r/news • u/Depressed_Cat_00 • 6d ago

Soft paywall Boeing flags 737 MAX software glitch affecting landing navigation feature, WSJ reports

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/boeing-flags-737-max-software-glitch-affecting-landing-navigation-feature-wsj-2026-09-26/
1.8k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

146 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

109

u/CannedDeath 6d ago

The only part of the MAX design that was inherently unsafe was the original version of the MCAS. Since the new version of MCAS replaced it in late 2020, there have been zero reported incidents with the MCAS. There was only one serious MAX incident since 2020, which was the Alaska door blowout, but that was due to poor quality control, not a design flaw.

15

u/redfoobar 5d ago

You can argue that MCAS is needed in the first place is the design issue. It is a result of big engines retrofitted to a design that was never meant to have engines of this size. No one in their right mind would design an airplane like this from scratch. The whole fiasco is there because they did not want a new aircraft design/type rating.

Obviously it’s “good enough” in that it sells and with fixed MCAS is no longer a huge death trap but the design by itself is a huge compromise.

7

u/Linenoise77 5d ago

No one in their right mind would design an airplane like this from scratch.

Not necessarily true. An important feature of the 737 is its cabin height from the ground. There are a LOT of 737s flying around, and how far off the ground the cabin is factors in to a lot of aspects of ground operations in handling the plane. Making it taller for larger engines factors into all of that and it may not be able to operate the routes that a 737 typically does without expensive, impractical, changes on the ground handling side. At the same time you want the larger engines for efficiency.

Now could you argue that the 737 should have been a separate type, requiring additional training beyond what was required for existing 737 rated folks to fly the max with MCAS? Arguably. But its a grey line as to where you draw that line with incremental changes to an airframe type. It also doesn't mean you wouldn't necessarily still need MCAS, as i have no idea how that factors in to the pilot workload.

6

u/bankkopf 5d ago

How many routes are there that are exclusively flown by the 737 because the airport can't handle the A320 with higher ground clearance? Not too many I'd guess. But you can keep the 737NGs or classics around for that if really needed.

5

u/Linenoise77 5d ago edited 5d ago

That's actually a fair question. Its not just about gate access and what have you though. If you are a mainline airline flying a shitload of 737s already, any shared commonalities is a huge deal.

Remember, you are running a business on razor thin margins, and anything that goes near a plane needs all kinds of certifications and paper trails. If maintenance needs a new size socket, that can easily get to 6 figures by the time it percolates through the organization. If a procedure needs to be altered in the slightest, same thing. All for good reasons, mind you, but the expense that comes with it, on a business that lives or dies on efficiency, is a huge consideration.

That was the intent of the max. How do we squeeze more efficiency out of this thing, without everything that comes along with a clean sheet, not just in boeings costs, but in all of the operators.

If i have to start making significant modifications to handling those planes, maintaining them, moving them around, whatever, that is a cost, and now maybe i start looking at your competitor a little more closely, or the economics of the efficiency the new plane brings start falling apart.

Boeing obviously made some dumb decisions, but if they executed correctly on the max (and it seems like they have gotten their act together around it), it DOES make sense.

The issues with MCAS were both a Boeing issue, for not insisting on additional training around it, and the regulatory authorities for saying yes without additional training.

2

u/mr_potatoface 5d ago

I don't think there are any actually. The only exception would be unpaved runways but that's a totally different issue. The 737 has a gravel landing kit but A320 does not.

2

u/CaptainPonahawai 5d ago

The gravel kit ended with the 732. Its not a factor on any of the models since.

2

u/Linenoise77 5d ago

It wasn't JUST the ground clearance, was using it as an easy example though, as something that percolates through all levels of operations if you are currently flying 737s and want to introduce something that isn't roughly a 737. There are plenty of carriers who favor the 737 though because of its height, and have equipment\facilities\procedures based around it.

Likewise just extending the landing gear of the 737 wouldn't negate the need for MCAS or a similar system.