Do you fly the 737 Max?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never pick the 737 Max, but American Airlines changed its flight times during my last overseas trip in December and I ended up on it. Having flown back-to-back on a regular airline and then the 737 Max, I instantly noticed that the 737 Max was much more cramped — less space between rows, tighter fit overall. I will continue to avoid it, but not sure what to do when airlines change your plane.

That’s the problem. You have no control over the aircraft you end up in.

This. I usually look on the various apps and also flight aware to see my airline type. My spouse is Global Services, so if I fly will him I sometimes ask him to call and double check. Once I flew and said the plane wasn't a Max and I got on the plane and it was a Max. I went on the trip, but was pretty peeved that the type of plane had been changed. Now I check regularly. I used to just check when I booked the flight.

My spouse regularly flies for work and tries to avoid the Max planes (mainly due to my paranoia). He books his own work flights, not an assistant, for this reason.

I also watched Downfall: The Case about Boeing on Netflix...

Does he avoid ever driving in a car?because that would reduce his risk of serious injury/death by 100x versus avoiding a certain commercial plane type.

You should read up on risk perceptions. They are far more complex than your simplistic advice suggests.

Yes, perceptions are more complex. I am quoting the actual statistics (well, paraphrasing, admittedly).

The idea that avoiding a certain commercial plane type in the US, where there has been ONE death from an accident in FIFTEEN years, will substantively.reducd your risk, is frankly hilarious.

The 737 MAX 8 entered service in May 2017, the MAX 9 entered service in March 2018,

And how many deaths have there been on one of them in the US? Zero

There is a pattern of oversight failures and sloppiness with the 737 Max. People are right to be concerned.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/737-max-crashes-killed-346-were-horrific-culmination-failures-boeing-n1240192

You are absolutely right that Boeing and the FAA screwed up royally when it came to the MCAS system, and it was a glaring example of how Boeing has changed as a company. At the same time, with the modifications and improvements since then, the plane is safe enough that it's simply not worth the average person's effort to parse out the minute differences in odds of an issue between it and other plane types.

There is also zero indication that the incident in yesterday's Alaska flight has anything to do with the plane design- my initial guess is a manufacturing fault that wasn't picked up in QC. Extremely rare, and can happen to anything. That's why you have multiple layers of safety systems. Those layers worked in this case. The action of grounding an entire fleet type is something that the FAA often does after an event like this, often before they have any evidence of a systemic issue, as a precaution.

Is the system perfect? Of course not. As stated earlier, there are significant issues that need to be addressed, that are going to take years/decades to truly resolve. But it's short-sighted to avoid the US commercial airline system entirely, or even one jet type, because it's overall.still a very safe system, one that has performed admirably for the past 30.years especially.

What do you mean the layers worked in this case? It was luck that no one was seated beside the window.
A manufacturer of airplanes with QC issues is also not more reassuring than a design issue.

No one died and no one was seriously injured. I'd call that a win considering the circumstances.

I think you have an unrealistic view of the perfectability of the world. Feel free to drive everywhere you want for a long distance trip, and expose yourself to the much much higher risk of death/severe injury on the roads. You want to talk about systemic issues, how about how deaths continue to increase on US roads, even though they are dropping in every other industrialized country? That concerns me 100x more than a one off incident on an airplane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surely they have fixed the problems by now.

The OP is sounding like a genius given recent events.

Op - why thank you 🙂

I have very heightened anxiety and a background in journalism so my anxiety is somewhat data driven

Then you should look at the data of the thousands of daily MAX flights that have gone safely for years.

[Anonymous]

Now Boeing is trying to get a safety exemption to certify it's smallest 737 MAX, the 7, by relying on pilots to be trained to turn off its deicing system in time to prevent dangerous overheating.

"Little noticed, the Federal Aviation Administration in December published a Boeing request for an exemption from key safety standards on the 737 MAX 7 — the still-uncertified smallest member of Boeing’s newest jet family.

Since August, earlier models of the MAX currently flying passengers in the U.S. have had to limit use of the jet’s engine anti-ice system after Boeing discovered a defect in the system with potentially catastrophic consequences.

The flaw could cause the inlet at the front end of the pod surrounding the engine — known as a nacelle — to break and fall off.

In an August Airworthiness Directive, the FAA stated that debris from such a breakup could penetrate the fuselage, putting passengers seated at windows behind the wings in danger, and could damage the wing or tail of the plane, “which could result in loss of control of the airplane.”

Dennis Tajer, a spokesperson for the Allied Pilots Association, the union representing 15,000 American Airlines pilots, said the flaw in the engine anti-ice system has “given us great concern.”

He said the pilot procedure the FAA approved as an interim solution — urging pilots to make sure to turn off the system when icing conditions dissipate to avoid overheating that within five minutes could seriously damage the structure of the nacelle — is inadequate given the serious potential danger.

“You get our attention when you say people might get killed,” Tajer said. “We’re not interested in seeing exemptions and accommodations that depend on human memory. … There’s just got to be a better way.”

In its petition to the FAA, Boeing argues the breakup of the engine nacelle is “extremely improbable” and that an exemption will not reduce safety.

“The 737 MAX has been in service since 2017 and has accumulated over 6.5 million flight hours. In that time, there have been no reported cases of parts departing aircraft due to overheating of the engine nacelle inlet structure,” the filing states.

On Thursday, Boeing said in an emailed statement that it is “developing a long-term solution that will undergo thorough testing and FAA review before being introduced to the 737 MAX fleet.”

In the meantime, Boeing said “inspections are ongoing” to check for any damage to the nacelles on MAXs in service.

However, without an exemption from current safety regulations, the FAA cannot approve the final two MAX models, the MAX 7 and MAX 10, to fly passengers.

On Christmas Eve, just before the deadline for public input on the proposed MAX 7 exemption, the Foundation for Aviation Safety — a lobbying group set up by former Boeing manager and whistleblower Ed Pierson following the two deadly MAX crashes — filed a submission calling on the FAA not to certify the airplane until Boeing fixes the safety defect.

