HomePeople & BlogsRelated VideosMore From: Mentour Pilot

Will the MAX fly again?!

14877 ratings | 486553 views
Join my Patreon Crew 👉🏻 https://www.patreon.com/mentourpilot Will the grounded Boeing 737MAX ever fly again? Now that Boeing has announced that they will stop the MAX production-line, will they ever bother to open it up again? Should they? In todays video I will be explaining something that hasn't gotten much attention or explanations in the media so far. The fact that the Boeing 737MAX is NOT an unstable aircraft. I feel that there is time for a bit of deeper understanding about where the REAL problems lie here and that everyone needs to understand those problems, before they can cast a judgement. As always, I would love to hear your thoughts about the video. You can comment on here in the comments field or Join my crew in the Mentour Aviation app, you will find the FREE download links below 👇 📲https://www.mentourpilot.com/apps/ To follow my life on Instagram, use the link below: 📲https://www.instagram.com/mentour_pilot A huge ¨Thank you!¨to the featured channels in todays video! Use the links below to see the full, awesome versions of the videos: Boeing (Boeing 737MAX display flight) https://youtu.be/1XEsSRqnOwc Boeing (KC46 tanker) https://youtu.be/jOv3oAajtsA Sam Chui (How the MAX is built) https://youtu.be/LMCZh_alN7U KING 5 (MAX parking) https://youtu.be/hwejf6Yb3tA https://youtu.be/46InmJexzYg
Category: People & Blogs
Get embed code!
Text Comments (6425)
Alicia Truglio (15 hours ago)
stab trim sw in front of their faces
m3c43 (22 hours ago)
What u said really confirmed the max is unstable without the mcas.
Rokas (1 day ago)
build in 1960sts it might be just about time to use the 60 years of knowledge to make something safer...
Smith Js (1 day ago)
If they still call it 737 max with not much else change then ppl are going to have problem flying it
Leonid Saykin (1 day ago)
Why can't they just lift the new aircraft gear up?
Richard Wills-Woodward (1 day ago)
I will never fly on a 737 MAX. One accident is too many. Two? Well... The family of the people that died should have seen those responsible in prison. It is manslaughter at best.
Malee B (2 days ago)
I will never fly in one once they are back in service. If airline info on model is not forthcoming I will choose another airline using airbus or other Boing types. This model is doomed. And the safety guarantees not trusted anymore. As member of the public I am shocked that you give us so little credit. We can easily see the difference between a 737 and other planes, but maibe not among 737s. So if it is reintroduced it will likely take all other 737 down with it. I advise any airline never to reintroduce them into their fleet. I am sure a lot of Boing whistleblowers with concerns on 737 safety over the years will feel vindicated. Shame on Boing. It should never be allowed to recover under the same flawed business model, nor the AAA..
Archieballz, The Raging Gamer (3 days ago)
Personally I will never fly a Max or any plane in the future that has MCAS. Not because of the accidents it has caused, but because Boeing was so willing to throw safety for human lives out the window. If they used the Mcas as a quick fix, where else did they gimp?
Bilacus (3 days ago)
The 737 Max has to be the mother of all lessons for Boeing. “If it is a 737 Max Boeing I ain’t going”. That plane is finished. Pay up and move on.
Michael Talbot (3 days ago)
The issue about pax saying they won't get on a max is mute as you are not offered a choice how ever look at the sorry story of the dehavaland commet this knock back could be a rout cause of Boeings undoing especially with air bus looking to unveil their blended weng aircraft at the singapour airshow... This type of aircraft is the future and look at how the A320 accelerated past the837
Michael Talbot (3 days ago)
It's not just about the avionics thr manufacturers put in it in order to assist operating and maintaining it throughout its lifr cycle... Boeing decided to out sourse the manufacturing of large sections of the fuselage to a sub contractor how ever the sub contractor did not adhere to the method layed down by boeing, Se the aljesira docu. Entry on a wing and a prayer. When this was noted by the Boeing assembly lin they wher stopped from raising a noncompliance report, giving the impression that profits come before safety and so th FAA didn't have their attention drawn to it. The up shoy being the Boeing are selling som aircraft that are not built exactly to the certification originally filed by boeing.
Jose Gonzalez (3 days ago)
Never getting on a max.
1979Olitsch (4 days ago)
Probably going for a new typerating directly after the last accident would have saved a lot of costs. Then they wouldn't have to tinker with MCAS because it would just not be needed.
