this is NOT pilot error or lack of 'training.' its obvious software took over, and this plane's controls were totally out of the hands of the pilots. we are talking massive class action lawsuits here, and massive fines against Boeing, which one would hope would bankrupt the highly corrupted company. you can't fly safely anymore, knowing how boeing has done this with impugnity, and has our entire government in their back pockets. I could care less if Southwest flies all Boeings, or American or United or any other carrier. they too are complicit in the many crimes going on here. AOC is 100% correct. Now I agree with her. End all flying by commercial air liners, especially Boeing. sounds extreme now, but do you wish to be the next victim ????
5
So..let's get this right, right?!?! The pilots fly the planes on the new MACS system with a 50 minute ipad training and a sheaf of 12 papers and are expected to master and know the new system?? No simulators, no Boeing engineers teaching them this "upgrade to prevent stalling", only their experience to understand what they don't understand??? Shame on Boeing for all the lost souls..shame, shame.....
23
Regulations are just awful for businesses, aren't they. They're just terrible and cost us so much money, especially money paid out to executives by the board. Good thing the GOP wants less regulations. Looks like we're starting with the FAA. What can possibly go wrong?
13
Why does this article ramble and repeat the same thing over and over. NYT needs to get it together. Must have read the same sentence 4 times in this.
3
Boeing's behavior has been absolutely unforgivable. The 787 Max should be grounded permanently to teach Boeing a lesson.
Then let Boeing try to re-certify it from scratch.
5
We have asked again: are these planes fitted with the "new" joystick steering control mechanism (instead of the traditional steering/control yoke) that forces all pilots to steer the aircraft one-handed, and the 90% who are right-handed to steer one'handed with their weaker hand ? Not smart. Not smart at all. Also - are there issues with the shorter wingspan that results from those little V-shaped "add-on's" at the wingtips which allow more planes to be parked in smaller gate spaces at the airport (shorter wingspan = reduced lift especially at lower speeds). Also, has going from four engines to two engines similarly reduced the ability to generate additional/emergency lift by increasing thrust - i.e. 4 engines = more thrust, 2 engines = less thrust. It is truly insane to be making pilots steer these aircraft via joystick, (i.e. one-handed, and because 90% of the pilots are right handed, with their "off" hand. Truly insane.
5
There could have been even more. The CEO of Boeing called Trump to soft talk this.
7
This is just unforgivable. These corporations are given carte blanche to do whatever they want and it's always at the expense of human life. Why should we trust a "software upgrade"? Why should we trust Boeing at all?
84
@atb Pilots, like doctors, and/or *any* professionals must keep abreast of the continual and/or progressive changes in the "tools of their trade"; their *training* using these tools must also keep current. There have accidents since the early days of flight and with each one -- and each inquiry made (in the U.S.) by the NTSB with the cooperation of the FAA and all the airlines -- improvements have been made making air travel safer than the telling of it. Remember please the accidents are in the primary investigatory stages.
3
How can any airline in the world trust Boeing after their not fixing the software since last October and not taking immediate action to ground these planes this week?
There should be Senate hearings to find out why Boeing (and Trump, Chao, and the FAA) felt there was nothing urgent after this second crash until the rest of the world grounded these planes.
81
@me
Before you request Senate hearings, please consider this tragedy is a direct consequence of the recent government shutdown effect on FAA.
8
No amount of training may have prevented a mechanical failure. Horrifying.
23
EB - Or a software failure.
8
@Rosie-Glow 737s have been operating for decades so the MAX clearly has software problems with auto-pilot or correcting software. Would be interesting to see if Boeing knew there were issues before the crashes. The 737MAX may be a 737, but the plane is built from ground up and has very little to do with 737s of the past. Since the US and Western Countries have been flying them safely, I am wondering if Boeing is not training all the pilots about new features
2
Parden me...but I'm really confused...
Is this an airplane with real live people on board?
Or is this a video game? The goal being to disconnect a self destruct software program before the plane crashes.
So now, we blame the pilot for not disconnecting a defective software program fast enough.
Defective airplane designs should never be propped up with inherently quirky and unreliable computer systems.
76
@Richard Fried
You Nailed it sir, I like the analogy of the Video game and Seld Destruction of the Plane. Why Make an Aircraft when their is a likely scenario of it happening in the First Place??
5
I know everyone thinks if only the pilot could have disconnected or disengaged the automated system and went to manual. But what if it didn’t disengage even if they pressed that button do so? All the pilots were aware of this remedy after the Lion air crash. I suspect this is what happened to the two planes that crashed.
5
Our government has been pursuing a hands-off policy when it comes to regulation because it streamlines everything--government regulation is too slow to respond to the needs of private industry. And those needs are to cut costs and increase profits and output in as short a time as possible. Both the Republican and Democratic parties know this, but only one party is willing to pander almost shamelessly to those needs.
The flip side to deregulation ( and non-regulation) is what we are now seeing and have seen before--filthy river systems, air pollution, improper storage of nuclear waste, hazardous working conditions and airplanes that fall from the sky.
Unless our citizens demand accountability, this neglect from government and industry will be ongoing.
