Anyone else worried about the Max8?

[AgentMama]

Is anyone else worried about upcoming flights they have scheduled on the Boeing Max8? I'm not typically a worry wart about traveling, but this one does have me concerned.

 

[DLgal]

Is anyone else worried about upcoming flights they have scheduled on the Boeing Max8? I'm not typically a worry wart about traveling, but this one does have me concerned.

Yep. Just posted my concerns yesterday on the Everything Southwest thread.

I am not liking the track record of this plane at all right now. I am scheduled to fly one cross country on SW at the end of April and am seriously considering cancelling the one way and replacing it with a Delta flight on an Airbus, using credit card points. My SW flight was booked with points and the new flight would be free, so I'm out nothing for the change, and would actually arrive earlier so I may do it.

The stupid mechanic strike is also concerning me...

 

[jec6613]

I posted this earlier in the SW thread, but, basically, fears about the MAX8 aren't a rational reaction (not to say they're not human, humans do lots of irrational things )

All airlines have issues, but I wouldn't hesitate to fly on any US flagged carrier for safety reasons.

The 737MAX8 issue on both occasions (the first almost certainly, the second sounds exactly the same to the letter) stems from an automated system change, and there's a new Boeing bulletin that involves pilot training and all US airlines have completed it.

What occurred is that because of the 737MAX8's big engines, the stall recovery handling is different than on the 737-800, so to assist pilots if it detects the approach of a stall condition it will trim the nose of the aircraft down to avoid it, and continue trimming unless one of the pilots stops it. If either pitot tube on the aircraft gets blocked, it can also cause this, so the appropriate response is to disconnect the autopilot in the event of an airspeed unreliable event (where the captain and first officer show different airspeed indications because one pitot is blocked or problematic) to prevent this. This is a, "Memory item," on the type certification for the 737MAX series now, which means it's something that pilots train and are tested on to perform automatically without a checklist in the event of a problem.

The most recent crash specifically stated to ATC that they were having trouble maintaining a nose up attitude, while the previous one was the cause of the Boeing bulletin in the first place and had exactly the same issue.

The transponder logs from ATC have since come out and confirm that it had an issue measuring pitch and/or airspeed, the above was based only on the ATC conversations.

I've since done a bit of digging on these sorts of incidents, and it turns out that the commercial aircraft most likely to have this particular issue per flight hour is the Airbus A330 - though fortunately the pilots were able to recover in all but one of the situations (AF447), and has its own set of ADs about it.

Air travel even on the least safe aircraft is incredibly safe, with more people killed by vending machines.

 

[cmwade77]

China has grounded these planes until the airlines can provide evidence that they have taken additional steps to ensure safety of these planes, so why hasn't the U.S.?

 

[msb578]

If something happens now on Southwest or American’s watch, they know they’re finished. Done.

So, that tells me how confident they are that this aircraft is safe to fly on.

 

[jec6613]

China has grounded these planes until the airlines can provide evidence that they have taken additional steps to ensure safety of these planes, so why hasn't the U.S.?

The better question is: Why did the CAAC, as the only nation to do so? The few airlines grounding them are grounding only a few among their large 737 fleets, or in the case of Comair their only one.

Politically, China has a commitment they see as a defeat to buy a pile of 737 MAX aircraft, when they want to send up their own indigenously produced aircraft, and are trying to show that they are more safety proactive than the FAA and EASA to gain reciprocity with both of them after the 80's and 90's where China's air safety had a pretty terrible record (though one incident shows just how tough the 747 is).

If something happens now on Southwest or American’s watch, they know they’re finished. Done.

So, that tells me how confident they are that this aircraft is safe to fly on.

Pretty much. The two largest operators are still flying them and taking deliveries with no slowdown. Of course in the case of WN, the MAX8 variant is their only ETOPS aircraft, so they'd have to cancel services if they did ground them, but on the flipside they're already under the safety microscope (as is AA's maintenance program). If either of them has an accident in them, it would cause those airlines exceptional financial hardship. So the people with the most to lose from an accident on their watch are the ones still flying them without hesitation.