Emperor Jahrome (4 days ago)
Good hard working innocent people lost their lives, children and family members and friends over this shit. How is this not already in the supreme court of justice and over already? Enoughs enough cos limits. :/ These families deserve more than compensation! They deserve justice. The world is watching.
Christopher Willis (4 days ago)
737 just pulling a DC10. Eventually, no one cared, but for a time they got grounded hardcore. Almost a similar kind of tail, economic pressures forced a rethink of how to deploy a system that was previously stable.
Chris Gibb (4 days ago)
I have really enjoyed your channel up until now but in this video you sound like a second-hand salesman for Boeing.
narabdela (5 days ago)
Sorry Mentour Pilot, but your assertion that most people don't know or care what make of aircraft they're flying in, is patronising nonsense.
ROBERT R Penny (5 days ago)
MP thanks for your opinion on the Max issues. I think you're a bit easy on Boeing since they messed up pretty good on this but I do hope they can get it flying again since in general they make nice stuff. I liked your video for passenger flying / landing a B737 using AP and ILS. Next time both pilots jump out of one I think I'm ready to go. Haha ., Bob.
staffan144 (5 days ago)
Incredibly dangerous (and stupid) by Boing to do this. What? Proceeding with a non-optimal design to begin with, just in order to lower the costs and to 'save' time. If they wanted bigger, more efficient engines that didn't fit their existent airplanes, they should obviously have designed a new optimised airplane for it, not make stupid compromises, such as placing the engines in the wrong, non-optimal positions, just in order to be able to fit the new engines to the old airplane design. What were they thinking? And these airplanes are supposed to fly for 40 (?) years. They should have made them good airplanes to begin with, and the placement of the engines, which obviously are a very important part of the airplane and its airodynamics, should never need to be compromised like that.
Appable (1 day ago)
Lots of things are non-optimal in aircraft design. Saving money is a completely reasonable reason to select a non-optimal design. The problem is adding new systems which fail very dangerously, not aircraft design overall
WTH! (5 days ago)
if its for the feelings only then why not jusr remove the mcas now
Maglev Rabbit (5 days ago)
I think you will find that the reason MCAS was not attached to both alpha vanes is that this would have created the impression with the FAA that this was a safety of flight critical system. In turn this would have forced pilots to be made aware of it, and then would have necessitated re training of the pilots, something Boeing wanted to avoid at all costs.
xKuFsE (7 days ago)
nope idc if they will fix it, i am not going to hop on a 737-max, when i have other options.
Alonso Valera (7 days ago)
I will never fly on a Boing 727 Max because I do not trust Boing
Full Greys0n (7 days ago)
I fly only with Airbus.
Chronically Me (8 days ago)
I know I'm not a normal passenger, I like to know which plane I'm on, but I also rarely book my own flights, so I don't usually know the plane before getting a ticket. I have noticed since the grounding of the 737MAX I haven't been on as many Boeing planes in general. I think this hurts Boeing and the FAA's credibility globally. And I can't say I disagree with that hit.
James Berlo (8 days ago)
The Key is to Decisive the Public. No Aircraft (other than Military) should be dependant on "Software" for any critical Function, especially one that cant be overridden / disabled.
Pete Miller (8 days ago)
I am actually hesitant to fly any Boeing. This is what happens when MBA's and accountants make life threatening decisions that should be performed by engineers. Makes you wonder what other issues exist on other planes that are swept under the rug by bean counters. First it was the 787 burning batteries, and now the Max. Their rockets can't compete with SpaceX, looks like Boeing is a second class company in an industry that requires first class engineering.
Appable (1 day ago)
Boeing doesn't make rockets.
AIRDAM1 (8 days ago)
NO Its reputation has been trashed. people are not interested in there explanations
David James (8 days ago)
Great explanation thanks MP
xevious2501 (8 days ago)
mmm i dont think so.. As a pilot, you have the confidence that After all the checks and certifications with the aircraft that it will be ok to fly. YOu are familiar with the core of the industry, THe passengers are not!. All they know is that two planes crashed and its been months if not a year that the plane has been grounded and that many other issues were discovered not just with the aircraft but moreso with the truth behind the production of the aircraft, the flaws in the company's manufacturing communications pipeline. Many of Boeing employees have whistlebown on the companies issues. as such, IF you have a number of passengers refusing to fly and that action gets momentum from other concerned passengers, eventually it creates a snowball effect. The airlines will take a major hit until a decent amount of time has passed with the plane in service.