“The Foundation is alarmed at the FAA safety culture, allowing consideration of an exemption proposal … for certification of a new airplane model with a known catastrophic failure (risk) resulting from a simple mistake by the flight crew,” the Foundation’s submission states.

Warning: Don’t forget to turn it off

Industry analysts and Boeing investors have long anticipated MAX 7 certification being granted soon. The company’s share price rose significantly toward year-end based partly on that expectation"

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-wants-faa-to-exempt-max-7-from-safety-rules-to-get-it-in-the-air/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never pick the 737 Max, but American Airlines changed its flight times during my last overseas trip in December and I ended up on it. Having flown back-to-back on a regular airline and then the 737 Max, I instantly noticed that the 737 Max was much more cramped — less space between rows, tighter fit overall. I will continue to avoid it, but not sure what to do when airlines change your plane.

That’s the problem. You have no control over the aircraft you end up in.

This. I usually look on the various apps and also flight aware to see my airline type. My spouse is Global Services, so if I fly will him I sometimes ask him to call and double check. Once I flew and said the plane wasn't a Max and I got on the plane and it was a Max. I went on the trip, but was pretty peeved that the type of plane had been changed. Now I check regularly. I used to just check when I booked the flight.

My spouse regularly flies for work and tries to avoid the Max planes (mainly due to my paranoia). He books his own work flights, not an assistant, for this reason.

I also watched Downfall: The Case about Boeing on Netflix...

Does he avoid ever driving in a car?because that would reduce his risk of serious injury/death by 100x versus avoiding a certain commercial plane type.

You should read up on risk perceptions. They are far more complex than your simplistic advice suggests.

Yes, perceptions are more complex. I am quoting the actual statistics (well, paraphrasing, admittedly).

The idea that avoiding a certain commercial plane type in the US, where there has been ONE death from an accident in FIFTEEN years, will substantively.reducd your risk, is frankly hilarious.

The 737 MAX 8 entered service in May 2017, the MAX 9 entered service in March 2018,

And how many deaths have there been on one of them in the US? Zero

There is a pattern of oversight failures and sloppiness with the 737 Max. People are right to be concerned.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/737-max-crashes-killed-346-were-horrific-culmination-failures-boeing-n1240192

You are absolutely right that Boeing and the FAA screwed up royally when it came to the MCAS system, and it was a glaring example of how Boeing has changed as a company. At the same time, with the modifications and improvements since then, the plane is safe enough that it's simply not worth the average person's effort to parse out the minute differences in odds of an issue between it and other plane types.

There is also zero indication that the incident in yesterday's Alaska flight has anything to do with the plane design- my initial guess is a manufacturing fault that wasn't picked up in QC. Extremely rare, and can happen to anything. That's why you have multiple layers of safety systems. Those layers worked in this case. The action of grounding an entire fleet type is something that the FAA often does after an event like this, often before they have any evidence of a systemic issue, as a precaution.

Is the system perfect? Of course not. As stated earlier, there are significant issues that need to be addressed, that are going to take years/decades to truly resolve. But it's short-sighted to avoid the US commercial airline system entirely, or even one jet type, because it's overall.still a very safe system, one that has performed admirably for the past 30.years especially.

What do you mean the layers worked in this case? It was luck that no one was seated beside the window.
A manufacturer of airplanes with QC issues is also not more reassuring than a design issue.

No one died and no one was seriously injured. I'd call that a win considering the circumstances.

I think you have an unrealistic view of the perfectability of the world. Feel free to drive everywhere you want for a long distance trip, and expose yourself to the much much higher risk of death/severe injury on the roads. You want to talk about systemic issues, how about how deaths continue to increase on US roads, even though they are dropping in every other industrialized country? That concerns me 100x more than a one off incident on an airplane.

You sound like a Boeing PR hack. A close call to a catastrophic accident is not a "win", it is luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Now Boeing is trying to get a safety exemption to certify it's smallest 737 MAX, the 7, by relying on pilots to be trained to turn off its deicing system in time to prevent dangerous overheating.

"Little noticed, the Federal Aviation Administration in December published a Boeing request for an exemption from key safety standards on the 737 MAX 7 — the still-uncertified smallest member of Boeing’s newest jet family.

Since August, earlier models of the MAX currently flying passengers in the U.S. have had to limit use of the jet’s engine anti-ice system after Boeing discovered a defect in the system with potentially catastrophic consequences.

The flaw could cause the inlet at the front end of the pod surrounding the engine — known as a nacelle — to break and fall off.

In an August Airworthiness Directive, the FAA stated that debris from such a breakup could penetrate the fuselage, putting passengers seated at windows behind the wings in danger, and could damage the wing or tail of the plane, “which could result in loss of control of the airplane.”

Dennis Tajer, a spokesperson for the Allied Pilots Association, the union representing 15,000 American Airlines pilots, said the flaw in the engine anti-ice system has “given us great concern.”

He said the pilot procedure the FAA approved as an interim solution — urging pilots to make sure to turn off the system when icing conditions dissipate to avoid overheating that within five minutes could seriously damage the structure of the nacelle — is inadequate given the serious potential danger.

“You get our attention when you say people might get killed,” Tajer said. “We’re not interested in seeing exemptions and accommodations that depend on human memory. … There’s just got to be a better way.”

In its petition to the FAA, Boeing argues the breakup of the engine nacelle is “extremely improbable” and that an exemption will not reduce safety.

“The 737 MAX has been in service since 2017 and has accumulated over 6.5 million flight hours. In that time, there have been no reported cases of parts departing aircraft due to overheating of the engine nacelle inlet structure,” the filing states.

On Thursday, Boeing said in an emailed statement that it is “developing a long-term solution that will undergo thorough testing and FAA review before being introduced to the 737 MAX fleet.”

In the meantime, Boeing said “inspections are ongoing” to check for any damage to the nacelles on MAXs in service.

However, without an exemption from current safety regulations, the FAA cannot approve the final two MAX models, the MAX 7 and MAX 10, to fly passengers.

