Is the 737 max dangerous ?

After an extended period of difficulty, Boeing has been doing well lately and ended the year 2022 strong in recent months. Boeing obtained two multi-billion Dollar contracts.
United and Delta’s 787 programs restarted after over a year of being put on hold, but recently Boeing achieved its greatest success yet when Congress decided to exempt the 737 Max from new rules that would have necessitated changes in the cockpit. Had this rule stayed in effect, it could have cost Boeing millions and led to increased safety for the plane.
Why did Congress overlook the distressed jet and, more importantly, did they make it even riskier?
What is the process?

In the last option part of 2018 and the start of 2019, two significant disasters including the 737 Max happened. Examinations uncovered that a basic viewpoint was the plane’s MCAS framework. This system is expected to consequently bring down the airplane nose on the off chance that it might actually slow down; notwithstanding, during the two occurrences it worked wrongly, causing a startling dive that brought about a deficiency of control.

It ought to be noticed that MCAS is an original component of this specific model. This new innovation was not known to pilots at the hour of the mishaps, making it challenging for them to distinguish MCAS as the reason for their planes’ unusual way of behaving.

To stay away from additional events like this later on, Congress has passed flying security changes that require all-new airplane by 2023 to be furnished with this innovation.
To get FAA confirmation, they needed to incorporate a contemporary cockpit Learning Framework called ECAS. ECAS simplifies it for Pilots to perceive significant milestones.

Four distinct types make up the Max family, two of which—the 737 Max 8 and Max 9—have received approval without the need for ECAS. The Max 7 and Max 10 are still being tested in the air; otherwise, they would not have been permitted to transport passengers if the new regulation had been maintained. As a result, the cockpits would have been divided. Max 7 or Max 10 aircraft require several hours of additional training before they can be flown by pilots who typically fly Max 8 and Max 9 aircraft. Therefore, it should not have come as a surprise that Boeing requested a waiver from the rule, especially given that doing so would have cost Airlines a lot in terms of training costs and diminished the Max family’s appeal.

Given that this rule was put in place as a result of the Max crashes, it was shocking when they received what they wanted. What makes Congress think that no restrictions should be put in place for this plane? One misunderstanding I wanted to clear up right away. Congress did not succumb to threats made by David Calhoun in an Infamous conversation with Aviation Week. The Boeing CEO stated that he was ready to cancel both the max 7 and Max 10 unless Congress changed its tact this statement came completely out of the left field and it seemed to carry a Sinister warning “help us out or we’ll hurt your constituents”.

The 737 Max is developed by many various providers dispersed across the U.S. furthermore, the globe dropping these Maximums wouldn’t simply hurt Boeing. It would straightforwardly influence occupations the nation over and nothing panics Congress more than the possibility of their citizens losing positions a half year after Calhoun offered this expression Congress chose to allow the maximum to slide giving the appearance that Boeing employed uncalled for influence over the council yet here’s what Boeing was never in a genuine situation to drop this. The danger was completely Empty in the event that you don’t care about me going on a fast digression.

Allow me to make sense of why the undoing was generally an Outrageous idea investigate the maximum 7 for example it’s by a long shot the most terrible offering Max variation to date with only 286 of the sort on request it represents a simple 5% of Max’s overabundance seems like dropping right ought to be really simple? Well no that undertaking is made honestly incomprehensible thanks to Southwest. Southwest is the single biggest 737 client ever and it’s ostensibly the most solid client Boeing has Integral to the aircraft’s prosperity has been the 737-700. Its minimized size permits the carrier to accomplish High burden factors between more modest urban communities which is indispensable to the progress of its highlight point model yet those planes are becoming old and the
aircraft frantically needs its substitution the maximum 7 to see
proceeded with progress.

