I just noted that Boeing has scheduled BOE701 to fly shortly - https://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE701. This was the flight number they used for the FAA/EASA/TC certification flights. Does anyone know what this is?

ArcticSEA wrote:

FAA ban to be lifted as early as next week, per various sources; I can confirm activity related to this as well.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKBN27Q00H

Commenting this bit from the reference -thread.

I'm really having mixed feelings about this. Given all the attention, I guess the safety of the aircraft must be at an adequate level. Then again, Boeing hasn't shown any type of remorse or cultural change in the organization. Have they again "persuaded" the authorities somehow? Have they lied about something again? Have they hidden something? Is there anything at all that they should have told but they haven't? Personally I don't trust Boeing, I'm sorry to say, and I used to be a big fan.

On top of that, the plane hasn't physically changed at all, still the same wings, engines, fuselage, tail. The root cause of all the lives lost is still there - the fix is just supposed to be better this time around.

If I ever have to fly in one of those things, I would feel very uncomfortable. The aviation-nut in me would be excited to experience a new plane, the rest of me would feel like vomiting. If I get to choose, I would choose another plane. If I would "have to" fly in one of these, probably I would.

And the sad truth is, any accident or incident with this plane will make massive headlines, even if it has absolutely nothing to do with the plane itself. Even if somebody would shoot one down over Ukraine or Iran, it would be a "MAX crashed AGAIN".

Carlos01 wrote:

On top of that, the plane hasn't physically changed at all, still the same wings, engines, fuselage, tail. The root cause of all the lives lost is still there - the fix is just supposed to be better this time around.

The "physical change" of the aircraft was never on the table. We always knew that it was going to be a software fix (for MCAS). I wouldn't call the wings, engines, fuselage, tail... the root cause per se. The aircraft is not inherently unstable and can fly without MCAS, unfortunately, there was bad engineering on Boeing's part when implementing software that was meant to make the MAX similar to the NG in handling.

SIVB wrote:

Carlos01 wrote:

On top of that, the plane hasn't physically changed at all, still the same wings, engines, fuselage, tail. The root cause of all the lives lost is still there - the fix is just supposed to be better this time around.

The "physical change" of the aircraft was never on the table. We always knew that it was going to be a software fix (for MCAS). I wouldn't call the wings, engines, fuselage, tail... the root cause per se. The aircraft is not inherently unstable and can fly without MCAS, unfortunately, there was bad engineering on Boeing's part when implementing software that was meant to make the MAX similar to the NG in handling.

And therein lies the problem.. It was never about could it fly or not.. It was always about HOW it flew, and how it handled compared to the NG. Without MCAS it would have needed a whole new type-rating and that is what Boeing wanted to avoid.

MCAS was not implemented to make the MAX fly like the NG. It was not an optional fix. It was required to make the MAX comply with the FAR regulations.

StTim wrote:

MCAS was not implemented to make the MAX fly like the NG. It was not an optional fix. It was required to make the MAX comply with the FAR regulations.

You’re right, but I didn’t mean to say it was MCAS only purpose. It was a regulatory requirement yes (column force feel), but it was designed to help the aircraft emulate the NG handling as well.

It was a poorly executed fix, not only in coding but by design. Boeing’s ultimate failure was in the design assurance level as hazardous instead of catastrophic due to the single point of failure (wrong AOA input). FAA failure was in the lack of oversight of MCAS changed during the certification process.

As a B737NG captain (one that will fly the MAX in the future), I feel confident that MCAS has been under considerable scrutiny over the past months. No system is perfect, but it is in everyone’s interest that the solutions implemented are sound, so I have no issues with the aircraft being re-certified.

SIVB wrote:

StTim wrote:

MCAS was not implemented to make the MAX fly like the NG. It was not an optional fix. It was required to make the MAX comply with the FAR regulations.

You’re right, but I didn’t mean to say it was MCAS only purpose. It was a regulatory requirement yes (column force feel), but it was designed to help the aircraft emulate the NG handling as well.

