WHAT’s the Issue NOW?! 

You still not watched Flight/Risk on Amazon Prime? Lots of answers.

Could you check out 74gears last RU-vid video, i would love your opinion on the Ryanair segment

@@johnmoloney5296 he has already replied to it FFS.

@@GeordieBoy69 where, i didn't see it?

Nej! Jag fattar inte att du fortfarande gör en massa sponsrad reklam. Det bryter videons flöde och jag är inte ens intresserad i någon av produkterna. Jag vill till och med inte ens köpa dom om du håller på. Bojkott!!! Tänk dig att du är ute och går i en vacker park och tar in hur vacker den är, sen hoppar jag plötsligt ut mitt i det från ingenstans och blockerar dig från att gå någonstans, sen börjar jag babbla om nån produkt du inte ens är intresserad av, och fortsätter om du inte gör något. Du skulle självklart villja stoppa mig och fortsätta gå i parken. Det här är exakt vad du gör med din sponsrade reklam i dina videor. Jag är anledningen bakom den här videons tredje Dislike på grund av den sponsrade reklamen.

Well said, there is a reason for the EICAS being in Modern aircraft, simply put they reduce the pilot workload in times of stress adding to safety. Boeing and its key customers for the 737 would rather have cheaper than safer.!

One of the arguments is that it could be confusing for pilots, and thus dangerous, if two airplanes which are very similar (and certainly similar in name) have such different warning systems and thus have to be operated in very different ways. Now I'm a layman in this so how do you value that argument, as a pilot having flown the 737 and other airplanes from Boeing and different manufacturers? Is that a serious argument, or would you consider it a straw man argument?

Boeing's strength is strength. Airbus' strength is design; They hired Porsche to design the cockpit of their airplanes. I am a committed Boeing guy, and I even recognize the stupidity of Boeing's designs. Honeywell Pegasus, which is used in the 757 and 767 is HORRID~!

@@Flies2FLL was it HORRID 40 years ago when it came out?

With 45 years of advanced material reinforcement failure analysis engineering experience, Boeing needs to move on to a 737 replacement and cancel the 737 MAX 7 & 10. Boeing already killed nearly 400 innocent lives due to corporate greed, fraud and corruption, 100% avoidable and under new review for criminal prosecution. I will not fly on the 737 MAX period.

Apparently so... Educate us please.

@@BobbyGeneric145 MCAS????? Surely you can't be that ignorant?

@@BobbyGeneric145 MCAS

@@BobbyGeneric145 737 max mcas, caused two crashes

Good remark

A Chevy Kingswood... with mag tires, supercharger scoop... and DVD player.

Lol, that’s funny.

airbus fanboy crying evrywherw

Sadly the story of América for the last halve century, developing MBA's instead of Engineers. I have 4 sons, none of them wanted to go into engineering

Yeah the faa skated on the max crashes big time.

I think that the FAA can be judged for the crashes as well, because how can it be possible, that a plane with such safety issues and that huge lack of information for pilots can pass all tests?

@@Kasi11 Regulatory capture. Boeing is the only major aircraft manufacturer left in the US. So to find experts on aircraft, the FAA has to recruit from... Boeing. It has been this way for over 25 years. The FAA primarily regulates Boeing in terms of manufacturers, and recruits primarily from Boeing to find external experts. Similarly Boeing recruits regulatory experts from the FAA. The result is that the FAA and Boeing have essentially become interchangeable entities.

@@TheoreticalString Yes, but when an aircraft like the Max (beofre the update) can pass all tests, then there is something really wrong. It does not depend on where the experts are from and if they did not do all tests like they should have done, because Boeing was quite much time behiend the A320 Neo, then they were responsible for the crashes too.

@@Kasi11 yes you are right the faa was at fault in the crashes as well but the got a free pass

But it was not because an airplane is not a spreadsheet or word processor. The pilots will still need to fly the plane without it when the screens go dark.

@@danharold3087 Absolutely agree. There should always be a printed backup manual available, the lives of people may depend on it.

@@danharold3087 Doesn't mean they need to keep living entirely in the stone age

@@petep.2092 The "online help" was a metaphor for being able to access a *full* manual at any time. Why change it? Because every other Boeing model has EICAS - it is *only* the 737 family which does *NOT* have EICAS. If the 737 system is so good, why has Boeing introduced a newer system into its other planes? Where the law fails is that it should have mandated retro-fitting of EICAS to existing 737 family planes by, say, 2030, to bring them upto to the safety standard enjoyed by the rest of the Boeing models, ensuring commonality to the better standard across all planes. I agree, it was bad airmanship that brought down the two Max's - the bad airmanship of the MCAS system trying to lower the nose when the plane was in safe level flight because it thought the nose was up and about to stall. If a pilot thought the nose was up, heading for a stall, and pushed the nose down, but failed to look at his altitude, rate of climb and airspeed to see that he was actually flying level and not on the brink of a stall, you would agree he is a bad pilot and should not be in control of a plane; and yet that is exactly how MCAS was interacting with the MAXs that crashed. Before you bring up the trim cut-out switches, a reminder that all they do is cut the power to the vertical stabilizer trim motor, they *DO NOT* disable MCAS - it is still in the background commanding a trim change, which can't currently be actioned as there is no power for the motor - but, more significantly, they also disable the use of the trim motor by the pilots themselves. The FDR for one crashed flight shows the crew fighting with MCAS, repeatedly trimming the plane correctly to be undone by MCAS, a system of which *they had no idea* existed in the MAX as it was not mentioned in any manuals. It appears the crash investigators themselves only learnt about MCAS when a Boeing engineer sent to help them told them anout the automatic system responsible for the undoing of the pilots efforts to correct the trim. If the pilots were not fully trained, then part of that is due to Boeing not telling their trainers about MCAS, what it did, and how it did it.

