https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/how-the-boeing-737-max-disaster-looks-to-a-software-developer
The Boeing 737 Max has been in the news because of two crashes, practically back to back and involving brand new airplanes.
“Everything about the design and manufacture of the Max was done to preserve the myth that ‘it’s just a 737.’ Recertifying it as a new aircraft would have taken years and millions of dollars. In fact, the pilot licensed to fly the 737 in 1967 is still licensed to fly all subsequent versions of the 737.”
But some things clearly went wrong on the design process. This article tries to find out what went wrong.
157 Comments
Tomi Engdahl says:
Excellent Analysis of the Boeing 737 Max Software Problems
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/04/excellent_analy.html
Tomi Engdahl says:
Joseph DiMasi I blame Boeing for deciding that no major new training for existing 737 was needed, so in limited short ipad training they were not traiming pilots how new systems work and what to do if they suspect problems with it. Part of sales pitch seemed to be no new training was needed, but aftermath seems to show that it would have been needed. For lack of training blame seems to go beyond pilots to manufacturer, regulators, flight companied etc…
Tomi Engdahl says:
Certainly Boeing should be forced to turn on the safety feature that would have notified them of malfunctioning sensors, but which it decided to charge extra money for… and it will be punished by the market for making such an idiotic decision in the first place (that is already happening.)
Whats wrong with the balance of the 737max?
it’s inherently unstable because of how low the engines are mounted. Not like fighter plane unstable (which require computers just to fly), but definitely more so than most planes.
it’s still a fact that Boeing chose to sell the safety feature to customers instead of including it.
the airplane is a computer with wings.
Modern aircraft spend most of their time on auto pilot, if you can’t trust the computer to fly the plane that is not good.
It’s not the only aircraft to have electronic solutions for non neutral flight characteristics
Aerodynamicly unstable aircraft are common in the military field, the commercial aircraft field you expect the aircraft to fly pretty much straight and level with no flight control input. The industry has to and does assume the pilots are not attentive every second and can not respond to a complex computer fault in seconds, that’s why the aircraft manufacturers have to work so hard on saftly.
These aircraft fell short of the very high standard expected…. It seems Boeing developed a very hacky solution to a problem caused by rushing out an underengineered new product. The MCAS software probably isnt even necessary. It was to auto-correct a rare issue. The system was an “unnecessary” add on to help inattentive operators.
It sounds like the A320neo solved the same issue with multiple angle of attack sensors and displaying a stall indicator. Boeing in order to avoid requiring retraining on pilots appears to have installed 2 AoA sensors and used MCAS to read one of those and nose down. The reason for this from what I’ve read, was to maintain flight characteristics compared to a standard 737. The MAX has 2 AoA sensors but only displays a disagreement warning with an 80k add-on option.
In addition they didn’t provide adequate training to pilots or adequate warning about the potential problems. That’s why the planes are crashing
For the Indonesian flight they knew the system was malfunctioning on a previous flight and did not repair or inform the next pilots of the error.
For the Ethiopian flight they were 4000 feet lower than the flight plan and didn’t have training on how to operate the system properly.
In both cases the primary cause was pilot confusion.
One potential solution seems to be making the AoA disagreement indicator standard, and not allowing Boeing to self-certify as much of the plane with improved pilot training and guidance on MCAS, would likely work to fix most issues.
How to get back the trust from flight travellers so that potential customers would happily flight with them again is a big business problem.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/how-the-boeing-737-max-disaster-looks-to-a-software-developer
TLDR: Bigger engines affected stability, necessitating MCAS: MCAS implementaion was sketchy.
Tomi Engdahl says:
BOLTR: AoA Sensor | Boeing 737 Engineering Failure
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhZ0D-JRtz0
Teardown of an angle of attack sensor from a Hercules aircraft. Redux of the Boeing 737 with a discussion on how Boeing Engineers, the FAA and Air Lines are complicit in the catastrophes.
Tomi Engdahl says:
The Economics That Made Boeing Build the 737 Max
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfNEOfEGe3I
an overview of what led to Boeing creating the 737 MAX rather than giving a comprehensive overview of the factors leading to the two crashes and the issues with MCAS so the explanation on that is quick. If you want to learn more about that, I would suggest starting with this article: https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/vestigal-design-issue-clouds-737-max-crash-investigations/
Tomi Engdahl says:
5 Lessons to Learn from the Boeing 737 MAX Fiasco
https://www.designnews.com/electronics-test/5-lessons-learn-boeing-737-max-fiasco/132367532460732?ADTRK=UBM&elq_mid=8499&elq_cid=876648
Although it will be months before we have full reports about the 737 MAX crashes, we don’t have to wait to draw lessons from those incidents.
Lesson #1 – Don’t compromise your product to save or make money short-term
Lesson #2 – Identify and mitigate single points of failure
Lesson #3 – Don’t assume your user can handle it
Lesson #4 – Highly tested and certified systems have defects
Lesson #5 – Sensors and systems fail
Conclusions
While it will be months before we have the full reports on what transpired and caused the 737 MAX crashes and results from the congressional hearings as to how the aircraft was certified and developed, we don’t have to wait for those results to draw lessons from them. We’ve examined several important reminders that all businesses and developers need to carefully consider to make sure that they are not treading down a similar path with their own systems. The question you should now be asking is what compromises are you currently making and what actions are you going to take today to make sure they don’t result in your own fiasco tomorrow.