Slashley gibbins (9 days ago)
Can’t they just remove the software and train the pilots the new characteristics of the plane?
Graeme Whaley (9 days ago)
The problem isn't that the aircraft is unstable. The problem is that it happened TWICE. That's unacceptable.
Cosmo Medici (9 days ago)
First three minutes begging money..
Greg1 McIntosh (10 days ago)
No matter how you justify 737 Max, overall the evolution of airplane design should be in the direction of increasing safety. The new design reduces the margin of error and the plane's tolerance to variability across the gambit of pilots globally. Therefore, no matter how much you rationalize it, I believe these planes should remain grounded and the program aborted. .
My NewPhone (10 days ago)
No MCAS. I dont belive you that it is a safe aircraft. Less computer control is a beter answer.
My NewPhone (10 days ago)
Why cant they extend the landing gear to lift the plane higher off the ground and move the engines back so the weight is distributed properly. No MCAS shd be allowed to correect the bad design. Its better than scrapping the whole lot which they must do b4 I get on one.
Johnny (10 days ago)
They just uncovered more software problems with the Max... and on a closely related story. Boeings Starliner was moments from disaster -- yep Software problems. Boeing is a joke! Do not fly any of their new planes, clearly they are incompetent builders.
Leong Phil (10 days ago)
Oh I see now.....well explained!
joanneC0 (10 days ago)
The DC10 lost the public's confidence - why will the 737 Max be different?
plan pitz (10 days ago)
Sorry, but there is a bit of pilot arrogance showing through!People are now well aware of the shape of the 737 max with the stupid low and forward hung engine nacelles nearly scraping the tarmac .Boeing with its other weise glorious aeronautical history should feel ashamed and scrap the 50 year old 737,collaborate with new asset Embraer and develop a new airplane.Maybe after 17 Years it is time to get yourself a new type rating my friend .
California Dreaming (10 days ago)
In general, hardware needs to be bullet proof. Naturally nothing complicated can be perfect but hardware must be close. It is VERY dangerous to use software to compensate for hardware flaws. After all, let’s say the plane fully loses power. It happens and sometimes pilots have been able to treat a plane as a glider and still safely land. If the plane loses power the software won’t help you. So in my opinion, if the 737 could have enough hardware changes to make it safe in that way then do it. If it can’t and it would always require software help the idea should be scrapped. (I’ve used a similar argument with the hardware bugs in modern-day CPUs. There are at least two bugs in the hardware that are severe; I guess that one process can read the memory space of another which is a huge security flaw. Companies such as Microsoft have created OS patches and BIOS/UEFI changes to “fix” it but this should be short term. All next version CPUs must fix the bugs in hardware. Naturally then, when the BIOS or OS boots up it could detect whether the bug exists or not in the CPU and if it does, run one branch; if not run another. That way the code is safe AND the computer will run as fast as it should since the software “fixes” really degrade performance. Then eventually all CPUs would be gold and the software fixes could be deprecated, then removed.)
ca Amezh (11 days ago)
Dumbasses. All the money saved by not redesigning the airplane gone out the window. Plus the reputation which is priceless. A great lesson in life.
leosedf (11 days ago)
It will fly again, but will be renamed to 737 YOLO.
Adam Mala (11 days ago)
I love these comments: Why did two Boeing aircraft crash, costing Boeing an estimated $9.2 Billion? Answer: They wanted PROFITS! If you don't see the irony you're beyond help.
born levensregt (11 days ago)
Hey, we're not stupid.... If an airline puts in a 737max we will know, for it is displayed. And so we can say: No Way.
Morgan Svensson (11 days ago)
Sorry mate. I will NEVER fly a Boeing in the future.I don't trust the COMPANY (The 737 MAX isn't the issue anymore). To me Boeing is the new (BOAC) and the 737 MAX is their De Havilland DH 106 Comet. They removed their large square windows but people still didn't trust them and finally they had to merge with BEA to survive. The same or worth likely going to happen to Boeing. This time people going to notice the aircraft and the maker. Trust is a rare commodity. You either have it or you don´t. Boeing don´t anymore. Sorry! Small mistake is okay but to engineer a system so badly that the pilot can't recover it no matter what - That's way over the line.