88
@Susan This anti-regulatory sentiment also puts shareholders ahead of everybody. Still, when Boeing modifies a design in such a way as to introduce an instability, then patches the problem, then includes overrides to the patch, etc., etc. it is clear that profitability and share price came first, first even over human life. I suspect this will bite back hard.
30
@Juliana Sadock Savino
It is obvious that Boeing rushed to get these planes out, overruling possible concerns with the design of these planes. When companies have no proper independent review of their practices ( as we would have if we had a properly- functioning FAA that wasn't disabled and dysfunctional from anti-regulatory neglect (but that is a whole other topic we could discuss!),) they damage themselves and endanger us all.
18
"Self-certification" equals NO certification.
It is scandalous that the FAA has changed its policies to allow aircraft makers to do their own safety certification. That stinks of political influence by big money.
77
@David Booth....Haven't you heard ? The GOP's been in control, and they HATE government, much less any government regulations. cut, cut, cut....that's all they do, and you blame the FAA?
14
To what extent can these accidents be attributed to Trump's government shutdown?
1
Are there any ways those planes could be remote-controlled? Are terrorists who have remote controllers playing games with some flights? Or is the software that helps to control the plane horribly defective or has a backdoor that creates a disaster on signal?
1
I've always been a bit fearful of flying, although I have done my share of flying. This was absolutely heart breaking. RIP and a nod to the pilots who tried to do their best.
13
Overall, planes are still far safer than other modes of travel. But this does make me think about our future with self driving cars. What happens if a car gets a software update that changes the self driving characteristics?
11
@Ben P
If the self-driving car is still much safer, why throw cold water on it by speculating that a computer glitch might happen?
Sheer speculation on my part, but the close proximity to the ground makes me wonder if a ground based terrorist hack of the planes computer could have been possible.....testing for future attacks on the US. If huge corporations with expensive IT firewalls can be hacked, then why not a jet airplane? I had read some years ago that Al Queda was researching ways to take command of aircraft flight controls.
5
@Claude Corbet
Possible, but not likely, as things unfold. Even the relatively sophisticated terrorist would not likely be privy to the finely tuned mechanics of an airliner’s control system.
2
By all indications, this appears to be a fly-by-wire failure similar to the France Air 296 ) that crashed during a flyover in 1998. In this case, it was a new Airbus A320. The computer controls fought against the pilots attempt to control the aircraft.
It's typical for the airline and investigators (the NTSB in particular) to want to blame a crash on pilot error. The NTSB tried to do that will Sully, 'blaming him' for saving all the lives of his passengers by landing in the Hudson at the cost of the jet.
The 737 was subject to mechanical problems with a couple fatal rudder hardover failures in the '90's. Mechanical -- not computer -- but the result was the same. The pilots were unable to control the aircraft due to a manufacturing flaw that cost innocent people their lives.
I agree with other posts saying, while the 737 has been a workhorse, it should have been retired and a new air frame designed to accommodate the large engines rather than rely on a computer to try and compensate.
And, if what the president of the American Airlines Pilots Association is true, Boeing is culpable for these deaths due to what he described as a possibly "criminally deficient" manual for the Max 8.
9
@Doc v
A 1964 Mustang looks nothing like a 2019 Mustang yet both are Mustangs.
A 1965 737 is absolutely nothing like a 2019 737 yet they are both 737's.
Trust me, the max' airframe has nothing in common with earlier models except the number 737.
2
@Doc v You are completely wrong about the A320 crash known as Air France 296. The cause was that the pilot flew too low and too slow over rising terrain, and by the time the pilot realised he would hit the trees he could not spool up the engines sufficiently quickly to build up enough speed to climb out without stalling. The aircraft prevented him from increasing the angle of attack, which would have resulted in a stall and crash. As it was, he ploughed level into the trees, which was much less dangerous than a climb and a stall from a greater height. Only three out of 136 people on board did not survive (a handicapped boy, a girl who could not undo her seatbelt, and a woman who returned to the burning cabin to try to rescue them). The plane saved its passengers and crew from a much worse impact.
1
This tape should be playing in the offices of the Boeing CEO, Acting Head of FAA, Secretary of Transportation and the Oval Office of the White House 24/7 365 days a year.
7
Did previous versions of this plane also have a similar suite of auto flight control software? *I thought I read that the reason Boeing did not make a bigger deal about the software changes built into this generation of plane was that Boeing had determined that those newest changes were not different enough from previous software design updates to warrant special mention or special attention or different training, because the procedures and interventions would have all been the same.
In tandem with this story is also a story that there was a pressure to minimize the necessity for greater, more in depth, training, (purchase of aircraft specific simulators), all of which buyers consider, weighing the real cost of buying a new plane.
My question would have to be, was the new software profile actually different enough as to necessitate a greater mention in the information which came with this new plane?
Apparently, everything can be stripped down to [complete] manual control. Did Lion and Ethiopia realize how fast that needed to happen? Help me out? I'm winging it here. Thank you..
2
@dgls
From what I have read it seems that either manual control was not possible with the automatic control system kicking in, or that one or both of the planes’ crews did not act to utilize it.