Tomi Engdahl says:
737 Max Update 29 April 2019 ‘The Cost’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB4lCbT5oX8
Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg addresses 737 Max safety concerns — April 29, 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDbf6G8V4YQ
Tomi Engdahl says:
Boeing Believed a 737 Max Warning Light Was Standard. It Wasn’t.
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/19/05/06/0315253/boeing-believed-a-737-max-warning-light-was-standard-it-wasnt?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot%2Fto+%28%28Title%29Slashdot+%28rdf%29%29
“When Boeing began delivering its 737 Max to customers in 2017, the company believed that a key cockpit warning light was a standard feature in all of the new jets. But months after the planes were flying, company engineers realized that the warning light worked only on planes whose customers had bought a different, optional indicator,” reports the New York Times.
“In essence, that meant a safety feature that Boeing thought was standard was actually a premium add-on…. Because only 20 percent of customers had purchased the optional indicator, the warning light was not working on most of Boeing’s new jets.”
Boeing Believed a 737 Max Warning Light Was Standard. It Wasn’t.
https://www.msn.com/en-sg/news/techandscience/boeing-believed-a-737-max-warning-light-was-standard-it-wasnt/ar-AAAWmi3
Tomi Engdahl says:
737 MAX UPDATES – A321XLR SELLING | Aviation News Weekly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmAl7YUfyR0
Tomi Engdahl says:
Why Airbus And Boeing Dominate The Sky
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zaUOUiNjJY
Airbus and Boeing dominate an already under competitive airline manufacturing industry. The duopoly owns the sky by making up 99% of global large aircraft orders and those large plane orders make up more than 90% of the total plane market according to the Teal Group, an aerospace market analysis company (regional jet manufacturers only account for 7% of the airplane market by value).
The duopoly doesn’t have many competitors, but overseas competition is brewing.
The Differences Between The BOEING 737 and the AIRBUS A320
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHolD9rWakk
Tomi Engdahl says:
How the 737 MAX Became Boeing’s Fastest-Selling Plane
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkaLYNooDss
Boeing’s 737 MAX evolved to meet surging international demand for air travel and in the process became its top-selling plane. WSJ’s Jason Bellini looks at how the grounding of the fleet following the Ethiopian Airlines crash could have a significant impact on Boeing’s future.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Pilots talk to KING 5 about 737 Max fix
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIwPivRgJxk
Boeing has invited pilots from airlines flying the 737 Max to town, sharing the new fixes it’s made to the aircraft. We hear from two of those pilots.
Comments:
The reason for MCAS is a cheap fix for an out of balance aircraft.
For me, not enough to trust. MCAS needs triple redundancy for the AOA sensor. Two is not enough. The real fix is to redesign the low landing gear so bigger engines can be properly fitted without resorting to MCAS.
300+lives gone and we are talking here about a software update to continue selling a faulty product.. oh the humanity!
Tomi Engdahl says:
FAA head on whether Boeing 737 Max 8 safety features should have been mandatory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW7woqBR_MI
At a Senate hearing on oversight and safety of the Boeing 737 Max 8 aircraft, Senator Ed Markey, D-Mass., asked FAA Acting Administrator Daniel Elwell what he thought about Boeing charging airlines extra for certain additional safety features, and whether they should be mandatory.
Comments:
Boeing’s new slogan, Safety is an Option.
Boeing and the FAA have the fresh blood of 350+ passengers and crew on their hands. Everybody knows.
“Senator, I’m glad you asked that question” always preceeds a lie.
Boeing is In bed with the FAA.
The head of the FAA protecting aircraft manufacturers smh refusing to answer straightforward questions. SHAME!
Scary to think the lead of an agency that monitors our safety in the air in the states, can’t answer a simple yes or no question regarding airplane manufacturers charging extra for safety components.
Have fun Boeing making your new $100 mil transcon plane, because the EU and UK won’t believe that BS from the FAA.
Do we need safety features for our safety features?
Tomi Engdahl says:
Boeing CEO breaks silence after grounding of 737 Max planes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLu20CE132g
Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg said April 29 that the airplane manufacturer was making “progress” toward getting approval for new software in its 737 Max planes.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Boeing 737 Max 8 manual mentions MCAS only once
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxnanW-ZLPg
Since the recent crashes of two Boeing 737 Max, pilots say they were kept in the dark about the existence of a key software suspected of being connected to the tragedies. CBC News has obtained a copy of the 737 MAX flight crew manual – and what’s not in it raises troubling questions about the manufacturer’s lack of disclosure.
