If its a Boeing, I ain't going.
https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/656760-alaska-airlines-737-900-max-loses-door-flight-out-pdx.html
I'd be keeping my seatbelt on if I was getting into one of the maxis which I won't be
I'm referring to the actual bolts and whether bolts of same specification are used in other areas of the aircraft. Could they be a new spec and perhaps prone to loosening?
If it was known that those type of bolts were only used on the door of the max 9, it might offer some hope but it's more likely that those bolts are all over multiple aircraft types.
On the other hand, the bolts might be 100 perfect suitable but the issue is down to factory QA standards among staff. That again means that its unlikely that an issue would be confined to a specific part of the max 9 and would likely be present across multiple types again.
I never said it was a fault of Boeings. I said it was unfortunate that after the most recent incident, the voice recorder is unavailable because it erased itself after two hours.
So you concede that it isnt a Boeing fault?
Yes, it is an unfortunate limitation in the regulations. Again though, rather than increase the time limit, the FAA and others complain that the cost to upgrade to 25/26 hours would be prohibitive.
Again, this isn't about statistics. This is about trust. I do not trust Boeing. They implemented a system on one of their jets that they knew was faulty. The sensor broke, the software overrode the efforts of the pilots and two planes crashed. Their response to those crashes has been appalling and now, there are more faults coming to light. It was only due to what? The luck of the gods that the latest craft wasn't at 30,000ft when the door blew off?
Wrong, the plane was perfectly stable, MCAS was badly implemented anti stall software. The Queen of England flew on the Comet after it had several fatal crashes, I think you'll be fine on the max. Flight crews will not and are not allowed to knowingly fly unsafe aircraft. Your fears are not unfounded but statically you have the same risk in any aircraft.
Realistically though there are hundreds (?) of these in the air all day every day, and has been for years now.
Your chances of being on one that crashes are pretty poor.
Even though the bolts at issue aren’t in a Max 8 as it doesn’t have a door plug?
I don't think uts irrational to fear the max 8 at this time.
The olt thing may only be an issue on those doors due to new bolt design or some such that is not used anywhere else on the aircraft or those bolts may be all over the aircraft and may be coming un done making possibly all Boeing being built unsafe. I don't know. If I knew more answers I'd make a decision however at the minute, best avoided imo.
The voice recorder issue isn't a Boeing fault.
The FAA itself only mandates a 2 hour recording, so that's all the US airlines carry out, even if they are Embraer's, Bombardier or Airbus.
European airlines have 25 hours, because its the EASA requirement.
The CVR records on a loop lasting 120 minutes and then starts recording over itself. It didn't "delete itself"
They have wasted time giving Ryanair quotes they were only using to beat Boeing down with.
A previous head of sales at Airbus has said they will only sell to Ryanair at list price. List is about twice what an airline of that scale would actually pay normally.
Why is this? I did a quick Google and couldn't see anything, I always assumed Ryanair stuck to Boeing to minimize the need for training
I think you are being irrational.
Do you perform safety checks every time you get into a car?
Basic stuff like check for bald tyres etc.?
I wouldn't think so.
If you spent your entire life trying to be "in the wrong place at the wrong time" you would never even get to be involved in an emergency landing never mind a major crash.
Ryanair probably sector their Boeing's 4 times a day, along with thousands of other Boeing's, every day, month and year.
There have been 2 crashes in how many years. There was also a near miss in this recent incident.
Very interesting!
Interesting read. It doesn't make me change my stance. MCAS was an addition to stabilise the craft after the new engines etc. Boeing should have been upfront about it from the get go. They weren't.
Facts count. https://www.aerosociety.com/news/downfall-the-case-against-boeing-reviewed/
Yes, the attack sensors broke off and the software crashed the planes. The point I'm making is that this is a lethal fault and the company knew about it.
So, no, again. I do not trust Boeing. Full stop.
MCAS was not a fault, and did not malfunction in the two crashes (the angle of attack sensor did, triggering MCAS). MCAS functioned as designed - which is even scarier!
Interesting responses. The plain fact of the matter for me is that Boeing built and released a plane to market knowing it had a lethal fault. When two planes crashed on foot of that fault the company immediately tried to blame the pilots of those craft. (As far as I can see nobody in Boeing has accepted responsibility for those deaths). The plane was grounded (eventually). Declared safe and now a few years later, a variant of the same plane has a door or plug or whatever you want to call it, blow off during takeoff. If it had waited until 20,000 or 30,000ft. What then? Then we find out the voice recorder has deleted itself. These are just the bits released on the news.
So no, I won't be flying on anything built by Boeing in the last 10 -15 years.
The fault being that a single sensor could trigger the MCAS system, presumably. The original poster’s comment, I read, as suggesting this was a continuing point or a fundamental point. All transportation activity is dangerous. Those crashes could have been avoided and are thus regretful. Fundamentally, however, I can’t see that as terminating the whole fleet viability.
Interesting development announced by Boeing yesterday re: external/customer inspections.
Boeing have said that as well as increasing the number and scope of their own QA process. They will also allow their customers, i.e Airlines to also inspect both Boeing's assembly lines and also arrange for Airlines to also inspect their suppliers production lines too.
Supplier QA is a vital part of any manufacturing process. Care with suppliers usually means that final assembly will have a far higher QA pass rate. I'm a little bemused as to what Boeing believes the Airlines can achieve other than optics in allowing them have a look behind their curtain.
If Boeing and more specifically Spirit Aerosystems can't stand over and ensure the quality of their output? There's little that the airlines can do. I also don't in the least doubt that any Airline visit will be shown to the most curated and efficient part of whatever line they are shown.
The FAA need to ensure expert and experienced oversight of Boeing is in place. Not partake in window dressing games and allow Boeing to avoid full accountability again.
The original max 8 control issues no doubt.
What is the lethal fault?
Any of them might not have been put together properly. The question is the propensity for that to arise. What we can see so far is that there is questionable quality control/suitability for the door plugs on 737 Max 9. That aircraft is not widely flown from Ireland and the Max 8 doesn’t have a door plug, it has a door. Icelandair is an operator. Personally, I think the suggestion to rule out all Boeing aircraft is similar to the old US “if it’s not Beoing, I ain’t going” approach, ie unfounded.
Airbus effectively refuse to deal with them anyway.
For all Michael o Leary Bravado, Ryanair must be very afraid of a major issue with the max 8.
If they were grounded, given the numbers ryanair have, it would be very damaging.
Considering they are running some airbus now in Lauda air, is there an argument for going for a 50 50 split between Boeing and Airbus across the ryanair group?
Edit
I see they are intending to replace Lauda fleet with max 10 so that's a no then.
Yeah, that's just something that happens - but the media won't report it like that.
If I was a Max operator I would be sweating about another, possibly justified, full grounding. Forcing a heavy/D check on all frames to find manufacturing defects could be justified now. We know there's been no real QA
It wasn't a Max. Obviously It will look bad for Boeing with the focus on them atm but, really, cracked cockpit windows aren't unusual.