@@petep.2092 I like comparing its function to a context-based online help system, like hovering the mouse over an item to see it's attached function tooltip.

The 737-MAX exists because it's what their customers wanted, they didn't want a totally new design. They have pilots and maintenance engineers trained for the 737 and warehouses with spare parts for the 737, so they didn't want a new plane, they just wanted a more fuel-efficient 737 and that's what they got. Now maybe the airlines shouldn't have gotten what they asked for and instead have been dragged into the 21th century kicking and screaming, but I don't really blame Boeing for making the product the market demanded

@@MatthijsvanDuin no one demanded an aircraft that flies itself into the ground 😕

@@mark675 Nobody is contesting that the implementation of MCAS was a giant screw-up, certainly I am not, but that's not what we're talking about here

Boeing probably made the right call not going with a clean sheet design. Airlines were not willing to wait and technology advances were not really there yet to justify a 20Billion investment. Where they screwed up was cost cutting and schedule shortcuts on MCAS to meet cost and deadline pressure.

@@mark675 MCAS isn't the problem. Boeing sells many planes to the military of America and other countries that have MCAS installed and none of those planes crashed because of mcas. I want to know how they screwed it up as bad as they did...

@@ikespacef1574 yup

Of Boeing could have just made a new airframe instead of milking the 737 till it’s utters fell right off

@@ikespacef1574 But, had Boeing done the right thing from the get go, those crashes would not have happened, period.

@@ikespacef1574 definitely not what the reports said about the pilots flying those planes.

@@ikespacef1574 No? They came up with a faulty design for an aircraft, and instead of fixing the design flaws they tried with a SW-fix, which sucked. And now they are stuck with a front-heavy airplane that need sw just to stay in the air. So what the hell are you talking about?

But building a clean sheet design would cost money, and then Boeing would not be able to pay out the shareholders as much in dividends, which means that the management team would not have received large bonuses. I mean what can go wrong with a management model where none of the managers know anything about the product that they are making? But they do know how to get bonuses.

@@spacecadet35 It was not so mauch about money as time. By the time an all new plane was flying all the airlines would have been flying A320NEOs for their narrowbodies.

and still are.

@@kenoliver8913 the 757 which share the same body was a very good candidate for NG and MAX evolutions, unfortunately the executives choosed the basset hound 737

@Tyler Braden Last time I flew inside a NG, I found it particularly uncomfortable, flying lower than A320, there's more turbulences

Its the same with everything. Look at the F-35 and other major defense projects. It may be because technology is getting so complex.

@mandellorian The Australian Government's Collins Class submarine replacement program is a perfect example of this.

Boeing Commercial Boeing Defense, Space & Security I don't know how money flows between them.

They put profits over safety

​@@MICKbig06 "Let's put a fuel tank where it might catch fire when it contacts the runway" EASA sorry boys your putting profit ahead of safety. Every airliner is a collection of compromises.

The 777 was developed in a different era/environment. It was the last model done by "Boeing the engineering company.". After that, and especially after the Douglas disaster " merger," it became ALL about cost & return for shareholders. Very sad

@mildpigeon I read about the old fashioned and cumbersome way the CAD systems were used in the design of the 777. I hope it has improved.

It's also likely why the 737 NG wasn't fitted with an EICAS when introduced in back in the 1990's. Type commonality with the 737 Classic.

Well they hadn’t had any issues with poor type conversation training in the 737 family before. It wasn’t as if a brand new 737 classic had been crashed into one of Britains busiest roads because a pilot didn’t understand the differences between a 737-200 and a 737-400. Oh…

@@markevans2294 But is it the same? I was looking at the changes made along the way a while back. Fuzzy recall that there were updates to the cockpit somewhere along the line. Anyone?

@@davidwright7193 The well-documented problem was that Boeing tried to circumvent a new type rating by using MCAS to handle the increased pitch up caused by the larger engines on the MAX without providing adequate training for the pilots. People died for no good reason. Everyone ignored MAX pilot's reported problems until two perfectly flyable aircraft crashed and many lives were lost.And the resulting cans of worms opened up went beyond MCAS and training to include wiring issues. I was a big believer in Boeing and owned a fair amount of Boeing stock which I had fortuitously sold before the MAX grounding. But I wouldn't touch Boeing stock with a 10ft pole because of how the MAX was developed and how both Boeing and the FAA handled its initial certification. Having said that, I have and would fly the MAX anytime.

