Well, where is the third team? The team that understands the five theories of flight and all this software being applied to airplanes?
Government regulators.
The least paid.
Airbus & Boeing are big companies and for good reason but they need someone even they respect and not get snotty when they come by to review both their work.
This , 'We do our own redundancy tests' should never happen again
The situation with programming full.in line with this disaster was described by Robert Baber in "Software Reflected: The Socially Responsible Programming of Our Computers". Shame on Boeing.
Were pilots totally in the dark about MCAS? Wasn't there a point in the development of its various versions where MCAS was talked about, documented, and instructed?
If Capitalism was a baseball game, what inning are we in?
1
@The Tedster
We are in the bottom of the eleventh inning, and losing bigly.
6
Captain Horvino ascended.
These events though tragically unfortunate, are both very instructive to the aeronautical engineering cadre.
1
The previous flight had a third pilot aboard. If he had been put there for the purpose of correcting the problem that may have been been going on for some time, then that is scary. The previous flight records should show more third pilots aboard.
It appears to me that Boeing's 737 Max MCAS system is totally misnamed. - it is really the HAL 9000 from A Space Odyssey with all all its evil implications, e.g. driving the nose towards the ground more than 20 times!
Same solution: Pull the memory banks / turn off MCAS!
1
Questions before the flying public are very simple.
Boeing by not communicating the MCAS issues clearly enough, acted so knowingly and without compunction?
Even if there is a shadow of culpability then we expect the CEO to resign immediately, along with all of the company leadership in the decision chain associated with what is becoming a nightmare for the flying public.
Those responsible should be made to face criminal charges of cheating. Responsibility must be fixed.
The world expects the Company be absolutely transparent. Anything less than this will be considered a grave injustice to hundreds who died horribly in the high velocity crash and were reduced to mass of flesh and need identification only DNA analysis.
Total negligence on Boeing’s part. How much extra would it have cost just to make pilots aware of the MCAS system and how to override it? A simple email could have possibly saved lives.
Boeing failed airplane design 101 in three big ways: 1) They should have designed a new fuselage from scratch to support the new larger and heavier engines, negating the need for the MCAS work-around in the first place; 2) Failing that, they did a terrible job designing the MCAS by making it completely dependent on a single sensor - having one point of failure often leads to tragic results; 3) They did a terrible job educating pilots on the MCAS system and its idiosyncrasies, after first failing to even make them aware of it. Whenever you hear about an industry's desire to 'self-police', run for the hills. It means they will put short-term profits above all other concerns, 100% of the time, regardless of the consequences.
2
I read this somewhere and thought it applies very well to Boeing.
“Whom the Gods want to destroy, they send years of success” - Aristotle.
After decades of sucees and benchmark aviation products, arrogance and I-know-best attitude may cause Boeing’s downfall if they are not careful.
1
This is just another example that profits have no morality and capitalism needs checks and balances to assure the common good.
You'd think that new planes and everything about flying them including any possible problems would be vetted up down and sideways before taking to the air filled with passengers. But that wasn't the case here. Pilots believed what Boeing told them about the Max 8, and Boeing was wrong. I side with the pilots in their feelings of betrayal; however, I feel they can take nothing on trust. Technology has a mind of its own and there should always be a way to override it in case of malfunction. Ultimate control should reside with the pilots. These tragedies did not have to happen. They were man made.
...confusion in the cockpit...it says it all
My father, a military pilot said most likely it was pilot error..he was right.
Whether Ethiopian Airlines had all the safety options or not, the pilot was unable to operate the aircraft.
Approximately 8 to 9 out 10 airline accidents result from pilot error -this was no exception.
Whether the planes should have mandated safety features as optional versus included is another story.
Other countries' airlines have different requirements than US airlines - before excoriating Boeing...think about it.
Since they had been reporting airspeed and altitude problems on previous flights, it's airline procedure and maintenance problem, not an inherent problem with the aircraft.
The pilots failed to do the most basic and obvious thing when the computers could be causing the problem, Turn them off. Turn off the autopilots, take total manual control of the aircraft.
That is a pilot competency problem, separated from the problem with the aircraft.
I told others years ago that there would be problems with pilots that have so few hours manually flying their aircraft. Flying is a skill that requires muscle memory. I read in a pilots forum once that American pilots do more manual flying than others and captains will on occasion turn off all or most of the auto systems and tell the copilot to land the aircraft manually just to keep them sharp.
A story in a major paper said American pilots have talked about a similar problem in a forum where airline pilots can anonymously report problems. In all five cases, I read about the simply turned off the autopilot and took manual control back without incident.
I don't know why this article is not more specific about the configuration of the controls when the anomaly occurred. I believe I have read that the problem since when the autopilot is put in the auto-climb configuration. You and her heading and altitude that you want to go to and the computer flies the plane in the most efficient way to get you there.
1
Passenger safety first. No liquids more than 3 oz. Check. Turn your cell phones off. Check. Seat backs fully up. Tray tables stowed and in locked position. Everyone must be seated. Please stay seated during taxi down runway for your safety. Buckle your seatbelts for you safety. Put all carry ons underneath your seat or in a overhead bin for your and other passengers safety. Check. Did I miss anything? Oh, the extra hardware to keep the entire plane safe, but be sure not one cell phone is on during takeoff and landing. What I want to know is how much airlines spend on this training. And - how much they spend on safety information placards and safety information at the back of the monthly magazine. I just want to get to my destination safely. Is that too much to ask?
Will Boeing be charged with criminal acts given their negligence in the manner in which they sold this aircraft? Innocent lives were lost due to Boding’s profitable acts of negligence over known technology that could prove fatal to the aircraft. And, to what degree was our FAA complicit in this act of negligence to the safety of human lives? Clearly, I believe this is a crime.
I worked as an aerodynamics engineer early in my career but I later moved on to software. I work on highly-complex systems, but nothing I have ever worked on compares in my eyes to the complexity of the pilot's task. My admiration of pilots as a kid only grew over the years as I learned more about their work, spent time in the cockpit, or saw them handle critical breakdowns in real time.
Reading that the pilots of a brand new airliner in the year 2019 resorted to prayer is a gut-punch.
These are professionals with years of training and experience. This is not the dawn of the aviation age. It is really sickening that these pilots desperately struggled to stop an airplane that was not staled from crushing itself. They were intentionally left in the dark about a system that affected a primary flight control surface.
There has to be a serious breakdown in the culture within the company. Good engineering and safety require time and money. Short-term business goals or market share cannot take precedence.
48
Parachutes for the passenger cabin of an airliner are feasible. Small passenger planes already have whole-plane rescue chutes.
It would cost money to develop and be more expensive to operate, but what is the value of 800 human lives on a large jet?
The root cause of the crashes was the failure of the angle of attack sensor. A modern airliner cannot fly without knowing its angle of attack and its airspeed, and both the Air France crash a few years ago and the two recent crashes were caused ultimately by failures of these primary flight sensors.
The new engines are much more powerful and because they are aligned below the center of pressure, at full thrust and low speed they can exert a nose-up force so great the pilot cannot overcome it with the elevators alone. That's why the trim jackscrew, which moves the much larger horizontal stabilizer, is essential to prevent a stall. But that is also why the pilots cannot overcome the downward force of the stabilizer trim by just pulling back on the stick.
3
@Dan Woodard MD The preliminary NTSB Indonesia report and the Boeing response letter make it clear that the primary cause of the accident was improper maintenance of the air speed and AoA sensors, which had been reported on four previous flights. Pilots on the previous day's flight had encountered the same stick shaking and turned off MCAS upon advice of a jump seat captain, as this is covered by normal 737 flight manual; they landed safely. But the AoA and airspeed sensors were not fixed and pilots not informed the craft was not airworthy. MCAS worked as designed. https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-releases-statements?item=130336
Corporate profits will always be considered more important than our safety. Never, ever forget that.
68
@Nate
This is not necessarily true when "safety" represents life and death and the complete cataclysm of an airliner crashing and killing all aboard.
Sure there were corners cut that could have prevented the flaw that is causing this issue. But in all reality, Boeing wouldn't have been able to catch the flaw AND get this plane on the market.
Boeing has obviously lost control of their processes to effectively manage the increasingly sophisticated automation technology that provides the efficiency that sells these planes. Airbus isn't immune to disastrous technological blind spots either. The software and automation needed to produce new models is only going to increase in complexity and scope so it is only a matter of time until the bugs bring down more planes.
4
“God is great,” Mr. Harvino, an experienced Indonesian aviator, said, then recited a verse asking God to grant a miracle."
God is no match for AI or greed.
An article in Bloomberg yesterday said there was an angel aboard the Ethopian plane the day before it crashed. A third pilot had hitched a ride in the third cockpit seat and knew what to do when the plane started to dive. He told the pilots how to stop it and saved everyone on the plance.
For some reason the pilots that day didn't report the incident - or it was squelched.
The bottom line is that WE THE PEOPLE had better hire/elect Socially Conscious Women and men who will protect 99.9% of us from the insatiably greedy who are taking over governments around the world - including OUR United States of Amercia.
Meantime, people with power in OUR political/legal/military/secret service complexes must get rid of The Con Don and his brethren right now. Before they can sow more or the worldwide destruction they plan.
7
This is just another example that profits have no morality and capitalism needs checks and balances that focus on the common good.
2
The cozy relationship between FAA and Boeing needs to be investigated too. How can a federal agency in charge of certifying the flight worthiness of an aircraft can outsource its responsibility to Boeing employees whose primary loyalty is to the company they serve, i.e. Boeing.
4
It sounds like a design flaw for which there is no remedy. Scrap the whole design. Who could ever have any confidence in this plane again?
3
So Boeing had a hardware problem: Engines that were too powerful and located where they could cause excessive pitch. So they tried to fix it with software. Duh-oh.
3
A tragedy that could be avoided - most definitely. And a company that is going to be taken to the cleaners when the class-action case hits the courts. Add-on extras to make an aircraft safer? Are they kidding? Pay more and get wings, or wheels? Okay something a bit more sophisticated but what on earth were Boeing thinking of? This is going to be a catastrophic disaster for the company unless it does something to reverse-engineer its responses to these air-crashes. They are going to be slaughtered legally, their brilliant brand is going to be hit, and frankly passengers will vote with their feet. So this has to be a bail-out scenario at any cost. I know what the top guys are thinking - if we show weakness in any way, the liability will be higher and we will have to pay more. Sorry, that will not work. First fix the problem. Then fix the PR disaster. Compensation costs are marginal compared with the reputational damage Boeing could suffer by NOT getting a grip now. Of course aviation engineering is not easy, of course there will be disasters from time to time - but this is a man made disaster made far, far worse by Boeing's responses. Act now, before it is too late.
1
Why isn't there a switch that turns off all computers and just says to the pilot, "Fly the airplane."?
10
This is what confuses me as well. I'm no expert, but I assumed every plane would have a manual switch to turn of any automated tasks
With respect to the manufacturer of the suspect MCAS system that may have caused two plane crashes,
"A contrite admission of error with genuine work to fix the error will soon be forgiven. A mendacious denial will last a day short of forever. "
3
Does Boeing train X Airline pilots?
Or does X-Airline train its pilots?
Does responsibility for training lie with
the manufacturer or user?
2
Boeing sold the new 737s by claiming additional training would not be needed.
3
I'm no pilot, but the idea of a "feature" that forces the nose of a plane downward seems counter intuitive at best. And then you have to pay extra for the work around? Hmmmmmm. What other safety mechanisms has Boeing hidden away in their software. A pilot should just have to concern himself with flying a plane not also being an IT expert.
5
Reading this took my breath away. I can only imagine the sense of doom these men--and the passengers felt. May God (by whatever name you call Him/Her) receive them all into the kingdom.
12
You said it right. Just imagine the trauma of the passengers and crew. No amount of news on lack of training of pilots or airlines is going to compensate for this fatal flaw from plane manufacturers.
Why isn't there an instant MCAS override that puts the jet into auto and immediate straight-and-level?
6
Straight forward in this case is relative to the true attitude of the aircraft. In this case attitude correction could be fatal.
a manual override is more rational, as it is not up to the pilot to manage the craft or succumbed to it.
This is the catastrophic impact of defining your product the old way, as the product. Once you introduce software into a product, you sell a solution. The software cannot be introduced without serious user experience testing. I don't know if there was testing, but the training was an iPad app, and an upsell. This is why it's very scary that old-timey companies like Boeing are introducing technology without understanding human factors.
5
Corporations should be grateful to operate in the US. Instead, companies like Boeing make the tax payers subsidize them or they threaten to pull up stakes and jobs. That’s what they did in Washington state. The greed is out of control.
2
"In the first sign of trouble in its doomed flight on Oct. 29, the plane dipped around 700 feet, and in the subsequent minutes, MCAS appears to have kept dragging the plane’s nose down, prompting the pilots to try to push the plane back up by using switches that control stabilizers on the tail."
I have read there are "switches" to disconnect MCAS from commanding the stabilizer. Then the crew has to use trim wheels in the cockpit to move the stabilizer. So this is another aspect that is unclear, as least to me.
Also recall that the previous Lion Air flight with the same aircraft had the same problem, which that crew resolved. But their experience was not passed on.
It would be helpful to see some documentation on the design.
3
The truly unfortunate part is that the pilots on both planes only had to flick a switch right next to their thumb on the control column to off and the plane would have been saved. In essence, the plane had an electric stabilizer trim malfunction. The pilots knew this because the plane was being commanded by the computer to nose down, but they could manually reestablish level flight, which they did many times. So they knew the plane was controllable, but something wasn't working right, and there can only be one something - trim. All they had to do was establish level flight one last time, and then flip the switch to off cutting power to the trim motor and therefore removing computer control of stabilizer trim so the plane could continue flying. They could still adjust the trim either manually or electrically when needed.
3
I wonder if the CEO of Boeing read this article?
4
@wfkinnc
no, it doesn’t mention anything about CEO bonuses
1
I read yesterday, I think in the Times, that the same aircraft had a similar problem the previous day, but that a pilot who was "dead-heading" but in the cockpit with the crew, knew how to over-ride the software. His recommendations to the crew probably saved the plane and all aboard. The questions, though, which seem to have gotten lost, are was this event reported to Lion Air by the crew and if so why wasn't the aircraft grounded?
3
These poor, poor human beings. I say a prayer for them now. Please, we need to remember every moment of life is precious.
2
It's like "auto-correct" in most documents which continues to misspell everything until you retype it 3 times and click the little "x" in the tiny box. We are relying too heavily on automation with everything.
7
It would be good to track airline safety as a function of time as more and more automation was being introduced. The automation tends to reduce the actual flying of the airplane by the pilots. This lowers their skills and likely compensates for the automation. Perhaps it's time to backtrack a little and let real people do more of the flying.
On a simpler but similar note, I have gone back to decades old audio equipment with real knobs and dials after years of frustration with cycling through the complex menus that dominate more recent equipment. Progress is not always a good thing.
6
I am hoping that I won't be torn to shreds as a result of asking this question, but I would be interested to know what readers get out of stories such as this one.
I certainly understand the purpose of reporting on the crashes themselves, on the statuses of crash victims and survivors, and especially on the airliners, federal regulations, and related safety concerns.
Stories like this one, though—"Confusion, Then Prayer, in Cockpit or Doomed Lion Air Jet"—feel both gratuitous and exploitative to me, and at times I avoid the news specifically to avoid stories like this one. It doesn't have any practical application to my life aside from making me utterly sad. Likewise, I received an early morning push notification from my Associated Press app alerting me that a number of people, including children, had been crushed in a building collapse in Nigeria. It's tragic—but the gruesome, gory horrors don't help anyone.
I appreciate storytelling, and I understand the journalistic principle that "if it bleeds, it leads." I don't like it, however, and I am curious how others feel.
What purpose do stories like this serve in your life? Do they affect your day-to-day moods, outlooks and perspectives? Are they in any way practical? Do you read them the way you'd read fiction, for a dramatic thrill...or what otherwise do you get out of these stories, regardless of how well they're told? I'd genuinely like to know.
2
Where is the criminal investigation by Congress? The buck stops with the FAA and Elaine Chao. Perhaps all those folks who think nepotism in government positions isn't such a big deal might question why Mitch McConnel's wife is getting a pass on a lack of oversight that resulted in the deaths of hundreds.
5
And guess who is the acting Defense Secretary is and what company he comes from. No direct connection to be sure but some kind of weird karmic one. May those lost souls Rest In Peace.
5
After the accident, Boening claimed that if the pilots had followed standard 737 emergency procedures then everything would have been fine. Boeing claimed that this is why additional training was not necessary.
Did Boeing lie? I suspect so!
3
Do Boeing executives fly on the airliners they sell? Or only on private jets? Requiring Boeing’s top brass to fly on its passenger planes would do wonders for safety.
13
I work for a company that process repair orders for car dealerships. my job is to input the information about why the repair was needed. All new model vehicles like aircraft are run by a concert of computer software programs, and more often then not, the problem is due to a software malfunction. I have read incidences when a person is driving their vehicle on a highway at highway speeds the entire car will go into reduced speed mode on a moments notice due to malfunctioning shoftware, not the driver. There is nothing the driver could do to compensate for the issue, and the only safe thing to do was to pull over and have the vehicle towed for repair.