 

[NotUrsula]

Worried that the plane may have some unknown issues? Yeah, a little bit, because it is a super-complex electro-mechanical system. Worried that this will cause a crash on a US domestic airline? No. (Full disclosure: I am not involved with Boeing, though I know quite a few people who work for them.)

I've got several reasons for believing this, but mostly, because SWA (aka WN), and American are Boeing's largest two operators of this aircraft, I am pretty sure that they have demanded, and gotten, extra attention from Boeing on the issue; probably in the form of additional training/inspections and possibly Boeing engineers parked in their Flight Operations Centers to be right there to see the details and help provide answers if anything at all hinky is reported. Those two airlines are just too big a source of revenue for Boeing to endanger the stream by inattention.

As for countries grounding the plane, I'm sure that there are many reasons, but one thing that stands out when I look at which have done it at this point, is that so far, they are countries notorious for the prevalence of graft in relationships between governments and businesses. I think that it is quite possible that there is fear there that certifications and/or inspections that were ordered after the Lion Air crash have not actually been carried out, and they want to be sure. Is the US immune to this kind of dishonesty? Not at all, but we do have more of an infrastructure in place to catch and eliminate it, especially in the aviation industry. (Also, in the case of China, there may be underlying economic motives, as the Chinese government does all aircraft purchasing for airlines there, and there are a huge number of orders open with Boeing right now for this aircraft. It could be that they are seizing an opportunity to re-negotiate terms.)

 

[DLgal]

I just read that American Airline's Flight attendant's union issued a bulletin stating that they will not be forced to work on the Max8 plane if they do not feel safe doing so. AA is honoring their requests.

The article also pointed out that it is too early to speculate on the cause of this latest crash, but having 2 planes of the same model crash within 6 months of each other is unprecedented and not something anyone is taking lightly right now, either at Boeing or any of the airlines currently flying these planes.

 

[jec6613]

The article also pointed out that it is too early to speculate on the cause of this latest crash, but having 2 planes of the same model crash within 6 months of each other is unprecedented and not something anyone is taking lightly right now, either at Boeing or any of the airlines currently flying these planes.

AA/USAir internal politics with their FA union aside, two hull loss incidents (aircraft damaged beyond repair) in 5 months is certainly not unprecedented … there were four A320's in a 32 day span in 2015 (one being the Germanwings suicide), and two of the seven 777 hull losses were within 5 months on the same airline and same variant (777-2H6ER).

The reason I'm so confident that they're safe is precisely because the engineers, flight instructors, flight crew, NTSB, and FAA take every incident seriously, even (and often especially) the ones you never hear about and don't cause loss of life or that you as a passenger would even notice. Most ADs and EADs are issued because of things you've never heard about, and that plus the talented people in ATC that allow even a Cessna to fly IFR across the entire US, is why the US has a squeaky clean air safety record.

It's normal to think and even act irrationally and over-assess a risk that we're not in control of, but if you take a deep breath and do research, it can help a ton. It's how I mostly got over my fear of flying: I just remember that even on the worst airline on the least reliable aircraft, I'm still much more likely to be killed getting to the airport than in a plane crash.

 

[DLgal]

AA/USAir internal politics with their FA union aside, two hull loss incidents (aircraft damaged beyond repair) in 5 months is certainly not unprecedented … there were four A320's in a 32 day span in 2015 (one being the Germanwings suicide), and two of the seven 777 hull losses were within 5 months on the same airline and same variant (777-2H6ER).

The reason I'm so confident that they're safe is precisely because the engineers, flight instructors, flight crew, NTSB, and FAA take every incident seriously, even (and often especially) the ones you never hear about and don't cause loss of life or that you as a passenger would even notice. Most ADs and EADs are issued because of things you've never heard about, and that plus the talented people in ATC that allow even a Cessna to fly IFR across the entire US, is why the US has a squeaky clean air safety record.

