My essay will be discussing the major differences in new commercial airplanes types and if the switch to new planes causes more accidents. While commercial crashes are rare especially in the United States, due to strict regulation, are we causing more crashes by improving already adequate machines. A particularly interesting part of my argument will be the future in aviation and if the switch to supersonic planes will be over complicated. A recent chain of events with the new Boeing 737 MAX have resulted in 346 deaths because of a new maneuvering characteristics augmentation system (MCAS). My research will focus specifically on the differences between new and old model aircraft’s and the issue with the 737s being upgraded to the 737 MAX.
1. The Federal Aviation Administration CAROL tool
Background: A widespread search engine available to the public for data on plane crashes. It allows you to make specific searches based on the event type, Federal Acquisition Regulation part, phase of flight, damage to aircraft, and highest injury level.
How I will use this: I will filter and sort through the data relevant to my hypothesis to find commercial crashes related to pilot error, specifically inadequate pilot training. It will be difficult to analyze some of this data because of other factors that may have caused the crash. A big question I have been asking myself while starting to read reports is do I include crashes that started with an uncontrollable factor but if the pilot had enough training it would have been fine?
2. The Boeing 737 Operations Manual
How I will use this: I will be analyzing the basics of the Boeing 737 and comparing them to a manual of the 737 MAX. Specifically the general control systems and the MCAS systems.
Background: This contains all the general mechanical rules, it does not delve into more specific in flight directions. It includes information for takeoffs in different scenarios, flight controls, and the different systems inside the plane.
3. The Boeing 737 MAX: Examining the Design, Development, and Marketing of the aircraft.
Background: This is the hearing for the 737 MAX crashes, it was conducted by the Committee on Transportation and infrastructure. They provide evidence and dialogue about the MCAS system and the crashes. The congressmen question Dennis Muilenburg about why the MCAS system was removed from the flight manual.
How I will use this: This will help me gather evidence and even understand the Boeing 737 MAX flights even more. The hearing goes into deep detail on the MCAS system and why it was hidden. This will be helpful because the Boeing 737 was a safe plane without the MCAS so a document like this will aid me in creating my argument.
4. Summary of the FAA’s Review of the Boeing 737 MAX
Background: This is the Federal Aviation Administrations summarized version of its investigation and recommendations for Boeing after the crashes. It does declare that the 737 MAX is safe to fly but it also recognizes the flaws of the system being implemented under the rug.
How I will use this: This will provide evidence and reasoning against my argument to help me develop a stronger idea. But it also will provide a solution to my argument which will aid my conclusion.
I apologize for any vagueness each of these pieces are hundreds of pages long. Thoroughly reading each one is very time consuming.
Counterintuitive Fall 2024 
You’re researching a very intriguing topic, PlaneFan, but so far you’ve not phrased your intentions as a Hypothesis. What you want is a clear declarative sentence that can be proved or disproved, NOT a promise to investigate.
You say:
A declarative version would be:
I’m particularly encouraged that you intend to focus your investigation narrowly on the 737 MAX. That story is worth 3000 words all by itself and should provide you with plenty of opportunities to describe 1000 words worth on the TYPES of changes that aircraft introduced, the INTENTIONS of the designers, the PROBLEMS pilots faced trying to override the automatic functions, and the FAILURES of the training regimen. I would think you’ll need to carefully edit to squeeze it all into your Definition/Categorical argument.
Graded.
Further revisions are always encouraged, and regrades are always available following substantial improvements.
Should you revise, your Beloved Professor will not automatically notice.
So, if you desire a Regrade, put your post back into Feedback Please and let me know you’ve earned fresh consideration.
I’ll decide whether the improvements are substantial.
(Try not to make things worse. 🙂 )
Thank you! I appreciate you taking the time out of your day to provide feedback. Now going back and reading that opening paragraph I see that I could have been more declarative. I had a question that I was unable to ask during class this week, should I include the example of the Boeing 737 MAX and apply it to the larger switch to supersonic planes. I’m hesitant to include supersonic planes due to the Concorde which was wildly successful but ended up becoming obsolete because of one major crash and how costly it was.
I don’t see the problem. The 737 MAX is a good story that has legs because it signals trouble for any innovations that deprive flight crews the options they need to avoid catastrophe. The dangers at even higher speeds won’t be less, will they? Use the MAX to predict dangerous consequences for any innovation and apply the cautionary tale to the reinvigoration of supersonic commercial travel.