@@danharold3087 Everything fundamental is different. Calling it a "737" at all is one of the biggest porkie pies ever told ...

Nah, he got a $66M payoff and then fined a few million as a slap on the wrist. Deep corruption.

The crime was that Boeing designed MCAS with a single point of failure as the primary input (attitude sensor - only one). THEN, Boeing failed to include ANY documentation about the MCAS in the pilot's manual on the MAX. As a result, no pilot was even aware that there was a system aboard that would put the aircraft into a dive - by design.

@@WakeUpAmerican000s yep, I was an Aerospace software engineer, worked with Boeing in the 1990s on the 777 (normally hyper anal in my experience) and could not believe how that poorly documented single point failure got certified. I think that’s a result of the culture change, in part due to the MD acquisition and commercial pressure from Airbus. Dollars mattered more than safe engineering.

It’s like buying a new car and the dealer tells you seat belts and air bags are extra and the dealer will ask you do you want brakes on your car maybe do you want a steering wheel This max is a piece of garbage

@@mikethompson3534 sounds like you looked at buying a BMW 😂

Agreed...but... then they lose their biggest advantage over Airbus with the customers that are already trained on 737.

@@mrfrenzy.When Airbus came into the world no one was trained on them either, if Boeing really got out there and redo the plane from the ground up I'm sure there are enough Airlines to adapt it.

@@derSkedda Not so sure. Development costs would be higher from inflation alone. I doubt it would have an attractive price. At this point anybody doing a clean sheet design must do so with a plane that has a very compelling advantage or it will not sell. It is why everybody is stretching, NEO, and adding new wings. In other words milking existing designs. Boeing wants to get deeper into virtual design prior to building new planes. Reducing development time and designing easier to build planes will be their goal.

@@mrfrenzy. Well Boeing's solution to the problem was killing their customers ... Brilliant, eh?

@@derSkedda you cant just which on a toss of a dime.it takes alot.the.max is just fine.boeing will build a new plane in time and not before.

It may be purely coincidental, but I keep seeing pictures of passenger plane crashes and their aftermath where the plane has broken into three pieces at roughly the same place each time . . .

@@jamesneilsongrahamloveinth1301 Welcome to the NG series.

@James Neilson Graham (love in the time of war) That's not a bad thing, if the plans breaks apart on impact it dissipates some of the energy from the crash. All of the accidents you see like that are probably ones with survivors

Fantastic read! Fully agree with how frustrating and disgusting the culture shift/gross negligence at Boeing ruined a great American company. If it’s Boeing, I’m not going!

You mean like NASA, about 1986 or 2003? Hmm, ya know - you just *may* have something there!

except that the real problems were very poor maintenance and poor pilot training led to both of the accidents, and not MCAS which has been on Boeing jets long before the Max

What was really sickening, was the US governments compliance with the thugs, letting them walk away with $millions in front of the dead passengers families.

@@johnbatson8779 NOT IN A MILLION YEARS. BOEING MANAGEMENT NEVER TOLD AIRLINES ABOUT THE SYSTEM BECAUSE THAT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED EXTRA PILOT TRAINING, WHICH THEY PROMISED WOULD NOT BE NEEDED. THEN COMPOUNDED THAT WITH AN ALL OUT ATTACK ON THE PILOTS COMPETENCY. SHEAR BLOODY GREED. WATCH THE NETFLIX VIDEO ABOUT THE "MAX"

Completely agree. And as an aircraft mechanic I can confirm that the cargo compartments are indeed awful and outdated. It's very much comparable to a regional jet like the Embraer 190. Just an aluminium floor and flimsy fibreglass panels on the sidewalls. Meanwhile, the A320 has had a cargo load system which supports luggage containers since its introduction. In a market where airlines can't find people who would do the baggage handling (hello Schiphol), just the labour savings the A320 brings are invaluable. Airbus cargo compartments generally are stronger and are much lower maintenance. Though when an Airbus cargo compartment sidewall does break, you can wait for a very long time for parts to be provided (pretty much standard with most Airbus parts).

@@CheapBastard1988 More than once I've bought a ticket marked B737/Embraer190. The flights are short and the planes are full.

The NG series was "strained"! The MAX is beyond.

The 757 was one of my favorites. It went out of production because the then-new 737NG's took its market; nobody was buying it anymore.

@@Ldavies2 - the 757 was a late 1970's design, and it was disliked by passengers in the USA because the USA airlines configured that narrow body with six seats, and an aisle that was too narrow to roll a standard airline carry-on bag. It was a god-awful uncomfortable plane when configured that way. (e.g. United, Delta and others)

Yes! We will follow that closely.

FWIW, maybe it is better for Boeing and the US if China uses it's own planes. Because as it stands, when a Boeing plane crashes in China, Boeing doesn't enjoy the same level of transparency and fairness that they have outside China, with the full opportunity to exonerate themselves, where they are not at fault. Also, if it becomes necessary for the US to sanction China at the level they have had to sanction Russia, there is less harm to Boeing and the US. I say let these two rogue regimes fly the planes they can rustle up themselves, rather than sullying an epic brand and virtually a pillar of the US economy with their poor safety and human rights records.

are we certain the Comac C919 will be allowed to fly abroad (outside China, North Korea and Russia)?

