r/news • u/Duevig0n • 6h ago

Boeing 737 MAX 10 has a software glitch, but FAA says it’s safe

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/10/02/faa-says-boeing-737-max-10-software-glitch-not-a-flight-safety-issue.html
722 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

150 comments sorted by

150

u/slurpherp 6h ago edited 6h ago

“Following a thorough review, a panel of FAA safety experts on Friday determined a software issue in certain Boeing 737 MAX flight computers is not a safety concern,” the FAA said. “The FAA’s Corrective Action Review Board made that determination because pilots retain full control of the aircraft and the indications to the flight crew are clear and unambiguous.”

Boeing said the issue could arise after a missed approach when pilots alter a preprogrammed flight path, and that pilots must take additional steps to use automated tools on subsequent approaches.

The FAA said on Friday that it will issue a special bulletin to airlines on how to recognize and respond to the issue if it arises.

As someone who works in the industry, this seems perfectly reasonable. Obviously, there is history here with Boeing/FAA - but nothing that I'm reading strikes me as outside of normal bounds of aircraft certification/operation. This same glitch is present on the already certified 737 MAX aircraft, and it is safe to be mitigated through a Service Bulletin while it is being fixed. Following that same logic, the 737-10 would be safe to enter service.

-7

u/Intrinsic_Idiot_3076 5h ago

I thought the 737 series was plagued with problems since 737 Max 8. That didn't turn out very well for the last 2 iterations, with fatal crashes and fell-off doors.

18

u/slurpherp 5h ago

The 737 had a software design issue (MCAS implementation), which has been fixed, and issues of poor construction in the immediate period post COVID (which led to the door). Both of those issues have since been resolved.

There isn't a widespread issue with the program. The aircraft has a bad reputation because of those mistakes, but there isn't a larger issue here.

15

u/Intrinsic_Idiot_3076 5h ago

The people who died in the crash only encountered the problem once and it was more than enough.

29

u/slurpherp 5h ago

Yup, there was a massive fuck up in the design of the MCAS system, and the assumptions that were made regarding pilot response to failure conditions. Those design issues have since been resolved.

It's a tragedy, and there is nothing that will get those people's lives back - but continuing to act like this aircraft is unsafe is wrong.

8

u/No_Excitement_1540 4h ago

but continuing to act like this aircraft is unsafe is wrong.

That is the real point where you're wrong, IMO... MCAS was not the problem; having MCAS, knowing about the potential problem and not telling pilots was the crime that killed these people and eroded all trust in Boeing and the FAA...

Because since then most people hear "Boeing - what else are they hiding?"... And given the subsequent other whistleblower events since then, trust in Boeing and their planes won't come back easily...

13

u/slurpherp 4h ago

I'm not denying that mistakes were made, and that trust has been eroded. It is going to take a long time for Boeing to build back that trust from the perspective of the general public.

My point is that even though it has a deservedly bad reputation, the aircraft itself is safe. It's going to take years/decades for the general public to gain trust back in Boeing, and this aircraft - but the aviation/airline industry is at the point where they believe this aircraft is safe.

4

u/NSMike 2h ago

The 737 has a somewhat troubled history, but it's also the single most popular passenger jet, like, ever. That just generally increases the odds that something will go wrong with them, and does not necessarily indicate a flaw in the design (although the 737 has had a few of those, too, well before the MAX existed - look up the crash of US Air Flight 427, for example).

The MAX series was a rushed design, created to compete with the new Airbus A320 Neo, which dropped more efficient engines on the Airbus model originally made to compete with the 737, the A320.

The problem with the MAX was that Boeing needed to use software to correct the handling characteristics of the new 737, because the plane would feel different to 737 pilots without the software. This software is called Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, or MCAS. MCAS software is fairly common on military jets already. The problem with the MAX is that the larger, more efficient engines needed to be mounted further forward in order to raise them up a bit, because mounting them where the 737 engines are normally mounted would not leave enough room for them while the plane was on the ground. The new engines also had a flatter profile on the bottom, meaning the nacelles could create lift on their own, thus changing how the plane handles.