When I first heard about the Lion air flight 610 crash and the reports by pilots my first thought went to a software malfunction. If this was my first thought, someone, try to tell me employees of Boeing didn't know this and the FAA turns a blind eye. Like the vehicle I mentioned, the only safe thing to do was to ground the aircraft and fixed the software malfunction.
Boeing tried to take the shortcut saving an abundance of money with no thought given to the value of each person that boarded their malfunctioning machines. I am so very sorry and I pray all have moved on to a place of peace.
7
This whole sordid story was a cluster flop waiting to happen and you can tell by all the finger pointing going on in these comments, the regulators, and Boeing. So, with that, it might be good to step back and look at the facts:
1. Boeing developed a plane with an engine design that made the aircraft aerodynamically unstable.
2. Boeing developed software to compensate for that instability. (These two facts, alone, are highly problematic).
3. This plane was rushed to market depriving many pilots from the training needed to learn the new software. Some pilots got the training, while others did not.
4. Those that did not are lucky to be alive or are dead.
Bottom line: If Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, or Michael Collins were on the flight deck of a Max 8 without the requisite training, they would have suffered the same fate as the the Ethiopian and Lion Air pilots. Pilots are not mind readers.
9
Prayer. Yet another waste of time. Should have read the manual instead.
5
It was by no fault of the pilot that he could not right the plane, which lacked features to correct the software issue. Why take issue with someone’s desperate last act on earth as their plane mysteriously crashes itself into the sea? What an unnecessarily crude and callous remark.
19
Did you read the article? The pilot *was* reading the manual. Unfortunately, no one in the cockpit knew about the plane’s MCAS anti-stall system ... which meant no one could turn it off.
14
They totally had the means to shut it off. Switches right next to them clearly labeled. I don't know why other pilots understood the controls and these guys didn't.
3
Many comments express the thought Boeing should have installed an
"Off" button or something similar. There was, and always has been such
a mechanism: STAB TRIM OFF. Every 737 has one, regardless of model.
The MCAS failure presented itself as a runaway stab trim, ergo, turn it
off. End of problem. This is exactly what the previous pilots at Lion Air
did. Highly trained,experienced professionals? Hardly
5
"The plane had recorded days of questionable data" before the crash, and it was not automatically reported or analyzed until after the catastrophe? And Boeing is now only making one of the two safety "options" standard on its planes? Can we simply deem the Boeing Max "unsafe at any speed" and prevent American carriers from flying them, let alone purchasing any more? Boeing deserves to go under for this.
9
I'm really surprised that the aircraft 'Stall Protection' system was designed to include the horizontal stabilizer as a corrective control. For over 100 years correcting a stall or a 'potential' stall condition involved the use of elevators, the response being much more rapid than the slow moving stabilizer...besides being more intuitive & natural for pilots. Some manufacturers refer to elevator recovery as the 'Stick Pusher' & though it is used in conventional powered controls it can be incorporated in the modern 'fly by wire' flight control & can be over ridden by the pilots.
The action of the pilot to consult the technical manual (AFM) is commendable & per his training but in the urgency of the situation (close to the ground) it was not the best action taken.
1
The day prior to the crash, the plane had problems and a deadheading pilot saved the day by turning off the MCAS system.
Why did the plane fly after that? It should have been removed for service until the MCAS problem was resolved.
12
Didn’t POTUS take credit for a year of air safety last year? I haven’t heard him taking credit for these awful disasters. Too busy watching Fox and Tweeting, I guess.
21
With the reports of trash being found inside of military tanker aircraft being delivered to the US Air Force, one wonders if some employee at Boeing is being very careless in the installation of the relevant sensors.
May God rest the souls for all who perished on these flights, especially the pilots.
12
How were these things still flying after this?
7
747 was a wonderful plane.......but not "cost effective" it seems.
3
I have been driving for 40 years, and yet, when I first drove my newest car, I was very frustrated. The machine needed more expertise than I had. I kept having to stop and read the manual on several occasion, as if starting a new computer. It took me a few months before I felt comfortable driving, and I am still not quite using all the technology the car provides. Honestly, I don't need to. I just want to safely get from point A to point B. Those poor pilots were trapped by technology and so were those unfortunate passengers.
14
@Rose M And car manufacturers responded to that -- by going old school. Large knobs for control heat returned, and very few functions. They resemble more a '65 Falcon than an '88 Mercedes.
Pilot error. Turn off autopilot. Learn how to manually fly the plan.
4
With respect to all who lost their lives in these tragic events, this is a PR nightmare for Boeing. I do not know if they will be able to recover in the minds of the flying public.
4
I'm deeply ashamed that it is American corruption that has killed so many innocents in the Third World. I'm so ashamed that poor countries like Indonesia and Ethiopia erred catastrophically when they trusted in the character of "first world" Americans.
That's not something I would have ever thought possible growing up.
14
@Tom
Well you have it figured out and resolved
Let’s not waste any more time and money on that pesky investigation into things like facts
Pretty sure the factory has some big trees
Get the ropes and round up all management now
Myopic mob mentality doesn’t solve problems, it makes them unnecessarily worse.
3
Once again American style capitalism at its best.
1
Redundant systems generally take a vote of two (or more) sensors. When both agree that things are normal, which is 99.999% of the time then nothing is done. If the sensors disagree, an alarm is given to the pilot to alert to the discrepancy. If both sensors agree that something is wrong then the automatic systems intervene to save the plane, until overridden by the pilot. Apparently Boeing may have allowed a single sensor to intervene to activate the automatic system, and also to repeatedly overrule the pilot. This is so stupid, if true, that it hard to fathom and would be criminally negligent.
11
Only a few days ago, if you said you wouldn't fly on these planes, you were considered some sort of conspiracy nut. Now it looks like there may well be a conspiracy, between a major American corporation and the government - endangering us all.
5
It's a hot topic among flight students right now. The aircraft became a scarecrow though it opened job opportunities for them.
2
What killed them? A Boeing financial decision to put a buggy software patch on the laws of physics as demonstrated by the flawed engineering of the plane.
5
What is Boeing’s liability here? People should go to jail for this. All the more appalling after just reading that some safety features are optional.
7
This shows the value of competition. It was a huge mistake of the Clinton Administration to allow Boeing to acquire the Douglas Aircraft Company.
4
Seriously? Yes and shame on the Wright Brothers for inventing the plane. If they had never done so, there would be no plane crashes.
2
We truly sense that the current business environment has shifted to a sinister point where the public is being sold nothing but baubles and trinkets. Caveat emptor ... on steroids. Indeed.
4
I hope for a public inquiry that with complete solemnity and unequivocal simplicity explains to the world why this plane was put into use without pilot training. No passenger wants to learn that the pilot has resorted to pulling out the instruction manual to troubleshoot a problem with the aircraft. How often does this happen with machines whose flaws can kill us? It's hard to believe that almost 60 years after Ralph Nader published "Unsafe at Any Speed," that documented the auto industry's resistance to make its vehicle safe at the expense of profit, this corporate behavior continues, often supported by govts who believe regulations kill jobs, a mantra so persuasive because lobbyists pay our elected officials a lot of money to remove those pesky barriers that nibble at their profit.
The pressure to get the product into market ASAP comes from greed. Any pressure voiced to slow down production out of concern for consumer safety is viewed as a downer and suppressed. Passengers would then have to pin their hopes on a whistleblower who's willing to defy an NDA, joblessness & financial ruin to save lives.
Those "job killing regulations" might very well cost us jobs and take a bite out of profit, but they are there to save lives & protect us from needless catastrophes. Just ask Mr. Nader. I'm confident he knows exactly what happened here.
7
I don't believe the type of money before security consideration that seems to have prevailed in the Boeing rationale would have been possible in Europe. In the US it is the business that is being protected, not people. I hope Boeing goes belly up as a result. A necessary lesson for the US. You are toying with our lives as well.
8
Sacrificed for Boeing's profits, with the complicity of the FAA..
How sad is that.
17
@Jon Why didn’t the pilot take the training?
@Jackson apparently, because the company both downplayed the need for additional training and made it hard to access (only one flight simulator in this country)
1
It bothers me to think of people who buy the cheapest airplane seats on the internet begrudging a doomed pilot a quick prayer before he dies. Especially since it doesn’t say anywhere that he gave up trying to fly the plane.
12
The conduct of Boeing in this situation amounts to no more than criminally negligent homicide. They allowed an air craft to be put into operation with knowledge aforethought that a system on that air craft could and did cause deadly harm. There were significant and continuous risks that they were made aware of prior to the Lion crash-ie. pilot blogs and memos sent to Boeing.
Nevertheless, they continued to vouch for the safety of the aircraft knowing that most pilots were not being properly trained.
If ever executives of that company should be brought to justice for their criminal acts motived by profit then this is such a situation. Their conduct is not less culpable then someone who plants a bomb on an aircraft. It is time the Justice Department takes this matter up and prosecutes those responsible. I truly doubt this will happen since the dollar is much more important to our current government then the safety of our citizens.
7
Greed, greed, and more greed. Always trying to cut corners. Profit is all that matters to these animals that run American industry it seems. This is one of those times when the greed cause too mich harm and hurts these very industries. It’s sad, the level of greed and inhumanity and distruction these greedy characters in industry or Wall Street and else where have inflicted on the world.
6
It will be small compensation to those families who needlessly lost the lives of their loved ones, but some people at Boeing and the FAA need to receive some extensive jail time.
6
Question for senator Mitt Romney if corporations are people who from Boeing should go to jail ?
10
Boeing CEO and engineers should be prosecuted in criminal court, as should those in the FAA who certified this ridiculous plane.
10
Both pilots are highly qualified, experienced and dedicated professionals doing their best trying to save the plane. A 737 manual is like the size of those old phone books. If Boeing had been honest upfront and notified all their customers about MCSA and train the pilots on it, the crash would never have happened.
7
That's the direct result of weakening regulations, the Republican Holy Grail, that would unleash growth. Instead it always brings death and injury. Always.
16
It appears the new MCAS software is needed for the new Boeing 737 Max 8 plane to emulate the flying characteristics of the older 737 plane. If pilots were to turn off the MCAS software they would suddenly be flying a plane with unfamiliar characteristics for which they were not trained. Could it be that pilots were not told how to turn off the MCAS software because they had not been trained to fly the plane without it?
4
Gives one complete faith in the security and capability of autonomous vehicular driving systems now being dreamed up by Silicon Valley cognoscenti, don't it?
In any case whatever happened to the idea of an auto-system "OFF" Button? Shouldn't it be as predominantly displayed on the aircraft console as the "Emergency" flash button is on a car? Big, easy to discern and easier still to smack when times are tight?
But that aside it seems this aircraft is an overly elaborate "Rube Goldberg" product that Boeing created doesn't it? Perhaps because they were in too much of a hurry, and focused on the bottom line, to develop an entirely new air-frame, one designed to support the bigger engines it attached to the 737 product, than anything else? Just a guess based on a read of experts since I'm a neophyte when it comes to planes.
The new engines altered the flight characteristics of the aircraft, so Boeing piles one auto-system enhancement on another as a corrective mechanism? And then they pass the correctives off as "everything is fine no additional training is needed" bit of market schmaltz? A bad, very bad, management decision as it is turning out.
So it goes.
John~
American Net'Zen
1
One would think Boeing is to be blamed because the built a navigation system that was defective.
I don't think it was defective.
There is a expression about computers.
Garbage garbage out.
The auto pilot was being fed bad data and did what it suppose to do when that data was the correct data.
No matter how you tested this new system unless you on purpose fed it bad information you will not know that this system would fail.
Boeing should have known that if a unknown situation happens the pilot should have some way to turn the system off and fly the plane without that system.
If I am right then this is inexcusable and should be considered criminal negligence .
One can forgive Boeing for the first accident but not the second.
It should have been obvious the first crash did not happen because of pilot error.
After the second crash it seems that the people at Boeing lobbied against taking the plane out of service.
Boeing had no right to try to tell the regulating agency what to do.
This plane while based on the 737 has one very significant defect.
The engine was too big to be put in the position where the engine is positioned on the older aircraft so had to be moved forward which effected how the weight is distributed and can make the plane stall.
This is why they put in a system that would stop the plane from stalling.
This is not how a plane should be designed.
It should not be designed so it needs a auto pilot that stops it from stalling.
4
Like a pile of paper in which each has a hole.
Because they all aligned you can see through the whole pile, and the catastrophe happened.
Any one single paper without a flaw could have closed the hole and stopped it.
And in other reported cases it did.
Each one responsible for one or more layers has caused death of hundreds, and even the death of the Lionair passengers stopped CEOs Regulators and Oilots from going on, and thus seem to have caused the deaths of dozends more.
I'm sure there are hundreds of people that took part in the processes which would stepp up today and make safety the higher priority.
It's not only the engineers, certification specialists but also the finance departments that should acknowledge their responsibility.
1
Boeing declares it's MAX plane safe. There are 346 souls who would differ.
This is a new generation of Americans. George Carlin did a good job of making us laugh, all the while pointing out how far we have fallen.
5
So many people here appear so confident it was a pilot mistake (although pilots would be trained to switch off the auto trim when the auto pilot is on - but AP was off in these cases and that's when the MCAS is designed to work).
The good news is that they are obviously willing to keep flying with a plane with hardware errors and software patches.
I propose the travel agencies to put an extra box to tick when buying a ticket: "I'm aware of the design fault of max 8 and the location of the auto trim switch, and I'm willing to fly with it". In my case, i am not flying with max 8 again or with any new model of Boeing.
1
FAA trusting Boeing experts in approving the new Boeing model is similar to, as if FDA allowed Elizabeth Holmes to evaluate and approve her failed Edison box (well, she did achieved it in Arizona and managed to sell 1.5 million blood tests and we will only learn how many people were affected by faulty results). Are we entering an era where half-technologies may enter marked unchecked too often?
4
This reminds me of an old Nevil Shute novel (No Highway) about the effects of metal fatigue on the plane's frame. It showed clearly the conflict between commercial interests and the delays inherent in rigorous quality checks.
6
Who is whistleblowing/ investigating what happened at Boeing? We need to find out exactly what they were culpable of and hold individuals accountable, as well as the company. As a whole, industries that have impact on human life and safety should be regulated to prevent inherent conflicts of interests and breach of ethics.
7
Imagine giving a surgeon da Vinci Surgical robot to perform a complicated surgery on a patient without key instructions and training. This is analogous to what Boeing did issuing Boeing Max model without widely available simulators. Unthinkable.
13
The CEO of Boeing made a drastically bad decision and huge PR error in its handling of this crisis. If the CEO had shown some measure of concern about the possibility of a common fatal cause of the two crashes, and taken the initiative to ground the US fleet as most of the rest of the world did to its fleets, we could have more faith in Boeing's integrity now. But, no, the CEO, according to news reports, pushed back at critics by reaching the easily malleable POTUS, and obtained his agreement not to ground the planes. Not until the possibility of common cause turned into a probability of common cause was the CEO overruled by the US government.
The absolutely blatant and callous decision to put lives in the balance for the sake of money says everything about Boeing, or at least about its CEO. No wonder there was a refusal to allow Boeing and the FAA to review the black boxes, which were sent to "neutral" non-American scientists. If an airline manufacturer does not have the trust of its customers, what is left.
30
Merger of Boeing of the airplane world with a certain bank, fondly identified with stagecoaches but made of funny-paper, might be a fitting period on their mutually-deserved sentence.
8
Reading the details of the desperate attempt to return these planes to the airports they had taken off from is chilling. Learning that Boeing knew of serious problems built into the 737 Max's operational system but kept that knowledge undercover until they found a clandestine fix to avoid smudging Boeing's reputation and infringing on profits boggles the mind.
Boeing's negligence in this situation is indefensible. The lack of pro-active efforts by Boeing to prevent an untoward incident cannot be pardoned. Such lack of honesty and integrity reflects poorly on our nation. Other nations trusted Boeing to provide safe and dependable planes. When this country cannot be trusted to place human life above profits, to have systems in place to monitor the safety of our products, and to recall faulty products, other nations cannot be expected to engage in trade with us.
Boeing cannot be trusted. They have hurt American international trade. If human safety means so little to a company that engages in the business of transportation of humans, they don’t deserve to be bailed-out with our tax-dollars. Nor do they deserve to profit in the face of an avoidable disaster. The Boeing executives that allowed this to happen should be fined and jailed, the company should be sold and its assets frozen, and the head of the FAA and the Transportation Secretary should be held responsible for their failure to act in a timely fashion.
I am ashamed of what has become of this once great nation.
28
Passenger aircraft are designed with double and triple redundant flight systems to reduce the chance a single point of failure can bring the plane down. The design of the MCAS system clearly violates the principle of redundancy. Apparently, it can only be disabled one way and many pilots of the newest planes were not aware of this procedure. The contingencies were obvious. This hasty fix... a system powerful enough to defeat the combined input of two human beings, with no other safeguards than an small on-off toggle switch, should never have been designed, built, or installed.
14
Smells like there might be malfeasance involved with these disasters. And if so is the aviation industry/ FAA going the way of the pharma industry with lack of FDA oversight? Just Google Vioxx or Paxil to name just two major prescription drug disasters involving fraudulent activity in recent years.