1
By most moral standards Boeing committed if not outright murder, so at least manslaughter as far as the victims of the Ethopian Airline flight is concerned.
18
@illampu
I think that civil, not criminal remedies are appropriate here.
1
@illampu
Indeed. Boeing executives should get ling prison terms.
The day that executives go to jail for their decisions is the day we start to make America great again.
5
With 350 such aircraft entering service over the past two years, there must have been pilot reports about abnormalities similar to the ones that caused the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines disasters. Have any pilots flying the B737 Max in the USA and Canada reported anything in the past or since the crashes, or have I missed something?
10
George Courmouzs - Yes, pilots have reported problems with the Boeing aircraft on NASA's anonymous Aviation Safety Reporting System.
* "U.S. Pilots Reported Issues With the Boeing 737 MAX 8 Last Year" - http://time.com/5550449/pilots-boeing-737-max-issues/
* "Here’s What Was on the Record About Problems With the 737 Max" - https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2019/03/heres-what-was-on-the-record-about-problems-with-the-737-max/584791/
8
@George Courmouzs -Yes they have. There is a website that pilots can post anonymously and they voiced their concern.
5
@George Courmouzs
Apparently not. I keep up w/this sort of thing, & I've not seen/heard anything about this plane in USA. It asn't been a news item here.
Just imagine how horrifying it was for those pilots to know they, and all on their flights, were to die within moments. And that this should not be happening and there was nothing they could do about it,
14
@Daisy22
After a certain point, it seems, the die was cast.
Why was Boeing's stock price more important to the FAA and the president than the lives of airline passengers?
No wonder the democratic socialists are on the ascendant.
30
This is the new anti-regulatory world order under Trump and the GOP.
26
@Patricia G, nothing new here. Just ask anyone in the midst of a medical crisis who's having a slapfight with their insurance company. Stockholders come first.
At least give the President props for ordering the grounding of these aircraft.
6
@Patricia G nope
@QuestionsLeader of the free world is LAST to ground the planes. Nope
3
There may well be other relevant parallels to a past event here--the Challenger disaster and Dr. Feynman's ability to point the finger at administrative pressure.
3
Boeing should consider if too much automation is causing plane crashes. Who can trust a company that has known since October they had a problem and did not ground the planes. This was Trump's REAL national emergency and he blew it!
5
@Jacquie It wasn't too much automation; it was the retrofitting of the existing 737 with a heavier engine that literally made the plane less airworthy, for which they patched together a "fix." Was it worth it?
4
@Juliana Sadock Savino. If it was worth it to Boeing, I sincerely hope that subsequent lawsuits will make it not worth it ever again.
1
And now we know why Trump grounded the Max.
There were witnesses in tower who saw the aircraft was in trouble immediately upon take off and before the crew called it in.
Coupled with the fact that pilots don't usually engage auto pilot until they are over 400 ft it throws a lot of arm chair speculation about MCAS and autopilot out the window.
Now we need to learn why the FAA lacked the spine and leadership to ground the aircraft themselves! They have the authority. The FAA doesn't need the president's approval.
Time to overhaul the role of the FAA.
21
@Juliet Lima Victor "Trump" grounded the MAX because of immense political pressure to do so, not because he has any track record of knowing how to make the right decisions. Trump is no more capable of making the correct decision in this case than was the FAA. The FAA should have grounded the MAX when other aviation authorities determined it was necessary to do so.
16
@Juliet Lima Victor MCAS engages only in manual mode. Switching to autopilot could solve the problem of a misbehaving MCAS function, provided the autpilot does not use the same malfunctioning sensor which leads to MCAS producing erroneous trim adjustments. Of course, there may be a software bug which does something different.
horrific - please put a 3rd, 'normal' flight on the vertical speed trajectory comparison...it is normally a soft curve?
21
@Ari It should be more or less a straight line at about the 1800 ft/min level, as for example at the start of the Lion Air trace.
Since the reported timeline for Boeing's release of the updated software and documentation was January, and was pushed back to April because of the government shutdown, I do not believe it is a stretch to believe this could have been avoided with a more responsible POTUS.
32
@cbum I blame democrats for the shutdown. Does that make them at fault?
@Ty
No.
@Ty
I blame you, Ty, for voting for Trump and the Republicans.
One of the original quotes of aircraft design was "If it looks right, it will fly right." The 737 has morphed into an ungainly bird by being stretched, with huge engines mounted way forward and somewhat above the wing for ground clearance of the stubby landing gear. This has vastly changed the aerodynamics of the original design. Airflow over the wings changed due to the larger engines and mounts along with weight distribution due to the heavier and larger power plants. The changes has resulted in required computer control of the horizontal trim tabs to keep the plane in the air.
A military trained pilot learns flying buy the seat of his pants.Today, newer pilots are trained on simulators. If an anomaly suddenly occurs that wasn't previously part of the simulator training. the pilot is overwhelmed.
The 737 dates back to the 60's. It was designed and first manufactured at the same time as the 727. How many of those do you see hauling passengers these days? Boeing should have retired the manufacture of the 737 years ago and designed a new air-frame to better suit the newer, powerful engines.