Tomi Engdahl says:
737 Max Update 10 April 2019 Runaway Stab Trim Procedures
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jNbayma9dM
Today we review the Boeing procedures and compare them to what we know so far in the preliminary report of Ethiopian Flt #302.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Rogue Boeing 737 Max planes ‘with minds of their own’ | 60 Minutes Australia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QytfYyHmxtc
Liz Hayes investigates the disaster of Boeing’s 737 MAX jetliner. Why two supposedly state-of-the-art and safe planes crashed killing 346 people; why pilots now fear flying the 737 MAX; & whether Boeing could have averted the catastrophes.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Emirates CEO: After Boeing crashes, I’ll look at Airbus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrGFVN4MIB8
The CEO of Emirates says he’s considering taking his business to Airbus after the Boeing crashes. He also tells John Defterios he’s confident “it will be a profitable year” for his company.
Tomi Engdahl says:
5 Lessons to Learn from the Boeing 737 MAX Fiasco
https://www.designnews.com/electronics-test/5-lessons-learn-boeing-737-max-fiasco/132367532460732?ADTRK=UBM&elq_mid=8553&elq_cid=876648
Although it will be months before we have full reports about the 737 MAX crashes, we don’t have to wait to draw lessons from those incidents.
Tomi Engdahl says:
737 UPDATE plus Sukhoi Crash in Moscow and Jacksonville Runway over run
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eT9XakALwU
Tomi Engdahl says:
Impact on Boeing reputation after 737 Max scandal | 60 Minutes Australia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJYX58vJ42k
Dominic Gates, journalist from The Seattle Times, says people’s faith in Boeing has been hit by the devastating crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia. But despite the “terrible failings” of the aircraft’s flawed design, Gates says he would still fly on board a Boeing 737 Max once the system is fixed and the grounding lifted.
Tomi Engdahl says:
The Economics That Made Boeing Build the 737 Max
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfNEOfEGe3I
Tomi Engdahl says:
The final moments of Ethiopian flight 302 and the crisis of Boeing 737 Max 800 planes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VmXxVW0ryc
Based on actual sources and expert analysis, #Bisbo recreates the final moments of what went technically wrong with the #Boeing737Max 800 planes. Understand how flight sensors misread the crucial AoA or angle of attack triggering off a new unknown software update called the MCAS, leading to the two fatal crashes of Ethiopian Airways flight 302 and the Lion Air JT610 of 2018 and how Boeing and the FAA tried to play the incidents. Make sure to hear the limerick at the end.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Boeing knew of 737 MAX sensor issue in 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOYXzX4RKuk
That’s way before a new Boeing 737 MAX airplane owned by Lion Air crashed in October 2018, killing everyone on board.
The real reason Boeing’s new plane crashed twice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2tuKiiznsY
This isn’t just a computer bug. It’s a scandal.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Four potential whistleblowers called FAA about Boeing 737 Max jets
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba5eJGNuoCc
How Boeing Builds a 737 Plane in Just 9 Days | WIRED
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liZ0WEEsuz4
Tomi Engdahl says:
Boeing max 8 Test Pilots – Prof Simon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv8OGi2kTME
Boeing Test Pilots say, they did not get a chance to try out the final MCAS system on the 737 Max 8. Prof Simon asks some questions about WHY?
I have lot’s of questions about what really happened. Please let me know what you think and we can all learn from this discussion.
737 flight manual – Prof Simon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rILV-Ml9Eao
‘what’s it doing now’ is not something you want to hear on the flight deck. Why were pilots, apparently, kept in the dark about the Boeing 737 max 8 MCAS system? When did Boeing put the information on how it works in their pilot manual?
Tomi Engdahl says:
5 Lessons to Learn from the Boeing 737 MAX Fiasco
Although it will be months before we have full reports about the 737 MAX crashes, we don’t have to wait to draw lessons from those incidents.
https://www.designnews.com/electronics-test/5-lessons-learn-boeing-737-max-fiasco/132367532460732?ADTRK=UBM&elq_mid=8598&elq_cid=876648
Tomi Engdahl says:
Why 737 Max matters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9dP3vifwS0
A Boeing 737 takes off somewhere every 15 seconds. As the world’s most popular airliner, nearly 3 out of every 4 airplanes Boeing delivers, is a 737 in Renton. As part of Boeing’s business, analysts estimate it accounts for half of Boeing’s airline revenues, about 30 billion dollars a year. KING 5′s Glenn Farley reports.
Every rule and regulation in aviation is written in blood. Sad reality.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Should Boeing Scrap the 737 MAX?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aTtZF6Pq48
• AviationToday Series
Has the 737 series reached its breaking point? Should Boeing go back to the drawing board and perhaps scrap the 737 MAX altogether?
53% American adults say they don’t want to fly on a Boeing 737 Max
https://www.businessinsider.com/americans-dont-want-to-fly-boeing-737-max-survey-2019-3?r=US&IR=T
We asked more than 1,100 respondents “If you had a flight on a Boeing 737 Max next week, and the FAA decided to clear the aircraft for flight, given the issues the plane has experienced, what would you do?”
In total, 53% of respondents said they would attempt to reschedule while 32% said they wouldn’t change their travel plans.
The jets remain grounded as Boeing works on a software update for the 737 Max control system that will hopefully fix the issues experienced by pilots.
