Commercial Airliners

[Methuselah]

This page actually has some interesting things to say about fear of flying.

What is fear of flying?

Description of fear of flying, plus links passengers to information on how to deal with the fear of flying.

www.airsafe.com

My only recommendation is to own your fears, as much as you can. And if you're the one flying, then no Jack until you safely reach cruise altitude and quit at least 15 minutes prior to descent.

I did a lot of flying with my job. All over Europe and the States but wasn't a good flyer. Needed a stiff drink, yet when I was 18 in NS I flew out to Singapore on a Hermes 4 engine (propellers). It was notorious for engine trouble. It was my first flight and we got over France only to return to Blackbush with engine trouble. We were delayed at every stop while they sorted the engine out and it finally conked out just after we started the leg from Calcutta to Bangkok. We landed on three engines. None of this bothered me at all, I found it all very interesting and exciting. What changed?

 

[SerenityNigh]

I did a lot of flying with my job. All over Europe and the States but wasn't a good flyer. Needed a stiff drink, yet when I was 18 in NS I flew out to Singapore on a Hermes 4 engine (propellers). It was notorious for engine trouble. It was my first flight and we got over France only to return to Blackbush with engine trouble. We were delayed at every stop while they sorted the engine out and it finally conked out just after we started the leg from Calcutta to Bangkok. We landed on three engines. None of this bothered me at all, I found it all very interesting and exciting. What changed?

I would imagine flying has become much less "fun" that it used to be. If you look at some of the older accident reports, there weren't even rules on flight routes and altitudes (at least in the US). It was a cowboy-attitude wild west of the skies. All of that is gone now, although some of the old personalities still remain. I also remember going on a trip pre-9/11 and someone had booked about 2 dozen plane tickets ahead of time, most under random names like Joe Montana and Wayne Gretzky, all of that is gone now also.

But fear of flying is still the same, and it's very common (and not something to be embarrassed by, in my experience). Maybe there are new fears too, or new "reasons" to be afraid, but no shame in the fear.

 

[Walken]

I don't get the article--the two Max crashes seem to be a result of bad data/software causing the autopilot to make in appropriate corrections. As a whole, the 737 seems to have a good safety record, and it certainly doesn't appear to be increasing with changes in later models. (Although the Max probably should have its own category in this list). I agree that Boeing should start with a new clean slate design (like the 787), but sometimes you should continue a model that works, and the 737 seems to work pretty well.

Plane crash rates by model

Chart listing the rate of plane crashes involving passenger fatalities in fatal events per million flights for selected airliner models.

www.airsafe.com

I'm a complete novice in matters of aviation, though an interested novice who enjoys hearing the opinion of those such as yourself on the subject. I found the article interesting, but I've no real clue how pertinent it is to the recent tragedies

 

[SerenityNigh]

I'm a complete novice in matters of aviation, though an interested novice who enjoys hearing the opinion of those such as yourself on the subject. I found the article interesting, but I've no real clue how pertinent it is to the recent tragedies

Yeah, not knocking you, I found it interesting too. I think they're overstating some effects and maybe understating others. A few basic comments (and maybe I'll re-read again to see if my opinion changes):

All 737s are certified under the same "type" certification by the FAA. Without getting too much into the weeds, anything that is "type" certified is believed to be fundamentally the same as all other aircraft of the same type. So 737 "classics" (100/200 series), modern (300/400s), next gen (500 to 900), and Max are all believed to be the same basic airplane, regardless of powerplant, length, or configuration.

What's interesting is that Boeing redesigns (a little) each type they resubmit a new airplane, but not enough to trigger a new "type," which is mountains of paperwork. With the Max, which uses significantly larger engine pods, apparently there are some changed flight characteristics; this is what triggered the new flight computer/autopilot changes (there is a name they used, but I forgot what it was). This is probably a major--the major--issue in the entire story. Probably the Max *should* be considered a different type.

The story seemed to lead with the suggestion that Boeing has redesigned the 737 so many times, now they've broken it. I think that's a bit too far, and the next gen 737-500s to 800/900s seem to be really good airplanes. But it does look like they were given too much freedom to change the Max (they approved their own changes!) and they really f***ed this up.

 

[SerenityNigh]

Yeah, not knocking you, I found it interesting too. I think they're overstating some effects and maybe understating others. A few basic comments (and maybe I'll re-read again to see if my opinion changes):

All 737s are certified under the same "type" certification by the FAA. Without getting too much into the weeds, anything that is "type" certified is believed to be fundamentally the same as all other aircraft of the same type. So 737 "classics" (100/200 series), modern (300/400s), next gen (500 to 900), and Max are all believed to be the same basic airplane, regardless of powerplant, length, or configuration.

What's interesting is that Boeing redesigns (a little) each type they resubmit a new airplane, but not enough to trigger a new "type," which is mountains of paperwork. With the Max, which uses significantly larger engine pods, apparently there are some changed flight characteristics; this is what triggered the new flight computer/autopilot changes (there is a name they used, but I forgot what it was). This is probably a major--the major--issue in the entire story. Probably the Max *should* be considered a different type.

The story seemed to lead with the suggestion that Boeing has redesigned the 737 so many times, now they've broken it. I think that's a bit too far, and the next gen 737-500s to 800/900s seem to be really good airplanes. But it does look like they were given too much freedom to change the Max (they approved their own changes!) and they really f***ed this up.

