News Forum - Singapore approves Boeing 737 MAX for return to service

[Thaiger]

Singapore’s aviation regulator announced today it will approve the return to service for the Boeing 737 MAX. The aircraft had been grounded for 2 years following 2 fatal crashes. The approval is owed to operators, such as Singapore Airlines complying with airworthiness directives and extra flight crew training requirements, says the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore. The city state’s approval follows the aircraft’s return to service in the US and Europe. The approval also comes on the heels of the removal of grounding orders in other countries in the Asia-Pacific region, such as Australia, Japan, and India. China, the largest […]

The post Singapore approves Boeing 737 MAX for return to service appeared first on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

[Guevara]

Beautiful Airline but I'll chose my flights to avoid flying on this potential death trap. FAA and Boeing have very nice brown envelopes.

[Disenfranchised]

Fly by wire aircraft belong to fighter pilots not airline pilots i.e. flies like a packing crate if an error occurs.

[BraveNewFahrenheit]

1 hour ago, Guevara said:

. FAA and Boeing have very nice brown envelopes.

Wait until you hear about the FDA and CDC!

[BraveNewFahrenheit]

32 minutes ago, Disenfranchised said:

Fly by wire aircraft belong to fighter pilots not airline pilots i.e. flies like a packing crate if an error occurs.

Have had fly by wire and FADEC for over 50 years, its all pretty safe with lots of redundancy.

[Guest1]

3 hours ago, Guevara said:

Beautiful Airline but I'll chose my flights to avoid flying on this potential death trap. FAA and Boeing have very nice brown envelopes.

The 737 of 'Singapore Airlines' are mostly in Silk Air. Right now, only the 'NG' is officially in the SA fleet, the Max are only listed in Silk Air fleet. 

So let's hope that stays that way!

[Guevara]

1 hour ago, Guest1 said:

The 737 of 'Singapore Airlines' are mostly in Silk Air. Right now, only the 'NG' is officially in the SA fleet, the Max are only listed in Silk Air fleet. 

So let's hope that stays that way!

Couldn't agree more.

[Alavan]

1 hour ago, Guest1 said:

The 737 of 'Singapore Airlines' are mostly in Silk Air. Right now, only the 'NG' is officially in the SA fleet, the Max are only listed in Silk Air fleet. 

So let's hope that stays that way!

Correct me if I am wrong, but is the Singapore-Phuket flight not by Silk Air?
What about the Singapore-BKK?

[Cathat]

21 minutes ago, Alavan said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but is the Singapore-Phuket flight not by Silk Air?
What about the Singapore-BKK?

Silk air no longer exists.

It's been absorbed into the Singapore airlines brand.

It was always a subsidiary of Singapore airlines anyway.

If you take a Singapore airlines flight via Singapore your chances of taking a ride in the max for the leg to or from Singapore are quite high.

Quite a few folk will probably not be very happy about this.

Bear in mind the max is now probably  the most inspected civil aircraft ever to fly and has now been certified as safe to fly by most of the world's leading civil aviation authorities.

 

[Guest1]

10 hours ago, Cathat said:

 

It's been absorbed into the Singapore airlines brand.

 

I missed that one! So not only 'you' have to be careful now, not to book a connection, where one leg is done with Silk, now you can't book any connecting flight with SA, that is done in the region. Unless, at least, it is certainly a 737 800 NG flight. What a hassle.

[PatrickSatoLee]

737 MAX should be the safest now since it is the most inspected, ahem. 

[Cathat]

9 hours ago, PatrickSatoLee said:

737 MAX should be the safest now since it is the most inspected, ahem. 

Given the corporate structure at Boeing has been radically changed and how the FAA certifying an airliner has been completely overhauled means yes it should be the safest civil aircraft to fly in to date.

Many of the world's major airlines and civil aviation authorities also think the same thing.

The aircraft has been under a lot of microscopes worldwide and has been substantially modified as have crew training requirements.

That all adds up to it should be a super safe aircraft to fly in.

Ultimately only time will tell.

 

[bushav8r]

I think Boeing has cleverly renamed the 737 MAX to 737-8.  

[colinneil]

6 hours ago, Cathat said:

Given the corporate structure at Boeing has been radically changed and how the FAA certifying an airliner has been completely overhauled means yes it should be the safest civil aircraft to fly in to date.

Many of the world's major airlines and civil aviation authorities also think the same thing.

The aircraft has been under a lot of microscopes worldwide and has been substantially modified as have crew training requirements.

That all adds up to it should be a super safe aircraft to fly in.

Ultimately only time will tell.

Given the lies, untruths told by Boeing i would never want to fly in one of them, they can change the name, change what ever but, many buts.