It was a poorly executed fix, not only in coding but by design. Boeing’s ultimate failure was in the design assurance level as hazardous instead of catastrophic due to the single point of failure (wrong AOA input). FAA failure was in the lack of oversight of MCAS changed during the certification process.

As a B737NG captain (one that will fly the MAX in the future), I feel confident that MCAS has been under considerable scrutiny over the past months. No system is perfect, but it is in everyone’s interest that the solutions implemented are sound, so I have no issues with the aircraft being re-certified.

I agree. I actually wonder how terrible MCAS would have been if it only had the original authorities. As I understand it the two crashes were in situations where the original design would not have fired. The change control process to increase the authority to low speed situations and more activations cannot have been anywhere near rigorous.

Carlos01 wrote:

I'm really having mixed feelings about this. Given all the attention, I guess the safety of the aircraft must be at an adequate level. Then again, Boeing hasn't shown any type of remorse or cultural change in the organization. Have they again "persuaded" the authorities somehow? Have they lied about something again? Have they hidden something? Is there anything at all that they should have told but they haven't? Personally I don't trust Boeing, I'm sorry to say, and I used to be a big fan.

Another take on this would be, why did the FAA mandate changes to the a/c and not properly test them, why did EASA get involved and not adequately test and confirm changes, now instead of not trusting Boeing we now add the FAA, EASA and all other regulators who were intimately involved in the process, how is it possible for them to allow themselves to be hoodwinked twice, including the head of the FAA who had to personally fly the a/c to confirm that it was repaired?
Does make you say hmmm...

The plane is being certified next week and we are still having this argument. A.net is funny. Why didn’t you all go and help the FAA and EASA with their judgement since you can all deduce how flawed it is.

Structural changes were not on the table. I don’t know what people thought Boeing were going to do? There has never been a certification like this before. If EASA and FAA say the aircraft is safe. Then im satisfied.

Opus99 wrote:

The plane is being certified next week and we are still having this argument. A.net is funny.

I'm glad there won't be any threads like "Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q1 2021". The next one should be "Boeing 737MAX RTS, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020".

Carlos01 wrote:

I'm really having mixed feelings about this. Given all the attention, I guess the safety of the aircraft must be at an adequate level. Then again, Boeing hasn't shown any type of remorse or cultural change in the organization. Have they again "persuaded" the authorities somehow? Have they lied about something again? Have they hidden something? Is there anything at all that they should have told but they haven't? Personally I don't trust Boeing, I'm sorry to say, and I used to be a big fan.

False. You may want to review Seattle Times coverage. Boeing has apologized to the victims. The CEO apologized several times in the Congressional hearings. They have changed their organizational structure so the engineers report to the Chief Engineer rather than program management. They have improved whistleblower programs. They have improved tracking of potential safety issues within the company. Whether or not this is good enough is to be seen but I don't think we can say Boeing hasn't shown any type of remorse or cultural change in the organization.

Carlos01 wrote:

The root cause of all the lives lost is still there - the fix is just supposed to be better this time around.

Also false. In both accidents the problem was never the "reduced stick force" issue MCAS was trying to solve, it was always the MCAS implementation itself over-reacting to inaccurate AoA data that it should have ignored, and now FAA, TC and EASA are about ready to confirm that this has been fixed.

Carlos01 wrote:

And the sad truth is, any accident or incident with this plane will make massive headlines, even if it has absolutely nothing to do with the plane itself. Even if somebody would shoot one down over Ukraine or Iran, it would be a "MAX crashed AGAIN".

It's not news that people are gullible. What is news is we're OK with being around other people that are gullible. Our standards as a society have slipped.

Revelation wrote:

[...]

Carlos01 wrote:

The root cause of all the lives lost is still there - the fix is just supposed to be better this time around.