48
@Rick You wrote "A military trained pilot learns flying buy the seat of his pants.Today, newer pilots are trained on simulators." But the pilot who just died had more than 8000 hours of flight time. He was seasoned and immediately tried to return to land. Impossible task. I would not attribute this crash to pilot inexperience.
26
@Rick says: "The 737 dates back to the 60's."
That's a PLUS, not a minus! For safety I prefer designs that have been very well tested and refined over many years of real use -- not completely new, unproven designs.
1
@David Booth I think what he is saying is that to make the MAX version of the 737, they basically took this old proven design with a good safety record, then did some Frankenstein-type changes to it to that the hull really isn't designed for, then had to compensate with software. They should have designed it from the ground up, instead of cheaping out.
10
Let’s see.
•Boeing basically regulated itself by having in-house regulators. Who knows what else these regulators have been receiving aside from free office space, and in exchange for what.
•A physics problem was addressed via a few lines of codes. A bigger engine needed a redesign on the whole plane but in the interest of profit, sensors and software were deemed enough to address the problem.
Which beggars two questions:
1—Will the regulators be investigated?
2—Will another software patch be enough to avoid another disaster?
31
@Opinioned!
And how will these software upgrades be performed? Over the air, like an i-phone? Via thumb drive? Are there protections in place to prevent viruses from being loaded in to aircraft computers?
How does this work?
5
The comments today by knowledgeable folks seem to suggest that fixing the manual overrride of the flawed autopilot software may not be an adequate fix-even tho the fact that it needs to be fixed at all is plain evidence of Boeing's criminal negligence. Maybe the entire weight distribution of the airframe is also a significant factor, and will remain so even with the pilot in charge.
As I have commented before, this whole deal reminds me of the scene near the end of the movie 2001 A Space Odyssey when the human pilot is trying to take control of the ship and the computer says "I'm sorry Jim, I can't let you do that..."
22
There's a group of bold decision-makers at Boeing who self-certified this software who are giving their very best effort to find someone else to blame right about now.
55
FIRE Elaine Chao, Immediately. As the Secretary Of Transportation, she bears ultimate responsibility for the FAA. MAJOR FAIL.
Period.
86
@Phyliss Dalmatian. Exactly what are you blaming her for?
1
for being appointed to her position as a payoff to keep senator McConnell, her spouse as the emperor of the senate and key obstructionist for potus for two plus years.
21
@Phyliss Dalmatian
Am I mistaken in not recalling any instance before this one of a president making a commercial aircraft grounding announcement? If so, why didn't the Department of Transportation or even the FAA pass the grounding announcement up to Trump? Have the decision-makers there been corrupted by Trump's insatiable need to play to his base? If so, the US is now about to pay a huge price both in international reputation for honesty and competence and in the employment and profitability/viability of its aircraft and supplying industries.
18
Silly to look at "more training" if the problem is a software flaw. Blaming people for non-human failures (hence a need for "more training") is so typical....and so wrong.
87
Somehow US pilots are able to deactivate the anti-stall feature in similar situations, others apparently are not. Training might as well be in order for those
5
@MDS The two reported incidents in the US involved the pilots simply deactivating the autopilot, giving manual control back to the pilots. That supposedly removes any MCAS input to the flight controls.
The training would involve scenarios where the nose attitude pitches up or down in appropriately, with a brief series of troubleshooting steps (or perhaps none at all) leading to deactivating the autopilot.
While I do not believe anyone is blaming pilot error for the aircraft malfunction and crash, it is quite possible that investigators will ultimately decide the plane could have been landed had the pilots responded differently. THAT would have been a result of training.
10
@MDS Nothing silly about it all. In fact, it shows a level of ignorance that isn’t helpful. Software is not infallible; well trained pilots know how to fly the airplane by hand. In each case my guess is the proper procedure is to simply to turn the system off and fly the airplane manually. Hence the maxim that the “best safety device in any aircraft is a well trained pilot”. The problem is a shortage of well-trained pilots running into huge demand for air travel.
7
Not enough pilot training and Trump saying no need for pilots, electronics can do the job.
As a family member, this is insulting, inappropriate, and downright evil. If the public only knew just what pilots need to do, their training, their education, their demeanor and skill. But they also depend on airline companies, their government agencies, and the leader of their country to support them in providing safety to the thousands of passengers they serve. Flight attendants also are not just peanut vendors. They are required a lot of training, updated education. The peanuts are way a minor part of their knowledge and service.
The next time you fly, appreciate your cabin staff. Remember Sully and crew......there are many of them out there, believe it or not. And our leaders in the industry and government should honor them with gratitude and safety and not throw insults and leave them unsupported. After all, the F.A.A. and Trump, Chao, and others are getting paid by us!
45
@MIMA I don't disagree with your post's main points, but Trump tweeted exactly the opposite of what you have him saying.
6
It is good that Ethiopian officials intentionally sent the flight data recorders to European investigators, and NOT to the U.S. The trump administration has made our government anti-science and anti-fact. Their actions during this catastrophe put peoples' lives at risk while protecting companies (Boeing and airlines).
