Back to Squawk list
  • 55

Why airlines are so eager to get the Boeing 737 Max back in the air despite customer concerns

It's been less than six weeks since the Boeing 737 Max was ungrounded by the Federal Aviation Administration and the plane is already flying passengers around Brazil and Mexico, with plans to start in the US in just seven days. ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Franky16 6
Ungrounded?.... Really?
john doe 7
The standard of journalism today, I'm afraid. Probably someone wanted to ask the editor what he thought, but then realized there was no editor.
WhiteKnight77 2
Sadly, that is not the only place that writing is not edited or that someone has read it before being sent to the printers. I have read 2 books that have way too much fluff, no coherent plot and atrocious spelling errors.

An example is: "The Soviet Union has put a great deal of work into producing a thermonuclear warfare by simultaneous explosion of hollow charges."A thermonuclear what? This might be in a work of fiction, but similar stuff was in a history book that I read. I might not remember what a dangling participle is, but I sure can string words together and have them make sense.
David Tsai 1
What would be a better term?
Colin Seftel 9
In 1957 the Lockheed L-188 Electra was the first large turboprop airliner built in the United States. Initial sales were good, but after two fatal crashes that led to expensive modifications to fix a design defect, no more were ordered.

Does that sound familiar?

The modified Electras had an excellent safety record, some are still in use today and it was developed as the very successful P3 Orion.
Robert Fleury 7
The situation was not at all the same ... except for accidents. Jetliners were entering the market and would have swept away the Electra anyway. But great aircraft indeed therafter. What a luxury to fly the Nordair Electra to and from the Artic instead of the old DC-4... or even the Connie!
Glenn Kautt 4
Agree on the P3 Orion. In production for over 50 years, highly upgraded. Airframe is proven beyond a doubt!
Gary Skaggs 1
I flew weather research flights on two different NOAA P-3s in Arizona and Oklahoma. Tough airframe, great crews.
ImperialEagle 3
There were numerous (and highly publicized) accidents and incidents right from the start. AA lost the first one, Then BN, NW and EA. After the LEAP program closed NW lost another that was highly public. It was ugly for a while and the uninformed mainstream media as well as uninformed members of the House and Senate made things even worse. In that era probably less than 20% of the US had ever stepped foot on an airplane. Since the Jerry Springer show did not exist at the time there was nothing better to watch. It was another world.

Today, if it weren't for the same mainstream media vying for ratings and $$$$$$ nobody would give a s#*t. Whomever has the cheapest fare wins. They will get on a box-kite if it is cheap enough.
Paul Hurford 2
Absolutely dead on. A fantastic airplane with the best cockpit I've ever had the pleasure to right seat in.
James Bruton 6
When I used to fly regularly and quite a bit on international flights, the "word" was to choose an airline that was serviced by Lufthansa mechanics as they were supposedly maintained consistently better than other contract service mechanics.
Yes, and Finnair too.
David Carr 6
As a passenger, I will most certainly fly the Max again. However only if with a Canadian or American airline with maybe British or Aussie.
I have to admit,that I suffer somewhat from Aeronautical Xenophobia.
Colin Seftel 7
AirlineRatings ranks the world’s 20 safest airlines. Only two US carriers, Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines appear on this list. See

1. Qantas
2. Air New Zealand
3. EVA Air
4. Etihad
5. Qatar Airways
6. Singapore Airlines
7. Emirates
8. Alaska Airlines
9. Cathay Pacific Airways
10. Virgin Australia
11. Hawaiian Airlines
12. Virgin Atlantic Airlines
13. TAP Portugal
14. SAS
15. Royal Jordanian
16. Swiss
17. Finnair
18. Lufthansa
19. Aer Lingus
20. KLM

