Would you feel comfortable flying on a Boeing 737-MAX aircraft right now?
Displaying poll results.12321 total votes.
Most Votes
- By the end of 2026, how useful do you think agentic/multi-agent AI systems will actually be in your daily work or personal projects? Posted on March 11th, 2026 | 17313 votes
Most Comments
- By the end of 2026, how useful do you think agentic/multi-agent AI systems will actually be in your daily work or personal projects? Posted on March 11th, 2026 | 40 comments
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We know exactly what happened in the first crash, and it boils down to a maintenance problem combined with a pilot training issue... new feature introduced, pilots not trained well on it. Thus we only have one incident that is unexplained, and it was yesterday. In Africa.
Re:Statistics (Score:5, Informative)
Design induced pilot error should not be characterized as a training or maintenance problem. While they were contributing factors, faulty software was the root cause of the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
(and just in case you really need it, yes, that was sarcasm!)
Re: (Score:2)
I met people who really think like that. Effing scary, especially with software used in planes or hospitals.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Statistics (Score:2)
...because that would basically require scrapping the aircraft and going back to the drawing board
Reprogramming software (or even replacing hardware; worst-case scenario) requires re& designing the rest if the aircraft, does it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Statistics (Score:4, Informative)
Exactly. A passenger aircraft should be designed to be as idiot proof as possible, and as resistant to deficient maintenance as possible. Just because you CAN train an expert pilot to overcome a design flaw doesn't mean you shouldn't address the design flaw. Training or maintenance requirements that might be acceptable on bleeding edge military aircraft simply aren't on a basic workhorse passenger aircraft like the 737 Max.
Re:Statistics (Score:4, Interesting)
This is one of the contributing factors of the Romanian TAROM Flight 371 crash back in 1995. New plane (Airbus-produced), with a known software problem (left-engine automatically sliding back all the way to idle during take-off instead of to half-power) and a known method to overcome it (pilot keeps his fingers on the levers, corrects manually). But the pilot had a heart attack at that moment, the co-pilot failed to address the software overcompensation, trying to help the pilot, resulting in 49 dead.
Had the software been working fine, there would have been one casualty, if even.
Re: (Score:2)
True. The key is "as possible". Design flaws exist and are routinely addressed throughout the aircraft's lifetime. They never stop. It is much like the lifetime of another extremely complex item, people.
Commercial aircraft cannot be made so much less complex than the "bleeding" edge that there will be no problems. Even the oldest workhorses still have new problems identified, often simply because our standards as to what a problem is continuously shift.
Pilots must be trained to handle problems, even those t
Re: (Score:2)
Uh-huh. Sure you do.
Re: (Score:2)
I work in an office building. That doesn't make me a qualified architect. But if I was, I'd stand behind my words rather than post anonymously.
Re: Statistics (Score:2)
Not even that! (Score:3)
Design induced pilot error should not be characterized as a training or maintenance problem. While they were contributing factors, faulty software was the root cause of the problem.
Note even that. If you cram new engines a 52-year old airframe was not designed for, screwing up its flight characteristic (they had to be moved to the front and up) and then try to "fix it" with software, is insane. I say that as a software engineer. I can't imagine cases where hardware design deficiencies in an application where lives are at stake are being patched with software and called "safe". It's not just a software problem, they shouldn't depend on software to "fix" stall characteristics in the fir
Re: (Score:2)
Any way you look at it, it seems crazy that Boeing would try to pull this off. But maybe they have been working towards it for a while now, I mean they had a string of amazing planes, the last one being the 777. With the 787 they started showing some problems and now this crap. Is it possibly some sort of culture shift in the company ?
They tried to do this on the cheap and now this got so expensive that hopefully everybody will be careful again for a long time. As far as I remember, the fish stinks from the head there, CEO that wanted to increase profits.
Re: (Score:2)
Software of this complexity is always faulty, much like people. So the truth is both in-between and fuzzy enough to be legitimately debatable.