This accident and the Lion Air crash in October both had the same flight seesawing and human behaviors:
• the MAX 8 avionics system was "fighting" the pilot, and
• the pilot/copilots (presumably) could not turn it OFF.
The accidents are due to Boeing's poor design (of probably their new MCAS system), and from insufficient testing of design changes. The FAA let them proceed with minimal testing.
The deeper problem stems from a lack of regulation. The FAA is responsible for certifying new/changed airframe designs. However, their current policy strangely allows manufacturers like Boeing to "self-certify" modifications. That is dangerous, and allows profit-hungry manufacturers to certify and sell dangerous airplanes like this, that can occasionally cause 100s of serious deaths.
And why hasn't trump appointed an FAA administrator? The FAA is run by an "acting" head - who was an airline lobbyist.
85
@IN. Then why haven’t the black boxes been looked at YET? Could it be because France is a competitor?
1
@Jackson
At least one of the boxes has been looked at. It takes a couple of days to process the material.
Also, the CEO of Boeing called Trump after the first crash. Maybe that's why the second plane was allowed to fly??
7
@Jackson
It's a lot harder to fabricate data than omit. The flight data recorder looked like it was in bad shape, and the French are being careful. Boeing's former/future employees at the FAA could have hurried and, oops an 18 1/2 minute gap appears.
4
I believe the preponderance of support should go to the pilots’ skill; especially now that four skilled pilots have been unable to correct the planes’ behavior.
First it was “all the pilots had to do was turn it off” making it sound like the pilots were in error.
Next, it was the “pilots needed more training” making it sound like it was airline error, or at least, airline culpability for failing to train their pilots.
Then we heard that Boeing provided insufficient information and that the “flight manuals were vague on the changes” pointing to Boeing as having shared responsibility. How could airlines train pilots if the manuals didn't provide complete instructions?
For the past 4-months, Boeing has been working on a software fix. Anyone who does programming knows that 4-months is not a very long time to complete changes when you consider how many lines of code may need to be changed and then put through testing cycles. It could be 6 to 12 months before an updated program could be finished and deployed.
Now it’s starting to look as if it could be a software error. Until the investigation is complete, we won’t know. But can you imagine the Boeing boardroom conversations about financial responsibility for 346 lives lost?
Might Boeing have been working on a suspected software issue prior to October 2018?
39
@LivingWithInterest and let's not forget that the US Government shutdown is being called out for delaying the updating of the software. Disgusting.
4
@edman13 : Please help me to understand this:
Boeing being a private company, how could the government having shut down have slowed Boeing from doing its work?
*Perhaps, are you saying that a re-writing of the code has to be done, in tandem, or in partnership, with government, by approved increments? and
Whilst a shutdown, no partner, no progress?
@dgls
* exactly. It takes time to update code and Boeing has committed to completing the work by April of this year, which seems pretty fast-6 months.
Boeing didn't need the government to intervene to initiate software fixs - they simply have an obligation to ensure passenger and crew safety.
1
The vertical air speed charts for these two airlines are vastly different. The Lion Air (LA) chart is more saw-toothed than the Ethiopian Airways (EA) chart indicating more variability in vertical acceleration. Also, the airspeed in the EA plane increased beyond the design limitations of the airframe. I don’t remember this being a factor in the LA crash. Resist the urge to generalize and speculate. Let the investigators do their job.
13
I'm baffled at how little attention the unusual makeup of the flight crew is getting. The Captain had 8000 hrs but was only 29 yo and had gone into the Ethiopian Air flight academy directly out of high school. The FO was also out of the academy but had just 200 hrs, a shockingly low total for anyone in a large airliner cockpit. That had to skew the cockpit dynamic from experienced team to coach/student. Maybe they did everything perfectly, and may they both rest in peace. But if a large US airliner crashed with a 29 yo CPT and a 200-hr FO at the controls it would be a major focus of inquiry and coverage.
13
@BillScottIt Given the first crash and some pilot complaints, it's probably logical to focus on the mechanics of the situation first. Among other things, that would reveal the complexity of the challenges that they faced.
Still, I thank you for that information. I did not know it. Even it this was a software-caused crash, a crew with two experienced pilots might have responded better.
7
@BillScott The minimum age to be a licensed airline pilot in the US is 23, with 1500 hours of flying time. But an interesting point made in the article, that sort of makes this number fuzzy, is that the flight hours required are dictated by the airline, based on staffing demand, and not by the FAA. So that leaves a big question mark. Under certain conditions, a pilot can be as young as 21, but with a restricted ATP license, and cannot be captains, only first officers. Big difference in training hours but I don't think I would ever fly in a plane that was piloted by a 21 year old, no matter how many hours he/she had logged.
You can read the whole article here, in case I haven't understood it all correctly:
https://www.johnnyjet.com/ask-a-pilot-how-old-do-you-have-to-be-to-become-an-airline-pilot
1
@BillScott
There’s been ample reporting on the excellent quality of Ethiopian-trained pilots. They train many.
Your comment reeks of an assumption that an African, black, person should be investigated. (I’m white - and old and yes, I say this!)
It goes without saying that every air crash investigation does look at everything, including airplane personnel.
I’m going to flag this comment.