Maybe you should reconsider your "Aeronautical Xenophobia"?
David Craig -5
WAIT? WHAT? No Lion airlines or Ethiopian airlines…. Say it isn’t so! Now how could they not make your top twenty list after all one of their flight crews was certainly qualified to fly a hum… let me think hum….how many hours of flight time in a modern jet…at best they were only qualified to fly a Cessna trainer! If the pilots can’t fly stick and rudder because they were only trained on a stem-you-later then how could you expect them to fly a modern commercial jet liner full of unsuspecting passengers the same problem that brought down them two birds happened at least 390 times in the us airlines and yet imagine them ex military properly trained and paid I might add.. pilots somehow didn’t crash and just reported there was a small glitch! As far as Boeings role, well yes it was an issue that could of been fixed while the airlines planes still kept flying but being CNN got on the fake news here in the USA that couldn’t happen instead they take a issue as simple as software and make it all Boeings fault when it’s not! It’s like getting hurt in an automobile crash for not wearing your seatbelt then blaming the car manufacture...Trained pilots who are trained properly and paid well instead of greedy airlines who hired under trained pilots would have made all the difference in the lives of those who perished! Yes Boeing had a part in all this obviously, but the blame is really the airlines! All crashes happen for a reason and I hate to say it but once again its 90% + pilot error (inexperience = error) as much as you all hate to admit it being your all well trained and I’m sure most of you would have just written it off as just a bird with a glitch and had your maintenance fellows fix it! Rewriting a billion lines of code to make it stupid proof is just ridiculous it was a fairly simple problem and only required a fairly simple software solution but because the fake news along with Trump got a hold of it!...Well you guessed it now it turns into a mountain when in reality it was just a molehill! Ding dongs claim it was Boeing's greed but the reality is Boeing in an innovator and always has been ahead of the competition the rest of the world gets jealous and constantly throws them under the bus but then again we have Fake news here because if you heard all the horror stories coming out of say Airbus manufacturing well I think you might not fly on their birds... ever! So Chillax fix the issues as they arise and make sure them’s that’s piloting our aircraft have the proper training to handle most any situation ask Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger if training and experience helped him and he will certainly give you a resounding YES!
wiregold 1
As an EP with AA for 10 years I agree. The Max was flown for thousands of segments in The US with no issues.
Well trained EXPERIENCED pilots
Properly configured planes (no corners cut to save money)
Better regulation overseeing training and work rules.

This is why I avoid foreign carriers and regional carriers.

And we pay for everything by getting in the back and trusting the skills of the flight crews and mechanics.

In my paying opinion, US major carrier pilots are currently the best, well trained, and most experienced.
darjr26 3
What’s an EP?
Scott Maynard 4
EP stands for Executive Platinum. A very frequent flyer with American Airlines, although not the top tier. Usually flying on company paid flights.
darjr26 4
I guess that makes me a PP. Poor Passenger.
WhiteKnight77 2
That makes two of us.
alex hidveghy 1
Really? So you’d never fly on British Airways, Virgin Atlantic or Qantas or Lufthansa?
Funny that!
lfilipov747 1
An Air Canada 737Max already had an engine fault on a ferry flight from Arizona to Montreal on Dec. 22.
Silent Bob 4
False. Though to be fair the reporting on this is absolutely horrible, to no ones surprise. They got a low hydraulic pressure indication on the left side, which is no big deal. Then they got a fuel imbalance on the left side, which again is no big deal by itself, you can rebalance by using the cross feed. However it appears they suspected a fuel leak, there are no details as to why but the checklist mentions a 500 pound change in 30 minutes or less. In the case of a leak the checklist directs you to shutdown the affected side engine to hopefully contain the leak. And whenever a 2 engine airplane becomes a single engine airplane you are directed to land at the nearest “suitable airport”, which is what prompted the diversion.

