Boeing discovers issue with 737 Max flight computers, source says

Altogether now: 'WE WANT THE 757 BACK! WE WANT THE 757 BACK! WE WANT THE 757 BACK!!!'

The 757 is my absolute favorite liner. When I book travel, the first thing that I look for is who has a 757 going my way.

You have alot of confidence in the FAA and Boeing considering their failure with this airplane first time around

This whole 737MAX debacle is a real shame. Yes, new planes always have problems that get corrected over time. Unfortunately, this one had an issue that killed people, so now it's under incredible scrutiny. The thing I never liked was that a "Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System" is even needed on this aircraft. I'm no engineer, but this tells me that there is something inherently unstable or just "not quite right" in the aerodynamics of this plane. The company was so desperate to compete with Airbus that they chose a quick and dirty way to get something on the market by forcing an existing model to accept the larger fuel efficient engines, plus stretched the fuselage even more to accommodate more passengers on the -10. Boeing screwed up here, plain and simple. Hopefully Boeing will learn a valuable lesson here and move on to bigger and better things.

If it hadn't happened after the MAX accidents, this would be a non-story. EVERY modern aircraft goes through software updates, usually to fix unexpected glitches. Airbus, for example, has had to update software on the A320 family (several times), A330, A400M (after a fatal crash caused in part by the software), A350, and A220. If you know anything about software, you know that it is virtually impossible to make a large program absolutely perfect. The software routines used in modern aircraft have tens or hundreds of thousands of lines, although every attempt is made to optimize them so they work very quickly. They are tested for as many things as the testers can think of but it's often the things that they didn't think of, or that they thought wouldn't be a factor, that cause the software to fail.

And then there is an added complication when the hardware doesn't perform as expected. That's what happened last June when Boeing's first software update overwhelmed the processing chip used in the aircraft. The chip is an older Intel model that is very robust and reliable, but considerably slower than current chips. This software/hardware interface problem may be the cause of the continuing delays, perhaps requiring some hardware updates as well as software fixes.

I am totally okay with this... they are making sure this plane is PRISTINE before it returns to the line. Good on Boeing and the FAA for ensuring the MAX does not return until it is 1000% good to go!

Your bias is showing.

Agree the 757 was fab
What is interesting is if passengers are aware the their carrier is using the max (if it comes back )will they be prepared to fly on this aircraft?
I pinged a watts app to a group of my friends (60)
75 % said they would switch carrier rather than fly on the max .Equally there are some pilots I have spoken to who would not fly it full stop

Hello again from Row 30!

We all want the 757 back. I loved the plane as a passenger, loved watching it take off, the way it pitched up so confidentially from the run way. 757 with Rolls RB-211 engines like Trump's private jet before he became POTUS - a classic aircraft. If they were to upgrade the 757, just not to call it the 757 MAX!

In reading all the comments here, I'd say we all need to be bugging the FAA director Steve Dickson to get in the left seat and take the 737 MAX for a spin. As a former Delta pilot qualified in 737 as well as other aircraft types, who better to give the thumbs up on the fixes to this variant of the 737 than he. And please do it soon.

The level of ignorance in many of these comments is stunning. If you want to read the results of the investigation of the FAA, Boeing and the ODA system into whether the certification process was followed properly, then go to Avweb or Google it for a direct link.

Short answer is the process was followed correctly. The communication between the FAA and Boeing was good. Industry standard assumptions for pilot reactions were followed. They emphasized that delegation is NOT self-certification.

One of the findings was that industry standard assumptions for pilot reactions may not be valid anymore.

This is not to say Boeing was perfect, but there is no evidence that Boeing willfully disregarded safety during the certification process.

I would be quite happy to be the first passenger on the Max when it flies again.

But only if its on a US airline. We forget that the third world country airlines are undergoing rapid growth are desperate for pilots and cut corners them selves to get pilots flying.. What about the required number of hrs in an aircraft type.

As with most cars you pay extra for additional safety features...Seems these cut throat airlines did not want to pay for additional features Just the absolute basic. What with cutting costs on training etc

Looks to me that Boeing is trying to fix something that didn't really need fixing with hardware...

I don't think Boeing is entirely to blame but have the biggest pockets.. Teach pilots to fly the aircraft not the IPAD. In real life When you crash you cant reboot and try again.

Just another pointless headline to scare the public.
No thanks CNN, but I'll be flying on the MAX once recertified!

Ok, this may be a bit simplistic, but can they not simply replace the “new software” with the older version that didn’t cause these issues?

A computer Problem? Never heard of such a Thing!

Ignorance is bliss.

As neither a pilot nor in the aircraft industry, my take is this. I'm an IT and Business manager - so very often in situations like this, resources, time and effort from thousands of people, are thrown into identifying and correcting the problem. This really costs zillions, involving massive input to find and remedy small, albeit vital, output.

Far better to just completely bin the current system, and build from scratch. It would cost less in the long run, and would be totally clean from previous versions.

The only problem was to give the system a name (MCAS) which made for a great headline that ignorant people could run with not even knowing what the system even does. I’m sure the media has made millions in advertising from all those headlines of 346 dead people because of MCAS. And China was able to wage economic warfare by being the first country to ground the fleet and disgruntled Boeing fat and lazy union ex-workers were also able to jump on the bandwagon. One big hate fest, period. All these hypocrites don’t really care about the 346 people let’s be intellectually honest here.

Can somebody answer to me whether or not it is possible to retrofit the infamous 3.500+ Max 7 already built and some on order to the simple Max configuration tweaking the wing, replacing the engine with the previous incarnation, etc. This should be cheaper than continue páying off fines the Max 7 owners for breaching the original contract.