11
Amazing that Trump ordered Mitch McConnell's wife and Transportation Secretary and her staff to fly on that same plane on a Tuesday, two days after the crash on Sunday. Doesn't the Secretary of Transportation not even bother to listen to the pilot's last transmissions before she makes the decision that the aircraft is safe?
7
@Timothy Niebauer
Don't you know that the Transportation Secretary's opinion is irrelevant? What's important is that Boeing's CEO, Trump's golfing buddy and $1 million contributor, assured him the plane is safe.
43
I'm beginning to wonder if there was a design fault with this latest Boeing jet. Why should a jet need a special software addition to keep the jet from excessively moving up and down many times, as well as exceeding bursts of speed and climb?
11
@Majortrout
Yes, they skipped redesigning the whole thing and cobbled together old and new - which then had to have special software tweaks in order to keep the plane aloft.
8
@Majortrout I believe that they moved these more power ful engines forward and up on this model plane, and that was one of the reasons for the software upgrade, i.e. to keep the plane from gaining too much speed and to keep the nose from tilting up.
2
@Majortrout It's absolutely a design flaw. Bigger engines needed to for increased distance to match the Airbus range. Pushed forward to increase ground clearance. They had to add the software to keep the plane level as the increased frontal weight at that particular point pushed the nose of the plane up naturally which increased the potential for a stall.
7
America, the home of making as much profit as possible. Safety, welfare or health of humans never enter the equation.
44
Comparing the speed of Flight 302 as reported on flightradar24 to the speed of a "normal" Max 8 flight as also recorded on that site, Flight 302 was going some 150 mph faster than normal 4 minutes into the flight. According to my calculations.
7
The FAA and Boeing are both conflicted parties here. No wonder Ethiopian chose to send the black boxes to Paris for analysis. Per the current regs, FAA agreed to Boeing's self-certification of the aircraft and MCAS, and Boeing continues to insist the aircraft is safe, despite two very similar accidents. Even if you suspect pilot training/experience as a contributing factor, the fact that 2 sets of pilots were not able to control the MAX8's in emergency situations, says Boeing has not designed the flight system to be pilot friendly and MCAS logic needs to be changed. I am assuming that Boeing wants to sell MAX8's to the rest of the world, not just supposedly "better experienced" US pilots and airlines. Hence I find Boeing's & FAA's comments that the aircraft is "safe" as not facing the reality, which the rest of the world did immediately. The 737's truly is an awesome family of aircraft and has changed air travel around the world. Prudent approach would be for Boeing and FAA to take ownership of the issue and fix it quickly so that the MAX's can continue the legacy of the 737's!
36
Word on the street is that Boeing's energy saving design of the 737 max' engines was faulty and could habe lead to an instabile behavior diring takeoff. but to save money and to win the "race" with airbus they decided not to redesign the whole plane but to write a software that compensates for that instabile flight behavior. They were allowed to self-certify because while it's quite a different design from old 737s it's still considered the same series, so it didn't habe to go throgh the thorough inspection progress new designs usually have to go through. Also, there are rumors of reports of erratic behavior of the plane by U.S. pilots too. They might have bern better trained or just plsin lucky. Either way, it seems to be a design fault by boeing - having a software that prevents one kind of disaster but is prone to cause another - and no software that overrides that one when it senses the plane acting weird, respectively expecting the pilots to navigate through this byzantine labyrinth of software that mitigates hardware faults - it's just a recipie for disaster.
17
Boeing did not want to require pilot re-training on the new system/software to minimize cost of acquisition of the MAX, to make sales easier. Pilots were not advised of the new AOA sensor software, and the workaround is very difficult, and buried in the manual. This all derives from short-sighted profit motive. Yes, (per Ayn Rand) the market will force corrections, but the cost is lives.
110
@Eric
Plus, they failed to tweak the software enough. So the auto pilot was tuned to “fail.”
7
@Eric
Absolutely true. Every pilot learns that a plane will stall under the conditions these pilots were experiencing on take-off, but tragically it appears they were unable to take over control from the AOA sensor.
7
@Eric, I know that it's a bit off-topic, but your mentioning of Ayn Rand and her idea that the market self-corrects is flawed. Sure, in this highly publicized incident, it looks that way, but I don't see the market correcting for climate change--if anything, US companies are doubling down and you can look at automakers petitioning Trump to cut MPG--nor does this say anything about the black market that we have just uncovered for college admissions. Trump was right that the system is rigged, but it's rigged in favor of people like him. Ayn Rand's platform of a rational human being is a myth and that's why her ideas are bogus.
23
If a stall is feared, a pilot should have two reactions: bring the nose down and increase engine power. If an out-of-control automatic system is in charge of these two actions, this could explain why the plane was also flying faster than normal.
22
@SJP. Exactly. The conventional response to a stall, which is an excessive angle of attack relative to airspeed, disrupting the laminar flow of air over the wings and killing the lift that keeps planes flying, is to drop the nose and increase airspeed until lift is restored. Every student pilot learns that early-on.
Try to climb vertically in a single-engine light plane, and you don't have enough power to maintain flyable airspeed, but jet fighters can go up like missiles because their engines are so powerful.