Except its Chinese garbage.

@@alexnicolaou3579 Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar are all to dependent on China to not certify it. Mongolia also, and possibly even Malysia and Nepal. And besides those countries, and the ones you mentioned, there are not many that Comac could reach from China anyway. Even if chinese airlines keep 737 MAX grounded, they can still easily fly to those few countries like Japan, Thailand and India with a combination of Airbus and Embraer aircraft.

Air France 447 enters the chat!

Ya ya ya. Depends on which airline sells the cheaper ticket. You could care less on what type of airplane is flying.

@@acidgambit8138 You can fly on every plane at least once, so indeed, why bother?

@nuniabiz7982 are you suggesting that it was a problem with the aircraft? But just to keep up with your dumb remark, TWA flight 800 enters the conversation (at least that one was bad plane design) or maybe UA flight 811 (again bad design) ... and I didn't even had to go to this new shit 737 that crashed twice immediately, why? Like he said, no one was checking on Boeing's work. They did what they wanted and everyone trusted them. Here's the result, so yes, when I see an Airbus I'm much more comfortable. 😊

You can say that again.

I think you’re referring to the ATR in Taiwan

Did he cover the Kegworth air disaster (British Midland 092), 1989? A difference between the 737-400 and earlier models led the pilots to shut down the functioning right engine after the left engine lost a blade. ( Edit: he did, ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xbCTTKw3o5o.html )

Yes, differences between variants have always been a contributing factor. Actually, subtle differences are the worst, for example where Boeing switched the air-conditioning from one engine to the other and confused the pilots British Midland Airways Flight 092. On the other hand, if we do not make changes, we will still be flying on DC-3s and B707s. Changes are needed and changes must be implemented, as airlines should invest in training their pilots.

@@todortodorov940: An important factor leading to the British Midland 092 Kegworth crash was the pilots' inability to see the engines. Passengers and cabin crew could see what was going on, but not the pilots - which seems kind of absurd. Sadly, the cabin crew lacked the boldness to communicate their concerns. Training of cabin crew has improved as a result of the accident, with cabin crew encouraged to alert pilots to problems without hesitation. One of the accident report's recommendations referred, if I remember correctly, to the desirability of fitting cameras, trained on the engines, to all aircraft - but this has not, as far as I know, been widely put into effect . . .

if it were the biggest issue ..

Really?! Pronunciation is the issue here?

In a car when the system diagnosis is wrong you get stuck on a side of the road, worst case the engine spat a cylinder out. In an aircraft you can't just pull over because automation decided to extinguish that one working engine you had left. Besides certification requirements are stricter for aircraft.

@@tymoteuszkazubski2755 nobody said automation should extinguish the engine.

The car can NOT say what causes the engine failure, it can only guess. For example if the ECU reports "misfire", the most common failures are: 1. Injectors 2. Fuel delivery 3. Ignition 4. Wiring problems That's why the mechanic (just like the pilot) has checklists what proceducers to try and in what order to isolate the fault.

@@der.Schtefan No real difference. Pilot is overwhelmed and does what the computer told him to do. We need pilots capable of managing these problems. That might means time in a simulator with the airplane creating maximum confusion.

@@mrfrenzy. A lot of people can fix their car based on what the computer tells them. When the computer gets it wrong a lot of the so called modern mechanics are lost. We need to train pilots on their planes not depend on computers

Yep boeing's management decisions over the past few years are really looking pretty terrible if they'd done a clean sheet 737 replacement and a 757 max airbus would be looking alot less happy...

@@tomriley5790 the 757 program ended because there were no more orders in the early 2000's. This new craze for aircraft of that size is one that started in the last few years.

CG is probably not directly the issue as CG can be moved around at the design stage particularly as they have the option to extend parts of the airframe for Max 7, Max 8, Max 9, Max 10 lengths (with apparently no need to call it a new 7X7 model). The issue is that the large engine is so far forward that it acts as (and this is simplifying it) an additional low aspect ratio wing. Again simplistically for a given wing area you will get a given lift and given stall speed but high aspect ratio wings (which have some aerodynamic benefits) stall at a lower angle of attack than low aspect ratio wings (this is why Concorde had the drop down nose, because the angle of attach was so high, the pilots couldn't see over a fixed nose when landing). One potential upshot of this is that you have a main wing that stalls at a given angle of attack and if properly designed will have the center of lift of the wing just behind the CG so that the nose drops when the aircraft stalls so that the aircraft picks up speed and starts flying again. Now if you have an engine pod that is not stalling when the wing is, it's still building lift, it's probably a trickier situation for a civilian pilot to handle (it does happen on some military jets), and I would argue is a flight characteristic quite different from previous 737s despite Boeing hoping "pilots wouldn't need any retraining". There's a CG component here, but CGs can be moved in design and in fuel and passenger placement. The real issue is likely the size and aerodynamic location/effects of the engines. And I agree with your comment, the electronics feel to me like a band-aid for an underlying design issue.