Tomi Engdahl says:
737 Max update: Boeing ‘covered up’ faults in sensor | 60 Minutes Australia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG5_4xBXXng
60 Minutes reveal more damning revelations about aircraft giant Boeing and warnings that should have been heeded about the 737 MAX, well before the crashes of Lion Air Flight 610 in October 2018 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 in March this year.
Tomi Engdahl says:
737 MAX Orders at Risk from Major Airliners
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URFpx2aNftI
Major Orders are at risk of being cancelled/changed to either other Boeing aircraft or to another major manufacturer Airbus and their A320neo family of aircraft following the uncertainty over the future of the Boeing 737 MAX. In today’s video, I discuss the situation and which airlines are impacted by this.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Boeing failed to report 737 Max alert system problem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GFL8ZZQOts
Boeing failed to tell the FAA and airlines that an alert system was not operational on all 737 Max, casting doubt on the procedures the company has followed for decades.
Comments:
Boeing whistleblower said if they had used two AoA sensors it wouldn’t have required Level D certification which would cause delays. So they essentially knowing shipped this plane with a single point of failure which if in the even of failure meant automatic nosedive. Think about that.
Boeing cheaped out on the 737 Max. Instead of designing a new plane to handle the new bigger more efficient engines, they created an aerodynamic atrocity and tried to fix that with software. They FAILED. They are still trying to fix it with more software
The jets they already have are worth tens of billions with hundreds of billions of orders on the way.
There’s no chance they scrap the planes and throw them away.
Will anyone ever trust Boeing again? I feel like eventually it will be in a commercial for an airline saying they don’t use Boeing planes.
“Apparently we missed the ramifications of the failure of that AOA probe.” -Captain Obvious
I just don’t understand why Boeing did this. I mean this is like old Soviet style thinking. They HAD a big positive reputation about the quality of planes and now their 737 Max is which was their biggest selling plane is now kaput. Knew about a major flaw but I guess crossed their fingers that nothing could go wrong. A gamble that they will pay for.
The point here with Boeing is that the ‘base’ model Max aircraft came
without dual AoA instrument comparison with display readouts plus an
AoA disagreement light and appropriate warning alarm. These three
‘items’ came as part of an optional upgrade – i.e. Boeing monetized a
safety feature.
So. If they sold the aircraft without the package and considered the
aircraft safe enough, then why would anyone want to pay for an
‘optional’ extra that was not necessary ( Ethiopian and Lion did not buy
the optional package)? Or conversely, if the optional package makes
the plane safer, then why would Boeing sell the aircraft minus a safety
feature – selling a less safe aircraft?
The question to ask is, would the outcome of those 2 downed flights have been
different if the pilots of the aircraft had the ‘optional’ package
installed aboard?
Obviously yes, Boeing thinks so. Because this is basically what Boeing
is doing now as remediation to get the 737 Max back in the air – They
are adding what was in the optional package ( dual AoA instrument
comparison with display readouts plus an AoA disagreement light and
appropriate warning alarm).
By adding in these things that Boeing sold as ‘optional’ to now get the
aircraft safe and cleared to fly again would suggest that these items
should have been on ALL the aircraft from the start, not sold as some
‘optional’ upgrade that wasn’t really necessary.
737 Max is DOOMED as a civilian carrier.
Shamefull!!!! really… But when they say “engineers” din’t they have a manager? they must say emgineering development department rather than saying engineers. How about quality control? what about quality department?. it’s weird!!! I think they are just blowing info to not say that top management have taken bad decision and compromised human lives…
criminal negligence cant be ignored, if they knew the problems from before .
The title should read, “Boeing deliberately not to tell the FAA”. why would this system not critical when its 737Max software received data from AOA to function, and even human pilots could not halt the wrong data from AOA to its faulty software written by programmers who were not likely pilots. a total Boeing coverup and negligence !
Ecology Rocks
1. Put a bigger engine on an old design instead of coming up a complete new design to avoid cost
2. Use software to correct hardware flaw to avoid cost
3. Use one sensor for software input to avoid pilot training in order to cut cost
4. Pressure on FAA to certificate yourself without in depth check to avoid cost
5. Ignore over 200 reports on the same issue to avoid cost
6. After 2 deadly incidents, hundreds of people died, still insisted that max is safe till everyone on the planet grounded it to avoid cost
I bet Boeing knew this day would come yet still went with it.
You don’t need FAA, when they let Boeing inspect itself. Boeing should anyway have quality assurance processes implemented.
Boeing is in deep trouble… Now come all the disgruntled engineers blowing their whistles on admin…
The essential problem here is that it’s a design from the 1960s that Boeing has changed over and over again until it was no longer able to fly. The whole point of the MCAS is to make the plane air worthy.
This is what happens when the corporate’s sole objective is to maximize profit. Boeing’s reputation is permanently tarnished.
I have no Problem flying a Max 8 again,,when it is approved buy FAA( they need 10000 regulators)
and have a new construktion so that the engines fit under the wings,and does not need MCAS..
Read my lip: replace the entire senior management. They are hiding the problems. That is a criminal offence because it is manslaughter. It was a known issue they chose to ignore.