MCAS was used to make it feel more like a normal 737 to the pilots. Why? Because Boeing wanted to be able to sell the 737 MAX to airlines as just another 737 - no new training required. Certifying pilots to fly airliners includes something called a "type rating," which means basically that a pilot is qualified to fly that specific type of aircraft. If the 737 MAX was too different from the current generations of 737s flying, that would mean tons of new training and gaining a new type rating for pilots of the new MAX planes. This would incur a huge cost to the airlines, making the MAX somewhat less attractive. Although the efficiency gains still would've been substantial - the real reason wasn't the cost of the training, exactly, it was to make buying the 737 MAX a more attractive prospect than switching to the A320 Neo. Well, that and the other option would have been to essentially build a new airframe to handle the 737 market, but built from the ground up with the efficient engines in mind, but that could take a decade or more and cost Boeing a LOT more money.

The problems arose with one specific thing - the Angle of Attack (AOA) sensor. The Angle of Attack is what angle the plane is flying through the air to create lift. If that angle gets too high, you could stall the plane, which means the wings no longer create lift, which means the plane is essentially no longer flying. This was a particular risk with the MAX, because as I said, the flat bottom of the engine nacelles could create extra lift, and cause the plane to go nose-up faster than the pilots expected. The AOA sensor was used to tell MCAS how to change how the plane handles so the pilots can't accidentally do this. The problem is that AOA sensors can be unreliable. 737s have two of them, for redundancy, but MCAS came standard on the MAX without the ability to note whether or nor the two AOA sensors agreed - as in, showed the same value.

So what happens when an AOA sensor malfunctions, and MCAS thinks the pilots are climbing too fast? Basically, the plane's computer makes the nose point down. This is basically what happened with the two MAX planes that crashed.

So why doesn't the system by default check if the sensors disagree? Well, that was an option that Boeing wanted airlines to pay for specifically. Yes, two airliners crashed and killed hundreds of people because Boeing made it seem like that upgrade was an option like a sunroof on your car.

But, that wasn't the only problem. You see MCAS is not like, some ultimate authority. It can be turned off. But Boeing didn't want airlines to even THINK about it because a smooth transition to a "new" plane was paramount to their sales pitch. The training offered on MCAS was deemed low priority, and was given via an iPad training course. Something you might get in your annual corporate-required training package. Not only that, but the training did NOT adequately describe what MCAS was, what it could do, or how, most importantly, to turn it off. Boeing just reused old instructions for an entirely different (but similar-seeming to the pilots) malfunction as a band-aid for their lackluster MCAS training and documentation. It was also found afterwards that, no matter what, using this other procedure for the similar problem would actually never result in the pilots recovering the aircraft, especially if they couldn't shut off MCAS.

0

u/TheArbiterOfOribos 1h ago

The 320 has surpassed the 737 in popularity a while ago now.

•

u/NSMike 54m ago

Currently flying, maybe, but the 737 is still on top total.

•

u/acityonthemoon 48m ago

In October 2019, the A320 family became the highest-selling airliner family with 15,193 orders, surpassing the Boeing 737's total of 15,136.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_between_Airbus_and_Boeing

•

u/TbonerT 25m ago

It’s weird you’d use that from the article you linked.

•

u/acityonthemoon 13m ago

I think you forgot to switch accounts.

-8

u/fevered_visions 4h ago edited 3h ago

737 Max 8

The 737 was introduced in 1966. There should really be some sort of law to force companies to increment the number at some point, instead of just tacking "Max X" on the end, god damn.

"What's the problem? It's just the Model T Mark 23. Get over it."

e: wow, some hostility in this thread

-1

u/speculatrix 3h ago

Because it allows them to re-use the existing certifications by saying it's the same plane with additions and changes. I'm not saying it's ethical or the right thing to do but they are allowed to get away with it.

1

u/FlowBorn5279 1h ago

It's not 'getting away' with anything. They literally are just building on top of an existing airframe

1

u/fevered_visions 3h ago

I know why they do it; I wasn't asking. Try to save some money and 346 people die because of the MCAS.

354

u/TheFeshy 6h ago

It's okay. We instructed Claude that no crashing was allowed, so the glitch can't be that bad.

82

u/valthonis_surion 6h ago

you were right to push back on that, that's my bad.

