's have 3 FCPC (flight control primary computers) and 2 FCSC (flight control secondary computers). Despite costs induced by dissimilarity, the five computers are all of different nature to avoid common-mode failures. In other words, the actual microprocessors are different models manufactured by different chip companies. And the programs used to run them were written in different programming languages by different programmers.
How is that for redundancy? Is that enough?
Air France Flight 447 (A330-203) had three pitot tubes. The pitot tubes are the sensors that give the pilots and the computers the aircraft's airspeed.
Flight 447 had triple redundant computers and had triple-redundant pitot tubes and it still crashed because of pilot error. Flight 447 had a Captain and two First Officers. The Captain of flight 447 was not in the cockpit when the pitot tubes failed. He was on a required break. The Captain returned to the flight deck after being summoned by the First Officer. By the time that he returned and realized that the First Officer was holding the aircraft in a stall, it was too late.
The A330's triple-redundant FCPC's and triple-redundant pitot tubes weren't enough to prevent the death of 228 passengers and crew.
At the end of the day, the pilots should be trained to exceptional levels if they will be flying passengers. Lion Air and Ethiopian Air failed their pilots.
This was a great episode and question. So many issues here. The way Boeing initially handled the two crashes was... POOR. To be kind. I have been a fan of Boeing and after that I questioned what was going on at the company. The other part was the training and abilities of the crews that crashed. Not to be indelicate, but I understand the captain of the Ethiopia aircraft was extremely low time.
He followed the procedure and then immediately reset the circuit breaker.
So there was a problem. A short term fix (I hope). And then a pilot ignored procedure. Both are at fault for this one, in my opinion.
I wonder if EASA also certified the aircraft? RyanAir falls under them, don’t they?
Anyway, great content, great question, very stimulating. Thank you.
At this time, I would not feel safe travelling on the Boeing 737 MAX
Why?
I like that this report only alluded to the 2 fatal crashes, but didn't take time to recap the events of which I'm reasonably sure everyone is already acutely aware of.
I don't feel like I need to go into so much detail. It was a horrible tragedy
@@FoundAndExplained I'm glad that you didn't go into it because the point of your report was to ask the viewer what should happen moving forward. You got right to the point. We should never forget what happened because It was a horrible tragedy.
Since I usually fly with Ryanair as much as possible, I probably will encounter that plane at some point. Honestly, I put faith into Boeing and the FAA to have solved the issue and that there won’t be any problems soon.
I wonder if Boeing will slap something on the 737 airframe to prolong its life time again to make a Generation 5.
Or if they finally will create something free of those limitations of the 60ies airframe.
Sort of silly to say passengers will simply refuse to fly on a Boeing aircraft period. The majority of the flying public will simply not know or not even care they are flying on a 737 of any kind after a few months. Plus the flying public will not stop flying airlines because they are an all Boeing or Airbus fleet. Price per ticket will determine what the flying public buy and fly on.
Agreed, but my money won't be purchasing a seat on a MAX anytime soon. I do pick my flights based on the plane, however I'm probably a freakish minority
I know exactly where you are coming from. On most occasions when I ask friends and family what they flew on they haven't got a clue. With a little information it often possible to work it out (airlines typically use a very limited number of aircraft types on a particular route) - but when they can't even say if the engines were wing or tail mounted, or how many seats across on a single isle what chance is there that they are aware of which model in the range it is!
The flying general public: OMG THE 737 MAX IS SO UNSAFE I WILL NEVER FLY IT
Also the flying public when they see a plane: Oh thats a cool Boeing A377!
Long Story short, most people wont have a clue what they are flying on. I will have no issue stepping on one even as an AVgeek knowing the full story.
same with me about flying on it. most people who dont know about planes act like its a death trap when its still safer than driving a car.
Simply demand a $100 discount when you see the MAX at the gate
This wanna make me just scream “we’re on a fucking 737 MAX” on my next flight, just to scare the shit out of everyone
@@soonlytaing1708 lol but there are some legal issues...