1
Experience matters. FAA Director Elaine Chao, while she held a variety of senior government positions and holds an MBA, in spite of her apparent lack of aviation, engineering, physics or related training, was charged with overseeing plane-safety certification.
13
Nothing is perfect, mechanical things break, we evolve. Boeing will survive.
@one percenter
Yes, but how soon Boeing will be able to fix the problem with unavailable simulators? Nothing is perfect? This sounds cynical. Providing new models without proper instructions, without ready simulators to train, is a deeply unethical practice that brings risk of sure repeated failures not random malfunctions.
6
@one percenter Is this sarcasm, the point is Boeings passengers, pilots and crews should also survive.
1
@one percenter, mechanical things break?? Surely, you jest. This is corporate greed to rush a product to market without proper testing and pilot training. The is complicity on the part of the FAA to overlook Boeing’s failure to properly test its auto systems. I wonder if you might be so willing to move on if your family members had been on one of those planes?
In the meantime, I’ll make an economic decision that Boeing will understand. My airline spend dollars won’t go to fly on the Max even if Elaine Chao and her cronies allow it back in the air.
1
We seriously need to retool the mechanisms by which corporations are rewarded.
17
Sounds like Boeing, in their new software fix, is going to use both angle of incidence sensors, not just one. This idea sounds great, but consider if one sensor is wrong, the computer still won’t know which one to trust. Most critical systems therefore use “2oo3”, two out of three ....three sensors and the computer goes with any two in agreement.
5
Imagine dealing with a virus, bug or connectivity issue with your PC, except you have minutes to figure out the problem and fix it before you die. Think of how common these problems on earth are. Now imagine that it is no longer physics keeping you in the air but a buggy computer system, 737 MAX beta version ....
Where is the re-boot switch every computer system needs on the 737 MAX? Where is the redundancy in the system and the sensors? Shouldn't there be a master switch that places the plane in 100% manual mode - with at least fault tolerant fly-by-wire components - that allow the pilot to go back to basics and fly the plane?
Wasting the last few minutes of your life going through technical troubleshooting manuals to diagnose a computer problem is insane. Perhaps an intermediate and independent step is engaging an alternate back-up auto-pilot with its own independent sensors before resorting to full manual flight mode - to stabilize the aircraft to then diagnose the computer.
What does this say of the vulnerability to hacking of the flight computer? Obviously it doesn't take much tweaking to bring down a computer controlled airplane filled with people. Unlike HAL9000, the pilot needs a quick way to turn off or isolate the computer systems completely from manual control of a plane.
Too bad the anti terrain collision systems didn't override the fly into ground programming trying to solve a possible stall situation.
12
So sad.
The recent news that this Lion Air plane had trouble for 4 days, that an off duty pilot saved the flight the day before, makes Boeing's sluggish response even before Ethiopian more disturbing.
13
Read some of the other reports published on this from pilots perspective. Only one simulator currently exists in the entire country for the new aircraft. Others now ordered by airlines but won't be ready until the end of this year. The MAX is not a simple iteration of previous models. In many ways this is a new animal and required the necessary training prior to launch. Boeing (and the FAA) said none was necessary. Clearly somebody made those calls at Boeing and the FAA while rushing this plane into service to compete with Airbus. Shameful and potentially criminally negligent. So far Boeing is doing a terrible job of crisis management. The brand will suffer I am afraid.
229
@RCooper Well a major selling point for Boeing was the aircraft didn't require additional training for the airline pilots, thus in theory saving airlines millions of dollars. If airlines knew pilots require additional training (and type certification) Boeing would never have sold as many 737 MAX as they have done.
20
@RCooper The brand should suffer. Hundreds have been killed needlessly, as Boeing interlinked with the FAA placed money before safety, deception before truth...
37
@RCooper
It is not likely a simulator will have faulty angle of attack sensors so that's not helpful anyway.
2
We need a thorough inquiry into Boeing's safety approval process.
In the early 2000s, the former President Bush loosened financial regulation by allowing the financial institutions to police themselves, and that resulted in the worst recession in generations.
A similar deregulation seems to be at work by allowing Boeing to self certify the safety of its onboard automation system.
20
@Zor
No fan of Bush, but it was Bill Clinton who loosened regulation on an egregious scale, by signing the repeal of Glass-Steagal (which served us quite well since 1933), and then the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.
9
The process of designing aircraft and aircraft systems requires that all catastrophic hazards are identified and mitigated by design or in some cases by alerting the flight crew who the take appropriate action. Failure of the horizontal stabilizer control system resulting in a run-away condition has always been classified as catastrophic and as such the system is normally designed with dual or triple redundancy so the a single failure does not result in a catastrophic event. If media reports are true then it appears that the B-737 Max MCAS system had unlimited authority on the horizontal stabilizer position and that a single erroneous angle of attack sensor input could command maximum horizontal stabilizer position. The B-737 Max MCAS system is intended to be a stall protection system. Traditionally these systems are designed with dual dissimilar channels with independent sensor inputs where both channels must agree before commanding flight control activation. It would appear that the B737 MCAS commanded maximum stabilizer position based on a single senor failure. If this is the case then the system is obviously not certifiable under FAA regulations.
38
@James
Incorrect
It is easily shut off in 2 steps
Procedure has been done numerous times
Issue is knowing how not a lack of options
Indications are gyro fault and bad airspeed indications at same time cause the issue
1
Lots of comments here placing the blame solely on Boeing, which conveniently ignores the wider issue here. We must also recognize that the FAA shoulders some of the responsibility and also reflect on our social attitudes towards the role of government and regulation in our lives.
59
@Eric
Is it possible for the FAA to examine every iteration possibility in any system before it is certified airworthy? So pilots are for what purpose exactly? To stay inside the envelope to include all possible conditions--pixie dust to volcanic plums?
@Eric
Maybe the leaderless FAA had bought into the belief that all regulations are “job-killing regulations.”
11
Sadly, the preponderance of commentary about software performance, on these pages and elsewhere, is only part of the story and misses the mark.
As best I understand, in upgrading and repowering its most popular aircraft Boeing created a plane that in certain circumstances is inherently unstable but can be tamed with software. Which begs the question; what happens when bad data overwhelms the software and the computer refuses to relinquish control? Yes, there is still a manual over-ride but, aided and abetted by the FAA, Boeing chose to minimise its critical importance.
Yes, this beast can be tamed but at what cost? It will entail fixes that include mechanical and software upgrades along with pilot training plus a long haul to win back industry and public confidence.
19
@thekiwikeith Aircraft have used flight augmentation systems to deal with unwanted flight characteristics for at least the past 70 years since the Boeing 707 had a yaw damper installed to prevent Dutch rolls. These systems are nothing new and there is nothing inherently unsafe about them.
4
It should be noted that in Indonesia one only needs 250 hours of flight time before being allowed to work in the cockpit whereas the USA requires up to 2500 hours. The 737 was certified by the FAA with the expectation that it would be operated by an experienced pilot. The training and experience of these pilots should also be investigated. Plenty of US pilots consider the Max8 to be a beautiful airplane and would have no qualms about flying one anytime.
13
Way to be selective with facts. Do you work for Boeing?
The FAA had less of a role certifying this plane than you imply. A number of FAA officials complained that they were pressured by FAA upper management to let Boeing self-certify the plane. But by all means you should shift the blame to the Indonesian pilots.
12
@Qcell Boeing and the FAA specifically did not require training about this, nor was it included in the manual. No number of hours would've equipped the pilots with training for the situation they faced.
12
Early in the article, it is made clear that Mr. Harvino was an experienced pilot. That’s fantastic that you have such confidence in this aircraft, but there is no cause to place blame where it isn’t deserved.
3
Based on these recent events I plan to vote with my feet. When booking flights online you will only find me on an Airbus.
21
I would rather fly the max 8 with an experienced pilot than a newbie pilot in an Airbus or non max 737. It's frightening that 4 pilots (2 separate flights) couldn't diagnose this from issue during two separate flights. It was serendipity that a cargo plane pilot of sister airline to Lion air was in the cockpit the first flight And diagnosed the runaway trim if I have read correctly. And how did the et302 flight not know that horizontal stabilizer trim behaviour was related to the lion air crash? I thought that was understood in the fall of 2018. Certainly flight aficionados were aware of it, so why not pilots flying that very plane model. There is blame to go around obviously, and of course Boeing and faa seem to have exhibited hubris after the first event, but pilots literally need to understand basic flight mechanics - and be able to confidently take over if anomalous event happens. This accident was avoidable in so many ways.
3
@BB
Seriously
The 737 is the most popular airframe in The world and has one of the best safety records of any operating platform
If you want to base opinion on results from 2 3rd world operators one of which has a poor safety record and the other that put Inadequately trained pilots in charge of a new aircraft be my guest
Look at real data not news of the day
All aircraft have inherent automation quirks including Airbus. Air France lost an A330 in the middle of the south Atlantic due to a known speed sensor issue. They lost another A320 after it lost yaw correction and rolled to nose down and 65 degrees before anyone realized what happened. By the time they figured it out it was too late
In all cases noted including the 2 recent 737 incidents, overlooking known issues and inadequate training turned minor routine recoverable issues into tragic loss of life
You want to see safety record that will blow your mind look at the 777. 2 incidents took all souls, both Malaysian, one taken out by a missile, the other lost after commanded course alteration. Other than those 2 incidents that have noting to do wit the 777, there have been 2 deaths. Two. One was a ground worker that made a caeless error, the other was in SFO after the crash there. She survived the impact and was killed by a first responder vehicle.
777 is amazing, And it’s made by Boeing. Same company y’all are chasin with pitchforks.....
1
Actually, at least some Lion Air pilots were trained in how to respond. A pilot on the airplane the previous day knew how to disable the system in response to the same problem. Why did Lion air dispatch the airplane with this known problem? Why didn't the pilots on the final flight read the maintenance logs? Or was the event not recorded in the maintenance logs? While Boeing will likely need to do a better job of "idiot proofing" the system, it appears there was some incompetency with the Lion Air flight and maintenance crews.
15
It very simple: if it can’t fly without software it’s not aerodynamically sound and the hardware, not any software, needs to be redesigned.
28
If Boeing had to choose betwing your/our safety, and their bottom line, do you have any doubt as to what they would choose?...I don't!!
13
@Manuel Suarez Actually, I think they would choose safety because airplane crashes aren't exactly good for sales, are they?
7
You would think that, but what’s the evidence? They chose finances over safety.
9
Mr. Suarez and Mr. Barrey
If it were only that simple. No engineer would ever make that choice, but the existing problem RIGHT HERE and RIGHT NOW is the chart boys, bean counters, power point ranters, and other "walking fod" folks who have made MANY decisions in favor of marketing.
Step back, read about the marketing people and their outsized influence on this airplane variant, and be disgusted.
5
makes me never want to fly again
10
Boeing has complete responsibility and liability for these two accidents which should never have occurred. Although the experienced pilots in both cases did their very best to correct the problem, they were unable to overcome a system design problem for which they had received zero training. We shall see what the consequences are for Boeing.
What a horrible waste of lives....truly heartbreaking.
31
I think it would be unwise to not acknowledge that this also extends beyond Boeing to the FAA and our social attitudes toward government and regulation.
19
@Jane E. No, these pilots did not do the best they could. In the case of Lion Air, they failed to run the proper checklist to deal with a well-known problem (i.e. runaway trim). In the case of the Ethiopian crash, the co-pilot only had 200 hours on the 737 (as opposed to the 2500 required by American carriers) and was not rated on the 737 MAX. The MCAS system did not cause these crashes; poor training did. All pilots are supposed to know how to deal with runaway trim regardless of what system is causing it.
Correct me if I’m wrong: a central issue is the FAA now has former Boeing employees certifying Boeing planes...a situation that Boeing lobbied for...to save money for Boeing.
7
In the light of recent events an interview with the late Dai Davis, for many years the chief test pilot for the UK Air Registration Board and its successor the Civil Aviation Authority, makes interesting listening (https://www.aerosociety.com/news/audio-the-d-p-davies-interview-on-testing-the-comets-boeing-707-britannia-brabazon/). During the interview he discusses test flying the Boeing 707, which had previously been certified by the FAA. He found it potentially dangerous in the circumstance of an engine failure and, against considerable pressure, refused to certify the plane for BOAC (the forerunner of British Airways). Boeing subsequently made changes to the design of the 707, which resolved the defect, and the rest is history. Earlier in the interview he responds to the question why American planes are better than British planes. His view was that American designers were much quicker to react to problems than their British counterparts. So some things change and some don’t! I have no connection to the airplane industry but did once meet Dai Davies in the early 1990s at a reunion of my father’s Fleet Air Arm squadron. He and my father had flown in the same squadron during WW2 (in Grumman Avengers).
12
hard to imagine what the passengers were going through
15
People need to go to prison over this one.
18
Flying Ford Pinto.
10
No doubt the lawyers at Boeing are thanking whatever God they pray to --- probably mammon --- that so far only a bunch of brown, mostly non-western, non Judeo-Christian people have been killed by their shoddily produced aircraft. Profit before people has never been more sharply defined. One wonders if the the CEO and board of directors of Boeing would let THEIR families fly on a 737 Max 8 or 9 without a qualm. One is reminded of the aircraft designer in the Peter Arno cartoon, walking away from a crashed plane site, saying, "Well, back to the drawing board!"
12
When I was a child, my father taught me : "De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum."
Based on the many cruel, judgmental comments regarding the pilots, it seems that innumerable NYT commenters have been failed by their parents, who did not teach them that simple phrase ,or any sense of common decency.
The pilots lost their lives to Boeing , just as the passengers did. The pilots did everything they could to try to save the doomed plane.
Had there been an online comments section following the sinking of the Titanic , the comments section would have been full of critics blaming the Captain and crew.
My heart breaks for all those who lost their lives due to Boeing's
negligence and for their loved ones.
I offer my deepest condolences to those who have lost loved ones and friends to this great tragedy.
I offer my thanks to my late father, who taught me to be a caring, warm-hearted , decent human being by his example, above all, and who taught me "De Mortuis Nil Nissi Bonum,"when I was a child.'
22
@DJS Nice story, but that's not how aviation actually works. You can't build a plane impervious to pilot error any more than you can build a ship incapable of sinking. These pilots failed to run the proper checklist to deal with a known problem (i.e. runaway trim) and, as a result, crashed their plane into the sea. If you want to blame a corporation then perhaps you should direct your ire at Lion Air for not properly training this crew and not grounding the plane after a previous crew encountered the same problem.
4
@Barry
The pilots were not required to be properly trained on this model. Boeing is solely to be blamed. Period. Boeing needed two devastating crashes to finally pay attention and admit lack of available simulators to train. Sincere condolences to the families of the victims.
2
In the West it's been more than 50 years since design-connected issues have led to crashes of a newly introduced commercial airliner model.
In 1953 and 1954 three British de Havilland Comet airliners crashed. The cause was traced to the metal fatigue around cabin windows in repeated pressurization/depressurization cycles. This was a somewhat new engineering isssue in aviation at the time. The commercial aircraft industry in Britain never recovered.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140414-crashes-that-changed-plane-design
In 1965 and 1966 there were four deadly crashes of Boeing 727s shortly after it was introduced. Investigation found that " that pilots were making unstabilized, high descent rate approaches more often in 727s than in any other jet transport—a practice that was facilitated by the 727’s sophisticated flap system, which allowed excessive sink rates to develop if approaches were not carefully monitored." Boeing changed pilot training and manuals and the 727 went on to a long history of commercial flight.
http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/b727.htm
Boeing went on to establish an impressive 50 year track record with the 737,747,757,767,787. These planes and the 707 and 717 did not have a history of fatal crashes related to their introduction.
Boeing's 50 year record has suddenly ended with the 737 Max8. 10 months after introduction 2 dived into the ground shortly after take-off. QED
6
@Lawrence No, unless you want to count the high-altitude stalls of Airbus planes as a "design flaw" because these crashes were due to pilot error. Runaway trim has been a potential issue on airliners for decades and crews are supposed to be trained to deal with it regardless of the cause. But the Lion Air crew didn't use the Runaway Trim checklist. Why? We'll never know for sure. But these crashes were not due to MCAS no matter how much the press tries to spin it.
2
I challenge the Times to FIND THE ANSWER TO ONE SIMPLE BUT CRITICAL QUESTION. A correct answer will allow you to discover the real cause of both 737MAX crashes. When the MCAS responded to an incorrectly sensed high angle of attack by forcing the airplane's nose downward,
DID THE COCkPIT TRIM WHEELS ROTATE?
IF THE WHEELS ROTATED, (without either pilot using his yoke's trim button), the rotation would be SO OBVIOUS that any 737 would know that IMMEDIATELY ACTION WAS DEMANDED! GRABBING A WHEEL WOULD STOP IT; SIMULTANEOUSLY TURNING "OFF" THE NEARBY TRIM POWER SWITCHES WOULD VIRTUALLY END THE PROBLEM.
IF THE WHEELS DID NOT ROTATE and the MCAS began to force the nose downward, the pilots would NOT EASILY RECOGNIZE this as a RUNAWAY TRIM. But the airplane nose would begin to seem heavy and want to move downward. Only by the pilot-flying would sense this. That pilot would naturally begin using his control yoke and trim button to prevent the nose from dropping. This would be only the beginning of a sequence of required and repeated control manipulations, CONFUSING SYMPTOMS, and yoke trimming that would gradually become less and less effective. Unless the trim power switches were turned "off" soon enough, the airplane pitch attitude could become trimmed too far downward to to avoid a permanent steep dive.