Boeing planes are safe and reliable. The only recent issue was with the MCAS system, and that problem has been resolved with a grounding of the fleet, system upgrades, and pilot retraining. Given that the 7 is literally an existing 737 outfitted with new engines, a safe MCAS makes that a safe plane. The 10 is a stretched 9, but that should only affect the performance of the plane. Boeing is a scummy manufacturer with a history of blaming airlines and pilots for their problems. But, as their designs are not new, their planes are proven to be safe. Boeing engineers are excellent at what they do, and extremely efficient at fixing problems. It’s management that gets in the way, and management is not allowed to do so now.

@@dex6316 Jedi mind tricks.

@@dex6316 “the only recent issue” Except the Dreamliner and Starliner, a decline in maintenance, and manufacturing standards. Even the factory workers don’t trust the planes.

What you are saying is not true. The plane flies just fine with the new engines and flies just like the previous model. The only difference was that in a specific way of flying that a pilot would normally never do, it would fly differently. Pilots could be easily trained for this difference. However due to the way type ratings work, it would be considered a different airplane and pilots would have to go through two months of certification just because of this one change. This would cost the airlines a lot of time and money. To make it easier for the airlines Boeing installed an add-on software called MCAS to make the plane fly the same in that specific situation. However Boeing made huge mistakes in how they implemented MCAS and communicated about it. This led to two crashes. The MCAS problem has been corrected. There are over 600 737 MAX flying now, over 600,000 flights with no problems. It is valid to criticize Boeing for how they handled MCAS. But there is no need to make up things that are not true because that creates confusion in the discussion.

@@StevePemberton2 I fly all the time. I know of no airline that still flies the Boeing "737 Max".

@@henrikrolfsen584 Just listing North America the following airlines are right now flying the 737 MAX: Air Canada, Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines, WestJet. If you go onto the airline websites and search for "Fleet" they show all of the airplane types that they fly any you can see 737 MAX listed. There are over 5,000 orders for the 737 MAX. Orders are subject to change but Boeing is selling and delivering the 737 MAX at a very rapid pace. The airplane is a big improvement over the previous model, which was already a bestseller, because of the new model's increased fuel efficiency and range. Airline travelers don't care what type of plane they fly on for the most part. Most have totally forgotten about the problems since it is no longer a front page story. The plane is safe, otherwise they wouldn't be able to fly 600 of them every day without incident. I don't work for Boeing. I am just stating facts. How Boeing handled MCAS should not be forgotten, it was very wrong. We can get mad and say we won't fly Boeing anymore, unfortunately the reality of the world that we live in is that companies do wrong things, they get caught and they are held accountable and hopefully they lose huge amounts of money, even though of course that does not replace lives that were lost. Anyone can feel free to boycott any company they want to. Feel free to not fly on Boeing, that is your right.

@@StevePemberton2 All my tickets say: 737-800. None of them say "737 Max".

@@henrikrolfsen584 I guess that proves you have never flown on a 737 MAX. Was that the point that you were trying to make?

It flies right over my stables as well, here in Charleston SC

right?! what a joke Boeing has become

Typically they get exemptions from updating to newer regs. Sometimes they are denied.

@@Ldavies2 hopefully this time they don't. The stupidity of the "double 6 pack" cannot be overstated, a 60-year-old ridiculous design. When you have multiple failures at once, the deck is really stacked against the humans trying to make heads or tails of it. But, it's boeing, they have plenty of money, they'll buy their exemption through lobbying and crying, always comes down to the money...

Even worse is that Boeing will almost always be able to do whatever it wants because of its relationship with the U.S. military. In January 2021, Boeing settled with the U.S. Department of Justice over fraud charges related to the 737 MAX and the MCAS system; Boeing admitted that it lied to the FAA in order to get the plane certified and it agreed to pay over $2.5 billion in fines and compensation. Eight months later, Boeing was granted a contract valued at up to $23.8 billion from the U.S. Department of Defense. According to Reuters, that contract was to "provide services including engineering, field support and material management" to a fleet of 275 C-17 Globemaster III transport aircraft managed by the United States Air Force and eight global partners over a 10-year period. That's an average of $8.6 million per aircraft per year (assuming they all remain active for the full duration). I'll let those with knowledge of the aircraft opine whether or not that sounds like a reasonable cost.

@@nomore6167 That's pretty cheap, seems to me. Yes and not so much, though. The divisions of The Boeing Company (commercial, military, space) are separate entities. They do not share a bank account, except at the very top level. So Commercial took the DOJ hit for the Max. All the military contract does is make the overall corporate finance situation better; it does not specifically help the Commercial division.

@@samueldavila2156 so your saying 777-300er Is bad? I never have flown on a max but Other boeing jets are fine

@@iamgeek01 not a fan of 3-4-3 in economy. 777s are great in premium or business though. And I do love flying on a 787.