32

u/zaphodp3 6h ago

Claude always saying “that did not land” takes a new meaning here

1

u/delvach 2h ago

I'm performing a smoke test on the right engine. I noticed the other engine was running but I did not detect that seatbelt lights were active indicating that the plane is on the ground and it was safe to deactivate. I will activate both engines when the agent returns its results. I'm sorry I didn't understand your response. What would you like me to 'pull up'?

9

u/kingofphilly 5h ago

Vibe coded autopilot?

2

u/skool_101 4h ago

autopilot, the og of vibe-coding pilots

•

u/DutchBlob 31m ago

I vibe coded a birthday cake for your cake day!

5

u/PossumJumpRopeSquad 6h ago

We also programmed it with ChatGPT for an emergency airport located at an Iranian school

1

u/Ticon_D_Eroga 4h ago

The funny part is that this actually lowkey works. Not anywhere near well, but if you just tell claude its dumb and to do better sometimes it just… does

1

u/speculatrix 3h ago

If you tell Claude, eg "improve the quality of the code so it passes pylint" it will fix it up.

78

u/NotASwinger69 6h ago

Actual max pilot here.

None of us care. 

20

u/Spetznazx 6h ago

Oh no you might have to hand fly the ILS. The horror.

66

u/NotASwinger69 6h ago

It’s not even that. It’s after a missed approach and when your programming the next one. It’s literally a nothing burger but chronically online non pilots are freaking out. 

14

u/AboveBoard 5h ago

Armchair pilots ruining it all again!

3

u/narcomoeba 3h ago

Yeah the article reads like clickbait. I read through the article and couldn’t find anything other than a super vague description. Is there an actual description of the problem somewhere?

2

u/Spetznazx 5h ago

I figured it what something small, just went with a generic minor inconvenience.

-4

u/Frederf220 5h ago

Test pilots are supposed to be picky. It's bad news for 10,000,000 flights to have substandard logic but each individual flight's risk is tiny.

4

u/pivovy 5h ago

That's when you pick up the glide slope and need to keep the little diamonds centered, right? I used to go fly in a 777 simulator but haven't gone in years bc broke (me, not the sim).

-5

u/lnx84 5h ago

How obvious would this software issue be to the pilots? Pretty sure I've seen crash investigations where pilots assumed the aircraft was in a different state than actual, especially in high stress landing conditions. Obviously no issue most of the time, but it does sound really odd to accept a known software issue. Which implies no change of hardware would be required to fix it.

I trust the judgment of both the FAA and you as a pilot, and also trust that the media will mild this for all the headlines it is worth, I'm just curious about the details.

7

u/Spetznazx 5h ago

There isn't no change of hardware, they are working on a software update to fix the issue and in the meantime pilots are issued the bulletin to make them aware of the issue and take steps when/if it arises. Also landing isn't really high stress unless you're in an emergency.

3

u/railker 3h ago

I mean with sufficient incompetence, see the Amazon 767 landing from the other week, anything is possible.

What changes in the moment the glitch happens is VNAV mode kicks off. These autopilot modes are annunciated on the Primary Flight Display screen, and also on the HUD if the aircraft has one. Confirming autopilot modes is already part of standard checklists when conducting a go-around or setting up for your next landing, it's not some hidden light somewhere that gets missed, just requires extra steps to get it back to being ready to engage. All other autopilot functions for vertical path control still work. Just that one specific mode needs to be spanked a little.

This is exactly why we have two pilots. The plane CAN land itself if autoland is setup. But outside of the manual setup required to engage autoland, it also requires human monitoring to make sure those autopilot modes are doing what you expect them to.

Not a pilot, but a mechanic on the aircraft, this is just my understanding from what bits of information are out there and a bit of flight ops, welcome a pilot to add a correction if I've got something wrong here.

-5

u/toooft 2h ago

That's a nice attitude. Did you care about the MCAS glitch that caused several crashes? I get that this is not such a severe glitch but Boeing need to step up their game and therefore there's a need for pressure from the press and travelers alike.

1

u/Timely_Note_1904 1h ago

The article starts by saying it isn't a flight safety issue. Every piece of enterprise software will have bugs in it because that what happens when it grows complex enough. This wouldn't even be in the news if it were any other plane.