On Christmas Eve, just before the deadline for public input on the proposed MAX 7 exemption, the Foundation for Aviation Safety — a lobbying group set up by former Boeing manager and whistleblower Ed Pierson following the two deadly MAX crashes — filed a submission calling on the FAA not to certify the airplane until Boeing fixes the safety defect.

“The Foundation is alarmed at the FAA safety culture, allowing consideration of an exemption proposal … for certification of a new airplane model with a known catastrophic failure (risk) resulting from a simple mistake by the flight crew,” the Foundation’s submission states.

Warning: Don’t forget to turn it off

Industry analysts and Boeing investors have long anticipated MAX 7 certification being granted soon. The company’s share price rose significantly toward year-end based partly on that expectation"

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-wants-faa-to-exempt-max-7-from-safety-rules-to-get-it-in-the-air/

This is nuts. Boeing is making junk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never pick the 737 Max, but American Airlines changed its flight times during my last overseas trip in December and I ended up on it. Having flown back-to-back on a regular airline and then the 737 Max, I instantly noticed that the 737 Max was much more cramped — less space between rows, tighter fit overall. I will continue to avoid it, but not sure what to do when airlines change your plane.

That’s the problem. You have no control over the aircraft you end up in.

This. I usually look on the various apps and also flight aware to see my airline type. My spouse is Global Services, so if I fly will him I sometimes ask him to call and double check. Once I flew and said the plane wasn't a Max and I got on the plane and it was a Max. I went on the trip, but was pretty peeved that the type of plane had been changed. Now I check regularly. I used to just check when I booked the flight.

My spouse regularly flies for work and tries to avoid the Max planes (mainly due to my paranoia). He books his own work flights, not an assistant, for this reason.

I also watched Downfall: The Case about Boeing on Netflix...

Does he avoid ever driving in a car?because that would reduce his risk of serious injury/death by 100x versus avoiding a certain commercial plane type.

You should read up on risk perceptions. They are far more complex than your simplistic advice suggests.

Yes, perceptions are more complex. I am quoting the actual statistics (well, paraphrasing, admittedly).

The idea that avoiding a certain commercial plane type in the US, where there has been ONE death from an accident in FIFTEEN years, will substantively.reducd your risk, is frankly hilarious.

The 737 MAX 8 entered service in May 2017, the MAX 9 entered service in March 2018,

And how many deaths have there been on one of them in the US? Zero

There is a pattern of oversight failures and sloppiness with the 737 Max. People are right to be concerned.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/737-max-crashes-killed-346-were-horrific-culmination-failures-boeing-n1240192

You are absolutely right that Boeing and the FAA screwed up royally when it came to the MCAS system, and it was a glaring example of how Boeing has changed as a company. At the same time, with the modifications and improvements since then, the plane is safe enough that it's simply not worth the average person's effort to parse out the minute differences in odds of an issue between it and other plane types.

There is also zero indication that the incident in yesterday's Alaska flight has anything to do with the plane design- my initial guess is a manufacturing fault that wasn't picked up in QC. Extremely rare, and can happen to anything. That's why you have multiple layers of safety systems. Those layers worked in this case. The action of grounding an entire fleet type is something that the FAA often does after an event like this, often before they have any evidence of a systemic issue, as a precaution.

Is the system perfect? Of course not. As stated earlier, there are significant issues that need to be addressed, that are going to take years/decades to truly resolve. But it's short-sighted to avoid the US commercial airline system entirely, or even one jet type, because it's overall.still a very safe system, one that has performed admirably for the past 30.years especially.

What do you mean the layers worked in this case? It was luck that no one was seated beside the window.
A manufacturer of airplanes with QC issues is also not more reassuring than a design issue.

No one died and no one was seriously injured. I'd call that a win considering the circumstances.

I think you have an unrealistic view of the perfectability of the world. Feel free to drive everywhere you want for a long distance trip, and expose yourself to the much much higher risk of death/severe injury on the roads. You want to talk about systemic issues, how about how deaths continue to increase on US roads, even though they are dropping in every other industrialized country? That concerns me 100x more than a one off incident on an airplane.

You sound like a Boeing PR hack. A close call to a catastrophic accident is not a "win", it is luck.

Ha,.nope, don't even know anyone who works there. In fact, f--k Boeing for the way they designed this plane from the beginning, which I agree is emblematic of major issues with the safety culture of the company. And also the FAA and the way they let themselves get captured (as economists say) by the company they.are supposed to regulate. This current issue with the 7 deicing procedure is hopefully a good example.of.them standing up harder against Boeing. The plane isn't flying yet, so they seem to be holding the line well so far.

All that said, the larger point is that me, as an individual, has so little information or understanding of these complex systems. By definition we have to put our trust in the regulatory system we have created, and the knowledgeable people who staff it. Overall that system has served us quite well, and there are obvious places where it can be fixed/further improved. So from an individual persons perspective, it's just not worth the mental energy to try and parse all this out and come up with some half baked risk assessment. Oh and by the way, the fuselage plug design that failed on that plane yesterday, is the same design in the -900.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never pick the 737 Max, but American Airlines changed its flight times during my last overseas trip in December and I ended up on it. Having flown back-to-back on a regular airline and then the 737 Max, I instantly noticed that the 737 Max was much more cramped — less space between rows, tighter fit overall. I will continue to avoid it, but not sure what to do when airlines change your plane.

That’s the problem. You have no control over the aircraft you end up in.

This. I usually look on the various apps and also flight aware to see my airline type. My spouse is Global Services, so if I fly will him I sometimes ask him to call and double check. Once I flew and said the plane wasn't a Max and I got on the plane and it was a Max. I went on the trip, but was pretty peeved that the type of plane had been changed. Now I check regularly. I used to just check when I booked the flight.

My spouse regularly flies for work and tries to avoid the Max planes (mainly due to my paranoia). He books his own work flights, not an assistant, for this reason.

I also watched Downfall: The Case about Boeing on Netflix...

Does he avoid ever driving in a car?because that would reduce his risk of serious injury/death by 100x versus avoiding a certain commercial plane type.