Also false. In both accidents the problem was never the "reduced stick force" issue MCAS was trying to solve, it was always the MCAS implementation itself over-reacting to inaccurate AoA data that it should have ignored, and now FAA, TC and EASA are about ready to confirm that this has been fixed.
[...]

Not necessarily false. It depends on one's definition of "root cause". If there had not been the aerodynamic problems (of still unknown nature) introduced by the interference between nacelle, pylon, and wing, there wouldn't have been the "reduced stick force", and the need for MCAS, and the MCAS implementation issues, and so on.

The MAX can be flying for 20years with no crash and people will still be having this argument

Opus99 wrote:

The MAX can be flying for 20years with no crash and people will still be having this argument

IF MAX will be in service in 20 years to begin with.
Grounding of comparable length - more than 12 months - include Concorde (withdrawn soon after); de Havilland Comet (pretty limited success) and Yak-42. Certainly not a promising comparison...

The plane may be ready to fly, and Boeing may have apologized - but the root cause of the issue is not stick lighter, not certification to NG standards, not the lack of understanding of stability issues. The root cause is the lack of a strategic design approach.
By now, MAX is a Ruby Goldberg machine, with a fix applied to a fix to update an updated plane. There is clearly no strategic architectural approach, as it took 3 iterations to fix MCAS with issues coming up in testing.
It may be a workable machine, and successfull in a long run - but certainly not because root cause is properly adressed, but rather despite the way things are done.

kalvado wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

The MAX can be flying for 20years with no crash and people will still be having this argument

IF MAX will be in service in 20 years to begin with.
Grounding of comparable length - more than 12 months - include Concorde (withdrawn soon after); de Havilland Comet (pretty limited success) and Yak-42. Certainly not a promising comparison...

Completely ignoring the ~3000-3500 frame backlog more MAXs were delivered pre-grounding than the number of Concordes, Comets, and Yak-42 ever built combined. So certainly not a great comparison when talking about longevity.

Opus99 wrote:

The MAX can be flying for 20years with no crash and people will still be having this argument

kalvado wrote:

IF MAX will be in service in 20 years to begin with. Grounding of comparable length - more than 12 months - include Concorde (withdrawn soon after); de Havilland Comet (pretty limited success) and Yak-42. Certainly not a promising comparison...

Concorde became unprofitable to operate after the crash and a not-insignificant portion of it's regular passenger base was killed on 9/11.

The de Havilland Comet was superseded by better airframes (707 and DC-8).

The Yak-42 was a Soviet airframe so it was never going to have a large market.

Polot wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

The MAX can be flying for 20years with no crash and people will still be having this argument

IF MAX will be in service in 20 years to begin with.
Grounding of comparable length - more than 12 months - include Concorde (withdrawn soon after); de Havilland Comet (pretty limited success) and Yak-42. Certainly not a promising comparison...

Completely ignoring the ~3000-3500 frame backlog more MAXs were delivered pre-grounding than the number of Concordes, Comets, and Yak-42 ever built combined. So certainly not a great comparison when talking about longevity.

Let's talk when at least half of already built planes are in regular service. That is 2022, maybe?

Stitch wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

The MAX can be flying for 20years with no crash and people will still be having this argument

kalvado wrote:

IF MAX will be in service in 20 years to begin with. Grounding of comparable length - more than 12 months - include Concorde (withdrawn soon after); de Havilland Comet (pretty limited success) and Yak-42. Certainly not a promising comparison...

Concorde became unprofitable to operate after the crash and a not-insignificant portion of it's regular passenger base was killed on 9/11.

The de Havilland Comet was superseded by better airframes (707 and DC-8).

The Yak-42 was a Soviet airframe so it was never going to have a large market.

Should also point out the Concorde grounding occurred when the frames were nearing 30 years old.

The Comet was a brand new type of commercial aircraft (a commercial jet) and the entire industry was in its infancy.

As you mentioned the Yak-42 was a Soviet design that was never going to see success in western markets.