American FAA colluded with Boeing, helped cover up many things, yes it should be safe now, but, but ,but.

[KaptainRob]

1 minute ago, colinneil said:

Given the lies, untruths told by Boeing i would never want to fly in one of them, they can change the name, change what ever but, many buts.

American FAA colluded with Boeing, helped cover up many things, yes it should be safe now, but, but ,but.

I agree.  Add in the fact the aircraft is inherently unstable by it's physical design and one has to ask, 'what if' ... there's a computer failure? ... pitot/sensors iced up?

One of Boeings past strengths was built-in redundancy, the 747 for example designed for military use, could be flown by hand quite readily in an emergency as indeed it was a few times.

Singapore Airlines has an impeccable record for maintenance and safety so I'd feel reasonable comfortable doing short hops in their 737-8's.  Otherwise I will prefer an NG or A320.

[JamesE]

10 minutes ago, KaptainRob said:

One of Boeings past strengths was built-in redundancy, the 747 for example designed for military use, could be flown by hand quite readily in an emergency as indeed it was a few times.

The Max is one of the Designed by Accountants airplanes, so redundancy is removed from the specs to save money. But, on the bright side, there are no modern planes out there with a physical connection between the yoke (or more prevalently, joystick) and the flight control surfaces. It's all fly-by-wire with the intermediary being the onboard computers.

BTW - the "why is the Max so unstable" question is very interesting and well worth looking up.

[KaptainRob]

8 minutes ago, JamesE said:

BTW - the "why is the Max so unstable" question is very interesting and well worth looking up.

The 'experts' will quote "stable within it's design parameters" or similar which is correct otherwise the FAA would never have recertified it. But ....

[bushav8r]

13 minutes ago, KaptainRob said:

I agree.  Add in the fact the aircraft is inherently unstable by it's physical design and one has to ask, 'what if' ... there's a computer failure? ... pitot/sensors iced up?

One of Boeings past strengths was built-in redundancy, the 747 for example designed for military use, could be flown by hand quite readily in an emergency as indeed it was a few times.

Singapore Airlines has an impeccable record for maintenance and safety so I'd feel reasonable comfortable doing short hops in their 737-8's.  Otherwise I will prefer an NG or A320.

A320 is an interesting choice.

First Airbus A320 Crash - French Air show - YouTube

The pilot was doing a low pass and when he tried to overshoot the plane wouldn't let him apply power.  It decided he was landing and didn't need more power.  

Note:   I just checked for verification of this, and there is some controversy.  It may have been due to pilot error.  The pilot actually ended up in jail.

The sad thing is that most people simply look for the lowest price when they select a flight.  An airlines safety record or choice of aircraft rarely enters their minds.  

I agree with you and will try to avoid a 737-8 in any future travels.

 

 

 

[AussieBob]

When, and only when, Qantas adds 737-MAX to its fleet, will I fly in one of those planes knowingly. Qantas has the 737-800, but did not go with the 737-MAX. No reason published, but there is an obvious conclusion. 

Still - when the airline industry fixes something, they tend to fix it properly. Boeing HAD to fix the 737-MAX otherwise they would have been in serious trouble - orders already delivered, and many more orders were put on hold - a total refund and/or supply of another aircraft was not a viable option.

Me thinks that like Qantas, I will watch and wait for a few years before knowingly booking a flight.  Yet another reason to stick with Qantas - especially after the pandemic - the extra cost is worth it. 

[Thomazz59]

Let's just all go back to riding horse..  Reverse Global warming!

[gummy]

17 minutes ago, Thomazz59 said:

Let's just all go back to riding horse..  Reverse Global warming!

Glad you mentioned that 

https://thehorse.com/116412/does-horses-waste-help-or-hinder-the-environment/#:~:text=An average horse produces 20.7,lactating dairy cow%2C he said.

[JamesE]

44 minutes ago, KaptainRob said:

The 'experts' will quote "stable within it's design parameters" or similar which is correct otherwise the FAA would never have recertified it. But ....

Said parameters including a fully functional computer.

[gummy]

6 minutes ago, JamesE said:

Said parameters including a fully functional computer.

I think if another one of those planes crashes you will see Boeing shares nosedive to the point of bankruptcy. 

[bushav8r]

22 minutes ago, gummy said:

Glad you mentioned that 

https://thehorse.com/116412/does-horses-waste-help-or-hinder-the-environment/#:~:text=An average horse produces 20.7,lactating dairy cow%2C he said.

Nice image at beginning of article to see while eating.   555

[gummy]

Just now, bushav8r said:

Nice image at beginning of article to see while eating.   555

Guess dinner time for you, rather than a munchy breakfast for us. Anyway a few items of discussion to kick around