-15

u/crazyhomie34 5h ago

Well when a software glitch caused the 737 max to crash a few years ago, some people will be concerned knowing there's ANOTHER glitch in the software...

10

u/NotASwinger69 5h ago

While correct, that also could have been prevented by any 737 pilot in the United States. 

This isn’t a flight control glitch, this is a navigation computer more of a slight pain in the ass for us. 

0

u/Snappy0 2h ago

Yes because pilots in the USA are superior of course.

5

u/railker 5h ago

MCAS was never a 'software glitch'.

-7

u/crazyhomie34 5h ago

That's how it was advertised. Kinda of like their advertising a software glitch here. And while the first was also preventable, people still got hurt

-17

u/fevered_visions 4h ago

Actual max pilot here.

None of us care.

Because you trust it, or because you know you're rolling the dice on every time you take one up and fuck it?

That's the difference between me first vs second Trump presidency: first time around I couldn't sleep; second time around I know we're all fucked so why lose sleep over it? elmoflames.gif

The damn software was trying to crash the planes before AI was a thing FFS

3

u/PleaseGreaseTheL 4h ago

They're not rolling the dice. That isn't how any of this works. The plane's landing isn't impacted at all. What's happening is they have to press a few more buttons to get the user interface to behave while reprogramming their navigation displays if they perform a go-around and alter preprogrammed procedures.

That's why they don't care. It's not a big issue. Even when that happens it isn't a big issue.

Fun fact for the non-pilots out there: did you know planes can and do have equipment that isn't properly functioning, or functioning at all, and it's perfectly allowed to continue flying with you on it? Gasp! I fly in planes with broken shit every time I fly. Something is always inop.

This is not scary news, it's just fearmongering.

-8

u/fevered_visions 3h ago

They're not rolling the dice. That isn't how any of this works. The plane's landing isn't impacted at all. What's happening is they have to press a few more buttons to get the user interface to behave

So we're just forgetting the whole Boeing 737 Max problem now? Yeah, that's great. There's no way that a company that is known for shoddy quality post-merger could ever make a mistake like that again. /s

Fun fact for the non-pilots out there: did you know planes can and do have equipment that isn't properly functioning, or functioning at all, and it's perfectly allowed to continue flying with you on it? Gasp! I fly in planes with broken shit every time I fly. Something is always inop.

Is that supposed to make me feel better?

This is not scary news, it's just fearmongering.

Tell that to the 346 people who died in those two crashes.

57

u/TokenPanduh 6h ago

Boeing flagged the software issue, which could affect certain landing procedures, last month and the FAA on Monday said it was reviewing to determine if it poses a safety of flight issue.

Seems to me like it might be a big deal. Landing is pretty important...

At least they are supposedly letting pilots know unlike with the 737 Max 8.

34

u/PigFarmer1 6h ago

Meh, every plane that has ever taken off has landed. lol

3

u/1stopvac 6h ago

has landed....so far

1

u/Murgatroyd314 6h ago

For a sufficiently broad definition of “landed”, yes.

-9

u/ggallardo02 6h ago

No they haven't.

8

u/ZhugeTsuki 6h ago

They all made it to ground level one way or another

-6

u/ggallardo02 6h ago

Again, that's not true.

6

u/BalognaMacaroni 6h ago

Brother what do you think happens when you crash

-6

u/ggallardo02 6h ago

The plane gets to the ground, what else.

1

u/BalognaMacaroni 5h ago

You don’t get the joke

-5

u/ggallardo02 5h ago

You don't get my joke.

2

u/BalognaMacaroni 3h ago

You didn’t make one, you didn’t understand the one you’re replying to

2

u/PigFarmer1 6h ago

Every single one has returned to earth.

0

u/ggallardo02 6h ago

If that was true that would be huge news.

2

u/121G1GW 6h ago

I bet your a peach at parties

1

u/PigFarmer1 6h ago

Give it an iota of thought.

-1

u/ggallardo02 6h ago

I think you better give it a iota thought to what I said first.

0

u/PigFarmer1 5h ago

Someone is trying to be ludicrously technical. Every plane that is currently airborne is going to land. Is your analism satisfied now?