You should read up on risk perceptions. They are far more complex than your simplistic advice suggests.

Yes, perceptions are more complex. I am quoting the actual statistics (well, paraphrasing, admittedly).

The idea that avoiding a certain commercial plane type in the US, where there has been ONE death from an accident in FIFTEEN years, will substantively.reducd your risk, is frankly hilarious.

The 737 MAX 8 entered service in May 2017, the MAX 9 entered service in March 2018,

And how many deaths have there been on one of them in the US? Zero

There is a pattern of oversight failures and sloppiness with the 737 Max. People are right to be concerned.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/737-max-crashes-killed-346-were-horrific-culmination-failures-boeing-n1240192

You are absolutely right that Boeing and the FAA screwed up royally when it came to the MCAS system, and it was a glaring example of how Boeing has changed as a company. At the same time, with the modifications and improvements since then, the plane is safe enough that it's simply not worth the average person's effort to parse out the minute differences in odds of an issue between it and other plane types.

There is also zero indication that the incident in yesterday's Alaska flight has anything to do with the plane design- my initial guess is a manufacturing fault that wasn't picked up in QC. Extremely rare, and can happen to anything. That's why you have multiple layers of safety systems. Those layers worked in this case. The action of grounding an entire fleet type is something that the FAA often does after an event like this, often before they have any evidence of a systemic issue, as a precaution.

Is the system perfect? Of course not. As stated earlier, there are significant issues that need to be addressed, that are going to take years/decades to truly resolve. But it's short-sighted to avoid the US commercial airline system entirely, or even one jet type, because it's overall.still a very safe system, one that has performed admirably for the past 30.years especially.

What do you mean the layers worked in this case? It was luck that no one was seated beside the window.
A manufacturer of airplanes with QC issues is also not more reassuring than a design issue.

No one died and no one was seriously injured. I'd call that a win considering the circumstances.

I think you have an unrealistic view of the perfectability of the world. Feel free to drive everywhere you want for a long distance trip, and expose yourself to the much much higher risk of death/severe injury on the roads. You want to talk about systemic issues, how about how deaths continue to increase on US roads, even though they are dropping in every other industrialized country? That concerns me 100x more than a one off incident on an airplane.

You sound like a Boeing PR hack. A close call to a catastrophic accident is not a "win", it is luck.

Ha,.nope, don't even know anyone who works there. In fact, f--k Boeing for the way they designed this plane from the beginning, which I agree is emblematic of major issues with the safety culture of the company. And also the FAA and the way they let themselves get captured (as economists say) by the company they.are supposed to regulate. This current issue with the 7 deicing procedure is hopefully a good example.of.them standing up harder against Boeing. The plane isn't flying yet, so they seem to be holding the line well so far.

All that said, the larger point is that me, as an individual, has so little information or understanding of these complex systems. By definition we have to put our trust in the regulatory system we have created, and the knowledgeable people who staff it. Overall that system has served us quite well, and there are obvious places where it can be fixed/further improved. So from an individual persons perspective, it's just not worth the mental energy to try and parse all this out and come up with some half baked risk assessment. Oh and by the way, the fuselage plug design that failed on that plane yesterday, is the same design in the -900.

Maybe you didn't read the part that Boeing stock has gone up because the waiver and certification by the FAA is expected. The FAA is failing us.

[Anonymous]

Delta FTW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never pick the 737 Max, but American Airlines changed its flight times during my last overseas trip in December and I ended up on it. Having flown back-to-back on a regular airline and then the 737 Max, I instantly noticed that the 737 Max was much more cramped — less space between rows, tighter fit overall. I will continue to avoid it, but not sure what to do when airlines change your plane.

That’s the problem. You have no control over the aircraft you end up in.

This. I usually look on the various apps and also flight aware to see my airline type. My spouse is Global Services, so if I fly will him I sometimes ask him to call and double check. Once I flew and said the plane wasn't a Max and I got on the plane and it was a Max. I went on the trip, but was pretty peeved that the type of plane had been changed. Now I check regularly. I used to just check when I booked the flight.

My spouse regularly flies for work and tries to avoid the Max planes (mainly due to my paranoia). He books his own work flights, not an assistant, for this reason.

I also watched Downfall: The Case about Boeing on Netflix...

Does he avoid ever driving in a car?because that would reduce his risk of serious injury/death by 100x versus avoiding a certain commercial plane type.

You should read up on risk perceptions. They are far more complex than your simplistic advice suggests.

Yes, perceptions are more complex. I am quoting the actual statistics (well, paraphrasing, admittedly).

The idea that avoiding a certain commercial plane type in the US, where there has been ONE death from an accident in FIFTEEN years, will substantively.reducd your risk, is frankly hilarious.

The 737 MAX 8 entered service in May 2017, the MAX 9 entered service in March 2018,

And how many deaths have there been on one of them in the US? Zero

There is a pattern of oversight failures and sloppiness with the 737 Max. People are right to be concerned.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/737-max-crashes-killed-346-were-horrific-culmination-failures-boeing-n1240192

You are absolutely right that Boeing and the FAA screwed up royally when it came to the MCAS system, and it was a glaring example of how Boeing has changed as a company. At the same time, with the modifications and improvements since then, the plane is safe enough that it's simply not worth the average person's effort to parse out the minute differences in odds of an issue between it and other plane types.

There is also zero indication that the incident in yesterday's Alaska flight has anything to do with the plane design- my initial guess is a manufacturing fault that wasn't picked up in QC. Extremely rare, and can happen to anything. That's why you have multiple layers of safety systems. Those layers worked in this case. The action of grounding an entire fleet type is something that the FAA often does after an event like this, often before they have any evidence of a systemic issue, as a precaution.

Is the system perfect? Of course not. As stated earlier, there are significant issues that need to be addressed, that are going to take years/decades to truly resolve. But it's short-sighted to avoid the US commercial airline system entirely, or even one jet type, because it's overall.still a very safe system, one that has performed admirably for the past 30.years especially.

What do you mean the layers worked in this case? It was luck that no one was seated beside the window.
A manufacturer of airplanes with QC issues is also not more reassuring than a design issue.

