[piadodjanho]

This is not the first time an airline rebrands an airplane due fearmongering after an accident.

The Fokker-100 was rebranded as MK-28 in Brazil after an accident (trust reverse deployed after take-off). The news reported every incident with the plane afterward. I remember my parents avoiding flights with Fokker-100. The MK-28, on the other hand, had a very good safety record.

[sailingparrot]

Is it appropriate to call this fearmongering when the issues are real (for the 737)?

[piadodjanho]

Yes. I think it is appropriate to call this fearmongering.

The planes with the faulty software are grounded and won't be flying until they new software is proven to be safe. The re-certification process will likely be stricter than usually is. Thus, any fear about flying in those planes are unjustified.

[boudin]

I wouldn't called this unjustified. The issue with the plane isn't just the software but the processes around its inception and certification.

"hey we released a new version of the software" is clearly not enough to gain back my trust. The only way this plane can be consider safe is for the whole plane to go through an external and independent audit to address all the other potential design flaws. The FTA certification processes should go through an external audit as well, any of the flaws should be addressed and retrospectively applied to this plane (and any other plane concerned).

[sailingparrot]

> Thus, any fear about flying in those planes are unjustified

No they aren't. Not until the new software is indeed proven to be safe, and a review of the Max program completed to ensure corners weren't cut elsewhere as well.

It will be fearmongering if all the above is done, and media are still trying to push fear. This is not the case today, so it's not fearmongering.

[piadodjanho]

I see your point. I think I might have failed to express my point of view clearly.

I was talking about reason Boeing chose to rebrand the 787-MAX.

[mike_ivanov]

This is NOT a software issue. It's a much deeper Boeing management issue which manifested (in this particular case) as a software issue. When the software issue is fixed, there is no guarantee that the underlying problem won't resurface in some other form.

[michaelt]

After Boeing made a dangerously faulty plane, Boeing wrongly tried to blame pilots for the first crash, and Boeing wrongly tried to blame pilots for the second crash, the fixed plane will surely be the safest plane in the sky.

You know what they say, lightning often strikes the same place three times, but never a fourth time. :)

[baq]

This Cell Tower in the Swiss Alps Is Struck by Lightning More Than 100 Times a Year

https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/energy/environment/an-of...

[salawat]

I'd contest that.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/airline-mechanics-feel-pressure...

Given that the remaining 737 non MAX aircraft should be good in theory, there are very concerning trends still rife in the aviation industry that are cause for concern.

For once, the bean counters need to take a back seat to those actually trying to do their jobs keeping people safe.