Got the answer?
Questions? Call me.
3
@John A McDougall The trim wheels rotate a lot in different phases of flight. Also, it was never taught that a runaway stabilizer requires memory items.
The trim wheels rotate quite often during speed changes and sometimes becomes quite "unnoticeable" unless it is rotating for 20 seconds or more. The way it sounds is this did not happen but rather the wheels rotated a few seconds at a time which would be normal during changes in airspeed.
Just so you know, I fly the 737 for a major airline that has the MAX.
13
I was a aircraft mechanic at a major airline and I know how to disable the stab trim on three different manufacturers large aircraft. Why didn’t these pilots, trained on only one aircraft not know how to do this? The switch is under a RED guarded switch and within arm’s reach from either seat.
Boeing has a software problem, but both those airlines have a pilot training problem. 200 hours, are you insane?
14
Boeing and the FAA have blood on their hands.
11
How quickly we forget. Almost 10 years ago, Air France Flight 447 from Rio to Paris stalled at 35,000 feet and plummeted into the Atlantic Ocean, killing everyone on board. The pilot struggled to correct it, and couldn’t. Why? The same reasons these two Boeing jets crashed: faulty sensor, aggressive software, and lack of training. Overall, automated planes are saving lives. But when a problem occurs, neither the plane nor the crew are prepared to handle it. We can do better.
16
Um, no. Read up on that crash. There was no aggressive software involved. The pilot flying was incompetent.
1
Why hasn't anyone, ANYONE, focused on why the erroneous data was transmitted in the first place? It seems pretty clear to the most uninformed reader that the ROOT CAUSE has not been fixed. WHY WAS BAD DATA BEING FED INTO CRITICAL FLIGHT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS? Forget, for the moment, the inexcusably mismanaged introduction of the MCAS system. Now, the resolution, at least party, is to rely on DUPLICATE parts that provide from the same unreliable data source.
Where is the true root cause analysis? Everyone talks about the faulty data from a single sensor. Getting confirmation from a second faulty device is ZERO help.
FIX THE ROOT CAUSE. DESIGNING A SYSTEM TO IDENTIFY BAD DATA IS TO PLAN FOR, AND EXPECT, FAILURE.
9
@Jon The resolution should have been to use the Runaway Trim checklist as the previous Lion Air pilots did. While the software update will make one cause of runaway trim less likely to happen, it won't address the real cause of these crashes: poor training.
3
Most companies give barely any attention to quality control. Everyone wants to be developer, designer. Quality control is considered the most disliked jobs, and gets little respect or credit from even management in software companies. Any wonder why products fail? This is a sad classic example of not conducting independent 100% quality checks.
1
Every time the Boeing executives look into the eyes of their mothers, sisters wives or toddlers they should be forced to think of the family members lost in those crashes. They should be forced to ask themselves, “did they do enough to ensure their safety?”
I hope that question haunts them for the rest of their lives.
4
@Donna Hutchinson
Patently unfair and possibly misdirected.
Way too early in the investigations to lay blame but if Boeing had culpability its more likely secondary and not primary
Most in aviation strive for safety. That’s why industry is so safe. They are heartbroken when lives are lost
Issues here are complex and answers will show that
Put away the pitchfork
Deregulation and it's very dark side. Boeing left to police itself and these are the end results. Too many close ties to Trump and his administration. Major inquiry essential now.
10
@Larry Here we go!! Blame Trump. Trump took the extraordinary measure to overrule Boeing and the FAA and grounded the planes by executive order, so how close could be his "ties" to Boeing?? Dream on.
@Mabel, he only took this action after the rest of the world already grounded the plane. Just a little late to the party, wouldn’t you agree?
1
Any software that's developed undergoes rigorous testing and typically has comprehensive test scenario coverage. It would be hard to believe that Boeing somehow 'missed' testing this particular scenario. The pressure of making the deadlines could've pushed them to cut corners. Boeing should be held responsible for the death of 300+ innocent passengers. RIP.
1
We passengers are mere numbers on a spreadsheet. Like AIG in 2008, Boeing is too big to fail. Boeing’s insurers will settle with the families of victims. Their public relations department will regain the trust of the airlines and the flying public. Their lobbyists in Washington DC will ensure favorable legislation and sympathetic political appointees to the FAA. All of that happened after the crash of USAir 427, a Boeing 737, outside Pittsburgh in 1994. Plane crashes are like mass shootings: everyone gets momentarily excited but nothing really gets accomplished, and it’s back to business as usual.
9
@Gene Amparo The 737 rudder issue was caused by a faulty rudder servo manufactured by Parker Hannifin, not Boeing. It took years to track down the issue despite numerous tests run by Boeing, PA, and the NTSB. That situation is in no way comparable to this one. These pilots HAD the tools available to diagnose the problem (i.e. runaway trim) but they failed to use the proper checklist. How is that Boeing's fault?
Stuff like this should give anyone pause about the viability of self-driving cars.
8
It seems to me that Trumps discussion about Planes too complicated is relevant. It seems the pilots in both the Ethiopian and Indonesian flights did not know how to disengage the stabilization system. The pilots should not have been certified for the planes. Doubtless the systems were faulty infrequently and doubtless they have been disengaged in the U.S.A explaining the lack of crashes here. Boeing may well fix the system and still have crashes because no auto piloting system is infallible and rarely safer than a competent engaged pilot.
2
I’m a pilot. There was absolutely no reason for confusion here. To spend ten minutes hauling back on the yoke every 20 seconds is beyond the definition of insanity (doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result). The procedure for this emergency is called a memory item on the 737 (ANY 737 dating back to 1967): it’s something any crew is trained to deal with from memory. It’s absolutely astounding that they weren’t trained and prepared to deal with a trim runaway. The correct remediation procedure takes all of 7 seconds. The fact that their solution in the end was prayer says it all.
PILOT. ERROR. End of story.
12
@Mike It was VFR weather so why did they not just disconnect the autopilot and fly the plane level? Did they forget the number one rule for a pilot in any emergency situation which is fly the plane first.
4
@Mike
This aint your daddy’s 737. That’s why MCAS is there. Turn it off and all your experience can lead to a seriously bad place. What was needed was retraining in multiple flight conditions without MCAS. But that was not how the MAX was sold
3
@Mike
In terms of resolving a relatively minor fault and getting pax to destination you are absolutely correct
If you are part of the industry you also will know that a hull loss with a singular cause is very rare
While it’s too early to issue final reports it is clear there are multiple failures here including a lack of familiarity with the aircraft
If the planes had crashed in the States and not in faraway Ethiopia and Indonesia, I would love to see how quickly the lawsuits bury Boeing.
11
Does anyone know what software is a part of this plane?
How many lines of codes were used?
How many people write this software?
Who else uses it?
In the aftermath of these two 737 Max 8 crashes one of the most glaring facts is that the AOA disagree warning light which alerts the pilot that the AOA sensors are in error--the very sensors which feed data to the MCAS system and trigger its software to adjust the trim of the plane--is sold by Boeing as an OPTIONAL FEATURE and was not even installed in the Lion Air 737 Max 8 that crashed. The warning light would have been detected during pre-flight checks and should have indicated to the pilot to leave the jet parked at the gate.
6
Thank God Trump banned this plane when the FAA refused to act. We need more balance on artificial intelligence in order to allow pilots and drivers to manually override systems that are built on bad data.
If, as is being reported, the Lion Air 737 that crashed last year experienced the same problems the day before the crash and the plane remained in service, I would suggest that the company would be well-advised to hire the very best aviation lawyer money can buy.
12
As an engineer I have seen and been involved in many discussions and out and out screaming fights with management concerning technical issues not nearly as critical as this. Since this was the fastest selling airplane I can easily imagine management saying not to worry since it was pretty much the same as the previous plane and keep moving them out the door. I have also recently read about debris being left inside the new Boeing air tanker as well as layoffs from the safety (?) division. The ONLY way companies learn is when their profits are slashed so bad that their eyes cross, as well as some blood on the floor of executive offices. 346 people are dead.
28
@C. Neville What about the airlines who failed to properly train their aircrews? Runaway trim has been a potential issue for decades so this situation was nothing new. The MCAS system wasn't broken; an Angle of Attack sensor was the culprit. But these pilots could have saved their plane with the flick of a switch as directed by the proper checklist... if they had used it, which they didn't.
4
I find it hard to understand why a plane would be built with a fundamental aerodynamical flaw (engines too far forward). Can one imagine a car manufacturer designing a car that pulls to the left or right, then adding software to correct the problem? This just seems like a recipe for disaster.
44
@David That's not how aeronautic design works. Plane manufacturers have used flight augmentation systems to deal with undesirable flight characteristics for the past 70 years. For instance, the Boeing 707 had a yaw damper to deal with Dutch roll way back in the 1950s. This is nothing new and there is nothing inherently dangerous about it as long as the crews are properly trained. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case in Lion Air 610 as they failed to run the proper checklist to address the issue. But I don't see how Boeing can be blamed for the airline's failure to properly train their crews.
2
@David -- Answer: Savings of lots of $$$$$. Add-ons instead of complete redesigning.
@Barry
"I don't see how Boeing can be blamed."
Right.
Let's blame Mitsubishi.
...or, you know: whoever sent this plane out into the world relying on a single sensor to calibrate the unfamiliar automated knife-edge rebalancing system for an airframe that was never designed to balance anything like the equipment it was being forced to carry.
Toyota, maybe? Someone.
I have to ask, WHAT is happening? Did we not learn anything when seven CEOs swore under oath that cigarettes were safe? The evidence shows we either have learned nothing or care to ignore what we know.
Is it Citizens United? The fact that corporation are people too allows for big money to buy politicians to change laws and oversight to allow bad things to happen. It is worse than ever.... pharma charging hundreds of dollars for an epi-pen or justifying fake clinics to distribute opiods? Or Johnson and Johnson failing to let people know their powder (which I, among many, used on my babies) has asbestos? Or politicians who cry that carbon emissions are actually good for the environment and allowing devastating changes in our environment.
What is going on?
24
@Diane L. Democracy is dead, corporate values have replaced democratic values, and we're never getting democracy back again.
2
@Diane L. What is happening is that Lion Air failed to properly train their crew to deal with a potential issue that airliners have faced for decades, i.e. runaway trim. I'm not sure why people are blaming Boeing for that.
2
Why were the faulty sensors necessary? Because instead of designing a new plane which would have had to be approved leading to a lengthy delay Boeing stretched the existing design, making it tail heavy. Also heavier engines altered the balance and flying dynamics. To counteract the stall tendency the MCAS software was installed. So to save money Boeing first designed an unstable plane and then put in software to solve the problem it had created. Now they're trying to blame pilot training!
34
@madashell -- this may sound harsh but has Boeing forfeited the right to build planes for the flying public?
2
@madashell No, the fault was not with MCAS. The sensors in question were AoA (angle of attack) sensors and ALL airliners have them. As far as why the MCAS is necessary, flight augmentation systems to deal with undesirable flight characteristics have been used for at least the past 70 years. For instance, the Boeing 707 had a yaw damper installed to prevent Dutch roll. I would suggest better familiarizing yourself with how aeronautic designs actually work before criticizing them.
1
@Barry 'undesirable flight characteristics' ?! Or just a plane that was stretched so much it had an inbuilt tendency to stall? it was stretched to the max -- hence the name
I don't want to point the finger of blame at anyone but it seems to that these pilots were inadequately trained on this aircraft. After all, hundreds of these planes made hundreds of flights without incident.
11
@MIKEinNYC
A-men. You hit the nail on the head. People want to blame “technology” or corporate entities or even polititicians because it is more fashionable and politically correct to do so. We’d like to think that pilots don’t make mistakes when they are flying us around in tin cans at near the speed of sound, but the massive growth in air travel has led to too many under-trained and under-qualified pilots.
1
Up to their grounding, Max 8’s were making something like 8,000 flights per week. That’s not a dismissal though of obvious safety concerns.
@MIKEinNYC
...that we know of
other than the other plane that crashed and killed over 100
Why wasn't this MCAS put through extensive tests? My guess Boeing execs never flew in a plane guided by MCAS? May an email trail prove that someone cut a corner. Something stinks here.
This isn't upgrading an electric toothbrush, there are lives involved.
The world needs an answer.
May Boeing's stock plummet until the grieving families get closure and paid.
11
The fix for a runaway trim — what occurred in both the Lion Air and Ethiopian crashes — is not unique to the 737 Max 8 or Max 9. All pilots are trained on how to fix this problem. The fact that the runaway trim was CAUSED by a faulty sensor giving erroneous data to the MCAS system is irrelevant.
Both crashes appear to be pilot error.
It is easy to understand why Boeing never would have informed pilots of this "hidden" system given that it's essentially an adjunct to dozens of other fly-by-wire systems that would only activate under unusual flight regimes that most pilots would never even experience in their career.
All Boeing aircraft — including the 737 Max 8 and 9 — come with manuals that explicitly inform pilots on how to fix a runaway stabilizer trim problem. This is also what's known as a memory fix item. In other words, pilots are required to know by memory how to fix this problem in addition to it being explained in the plane's manual.
It is apparently clear the Lion Air and Ethiopian crews did not follow that checklist and were not competent in their memory checklist. Therefore, these crashes are going to be classified as pilot error.
15
@puma It's good to see someone who isn't fooled by the moral panic surrounding this situation. But I am greatly disappointed that Boeing and the FAA caved to public pressure by grounding the entire fleet. It will cost billions of dollars but fail to address the core issue (i.e. poor training) so it won't actually make anyone safer.
2
@puma
Nice try!
A system that takes in only one sensor input (the angle of attack?) and ignores everything else like the actual speed of the plane (accelerating, not stalling), its rapidly decreasing altitude, its orientation (near vertical dive) has been criminally misdesigned. The engineers who designed it, the managers who approved it, and the FAA personal who took Boeing's word on safety of that system, are all criminally responsible. They have to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law so that these tragedies don't happen again in our increasingly automated world.
1
I guess we’ll never know if the MCAS ever saved any planes from crashing since that’s not the point of this investigation. Blame is all that matters anymore and who to pin it on and who to sue.
2
@John Doe Nah, who needs facts and rational analysis when anti-corporate types have a chance to "stick it to the man" by blaming Boeing for these pilots' failure to use the proper checklist.
artificial intelligence and the "...let the computer figure it out" paradigm - these do not belong everywhere.
1
I just watched a 4 minute video by an American Airlines pilot and he explained what happened and that there are two switches to disconnect the software. If these pilots had seen that four minute video, they would not have crashed. He said the only training for the plane is a 56 minute iPod video. This should not have happened.
16
I buy my plane tickets almost exclusively based upon price. I'm pretty sure I am not the only one. The focus on shaving pennies from each ticket's price has consequences. But I think that is where regulators are supposed to come into the picture to keep the safety interests above the financial penny pinching.
9
I spent twelve years at The Boeing Company, including on the 777 startup and rollout. I was and am still proud of the company. The people there were committed as I've seen anywhere else, and the products they built were awesome in their complexity and reliability. Please do not condemn the entire enterprise with so blithe a dismissal as "corporate greed." I can assure you that is not the culture there.
Perhaps it's because we have come to view the breathtaking as mundane, that we fail to appreciate how technically audacious these modern machines really are.
24
@Terry Thomas It's corporate greed.
7
@Terry Thomas
Thanks For that level cooment and for the work on 777
777 is an incredible plane, incredible safety record. Outside of the MH incidents, Hull loss and human toll is extraordinarily low.
It’s so good it’s partly responsible for killing the 747.....ironic
I wish people would put away the pitchforks and allow complex investigation take their natural course
1
It's just heartbreaking to read about the hopelessness and fear that was probably shared by everyone on board that plane. Where was the AI or even just the intelligence of what driverless cars have built into them? This was clearly a backwards step for Boeing as far as "software intelligence" if it doesn't even keep the plane in the air. I agree with the engineers who say this is a major design flaw. I really wonder how the FAA didn't catch this, or have the procedure for catching it.
6
When all is said and done, they will find Boeing criminally responsible for these two disasters. And FAA has been their accomplice.
17
So....it never occurred to them to switch off auto pilot and fly the plane manually? It seems as if in this day of greater technology, common sense is in short supply.
4
Auto pilot was not on and pilots were not aware of the other system that was always on to correct the poor aerodynamics of the plane.
37
Since one day previously another pilot addressed this type of issue without a crash it is apparent that the training and communications had an immense effect on the crash.
5
Government agency funding cuts (or not enough funding to keep up with technology) will of course lead to more industry self-regulation. Add in the cozy relationship of industry and government + lobbyists and this is what results. Capitalism has run amok and it will be difficult to reign it in.
8
It was chilling to read how the pilots kept trying, to no avail, to manually override the obvious error. Wondering if the pilots were 1) made aware of the system 2) trained on the system, including manual override.
4
@Tricia — All pilots are suppose to know how to resolve a runaway trim problem, as this is not specific to the 737 Max 8 and 9 type aircraft. The fact that the runaway trim was CAUSED by a faulty sensor giving erroneous data to the MCAS system is neither here nor there.