If America wants to salvage it’s aviation reputation, they should start by arresting the CEO of Boeing, other management personnel and the FAA officials who connived with them.
This is truly bizarre as a qualified aerospace safety engineer I find it astounding that the aircraft didn’t carry out a failure mode analysis and effect FMEA stydy to understand this occurring. And as on the self certification the FAA devolving it’s duties down makes them culpable to these crashest oo. The problem escalates when you realise that 8n order to save money manufacturers will use components common to all types across the fleet. This includes software programming methodologies
How can you put an aircraft with a basic flawed design on the market? Forget about the computer program that is supposed to rectify any problems. There shouldn’t have been any KNOWN problems to begin with. This aircraft is sub-standard period. Go straight to jail. Do not pass Go. Boeing & the FAA are guilty without a trial.
FAA shouldn’t have certified, it’s that simple. After the software change the plane will be fine. Sad this happened.
DO you really think that this failures are actually mid management…. Really?? This goes all the way to the top. It was the top decision to have only one sensor otherwise the whole plane with have to re-certify. Nice try to pass the buck on to mid management. Typical of upper management to cover their own butt. First it was the pilots fault .. now it is mid management. What a joke.
There is some misinformation here. It’s not that the engineers didn’t want to design a safe system, but rather management told them no because they were cutting corners and prosecuted anyone who made a safety complaint in good faith. This is a clear violation of safety culture, and management should be held solely responsible, not engineers. Safety always wins over money.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Boeing did not warn airlines of deactivated warning system: WSJ reports
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8S1eSdZ05Q
The Wall Street Journal reports that Boeing did not tell Southwest Airlines, its biggest 737 Max customer, that a safety feature designed to warn pilots about a malfunctioning sensor had been deactivated. The Journal also reports that investigators are looking into a dozen whistleblower complaints alleging safety problems with Boeing’s 737 Max jets. The “Squawk Box” team reports.
Comments:
Boeing logic:
1. Lets reuse an aircraft design from 1967 to save cost, put 2 huge new engines that does not really fit and thereby make the whole aircraft unstable.
2. Then we create a secret software MCAS to stabilize the aircraft.
3. To save even more cost we make the extremely critical MCAS system only rely on a single sensor. (Industry standard is normally 2 or as Airbus does, 3).
4. To make even more money, lets sell the sensor malfunction warning system as an option, but still not tell about what MCAS does.
5. To save even more cost lets make sure MCAS is not described in the manual, nor include any mention about it in the 2hour Ipad training video to pilots.
6. Lets save even more cost by not having ANY indicator to the pilot that the MCAS system is active, and that the pilot is no longer in control of the aircraft.
7. To save even more cost, lets tell FAA that the aircraft is perfectly safe and approve it ourselves.
8. When the first aircraft crashed, lets blame it on pilot error.
9. When the second aircraft crashed, lets pretend it was minor glitch but hint that a very minor software upgrade might be needed. Try to minimize lawsuits but using very cryptic weasel language.
10. Finally lets pretend that this unstable aircraft, relying on a single sensor will become “the safest aircraft ever designed “ and force everyone to continue flying it.Lets pay FAA bribes to certify it.
11. Lets tell the world that Boeing cares about safety first…..
This is total greed and deception. Boeing’s CEO and FAA’s chairman should be sent to prison. All Boeing 737 MAX 8 should be grounded permanently.
Boeing senior managers need to be prosecuted, this is a criminal act!
That should be a criminal offense. Deactivating a safety feature ?
Now it going to be a standard feature ? It should have been a feature from the start.
I note Airbus Neo has three AOA indicators, one each to each pilot and in case of disagreement, a SPARE! Cop that Boeing. How about they rip the airfoils off the thing and sell it to Greyhound…
Profit over safety, disgusting!
Not telling Pilots about MCAS, omitting explanation of MCAS from manual only listed them in abbreviation list, not telling airlines about feature turned off.
Boeing completely has no integrity.
Cause MCAS is a band aid software to secretly cover their design flaw. Why will Boeing expose Max flaws to public?
Where are all the aeronautical engineering professors gone? Where are all the American Aircraft Experts? Why no one talks about the physical design? The silence tells you the answer already.
So If you thinl 737 Max is not Aerodinamicaly flaws, than we should ask Boeing for Dismantle MCAS Challenge.
I bet, there will be more accident because of stall than 2 accident caused by MCAS.
Selling a plane that includes a system that, when a single component fails, can make the airplane unflyable should never have happened. But then to upsell a “safety package” that would add a backup sensor to mitigate the problem? THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING AND CHOSE PROFITS OVER LIVES.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Boeing’s automatic trim for the 737 MAX was not disclosed to the Pilots
https://leehamnews.com/2018/11/14/boeings-automatic-trim-for-the-737-max-was-not-disclosed-to-the-pilots/
November 14, 2018, © Leeham News.: The automatic trim Boeing introduced on the 737 MAX, called MCAS, was news to us last week. Graver, it was news to the Pilots flying the MAX since 18 months as well.