So I guess maybe it's all the lede that I have a problem with--it's not an issue of 50 year old design, but trying to do too many things at once. Too many changes; new aerodynamics, new flight control software, new internal testing and approval process. If anything serious comes out of this, it's probably that Boeing has a dangerous corporate culture that needs fixing. As for the Max itself, either it's a software fix that solves the problem or (worst case) it requires a new type or Boeing shuts down or decertifies the Max entirely

 

[Methuselah]

Yeah, not knocking you, I found it interesting too. I think they're overstating some effects and maybe understating others. A few basic comments (and maybe I'll re-read again to see if my opinion changes):

All 737s are certified under the same "type" certification by the FAA. Without getting too much into the weeds, anything that is "type" certified is believed to be fundamentally the same as all other aircraft of the same type. So 737 "classics" (100/200 series), modern (300/400s), next gen (500 to 900), and Max are all believed to be the same basic airplane, regardless of powerplant, length, or configuration.

What's interesting is that Boeing redesigns (a little) each type they resubmit a new airplane, but not enough to trigger a new "type," which is mountains of paperwork. With the Max, which uses significantly larger engine pods, apparently there are some changed flight characteristics; this is what triggered the new flight computer/autopilot changes (there is a name they used, but I forgot what it was). This is probably a major--the major--issue in the entire story. Probably the Max *should* be considered a different type.

The story seemed to lead with the suggestion that Boeing has redesigned the 737 so many times, now they've broken it. I think that's a bit too far, and the next gen 737-500s to 800/900s seem to be really good airplanes. But it does look like they were given too much freedom to change the Max (they approved their own changes!) and they really f***ed this up.

The 737 is the 'work-horse', a bit like the Dakota in the 1940's. It would seem that the 'Max' is significantly different in that the changes affect the aerodynamics of the aeroplane. There is a view that the software changes, to take account of the change to aerodynamics, contain a fault.

 

[Rob17896]

Why was it again you became a pilot?

Ryanair were short of staff.

 

[WA Toffee]

A flight from London to Germany took an unexpected detour

Passengers on flight from London to Dusseldorf land in Edinburgh after paperwork mix-up

A man who boarded a flight in London which mistakenly landed 500 miles from its destination has told ITV News: "I'm not an aviation expert so I wasn't going to tell the pilot I knew a quicker way to Dusseldorf." Passengers on board the BA3271 flight from London City Airport only realised they...

www.itv.com

 

[Sarnia Kevin]

More on the 737 Max:

 

[verreauxi]

I would imagine flying has become much less "fun" that it used to be. If you look at some of the older accident reports, there weren't even rules on flight routes and altitudes (at least in the US). It was a cowboy-attitude wild west of the skies. All of that is gone now, although some of the old personalities still remain. I also remember going on a trip pre-9/11 and someone had booked about 2 dozen plane tickets ahead of time, most under random names like Joe Montana and Wayne Gretzky, all of that is gone now also.

But fear of flying is still the same, and it's very common (and not something to be embarrassed by, in my experience). Maybe there are new fears too, or new "reasons" to be afraid, but no shame in the fear.

Yeah the days of privatised airport security are over (mostly for the better). I recall that some of the security folks seemed younger than i was, and this was back when I was in college.

 

[SerenityNigh]

Yeah the days of privatised airport security are over (mostly for the better). I recall that some of the security folks seemed younger than i was, and this was back when I was in college.

I have strong views on the TSA and while they're generally good people with a good task, I'm not on board with how DHS is handling it all.

Then again, I don't really jive with a lot of what DHS is doing.

Anyway, although I don't fly enough as a passenger to do the TSA Pre Check, but I'm generally with James Carville on this.

 

[LinekersLegs]

Boeing CEO accepts blame for two plane crashes, apologizes to families of victims: 'We own it'

The chairman of Boeing acknowledged for the first time that its new maneuvering system was responsible for two recent plane crashes that killed almost 350 people and apologized to the families and friends of the victims.

www.usatoday.com

The chairman of Boeing acknowledged Thursday for the first time that a new maneuvering system was responsible for two plane crashes that killed almost 350 people, and he apologized to the families and friends of the victims.
"We at Boeing are sorry for the lives lost in the recent 737 accidents and are relentlessly focused on safety to ensure tragedies like this never happen again," CEO Dennis Muilenburg said in a videotaped statement posted on Twitter.
Muilenburg said the details of airline accidents normally await a final report from governments, "but with the release of the preliminary report of the Ethiopian Flight 302 accident investigation, it is apparent that in both flights, the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, known as MCAS, activated in response to erroneous angle of attack information."

That preliminary report, issued Thursday, indicated the crew of the Ethiopian Airlines jet that crashed last month, killing all 157 people aboard, performed all procedures recommended by the aerospace giant but failed to gain control of the doomed aircraft.

 

[LinekersLegs]

Err, this doesn’t sound good.

 

[SerenityNigh]

Err, this doesn’t sound good.

I don’t think the Dreamliner has any fatal accidents, but I don’t know what it’s incident rate is. Still a bad look for Boeing in any case.

 

[summerisle]

Bloody hell, imagine being on here.