NEVER! I refuse to fly with a plane that killed hundres of people with know flaws. It should never be allowed in the air, EVER! I stick to the other types from boeing and airbus
I belive in 737 max as they said they fix MCAS so it's safer than others Boeing planes
I don't have an issue with the plane, Ill fly on it just as I would an airbus, however I do have a massive issue with Boeing as a company and why these events were allowed to happen in the first place,
not in a million years I lost 10 people because of that company's rash decisions and stupidity and I wish that their planes remain grounded
LOL they got ungrounded! And I'm so happy!
@@northwestthrills3453 your choice if u want to ride on that death trap
@@fareselebidy3849 23 *MILLION* people have flown on these planes, only 320 have died
@@northwestthrills3453 I am saying my opinion ok I lost friends relatives and I am saying I am not riding on that thing if you want to it is ur choice
You know what's creepy, airliners are running low on revenues, and you know what they skimp on? Maintenance, people may die...
This wasn't due to maintenance, it was design flaw and their software correction was another flaw, and their auto pilot sensor for it, another stupid flaw since it didn't have a back up sensor.
@@youtuberogu9935 yeah so, don't disregard what I just said
My first flight was in a MAX 8 and it was amazing, it was fast, quiet and smooth. Im so happy the plane comes back fixed because it's a very good one.
I havent been on one but im excited to ride one soon also
That flight could’ve been your last!
@@nikolaykrotov8673 It quite funny how I could've died there
@@nikolaykrotov8673 statistically no. i, and everyone else is so much more likely to die in a car crash so i dont see why everyone is acting like its a death trap.
@@justin.w.06 Not saying modern air travel in general is dangerous, but that quote is an outright lie and has been repeated far too often. If you take as many flights as your everyday car trips, you're more likely to die flying than driving, to nobody's surprise.
No disrespect to the tragedies rip to those who died and I know it can be traumatizing but as long as whatever design flaws that caused the crash has been fixed the plane has been thoroughly tested and checked out even if I was still a little nervous about flying I would give it go what we seem to forget there have been many many years of plane tragedies even before some of us were born and people still fly can't let fear consume us
I agree, the max has gone through the strictest testing from FAA and EASA.
@@justin.w.06 Exactly
The design flaw hasn’t been fixed-the configuration of the airframe has not changed. Depending on software rewrites to compensate for a flawed design is obscene. This plane is incapable of being safely flown.
@@MUSCLEPUP44 the plane can be safely flown. What caused issues was the program that made it fly similarly to other 737s and malfunctioned. If MCAS wasn't there, the plane flies almost the same, but slowly pitches the nose up, which isnt a problem. Those crashes couldve been avoided if the pilots were trained how to disable MCAS.
@@justin.w.06 Yeah. Honestly I'm more annoyed that the reports out there don't talk about this.
I don’t think no body will be comfortable flying on this particular aircraft even the pilots
This pilot who flew it before will be happy to fly it again. The redesign, software rewrite, extensive training including having to retrain in a MAX simulator (not an NG), etc, means it will be safe to fly again.
the 737 max has gone through the strictest testing because they cant let another crash happen. also, I know 737 max pilots that are excited to fly again.
@@justin.w.06 just let the time go hopping whatever Boeing fixed works for good
@@leobardomontoya1269 yeah. I guess all we can do is wait and see
@@dseanjackson1only the time will give the trust to people and Boeing to proof what they fixed will prevent more problems for this aircraft
Wasn't that long ago where it was fairly common to find people who wouldn't fly on anything but a Boeing.
Looking forward to trying the Boeing 737 MAX! However, the places I usually fly to are operated by Airbus A330s, not 737s. Let's just see if Qantas gets the 737 MAX.
For me, it will take a few years after resuming the service w/o any incident to trust B737max and FAA again. Before that if airlines assign me to Max, I won’t board the aircraft unless someone put a gun on my head.
Sorry, I can’t forgive the attitude like “ Wanna pay less? Then opt out some safety measures! Don’t worry, it’s not standardized (yet).
No. it's not the only plane, can opt other.
I was on board of a 737 max, and found the videos after ive been on it 4 times....
I bet the 737 Max is now going to be the safest plane in the whole world. I'd now be more worried about the other ones not under the limelight.