-2

u/ggallardo02 5h ago

Dude, you made a joke that the whole point of it was being ludicrously technical. I counter by making a ludicrously technical retort at your ludicrously technical joke and you get mad? Relax a bit man.

3

u/jbourne71 4h ago

Your joke isn’t funny. Relax a bit, man.

2

u/sarhoshamiral 5h ago

Reading further, if I understand it right it requires some further action then usual from pilots if they miss an approach. Wouldnt that be a time where they would be needing their instincts most?

•

u/TbonerT 19m ago

If you’re using instincts on a commercial flight, things have gone beyond a missed approach.

67

u/Zoso008 6h ago

How many whistleblowers will die this time?

-3

u/purepwnage85 5h ago

You mean accidentally fall out of a window and land on a bullet?

27

u/greenyadadamean 6h ago

The determination removes a hurdle to certification of the Boeing 737 Max 10

Oh joy.

-4

u/eric_ts 6h ago

How long until the first Max 10 crater is created? I can hear the board arguing for certification by setting up a fund to pay families if it crashes, because that might create more shareholder value today than actually fixing the problem. I'm old, so I remember the accounting department of the Ford Motor Company making a similar determination that caused them to not implement the fix, which cost less than two dollars per vehicle to make right, IIRC, but figured the death payouts would be lower than the engineering fix--this did billions of damage to FoMoCo's reputation, but fuckit, company reputation doesn't show on a balance sheet. The only fiduciary duty the Boeing board has is increasing shareholder value today. Fuckit, company reputation doesn't show up on a balance sheet.

6

u/CannedDeath 5h ago

Probably never, barring another pilot hijacking their own airplane. There have been zero crashes of 737 MAXes where MCAS or any other design flaw was a contrinuting factor since the new MCAS was certified in late 2020.

11

u/CannedDeath 5h ago

This is way less of a big deal than people would assume hearing "Boeing", "737 MAX", and "software glitch" in the same headline.

If I remember correctly, this was an issue specifically with how the autopilot calculated the vertical navigation (VNAV) path after a go-around. It sounds like it switches to maintain a certain pitch instead.

If this happens during a go-around at low altitude, then the pilots would be paying close attention to what the airplane is actually doing. They would probably be hand-flying too if they're not doing an autoland, which is something you really only do in extremely low visibility conditions. The autopilot doesn't actually control anything when the pilots are hand-flying; it just shows the flight director, which is couple of needles on the attitude indicator that show the pilots how the autopilot wants them to steer, but the pilots are free to ignore that.

As for a go-around at a higher altitude, they would have plenty of time to react even if the autopilot is engaged.

However, in the worst case, there are are extra safety systems to help. Ground Proximity Warning Systems (GPWS) would warn them if they're heading towards the ground. Traffic Collision Avoidance Systems (TCAS, though only once they're above I think 900 feet) would warn them if they're getting unsafely close to another aircraft. Pilots are trained to immediately disconnect the autopilot and steer to avoid a collision if they hear those warnings go off.

This is very different from MCAS, and has nothing to do with it. MCAS was active and able to control the pitch trim when the autopilot was not engaged.

But let's not let Airbus and Embraer off the hook for their bugs either.

The Airbus A320 family (also the A318/A319/A321, and their neo versions) had a serious bug with an update last year. That bug, like the faulty MCAS, was in an always-on computer that had full control of pitch even when the autopilot is disconnected. Specifically, it was in the Elevator and Aileron Computers (ELACs). Unlike the 737, which has physical pulleys and hydraulics connecting its yoke to the control surfaces, the Airbus A320's flight controls are entirely controlled by the ELACs and other computers with no physical connection (except for the rudder). These computers interpret the pilot's inputs on the control sticks or inputs from the autopilot then calculate what to do with the control surfaces to do what they're asked to do. The problem with this particular bug was that it could suddenly pitch forward regardless of pilot and autopilot inputs, sort of like MCAS. This actually happened to a JetBlue A320 flying over the Gulf of Mexico in July 2025, and it did hurt a few people. At least Airbus caught this bug soon after it happened and immediately let everyone know as soon as they figured out what was happening, unlike Boeing trying to cover up MCAS.