If this automated anti-stall system is getting bad data from sensors, it's easy to imagine it insisting that the nose has to go lower and the engines have to push harder, exactly what has been described with the 737 Max: erratic downward vertical movement and unusual engine thrust. And If the sensors are ok but the code has bugs, same result.
7
We may be awkwardly between automated and partially automated piloting, where human overriding of computerized systems comes too late, and either too little or too much...
11
It's a bit unclear when reading this article whether the authors are discussing airspeed or vertical speed (i.e. climb rate). The vertical speed graph isn't necessarily relevant if the article is discussing airspeed.
9
There needs to be complete and immediate release of these voice recordings mandated by international treaty. The same applies to the cockpit voice recording which must now have been extracted.
If the recordings had been made public immediately, the 737 Maxs would surely have been grounded sooner and that would surely have been a good thing.
11
@Londoner
It might be wiser to publish a “description” and not release the actual voice recordings. I can only imagine the terror and anguish that might be broad age. It’s enough to describe it.
7
In developing the Max 8 Boeing was pressured by competition from Airbus. Conventional wisdom about competition bringing out the best in new products isn’t always the case.
32
Reporting 101: What was the excessive speed reported? What has been gleaned from the Indonesian black boxes?
7
Two newly designed airplanes dive into the ground minutes after takeoff. Both seemed to go out of control. Both were made by Boeing, and both had the same computer systems in them. I don't think the FAA needs more data than that to suspend flight of these aircraft until the glitch is figured out. Pilot error could be blamed for one such failure, but not two. The new Boeing design is a killer. It needs to be fixed.
69
@Patrick Stevens
Yes, the common factors suggested a common problem. Only an investigation will determine that. But, there is always a need to be cautious about grounding a plane. When planes stop flying, people tend to drive, which is dangerous in itself. The trade-off is not simple.
4
@Patrick Stevens
We know the Lion Air crash could have been prevented if the pilots knew to turn off the automated trim system. We should assume that any pilot flying a Max jet after that crash without knowledge of this problem and how to safely resolve it would involve criminal negligence somewhere. We already know that the Ethiopian plane was flying at speeds above design limits before the pilot declared an emergency. Even without sleeping at a certain hotel chain last night, that sounds like pilot error already.
4
The high speed most likely wasn’t something the pilots initiated. With the Lion Air Flight crash, the plane’s autopilot flight system was engaged to correct what it interrupted as the plane stalling due to what they believed was a faulty Angle of Attack sensor, which the system tries to correct by initiating a dive. It sounds like the plane’s autopilot may have initiated a dive shortly after take off based on similar patterns with the Lion Air Flight crash. Too early to say, but thinking this is pilot error on a plane with a known history of an issue with overriding the autopilot system when the plane initiates anti stall measures is a rush to judgement.
11
The first question has to be whether the flight management system (autopilot) was engaged. If it was not, there is a fundamental flaw in the fly by wire system, which is far more trouble.
The original 737 had under wing engines; the series of modifications pushed the engines forward and lower and created an aircraft (like the B-2) that cannot be flown without computer assistance.
21
@John Graybeard
Exactly, this is inherently unstable plane by design.
6
Did the pilots shut off the autopilot or were they manually flying the plane? Would it not be prudent to hand fly the aircraft if automatic inputs were being made to the system?
5
@EDH
Great question, but ask yourself this: would the autopilot circle back for a landing and try to climb?
4
@EDH
My understanding is that MCAS can override manual control unless it is completely disabled by two switches on the console, basically putting the pilots in the position of fighting the automation, hence the up and down trajectory.
5
Perhaps it would have been better if Boeing had redesigned the landing gear to give more ground clearance required for the new, larger diameter engines.
Instead it opted to move the engines forward on the wings, changing the weight balance and thrust/lift characteristics of the aircraft. The nose of the aircraft now tended to lift too high on full throttle such as in takeoffs.That could lead to a stall at low altitude and a potential crash.
This was to be addressed by a automated control system to minimize these control problems, the MCAS. It appears to be this system that is flawed.
The brain power at Boeing will undoubtedly be able to remedy this flaw, but it does call into question whether the engineers were given second place to the cost analysis team.
It is now glaringly obvious that no money was saved.
RIP all the souls on those doomed flights, and condolences to their loved ones.
They had no way of knowing they were embarking on test flights.
299
@Robert FL
What I don't understand is why the "potential issues" with this aircraft weren't discovered in the testing stages, when model aircraft were placed in the testing wind tunnels, or even computer-simulated studies?
There is most certainly going to be surprising and questiobnable results when the FAA finally comes out with a report as to what happened to these 2 Boeing air catastrophes.
8
The low ground clearance is a major selling feature of the 737. It makes it easier for ground-crews to load and un-load the plane and requires less equipment to do so.
7
Because the 737 max 8 is - while a different design - named to be part of the 737 series - probably to save costs and be faster than the competition - and thus didn't have to go through as much testing as a new airplane would have.
13
President Bush changed the FAA policies in 2005, when final inspections for new aircraft approval were no longer by performed by accredited independent professionals, but by the airline producing the craft. In this case, Boeing gave all the okays for that new jet, NOT the FAA.