It's normal to think and even act irrationally and over-assess a risk that we're not in control of, but if you take a deep breath and do research, it can help a ton. It's how I mostly got over my fear of flying: I just remember that even on the worst airline on the least reliable aircraft, I'm still much more likely to be killed getting to the airport than in a plane crash.

Unprecedented in that these are brand new planes.

Listen, I understand the importance of thinking rationally here. However, I won't just blindly trust that everything is fine because statistically it seems that way. I bet the 300+ people who have died in these two incidents didn't have any reason to be worried about their fights either. And, the stories about the current mechanic /airline dispute that are coming out, regarding airlines ignoring mechanics repair recommendations or blatantly disregarding line items to get planes back into service, as well as the claim by mechanics that the airlines are not following through on all FAA guidance...is troubling to say the least. Of course, this is all "he said, she said" allegations (on both sides), but if even some of it is true, it is very unsettling.

 

[goofy4tink]

I'm waiting to see what the final word, via the 'blackbox' is on the latest crash. The first one was due to improper training...evidently the pilots hadn't fully trained on this new plane..it flies a bit differently. We shall see what the issue is with this latest plane. I have a feeling it may be the same thing. American pilots have been well educated in the new plane. I have two flights on SWA coming up. My dd has one, my dh has one. I'm not cancelling them.​

 

[AgentMama]

I'm waiting to see what the final word, via the 'blackbox' is on the latest crash. The first one was due to improper training...evidently the pilots hadn't fully trained on this new plane..it flies a bit differently. We shall see what the issue is with this latest plane. I have a feeling it may be the same thing. American pilots have been well educated in the new plane. I have two flights on SWA coming up. My dd has one, my dh has one. I'm not cancelling them.

I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. Boeing introduced the new feature, MCAS, and my understanding is that this system removed the pilots ability to easily manually override a nose dive (a nose dive that this system has created). In fact, they announced yesterday they will be sending out updates to that system. And after the first crash there was out outcry from pilots that there wasn't enough training on this new feature or the potential difficulties and ramifications with it.

 

[katallo]

I think the investigations will reveal a lot, but we are holding off booking with SW right now.

 

[Pmlocke]

According to a report last night on the news, the pilot had a total of 200 hours flight time. Thats it. 200 hours and he was the pilot. To fly as a co-pilot in the USA on an american airline, you must have a minimum of 1500 hours flight time. Just saying. It's not always the plane.

 

[msb578]

According to a report last night on the news, the pilot had a total of 200 hours flight time. Thats it. 200 hours and he was the pilot. To fly as a co-pilot in the USA on an american airline, you must have a minimum of 1500 hours flight time. Just saying. It's not always the plane.

You’re referring to the co-pilot, yes? The pilot had over 8,000 hours.

I agree that 200 is not enough though.

 

[jec6613]

I think the investigations will reveal a lot, but we are holding off booking with SW right now.

Just FYI, the 737 MAX 8 is 4.6% of their entire fleet, and used almost exclusively on their long haul segments (because fuel economy). The chances of you flying on a MAX 8 on WN is quite exceptionally small.

 

[jec6613]

I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. Boeing introduced the new feature, MCAS, and my understanding is that this system removed the pilots ability to easily manually override a nose dive (a nose dive that this system has created). In fact, they announced yesterday they will be sending out updates to that system. And after the first crash there was out outcry from pilots that there wasn't enough training on this new feature or the potential difficulties and ramifications with it.

It's trivial to over-ride, just twiddle the trim knob on the yolk. What it wasn't is trained properly, which is why there's an EAD on the 737 MAX aircraft. Here's a 737 flight instructor explaining it:

What Boeing has announced they're updating is still mostly pilot training, but also the MCAS behavior during AA unreliable or AS unreliable readings (it takes input from both sides). Since this will only occur during an aircraft malfunction it doesn't affect the airworthiness certificate (changes to it during normal flight would require a full flight test re-certification) - MCAS is a very important safety feature on the MAX series.

