Maxwell: While not an ATP, I too would fly the MAX with my entire family as well. I remember well the tragic incidents with the L-188 Lockheed Electra in the late 50's. Different reasons for both failures, but the L-188 air frame is Super Safe today. I believe that the 737 MAX will have a similar history, and the FAA and Boeing will never forget this last year.

Thank you for your insight Mr. Johnson. My question is will Boeing ever be the great engineering company they were before McDonald Douglas stole the company.

I also would not have any issues flying the 737 Max. The 727 had issues when it came out as a result of pilots not understanding the flap system of the plane.

https://news.yahoo.com/five-decades-ago-boeings-727-200941644.html

Can we call you "Max737" v

Could not agree more. Very few aircraft in history have been through this much scrutiny and they are not done yet. The DC-10 had its day as well as the F-111. And maybe add the early V-22 issues but those were not to this level.

Much like going to a restaurant that received a bad sanitation rating last month. This month they're probably the cleanest place in town to eat, except you can't get a table due to the virus.... Oh well, the analogy still works. Even with the 2 issues with this latest version of AC, the 737 history as a whole is I'm sure still one of the safest in commercial history. That doesn't absolve Boeing or the FAA of responsibility for the errors, but I'd still fly on one, particularly now.

Randy: What article are you reading? (or) who are the "bunch of anti American trolls posted here." Of course it will be a safe plane, as described by others above. Seriously, I just don't understand your reference to anti-American trolls.

Because the MCAS software, not a particular MAX airframe variant, was the focus of the problem attributable to Boeing.

I would agree. The Max-8 should be the airframe being tested since, I believe, engine placement among other changes were made to this iteration.

No, not really. In fact in rough air the autopilot can actually make things worse because it can’t feel and anticipate changes as well as a human pilot. In most cases it is recommended to disengage the autopilot in greater than moderate turbulence to avoid over controlling.

Dependence on automation is a well known problem in modern commercial aircraft operations. Most airlines advise hand flying as much as possible when workload permits, but with complex departures and arrivals and busy ATC environments we still spend the vast majority of a flight on autopilot. Since the advent of RVSM airspace it is required to use the autopilot in cruise from 29000 to 41000 feet because of the reduced vertical separation.

The Max accidents happened because the crews were confused about what was happening, in part due to multiple conflicting indications. The MCAS is only operational with the autopilot off, in the Lion Air crash the captain repeatedly tried to engage the ap but it wouldn’t engage probably due to the airplane being way out of trim. They weren’t able to ascertain why the trim was running nose down and by the time they activated the cutout switches the nose down force was too much to overcome. At one point during the Lion Air flight they did manage to cut off the trim, but they never pulled the power back and their high speed made it impossible to manually move the trim. As a last resort they reactivated the trim at which point MCAS started trimming nose down again and sealed their fate.

And you are sure that the pilots flying those planes were trained well and we're competent?

Robert this may be a little "dark". Can you name ANY plane developed in the last 50 years that hasn't had a mechanical, software or a design flaw? Started flying when I was 5 years old and I even flew and survived a Vicount.