Losing the maximum 7 could disable the aircraft and Southwest couldn’t level up its Maximum 7s as far as possible 8.
That plane has an excess of ability to be the foundation of its Armada without the littlest Max the carrier’s heap variables could drop and its productivity could plunge to keep away from this disaster. Southwest would need to make up for the shortfall with another equivalently measured fly and the one in particular that possesses all the necessary qualities is the a22300 now. In mid 2021 there were reports that Southwest was kicking the tires on the a220 and assuming the maximum 7 were dropped, Airbus in Southwest would unquestionably take up where they left out. Out of nowhere Boeing would wind up in danger of losing its most significant client. We can lay out a comparative picture with Delta and the 737 Max 10. Presently Delta isn’t the greatest Max 10 client yet it may very well be the most significant.

Its relationship with Boeing has been dubious as of late and the maximum 10 seems, by all accounts, to be the main thing keeping the relationship intact. Delta really used to be a Boeing follower yet that is changed throughout the course of recent a very long time in that time period Deltas added more than 400 airbuses to its Armada while quickly getting rid of its bowings and practically the Planes it has on request are all of the Airbus assortment. The Solitary Boeing plane that Delta actually has in its excess is the 737 Max 10. Presently the carrier desires to utilize the maximum to supplant its maturing 757s and like Southwest, it doesn’t seem OK for Delta to trade to an alternate Max variation the maximum 9 is too little to possibly be a legitimate 757 substitution.

Delta can’t stand to forfeit the 757’s ability without the maximum 10 Delta would be compelled to arrange more a321 NEOS and in such a situation realize Boeing loses Delta totally to Airbus, in rundown, dropping the maximum 7 and Max 10 would harsh Boeing’s relationship with two critical clients simultaneously it would leave the A2 2300 and a321 Neo totally unchallenged on the lookout.

It is now obvious that Calhoun’s remarks were nothing more than a hollow threat; canceling the Maxes was never going to happen. Congress most likely recognized Calhoun’s threat for what it was and did not respond or otherwise respond to it. If Boeing’s threats were ineffective, why did Congress still grant the maximum a pass? Although Boeing made significant efforts to influence lawmakers and their position as a significant government contractor almost certainly helped them, lawmakers will ultimately cite three important factors to support their choice.

This is a win for consumers first and foremost. Travelers are currently suffering from exorbitant prices. Currently, fuel prices, which have been skyrocketing, have a strong correlation with the fair price. Price reductions will be possible sooner for airlines that are able to use newer, more effective aircraft like the Max. The Max 7 and 10 can complete flight testing more quickly thanks to the regulations’ exemption. Since there is no doubt that there is a pilot shortage among American carriers, this is good news for them.

Airlines would have been forced to remove their pilots from the cockpit in order to train them on the new variants as a result of the regulations, which would have complicated crew scheduling and made the shortage worse. Airlines won’t need to receive specialized training for the Max 7 and 10 in the future.

Because both of these reasons ultimately revolve around saving money—both for consumers and for airlines—I know you’re thinking that this is a recipe for disaster. After all, Boeing’s emphasis on cost-cutting was a major factor in the first two Max crashes. So why is Congress prioritizing money over safety? Well, that brings us to reason number three, which is the most contentious of them all. Congress granted the Max its exemption.

The new safety regulations passed by Congress may have good intentions, but they may backfire in the case of the max. The functionality of the 737 family’s cockpit is deeply ingrained in the minds of tens of thousands of Pilots worldwide because it has been around for such a very long time and has largely remained unchanged for decades. Since 737 pilots are so accustomed to flying them, there is a chance that ECAS could surprise and disorient them during an incident. Our brains can become confused when exposed to unexpected information or stimuli.

If each pilot flew only one type of aircraft, this could lead to problems because the pilots would not be familiar with the different planes. This would make it more difficult for them to know if their plane had emergency cockpit equipment (ECAS) and would also make it more dangerous for them. In contrast, if all the pilots flew the same type of aircraft, this would create a more familiar environment and would be safer for everyone.