This article provides the basic details, but that’s about it.
alex hidveghy 2
Sounds like SOP to me. And I know a thing or two about Boeing’s and 737s since I flew a few variants....
I won't have any fear in boarding a 737 MAX, I'm sure it's a pefectly safe plane. My opinion is that a great factor in the two crashes was an improper training of the pilots, ...... and Lion Air has a sad record of accidents in its past !!
Franky16 2
David - if you try really hard, I reckon you could come up with a better term.
user3956 2
I'd love to see how any measurable number of people are going to avoid flying the MAX over any real span of time.
John Macaulay 1
I would also appreciate seeing a comprehensive list of those potential passengers, like me, who will exercise our preference to no fly on a MAX, ever!
user3956 1
I just mean that it will become increasingly difficult to avoid, especially as more are put into the market. I was hell bent on not flying a 787 but alas, I ended up on one from DEN to HNL. I could've spent different money and tried dates that used a 777 but the pain in the ass of that will become too much for any significant number of people to actually avoid MAXs forever.
David Loh 9
Both the B787 battery problem and the DC10 cargo doors were hardware design errors fixed with Hardware modifications. The Max is hardware design errors, with software trying to fix it. Changing a billion lines of software code is not going to fix a hardware problem. Blaming pilots for being unable to save the planes will not make the planes safer.
As I understand it, there weren't hardware design errors. Moving the engines higher and forward was not an error but a reasonable solution. Software is now used to modulate the flying characteristics of all new planes, including the 747-8, and will be on the 777x based flight testing. Boeing badly botched the software design and human factors analysis. It was shocking and inexcusable that it happened, in fact much more so than if it were a simple "desigh error." However, I'm confident after two years of scrutiny the 737-MAX is a great plane now. Looking forward to flying it.
djsn 2
The hardware design error was basing a critical operation, the forced nose down, on a single sensor, the angle of attach sensor. That sensor failed in both crashes. But it was a whole series of bad design decisions: hardware, software, and human factors that caused the crashes.
That was not a hardware design error. There are two angle of attack sensors. The software design did not adequately address the situation when they disagreed. Now it does.
darjr26 1
Sorry my friend but when the Max was first delivered it had only one sensor. Now they have two.
Oh, really? This is an incredibly easy thing to look up. Why don't you? Then come back here and let us know what you find out.
darjr26 3
How did MCAS initially work?
Prior to being enhanced, MCAS relied on information from a single Angle of Attack (AOA) sensor to monitor the angle of the airplane. In the two accidents, a single AOA sensor gave incorrect information to MCAS, which caused it to activate. In both cases, MCAS engaged repeatedly when the sensor continued to incorrectly report a high AOA.. This is directly from Boeing.
"As the plane taxied, the two angle-of-attack (AOA) sensors on the nose of the jet recorded starkly different values. The left sensor was clearly wrong — the plane was still on the ground — but the aircraft didn’t recognize the discrepancy."
Jim Ward 1
Why did two non domestic airlines suffer from the fatal flaw but no US Carriers?
That's where the other factors come into play, including poor maintenance and pilot experience. But fundamentally MCAS was not designed with adequate human factors considerations.
Alex Green 3
My understanding was that the Max was delivered with one sensor as standard and airlines had to pay extra for a second one - as an optional extra!! Bit like the old days in cars when a wing mirror was an optional extra but really you can't do without it.
"While some airplanes, particularly those from Boeing rival Airbus, have three such sensors that can work with one another in the case of an erroneous value, Boeing’s 737 MAX has just two, and the aircraft used only one of those sensors to trigger a new automated system — MCAS — that would force the nose of the plane down if the sensor indicated a potential stall."
darjr26 2
I apologize for not making my comments clear. What I was trying to say was the original Max design used only one AOA sensor for the MCAS. I believe it was the left one. If that AOA failed there was no way to switch to the right AOA nor was there any kind of comparator system to analyze which signal was correct. The plane indeed has two AOAs, but the MCAS only used the left one. The two crews never knew this because they were unaware the MCAS existed. To think that Boeing designed this system with a single point of failure is really hard to understand.
I'm pretty sure MCAS took inputs from both, so that if either one gave a bad reading it would activate MCAS. But yes, it was a shocking software design failure. They were being rushed by management who myopically put "shareholder value" ahead of rigorous and careful quality assurance. Boeing still has a long way to go to prove to the world their corporate culture has been fixed. The recent quality issues with the 787 don't help.
Money, allways money...
Pat Cook 4
Do you have another medium of exchange? The last time I offered 400# of onions for a flight from BOI to SEA, the airline turned me down. I initially offered 300#, so I thought maybe 400#. Still did not work. So how many pounds of onions should I have offer?
Phil Caron 7
Everyone needs to hear Greg Fife's of the NTSB (retired) analysis of the Lion Air crash investigation which include the following: The airplane was not airworthy for days prior to the crash
Maintenance was not done properly
Flight crew stresses: the captain was sick and the first officer was called in ahead of his regular schedule
At takeoff, aircraft control warnings were triggered that are not analyzed for impact on the sequence of events
Flight crew did not follow procedures