I'm more familiar with fighters than commercial aircraft but can say that modern, complex planes routinely fly with many known intermittent issues including both HW and SW glitches peculiar to the particular aircraft, the particular aircraft model, equipment used on the aircraft (that might be on other models too), etc. The pilots are remarkable IMO in their ability t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Statistics (Score:2, Funny)
We need leadership! POTUS should have his family fly exclusively on the 737 MAX to demonstrate confidence in the Boeing product.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, that it is Africa makes the issue worse. Pilots there are used to non-optimal conditions, old planes, etc. If they cannot handle it, then others will have an even more difficult time. Remember that a pilot can only be killed in a crash once. Worse conditions and a life pilot means the pilot is better.
Re: (Score:2)
So if an American-made plane crashes in Africa, in good conditions, it is somehow obviously not the fault of the maker?
Re: Statistics (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
De Havilland Comet anyone?
But I have abandoned most flying because it's too cumbersome with all those security checkpoints and messing around.
Re:Statistics (Score:5, Interesting)
De Havilland Comet anyone?
Not the same. Comet was a perfect storm - going twice as high nearly twice as fast, with groundbreaking construction techniques. But instead of drilling the rivet holes, they punched 'em (making for tiny tears that later cracked.) Coupled with almost-square-cornered windows. And incorrect adhesives used, deviating from what the plan called for. Just a matter of time before *bang* pieces of airplane fluttering down and a whole planeload dead.
The Max 8 is a fucking disgrace. They screwed up the 737s aerodynamics by having to mount the bigger engines further forward and higher than usual, making the nose pitch up. They tried to fix it in software. Failed.
This is what happens when a formerly-engineering-driven company like Boeing merges with, and adopts the ethos of the other partner. McDonnel-Douglas was accounting-driven (and their safety problems reflected it.)
777 was the last pure Boeing. Eveyrhitng after is tainted by McDouglas. It was their leadership that took control of Boeing.
The 747 that was rolled out and showed to the public flew 2 weeks later.
The 787 that was rolled out and showed to the public was a sham, a mock-up, no engines, no nothing.
I'm sore as fuck at both Boeing and Douglas, and at the people who allowed that merger to go. It wrecked the last great American giant.
Re: (Score:3)
The reinforce your point, they didn't h
Re: (Score:2)
The reinforce your point, they didn't have mount the engines on the 737 Max higher and farther forward. They CHOSE to do so to avoid lengthening the landing gear and spending the money to retool and re-certify around the new parts that would have been needed.
In other words, they tried to do it on the cheap and then failed in production, killing a lot of people. They are hardly unique in that. The West is doing shoddier and shoddier engineering, all driven by an insane desire for more short-term profits. In the airplane industry, the failures are just more spectacular to look at and it is more obvious who got killed.
Re: (Score:2)
Fucking idiot, the parts of Boeing that was McDonald Douglas do not work on any part of the of commercial aircraft and all parts of MD commercial was scrapped when Boeing bought out MD. None of the software on the commercial Boeing planes comes from the former MD . All problems with Boeing start with Jim McNerney thinking outsourcing EVERYTHING.
Re: (Score:2)
No really you are a fucking idiot , nothing from Boeing commercial side comes from the former MD. One of the first things Boeing did with MD was scrapping ALL the dies for all MD commercial aircraft when they took over .
Re: Statistics (Score:2)
So how did they manage to make the suspiciously MD-80-like Boeing 717?
Re: (Score:2)
No really you are a fucking idiot , nothing from Boeing commercial side comes from the former MD.
Management did, and that's what's broken Boeing since. The culture of McDonnel-Douglas spread through Boeing mangement like a fucking cancer.
And the 717 was the MD-90. Boeing killed it like morons because it competed against the 737, but not really. DC9 / MD-80/90 were meant for shorthaul small field flying. You know, like regional jets, but more comfy.
Fast-forward 20 years and what happens? There's a need on the airlines' part to retire the ancient Mad Dogs, but there is no replacement made in USA, so
Re: (Score:2)
My hobby: voting "Other (specify in comments)" and never specifying in comments. Goes very well with my other hobby, which is replying to a completely unrelated comment, in hope of having my comment higher up on the page.
737 max 8 (Score:3)
There are many many many Boeing 737s out there, including Aloha Airlines 243 which landed safely after a large section of the top half of the plane ripped off. It's an amazing and amazingly safe aircraft.
The "max 8's" seem to have a problem. I wouldn't be real comfortable flying on one right now. But the other 737s are fantastic.
Re: (Score:3)
The model number may be the same but the early 737s and the late 737s don't share many parts.