Morgan Svensson (10 days ago)
@Robert Connor I guess Trump would be happy to give his friend Putin this gift. 😉 (But no) It's all about trust and a russian company always going to have problems in that department. I have had my worst nightmares in russian aircrafts. I really don't think I would trust a russian company in this political climate. To me; Boeing's only way back is to (ones again?!) be the safest manufacturer in the world. (Brand themself as the manufacturer who NEVER takes shortcuts even if it cost a lot of money and take long time to develop the best solutions.)
Robert Connor (10 days ago)
@Morgan Svensson Well, how big is it compared to the Russian UAC United Aircraft Corporation, what one video called "Russian Airbus"? See they come out with that new MC 21 jet airliner that looks like an Airbus and competes against 737 MAX. Now, who cares about Russians normally, but with all those MAX issues I am sure some airlines must be looking at having that plane in their fleet, I would be. Boeing is not worried about Airbus, but I it would be sad for our nation if Boeing were beat by those Ruskies building MC 21.
Morgan Svensson (10 days ago)
@Robert Connor Not to my knowledge. Together they formed The British Airways. Today that airline company is a part of the third largest airline alliance (Oneworld) together with American Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Qantas and Canadian Airlines. (Not a manufacturer?!.) But they do have had and still have some part of the The aerospace industry of the United Kingdom. (A company who also had a part in the development of the Comet).Quite big company really. The fourth largest national aerospace industry in the world and the third largest in Europe. (Manufacturer of the wings to Airbus A330, A340, A380 among a lot of other parts.) I don´t know if it is that coop-company you referring to?!
Robert Connor (10 days ago)
But then, didn't Dehavilland and BEA eventually merge to form: Airbus?
ODDBALL SOK (12 days ago)
no, noooo, noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
oumadmike1 (12 days ago)
Great explanation! thank you!
david thompson (12 days ago)
Fly Airbus.
Nu Pagadii (12 days ago)
It is not only Boeing cot with dropped pants but also FAA. In the competing World (Trade War) now, each country might need to re-certify it before the actual purchase. EU countries are already saying so.....
Brittany Ruggiero (12 days ago)
Honestly, I won’t board that plane
Michael O'Malley (12 days ago)
Are you sure you didnt a litle something from Boeing?
Dog House (12 days ago)
Imagine if you will.....buying a new car for your family. This car is computer controlled, has a huge HP engine and rear wheel drive. The only way to drive this car is by using the cruise control button on/off set/resume. Turn the key, push the pedal to get out to the road.......and then start using the cruise control only to move the car forward. You could probably do this, for a while, until you leave it set on 65 accidentally and then push resume when you reach 30 mph. When that computer grabs that pedal from you to get to 65,....you are on a hell ride. Depending on the road conditions, despite all of your years behind the wheel, the computer now controls your car. No extra training, no safety stickers, nothing, just you trying to figure out WTF is going on before you crash. The 737 Max will NEVER carry another human passenger, and if it does, I wouldn't get on it.
Bjørn Engebretsen (12 days ago)
I will fly with the Max again. No problem.
B9Bot 1 (12 days ago)
I think all pilots should be simulator certified on each Airplane they fly so they know every safety system.
James Wheeler (13 days ago)
I wont fly on a max
James Wheeler (13 days ago)
Not Boings fault lol
James Wheeler (13 days ago)
So if your not put through training for every new craft. You will fly nose down into the ground?????
Ajay Kaushik (13 days ago)
I will never fly in 737 MAX, its a proven flying coffin.
Hector App (13 days ago)
This was not just a problem for two crashed planes ... these issues were reportedly almost daily ...not just to Boeing and FAA ...but NTSB .... and they didn`t do anything !
Hector App (13 days ago)
Doggie: oooohhhh once again ... let me sleep ! Besides ... Boeing is shit !
Doug Berry (13 days ago)
Is it that big a deal for Boeing to re-engineer the landing gear so the 737 would have a higher ground clearance thus allowing the larger engine to be installed in the same location as the 800 or 900. When you look at what this has cost Boeing it should have been done. I’m obviously not an aeronautical engineer and maybe I’m simplifying this too much. It just make sense to me to raise the fuselage.
John R (13 days ago)
And furthermore, most people don't care because they trust that American Corporations would do the right thing. It's not that they are dumb (necessarily), just grossly MISINFORMED.
John R (13 days ago)
MCAS triggered by SINGLE sensor to avoid expensive Level D Training...this is beyond belief that you would engineer such a fragile system for such a critical component of a flight system that override pilot inputs...are you kidding me?? It's criminal and you know it - QUIT defending them and just don't talk about it if it affects your job ( to not kiss their criminal asses).