The channel on U-Tube is called: Flight Safety Detectives. You will learn that the captain was doing just fine and no crash would have occurred if the pilots had communicated properly and the first officer knew his memory items. Do yourselves a favor and take the time to listen to the detailed analysis. Have a great New Year.
stratofan 10
You are right on the money about Greg Fifes assessment of this incident. CRM was not used, as well as the "holes in the layers of swiss cheese" were allowed to line up perfectly. More was made over the aircraft troubles than needed to be, especially the manure spreading by the media just to boost ratings. I am glad to see Boeing being proactive in hiring seasoned pilots to help line pilots with the updates on the aircraft.
ray hughes 14
The blame lies firmly in Boeing's court. Board members and senior management are driven primarily by Shareholder returns, and quarterly profits and it is this approach that led to the real disasters. Its a crime that no corporate senior management or any board members has gone to jail over this. No matter how poor the maintenance was at Lion and how basic the training of 737 pilots. It was Boeing who promoted the non requirement for extra training.. so Lions poor approach to maintenance and training, while lamentable, did not cause the crash. Boeing choose to ignore its own middlle management and whistle blowers advice in its drive to deliver an unsafe product. I for one will certainly go out of my way not to fly the 737 Max.. period!!
Gary Bain 2
Apparently you didn't read David Craig and Phil Caron's messages and / or watch Greg Fife's video. So, don't fly on the Max.... one more seat for me!
wiregold -2
Boeing should be punished financially, that is the only argument Boeing considers. The general public should refuse to fly on Boeing planes - regardless of current airworthiness.
Gary Bain 3
Well that's a brilliant statement. If you disagree agree with Stratofan, Phil Caron, Greg Fife and David Craig (and me as well) you obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about. By your measure we should destroy one of America's premier companies, thousands of Boeing employees not to mention all of the folks in the supply train would then be unemployed. That sure makes a lot of sense. Good move Bozo.
Samuel Bixler 2
You're suggesting that Boeing has not suffered financially from this? That's one of the most stunning things about the design flaws that they clearly recognized but decided to go with anyway. How was that not going to cost them in the long run? Let alone the cost in lives! But I'd say they have been punished and will continue to be for quite some time.
David Loh 5
You aviation experts still blaming lion air pilots? You forgot to blame the Ethiopian airlines pilots. I have over 40 years aircraft maintenance experience from B707 to B747 to A340 A330..., flown gliders, flown light aircraft with PPL, built and flown my own RC planes, so do I qualify to pass my own opinion of the Max? Never mind. Forget about what FAA and NTSB say. Let's see who is the REAL boss. The Airlines or the passengers who refuse to fly on this death trap.
Careful Phil, emotion rules on this site. This may be too factual.
Phil Caron 1
I agree Stephen, enough said.
Phil Caron 3
It's humorous and sad to see the negative comments non-pilots make about the 737 MAX, they obviously have no clues except maybe playing with flight simulator games and oh yes, watching and listening to the idiot non-educated reporters.
M Moreau 3
I agree with your sentiments however it is the paying passengers who ultimately decide.
Gary Bain 2
Absolutely Phil!
Tim Dyck 3
This is a site were many people come to try to learn more about the airline industry so please refrain from insulting them.
John Macaulay 0
Phuck off, Fil!
wiregold -1
Aviator arrogance is rather comical, from an engineer's POV.
Boeing designed 15 crashes into the MAX8 over the life of the plane. Design flaws alone would bring down 15 craft - add a few drunk pilots and well ...
Silent Bob 6
That is a pretty egregious distortion of the facts. That 15 crashes figure comes from an internal FAA review after the first crash. All they basically did was look at how many flights/hours the type had flown when it crashed, and interpolated that over the projected lifespan of the fleet. That doesn't take into account improved knowledge, training, and aircraft updates. So to essentially suggest that Boeing knew the airplane would probably crash that many times and simply ignored it is disingenuous at best.
Gary Bain 1
Not arrogance.... experience. It's hard to read so much of the BS here that it becomes rather infuriating. What's the old saying? It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt. Mark Twain
Peter Fuller 2
Having read all 89 comments before this, I think this forum needs MCAS: a Mediating Contentious Arguments System. How ‘bout it FlightAware?
Eddie Burns 1
this should be seen
I am not eager to fly with that plane. I hope that Ryanair will not use it. I use Ryanair to fly from Charleroi/Brussels South to Perpignan.
gary butler 7
Ryanair have around 90 on order
Gary Bain 4
Well I'm a retired pilot with over 24,000 hours with nearly 10,000 on 737 variants. I would fly the Max anytime, anywhere. With all of the scrutiny the Max is now the safest airplane in the world.
Silent Bob 2
Considering the poor reputation in general that Ryanair has the Max should be the least of your worries!
BEcause they're not making money
Matt Harris 5
Exactly, I flew on a LAX-DCA transcon on an AA Max two years ago and they really crammed the seat in like sardines - 737-800's are much more comfortable for the passenger, but it's all about the bottom line, not our bottoms!
ko25701 5
Without money, you'd be taking a bus or train.
Everyone forgets that.
Tim Dyck 3
An airline won’t exist very long if it cannot make money. Do you think the aircraft are free? Or that the people in the company just donate their time? To remain competitive companies have to find cost savings and the cost of fuel is a part of that.
Wing Lam -4
At this moment 737 Max is the safest airplane in the world. After these incidents with all the global experts investigating every details of the plane and their reputation is on the line, we should feel safe to fly that plane. These two crashes happened in developing countries. Their pilots lack experiences in dealing with abnormal situations. If the same incident happened in US or Europe, the crashes may be avoided. However, the problem with Boeing and FDA certification process will never be addressed. It is unfortunate that we have to sacrifice so many lives to make 737 Max safe.
Mike Brown 3
According to the expert investigations carried out there was NOTHING any pilot could have done and to say that more experienced pilots may have avoided crashing is ludicrous.