The fact that they were all grounded at one point is about the only thing those three planes and the Max have in common.

kalvado wrote:

Polot wrote:

kalvado wrote:

IF MAX will be in service in 20 years to begin with.
Grounding of comparable length - more than 12 months - include Concorde (withdrawn soon after); de Havilland Comet (pretty limited success) and Yak-42. Certainly not a promising comparison...

Completely ignoring the ~3000-3500 frame backlog more MAXs were delivered pre-grounding than the number of Concordes, Comets, and Yak-42 ever built combined. So certainly not a great comparison when talking about longevity.

Let's talk when at least half of already built planes are in regular service. That is 2022, maybe?

Sure. I’m pretty sure that airlines are not going to dump brand new current gen jets which, mind you, they have already paid for anytime soon. Especially not after being financially ravished by the pandemic. Baring no more issues with the Max they are going to use them to end of their useful lives. Those that get dumped (because of financial issues, going out of business etc) will eventually get picked up because not all airlines are going to pass on a cheap current gen jet just because it’s a MAX. There is a price where airlines will gladly snap it up and operate it against competitors who paid double (or whatever) for a jet with similar efficiency.

Carlos01 wrote:

On top of that, the plane hasn't physically changed at all, still the same wings, engines, fuselage, tail. The root cause of all the lives lost is still there - the fix is just supposed to be better this time around.

The only physical change that would have made a difference is with the engines. Their larger size required them to be placed more forward and higher up on the wing than with previous generations of the 737, and this resulted in the flight characteristics changing enough that software was required to assist the pilots. Now, if an engine manufacturer could have designed an engine with all of that modern efficiency and performance to compete against the A320NEO, only in a smaller package? Then there would have been no need for MCAS.

ArcticSEA wrote:

FAA ban to be lifted as early as next week, per various sources; I can confirm activity related to this as well.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKBN27Q00H

Great news for the 737 team.

Now the fun part; pulling all those Max's from storage and
getting them ready for delivery.

Courtesy: Fox Business

FAA Enters 'Final Stages' Of Boeing 737 Max Review

"Boeing received some good news. Bloomberg reported that Southwest Airlines is in "advanced talks" with the Seattle-based planemaker to acquire more than two dozen 737 Max jets that lost their original buyers."

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/faa-enters-final-stages-of-boeing-737-max-review

Does anyone have the list of MAX whitetails?
Let me guess, 99% of them are MAX 8, dozens are MAX 9, but zero MAX 200 (because there are only 2 customers Ryanair and Vietjet) and zero MAX 7 (too few customers also).

Will there be some image campaign to win back the MAX confidence of the traveling public? Or is the line still they don't care and won't know anyway?

Maybe, with COVID, the MAX will be even emptier than a regular plane. Hence, I would try to book one. It might be wide open.

kalvado wrote:

The plane may be ready to fly, and Boeing may have apologized - but the root cause of the issue is not stick lighter, not certification to NG standards, not the lack of understanding of stability issues. The root cause is the lack of a strategic design approach.
By now, MAX is a Ruby Goldberg machine, with a fix applied to a fix to update an updated plane. There is clearly no strategic architectural approach, as it took 3 iterations to fix MCAS with issues coming up in testing.
It may be a workable machine, and successfull in a long run - but certainly not because root cause is properly adressed, but rather despite the way things are done.

Right, and mozilla was Netscape's ideal web browser design, but by the time they came out with it the market for web browsers was gone.

Opus99 wrote:

The MAX can be flying for 20years with no crash and people will still be having this argument

I agree with you, it will be like those that would have talked about Comets and DC10s many years ago ...

KarlB737 wrote:

Courtesy: Fox Business

FAA Enters 'Final Stages' Of Boeing 737 Max Review

"Boeing received some good news. Bloomberg reported that Southwest Airlines is in "advanced talks" with the Seattle-based planemaker to acquire more than two dozen 737 Max jets that lost their original buyers."