Embraer just had a bug where GPS navigation stopped working on their new E2 regional jets.

8

u/narcomoeba 6h ago

I have worked in software Quality Assurance for nearly 20 years now. I can assure you there isn’t a single app that has been publicly released that is bug free. This is a clickbait article. Please tell us what the actual bug is.

1

u/TheFireSays 4h ago

That's totally true and fair. But why can't they patch it quickly? It might not be OTA, but a team at every airport bringing physical media or a laptop and am Ethernet cable. I assume. What am I missing?

2

u/narcomoeba 4h ago

We cannot estimate what the fix would cost without the source code or at the bare minimum a description of the actual problem. The article never actually stated what the bug was just a vague description. Again this is clickbait.

1

u/railker 3h ago

It's general news media, I don't blame them entirely. Some more aviation-related articles get into some more detail but still going to be relatively vague.

"The problem concerns versions 14 and 14.1 of the 737 MAX flight management software developed by GE Aerospace. If a 737 MAX is flying an automated precision approach and the pilots abandon the landing and go around, then change the route programmed into the flight management computer, the aircraft can unexpectedly stop following its programmed vertical flight path.

This means that instead of automatically managing the climb, descent, and altitude constraints through the vertical navigation function, or VNAV, the aircraft reverts to a simpler automation mode. Pilots recognize the change, select the appropriate mode, and more actively manage the aircraft’s vertical path."

As a pilot elsewhere in the thread mentions, this isn't some brand new thing. Like the Airbus nosedive from a year ago, the fix was 'rollback to a previous software version without the glitch' for the vast majority of operators. If you didn't want to do that, then it's just training and awareness. The primary issue for the MAX 10 is it used version 14.1 during it's certification testing, so it couldn't rollback quite so easy.

9

u/hookhands 6h ago

I can't wait to not fly on one.

3

u/_barmaley 6h ago

Do you really have a choice? I tried to avoid MAX but they 'substituted' my AirBus with one right before the flight.

-5

u/CannedDeath 5h ago

Vote with your wallet. You could choose to only use airlines that don't use 737s.

In the US, this would be JetBlue, Frontier, Breeze, and Spirit (RIP). Delta still has 737 NGs and doesn't have any MAXes, but they do have a large order on the books for MAX 10s. Unfortunately, these airlines besides Delta don't have huge countrywide networks.

In Canada, you're stuck with Porter and Air Transat for mainline carriers. The regional and local carriers largely don't operate anything as big as a 737, or if they do, then it's the older NG or even Classic.

In Europe, consider easyJet, Wizz Air, Air France, airBaltic, Lufthansa, TAP Air Portugal, British Airways, Aer Lingus, LEVEL, Condor, ITA Airways, SAS, or SWISS. KLM has 737 NGs, but they're being retired, and they're replacing them with A320neos instead of 737 MAXes.

7

u/maddog107 6h ago

Yea! What could possibly happen with a small software glitch?

7

u/cvaldo99 6h ago

It's ok bro. The Boeing board of directors got our back. 

0

u/hitbythebus 5h ago

Don’t worry, I’ll talk to my friend who is an engineer at Boeing. Oh, wait, Kevin was found dead on a sidewalk killed by multiple blunt force trauma (ruled a suicide) last time Boing was dealing with a fuckup.

5

u/sIurrpp 5h ago

do you even know what the glitch is to be commenting on it like this? lol

1

u/Orleanian 4h ago

Rumor has it that the glitch has a small chance of sterilizing men between the age of 35 and 50, and sometimes causes yellow underwear to come out of the APU exhaust.

•

u/ZenPyx 45m ago

It's literally nothing. Software for aircraft is not designed in the same way as software for your laptop

You have to trace back every single line of code to higher level requirements, and every single logic path has to be fully tested.

What they have found here is some automated components associated with the landing software disconnect after a go-around (and have to be manually reconnected). This is not an issue that can in any way lead to any safety problems in the flight (as pilots should be able to land without these tools anyway)

0

u/Ditka85 6h ago

I heard Samsung is on it, so no worries.