No one died and no one was seriously injured. I'd call that a win considering the circumstances.

I think you have an unrealistic view of the perfectability of the world. Feel free to drive everywhere you want for a long distance trip, and expose yourself to the much much higher risk of death/severe injury on the roads. You want to talk about systemic issues, how about how deaths continue to increase on US roads, even though they are dropping in every other industrialized country? That concerns me 100x more than a one off incident on an airplane.

You sound like a Boeing PR hack. A close call to a catastrophic accident is not a "win", it is luck.

Ha,.nope, don't even know anyone who works there. In fact, f--k Boeing for the way they designed this plane from the beginning, which I agree is emblematic of major issues with the safety culture of the company. And also the FAA and the way they let themselves get captured (as economists say) by the company they.are supposed to regulate. This current issue with the 7 deicing procedure is hopefully a good example.of.them standing up harder against Boeing. The plane isn't flying yet, so they seem to be holding the line well so far.

All that said, the larger point is that me, as an individual, has so little information or understanding of these complex systems. By definition we have to put our trust in the regulatory system we have created, and the knowledgeable people who staff it. Overall that system has served us quite well, and there are obvious places where it can be fixed/further improved. So from an individual persons perspective, it's just not worth the mental energy to try and parse all this out and come up with some half baked risk assessment. Oh and by the way, the fuselage plug design that failed on that plane yesterday, is the same design in the -900.

Maybe you didn't read the part that Boeing stock has gone up because the waiver and certification by the FAA is expected. The FAA is failing us.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/faa-has-no-specific-timetable-approve-boeing-737-max-7-administrator-2023-12-19/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never pick the 737 Max, but American Airlines changed its flight times during my last overseas trip in December and I ended up on it. Having flown back-to-back on a regular airline and then the 737 Max, I instantly noticed that the 737 Max was much more cramped — less space between rows, tighter fit overall. I will continue to avoid it, but not sure what to do when airlines change your plane.

That’s the problem. You have no control over the aircraft you end up in.

This. I usually look on the various apps and also flight aware to see my airline type. My spouse is Global Services, so if I fly will him I sometimes ask him to call and double check. Once I flew and said the plane wasn't a Max and I got on the plane and it was a Max. I went on the trip, but was pretty peeved that the type of plane had been changed. Now I check regularly. I used to just check when I booked the flight.

My spouse regularly flies for work and tries to avoid the Max planes (mainly due to my paranoia). He books his own work flights, not an assistant, for this reason.

I also watched Downfall: The Case about Boeing on Netflix...

Does he avoid ever driving in a car?because that would reduce his risk of serious injury/death by 100x versus avoiding a certain commercial plane type.

You should read up on risk perceptions. They are far more complex than your simplistic advice suggests.

Yes, perceptions are more complex. I am quoting the actual statistics (well, paraphrasing, admittedly).

The idea that avoiding a certain commercial plane type in the US, where there has been ONE death from an accident in FIFTEEN years, will substantively.reducd your risk, is frankly hilarious.

The 737 MAX 8 entered service in May 2017, the MAX 9 entered service in March 2018,

And how many deaths have there been on one of them in the US? Zero

There is a pattern of oversight failures and sloppiness with the 737 Max. People are right to be concerned.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/737-max-crashes-killed-346-were-horrific-culmination-failures-boeing-n1240192

You are absolutely right that Boeing and the FAA screwed up royally when it came to the MCAS system, and it was a glaring example of how Boeing has changed as a company. At the same time, with the modifications and improvements since then, the plane is safe enough that it's simply not worth the average person's effort to parse out the minute differences in odds of an issue between it and other plane types.

There is also zero indication that the incident in yesterday's Alaska flight has anything to do with the plane design- my initial guess is a manufacturing fault that wasn't picked up in QC. Extremely rare, and can happen to anything. That's why you have multiple layers of safety systems. Those layers worked in this case. The action of grounding an entire fleet type is something that the FAA often does after an event like this, often before they have any evidence of a systemic issue, as a precaution.

Is the system perfect? Of course not. As stated earlier, there are significant issues that need to be addressed, that are going to take years/decades to truly resolve. But it's short-sighted to avoid the US commercial airline system entirely, or even one jet type, because it's overall.still a very safe system, one that has performed admirably for the past 30.years especially.

What do you mean the layers worked in this case? It was luck that no one was seated beside the window.
A manufacturer of airplanes with QC issues is also not more reassuring than a design issue.

No one died and no one was seriously injured. I'd call that a win considering the circumstances.

I think you have an unrealistic view of the perfectability of the world. Feel free to drive everywhere you want for a long distance trip, and expose yourself to the much much higher risk of death/severe injury on the roads. You want to talk about systemic issues, how about how deaths continue to increase on US roads, even though they are dropping in every other industrialized country? That concerns me 100x more than a one off incident on an airplane.

You sound like a Boeing PR hack. A close call to a catastrophic accident is not a "win", it is luck.

Ha,.nope, don't even know anyone who works there. In fact, f--k Boeing for the way they designed this plane from the beginning, which I agree is emblematic of major issues with the safety culture of the company. And also the FAA and the way they let themselves get captured (as economists say) by the company they.are supposed to regulate. This current issue with the 7 deicing procedure is hopefully a good example.of.them standing up harder against Boeing. The plane isn't flying yet, so they seem to be holding the line well so far.

All that said, the larger point is that me, as an individual, has so little information or understanding of these complex systems. By definition we have to put our trust in the regulatory system we have created, and the knowledgeable people who staff it. Overall that system has served us quite well, and there are obvious places where it can be fixed/further improved. So from an individual persons perspective, it's just not worth the mental energy to try and parse all this out and come up with some half baked risk assessment. Oh and by the way, the fuselage plug design that failed on that plane yesterday, is the same design in the -900.