Extensive simulator tests were run using the faulty software and in every scenario the plane crashed.
bob gibbons 9
If the pilots could have done nothing then how did one of the crashed planes survive the very same incident the day before?
An experienced trainer was on board and he knew the emergency procedures thats how.
Marcus Jones 2
I seem to recall reading this somewhere as well. Didn't they run multiple simulations using info from the FDR, and no matter what scenario, there was no guaranteed safe way to save the aircraft (without deviating from SOP).
Samuel Bixler 2
Please cite your sources for this information. I have heard/read no such thing.
wiregold 2
Here's one'
"Separate data released to the Indonesian parliament shows the pilots desperately pulling the control column back. On the previous 737 model and other Boeing planes, a pilot pulling back hard on the column would trigger a cutout switch that would halt automatic commands in the opposite direction. In order to make MCAS work, Boeing had to DISABLE that feature when the new flight control system was active"
Seattle Times
Samuel Bixler 1
That is is far from supporting what @Mike Brown is asserting, which is that nothing could possibly have saved those two aircraft. What I recall reading on a squawk posted here on FlightAware is that switching off the auto-trim function takes care of the immediate MCAS problem, as does switching off the auto-pilot. Neither should have been necessary (poor design), but there were things that a well-trained pilot would have known to do, and were done in the case of at least one other flight experiencing the same malfunction.
Gary Bain 3
Exactly Samuel. However the procedure to turn off the autotrim system is indeed necessary and is not because of "poor design". Except for the MCAS system the autotrim system is designed to be able to be turned off in the event of runaway trim. Absolutely necessary and some variant of the system is on every commercial airliner I can thing of - certainly on all Boeing aircraft. As you stated a well trained pilot would have known to turn the system off which did occur on the flight prior to the aircraft crashing.
Colin Seftel 1
It's here:
David Loh -4
Blame crashes on pilots Just Because they were from backward countries. You obviously are a stable genius.
Chris Habig 0
Being heavily scrutinized doesn’t make it safest. It just means a lot of people looked at it to make sure it meets minimum specifications. The design itself doesn’t compare safety-wise to more modern airplane designs.
ADXbear 0
Wth.. where are the pilot unions and what do they think?
They haven't held a "We Love The MAX" press conference, so obviously they are terrified to fly the thing.
Marilyn Tully 0
I won't be traveling on a Boeing 737 Max.
Jasper Buck 1
And how will you know it's a 737 Max?
linbb -1
Pretty simple, they bought them, they have money tied up in AC that are sitting making nothing. So what else is new with you? More nothing.
darjr26 0
Just wait for the Max 10 and it’s telescopic gear. That’s one I probably will avoid flying on until it’s got a few hours on it.
WhiteKnight77 0
I knew this was about money, just not where the money was being spent. I can see it as over the last 3 weeks, even fuel for autos has gone up.
Scott Abela -8
There's a reason that 100% of the negative comments on here are NOT from aviation experts....!! Thats because they lack the ability to BE aviation experts..
Tim Dyck 4
A lot of people come to this site to learn more about the aviation industry. If your the expert you claim to be then you should be sharing your expertise instead of insulting people. If you want to insult someone go over to Facebook we’re it’s more socially acceptable to be rude.
Silent Bob 2
Then perhaps those people should be asking questions and doing some research on their own instead of accusing Boeing of murder and calling the Max a death trap. Just a thought.
WhiteKnight77 3
I asked the question of why Ford or its leadership were not charged in the Pinto fire deaths of 3 way back when due to the actual design and placement of the fuel tank. No one can, or rather have not been able to, state why not.
wiregold 2
Boeing designed 15 crashes into the plane over its life.
As an engineer tasked with designing a death trap, I'd green-light the MAX8 design and with subsequent pressure on regulators to hide the training requirements - it would be a successful death trap. I would then take a golden parachute when it hits the fan.
Personally, I'll fly with Airbus from here on.
Silent Bob 1
Not sure if serious or trolling...
David Loh 6
Hahaha what the sxxt are You babbling about? So Who, in your high and mighty opinion are the aviation experts? NTSB? FAA? BOEING? All of these experts failed to do Anything after the First crash other than, like you, the high and mighty aviation expert, blamed the pilots! Oh oh wait. They are from a backward country... Hmmm... Oh well...
bob gibbons 1
They are from areas known to train pilots less which is why one of the crashed aircraft had the same incident the day before but had an experienced trainer on board... guess what it was a non issue the day before.
George Cottay 4
Hi, Scott. Might you be willing to teach others your ability to evaluate expertise?
Timothy Clark -3
Boeing should be forced to close their doors. They should just go out of business.
Remember the Cockpit voice recorder of the doomed Lion Air jet? The recording depicts pilots' frantic search for a fix and when none was found, the aircraft crashed. Boeing has had to much wiggleroom and the FAA should be investigated to find out why that was allowed to happen. Boeing has had not 1 crash, not 2 crashes, but, I think like 3 or 4. That is unacceptable.
WhiteKnight77 2
So should Ford for intentionally designing a car to burn when it is hit in the rear. /s
Jasper Buck 2
That would be the Pinto. I remember that.