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/faa-enters-final-stages-of-boeing-737-max-review

I can only assume in the current environment that this is just to accelerate deliveries so they can retire old 737-700s faster vs. a net increase in the order size.

Carlos01 wrote:

ArcticSEA wrote:

FAA ban to be lifted as early as next week, per various sources; I can confirm activity related to this as well.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKBN27Q00H

Commenting this bit from the reference -thread.

I'm really having mixed feelings about this. Given all the attention, I guess the safety of the aircraft must be at an adequate level. Then again, Boeing hasn't shown any type of remorse or cultural change in the organization. Have they again "persuaded" the authorities somehow? Have they lied about something again? Have they hidden something? Is there anything at all that they should have told but they haven't? Personally I don't trust Boeing, I'm sorry to say, and I used to be a big fan.

On top of that, the plane hasn't physically changed at all, still the same wings, engines, fuselage, tail. The root cause of all the lives lost is still there - the fix is just supposed to be better this time around.

If I ever have to fly in one of those things, I would feel very uncomfortable. The aviation-nut in me would be excited to experience a new plane, the rest of me would feel like vomiting. If I get to choose, I would choose another plane. If I would "have to" fly in one of these, probably I would.

And the sad truth is, any accident or incident with this plane will make massive headlines, even if it has absolutely nothing to do with the plane itself. Even if somebody would shoot one down over Ukraine or Iran, it would be a "MAX crashed AGAIN".

What exactly do you want Boeing to do? And Boeing was not fully to blame in either of the accident reports.

kalvado wrote:

The plane may be ready to fly, and Boeing may have apologized - but the root cause of the issue is not stick lighter, not certification to NG standards, not the lack of understanding of stability issues. The root cause is the lack of a strategic design approach.
By now, MAX is a Ruby Goldberg machine, with a fix applied to a fix to update an updated plane. There is clearly no strategic architectural approach, as it took 3 iterations to fix MCAS with issues coming up in testing.
It may be a workable machine, and successfull in a long run - but certainly not because root cause is properly adressed, but rather despite the way things are done.

The Max flys just fine with MCAS turned off. You jist can't have a mixed NG/Max pilot group without MCAS. What stability problems are you talking about?

TTailedTiger wrote:

kalvado wrote:

The plane may be ready to fly, and Boeing may have apologized - but the root cause of the issue is not stick lighter, not certification to NG standards, not the lack of understanding of stability issues. The root cause is the lack of a strategic design approach.
By now, MAX is a Ruby Goldberg machine, with a fix applied to a fix to update an updated plane. There is clearly no strategic architectural approach, as it took 3 iterations to fix MCAS with issues coming up in testing.
It may be a workable machine, and successfull in a long run - but certainly not because root cause is properly adressed, but rather despite the way things are done.

The Max flys just fine with MCAS turned off. You jist can't have a mixed NG/Max pilot group without MCAS. What stability problems are you talking about?

No they don't as they do not meet the FAR regulations so cannot be certified!

Also to your previous point the Boeing was not totally to blame for either crash. Whilst true it is a distortion of the truth. Boeing created a system to meet the FAR requirements that was flawed and dangerous. This started the chain of events that led to the crashes. No 737NG plane with those crews would have led to a crash. Thus I put the blame significantly at Boeings door.

StTim wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

kalvado wrote:

The plane may be ready to fly, and Boeing may have apologized - but the root cause of the issue is not stick lighter, not certification to NG standards, not the lack of understanding of stability issues. The root cause is the lack of a strategic design approach.
By now, MAX is a Ruby Goldberg machine, with a fix applied to a fix to update an updated plane. There is clearly no strategic architectural approach, as it took 3 iterations to fix MCAS with issues coming up in testing.
It may be a workable machine, and successfull in a long run - but certainly not because root cause is properly adressed, but rather despite the way things are done.

The Max flys just fine with MCAS turned off. You jist can't have a mixed NG/Max pilot group without MCAS. What stability problems are you talking about?