Maybe you didn't read the part that Boeing stock has gone up because the waiver and certification by the FAA is expected. The FAA is failing us.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/faa-has-no-specific-timetable-approve-boeing-737-max-7-administrator-2023-12-19/

It says Southwest expects certification by April.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never pick the 737 Max, but American Airlines changed its flight times during my last overseas trip in December and I ended up on it. Having flown back-to-back on a regular airline and then the 737 Max, I instantly noticed that the 737 Max was much more cramped — less space between rows, tighter fit overall. I will continue to avoid it, but not sure what to do when airlines change your plane.

That’s the problem. You have no control over the aircraft you end up in.

This. I usually look on the various apps and also flight aware to see my airline type. My spouse is Global Services, so if I fly will him I sometimes ask him to call and double check. Once I flew and said the plane wasn't a Max and I got on the plane and it was a Max. I went on the trip, but was pretty peeved that the type of plane had been changed. Now I check regularly. I used to just check when I booked the flight.

My spouse regularly flies for work and tries to avoid the Max planes (mainly due to my paranoia). He books his own work flights, not an assistant, for this reason.

I also watched Downfall: The Case about Boeing on Netflix...

Does he avoid ever driving in a car?because that would reduce his risk of serious injury/death by 100x versus avoiding a certain commercial plane type.

You should read up on risk perceptions. They are far more complex than your simplistic advice suggests.

Yes, perceptions are more complex. I am quoting the actual statistics (well, paraphrasing, admittedly).

The idea that avoiding a certain commercial plane type in the US, where there has been ONE death from an accident in FIFTEEN years, will substantively.reducd your risk, is frankly hilarious.

The 737 MAX 8 entered service in May 2017, the MAX 9 entered service in March 2018,

And how many deaths have there been on one of them in the US? Zero

There is a pattern of oversight failures and sloppiness with the 737 Max. People are right to be concerned.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/737-max-crashes-killed-346-were-horrific-culmination-failures-boeing-n1240192

You are absolutely right that Boeing and the FAA screwed up royally when it came to the MCAS system, and it was a glaring example of how Boeing has changed as a company. At the same time, with the modifications and improvements since then, the plane is safe enough that it's simply not worth the average person's effort to parse out the minute differences in odds of an issue between it and other plane types.

There is also zero indication that the incident in yesterday's Alaska flight has anything to do with the plane design- my initial guess is a manufacturing fault that wasn't picked up in QC. Extremely rare, and can happen to anything. That's why you have multiple layers of safety systems. Those layers worked in this case. The action of grounding an entire fleet type is something that the FAA often does after an event like this, often before they have any evidence of a systemic issue, as a precaution.

Is the system perfect? Of course not. As stated earlier, there are significant issues that need to be addressed, that are going to take years/decades to truly resolve. But it's short-sighted to avoid the US commercial airline system entirely, or even one jet type, because it's overall.still a very safe system, one that has performed admirably for the past 30.years especially.

What do you mean the layers worked in this case? It was luck that no one was seated beside the window.
A manufacturer of airplanes with QC issues is also not more reassuring than a design issue.

No one died and no one was seriously injured. I'd call that a win considering the circumstances.

I think you have an unrealistic view of the perfectability of the world. Feel free to drive everywhere you want for a long distance trip, and expose yourself to the much much higher risk of death/severe injury on the roads. You want to talk about systemic issues, how about how deaths continue to increase on US roads, even though they are dropping in every other industrialized country? That concerns me 100x more than a one off incident on an airplane.

You sound like a Boeing PR hack. A close call to a catastrophic accident is not a "win", it is luck.

Ha,.nope, don't even know anyone who works there. In fact, f--k Boeing for the way they designed this plane from the beginning, which I agree is emblematic of major issues with the safety culture of the company. And also the FAA and the way they let themselves get captured (as economists say) by the company they.are supposed to regulate. This current issue with the 7 deicing procedure is hopefully a good example.of.them standing up harder against Boeing. The plane isn't flying yet, so they seem to be holding the line well so far.

All that said, the larger point is that me, as an individual, has so little information or understanding of these complex systems. By definition we have to put our trust in the regulatory system we have created, and the knowledgeable people who staff it. Overall that system has served us quite well, and there are obvious places where it can be fixed/further improved. So from an individual persons perspective, it's just not worth the mental energy to try and parse all this out and come up with some half baked risk assessment. Oh and by the way, the fuselage plug design that failed on that plane yesterday, is the same design in the -900.

Yet here you are putting the mental energy into trying to persuade us to trust a system that is clearly failing keep us safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never pick the 737 Max, but American Airlines changed its flight times during my last overseas trip in December and I ended up on it. Having flown back-to-back on a regular airline and then the 737 Max, I instantly noticed that the 737 Max was much more cramped — less space between rows, tighter fit overall. I will continue to avoid it, but not sure what to do when airlines change your plane.

That’s the problem. You have no control over the aircraft you end up in.

This. I usually look on the various apps and also flight aware to see my airline type. My spouse is Global Services, so if I fly will him I sometimes ask him to call and double check. Once I flew and said the plane wasn't a Max and I got on the plane and it was a Max. I went on the trip, but was pretty peeved that the type of plane had been changed. Now I check regularly. I used to just check when I booked the flight.

My spouse regularly flies for work and tries to avoid the Max planes (mainly due to my paranoia). He books his own work flights, not an assistant, for this reason.

I also watched Downfall: The Case about Boeing on Netflix...

Does he avoid ever driving in a car?because that would reduce his risk of serious injury/death by 100x versus avoiding a certain commercial plane type.

You should read up on risk perceptions. They are far more complex than your simplistic advice suggests.

Yes, perceptions are more complex. I am quoting the actual statistics (well, paraphrasing, admittedly).

The idea that avoiding a certain commercial plane type in the US, where there has been ONE death from an accident in FIFTEEN years, will substantively.reducd your risk, is frankly hilarious.

The 737 MAX 8 entered service in May 2017, the MAX 9 entered service in March 2018,

And how many deaths have there been on one of them in the US? Zero

There is a pattern of oversight failures and sloppiness with the 737 Max. People are right to be concerned.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/737-max-crashes-killed-346-were-horrific-culmination-failures-boeing-n1240192

You are absolutely right that Boeing and the FAA screwed up royally when it came to the MCAS system, and it was a glaring example of how Boeing has changed as a company. At the same time, with the modifications and improvements since then, the plane is safe enough that it's simply not worth the average person's effort to parse out the minute differences in odds of an issue between it and other plane types.