Re: (Score:3)
That's true, but it's also part of the problem - because the 737MAX series of aircraft operate under the same operating certificate as the 737-100, the standard for certifying the changes is not as rigorous as a brand new aircraft, and things that are disallowed in a brand new design are allowed in such grandfathering certification.
Take, for example, the engines on the MAX - positioned very very high on the wing, because Boeing are unwilling to do the redesign needed to raise the undercarriage substantially
No they don't (Score:1)
The "max 8's" seem to have a problem..
Nope. Notice how all the crashes were airlines in third world countries that do not have a strong federal government to make them do what they're supposed to do?
Pilots that may not have been trained adequately. Maintenance not done properly. Aircraft not checked accordingly.
If they start crashing in the US, then maybe I'll be concerned. If fly Delta mostly and I'm constantly stuck on these MD-88 washing machines that were built in 1989 and 1990. Noisy as hell, but the last one that crashed was in '96 an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
There was but it was not documented in the procedures.
It was added in response to the Lion Air crash, which is to switch off computer control of trim if a runaway trim situation is present. Generally if something is not covered in a procedure it isn't going to get done in the short time available to address a malfunction during climb.
Re: Probably (Score:1)
What are the odd though given that you are flying on a âoeMAXâ and 2 out of the 400 planes in service have recently crashed killing everyone on board?
It's a Boeing, so I am not going... (Score:1)
It's a Boeing, so I am not going...
But it's a bit premature to talk about potential issues with the plane. Especially in mainstream media which is often getting important details wrong. http://avherald.com/h?article=... [avherald.com] is what I'd look at instead. Well sourced info.
Haven't flown in more than 10 years (Score:2)
But I wouldn't be comfortable flying in a Cessna, either.
I think the funny parts are that I once had a pilot's license and I've flown all over the world, but I haven't been in a plane for at least 10 years. Not just because I was such a bad pilot or had secondary experiences of being a passenger while the plane did bad things. Mostly it was just the intrusions into my privacy in the airports after 9/11 changed the world for the worse. (Did the terrorists win when we removed all the trash cans from public pl
Re: (Score:1)
I haven't flown commercial since shortly after 9/11 as well. It was embarrassing how much they felt me up in front of the crowd and showed everyone the contents of my suitcase. It is purely security "theater", and I can't stand it.
I have flown a bunch in the private aviation sector though and there are two things that have changed: 1) The general security theater is way different, and in many places, simply absent altogether. 2) It is really sad to see that private aviation is shrinking dramatically. Hardly
Are smarter planes actually safer? (Score:2)
My take would be different. Yes, flying a plane is fun, but quite dangerous, and not just for the pilot. In hindsight I regard the money and time as mostly wasted. Also, I'm lucky I wasn't killed. Separated by a couple of months, I actually encountered two pilots who were killed within the week of our encounters. They were actually flying the same model of small chopper. R-20, if my memory is correct. The chopper was then grounded for safety improvements involving the rear rotor...
In terms of relating the t
Re: Are smarter planes actually safer? (Score:2)
Robinson R22? The early ones did have a nasty habit of chopping their own tails off, IIRC.
Re: (Score:2)
That's probably the right model number. As I recall it, they grounded the choppers for a while before deciding that the problem was with the warning light to prevent over-stressing the tail rotor.
Re: (Score:2)
Bah. I haven't flown since the summer of 1993. I'm not planning to fly again soon.
Depends (Score:1)
In which country?
Re: (Score:2)
In which country?
Well, obviously not in the countries that banned it from flying - the list keeps getting bigger.
On the 737 Max (Score:2)
no. In it, yes.
(Cowboy Neal can fly on the plane.)
I haven't flown in about 5 years (Score:2)
not because of intrusive searches, last time I flew they fast tracked me both ways.
It's that I can't afford the amount of alcohol I require to be able to fit into a non-bulkhead seat.
I'm 6'3" and the legroom keeps disappearing.
When I'm flying cross country (US) I also have become tired of having to buy food at the food court to carry onto the plane since they don't even serve peanuts anymore, much less an actual meal on a 6 hour flight.
Re: Irrational populism wins (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Since you kill a lot of people on each incident of this type. Safety must come first. And it is known that this plane has some pretty bad issues. Boeing just thought they had that under control. Looks pretty much like they do not and that reverses the burden of proof. At least it does so to sane people.