This is clearly pilot error.
7
It was pilot error BASED on lack of flight control critical information. I highly doubt in this case or Ethiopia Air that the pilots knew enough about MCAS, be it their fault or more likely - the airline, the aviation agency and Boeing had NOT delivered the sufficient aircraft design and piloting information and training.
2
@puma
Do you have any evidence the pilots were ever informed of MCAS's existence, much less how to disable it?
3
Completely shameful behavior by some Boeing executives and others. I’m very surprised pilots would fly these planes without a more thorough understanding of all controls, systems, etc. No matter what, a pilot should be able to override all automatic systems and take personal control of a craft on demand. If I understand correctly, an associate pilot may have saved all the passengers on the previous Lion Air flight of the plane that crashed, simply because he knew automatic controls needed overriding. How did that resolved crisis not create a need for directives to all relevant pilots and crews? So tragic and unnecessary!
11
@Tim They WERE able to override the system... IF they had used the proper checklist as the previous Lion Air crew did. Runaway trim is nothing new in the world of aviation. Neither is the use of automated flight augmentation systems to deal with unwanted flight characteristics. Those have been around for at least the last 70 years since the Boeing 707 had a yaw damper installed to prevent Dutch rolls.
This crash was caused by pilot error. Blaming Boeing and grounding the entire fleet won't make anyone safer because it doesn't address the core issue: poor training.
2
I find it very difficult to understand why, after the first crash, and then the recovery assistance a day earlier by an off-duty pilot, there was absolutely no knowledge by any person in the cockpit that all they had to do was disable the MCAS system and put the trim on manual. How could these people have been totally ignorant of what had just recently transpired? Furthermore why didn't the off-duty pilot and the other pilots who flew the day earlier let everyone know what had happened and what the proper recovery required? Why were they silent?
I find this totally baffling. A sophisticated, high-tech aircraft almost has a disaster the day before and no one is notified. Astounding! That, in my view is irresponsible behavior. In fact for the flight the next day it was fatal behavior.
The worst offender though is Boeing. They failed at every level to let anyone know anything about a new system, how it worked and how to manually deactivate it.
Next to Boeing the FAA bears equal responsibility for not demanding training and testing. Putting training on an iPad is inadequate and resulted in the crash of 2 aircraft and the deaths of almost 300 people.
Everything was preventable.
11
@Jay How is Boeing the "worst offender" when runaway trim has been a potential issue on every airliner built in the past 70 years? These pilots failed to follow the proper checklist, therefore the crash was due to pilot error.
2
This has nothing to do with corporate greed?
Why else would Boeing rig FAA certification by having over 1,000 of their employees under contract to the FAA to provide objective evaluation of their own work?
Twenty years ago we were afraid of terrorists crashing planes into skyscrapers.
Now we're afraid of Boeing cutting corners and building planes that crash themselves everywhere in the world.
That's corporate terrorism.
25
@Yuri Asian You're directing your ire at the wrong corporation. Runaway trim has been a potential issue on ALL airliners for the past 70 years. But Lion Air failed to properly train this crew to deal with it. A previous crew encountered the SAME problem but were able to deal with it because they used the proper checklist. Lion Air's maintenance staff then failed to fix the sensor causing the problem at which point they were legally required to ground the plane. But that didn't happen and, as a result, an improperly trained crew crashed it into the sea shortly thereafter.
1
I find it stunning that pilots of these planes were not trained to understand this new system! The very fact that the pilot had to refer to a manual is beyond anything I could imagine. I'm glad these planes have been grounded. I was shocked our president allowed them to fly for even one day after this crash!
7
What a shame — the only thing manufacturers care about is how much money they can make. Forget about the several hundred people that lose their lives — after all it's all about the bottom line.
1
@Orator1 The pilots failed to follow the proper checklist to deal with an issue that has been known for decades, i.e. runaway trim. This crash was due to pilot error.
1
Flipping through a flight manual that's probably 800 pages long as the plane speeds toward the ground strikes me as an absolutely horrifying metaphor for our age.
31
@Mark It was a Quick Reference Handbook, not a "manual". QRHs are commonly used to diagnose and troubleshoot problems in aircraft. Unfortunately, these pilots failed to follow the proper procedures to deal with a well-known potential issue with ALL airliners (i.e. runaway trim), unlike the previous crew who encountered the same problem and successfully troubleshot it before landing safely.
2
Isn't there a simple switch which turns off the computer? The pilots should be perfectly capable of handling the plane without a computer
2
Unlike all other commercial air planes, this plane was not aerodynamically stable when MCAS was not on. Pilots had no training in a simulator for this dangerous condition.
10
@Fred Vaslow, the Wright brothers used sticks, wires and pulleys with a lot of brute strength to control their airplane. I’m sure not much has changed since then in terms of controls so yeah, I agree, why not an off button for the computer? Remember Twelve O’Clock High and how Burt Lancaster physically wrested that flak tattered B-17 safely to the ground on only one remaining engine? Sure don’t make ‘em like they used to. MCAS is for sissies apparently.
2
Why is no one focusing on WHY the MCAS system is triggering? Boeing is said to be working on an MCAS software fix. This does not address the underlying hardware issue that is causing the system to engage. Faulty angle of attack sensors? Poor maintenance of sensors? Wiring issue? What is it? Updating the software is a BandAid for a condition that may require surgery.
9
It is not possible that such a powerful flaw in a critical system could have gotten through any kind of typical comprehensive testing. When complex systems like these are tested all possible and even extraordinary inputs are tested for to see what the reaction of the system will be. I suspect that this was found during testing and it was hushed up due to the marketing plan that demanded that they hit certain dates to compete with airbus. I suspect that the FAA either knew about the flaw and ignored it, or they handed off certain critical testing to Boeing because they did not want to know about certain issues. The FAA was in bed with Boeing due to the simple fact that Boeing executives are all over the government. One is now the head of the Pentagon. They took a chance that nothing would happen and that they could earn bigger profits by making their deadline. That kind of thinking never works out in commercial airplane manufacturing as the list of folded airplane companies that have unnecessarily risked passenger lives shows. Although they are not saying it, this is the most critical moment for Boeing in its history. It has demonstrated to the world that its integrity for safety cannot be trusted. There are other airplane manufacturers ready to step into that void. Boeing allowed its Republican attitudes to overcome its common sense and it has committed corporate suicide. Its time to sell.
15
Humanity is barely a half century into automated electronics. We have a ways to go before it is anywhere near as robust as biological systems. A fruit fly is far more complex than a Boeing 737.
I bought three brands of oven thermometer. They all say something different.
12
The pilot was flipping through a flight manual?? Boeing has a lot to answer for - they made a major change and due to cost considerations did not adequately train pilots and alert them to this new system. It is unconscionable. The FAA has also fallen down due to being unable to hire people with the technical skills to monitor these air craft. Over 300 people are dead due to putting the bottom line first.
26
I disagree. This is a routine failure of automated flight systems; a so called “trim runaway”. The pilots should have been able to comprehend this and “just fly the airplane”. Both of the incidents happened in visual flight rules conditions where the pilot can simply look out the window to see what is going on.
3
At the risk of becoming political, which is not my preference, I submit our President of the United States had an indirect hand in this. Let me explain.
The FAA Administrator stepped down after his five year term ended in January 2018. Since then, an Acting Administrator has been in charge. Our president has gone on the record and stated he prefers acting administrators to actual administrators because it's more efficient for him to get things done his way. In my experience, every Acting-anything is toothless and concerned more about preservation of pension than mandate.
In November 2018, I had a person at FAA personally say to me that "Boeing has blood on it's hands", referring to the first crash. November 2018. FAA knew and did nothing.
It wasn't until the president of Boeing telephoned Trump and said 'ground the fleet' that Trump then put himself in front of the news cycle. That is so wrong.
26
The key sentence is "The plane had recorded days of questionable data related to air speed, altitude and the angle of the plane’s climb."
LionAir's maintenance department knew, including on the previous leg of the same day's flight, that the craft was experiencing aerodynamic problems. Yet the craft took off anyway, to its doom.
Boeing had all the indicators in place, yet from end-October til now, there is no evidence in the public record received to date that they fixed not just software but training and hardware problems (the pitot tubes that measure velocity and angle of attack).
On the day of the Ethiopian crash, Boeing should have done the prudent thing: ground all flights of the night-mare liner. But they didn't, a classic business, moral, and ethical failure.
11
A pitot tube measures airspeed not angle of attack. Multiple sensors on the nose if you look.
No automation should be allow to work without an easily reachable and actionable human override.
That it’s why AI development can be highly dangerous if let to its own devices.
Most people won’t understand it, but a machine can only be at best as good as its creators but will always inherit all their shortcomings.
12
What a senseless tragedy.
I am so angry that Boeing, a public co. completely driven by their bottom line and making shareholder's happy (as all public companies are), is so involved in the process of signing off the use of these planes. It's mindboggling, really. Shame on the FAA, & our gov't, for agreeing to this type of process. I really hope this sinks Boeing.
9
@Yep Meagn
Not Boeing’s fault, it is all due to poor pilot training.
1
This makes me feel the same kind of outrage as the Flint water crisis did (and still does). Boeing should not be allowed to blow this off in any way.
11
Two planes of the same new design crashed. The fault is Boeing’s.
9
I am disturbed that Indonesian officials are leaking this information.
They are muddling the issues and more critically, coloring the investigation to a point where it may not be credible.
These folks need to follow NTSB standards - zero leaks, period.
Not only will the investigation be not credible- but if it does draw conclusions that may be opposite of what folks are thinking - no one will believe anything.
And Boeing will be left to wonder what it is to be fixed.
Or even, if they fix the right issue, no one will believe them.
In all cases, no one benefits.
For a reference, folks might want to remember AirFrance crash of an Airbus 330 off Brazil. What was feared and what eventually turned out to be the root cause - no one would have guessed.
Earlier suggestions were to ground the planes but the real root cause was untrained pilots switching off auto pilots without paying attention. And the lone experienced pilot was on his break and arrived too late.
Let's all wait till July or August.
4
An important question is why the Ethiopian pilots didn't turn off the electric trim switches? Those switches control the horizontal stabilizer which in the case of both crashes, caused the nose to pitch down repeatedly. Although the MCAS is a new system, the potential for a runaway stabilizer has always existed since the very early days of the 737. The stabilizer trim wheel is clearly visible to both pilots as are the trim cutout switches. I flew the -9MAX three times after the Lion Air crash. My FO and I discussed in detail what we would do if the MCAS malfunctioned. Once the trim switches are cut off the stabilizer stops moving and must be moved via a handle on the trim wheel. Once you've retrimmed the airplane the emergency is pretty much over.
16
@TimL After these two tragedies the flying public hopes when they board the plane the captain and first officer are well practiced at turning off power to the MCAS system.
2
@TimL Did you actually fly it with MCAS inoperative? Is MCAS a PUS in the MMEL? What then of the wording of the FAA AD? Manually restrain the trim wheel with trim switches OFF?
1
@TimL — Great question. I think the answer is obvious: many foreign pilots are substandard in their airmanship and, apparently, do not pay attention to AD's or ongoing crash investigations involving their same aircraft type.
We saw a similar level of gross incompetency in the Air France 447 and Asiana 214 crashes.
3
When was the last time a commercial airliner stalled and crashed without a mechanical failure? The only reason this MCAS system was programmed to be so aggressive in preventing stalls was because the plane's flight characteristics changed due to larger engines, and Boeing didn't want airlines to have to worry about retraining pilots when they ordered new planes. Pure corporate greed caused these disasters.
39
The fact that pilots didn't even know about the MCAS system is stunning.
How were they supposed to fix the problem if they didn't know the cause?
16
Placing the lives of all aboard in the hands of a single electronic or mechanical device without intrinsic redundancy is an act of criminal negligence. Regulatory agencies and civil lawsuits cannot effectively hold the responsible individuals to account. These events recall the financial crash of 2008, the lie-fueled invasion of Iraq perpetrated by George W Bush, the Uber autonomous car murder of a jay walker, and countless other examples of corporate negligence. If we, as a society, cannot hold individuals accountable for unethical decisions that ultimately lead to the unnecessary killing of our loved ones, then we deserve to be slaves to the rich. The people responsible for these mistakes should be impoverished, and jailed. Punishing the shareholders with fines, while letting the CEO go with a $50 million severance package is counterproductive, and is criminal in its own right.
If the elderly George W. Bush, or any of his enablers, should be sent to international prison for crimes against humanity, which they objectively, and certainly committed, we would all be safer for it.
8
I question the news value of an article focusing on the exact details of the last moments of the pilots' lives. There are perhaps one or two paragraphs in this article that relate to the technical faults that were revealed by the black box recording, but the rest of this seems a bit lurid. Considering the scale of human tragedy at any given moment world-wide, I can't quite decipher your motive for focusing so intently here. Getting to the bottom of the problem seems like the journalistically responsible angle to approach this from. The needless front-page focus on the suffering of two individuals here just appears unseemly.
5
@Ryan - Thus the headline of the article... human interest amongst all the other assorted articles on this tragedy.
2
@NativeSon Sorry, this got a bit buried: my point was that this was the front-page top headline today.
I disagree with the religious defenders here. It’s fine to admit defeat and say a prayer, but let us all remember that it is science that got them to that place and expertise and knowledge were the only things that could have saved them. I am sick of the religion trumps science bias which is destroying our world— including the climate, and producing hardship and suffering thru over population. Enough already. I am becoming an atheist.
5
It is frankly unbelievable that the means would not exist, and the pilots would not have clear instruction on how to immediately shut off an automated system that was obviously behaving irrationally.
3
It was pilot error for not knowing how to override the system. Several experienced pilots in the US knew how simple it was to do this. While I feel badly for the victims and their families; the pilots should not rely on a computer to fly the plane.
@Rebecca - Perhaps but this seems to be a reoccuring problem, one which Boeing didn't think through (as evidenced by the myriad of other new airplanes that don't have this new technology and this particular problem).
Testing aircraft costs money. Hurts profits and shareholder returns...
3
I thought that in all modern airplanes the pilots have the option to turn off automation and use manual.
Why is this not the case?
1
Plots receive a file folder with information they need for the flight. This information would have been or should have been in the folder. Unless, of course, someone had the common sense to take the plane off line.
1
Lost in all the blame being heaped on Boeing (most of which may be deserved) is the financially motivated blame of the airlines who chose what ostensibly was the cheapest plane for them to acquire in terms of aircraft cost, training and ground support.
This doesn’t alleviate any of Boeing’s culpability, but buying these particular planes over newer designs was a decision also made by the airlines. Boeing wouldn’t keep extending a dated design if there weren’t airline executives worried about their bonuses looking to keep aircraft and pilot costs at rock bottom.
In many ways it mirrors the IT field where businesses keep plowing money into Microsoft’s latest version of Windows and then acting surprised when the same hackers who defeated Windows’ poor security manage to do it with the next release. IT managers could choose to invest a newer platform with better security, but they’d have to invest in training and new support procedures, just like airlines would have to do if they chose to retire the 737 family.
8
I want the FAA to be competently staffed and adequately funded. It’s a function of government to regulate airplane safety.
18
What about the hardware? Apparently, it's there are serious deficits in the design of the aircraft but it was believed that this could be redeemed by a smart new software. I find it very hard to trust the whole industry.
4
No mention that the first officer had a mere 200 hrs flight time - not a co-pilot but merely an apprentice.
1
I think you may be confusing this incident with the more recent one. I think this First Officer was somewhat experienced.
5
@Al Kilo Not mentioned because it is just plain wrong. The copilot had literally thousands of hours of flying experience.
2
Not informing pilots of the MCAS system is criminal.
15
my son is a code writer for a large aviation company... not Boeing.
I told him he should be very thankful he does not work for them.
5
if the pilots were properly trained, they would have reacted properly. The pilot(s) are not at fault here in any way!
4
AI is not ready for prime time. Prohramming an autopilot that can not be over-ridden by a real live human being is beyond 'stupid'. It is criminally insane. Boeing engineers should be going to jail for this.
10
It can be. They had conflicting indications. Tough to react from but the plane was flyable. Bad design and less than adequate training.
4
F.A.A. and Boeing will pay hard its lowly 'verification' prowess. Apparently the reason was « gaining paper's process and training time to sell quickly ». Every passenger's families have the right to sue the loss of loved ones by such flagrant carelessness. Europe and Canada already set their own safety re-verification procedures of their 737MAX. Fortunately there's press and awareness among qualified staff. All signs of responsibility are commended in these times of fake news and alternative facts.
3
"There are no atheists in foxholes"; nor in nose-diving airplanes.
13
This is so heart breaking. Imagine having to flip through a technical manual trying to avoid a crash. This is unimaginable and there is no excuse that will make this right or forgivable.
All I can say is that Trump, the FAA and Boeing are lucky that there were no crashes of the Boeing 737 Max 8 in the Unites States while they refused to ground the jet, even though these jets were grounded worldwide. They thought nothing of playing Russian roulette with the lives of hundreds of American passengers.
33
Have investigators spoken to the team that programmed the software on these planes? Has anyone asked if the software went through simulation testing? Test pilots? Such a hole in "certification".
No one on an aircraft, let alone the people in charge who cannot recover control, should have been subjected to such torture.