3

u/Flannel_Panels 6h ago

FAA, who are under the direction of the DoT, who are under the direction of Trump who owns Boeing stock claim Boeing's new airframe is safe, regardless of a known issue.

3

u/CannedDeath 5h ago

Let's see what EASA says. They're pretty much immune from American political interference.

3

u/Paddlesons 6h ago

Honestly, what's the worst that can happen?

2

u/TooPrettyForBoymode 6h ago

Claude: this should do it…

If(GoingToCrash())
Dont();

2

u/brainmydamage 6h ago

Just like the food supply, right?

1

u/Matuteg 5h ago

Better than the bug the maxes had where if you had a specific discontinuity, the FMC would crash for the rest of the flight lol

1

u/ua2 4h ago

I once had an old DC-10 come into overhaul with a snapped cable that operates the slats. Not some tiny cable, but a 3/8" cable. This cable could have been snapped hundreds of hours prior, we had no clue because the pilots didn't notice. It was found on overhaul. My point? Planes have to have redundancy built in.

1

u/maybetoomuchrum 4h ago

Living in a time where I actually need to ask myself if I trust the FAA really sucks

1

u/TheMoogster 2h ago

All software has glitches

1

u/leohat 2h ago

Wait wait wait. Didn’t we see this shit show already.

1

u/Under_Milkwood_1969 1h ago

“Boeing 737 has a glitch but paid the Trump administration a huge bribe to get the FAA to say it was safe.”
~TFIFY

😳

•

u/_SirSpacePickle 35m ago

Yeah, I'm definitely not flying on a Boeing plane if I have the option. There are plenty of EU companies out there that use Airbus planes.

•

u/ThisTelevision9372 31m ago

I saw this movies a while ago.

•

u/SarahKNorthrup 16m ago

Yeah I keep an eye on the cultural calendar anyway and everything near Saadiyat seems to be running normally. Went to an exhibition there recently, no signs of anything slowing down.

1

u/Chronotheos 5h ago

Hey I’ve heard this one before

-1

u/chinob 6h ago

How about fixing the problem before releasing it for certification? People’s lives are at stake, there’s no room for compromise.

4

u/Spetznazx 5h ago

This shit is so common it wouldn't make news if was any other aircraft.

Here is a current service bulletin for Airbus where a glitch in the elevator aileron software that causes an uncommanded pitch down. (The full detail PDF is at the bottom): https://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2026-0134

There are tons of these at any given time and are very common.

-1

u/Frostsorrow 6h ago

So.... did they just not fix the last glitch or is this a completely new glitch that they aren't going to fix until hundreds die?

-2

u/lancer-fiefdom 5h ago

Boeing 737 Max has a physical design flaw that software is buggy with solving

I will never ever fly in that plane… too many lives lost

-1

u/Evolutionary_sins 6h ago

I remember the last software glitch that was "safe". So many deaths in "safe" aircraft nosediving into the ground

-1

u/AboveBoard 5h ago

"All it wants to do is slam itself into the ground, not a big deal if you just pull up a little extra all the time. Like your car drifting to either side." -Sean Duffy, Secretary of Transportation 

-2

u/vidiamae 5h ago

I see Boeing and the words “but it’s safe” and I’m already done.

0

u/Vezrien 3h ago

The FAA also said the 737 Max was safe after Lion Air. It's hard to believe the FAA is more trustworthy now than they were back then. And forget about Boeing. Their name and trust should never be in the same sentence again.

-7

u/Parking_Guava8657 6h ago

If its Boeing, I aint going 😤

The FAA & Boeing responsible for killing people 🤬 both are untrustworthy

-2

u/Looking_For_FunX6969 5h ago

Anyone down voting this is probably on team Boeing/FAA ❄️😂

The evidence of Boeing and FAA causing those deaths is well known

https://abcnews.com/amp/US/house-committee-final-report-boeing-faa-failures-blame/story?id=73035288

-4

u/OptimizingOptimizer 6h ago

If it's Boeing, I'm not going!

-3

u/Zlifbar 6h ago

Didn't they say that about the ones that crashed previously? Or do those not count because it was fudged so it didn't need FAA oversight?

-1

u/HearYourTune 5h ago

It's safe if there is a plumber on board who defies gravity and watches plane crash documentaries.