@Thomas Browne Look at the 737 series of aircraft and the millions upon millions of miles the series has flown.....the airframe has done outstandingly, well.
@Thomas Browne Thanks for the detailed reply. I appreciate the time you put in to the reply. I respect your opinion.
Scary....
But we can only choose the lower tickets
no way will I fly on the 737 max, i fly a lot with my work,29 flights in 2019 this year not much covid 19 but I will refuse to fly at any airport, i know the difference in 737 type sorry no way
why? it has gone through some of the most scrutiny of any plane, so it is most likely safer than the a320neo now.
I won't be the first one on board either. People who have more faith in the scrutiny this plane was put under can board ahead of me.
@@saphorap9709 first revenue flight already completed yesterday in brazi
Sorry to sound pessimistic but I only hope the Max doesn't crash anytime in the next 5 years minimum otherwise this plane will be finished.
The MAX is probably the most scrutinised aircraft in history. The recertification process was longer than the initial certification process itself and every aspect of the plane has been combed through so thoroughly that it'll probably be one of the safest aircraft to fly.
It's still a 53 year old design. It's the only "modern" plane that still uses mechanical flight controls. It might look modern, both in the cabin and the cockpit, but underneath all that it's still a 53 year old plane that simply shouldn't exist in 2020.
@@xBris Just because the 737 came out in the 60s doesn't mean the MAX is still the 'same design'. Everything from the airframe, wings, materials, flight systems and engines to the interior and exterior design are completely different. That'd be like saying a 1967 Toyota Corolla is the same underneath as a 2020 Corolla; it simply isn't. They're vastly different, despite sharing the same name.
@@waterdrinkingexpert6797 it is more than just sharing the name. The modern fuel efficient engines are too big to fit in the 737 frames... period. They should go back to drawing board and design new one... instead Boeing choose to tweak the software. In other words this planes stability is constantly saved by software.
How does a software upgrade fix fundamental design flaws. MCAS was installed on 737 Max because at full throttle (take off/climb, go around etc) the plane's nose pitches up to a dangerous angle which could stall the plane. Hence, Boeing installed MCAS which automatically brings the nose down. So the pilot is trying to get the plane up and gain altitude while the auto pilot is trying to pitch the nose down.
Unstable aircraft for airline passenger flight. Other alternatves should be considered before.
I hope they didn’t forget to puta big ON- OFF switch for that MCAS system!
And always keep it OFF!
Make a video about the Fokker 70/100 we never get to see them & they are beautiful aircraft
I remember seeing KLM Fokker 70's at Heathrow on a regular basis, have lots of photos of them, very sad to see them go!!
@@ythinder
That's amazing, the Fokker 70/100 is my favorite t-tail and i hate the fact that not one aviation related channel has a video about them
@@boeingfreak1 There are lots of videos about them it just depends what kind of video you are looking for, there are trip reports or the last KLM F70 flight for example
@@ythinder
I know i've seen them for sure!! I'd like to see a video about the history of the aircraft like Skyship Eng's videos we need something bc i feel like ppl are fortgetting about the beauty
It isn't the aircraft that disturbs me, it is the culture at Boeing at the time that does.
There is no way I will EVER fly on that THING!!! In my opinion, Boeing has not repented from their sins!!
losing billions is enough damage
@@aseem7w9 But no money can replace the lives we lost in the crashes. Even though, I’m not afraid to fly with one of them
oh stop with the repenting crap.
I haven't flown in 7 years, and don't miss it.
I wouldn't be comfortable flying on a MAX aircraft just yet. Perhaps in time, but not yet.
I just book flights on Airbus and Embraer. Just that simple. If it’s Boeing I ain’t going.
It is not the same company anymore who designed the 747. It’s McDonnell Douglas with a different Name.
I flew on a Lion Air 737 Max 8 to Bali a day after the crash. I won’t lie and say that I wasn’t worried, but i felt better as there was a large group of nuns on the flight as well.
byenara175r imagine there was the nun from that movie on your plane lol
I'll stick to A320's. It's just what I'm use to. I don't have much experience on 737's in general.
I hate the A320's excessive yaw during take off, poor aerodynamics.