@@freddiesflightreviews I do agree on the 3-4-3 configuration

@@freddiesflightreviews seating has mostly to do with the airline

@@samueldavila2156 Me too! Even if it means paying more. I don't trust Boeing.

Same

The fox guarding the hen house.

And how sad that it's so often repeated. We never learn - because we're incentivized not to by unregulated capitalism.

Airbus did the same with the 320 neos. They are the same as the older a320s.

ysfsim difference is Airbus made sure their plane didn't have a sudden attraction to the ground or sea.

@@ryanjonathanmartin3933 I guess you ignore the airbus' that went down or close to it

​@@ysfsim when was that?

imagine how many orders boeing will lose in that period. Airbus already planned to increase the delivery rate of A320 to 65+ per month by the end of 2023

And if a plane comes down because the pilots were overwhelmed trying to complete a manual checklist imagine how that is going to make congress and the FAA, not to mention Boeing, look. Boeing seems to forget that the puropse of a good regulator is often to save an industry from itself.

Uh. Isn't that basically what sims are for? :-)

world is a fuck

What's your issue? The same practice works just great for Pfizer and the FDA (not).

@@chumpchange1846 lol. Exactly. Let’s get the people that derive the biggest financial benefit a big say in if their product is safe and fit for purpose. Nothing can go wrong…

The FAA had every interest to do their job. Several administrations at the White House, however, were pushing on cutting funding and outsourcing this very important regulatory function to Boeing instead. This cosy relationship was not only predictable; it was planned.

Applying that logic, we'd still be in blimps, dirigeables, and hot air baloons. *LOL*

Retired Aero here

If it cheap enough, people will buy anything. My local supermarket puts "50% off" labels on food products that will expire shortly.

@@todortodorov940 exactly! Plus, airbus has a ridiculous waiting list, and probably way less discount. Plus, airlines know eventually Boeing will figure it out. Probably sooner than they could ever get their hands on a a320 neo

It's cheaper to keep 737s if airlines already use 737 NGs. If you switch to a completely different aircraft you need pilots with new type certificates, new ground equipment and new simulators. Also 737s are relatively cheap to build.

A320 neo has its fare share if problems where daaged sensors cras the plne

320 is not that young also. 320 neo is just updated version same as 737max.

A lot of things changed after they merged with McDonnel Douglas, and not for the better...

​​@@FMJellico Boeing aquired/merged with Mcdonald Douglas because it was failing, then implemented all the management techniques, and a lot of the senior management, that caused it to fail in the first place.

It was McDonald Douglas execs that took over, and then the stockprice became more important than things like fully staffed qc teams and the like. Plenty of video out there describing such things.

have you seen the other Boeing models?? They are pretty advanced

EICAS?

@@user-Aaron- !?

EICAS = crew alerting, ACAS = collision avoidance

It’s mixed bag. There has been crashes in the 737 where alarm confusion lead the incorrect crew action(like the crash where the pilots didn’t identify the alarm when the plane wasn’t pressurizing properly). In a ECAM or EICAS equipped plane a message like CAB ALT HI or something along those lines, possibly with a verbal warning, but the 737 just sounds a horn. However, having two different warning systems would likely also cause confusion as that’s a major change, and if the crew has to handle emergencies a entirely different way across variants that’s bound to cause issues.

@@MatthijsvanDuin Ah ok, thanks!

Yeah ... The FAA & Boeing are just compounding their previous mistakes to protect Boeing's investment. Simple really and entirely predictable.

I flew both and there is a lot of resemblance in some systems in both airbus and Fokker 100. As far as I remember there was a placard in Fokker cockpit saying something about some systems being conceived on Deutsch Airbus.. also it was way known in the industry that some Fokker engineers migrated to airbus. Fokker however had better handling. But to work, besides the very dry air thanks to the lousy bleed system in all these aircraft, the chairs in the 320/330, that are now replaced for better ones in the 350: and noise in older versions, there is nothing like airbus for a work day. However, the airplane can’t do miracles. So no one can be confortable after 12 hours duty. It’s the rules that must be changed for working times, not the airplane.

@@joaodantas8530 For sure. i flew the old F-28 also. I liked the control yoke in the f-100 more than the side stick in the Airbus. But I didn't like the placement of nav display below the PFD. The yoke blocked the view of it. They should have set it to the side like in the Airbus.

The average should be good enough, or they shouldn't be flying at all.

I think Boeing is rather focused on the certification. More likely the FAA does not have the people or funding to do its job properly. Just like when they certified the MAX the first time.

Having only one sensor definitely increased the odds of failure. But it could still happen with two or even three. However the real crucial factor was a new page in the training manual. "This is the MCAS system. This is what it is like if it malfunctions. This is how you turn it off." If the pilots of the two planes that crashed had this information both tragedies could have been avoided.

"The 737 Max, which was grounded in March after two fatal plane crashes, is not affected by this issue." But I expect this is something they will be looking at.