Boeing and its oversight, the FAA, decided the Airlines and their Pilots had no need to know. The Lion Air accident can prove otherwise.
The 737 is a classical flight control aircraft. It relies on a naturally stable base aircraft for its flight control design, augmented in selected areas.
Until the MAX, there was no need for artificial aids in pitch. Once the aircraft entered a stall, there were several actions described last week which assisted the pilot to exit the stall. But not in normal flight.
The larger nacelles, called for by the higher bypass LEAP-1B engines, changed this. When flying at normal angles of attack (3° at cruise and say 5° in a turn) the destabilizing effect of the larger engines are not felt.
The nacelles are designed to not generate lift in normal flight. It would generate unnecessary drag as the aspect ratio of an engine nacelle is lousy.
But if the pilot for whatever reason manoeuvres the aircraft hard, generating an angle of attack close to the stall angle of around 14°, the previously neutral engine nacelle generates lift.
To counter the MAX’s lower stability margins at high AOA, Boeing introduced MCAS.
It can be stopped by the Pilot counter-trimming on the Yoke or by him hitting the CUTOUT switches on the center pedestal. It’s not stopped by the Pilot pulling the Yoke, which for normal trim from the autopilot or runaway manual trim triggers trim hold sensors. This would negate why MCAS was implemented
It’s probably this counterintuitive characteristic, which goes against what has been trained many times in the simulator for unwanted autopilot trim or manual trim runaway, which has confused the pilots of JT610.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Boeing must show customers that they care about safety: Expert
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddwll15dAlU
Helio Fred Garcia, president of the Logos Consulting Group, and Carter Copeland, analyst at Melius Research, joins “Squawk Box” to discuss what they’re going to be watching from Boeing’s annual meeting for shareholders.
Comments:
1961 airframe with a 21 century engine. Ground it for ever!
Boeing don’t care about safety. Who on earth designs a critical sensor win no redundancy?
The Boeing 737 MAX is about MAXimum profits.
Safety is optional? Wow. Thanks Boeing.
FAA considered grounding but didn’t? Really? Thanks FAA for considering. Is it the thought that counts or real action?
Whistle blowers now coming out? Now? After two planes down?
again, dont need fix MCA software, because safe airplane doesn’t need MCA system, u know wht i say! its faulty airflow design airplane!
shareholder has became the focus over integrity and ethics, this is disgusting and is criminal neglect …the whole air frame is a failure in design and they decided to use software as the solution …software is never the wings of a plane….even if program well , software will always ware out and need updating…errors will occur and so will a crash …
Boeing put its’ stockholders welfare above the safety of its’ passengers, that simple boys and girls.
Building a completely new platform would have been a much safer long-term investment for the company, even if it means Airbus sells their A320s a little longer.
Both Boeing, and the FAA, expect pilots to get acquainted with its planes shortcomings, and how to cope with it!
That every now and then some passengers might befallen victims; it is merely a well calculated risk for Her Majesty’s Treasury…
big risk for big gain with peoples very evil
FAA seems not indepenent of Boeing’s influence.Life in danger.
All these talking heads are cheer leading Boings’ public relations campaign spinning reality to suit their master. The fact they discontinued a safety feature and told no one, speaks volumes. Their concern is the bottom line; people are expendable!
After hearing the CEO’s comments at the shareholders meeting there is no way in hell I will trust Boeing. He is still in denial of the whole events that lead to the crashes. They need to fire the entire board before I trust Boeing again.
There was two major “errors,” one administrative and one in design of how the technology would interface with sensors. From my understanding, the design created a single failure point of a critical system where the MCAS is connected to one AoA sensor, and there should be redundancy in critical systems. Which is kind of shocking for such a huge corporation. Then there was the issue of Boeing turning off warning light indicator systems that may have prevented these crashes, so they can charge extra for them, a cool 80k, for turning on a switch really, which is disgusting and criminal.
Boeing obviously cares about safety. Their business depends on it. Boeing does not have an history of crashes every time it launches a new plane. But Boeing’s management appears not to have understood the issues with the design of the 737 Max. There is no way to know how well the issues with the larger engine or the software system that is intended to compensate for the instabilities it causes are understood now. There is a reasonable chance that Boeing has fixed the problems and that the memory of its crashes will fade. But, if pilots continue to experience problems controlling the plane, it could become a failed product for Boeing.
You already lost the 737 Max , period!!! Get rid of it and make a new plane without any MCAS .
The quicker the less money will cost you. This is not a technical issue , it is a psychological issue .
Tomi Engdahl says:
Boeing admits cockpit warning light on Max jets was to be standard but wasn’t activated
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxYeTwRiJDc
Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg defended the safety systems of its 737 Max jets in his first comments to shareholders and reporters since two deadly crashes involving the best-selling plane. Those crashes killed 346 people and led to the worldwide grounding of the Max jets. A growing number of potential whistleblowers are raising safety concerns.
Tomi Engdahl says:
‘Software delivered to Boeing’ now blamed for 737 MAX warning fiasco
Engineers knew of problem in 2017. Management didn’t until after fatal crash
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/05/07/boeing_blames_software_737_max_aoa_warning_captions/
As the 737 MAX scandal rolls on, “software delivered to Boeing” has been blamed by the company for the malfunctioning of a safety display.