No they don't as they do not meet the FAR regulations so cannot be certified!

No one said anything about removing MCAS. But if it needs to be disabled then the airplane can be operated safely. But with your use of !'s I have to assume you are speaking from emotion. I'll stick to the data from the test flights.

TTailedTiger wrote:

StTim wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

The Max flys just fine with MCAS turned off. You jist can't have a mixed NG/Max pilot group without MCAS. What stability problems are you talking about?

No they don't as they do not meet the FAR regulations so cannot be certified!

No one said anything about removing MCAS. But if it needs to be disabled then the airplane can be operated safely. But with your use of !'s I have to assume you are speaking from emotion. I'll stick to the data from the test flights.

It was for emphasis not emotion. As I understand it you could not MEL MCAS as the plane would then not meet the certifying requirements.

I also understand that without it most if not all commercial flights would not be impacted, given that it is at a fairly extreme corner of the flight envelope, but that does not matter from a certification perspective.

TTailedTiger wrote:

StTim wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

The Max flys just fine with MCAS turned off. You jist can't have a mixed NG/Max pilot group without MCAS. What stability problems are you talking about?

No they don't as they do not meet the FAR regulations so cannot be certified!

No one said anything about removing MCAS. But if it needs to be disabled then the airplane can be operated safely. But with your use of !'s I have to assume you are speaking from emotion. I'll stick to the data from the test flights.

Somewhat similar example - 777 can fly just fine without life rafts and evacuation slides. People can live just fine without immunizations. MAX can fly without MCAS. Cars would drive just fine without seatbelts and airbags (sans that annoying sound)

Nice to see some urban legends coming up, though.

TTailedTiger wrote:

But with your use of !'s I have to assume you are speaking from emotion. I'll stick to the data from the test flights.

Rich coming from someone who said Boeing should sue for libel against anyone critical of the MAX.

Anyway, although I personally will avoid this aircraft, it's good to see this saga coming to an end. Hopefully the MAX will continue with many years of safe operation.

kalvado wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

StTim wrote:

No they don't as they do not meet the FAR regulations so cannot be certified!

No one said anything about removing MCAS. But if it needs to be disabled then the airplane can be operated safely. But with your use of !'s I have to assume you are speaking from emotion. I'll stick to the data from the test flights.

Somewhat similar example - 777 can fly just fine without life rafts and evacuation slides. People can live just fine without immunizations. MAX can fly without MCAS. Cars would drive just fine without seatbelts and airbags (sans that annoying sound)

Nice to see some urban legends coming up, though.

Would you please stop or provide some links/evidence. No matter how many times posters have pointed it out to you - the MAX flies just fine without MCAS - EASA, the FAA and Transport Canada flew it without.

It was a stick force lightening issue in a certain area of the flight envelope where the MAX did not meet the FAR's that necessitated the need for MCAS.

kalvado wrote:

The plane may be ready to fly, and Boeing may have apologized - but the root cause of the issue is not stick lighter, not certification to NG standards, not the lack of understanding of stability issues. The root cause is the lack of a strategic design approach.
By now, MAX is a Ruby Goldberg machine, with a fix applied to a fix to update an updated plane. There is clearly no strategic architectural approach, as it took 3 iterations to fix MCAS with issues coming up in testing.
It may be a workable machine, and successfull in a long run - but certainly not because root cause is properly adressed, but rather despite the way things are done.

And in what circumstance would controls that stopped getting heavier in a certain part of the flight envelope lead to an actual accident where the pilot would also have to ignore the stick shaker and warning horns?

What stability issues are you talking about?

With MCAS 2.0 the MAX with it's non-fbw design and older cockpit layout should go right back to the same level as safety as the A320 which you define as "Modern" with an strategic architectural approach.

morrisond wrote:

kalvado wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

No one said anything about removing MCAS. But if it needs to be disabled then the airplane can be operated safely. But with your use of !'s I have to assume you are speaking from emotion. I'll stick to the data from the test flights.