Still won’t fly the 737-Max. All modern apps tell you what type of plane you’re flying.
Many people say Boeing 737s are unreliable??? *737-200, -300, -400, -500, -600, -700, -800, -900 arguably the safest 737s in the 737 lineup that ever flown and still flying especially the -200 which would be more than 50 years old and still flying and very reliable wants to know your location*
Wants to know my location 😂
@@FoundAndExplained technically not you, I mean those that say the 737 is a trash plane when in reality they are one of the most reliable planes out there to the point some of them are use for ASW as P-8 Poseidons by the Navy
A plane crashes and everyone forgets that the rest of the series is very safe.
People who argue “the MAX has too much software and computers controlling it for me to feel safe on onboard” then turn around and say “Airbus is much better and safer because they don’t have as many computers controlling it!” That cracks me up. The issue with the MAX was not FADEC or any engine orientated flight computers. The Airbus fleet all use a fly by wire design which makes them completely reliant on their FDC’s and has complete reliance on “computers”. I’m not saying the Airbus fleet isn’t safe I’m just saying many of you contradict yourself and don’t understand much about the topic. The issue with the MAX was MCAS’s reliance on the single AOA indicator and software components. The airplane is still safe without the MCAS system. MCAS was implemented for the MAX series to replicate much more of the handling characteristics of the NG series therefore being able to reside in the same type rating and only requiring differences training on new features such as LDG gear lever, avionics, start procedures, engines, emergency procedures, etc. The MAX is a well built machine that did have issues with its software and single AOA indicators communication. I’ve jumpseated on a few pre-grounding and didn’t see a whole lot that was overall different besides the visuals of the avionics and long engine start time. The engines used on the MAX are the almost identical to the NEO series. They’re both LEAP 1 series engines. If you’re gonna do the whole dick measuring contest of who’s better Airbus or Boeing at least have some knowledge on the two fleet types and maybe read the debrief from the test pilots and the FAA inspectors to understand what was wrong and what was fixed.
Thank you.
If it’s NOT repeat NOT a Boeing, I ain’t going! BEST BUILT AIRCRAFT IN THE WORLD!!! Period!,
If it ain't Boeing we ain't Dying
I will never ever in my life trust Boeing again and therefore never fly on a Boeing aircraft again
So basically, you'll never fly again? You don't get to choose planes
@@idkhowtoright479 I do get to choose planes, if i want to fly somewhere I look for airlines that operate airbus aircraft on that route. Besides that in germany most airlines have airbus aircrafts.
Just took my first flight on a 737 MAX9 this last week - absolutely no problem. I happened to talk to a few different pilots while I was waiting for my flight departure and all of them said they had absolute confidence in the MAX. After seeing all the scrutiny and review the plane went through before its recertification, I wasn't any more worried about sitting on the MAX than I was sitting on my living room sofa.
I would fly on it again. I am confident that with all the scrutiny and all Boeing has to lose if another MAX goes down, they checked every little thing on these aircrafts! I live in Seattle and it is sad to drive by the factory and see hundreds of the MAX planes parked awaiting recertification :-/
Now, Boeing needs a to be responsible, own to their mistake, admit guilt and pay their dues to the families who died in the two crashes that grounded the MAX.
Lesson learned... you can’t skip safety over profits because profits will be eaten away by lawsuits...
Happy to hear that Ryanair won't be giving passengers the choice as I am never flying Ryanair again anyway.
LOL! Nice one! Believe me, I'm worried about getting on board a lame duck Ryanair (or any) 737 Max! Luckily Wizz Air have started flying to my small airport Bulgaria regular destination. Airbus fleet currently
Never i will fly with Boeing 737 Max
All consumers and aviation enthusiast should want a healthy Airbus AND Boeing. Competition is good monopolies are not. Boeing screwed up- big time. But corporations are made of flawed human beings and corporations are in business to make money. Airbus could easily find itself in a similar situation as Boeing. Because of the international attention on this aircraft, I believe that the Max design has been thoroughly tested and is safe. Besides, these are the good days in aviation, wait until China floods the market with cheap airliners.......