Boeing Scarebus (Score:2)
I'm sorry but Boeing still believe the pilot has ultimate control of the aircraft. That's the way it should be. I'm sure the investigations will only enhance the 737's reputation but like all new aircraft the stigma of "it's a new plane?!?" belies the fact that it's larger and has a few new challenges for pilots and airlines to contend with.
Re: (Score:2)
They do not. If they did believe that, they would not keep information about critical systems from the pilot. You can only have control if you know what is going on. Also, taking away control from the pilots is only an issue if the technology is less reliable than the pilots. For example like what Boeing just put in there...
Re: (Score:2)
less reliable pilots? you mean those that are less experienced and aren't willing to take risks to regain control? That sounds like a disaster waiting to happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Read again what I wrote.
I'd rather fly Boeing (Score:2)
I'd rather fly Boeing than have TSA patting my groin.
Depends on perspective (Score:2)
"feeling something about" a plane flight (Score:2)
That being said I do not "like flying with" 737 series. However the reason is not their flight record, which is impressive if you look at overall picture, but the way airlines design seat arrangement in them, which is over-squeezed to use a "technical" term. In my country average height of adult males is 172 cm. (that is 5'
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Hell no (Score:3)
Boeing has obviously wayyy overdone the profit optimization. A system that can kill the plane dependent on a single sensor? Not telling the pilots what is going on? Engines that plain ans simple are unsuitable for that body because they kill stability? Pure madness. They turned a reliable plane into a mess.
Because it's a plane (Score:2)
No.
Because I never feel comfortable flying.
Yes, I know air travel is safe, but that doesn't change the way it makes me feel.
Flights vs. crashes (Score:2)
The 737-MAX has apparently been flown over 8700 times. There have been two crashes. That's a 0.02% chance of crashing.
Travelling a car on the other hand, has roughly a 1 in 103 chance of being killed ([source] [nsc.org]) -- that's a 0.97% chance -- 42 times higher than being in a 737 MAX crash.
Yaz
Re: (Score:1)
Your maths is a bit dismal, Yaztromo.
You are comparing "lifetime risk" (over all trips by an individual by car) with "per-trip risk" (over all passengers in each flight on a particular type of plane) - they are completely different things.
If nothing changed, and per-trip risk of dying in a car journey was 1 in 103, almost everyone would be dead by the end of the year.
Re: (Score:2)
So, 100 people would make 73,000 trips. IF ~ 1% of those trips ended in death, that would be 730 deaths. So, all of the 100 people would die 7 times.
Obviously, we have to take into account the fact that a person can't die twice - so what is the chance that, given 1 in 103 chance of dying, of not dying before you hit 730 - about 7 to 1 against, or about 14%. So, you got the calc backwards - 76% would die, which is close enough to 'almost everyone.
Of course, you'd also have to consider how the roads would bec
As long as... (Score:5, Funny)
So typical (Score:2)
I picked "Other" (Score:2)
I'm not comfortable flying in general, anymore - but it has nothing to do with the 737 Max. I just find the entire "modern" flying experience uncomfortable at best and degrading at worst, thanks to both the TSA security theater and the airlines cramming more and more rows of seats into the same space.
So nowadays I only fly if there's no other option - say if we're going to Hawaii for vacation. Otherwise I'll just drive, even if it's going to take a couple days.
Not after today (Score:2)
Automated right into a smoking hole (Score:2)
All in all, automation is a good thing, but it is also a way to make a small mistake into a smoking crater. I understand that you don't want to do devops at 30,000 feet but they have an identified problem with the automation that has killed twice. The bug needs to be removed from the code before another 737 MAX leaves the ground.
SD
Yes, because.... (Score:2)
Design Changes (Score:2)
I don't fly very often, so I wasn't even aware of the 737 MAX line until these two accidents. Two accidents out of thousands of flights isn't that significant, but it got me to research the difference between a 737 800 and 737 MAX 8 for example. The MAX line has less ground clearance than the previous generation, which means the position of the engines had to move,which means it handles differently than pilots are used to (surprise!). My reluctance of riding on a 737 MAX has to do with these changes instead
Can't.... (Score:2)
This has become a rhetorical question since they're all grounded for the time being.
Definitely not (Score:1)