Ryanair buys 75 737 Max

[iamtheoneneo]

Oh my God. That is shocking. I honestly think it's one of the safest forms of transport, until pilot experience, training & ability under pressure is put to the test. At that point you really are *****.
Having seen those Air Crash Investigation programs as well, it doesn't matter how insignificant the issue is, it escalates very quickly when the plane doesn't respond in the way they expect.
Love the quote from that article “Engine fires are a very unlikely event and there have been no observed engine fires in the 787 fleet history."......but if there is one the chances of survival are put at risk by a sticky switch. According to them, 1% chance the button won't work. If I was in are air on a Dreamliner looking at a wing on fire knowing what I know now...

Ultimately its a training issue. Most flight issues can be solved with good training, but airlines are ever trying to bottom it out since its impacts budget. Generally speaking the pilots ferrying around cargo globally are better trained and experienced than the ones that are flying people around (think about that!)

Although in the both Max crashes they've pretty much proved now that even with training it would have been near impossible for it to be saved, and in fact the systems were just flawed from the very beginning.

 

[Narj]

What if one fails and the 2 remaining disagree? Which one is correct? 4 sources for anything critical please.

Example with network time protocol:

"

The thing with that particular example is it's still usually possible to figure out if something is catastrophically wrong - upon failure of an NTP server for example (which was assumed to be correct), systems can fall back to to internal clock which isn't great but will stay reasonably accurate for a short time until they can sync to another source. If you have other sources available that are way off your current time then it can refuse sync, raise alarms/alerts and continue on internal.

I've hit exactly this sort of issue before with PTP and NTP (unfortunate coincidence with multiple problems at the same time). But yeah, more than 4 sources in our environment.

 

[nam]

this does not inspire confidence

http://news.sky.com/story/boeing-73...ilots-forced-to-shut-down-one-engine-12172654

 

[squerble]

this does not inspire confidence

http://news.sky.com/story/boeing-73...ilots-forced-to-shut-down-one-engine-12172654

Why? This is a "normal" occurrence in aviation; it's only being reported because it's a MAX.

 

[Vanquish-Storm]

Why? This is a "normal" occurrence in aviation; it's only being reported because it's a MAX.

It’s normal for an airplane that has been scrutinised to the MAX to have an engine fail.

 

[Belly]

What would have been the outcome if they had had to shut down both engines? Mad Max 3 - The Seatle Sequel.

What's wrong with Airbus?

 

[FBi7]

Why? This is a "normal" occurrence in aviation; it's only being reported because it's a MAX.

This was my initial thought tbh.

Then I remembered that the MAX's engine mounts were bodged as well, so if the "indication" leading to the crew shutting down an engine was, for example, excess engine vibration, then I think this occurance starts to become a whole lot more relevant/newsworthy.

 

[squerble]

This was my initial thought tbh.

Then I remembered that the MAX's engine mounts were bodged as well, so if the "indication" leading to the crew shutting down an engine was, for example, excess engine vibration, then I think this occurance starts to become a whole lot more relevant/newsworthy.

Perhaps. But let us not discount the fact these aircraft have been sat on the ground for nearly 18 months. It's not even the same as the current fleets which may fly a circuit once a week, they weren't allowed off the ground at all. How much can be attributed to the fact they've been sat on the ground after barely flying before they were grounded? Could these just be a few teething/shake-down style issues that would have cropped up anyway?

 

[ianh]

From the info I'd read it was a hyd indication issue initially, then a fuel flow issue to the LH engine needing a shutdown for safety. Considering it's just left realitive long term storage I'd say these thing (sticky valves etc) will be more common now than on an aircraft that's flying everyday, just like a stored car will suffer.

 

[uvarvu]

this does not inspire confidence

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6UAEvAwgl8

Lots of procedures needed when preparing an aircraft that has been in storage for a while.

 

[bingham67]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1743477534207922592

Looking for a thread to stick this in.

But Jesus how has this happened

 

[Freefaller]

I hadn't been aware of their issues! Wow.

I haven't flown Ryanair in over a dozen years and certainly never plan on flying with them, this has cemented my feelings on the matter.

 

[200sols]

I hadn't been aware of their issues! Wow.

I haven't flown Ryanair in over a dozen years and certainly never plan on flying with them, this has cemented my feelings on the matter.

It's not a Ryanair plane. Actually shocking though, the history of the 737 max does not inspire confidence in Boeing.

 

[Destination]

it's been recertified now after eighteen months of works. I'd get on one tomorrow without a second thought.

Interestingly, they are asking for exemptions to certain FCAA safetly rules, as they haven't solved icing issues on the jets.
This plane really is cursed.

 

[Freefaller]

It's not a Ryanair plane. Actually shocking though, the history of the 737 max does not inspire confidence in Boeing.

No I appreciate that. I just don't like Ryanair find it horrible experience! I've flown on them half a dozen times and point blank refuse now.

I hadn't appreciated how much of an issue this plane was though. You're right it does make you concerned, I thought Boeing were generally good? So what happened in this plane? Cheap procurement/fit out/testing?

 

[OldKitMan]

That looks horrendous, thankfully didn't happen at 35k feet and no-one was killed. As it's only a couple of months old then it can't be a maintenance issue so most likely a build issue and hopefully not a design fault. I'm a big believer in keeping my seatbelt on at all times when flying although if you were in the seat that got ripped out then that's not going to help. Looks like it's some sort of unused door that failed.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1743494807777857878

 

[esmozz]

.... I thought Boeing were generally good? So what happened in this plane? Cheap procurement/fit out/testing?

Money. There is an interesting documentary on Netflix - Downfall, which highlights a lot of issues with Boeing.

That being said, the previous series of 737 aircraft (NG) is very good.

 

[Mesai]

It's not a Ryanair plane. Actually shocking though, the history of the 737 max does not inspire confidence in Boeing.

Are they the ones that had the software nose dive issue too?

 

[Diddums]

Are they the ones that had the software nose dive issue too?

Yep.

 

[beachBOYken]

That looks horrendous, thankfully didn't happen at 35k feet and no-one was killed. As it's only a couple of months old then it can't be a maintenance issue so most likely a build issue and hopefully not a design fault. I'm a big believer in keeping my seatbelt on at all times when flying although if you were in the seat that got ripped out then that's not going to help. Looks like it's some sort of unused door that failed.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1743494807777857878

Yeah it seems its an area used as an emergency exit by airlines, in this case Alaska airlines do not, quite unbelievable no one was sitting there.