Somewhat similar example - 777 can fly just fine without life rafts and evacuation slides. People can live just fine without immunizations. MAX can fly without MCAS. Cars would drive just fine without seatbelts and airbags (sans that annoying sound)

Nice to see some urban legends coming up, though.

Would you please stop or provide some links/evidence. No matter how many times posters have pointed it out to you - the MAX flies just fine without MCAS - EASA, the FAA and Transport Canada flew it without.

It was a stick force lightening issue in a certain area of the flight envelope where the MAX did not meet the FAR's that necessitated the need for MCAS.

Without MCAS Boeing could not certify the MAX.

In another post I said - I also understand that without it most if not all commercial flights would not be impacted, given that it is at a fairly extreme corner of the flight envelope, but that does not matter from a certification perspective.

StTim wrote:

morrisond wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Somewhat similar example - 777 can fly just fine without life rafts and evacuation slides. People can live just fine without immunizations. MAX can fly without MCAS. Cars would drive just fine without seatbelts and airbags (sans that annoying sound)

Nice to see some urban legends coming up, though.

Would you please stop or provide some links/evidence. No matter how many times posters have pointed it out to you - the MAX flies just fine without MCAS - EASA, the FAA and Transport Canada flew it without.

It was a stick force lightening issue in a certain area of the flight envelope where the MAX did not meet the FAR's that necessitated the need for MCAS.

Without MCAS Boeing could not certify the MAX.

In another post I said - I also understand that without it most if not all commercial flights would not be impacted, given that it is at a fairly extreme corner of the flight envelope, but that does not matter from a certification perspective.

Totally agree and have said it many times - but other certification requirements have been waived in the past. Just as the transport Canada employee implied that why not just certify it without MCAS. It won't meaningfully increase safety (by having MCAS) but it does meaningfully increase complexity.

Folks, flamebait comments insulting large groups are not tolerated. Post respectfully. This is your warning.

IADFCO wrote:

Revelation wrote:

[...]

Carlos01 wrote:

The root cause of all the lives lost is still there - the fix is just supposed to be better this time around.

Also false. In both accidents the problem was never the "reduced stick force" issue MCAS was trying to solve, it was always the MCAS implementation itself over-reacting to inaccurate AoA data that it should have ignored, and now FAA, TC and EASA are about ready to confirm that this has been fixed.
[...]

Not necessarily false. It depends on one's definition of "root cause". If there had not been the aerodynamic problems (of still unknown nature) introduced by the interference between nacelle, pylon, and wing, there wouldn't have been the "reduced stick force", and the need for MCAS, and the MCAS implementation issues, and so on.

The 737 has had to fix aerodynamic issues since the B737-300. Ever look at the larger engine nacelles of the 737-300 on up and how they have these aerodynamic strakes and other little wing like devices on the nacelles to smooth out airflow. Ever look out when the plane is flying in moisture laden clouds as its coming out of those clouds and see how the airflow is flowing over these devices? Other aircraft with these larger engines and nacelles have these devices too. The DC10 comes to mind.

kalvado wrote:

Somewhat similar example - 777 can fly just fine without life rafts and evacuation slides. People can live just fine without immunizations. MAX can fly without MCAS. Cars would drive just fine without seatbelts and airbags (sans that annoying sound).

And yet a 777 would not be allowed to carry passengers without evacuation slides nor operate overwater without life rafts. Nor would a car be allowed to be offered for sale without seatbelts and airbags.

That is the crux of what StTim is saying. It doesn't matter whether or not the MAX needs MCAS to fly (as in stay in the air in stable flight), it is not allowed to fly if it doesn't have it (or if it is not operational).

Stitch wrote:

It doesn't matter whether or not the MAX needs MCAS to fly (as in stay in the air in stable flight), it is not allowed to fly if it doesn't have it (or if it is not operational).