There is also zero indication that the incident in yesterday's Alaska flight has anything to do with the plane design- my initial guess is a manufacturing fault that wasn't picked up in QC. Extremely rare, and can happen to anything. That's why you have multiple layers of safety systems. Those layers worked in this case. The action of grounding an entire fleet type is something that the FAA often does after an event like this, often before they have any evidence of a systemic issue, as a precaution.

Is the system perfect? Of course not. As stated earlier, there are significant issues that need to be addressed, that are going to take years/decades to truly resolve. But it's short-sighted to avoid the US commercial airline system entirely, or even one jet type, because it's overall.still a very safe system, one that has performed admirably for the past 30.years especially.

What do you mean the layers worked in this case? It was luck that no one was seated beside the window.
A manufacturer of airplanes with QC issues is also not more reassuring than a design issue.

No one died and no one was seriously injured. I'd call that a win considering the circumstances.

I think you have an unrealistic view of the perfectability of the world. Feel free to drive everywhere you want for a long distance trip, and expose yourself to the much much higher risk of death/severe injury on the roads. You want to talk about systemic issues, how about how deaths continue to increase on US roads, even though they are dropping in every other industrialized country? That concerns me 100x more than a one off incident on an airplane.

You sound like a Boeing PR hack. A close call to a catastrophic accident is not a "win", it is luck.

Ha,.nope, don't even know anyone who works there. In fact, f--k Boeing for the way they designed this plane from the beginning, which I agree is emblematic of major issues with the safety culture of the company. And also the FAA and the way they let themselves get captured (as economists say) by the company they.are supposed to regulate. This current issue with the 7 deicing procedure is hopefully a good example.of.them standing up harder against Boeing. The plane isn't flying yet, so they seem to be holding the line well so far.

All that said, the larger point is that me, as an individual, has so little information or understanding of these complex systems. By definition we have to put our trust in the regulatory system we have created, and the knowledgeable people who staff it. Overall that system has served us quite well, and there are obvious places where it can be fixed/further improved. So from an individual persons perspective, it's just not worth the mental energy to try and parse all this out and come up with some half baked risk assessment. Oh and by the way, the fuselage plug design that failed on that plane yesterday, is the same design in the -900.

Yet here you are putting the mental energy into trying to persuade us to trust a system that is clearly failing keep us safe.

How is one death in 15 years, with an average of over 2 million people flying commercially per day, "failing to keep us safe"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never pick the 737 Max, but American Airlines changed its flight times during my last overseas trip in December and I ended up on it. Having flown back-to-back on a regular airline and then the 737 Max, I instantly noticed that the 737 Max was much more cramped — less space between rows, tighter fit overall. I will continue to avoid it, but not sure what to do when airlines change your plane.

That’s the problem. You have no control over the aircraft you end up in.

This. I usually look on the various apps and also flight aware to see my airline type. My spouse is Global Services, so if I fly will him I sometimes ask him to call and double check. Once I flew and said the plane wasn't a Max and I got on the plane and it was a Max. I went on the trip, but was pretty peeved that the type of plane had been changed. Now I check regularly. I used to just check when I booked the flight.

My spouse regularly flies for work and tries to avoid the Max planes (mainly due to my paranoia). He books his own work flights, not an assistant, for this reason.

I also watched Downfall: The Case about Boeing on Netflix...

Does he avoid ever driving in a car?because that would reduce his risk of serious injury/death by 100x versus avoiding a certain commercial plane type.

You should read up on risk perceptions. They are far more complex than your simplistic advice suggests.

Yes, perceptions are more complex. I am quoting the actual statistics (well, paraphrasing, admittedly).

The idea that avoiding a certain commercial plane type in the US, where there has been ONE death from an accident in FIFTEEN years, will substantively.reducd your risk, is frankly hilarious.

The 737 MAX 8 entered service in May 2017, the MAX 9 entered service in March 2018,

And how many deaths have there been on one of them in the US? Zero

There is a pattern of oversight failures and sloppiness with the 737 Max. People are right to be concerned.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/737-max-crashes-killed-346-were-horrific-culmination-failures-boeing-n1240192

You are absolutely right that Boeing and the FAA screwed up royally when it came to the MCAS system, and it was a glaring example of how Boeing has changed as a company. At the same time, with the modifications and improvements since then, the plane is safe enough that it's simply not worth the average person's effort to parse out the minute differences in odds of an issue between it and other plane types.

There is also zero indication that the incident in yesterday's Alaska flight has anything to do with the plane design- my initial guess is a manufacturing fault that wasn't picked up in QC. Extremely rare, and can happen to anything. That's why you have multiple layers of safety systems. Those layers worked in this case. The action of grounding an entire fleet type is something that the FAA often does after an event like this, often before they have any evidence of a systemic issue, as a precaution.

Is the system perfect? Of course not. As stated earlier, there are significant issues that need to be addressed, that are going to take years/decades to truly resolve. But it's short-sighted to avoid the US commercial airline system entirely, or even one jet type, because it's overall.still a very safe system, one that has performed admirably for the past 30.years especially.

What do you mean the layers worked in this case? It was luck that no one was seated beside the window.
A manufacturer of airplanes with QC issues is also not more reassuring than a design issue.

No one died and no one was seriously injured. I'd call that a win considering the circumstances.

I think you have an unrealistic view of the perfectability of the world. Feel free to drive everywhere you want for a long distance trip, and expose yourself to the much much higher risk of death/severe injury on the roads. You want to talk about systemic issues, how about how deaths continue to increase on US roads, even though they are dropping in every other industrialized country? That concerns me 100x more than a one off incident on an airplane.

You sound like a Boeing PR hack. A close call to a catastrophic accident is not a "win", it is luck.