@@danharold3087 Given the issue was fundamentally that Boeing's tail was wagging the FAA dog, isn't this a lesson not being learned? What's IATA got to say about what's going on? In systems design terms, where you should have triple-redundancy, they're diving straight back into the bad old days of market dominance becoming an accident waiting to happen, in some shape or form.

Perhaps they are, bur the point is still that the Max return to the skies were conditioned and now Boeing wants to be allowed to ignore those conditions, appalling really.

Definitely agree.

@@ThunderboltDragon Eh no, like explained in the video these new regulations weren't intended to apply to the MAX yet, they're just at risk of running into them because the certification of the -7 and -9 is taking way longer than originally anticipated

The video with Mentour using the manual trim of the 737 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-aoNOVlxJmow.html gave me the impression that the bigger 737 using old controls have safety problems.

It’s a bit more complex than that. But you are not wrong.

Yes mate, as shown on Flight/Risk - they can be certified without safety in mind. Mind boggles.

Its always been safe.

@@GeordieBoy69 When the Max was grounded, it had a hull loss rate of 2/~390. That was not safe by any measure.

@@gdehms Depends what you consider was the cause of those two losses. It's not always the manufacturer. It can be the airline, and the training packages they do or don't invest in. FWIW, Boeing should have made the full training mandatory.

Excellent point.

It’s not about just accident rates. What if the accident rates are identical, but near misses are double? I’m not saying this is the case, just that u can’t base this on just accident rates.

@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 This is not the avoidance system. It is the engine alerting system

@@danharold3087 I’m type rated on the 737 as well as on aircraft with eicas systems. So I know what it is. You are confusing a “near miss” with only one aspect: one airplane hitting another. What I meant with “near miss” is basically almost having any kind of problem that results in an almost accident. For instance, having an engine failure, one of the worst things to happen, can be a lot less of an emergency with an aircraft with an eicas, especially throwing in some bad weather and some other unfortunate circumstances, compared to the 737. It doesn’t mean the 737 will crash and the A320 won’t. But, and I’m pulling these example numbers out of my ass, in the same situation, the 737 might be 3 wrong steps away from crashing and the A320 is still 7 wrong steps away from crashing.

@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 I get your point and I don't have any data on near misses. But my point was that over millions of departures all over the world over a quarter century the NG has proven to be one of the safest airliners ever made and yet not equiped with EICAS.

Well, that all makes sense to me. I'd forgotten about the HQ move. Your surmise about the change of management candidature could well be a major factor.

Can't agree more, any organisation led by financiers will end up having money as their God, unfortunately.

There is an important issue that I haven't seen mentioned: airlines need to rent simulator time to train new pilots. At the time of the grounding, there were only a handful of simulators, IIRC only two, available to retrain every pilot. If the MAX had been released as a new type, there would have been massively expensive and time consuming delays in getting pilots recertified. The airlines very much wanted "the same plane," and Boeing "delivered" it by using software to disguise a very important shift in the thrust centerline of the new, larger engines (now mounted higher in the wing to provide adequate ground clearance).

@@Lawrence330 Hi. I am in the high end simulator training business and Max simulators have been around even before the first one flew. Where would the Boeing pilots trained to fly the prototype, if not in the sim? Even while the type was grounded, simulators continued to get built and delivered. I have also being in the airline industry since the 80s, and trust me, airlines would do whatever to save a buck, until and airplane digs a hole in the ground, and all their savings are spent several times over. Pilots need training for any new type, even the Max with all its gadgets. I was once one of them, and have lost more than one friend to poor traning and cutting corners.

Only in America, which we all know doesn't actually speak English .... Americans are well know for butchering names willy nilly. Where is Eye Ran? Or Eye Rack? Befuddling really. Is it supposed to be Eye-N'-Do-Nesia in America too?

Yup. I agree. I-CAS. Like i-Phone. That’s how we pronounce it.

you can't just retrofit systems that would require pilot retraining?

maybe the MAX just shouldn't have existed even though customers wanted it, maybe it's just one life-extension too many on the 737 type rating, but it's here now because it's (regrettably) what the customer wanted

@@MatthijsvanDuin the concept of retrofitting and requiring pilot training on that retrofit is fundamentally impossible? That's a stain on the aviation industry if true. If it's between those binaries then it should absolutely be cancelled and taken out of the air. The airline industry be damned. The customers shouldn't get what they want if what they want is an unsafe aircraft. Boeing is making a big stink so the government gives them their extensions to certify an aircraft that is not up to New regulation standards. Again not safety moved, very much corporate power moves.

@@AlKohaiMusic While EICAS would no doubt be a safety-improvement when uniformly installed, saying that a plane is _unsafe_ without it goes way too far. The 737 series has an excellent safety record overall... or had anyway :P I guess still has when averaged over the whole series, even though the way MCAS was implemented in the MAX was obviously an inexcusable disgrace

@@MatthijsvanDuin I'll say it goes too far, but not way to far. My issue is the Boeing is saying one thing and doing another. And on top of that is making a big show of force on congress to extended a deadline that Boeing failed to meet. It's essentially saying "the only way America can maintain a hold on the avition market is if you bend the rules so we don't have to play by then".