5
I am an aviophobe who gave up flying at age 65, the cause was probably 9-11 because I never had problems before. Valium served me but the anticipation and anxiety after booking a flight no longer worked for me. I am heartbroken for the souls lost on this preventable disaster. I pray that Boeing takes responsibility for the error in the lack of training pilots. It is truly on them.
11
I have flown thousands of miles, for years on 737's. The 737 is one of the safest planes ever built.....BUT....Boeing and the FAA apparently dropped the ball on this new MCAS system.
By not properly informing buyers and pilots of the potential for "bucks", Boeing and the FAA endangered the flying public.
Boeing should pay a steep price for this lack of safety and heads should roll at the FAA. I seriously doubt either will happen though.
16
@Heartland Harry, forgive my naivety, but it is impossible for me to imagine the engineers at Boeing not feeling terrible about this and not wanting to fix it as of yesterday. Lawyers just want us to believe that steep fines brings back the dead. Our view of our selves and the society we’ve created really indicates a lot of self loathing.
Boeing blamed the 1994 loss of USAir Flight 427 on the crew; when the NTSB found it was a rudder malfunction in all 737's, Boeing quietly redesigned the part letting USAir take the public blame for the crash. When the Indonesia plane went down I was inherently suspicious as Boeing quickly cast doubt on the crew. And sure enough it's a design issue. Boeing knows well how to take care of itself. Boeing lacks integrity. It should never be allowed to certify itself as fit to fly but the FAA is a shill for the airline industry.
33
The crisis is one of greed, not faith. Boeing and the FAA cut corners and rushed because we've become a world where the details are boring and anyone who wants to slow down the train to make sure the bridge isn't out is looked at like a doom and gloomer that needs to be sidelined. I bet the guy who from the White Star Line who urged the Captain of the Titanic to break the speed record uttered a prayer or too also. We should all be praying that God helps us avoid what's heading our way due to our callous disregard for science and facts.
6
Goes to show you’re one somebody away (not doing their job, following through, communicating, etc) from a disaster that could cost you your life. (I am not talking about the pilots, I am talking about the Boeing team and the FFA).
17
Introducing MCAS software without pilot training seems like asking a pilot in trouble to solve a Rubik's cube of aircraft controls while the plane continues to change the other layers.
8
Corporate greed? It is alarming to see so many here say that term. This isn't a fly-by-night company releasing a harmful product that they couldn't care less if it harmed people. This is Boeing. A company that has been around for decades and plans to be around for decades more. What is the end game for them to have planes that crash? Lawsuits and an end to the company. That doesn't make sense. They may lose Billions because of these 2 crashes.
Thousands of trips were made with these planes, and of all those flights, 2 crashed. While anything above zero crashes is not acceptable, it isn't like they were all falling out of the sky. There appears to be an issue, an infrequent one, that was rare enough that Boeing and their airline customers didn't know it existed until these crashes.
Let the competent folks at the NTSB investigate and reach a conclusion. They are really good at what they do.
In the meantime, resist saying that Corporate Greed is to blame when it simply doesn't make any sense what-so-ever.
4
The reports suggest Boeing did just enough to keep the Max in the same type rating as the previous 737 to avoid the expense of retraining. Those cost savings made the aircraft more appealing to airlines, which could have boosted sales. Was that greedy? I’m sure Boeing did not anticipate crashes.
1
The confluence of deregulation and government oversight failed these people. The 737 Max -8/9 engines are more powerful and forward. The effect of which is no mystery. Was diligence done here? Perhaps. But the failsafe the MCAS framework and need of pilot training deemed deficient.
4
It is clear that Boeing rushed the design of this new system to compete with the emerging Airbus NEO program that was going to steal orders from Boeing. That fact, mixed with the fact that Boeing basically gets to accredit their own new planes with the FAA seal of approval is a sobering outcome of these two plane crashes. The MAX program must address the deep flaw at hand: planes that are brand new are essentially crashing themselves.
7
I bet we won’t see the max back in the sky this year as all of the facts come out of the investigations. This is a study in unintended consequences, and the fix may not be so simple. The basic fact as I understand it is the plane is not properly balanced causing it to lack airworthiness. Face it Boeing, it’s got a fatal design flaw and it will continue to fail at a rate far greater than that which is acceptable to the public. Back to the drawing board.
16
Given that it sounds like multiple systems were failing, I think we may be at only the tip of the iceberg here. The MAx 8 sounds like a death trap.
8
History repeats itself. Remember the o-ring problem on the US Space Shuttle booster rockets? Some people within NASA worried about it, but were suppressed due to concerns about staying on schedule. They pressed on. And then... Challenger blew up.
It's more than just lack of sufficient FAA oversight. This is corporate practice that has badly eroded. Boeing lost sight of the fact that the software they deploy in their aircraft holds lives in the balance. They need to be punished for this grave mistake and should serve as a dire warning to all other aircraft manufacturers that this will not be tolerated.
41
Boeing needs to pay compensation out of its nose. This is nothing short of utter contempt to follow safety standards and gross negligence for the due process. Lack of competition in the industry is part to blame. The sheer dominance of Boeing has caused an attitude of imperviousness and being above the playo of others. They need to come back down to earth and pay up both financially, ethically and morally. This is where anti trust regulations should be looked at, not at the lines or amazon.
23
Seems like we need more time training pilots on old-fashioned stick and rudder flying and a little less emphasis on automated controls - unspeakable tragedy - and needs to be rectified - FAST
7
@Dave Rogers
Your point isn't that these planes crashed because of a lack of such (meat-and-potatoes) training on the part of these specific pilots, I hope? My understanding is that these planes likely crashed because a difficult-to-disable anti-stall system, which drives the plane downward, was improperly triggered. No amount of old-fashioned know-how would have permitted these pilots to overcome the automated controls which sent the aircraft into the sea.
4
Not true at all. The crew the day before handled the problem.
2
This is so sad and harrowing. There should be strict training to pilots and thorough check up to aircrafts. We have to be careful and completely meticulous with apps and machines. losing lives is horrible. May God help families of the victims.
6
My heart goes out to these pilots and their families, and to those of the passengers too. Shame on Boeing. Shame on the FAA.
16
According to published accounts, on the prior day, a pilot flying in the jump seat of the same aircraft stepped in as the same emergency took place. Luckily, that pilot had been trained to turn off the MCAS. Had Lion Air immediately sounded the alarm to their company, the Ethiopian government, the FAA and Boeing and then immediately grounded their 737 Max 8's, certainly the Lion Air crash would not have happened and hopefully Boeing would have acted to ground the 737's and retrain all pilots. Instead, 350 people are dead because Lion Air didn't want to admit what they didn't know and the government of Indonesia didn't want to rock the boat.
Clearly, the pilot in the jump seat had been trained to correct this instrument/computer anomaly; to bad this training had not been extended to all pilots flying this aircraft. The fault will be determined but the lack of transparency by Lion Air and Indonesia cannot be forgiven.
7
Did Lion Air know about this jump seat pilot rescue? Why was one of their pilots “trained” and the others not? Maybe he wasn’t trained; maybe he just figured it out. Since Boeing didn’t tell anyone who bought the plane that training was needed—in fact they sold it as not needing additional training hours—why would any airline know that training was needed? You’re asking the airline to be far, far more nimble and transparent than Boeing was and it is Boeing that has the primary duty of care here, not a third world airline customer. Boeing knew what the problem could be as soon as the reports about the first plane cane in. No doubt there will surface emails of at least one frantic engineer—remember the O ring—saying the software could be responsible in the days and weeks after the initial catastrophe. Boeing was in the position to know the most and do the most and they did nothing.
6
While it does seem clear that the MCAS software is problematic and must be fixed to make the MAX airworthy, there are many inaccurate assertions being made in the discussion, and I'd like to clarify a few things:
- MCAS only operates when the autopilot is turned OFF and the pilot is flying manually. This is likely a huge reason pilots are confused because MCAS is performing an autopilot-type action while the plane is being flown manually.
- MCAS can be turned off. There is a prominent switch to disable electric trim, and all pilots know that it’s there.
- The assertions that the plane is fundamentally unsafe because the wing and engine positions are completely bogus. Yes, the airplane’s configuration is different and introduces some additional challenges, but these are not fundamental flaws.
- MCAS as originally designed is clearly ill-conceived as it has a single point of failure (a single AoA sensor reading), and because it mindlessly pushes the nose down without considering pilot input and other flight data.
- But MCAS being bad does not make the plane bad. That is like saying your furnace is faulty because your thermostat is broken. Boeing needs to fix the thermostat.
- ALL modern airliners and military aircraft depend on computers and electronics to keep them in the air. I know people want to believe that we shouldn’t depend on complex software systems to keep things running safely, but we do. Modern planes won’t fly without software.
13
@Jeff - thanks for clarifying all these points.
My understanding of LA610's immediately prior flight is that the AoA sensor issue had been reported, yet the airline either (a) didn't replace the sensor, (b) did replace it but installed it improperly, and/or (c) LA610's pilot was ignorant of the prior issues. Is that what you have gleaned as well?
Aviate - navigate - communicate is the rule of thumb in a flight emergency, and it appears that LA610 and the latest crash have ignored some of those basic concepts.
2
@Jeff
I agree with all of your points. They could easily make the MCAS more robust. They could tie it in to both sensors, for example, and if there is a disagree, have it cut out. And the plane might otherwise be perfect. But if Boeing made it that way, then you are talking about a new checklist, and you are admitting that pilots might have to fly the MAX without MCAS, whose stall characteristics differ significantly from other 737s. So then it's a new type, which requires expensive pilot training.
"No training required" was THE main selling point of the plane. Southwest is not going to buy the plane if its a new type. So Boeing instead opted for a system that can never cut out, which is inherently less robust and riskier than one that can.
6
@Jeff
Your analogy strikes me as inapt. I'd liken MCAS to a broken gas line connected to the furnace and not a thermostat. A broken thermostat won't bring down the house. A broken gas line will.
4
What I don't understand is how computer simulations of control sequences in every imaginable condition and variation, repeated ad infinitum, did not pick up this glitch. As it is described it seems like a circuit anomaly that would have eventually revealed itself in repeated simulations. Mechanical problems due to varied interactions of structural stresses and material tolerances would seem to be more difficult to simulate, but control tests are straight input versus output. Why did this cross circuit not appear in computer simulations?
5
KJ: You make a good point, but these issues are much easier to understand in retrospect.
It’s possible that the simulations never picked up the issue because they didn’t account for an AoA sensor error. And maybe that was reasonable because Boeing had data that the AoA sensor never fails. And maybe the real problem is the manufacturer of the AoA sensor, or some supporting wiring harness, made some tweak that is causing AoA sensors to fail for the first time ever. Or maybe it was sabotage. Or maybe it is a greedy Boeing exec.
I have no idea if any of this is true, but neither does anyone else.
The trouble is that everyone is freaking out and assuming we already know what’s going on. We don’t.
While I understand the fear and desire for a simple explanation, we really need to take some deep breaths and get some reliable data and analysis. Only then will we really know what happened.
The stupidification if America is almost complete, from the stupidest President ever down to the stupidest Boeing software ever.
14
I just don’t understand this. I worked for a major computer company and a brokerage firm in New York from the 60s to the 80s. I worked on software for the brokerage industry. Before any new software or fixes for older software went live, exhaustive testing creating every conceivable possibility took place. Users were fully educated/trained on new or updated systems.
It’s tragic that so many lives were lost to a bug in the system and/or untrained or poorly trained staff. How could Boeing do this? Greed.
14
This accident has nothing to do with the tension between automaton and human operation of a plane, nor does it have anything to do with the failure of humans to imagine every possible future contingency. It has everything to do with Boeing and the airlines desire to save money.
The most important thing to remember here is that both Boeing and the airlines wanted a new plane, but at the same time wanted it to look, feel and act like a 737. For Boeing, extending the fuselage of a 737 and slapping new engines on it is much cheaper than designing a new plane from scratch. And for the airlines, a new 737 is much cheaper than an entirely new plane because their pilots already are type rated for 737s and thus would not need the extensive and expensive training required to transition to a new type.
A more robust MCAS design would have tied it in to both AOA sensors on the plane. In the event of a disagree between sensors, MCAS could have alerted the pilots and turned itself off. This is a common solution all throughout industry. But doing this would have put Boeing back at square one. If MCAS could cut out, then the pilots would be flying a plane they are not trained for. And that training costs money, which negates the plane's main selling point. So rather than scrapping the project, Boeing decided to go ahead with a less robust MCAS that could never cut out, and take the risk it would not cause a crash.
17
Pilot automation is only as good as, the programmers, the accuracy of the sensor information collected, and the reliability of the of the controls, and of course redundancy.
I have many reservations about driver-less vehicles. Even a Jet ensures there are two pilots; but only one sensor?
I do however, see no issues with automated driver assistance devices in vehicles. It's a kind of redundancy.
3
There is a report that the day PRIOR to the loss of the Lion Air flight, the same plane had the same problem, and a third pilot who was "deadheading' (riding as a passenger) in the cockpit explained to the pilot how to disengage the software that was causing the problem, which suggestion was successful to correct the problem.
If this is accurate, I think Boeing has two major problems on their hands, one relating to finding a correction for this issue (and repairing their reputation), and the other from the possible legal problems that they should expect to encounter in terms of lawsuits by the families of all the people who died on these two planes that crashed.
7
Is stalling in a 737 such a persistent problem that the MCAS is necessary?
Does stalling require automation to correct it when most pilots understand and can easily counteract a stall?
I find a lot of “solutions” lack a problem. The 737 has been in service for decades. I have not heard one wink of “stall” as an issue.
The best software is “meatware” - the pilots flying the plane.
5
The worst aspect of this disaster is that the 737 Max 8/9 wasn't grounded immediately until the problem was properly diagnosed and remedied. I don't know if the responsibility lies with Boeing, the FAA, or both, but we will learn the truth. Nice to see that Trump finally appointed someone to head the FAA, hopefully this decision is better than some of his previous choices.
2
Software development to fix the problem was stopped for 5 weeks during Trump's government shutdown.
How many more times will we read articles describing preventable disasters caused by President Trump & Republicans' government shutdowns?
3
I still don't understand what problem Boeing was trying to solve by introducing the MCAS system in the first place. Were we plagued by a global outbreak of passenger jets stalling as they climbed to cruising altitude? If so, I was unaware. And if stalling is not really a problem for experienced airline pilots, why not just turn off the MCAS system now in the Max 8 jets and let them get back in the air?
8
i don't understand how the same plane had a problem the day before, it was solved by a third pilot who was in the cockpit hitching a ride and then the thing crashes the next day.
why was it allowed to fly?
as for praying....obviously a desperate move, but the entire planet couldn've prayed at the same time to save the plane.
to no result.
2
This is a brand new $100m airplane, why is not perfectly safe? The quality of Boeing products has declined. FOD in a brand new USAF KC-46 and two 737 crashes killing 359 people if that does not demonstrate Boeing has major issues and not sure anything will! This is not the same Boeing under T.A. Wilson. Furthermore, there is a Federal criminal investigation underway into Boeing Commercial. Could be there are several whistle blower telling the real story at Boeing? I would not fly the 737-max until Boeing and the FAA demonstrate by flight testing this system more rigorously. This is not a Windows 10 software update!
5
Learning from other articles by the NYTimes, Boeing self-certified its fleet, and picked its own inspectors. The FAA was under-staffed and under-financed to do this job and outsourced it back to Boeing. Boeing did not train pilots in this MCAS technology due to "costs." Boeing only reached a point of needing MCAS technology because of 50 years of re-designing an outdated plane to save more "costs" than starting afresh. Such savings now "cost" 350 peoples' lives thereby wrecking the networks, family units, and legacies each of them had. The leaders of Boeing have blood on their hands and this is due to its flawed value system to put money in the pockets of its shareholders ahead of human lives. May God bless the sacrificial lambs of the LionAir and EthiopianAirlines flights, who were at the mercy of Boeing.
6
This is utterly heart wrenching. Will someone at Boeing be held responsible and face the rule of law? We know that nobody significant was prosecuted after the Wall Street induced economic disaster of 2008 where many families were shattered economically. But here lives have been lost and the responsible should be sent to jail.
6
I only fly major US Carriers for a reason; primarily training and experience. In many cases the pilots come from the military. After the deliberate Germamwings crash in the Alps, I have even become more skeptical of some of the foreign carriers.
4
cool story.
2
If Salesforce.com or Microsoft changed their software they would have put more thought and training into it than Boeing did with the Max. Shameful.
3
I've been watching and researching this 737 Max 8 disaster starting with the tragic end of Lion Air flight 610.
Now Ethiopian flight 302.
It is becoming ever clearer to me that Boeing's big rush to build a bigger, faster, more energy efficient air plane to compete with the newer Airbus a 320 forced Boeing to begin cutting design and regulatory corners, when it took it upon itself to retrofit the old standby 737 with a hideously flawed engine placement, which, by and large, created the need for the now infamously dangerous automated MCAS to make up for the engine design flaw that could potentially cause the plane to be aerodynamically challenged too often.
Fast forward to how in the world they ever managed to convince the FAA to pass this dinosaur as safe and flyworthy, is beyond my comprehension. I'm beginning to even wonder if anyone of competence at the FAA ever actually required pre-approval flight hours by multiple certified FAA pilots.