Ha,.nope, don't even know anyone who works there. In fact, f--k Boeing for the way they designed this plane from the beginning, which I agree is emblematic of major issues with the safety culture of the company. And also the FAA and the way they let themselves get captured (as economists say) by the company they.are supposed to regulate. This current issue with the 7 deicing procedure is hopefully a good example.of.them standing up harder against Boeing. The plane isn't flying yet, so they seem to be holding the line well so far.

All that said, the larger point is that me, as an individual, has so little information or understanding of these complex systems. By definition we have to put our trust in the regulatory system we have created, and the knowledgeable people who staff it. Overall that system has served us quite well, and there are obvious places where it can be fixed/further improved. So from an individual persons perspective, it's just not worth the mental energy to try and parse all this out and come up with some half baked risk assessment. Oh and by the way, the fuselage plug design that failed on that plane yesterday, is the same design in the -900.

Yet here you are putting the mental energy into trying to persuade us to trust a system that is clearly failing keep us safe.

How is one death in 15 years, with an average of over 2 million people flying commercially per day, "failing to keep us safe"?

346 people have died on the 737 Max aircraft to date. More would have died on Friday's flight if there had been a person at the window seat or the plane had been at a higher altitude. It is just a matter of time before another one of these planes fail and take more lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never pick the 737 Max, but American Airlines changed its flight times during my last overseas trip in December and I ended up on it. Having flown back-to-back on a regular airline and then the 737 Max, I instantly noticed that the 737 Max was much more cramped — less space between rows, tighter fit overall. I will continue to avoid it, but not sure what to do when airlines change your plane.

That’s the problem. You have no control over the aircraft you end up in.

This. I usually look on the various apps and also flight aware to see my airline type. My spouse is Global Services, so if I fly will him I sometimes ask him to call and double check. Once I flew and said the plane wasn't a Max and I got on the plane and it was a Max. I went on the trip, but was pretty peeved that the type of plane had been changed. Now I check regularly. I used to just check when I booked the flight.

My spouse regularly flies for work and tries to avoid the Max planes (mainly due to my paranoia). He books his own work flights, not an assistant, for this reason.

I also watched Downfall: The Case about Boeing on Netflix...

Does he avoid ever driving in a car?because that would reduce his risk of serious injury/death by 100x versus avoiding a certain commercial plane type.

You should read up on risk perceptions. They are far more complex than your simplistic advice suggests.

Yes, perceptions are more complex. I am quoting the actual statistics (well, paraphrasing, admittedly).

The idea that avoiding a certain commercial plane type in the US, where there has been ONE death from an accident in FIFTEEN years, will substantively.reducd your risk, is frankly hilarious.

The 737 MAX 8 entered service in May 2017, the MAX 9 entered service in March 2018,

And how many deaths have there been on one of them in the US? Zero

There is a pattern of oversight failures and sloppiness with the 737 Max. People are right to be concerned.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/737-max-crashes-killed-346-were-horrific-culmination-failures-boeing-n1240192

You are absolutely right that Boeing and the FAA screwed up royally when it came to the MCAS system, and it was a glaring example of how Boeing has changed as a company. At the same time, with the modifications and improvements since then, the plane is safe enough that it's simply not worth the average person's effort to parse out the minute differences in odds of an issue between it and other plane types.

There is also zero indication that the incident in yesterday's Alaska flight has anything to do with the plane design- my initial guess is a manufacturing fault that wasn't picked up in QC. Extremely rare, and can happen to anything. That's why you have multiple layers of safety systems. Those layers worked in this case. The action of grounding an entire fleet type is something that the FAA often does after an event like this, often before they have any evidence of a systemic issue, as a precaution.

Is the system perfect? Of course not. As stated earlier, there are significant issues that need to be addressed, that are going to take years/decades to truly resolve. But it's short-sighted to avoid the US commercial airline system entirely, or even one jet type, because it's overall.still a very safe system, one that has performed admirably for the past 30.years especially.

What do you mean the layers worked in this case? It was luck that no one was seated beside the window.
A manufacturer of airplanes with QC issues is also not more reassuring than a design issue.

No one died and no one was seriously injured. I'd call that a win considering the circumstances.

I think you have an unrealistic view of the perfectability of the world. Feel free to drive everywhere you want for a long distance trip, and expose yourself to the much much higher risk of death/severe injury on the roads. You want to talk about systemic issues, how about how deaths continue to increase on US roads, even though they are dropping in every other industrialized country? That concerns me 100x more than a one off incident on an airplane.

You sound like a Boeing PR hack. A close call to a catastrophic accident is not a "win", it is luck.

Ha,.nope, don't even know anyone who works there. In fact, f--k Boeing for the way they designed this plane from the beginning, which I agree is emblematic of major issues with the safety culture of the company. And also the FAA and the way they let themselves get captured (as economists say) by the company they.are supposed to regulate. This current issue with the 7 deicing procedure is hopefully a good example.of.them standing up harder against Boeing. The plane isn't flying yet, so they seem to be holding the line well so far.

All that said, the larger point is that me, as an individual, has so little information or understanding of these complex systems. By definition we have to put our trust in the regulatory system we have created, and the knowledgeable people who staff it. Overall that system has served us quite well, and there are obvious places where it can be fixed/further improved. So from an individual persons perspective, it's just not worth the mental energy to try and parse all this out and come up with some half baked risk assessment. Oh and by the way, the fuselage plug design that failed on that plane yesterday, is the same design in the -900.

Yet here you are putting the mental energy into trying to persuade us to trust a system that is clearly failing keep us safe.

How is one death in 15 years, with an average of over 2 million people flying commercially per day, "failing to keep us safe"?

346 people have died on the 737 Max aircraft to date. More would have died on Friday's flight if there had been a person at the window seat or the plane had been at a higher altitude. It is just a matter of time before another one of these planes fail and take more lives.

Okay, so hypothetically in the future you won't be safe.

[Anonymous]

Boeing will just blame the pilots for not remembering to turn off the deicing damaging in time causing damage to the nacelle or for turning it off too soon and causing an accident from ice buildup, just like they blamed the pilots in the fatal crashes.