In a statement issued over the weekend, the American airliner manufacturer admitted that its software was not properly displaying fleet-standard warning captions to pilots. This admission comes after sustained media reporting over cockpit angle-of-attack (AOA) displays and warnings, one of which was sold by Boeing to airlines as an optional extra for their aircraft.
Warning captions (wording that flashes up on the pilot’s display screen) on the 737 MAX included one, AOA Disagree, which alerted the pilots if the 737 MAX’s two AOA sensors were delivering different readings from each other. If the two go out of sync, the logic goes, one must therefore be faulty.
Worse, Boeing engineers knew about the problem in 2017 – months before the fatal Lion Air and Ethiopian Airways crashes.
“Senior company leadership was not involved in the review and first became aware of this issue in the aftermath of the Lion Air accident,” added Boeing.
Boeing said the 737 MAX’s “display system software did not correctly meet the AOA Disagree alert requirements”, adding that “software delivered to Boeing linked the AOA Disagree alert to the AOA indicator, which is an optional feature on the MAX” and earlier versions of the 737.
“Accordingly,” continued Boeing, “the software activated the AOA Disagree alert only if an airline opted for the AOA indicator.”
This was not what should have happened. Even if an airline didn’t pay extra for the AOA indicator display gauge (pictured here on a schematic for earlier 737 versions than the MAX), if the sensors went out of sync, a warning should have been shown to the pilots.
Boeing is now issuing a display system software update to correct this fault, it said. This is on top of a promised software update to MCAS to stop it from attempting to push the 737 MAX’s nose towards the ground.
Tomi Engdahl says:
The FAA and Boeing’s Close Relationship Explained
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qifT9MBZm0k
Is the Federal Aviation Administration too close to the industry it regulates? In the wake of the Boeing 737 MAX 8 crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia, The Wall Street Journal examines why the FAA is facing renewed scrutiny into its aircraft certification process.
Comments from page:
The one thing that absolutely pisses me off!!
Boeing let that second plane crash
robmaffeis As a longtime airline pilot, I can tell you that that’s the biggest issue with the pilots I’ve been flying with as well, particularly in light of the recent developments about the functionality of warning systems on (at least) Southwest aircraft.
Typical USA economic model.
Make profits at the cost of other people’s lives….then pay a minimal fine….and do it all over again.
Tomi Engdahl says:
737 Max 8 The Real Problem – Prof Simon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeX4FnZS79Q
We have discussed the engineering issues with the Boeing 737 Max series aircraft but the real problem is the way the company made the planes. This personal take on how Boeing became driven more by its accounts department than its engineers.
Tomi Engdahl says:
FAA Didn’t Treat Suspect 737 MAX Flight-Control System as Critical Safety Risk
https://www.wsj.com/articles/faa-saw-737-max-flight-control-system-as-non-critical-safety-risk-11557831723
Conclusion is part of internal agency review of jetliner certification process
Is the Federal Aviation Administration too close to the industry it regulates? In the wake of the Boeing 737 MAX 8 crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia, The Wall Street Journal examines why the FAA is facing renewed scrutiny into its aircraft certification process.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Allied Pilots Association’s Dan Carey discusses tense meeting with Boeing about 737 MAX 8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CshWIpB-8Mw
Allied Pilots Association president and American Airlines Captain Dan Carey discusses pilots concerns about the Boeing 737 MAX 8 after sharing a recording from a November meeting with Boeing.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Boeing failed to report 737 Max alert system problem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GFL8ZZQOts
Boeing failed to tell the FAA and airlines that an alert system was not operational on all 737 Max, casting doubt on the procedures the company has followed for decades. CNN’s senior investigative correspondent Drew Griffin reports.
Comments:
I can 100% guarantee you that a Boeing “engineer” was not responsible for this. Management always sweeps things under the rug as “it’s fine”. Engineers always alert management and then management makes a business decision.
It is an upper management failure but also a problem of the Department of Transportation not doing the job set before them before people die. But then why are they not doing the job? It is because of pressure from the politicians who push for less regulation and thus less responsibility for the corporations like Boing. Why? Profits.
What about code of ethics, I am sure those engineers signed a code of ethics. They knew it’s not safe, they should bring that to managements. If managements are not making decisions to protect the public, those engineers should notify authorities. That’s what I was told to do when I signed my code of ethics in my field. That’s make them responsible.
they killed hundreds of people and no one goes to jail?
Tomi Engdahl says:
737 MAX GROUNDINGS – 747 CHANGES | Aviation News Weekly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH8yjYXVR48
737 MAX Updates and so much more happened in the past week!
Tomi Engdahl says:
737 MAX FIX – A350-1000 ROUTES | Aviation News Weekly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACGW3zre5Xk
The Boeing 737 MAX Software Fix, Japan Airlines A350 First Flight, British Airways A350-1000 Routes!