Yet somehow this thread seems to have a hard time saying that once MAX is back flying again the regulators have determined it is safe and meets all applicable regulations, including those on stability.

Revelation wrote:

Stitch wrote:

It doesn't matter whether or not the MAX needs MCAS to fly (as in stay in the air in stable flight), it is not allowed to fly if it doesn't have it (or if it is not operational).

Yet somehow this thread seems to have a hard time saying that once MAX is back flying again the regulators have determined it is safe and meets all applicable regulations, including those on stability.

I have made no statement the the MAX will not be safe when it returns to flying. It would be a very sad state of affairs if after all this time and money the fix(es) applied weren't satisfactory!

Revelation wrote:

Yet somehow this thread seems to have a hard time saying that once MAX is back flying again the regulators have determined it is safe and meets all applicable regulations, including those on stability.

Don't think we want to go down this rabbit hole as the same people that will say it is safe now said it was safe before it was grounded.

Revelation wrote:

Stitch wrote:

It doesn't matter whether or not the MAX needs MCAS to fly (as in stay in the air in stable flight), it is not allowed to fly if it doesn't have it (or if it is not operational).

Yet somehow this thread seems to have a hard time saying that once MAX is back flying again the regulators have determined it is safe and meets all applicable regulations, including those on stability.

The 737MAX does keep the long list of exemptions from certain safety regulation for the 737, some of them already 40 years old. It should at least be aloud to discuss that.
If the certification is based on exemptions from safety regulations, for example the strength of the main floor, one can hardly talk about meeting all applicable regulations.

I would rather say, that the regulators do find the 737MAX safe enough.

mjoelnir wrote:

The 737MAX does keep the long list of exemptions from certain safety regulation for the 737, some of them already 40 years old. It should at least be aloud to discuss that.
If the certification is based on exemptions from safety regulations, for example the strength of the main floor, one can hardly talk about meeting all applicable regulations.

I would rather say, that the regulators do find the 737MAX safe enough.

The exemptions of the 737 have been discussed in each and every thread related to the MAX, the fact that it is from the 60's has been discussed in each and every thread, how much more discussion is required before we take the position that it is no longer about discussion?
I guess this is to be expected since after more than a year, we still have debates about what MCAS is, what certification is and whether the MAX can fly without MCAS, etc etc etc.

enzo011 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Yet somehow this thread seems to have a hard time saying that once MAX is back flying again the regulators have determined it is safe and meets all applicable regulations, including those on stability.

Don't think we want to go down this rabbit hole as the same people that will say it is safe now said it was safe before it was grounded.

We rely on those exact same people when they tell us all the other aircraft they have certified are safe too. At some point you just need to trust them. You are basically suggesting that when digging deep down into an aircraft’s software and performance they are still incapable of determining when something is safe and it is just blind luck that a problem aircraft only first slipped by with the Max

par13del wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

The 737MAX does keep the long list of exemptions from certain safety regulation for the 737, some of them already 40 years old. It should at least be aloud to discuss that.
If the certification is based on exemptions from safety regulations, for example the strength of the main floor, one can hardly talk about meeting all applicable regulations.

I would rather say, that the regulators do find the 737MAX safe enough.

The exemptions of the 737 have been discussed in each and every thread related to the MAX, the fact that it is from the 60's has been discussed in each and every thread, how much more discussion is required before we take the position that it is no longer about discussion?
I guess this is to be expected since after more than a year, we still have debates about what MCAS is, what certification is and whether the MAX can fly without MCAS, etc etc etc.

Yes, and we've also discussed A320 family "exemptions" too. It's not a very fruitful discussion.

Yes there are exemptions and these are usually because it was built to old standards (floor strength etc) and could not easily meet the newer standards.

In this case Boeing would have had to request a new exemption as the NG did meet the requirements. The hurdle to get a new exemption is much higher. That is not to say they would not get it but they did not try, originally or during the grounding.