So is it logical that in a hundred more years Boeing will still make the same design? Commonality is fine sure, but please don't forget the age when the Commonality started. Cars are safer in that regard as airbags wasn't fitted 60 years ago and now we have FSD software.

​@@topethermohenes7658 At some point every plane design is abandoned. The 737 is an old one but it seems everyone including Boeing agrees it is the last iteration of the design.

@@danharold3087 imo, the NG shoudve been the last, the max is just pushing it. Like the max 8 will be in production For at least 15 more years, that makes the 737 an 80 year old design by the time production stops and it'll take another 20 years or more before the last max flies, thats a total of 100 years+ in operation, like damn that's too much

@@topethermohenes7658 Had things gone differently they should have stopped with the NG. I imagine there are a lot of people at Boeing who planned it that way. But don't be afraid of 'good' old airplanes. DC-3 is still in service with Buffalo air in Canada. There is a company near Oshkosh WI rebuilding them with turboprops. Buffalo uses the DC-3 because it is the best plane to fly their routes. They use a DC-3 for scheduled passenger service. You can imagine the problems they have with Transport Canada their FAA. If red tape does not shut them down lack of aviation fuel for the radials at the remote runways will. In anticipation of this they have purchased a B737-301SF, I don't know how close it is to flying. Last flew in 2016 B52's are another example of an old plane. I don't know how long the MAX planes will exist as passenger planes. In time they will be converted to freighters.

@@danharold3087 its not that im scared of old planes, what im weary of are old planes trying to act like and compete to new planes, its just not made to trade blows with modern planes. Like the a320 in another 20-30 years should just be retired in favor of a fresh design

the EARLY 737s [737-100 thru all variants of the 737 Next Gen] were Aerodynamically SAFE airplanes - they did not go into uncommanded nose down or nose up situations and the pilots could manually fly them [muscle power] in a neutral level flight and make an emergency landing at the nearest airport - their build quality was not quite as good as on the 727 .. they had structural cracking issues in the aft pressure bulkhead and in the wing root and fuselage webbing below the floor .. but those issues could be dealt with at every Heavy C-Check Inspection and they were extremely safe airplanes .. I personally preferred flying on the Boeing 727 or the McDonnell Douglas DC9/MD80, because their quality of construction was superior, but I never refused to fly in the 737 -- until they started building the MAX .. by pushing the engines forward they drove the CG too far forward, out of the safe parameters - which made the plane naturally "nose heavy" .. a condition that they pilots Could NOT overcome .. I refused to fly on ANY 737 Max flight and would rebook a flight to ANY other airplane ..

@@bradhartliep879 MAX is safe unless fitted with the original MCAS. It literally took control and flew the planes into the ground. Every plane with under wing engines changes pitch with throttle settings. The MAX has stronger engines so they can be run slower for a better fuel burn. But when you climb out with lots of throttle it pitches up more than the NG. One can overcome this in several ways including throttling back. There is an excellent video on the Mentor Pilot channel on the 737NG trim system. Understanding that system is most of what you need to better understand the MAX crashes. Pilots tell me that the 737MAX can be flown with MCAS off. They say it is one of the best handling jets and love it other than the cramped cockpit.

@@danharold3087 Just to clarify few thigs. Every plane has a tendency to react in certain way when the pilot interacts with the controls, that being the yoke, the throttle or any other flight control. The MCAS is unnecessary system on the MAX, as both the old and the new 737s, due to the engine location, do have a tendency to pitch up on full throttle. The MCAS on the MAX was introduced with the sole purpose to make the pitch-up behavior on the MAX feel exactly the same as the older NG brother. Unless the reader is very new to the topic; the reason was to save airlines the need to train their pilots the characteristics of the new models and thereby save the airlines money - there is no technical need for the MCAS on the MAX.

Yes no doubt the 737's an amazing aircraft, hugely successful but I think it's had its time.

You are right to be proud of your father's work. There is no doubt at all that the 737 was a wonderful design. But then so was the Model T and we aren't driving Model T MAX10s around.

You and me both

Well Airbus has ECAM so I wouldn't mind. ;)

I heard that too and it may have been on this channel. Or maybe Maximus. The entire thing is mind boggling stupid. Certification was never intended to be a race against time.

YES every varient of the 737max shares the exact same MCAS software, even if they used the MAX 10 , it would not have made any difference . They where testing the flight software itself , using the MAX 7 as a testbed . Nothing wrong with that

@@danharold3087 not mind boggling. They tested a system. Not an entire airplane.

@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 rager ,ade the mind boggling comment. However the did not test a system when they recertified the MAX they went over the entire airplane. IRRC they found other issues but not major. Fixed them too.

@@danharold3087 scroll up. U said: the entire thing is mind boggling stupid. That’s what I went by. I stand by what I said, they tested the MCAS. Doesn’t matter if it’s on the 7, 8, 9 or 10. It’s the same system. What u are saying is that if they had a seatbelt issue, that it would be mind boggling if they tested new seatbelts on the 7 and not the 8 or 9. I know, I’m over simplifying it, but that’s basically the same concept.