Summary? The complicated MCAS shouldn't be necessary if the plane had been built correctly from the beginning. And, to think Boeing blamed these pilots. Seems almost criminal.
11
Anyone else ready for self driving cars? Artificial Intelligence not ready for prime time.
8
Malice and or malfeasance are almost certainly _not_ the cause of this tragedy. We are transitioning from the age where we used simple machines like hydraulics, levers and pulleys to achieve much more than we could unassisted to using computers. When we get it right, we will achieve greatness. But we shouldn't look backwards each time we stumble. That's especially important in this case. We shouldn't forget that the 737 itself suffered two fatal accidents due to unexpected behavior of it's hydraulic rudder actuator: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues]
2
From what I've read, greed is at the core of this tragedy. In order to sell more planes by pretending that the 737 Max 8 & 9 were no different from previous iterations of the 737, Boeing downplayed the differences: heavier engine, wings with engines placed differently on the fuselage, so that the nose of the plane tended to tip up. Boeing then tried to compensate for a hardware design flaw with a software fix that wasn't explained to pilots. Boeing should have started the design from scratch: different fuselage to avoid the hardware problem. Instead, hundreds are dead. In addition, neither Boeing nor the FAA paid much attention to the special software aboard the plane when providing pilots with instructions; the usual method didn't work. Even after the 737 Max is allowed to fly again, I won't board it and I urge others to do the same. The hardware (the plane's design itself) is dangerously flawed.
5
I recommend The Devil At 37,000 feet, by William Langewiesche. His prose is a thrill, but this investigative piece about a mid-air collision over the Amazon shines a bright light on the interplay of software and pilots.
2
This is appalling. The last words someone utters as they think their life is going to end, whether about their God or their family or spouse or children should be private. Just because we can find this out now like 911 calls doesn't mean we should publicize it. Please stop.
3
Dan Elwell, acting administrator of the F.A.A needs to go. Period. He begged Trump to keep those planes flying, even after 356 people died.
Trump got around to appointing a new Administrator THIS week, after leaving the position open since January 2018, over a whole year.
Oh, well. Maybe Donald Trump needs to do something else besides tweet and twitter for a job!
Lives, precious lives have been lost.
6
I have been closely watching and reading from many different sources since the second crash and here is what sticks out:
1. Boeing made the decision to move the position of the engines on the MAX so that a bigger, more fuel efficient engines could be installed.
2. The 737 airframe was designed decades ago when airports did not generally have the mechanical walkways that push out to the aircraft. So, it was designed lower to the ground to allow a built-in stairway on the door to accommodate entrance and exit from the aircraft. The design was outdated, but, to try to keep continuity, Boeing decided to use the airframe w/ new engines.
3. The position of the bigger engines induced the potential for stalling as the aircraft would pitch upward depriving the wing of lift. The MCAS automatic, computerized anti-stall system was put in place.
4. Boeing, followed by the airlines, decided that pilots did not have to be trained in shutting off the MCAS system. They said pilots wouldn't even likely know it was working.
5. The potential exists that the sensors which activate the anti-stall system malfunctioned, thus telling MCAS over and over again that a stall was imminent.
6. In earlier commercial aircraft such systems would go off when the pilot pulled back on the control wheel. With the MAX, it is necessary to switch it off. To do so, you need to know which two switches turn it off. Pilots were not told
This appears to be a case of putting too much faith in computerized systems.
7
Murder charges for all Boeing executives that were involved in the profit over saftey scheme and also anyone at the FAA who is basically in bed with the airline industry.
3
I am absolutely stunned at the level of apathy shown by Boeing and the FAA during this crisis - when was it last that a brand-new plane crashed on take-off? We now have two crashes in the space of 6-months. Gob-smacking, staggering in statistical terms, as well as the human tragedy of losing 346 lives! Whether or not the two incidents where related, the FAA should have shown more due care to its role, to ground planes rather than seeming to put Boeing & airline profitability ahead of safety. It was not funny that Boeing had to "request" FAA to ground the plane, and the president to announce it ahead of the FAA! Textbook case of Elwell seeping at the wheel (or in the cockpit)! These missteps will seriously undermine the FAA's credibility. I hope the DoT audit of the Max approval process will unearth the faults in this approval process and bring corrective action in the best interest of the safety of the flying public. Word to the bigwigs at Boeing – the more you state your confidence in the airplane airworthiness – the less public confidence in your product at this stage! Further, not one word of remorse for not have an fit for purpose pilot manual or for explaining the new MCAS system! Boeing new motto: We love (for you) to fly by the seat of your pants! … and it shows (two crashes in 6-months)!!
3
Heartbreaking.
2
The pilots discussed unreliable airspeed and altitude readings. No mention they discussed unreliable angle of attack (AOA) data.
Probably because Boeing decided that unlike the “IAS DISAGREE" alert (for airspeed discrepancies) and “ALT DISAGREE" alert (altimeter), the “AOA DISAGREE" alert is optional – for purchase – and not mandatory.
It may not have changed the outcome. But it’s baffling why this is only an option, and was likely not installed.
4
From everything I have read, Boeing was looking to market a fuel savings over their competitor. They moved the engines forward to accomplish this, and addressed the increased risk of stall this might cause with the MCAS update. The airlines were told BY BOEING that the plane would operate the same as 737 and that no additional training was needed. NO CHANGE was made to the manual.
Had the pilots been AWARE of the change, they would have had invaluable information and understanding as to what was fighting them-- and known the convoluted steps to disable it.
I'd also like to know why the previous flight-- saved by guest pilot-- and the previous crash did not prompt industry wide trainings and manual changes.
8
Both of these crashes highlight one of the major challenges in training any professional - be (s)he pilot, surgeon, or IT worker - in situations that can happen when operating complex machinery and/or systems.
What +does+ make a difference in an imminent failure situation is the professional (a) knows it is happening, and (b) is able to respond in enough time to halt the failure before harm is done or human life is lost.
For years, professional pilots have reported that it's getting more and more difficult to simulate prospective failures on complex aircraft, even with simulators, as with the Air France flight a few years back when the flight crew reacted completely incorrectly because they hadn't encountered the failure situation before.
That said: Any pilot who didn't know what to do to overcome runaway stabilizer trim ++after++ LionAir 610 must be held accountable for his actions, or lack thereof.
2
"Mr. Harvino’s remains are missing to this day." Why would you end the article with this sentence? Are you implying that a miracle happened and Mr. Harvino was raptured up? You are beginning to sound like the Post.
3
As w BP, this should sink a company. But will cause a ripple smaller than the one the aircraft made hitting the Java Sea.
3
What both of these accidents have in common is crew training, which is the obligation of the airline.
Given that in the US, not to include Canada, China, or the EU, this model 737, before grounding, made over 40,000 cycles and flew more than 6 million passenger miles without incident, there seems in both cases to have been a problem with transition type-training and airline management of training resources. As the military knows, training is everything. This is not to say Boeing is without guilt, but it is to suggest that much of the hysteria was media driven.
Still, no matter how unnerving these two accidents are, flying on an airliner, including the Max 8, is safer--odds on--than diving to your favorite restaurant.
4
Most of the 300 planes were put in operation only last year. 2 of them are down. Thats's 1.5% of the total. Imagine 200 of Ford's newly shipped truck disintegrating on the road at high speed...
Boeing is scrambling to get a software patch out, for software that the FAA hadn't even bothered to test. Pilots were handed an iPad instead of training.
In Europe, it's already been decided that FAA certification will no longer be sufficient. EASA will be forced to recertify the 373 after the FAA will have given their all-clear. The FAA reputation is in shatters. Sonis Boeing's. I am sure their CEO is glad his 30m dollar pay day for last year is already in the bank. He's all set...
3
@Beyond Repair
Fact: No incidents in US, 40,000 cycles, 6 million passenger miles flown.
Fact: Airlines are responsible for pilot transition training and keeping pilots current.
Fact: Both airlines are reluctant to share all information with NTSB--Ethiopians sending data boxes to France rather than US for analysis. How well do Airbus engineers-pilots know Max 8--an economic threat from day one.
1
When a plane crashes, there are often more than one thing that has failed at the same time. Pilots are often good at managing a single failure, but poor at managing multiple failures.
In this case, it is looking like the first failure is a failure in the MCAS system that believes the plane is about to stall and takes automatic corrective action. Boeing is responsible for this failure.
However, the second failure is a lack of training by some flight crews. Crews with proper training are able to shut down MCAS and proceed with their flight. Crews with inadequate training turn a bad situation into a fatal one. The airlines are responsible for this failure.
3
As to the incompetent design professionals responsible for designing the 737 MAX:
After you are ousted from Boeing, please don't be looking for jobs designing child safety seats.
2
"Robotic Process Automation will transform how enterprises operate and has the long term potential to enhance how we live"
McKinsey & Co.
4
2 years and the wheels are already coming off. 2 years of de-regulation. 2 years of ignoring the necessity of staffing agencies that at one time were created to make us safe. 2 years of Boeing execs feeling safe in their gated neighborhoods, and the Koch brothers revelling in their success at conning the American people with their fake think tanks. At what cost? The damage is everywhere.
67
Gives a whole new, and scary, meaning to the phrase "on a wing and a prayer".
2
I’ll bet there’s more than one interdepartmental memo going back several years that raised this question. This is on Boeing
9
There are so many infuriating aspects of these accidents. 1) writing software that takes input from a single sensor and allows the nose to be pitched down over and over ignoring the growing urgency of maintaining altitude (murder-ware) 2) lack of training for pilots so they know how to respond to this specific scenario, 3) the government shutdown delaying the fix for the murder-ware, 4) the Ethiopian Air pilots apparently not being aware of the murder-ware issue and how to respond, even though they were flying a 737 Max and even after the Lion Air crash (how is it that I know you are supposed to reach down and turn the autopilot off in this case and they didn't?).
5
@Paul R. S.
Good points. However, apparently the procedure for turning off the MCAS system is not just flipping one switch— as I would argue it should be. MCAS is also not part of the auto pilot, but a separate system, I believe. Seems designed to confuse.
5
If Boeing even suspected a software glitch, their executives should go to jail. It seems these accidents could have been avoided with proper training.
9
Could the clattering have been the trim wheel, not the stick shaker? Could the memory item for “runaway trim” have been actioned appropriately to solve this?
3
>>> "Could the clattering have been the trim wheel, not the stick shaker?"
No. We know the stick shaker was active and it is so loud and intrusive that it would be difficult to hear the sound of the trim wheels rotating.
Watch and listen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEYxxtsLUWY
Sounds like criminal negligence and aggravated manslaughter on Boeing’s part. Oh wait, all those golfing trips to Mar a Lago. Keep up the good work, Boeing!
5
"Mr. Harvino's physical remains are missing to this day." But the evidence of the good he and his co-pilot tried to do until their last moment on earth survives.
May the loved ones affected by this tragedy find some solace in knowing their beloveds did all they could.
Many suggest that love transcends death. I believe this is true.
But belief aside: When will the notion that it is business that makes the world go round be superseded by the reality that it is love that endlessly fuels us?
6
This is the kind of result we can expect in Trump's dismantlement of departments that are supposed to keep travel safe, and air and water clean.
15
Boeing ceo should be put in jail and all FAA fired
1
When television commentators have spoken about this they state that Boeing said that the auto control tends to make the nose try to go up, clearly not what is happening in either of these two cases.
Take certification of air worthiness out of the hands of the aircraft manufacturer. They will lie and cheat to make another dollar.
10
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/recording-lion-air-jet-crash-problems-1.5063969
they were onto it after Lion months ago
Repeat after me--govt is the enemy; the market is all good.
Beleaguered and denounced, regulators have yielded their authority to the regulated. Attempts at robust regulation earn the condemnation of the pres or governor and Congress or the state legislature. Govt is a partner, not an overseer.
It goes beyond pure regulation. Congress underfunds the IRS, so it can do fewer audits, and taxpayers are more casual about completing their returns accurately. A local govt tries to enforce zoning, but homeowners evade compliance with AirBnB rentals. Pub schools are "failing" so charters proliferate.
Or healthcare. Congress won't stop the healthcare industry from bankrupting this country. Or the financial "industry." Effectively backed by the full faith and credit of the US govt, the bad boys of Wall St areself-regulating again.
Don't know what's happened to consumer consciousness. The whole deal seems to be price. Not sure what it will take to restore a healthy balance. Not merely Roundup, VW's emissions cheating on its diesels, Deepwater Horizon (forget already??), banks behaving like hedge funds, price-gouging by generic drug mfrs, toxic romaine lettuce that can't be traced, unduly dangerous workplaces, toxic recreational surface waters, new airliners falling from the sky--you tell me.
Freedom vs the social contract. OK, freedom captivates. But don't forget the old sign posted at occasonal Strategic Air Command bases: The Price of Freedom Is Eternal Vigilance
2
This is horribly tragic! I'll start by saying I care, because I lost my Aunt and Uncle in the worst airline crash in history! It was a preventable crash, and more than 400 innocent people lost their lives, that day in Tenerife! Obviously, with this Lion Air crash, the pilot had no knowledge on how to disengage the MCAS system. All pilots need to be thoroughly trained, whenever a new aircraft is brought into service, on an airline, in my opinion. Even though the B737-800-MAX, is a derivative, of the B-737, it is still a new plane, with bigger engines, and a new MCAS computerized system, and avionics aren't exactly the same as previous versions of B-737's. Airlines, manufacturer and regulators need to ensure that there is uniform adherence for all pilots, flying new model aircraft, on airlines, having current training and knowledge, preferably on a flight simulator, with a working knowledge of how to disengage computerized automatic control systems, quickly, in order to gain manual control of the aircraft! This is critical and essential, and makes a lot of common sense. Perhaps, had proper communication, training, and thorough testing been done, and procedures properly in place, over 300 people would be alive, today, from the Lion Air and Ethiopian Air crashes. My deepest condolences to all who have lost loved ones, with these tragedies!
2
Where is the Boeing board of directors on this? Between this & the fact that Boeing would have been one of the largest benefactors of a US/Saudi arms deal (after the Khashoghi murder) - they need to speak up in their actions.
3
Considering the previous Max 8 problem, it would have been useful if one of the Ethiopean pilots had briefly described what was happening to air traffic control.
2
I remember an interview with Chesley Sullenberger after he successfully landed his plane in the Hudson River, saving himself and all of the passengers under his care. The interviewer asked if he prayed while the plane was going down. His response was "Maybe they were doing that in the back, but I was concentrating on landing the plane".
15
Most of this is starting to feel like FOUR FACTORS contributed to two worst case failures in the air, (1) a sensor and software problem (a small problem with the potential for worst case consequences), (2) a training and flight experience issue in Ethiopia after the Indonesia failure, (3) a pass down failure crew to crew in Indonesia, which is big, and (4) large corporations being slow to react to problems, and the meaningless government shutdown may have contributed to that failure. All businesses go through the journey of FIX AND RETRAIN, FIX AND RETRAIN, FIX AND RETRAI. If you are a Pizza Restaurant making pizzas and you buy new ovens and the pizzas aren't coming out right you FIX AND RETRAIN. Pass downs are big with facility management and security of large property operations. Effective pass down information shift to shift to fully communicate problems and potential problems and everything going on is VERY BIG. Boeing knows how to build an excellent plane. It's not the plane. These problems are people failures.
2
@Greg
" Boeing knows how to build an excellent plane. It's not the plane. These problems are people failures."
People failures at Boeing management. What Boeing needed to do from the start was ensure that pilots were trained on the MAX under a range of flight situations, including MCAS off, since the MAX is not your daddy's 737.
But that would have required more comprehensive retraining, and minimizing this cost was a major selling point. It also might (should) have triggered recertification review. And that would make the MAX a much tougher sell.
1
It's "not the plane?" Of course it's the plane and its manufacturer.
What is any complex, multi-system manufactured object but a concatenation of millions, if not billions, of observations, communications, design, production, marketing and maintenance decisions? Here, if admittedly preliminary info is correct, is a flight control system's being implemented without the knowledge of the responsible operators and dependent on a single sensor's output to 'hidden' control software.
No NASA-style triple redundancy engineering of the hardware and software control and no informing the pilots of a new flight system here. Probably that would've been just too pricey for Big B.
What a great public confidence-builder in AI controlled systems like self-driving cars!
1
@TDK: I completely agree on TRAINING. My Uncle Mac Bacon started out flying crop dusters back when that was dangerous flying. He was a long time Captain for Eastern Airlines flying out of Atlanta where he lived running routes from NYC-Miami and the Caribbean back when Eastern Airlines was THE international carrier for the United States. He flew every big name you could name in his planes and he was a meticulous, detailed, prepared Captain for the worst days in the air. His Dad drove BIG RED Trailways buses in his career. Both were big on safety and contingencies. Mac knew so much about various plane models. His plane was his lunch bucket and I can just hear if around today talking about training, experience and knowing your plane upside down.
Sadly, the FAA, in outsourcing part of the approval process to Boeing itself, is complicit in these two plane crashes. I suppose that's why they were so reluctant to ground the planes. Doing so immediately would have been a tacit admission that they screwed up in certifying the aircraft in the first place.