Jovan Janevski (13 days ago)
People would buy rat poison flavoured cookies and be happy about it, if they're cheap enough.
Phaedra (13 days ago)
Shouldn't pilots be informed of all automated systems that directly actuate the flight controls?! I can understand that if the software makes it fly the same, then pilots might not need simulator time, but they should be informed of this new system and what it does. Right?! (My understanding is that the pilots did not even know about it.) Are there other automated flight control systems that the pilots don't know of and/or cannot turn off?
Levente Sebő (13 days ago)
2:55 The problem lies in when you want to win the race with the least effort possible.
Murali Balaraman (14 days ago)
I think the overall problem is being overlooked. If there wasn’t an FAA clampdown max would be in the air and we would have seen more blood. When we get into an aircraft we put our life into an airlines and pilots hands. The fact of the matter is the crashes happened without the pilot being aware of MCAS and we saved one crash with somebody having the knowledge inside the aircraft preventing the disaster. To me Boeing needs to be penalised and understand that lesson painfully. I would look at this argument to grounding the Max permanently.
Kamalnath Kanthimathinathan (14 days ago)
To put it bluntly, slling an essential safety feature as an option (for extra cash of course) made all this backlashes...
Bien Nho (14 days ago)
I think it will. It's just a software problem, not a design one. And Boeing is an old and experienced aerospace company.:-)
Holger S (14 days ago)
reading a lot of the comments here just highlights the fact that a lot of people are, well, clueless and just run with the urban myths and scare mongering, right down to stupid and nonsensical comments!
Michelle Faith (14 days ago)
My heart is with you in all you do in creating your dreams in your career ❤
MrJokkoma (14 days ago)
I have a bit hard to believe how it could be easier to move the engines forward and upwards on the wings rather than put higher landing gears and make the extra place for these in the fuselage. At least that may have spared them the need of mcas in the first place.
Ken Surrency (14 days ago)
It’s not so much this airplane specifically I worry about, it’s the culture within Boeing that led to these disasters. If they don’t fix that, there will be more disasters.
James Dobson (15 days ago)
The difference People who love building planes, building planes. v people who love building self interest building planes.
slyr1 (15 days ago)
To get the the consumers trust back they will need a all new design. And yes we understand what they did they took an old design and made a new bigger more efficient ENGINE FIT, NO NO NO WHY SO THEY CAN SAVE MONEY. As far as I am concern they KILLED those people because of MONEY!!!!!!!!!!! NEW PLANE is needed......
chris malcomson (15 days ago)
The easy way to get round peoples reluctance to fly the max, is to change its name, which is probably what they'll do..
2 Moons (15 days ago)
This is some serious sugar coating though. I totally respect your opinion and insight but that does not get down to the nitty gritty of it at all.
Giorgos Malfas (15 days ago)
"...haven't really underSTOOD..."
i minabrons (15 days ago)
If no-one wants to fly on these planes who re-imburses the airlines for the planes they cannot use?
ZimmMr (15 days ago)
Don't you think the 737max will be out of date by the time it is certified? You know, with the 787-9 , 777x, 797 rolling out soon... Maybe it won't be worth starting the 737max up again... Just a thought
Eduardo Aenlle (15 days ago)
You are betting on public ignorance that they are flying this aircraft?
Dario Botkuljak (15 days ago)
You are downplaying the fact that Max is unstable because of a too big and heavy engine which tilted the balance of a plane. It is a physics that made this plane unmanageable, not the software.
Dario Botkuljak (12 days ago)
@KiriyaAoi yes, I did, as well as the other documentaries and reports about Max 737. If the problems regarding 737 were just a software issue, how come that the planes are still grounded and no one knows when and if they will fly again?
KiriyaAoi (12 days ago)
Did you even watch the video? he explains that it's perfectly stable- it just acts slightly differently and has a tendency to nose up a bit more than the NG 737 did.
john butler (15 days ago)
if it was just a software problem it would have been sorted by now.
basic problem of MAX is the nacelle's geometry which produces an undesired NACELLE BODY LIFT which is positioned forward of CG..
Michael E (15 days ago)
Not being able to tell the difference between a 747 and a Concorde-UNRULY PASSENGER-get him off my 737 ASAP!