WhiteKnight77 1
Yes, and I believe you got my drift.
Gary Bain 2
Wrong...What's the old saying? It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt. Mark Twain
Jasper Buck 3
Your post is "unacceptable." Perhaps you should consult with a mental health professional to help you with your anxieties. They may prescribe Prozac, Ritalin, Zoloft or Paxil to treat your seemingly serious mental disorder?

In the meantime know that the Boeing is NOT going to shut their doors, the FAA WILL continue to be investigated (that's been going on annually since the 1920s) and Boeing aircraft have been involved in dozens of crashes including the Boeing 377, 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777 and so on and so forth. Oh yes an the DC9 also. As to Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines, well, just let's say the pilot's skills left something to be desired.

Best Regards

Capt. J Buck

ATP DC-9 B757 B767
Flight Instructor
Ground Instructor
Aircraft Dispatcher
A&P Mechanic
Air Traffic Controller
FAA Aviation Safety Inspector (Ret.)
FAA certified accident investigator (Ret.)
ICAO Panel Member
Aviation Safety Consultant
The 737max will forever have the reputation of a cursed and dangerous airplane. It may or may not be safest aircraft now but like the DC10 it reputation will always follow it and despite airlines wishes it will fail and may crash Boeing itself
David Ingram -2
Article says the plane killed those people. Is "CHRISTINE" back? Don't they teach flying with the computer turned off any more.
wiregold 2
Actually, the 'Christine' analogy is perfect.
From Sea. Times;
"Separate data released to the Indonesian parliament shows the pilots desperately pulling the control column back. On the previous 737 model and other Boeing planes, a pilot pulling back hard on the column would trigger a cutout switch that would halt automatic commands in the opposite direction. In order to make MCAS work, Boeing had to disable that feature when the new flight control system was active"
WhiteKnight77 2
So how did that plane that crashed survive the same issue the previous day?

While having an extra pilot in the cockpit at the time helped, it also shows a lack of awareness or training of the pilots that were flying the plane when it crashed.
alex hidveghy 2
No, not all airlines! It saves money in the initial training to keep it to just the few required items. Time = money. Besides, all modern aircraft are built to be managed via FMS and autopilot. The amount of hand flying is minimal, in both sim and on the line.
At least it was in my day, more than ten years ago. Maybe because of accidents like these and financial reputations, things are changing, but I wouldn’t bet in it.....


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.