Tomi Engdahl says:
Boeing says 737 Max software is fixed, now it’s up to the FAA
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/16/737-max-boeing-software-fix-done/3697037002/
Chris Woodyard USA TODAY
Published 4:38 PM EDT May 16, 2019
Boeing said Thursday that it has completed its software fix on the 737 Max, a key step toward getting the grounded jetliner back in the air after two deadly crashes.
But the jet still isn’t likely to be back in service for months. It now faces tests and certification by the Federal Aviation Administration and other agencies around the world.
The system, the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), played a role in the crash of 737 Max jets operated by Lion Air in October and by Ethiopian Airlines in March. The two crashes claimed a total of 346 lives.
Boeing has said it is redesigning the software so that pilots can more easily shut off the system, keeping it from repeatedly reengaging, and not making it react as dramatically in pushing down the nose. Rather than relying on data from a single sensor, the new system will take a measure of both sensors that tell the MCAS system whether the nose is pointed too high.
Boeing said it has flown 207 test flights comprising 360 hours of flight time in 737 Max jets with the new MCAS software.
Boeing says it has completed 737 Max software fix
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/16/politics/737-max-boeing-software-fix/index.html
The company has said its fix will feed MCAS with data from two, rather than just one, sensor, making the plane less susceptible to a crash because of bad data. It will also make the system less potent, which is expected to prevent the steep dives seen in the two crashes, and provide additional training materials.
“Boeing has developed enhanced training and education materials that are now being reviewed with the FAA, global regulators, and airline customers to support return-to-service and longer-term operations,” the company statement said. “This includes a series of regional customer conferences being conducted around the world.”
Multiple investigations, including the initial crash investigation, are ongoing. Criminal prosecutors, congressional staffers, and the Transportation Department inspector general are reviewing the initial certification of the 737 and the FAA’s processes.
The FAA’s aircraft certification chief, Earl Lawrence, told Congress on Wednesday the agency has been reviewing a preliminary version of the software provided by Boeing.
“I would call it the beta version,” Lawrence said. “The reason why they submitted it to us is so we can stick it in the simulator so we could test it, so we can also look at their system safety analysis and see whether it will appropriately address it.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
OPINION
Flawed: Why the Boeing 737 Max Should Be Permanently Grounded
https://observer.com/2019/05/boeing-737-max-software-fix-permanently-ground/
Boeing has announced that it has completed its software fix on the 737 Max, a requirement toward getting the plane certified to once again fly after two deadly crashes. News coverage of the announcement focused on the fact that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will need to conduct its own tests and certification to verify if Boeing has truly fixed the problem. In addition, Congress is holding hearings on why the 737 Max was certified to fly in the first place. It’s safe to state that it may be months, if not longer, before the 737 Max once again is transporting passengers.
Instead of focusing on the software, the media and the public should be fixated on the following fact:
The reason why Boeing had to come up with a software fix is because the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), played a role in the crash of the Lion Air 737 Max and the Ethiopian Airlines 737 Max jet.
But why is the MCAS needed on the 737 Max? The MCAS is designed to counteract the tendency of the nose on 737 Max jets to point up due to heavier engines being mounted in a more forward position on the wing than in previous versions of the 737.
Still not clear? Let me simplify it even more: The 737 Max is a flawed design. Instead of building a new plane to meet the needs of a specific market, Boeing’s senior executives, including CEO Dennis Muilenburg, made the decision to upgrade the 737 in an attempt to get the plane to market sooner to prevent its largest competitor, Airbus, from securing orders for its own aircraft. When testing revealed that the heavier engines and the forward placement location of the engines on the 737 Max created new and unsafe flight characteristics, did Boeing shut down the program? No. Boeing made the decision to come up with a software fix to force a solution to the fact that the company had pushed the original design of the 737 far past its limit.
But don’t worry, Boeing’s CEO Dennis Muilenburg is on top of everything. According Muilenburg:
We’re committed to providing the FAA and the global regulators all the information they need, and to getting it right. We’re making clear and steady progress and are confident that the 737 Max with updated MCAS software will be one of the safest airplanes ever to fly.
No, the 737 Max will never be one of the safest planes to fly—ever—because the design of the 737 is flawed, Dennis. This isn’t my opinion.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Boeing acknowledges flaw in 737 MAX simulator software
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/05/19/business/corporate-business/boeing-acknowledges-flaw-737-max-simulator-software/
Boeing acknowledged Saturday it had to correct flaws in its 737 MAX flight simulator software used to train pilots, after two deadly crashes involving the aircraft that killed 346 people.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Could US pilots have saved the 737 MAX8 ? – Prof Simon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtHBz2-YpWE
I am getting a lot of YouTube comments, saying US pilots would have been able to save the Ethiopian 737 Max 8. We put this to the test.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Why Boeing’s 737 Max matters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9dP3vifwS0
A Boeing 737 takes off somewhere every 15 seconds. As the world’s most popular airliner, nearly 3 out of every 4 airplanes Boeing delivers, is a 737 in Renton. As part of Boeing’s business, analysts estimate it accounts for half of Boeing’s airline revenues, about 30 billion dollars a year. KING 5′s Glenn Farley reports.