Samjai Sam (16 days ago)
So you think Boeing should still develop a brand new single-aisle aircraft even after fixing the Max's issue?
john bozo (12 days ago)
I refuse to fly in a 737Max aircraft. Sadly, it appears that Boeing has been behaving like Enron. Enron too thought it was smarter than its customers (in Boeing's case "public won't care what plane its in") and its regulators (in this case the FAA).
Steve Kirk (16 days ago)
A very interesting perspective from the sharp end of commercial aviation. As the details slowly emerge this is a shocking indictment of Boeing and the FFA - a betrayal of the integrity of the engineers - profit before integrity. I agree, the Max will fly again - Boeing (and therefore the USA) cannot afford for it to fail. Lessons need to be learnt though - the crashes were totally avoidable - engineers were not listened to. MCAS was/is a dogs' breakfast designed to hide a desperate engineering in response to Airbus. It could work if properly implemented but surely, the aircrew have the right to know it exists and what it is supposed to do so they have a chance of dealing with it. Cutting out simulator training to save money was indefensible. Flying has become the safest form of transport due to regulation and investigation - the Max scandle has to be transparently investigated to maintain this.
SOY UN BANANO (16 days ago)
Ho No hopefully it comes back, I remember to follow the 737 MAX program since 2012 , and it was a gorgeous looking plane
rwilson (17 days ago)
I think we should encourage the public to know & find out what they are flying on. After the 2 Max crashes, I made sure the Max was still grounded & my flights were on other models. Also I dont think the flying public is so stupid they can't see the difference (@13:58) between a 747 and a Concorde (or a Lincoln and a Corvette).
Michael [MagnumMike44] S. (17 days ago)
It will be tough for Boeing to regain the public's confidence in the 737-MAX, I think Boeing, the FAA and the airlines who have the 737-MAX variants in their fleets will have to reassure passengers that the aircraft is safe and that could only be proven by putting MCAS software engineers, Boeing engineers, Boeing executives, and FAA officials aboard the aircraft and fly it, mainly in the take-off and landing phases. It is unfortunate that Boeing and the FAA, in their efforts to sell the 737-MAX to airlines, rushed the certification process of the aircraft without fully taking into account that flight crews will need additional training for the MCAS system. It's also a shame that those 2 accidents have put doubts in the reputation of Boeing and one of their best aircraft. I also hope all the entities will resolve the issues in the MCAS on the 737-MAX.
Michael [MagnumMike44] S. (17 days ago)
LOL.. I love the captions that were placed over Patxy. :-)
AK Max Flights (18 days ago)
It may return to flight, but it will never "recover"
Kenneth Black (18 days ago)
The 737 max is a coffin on wings.
Cobalt (18 days ago)
Not everyone is a pop music enthusiast, but most people know Michael Jackson. Not everyone is a plane enthusiast, but most know the 737 MAX. My point is, once the MAX is approved, you can bet your ass people will make sure they won't be on one. It's not just about "now we think it's safe," but it's about punishing Boeing so Boeing or any other plane manufacture will NEVER make this mistake again.
Jeff in TD (19 days ago)
I would bet many airline executives, after spending huge money on aircraft that have been grounded, would be be reluctant to order more MAX planes, and maybe cancel existing orders, or even avoid Boing.
Philip O'Carroll (19 days ago)
9:13 "because this such a low impact system they don't really need to tell the pilots" Hearing this from a pilot is astounding to me. A system capable of moving the horizontal stabilizer, governed by a non-redundant sensor, which could not be disabled, was kept secret from the pilots and you think this is OK? How can you say the plane is safe and stable when Boeing have done this? Are you 100% certain nothing else has been hidden?
KiriyaAoi (12 days ago)
He was simply explaining Boeing's logic behind it.
Alan Daniel (19 days ago)
So they put that shit heap back in the sky and it crashes again then what? I will never set foot in that junk
Test Pirate (19 days ago)
This video is the most educated and accurate public explanation that I’ve ever come across. Thank you for your very accurate insight. It is unfortunate yet obvious why the general public has the opinion they do. Everyone is an expert on social media and it’s nauseating, the “engineers” comments are some of the most ridiculous. I love Boeing no more than I love the pair of socks I’m wearing today. Appreciate the factual information, it’s very difficult to spend any time on social media with the moronic uneducated opinions floating around about the actual facts of this aircraft and the situation it’s in. You are the better man being able to interact and patiently respond to your followers and or the comments posted. Keep up the good work 🤝