A very close family member was employed as an aeronautical engineer for many years, and experienced a horrific ending to his long career when he refused to sign off for the final approval for some new technology for jets that he felt was unsafe. He is no longer with the company and his departure shortly before retirement was due to Boeing trumping up some ridiculous charges against him. Right before his pension was fully vested, too.
178
@Entera That's really sad. The trumped up charges reminds me of how corporations now reduce employment. They give the excess workers bad reviews which are baseless, then fire them for failure to perform. It's totally demoralizing, not just to the tossed employees, but to those that remain behind.
32
@Entera Yes, we learn the hard way that money most often wins over decency, conscience, truth and fairness. The end result is that most of the time the more money very wealthy companies as well as wealthy people make the greedier they become. Please note that, as previously mentioned, this certainly does not apply to every company or all wealthy individuals. However, these days greed seems even more prevalent in businesses, among the very wealthy and especially in politics than in previous years.
34
@Entera Money rules in the US, period. Sad commentary on our country.
11
At this point I don’t know what to think. I really wonder if training would have prevented this crash or the Lion Air one. Within 3 minutes of taking off the plane was flying up and down at incredible speeds. Either we’ve got crazy pilots or there’s a major problem with flight automation. I sure hope they can read those flight data recorders because that plane hit the ground at a very high rate of speed.
28
It will be interesting in the light of this information if fellow commenters Pete in Seattle , SeniorMoment, UUUUMMM WHAT, Will Hogan, Thomas Boca Raton, Tom Daley, Paulo Paris, James US, Jon_NY Manhattan have had any change in heart on the aircraft and the decision to keep flying them.
9
The acceleration is troubling. At that stage of the ascent the engines are usually under full power. A sudden descent could account for acceleration but nothing I've seen in the publicly available information suggests enough altitude had been achieved for such a descent.
Very strange.
11
@Especially Meaty Snapper The area around Addis Ababa is mountainous with descending terrain east of the airport; it's possible for a low-flying aircraft to fly level or in a slight descent without immediately hitting the ground. This factor isn't been well explained here or in most other articles about the crash.
3
If other pilots flying these planes over the last 2 years have not had the problems these two planes faced then pilot education is not enough. The control of the planes was inappropriate and the cause of the inappropriate speed and ascents/descents needs to be fixed as well as easier pilot override of automatic controls
6
@Carol - as well as easier pilot override of automatic controls
Older 737s were "equipped with technology that allows pilots to manually control the plane by simply pulling back on the control column. Yet, per The Times' report from February, that feature was disabled on the Max 8 when MCAS is activated — another change pilots were unlikely to have been aware of."
So, just like when you use cruise control on your car all you have to do is step on the brake to disengage it when you want to slow down or step on the gas to speed up. You only have to rely on your instincts. Which is why it was set up that way on the earlier 737s. When you say "fighting the controls" you are saying "as they were previously trained" and how they operated before - with let's remember - no need for additional training or simulator time per the FAA and Boeing.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-737-max-8-boeing-737-800-how-are-the...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/03/world/asia/lion-air-plane-crash-pilot...
10
Wow! And Boeing just keeps repeating that the Max 8 is safe and that they have confidence in it. But they keep saying a software update is coming soon, as pilots complain about the plane. Does Boeing understand what a contradiction is? I wonder what the families of the passengers and crew who died on the two crashes thinks about Boeing’s opinion of Max 8 safety. Boeing has been shameless in their statements, and when this horrible story has played out, they may look back and wish they behaved more responsibly. Maybe its time for someone else to “pilot” Boeing.
105
@Barry
If Boeing believes so greatly in the Max's safety, no doubt they would agree to having family members of the upper echelon flying on each and every plane.
11
After close to 40 years of deregulating everything, be it airlines, food safety, markets, or banking, can we pause a bit and wonder if it had any good side, other than lining the pockets of the very rich?
229
@AC
Of course you realize such regulations will be labeled and mocked a "socialism". I hope you are ready for the fight for Socialism is precisely what we need.
33
@AC I'm not sure what deregulation looked like in Canada, but in the US it had nothing to do with certification or maintenance, both of which are highly regulated.
Regarding the bigger picture, there's one big question that needs answering. After the Indonesia crash, I would assume that every 37-MAX pilot in the world would know to disable MCAS at the first hint of trouble. The big question: did the Ethiopian pilots throw the switches?
Assuming this crash had the same cause, all the talk about speed is probably irrelevant. Naturally if the nose pitches down the airspeed will climb.
4
@Matt Not all flight emergencies are exact duplicates. The sequence of events happen very rapidly that it takes time for just two pilots in the cockpit to go through paper and mental checklists of things that are going wrong in a highly complex and overly automated aircraft. All of this transpired in a matter of minutes.
In retrospect, it is easy to sit here and say the Ethiopian pilots should have simply flipped the MCAS switch off and problem solved. We don't know all of the possibilities of how the MCAS can malfunction and incorrectly manipulate the aircraft's performance for pilots to recognize it in a span of a few minutes.
21