 

[Darcy03231]

Just checked our American flight for next month. It's on a Max8. Hopefully they'll know more before we fly.

 

[DLgal]

What I read is that, although Boeing issued a memo regarding this problem and called for pilot training on the issue, they (nor the airlines) did NOT update the in flight manuals that describe how to override the system. So, if it happened in flight, there was no way to look up how to override it. Seems like a MAJOR, MAJOR oversight (if true). You can claim all day long that the pilots have "received additional training," but in the moment, when it happens, if the manual in the actual plane has outdated information, what good is that?

 

[jec6613]

What I read is that, although Boeing issued a memo regarding this problem and called for pilot training on the issue, they (nor the airlines) did NOT update the in flight manuals that describe how to override the system. So, if it happened in flight, there was no way to look up how to override it. Seems like a MAJOR, MAJOR oversight (if true). You can claim all day long that the pilots have "received additional training," but in the moment, when it happens, if the manual in the actual plane has outdated information, what good is that?

There is not a, "Flight manual," carried in an aircraft, there's a QRH - Quick Reference Handbook. The actual aircraft manual (which isn't paper by the way, it's bigger than an encyclopedia set) does contain the information, the QRH does not and should not because that's not where you put immediate actions to be taken. There are two things going on when an aircrew has an abnormal situation:

The first are procedures that are not in the QRH, known as memory items. These are things that the pilot commits to memory and practices in a simulator to ensure they can execute immediately before they reach for a QRH. Examples include the go-around procedure (set TOGA, flaps position, etc.), aborted takeoff procedure, cabin depressurization, and importantly for this discussion, stall recovery is a memory item, as is airspeed unreliable, and angle of attack unreliable. Only once the memory items are completed do they pull out the QRH. When angle of attack is unreliable or airspeed unreliable, the pilots set a specific thrust setting and pitch setting to ensure that the aircraft stays in the flight envelope and in the air. These are things that must be executed immediately and before they can reach for the QRH, and that's why it's a pilot training issue and not a documentation issue. Since November it has been a part of obtaining a type certificate for the 737 Max, but only in the USA, EU, and Japan (nobody else has adopted the FAA EAD as required, as we're discovering now after this latest incident), and the aircrew must show they can execute this before they are permitted to fly the aircraft. Every US 737 MAX crew has completed this training by the end of January to fly the MAX. If you watch, "Sully," Tom Hanks executes several memory items before calling for the QRH.​

The QRH contains a series of checklists and is made by each airline, based on manufacturer input. This means that every single airline and aircraft has a different QRH, and for instance an ETOPS 737 would have a different QRH than a non-ETOPS certified 737, on the same airline with an aircraft where every single part is identical. The reason each airline is different is of course procedures for notifying maintenance bases and so on are going to be different, and they may change depending on the routes flown. One noteworthy example of major differences is the QRH between operators for a single engine failure on the 747: since the 747 is technically a 3 engine aircraft (it only requires 3 working engines to be considered safe to fly) airlines have very different diversion and restart procedures based on where they fly and what they fly. The QRH also changes over time based on experience gained with the aircraft. Again, if you watch the movie, "Sully," you can see Tom Hanks call for the non-normal QRH for dual engine loss of power, and they then start the engine restart procedure. You can also watch a documentary on Speedbird 9 which suffered a quadruple engine failure flying through volcanic ash out of Jakarta, which shows the aircrew doing the same - both are examples of excellent crew management and decision making with major aircraft troubles.

Edit to add: AA191 in 1979 is the reason why the EAD is so seriously enforced in the US, but not elsewhere. In that case a faulty maintenance procedure caused the deadliest aircraft accident in US history - but other counties had to learn that less on the hard way, such as Japan with JAL123 in 1985.