16
To readers who don't think this was about greed, consider that Boeing put the MCAS system in place to make its 737 planes more fuel efficient because Airbus was winning that game. See here for the chain of events:
https://twitter.com/trevorsumner/status/1106934362531155974
9
I've been following this very closely as an enthusiast. There are lots of intelligent comments here but people are missing a detail. This was a very survivable failure for trained crews. In fact the day before a pilot in the jump seat had the solution: disengage the automatic trim. There are 2 switched, bottom right of the center console. Why the plane wasn't more fully inspected I cannot guess. But turning off the electric motor to the automatic trim stabilizers is really basic stuff that even I know as an enthusiast, not a pilot. the MCAS could only control trim through the electric motor that controls the jack screw. Turning it off so they wouldn't be fighting it is simple it would appear. Then memorized 4% pitch and 75% thrust. I just don't understand this or the other crash from these standpoints. Time will tell. And of course I'm not a pilot so could be missing lots. That the MCAS wasn't part of the online training and not fully documents is atrocious. But again, runaway trim is trained.
6
>>> "But turning off the electric motor to the automatic trim stabilizers is really basic stuff that even I know as an enthusiast, not a pilot."
It's basic stuff if you know that you have runaway trim. In the case of the Lion Air accident flight, it is quite clear that the crew did not know that. Which is not a bit surprising, given that MCAS does *not* behave like runaway trim and the flight deck was in a perfect storm of sensory overload, with visual warnings, audio announcements, the stick-shaker, etc.
>>> "But again, runaway trim is trained."
Yes, and, again, the activation of MCAS in response to faulty sensor input, does *not* present as runaway trim. Runaway trim is continuous, while MCAS applies trim in a manner that is interrupted by, e.g., activation of the column electrical trim switches, but then reappears after a delay of a few seconds, to push nose-down yet again.
It is entirely clear, from the reports of the CVR recording that have appeared over the past day or so, that the Lion Air accident crew did not even know that horizontal stabilizer trim was being applied in an unusual manner. They talked only about airspeed and altitude.
10
Of all the many articles and follow up stories I have read about this crash, I truly wish I had not read this one for it is the most haunting and troubling of all the others combined.
As I read through it, I could feel my skin begin to get clammy, I was experiencing issues with breathy and I finally lost it when I read the closing paragraph that stated "the plane plummeted 5,000 feet, crashing into the Java Sea with such force that parts of the fuselage turned into powder." The materials used in making the fuselage are so strong, they can withstand the coldest of air and speeds well over 800 m.p.h. So for a fuselage to turn into powder, that combination of speed, force and impact is beyond comprehension. I can't stop thinking about the fear and panic the pilots, the crew & the passengers felt.
While I appreciate the dedication, skill and strength it takes to cover these stories, I swear I have no idea how folks at the NYT do it. I can barely read it. How can you begin to write it? Thank you from the bottom of heart for illuminating the world of these horrific tragedies.
71
@Marge Keller And thank you for your willingness to express the emotional horror and grief many readers of the New York Times are also experiencing
3
The manual they used is called a QRH or Quick Reference Handbook and is meant to be referenced quickly (hence the name) at some point during nearly all emergencies. It contains checklists and guidance as well as “memory items” (which should have been memorized already), limitations, and Immediate Action Checklists for even quicker reference. Using it is an integral part of aviation safety. The news keeps referring to it as a flight manual, which distorts what happened and what was actually in 99% likelihood a QRH and completely normal to use.
9
Although Boeing is clearly liable, I am surprised these max 8 pilots didn't memorize the procedure that would allow them to turn off the MCAS. Were they unaware of the issues?
3
>>> " Were they unaware of the issues?"
Yes, until the Lion Air crash, none of the crews flying MAX aircraft even knew that MCAS existed. Boeing didn't tell anyone.
3
What has received minimal press coverage -- I just found this myself -- is that the FAA had five pilot reports of MCAS malfunctioning during take-off, and essentially ignored them.
See https://www.dallasnews.com/business/airlines/2019/03/12/boeing-737-max-8-pilots-complained-feds-months-suspected-safety-flaw
Then in the FAA files, at https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5766398/ASRS-Reports-for-737-max8.pdf
21
Thieves get rich, saints get shot, and God don't answer prayers a lot. --Stephen Sondheim
6
Disgraceful. Slash government funding for the FAA, give it to the ruling class in tax cuts to fund their private jets, and outsource authorisation to companies with not so much a conflict of interest, but the company that builds the planes!
8
The solution to this problem is obvious. All pilots need to be simulator trained on Boeing's MCAS system. They need to physically go through motions of turning MCAS off and gaining control of the plane, after it has caused flight instability, while its flying (in a simulator).
3
Disgusting to still be reading pilot-blaming comments. Yeah, stuff happens in planes I'm sure. But how often are pilots confronted with life and death imminent crash unless- you-make-the-right-call-within-seconds decisions? Not very often in a pilot's entire career I would wager. That you would be put in that situation by Boeing's failure to address this urgently across its entire customer base, even after being reported multiple times, that's the crime here.
12
Why wasn't there a screen describing why the plane did what it did and how to override it? The plane makes decisions and overrides the pilots' commands without even letting the pilots know why?
5
Volkswagen was made to pay about 30 BILLION for creating intentionally fraudulent measurements of vehicular emissions.
Should Boeing be found to have concealed flaws of its MCAS system, I wonder what would be a fair price to pay for the death of 300 innocent humans.
8
The key question is unanswered here (and elsewhere): why didn't they simply disengage the trim system?
There are two well-marked switches on the center console to disengage in the event of "runaway trim." They don't need to know that MCAS is causing the problem, just that the trim system is malfunctioning, which clearly it was.
2
It’s not runaway trim though. It’s the trim system doing what it is told to do by the MCAS system, which is getting faulty information from the AOA sensor. There would have been no pitch trim malfunction warning, as it was acting according to design. Also missing from mainstream media articles but found in aviation publications, turning off the pitch trim disables the system for 5 seconds, then it reengages. Thus the repeated up and down oscillations.
1
@Amy C
Using the yoke-mounted thumb-actuated trim overrides the MCAS for 5 seconds in the Max 8. The stab trim cutout switches permanently shut off all automated inputs to the stabilizer trim system. What other pilots apparently did when they had the same problem as the Lion and Ethiopian crews had was use the cutout switches and then trim manually.
Here's a good overview:
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/61203/how-difficult-is-it-to-simply-disable-disengage-the-mcas-on-boeing-737-max-8-9
The problem seems to have been that in earlier 737 models, the stab trim did not reengage after the yoke actuator was used, and the accident crews were unaware that the MCAS would continuously reengage it. Hence the porpoising. But they should have known to then use the cutouts. Disengaging a trim system that is malfunctioning ("runaway trim") is taught in the earliest stage of flight training. These accidents show that the fundamentals have to be refreshed because we don't really know what the FCC will do in every situation and quickly being able to disengage it and hand fly is crucial.
1
I work with robots and automated systems that are critical to human life. A human should always be in control. The robots and automation should augment the human. Empower the human. If the automation is determined to be wrong then the human should easily override the machine. Easily and quickly. Robots and automation are our tools and don’t replace competence. They augment us not replace us.
Now it’s up to us to be competent.
20
Any one have any statistics on what would be the probability of being killed in a 737 MAX crash assuming they were not grounded?
That is "Total deaths in 737 MAX" divided by "the total number of people flown on it till the day it was grounded"?
Are those statistics still better than odds of being killed in a plane crash in the 1970s-1980s?
How awful to consider that these planes, otherwise so reliable, could on account of some unresolved design flaw, take control away from the pilots and turn into doomsday machines for all those onboard.
5
How is it that hundreds of other 737 MAX aircraft have been flying routinely for months, if not years? All would have the same MCAS system, and thus be prone to the same behavior. It would seem that there is some blame here for the two airlines involved for not training their pilots on issues and procedures that every other MAX pilot in every other airline seems to know.
It was an easier sale if there was no retraining for the airlines. This is a runaway trim issue and pilots have had essentially the same procedure for dealing with for decades of 737 use. the new system has stronger forces so the pilots need to turn it off instead of overriding it. The stick shaker going off when the plane was not in danger of stalling should have been a clue that there was bad input.
4
@ Jay S, there are other reports of the same issue that simply didn't have a negative outcome. These are classified as "near misses", and are well documented. You're asking the wrong question. The real probing needs to be done as to why a legacy aircraft was allowed to be loopholed into service. Boeing would never design the 737 Max series as it sits today - oversized engines and patchwork software on an outdated airframe - but it was a low cost, under-regulated, method to quickly usher in aircraft that could better compete with Airbus models which were cutting into Boeing's bottom line. Combined with a practically negligent lack of training, and a failure to disclose some characteristics to pilots, it's more amazing there have "only" been a few hundred fatalities.
7
A frightening and terrifying scenario—
The plane taken over by unrelenting “software”.
4
I've read that U.S. pilots have reported (anonymously to NASA) this MCAS issue; where does that information go?
5
A terrible tragedy with many missteps...
- Boeing suggested the 737 MAX was largely the same as the existing 737s. They are not.
- Due to complex technology, Boeing largely self-regulates and self-certifies their aircrafts. They should not.
- Boeing did not tell pilots of this automated software system. They should have. Huge breach of trust.
- Boeing should have self-issued the global ground order on the 737 Max after the first incidence. They did not.
- Boeing did not feel pilots needed to be trained after the software system came to light. Obviously they should.
I think it will be while before the flying public regains their trust for these aircrafts even after they are proven safe again. My prayers to families affected! :(
8
This gave me shivers. Reminded me of mortality.
2
Not only did Boeing not tell pilots about the system, the software is instrinsically flawed. This is what happens when you let industry police itself.
13
Absolutely! Boeing engaged in criminal behavior by not making sure all pilots were aware of the issues possible with this version of the 737. As a result, over 346 people are dead.
1
I may be a little dense on how best to handle the FAA forensics of aircraft crashes, but really, why exactly does it take up to 5 months to get the public informed about what caused these crashes?
3
Clearly mistakes were made that caused this tragedy. However, the comments blaming politics and corporate greed are nonsense. Boeing"s and the airlines' safety record are amazing - can anyone remember the last major airplane crash in this country. Worldwide there are far fewer airline crashes now then decades ago despite the enormous increase in airline traffic. Obviously even one airline disaster is one too may and these recent crashes need to be investigate thoroughly to discover the issues so they do not happen again. But demonizing Boeing seems rather unfair given its record.
Need to restrict corporate executives from leaving the county. Unless very different info comes out they will probably face murder charges.
5
Who should be in charge of Airlines, Airplanes, ALL Commercial Aviation ??? NASA, that's who. Think about it.
3
All of this only confirms my decision to never again fly in an airplane if at all possible. The entire experience is a negative one.
I don't care if it takes longer to drive - at least I'll be in control of my own situation, not part of a cattle drive to profit unscrupulous airline companies.
3
Will anyone go to jail? That is, anyone in USA?
2
Boeing is a corporation. Boeing the corporation could not, cannot design anythjng. Boeing's flesh and blood employees, human beings with faces and names, are the ones responsible
It's time for the NYT to stop referring constantly and blithely to Boeing the legal person, and start naming the natural persons employed by Boeing who developed this catastrophically irresponsible system.
Yes, I say – name them. Name the men and women, the programmers, system analysts, engineers and lead engineers at Boeing responsible, or who played a key role, in the deaths of hundreds of men, women and children.
5
You keep leaving out the main point: Lion Air kept flying this plane with a defective sensor. The crew the day before had the same issue, and completed the flight successfully because the pilots simply shut off the system, as you would any system (autopilot, etc.) that was acting up. The accident crew couldn't accomplish this, but they should not have been given this plane in the first place. That is the primary cause, not Boeing's system.
4
The flight crashed 12 minutes after takeoff. The “acting up” happened soon into flight time and ended in tragedy before the captain could solve the problem. If this problem happened at a higher altitude, they would have had more time to find a solution before hitting the ground. The fault is either on the airline for not grounding this particular jet, or on Boeing for faulty hardware and lack of clear guidelines on dealing with these faults.
5
Sounds like there might be a lawsuit or two.
@Koobface, why? Money won't bring anyone back
Apparently the Max in Boeing Max stood for Max Profits.
3
Heartbreaking report, I can't imagine what must have gone through their hearts and minds as this went on. May their souls rest in peace.
2
Why would any company want to install a safety device on a plane because of greed? It makes no sense. In the end this is going to cost Boeing enormously.
The sad story here is not of greed but of incompetence. Not thinking ahead - and the bad thinking here in installing, not training and informing pilots - is gargantuan. I wonder at the absolute stupidity of people who built this device - how was all this possible? And will we find this lack of thinking spilling over into forthcoming Boeing products? Boeing needs more than to fix some software - Boeing needs to report publicly what happened step by step in the thinking and actions that led to these crashes.
2
Boeing tried to avoid the consequences of its corner cutting greed by feigning ignorance. The company's lead engineers tasked with solving the difficulties associated with using the larger engines had to have known almost immediately what had caused the Lion Air flight to go down, yet they remained silent and allowed for a repeat catastrophe only months later.
3
You sure would figure that after the first crash, in which the MCAS was fingered (preliminarily), every pilot in the world flying a 737 Max would have looked up how to disable MCAS and committed it to memory, and that every airline flying them would have made sure the pilots did so. That wouldn't be hard or cost much, since there is a known procedure.
Software relying on a single angle of attack air sensor violates the basic redundancy rule of air flight. Compound that with Boeing believing pilots do not need to know about the system in question is bewildering. Massive failure on the part of Boeing is simply indefensible.
3
Much has been said about how the 737 MAX 8 MCAS system points the nose of the aircraft down if it senses a stall condition. But it seems odd that the flight control software is not integrated with other sensors, such as the altimeter (altitude and rate of decent). That is, why did the MCAS system continue the dive for so long? And after it reached a low altitude? Why did the stick shakers continue to operate in what appears to be a power dive?
According to the article: "But investigators from the National Transportation Safety Committee who listened to the recording described the sounds emanating from the cockpit as the flight crew fought to take control of a plane that seemed almost magnetically propelled toward earth."
1
@W, why??? Because that's what it was programmed to do. Why was it programmed to do that in the first place? Why were the pilots unaware that this MCAS system was making the plane dive? And why were the pilots frantically flipping through the user manual to figure out how to shut it off? And how could the FAA approve such a death trap? These are the questions that Boeing and the FAA owe to the world.
1
@ Julian
I'm trying to work out in my head just how the MCAS software works. Flight control software tends to be written using rules-of-thumb called 'heuristics', where one heuristic cross-checks another. My guess is that one of the heuristics might (or should) look something like this: "If in a powered dive, the wing cannot be in a stall". Or perhaps: "If in a powered dive, zero the control surface angle".
This is an unfortunate matter of "collateral damage" when corporations like Boeing are under the gun to produce ever-increasing shareholder value, even at the expense of damaging if not destroying the entire business premise of commercial airlines: safe flight.
2
I have always held Boeing in such high esteem. I find this shocking and heartbreaking. I don’t know if I’ll ever get back to the level of respect I once had for the company and their planes.
342
@Mary
I am surprised it is not being talked about more, but the 737 went through a similar problem in the nineties, due to faulty rudder controls. That is what the NTSB concluded, but Boeing did their disgraceful best to scapegoat the pilots.
Check out the wiki pages for US Air 427, United 585, and Eastwind 517. In fact there is a separate page dedicated to 737 rudder issues.
22
@Mary
Don't forget to add the FAA and Trump to that list. They are extremely lucky that there were no crashes while they were playing Russian roulette with hundreds of passengers lives.
20
@Mary Trump/GOP follows the Boeing/Big Business model. Profit above all else. People are a disposable business expense. Trump sandbagged naming an FAA head; so the Aviation Industry can make the rules. Trump/GOP/Boeing is responsible for these deaths. Ray Sipe
26
The FAA seemingly abdicates its oversight responsibility if the airliner certification process is contracted back to Boeing.
It would seem obvious that outside oversight isn't truly outside oversight if the overseers are actually working for the manufacturer. FAA could charge fees to the manufacturer sufficient to train an outside team. But I guess they don't.
3
Ugh. As a software engineer I know that all software has flaws. In this case, the flaw is not doing the right thing in the case of bad sensor data. Until we have artificial intelligence in every control system that is several orders of magnitude better than state of the art ('synthetic brain' level), we will always have cases like this. Always.
So: Every mass transit vehicle should have an easily operable "software defeat" (with training provided) and the vehicle should be *usable* without the software. Maybe not at peak speed or efficiency.. but it should not become a deathtrap without autopilot. The design kludges to this vehicle (nose tilts upward because of poor center of gravity) appear to push the boundaries of unacceptability in this regard.
The FAA is going to have to make a hard choice about whether this design should simply be scrapped.
6
I am not trying to take Boeing’s side, but I would not want to fly a plane if the pilot must refer to a manual as the plane is spinning out of control. The pilot should have been trained to fly without ever having to consult a manual during any emergency.
3
Dear Sir from Washington DC: I agree with you about that having to read the manual while essentially taking off, but it’s Boing that sold the plane and and claimed no further pilot simulator training was necessary… I don’t like buying a car and getting in it and finding it was designed to be driven in let’s say England or UK or something e.g. steering wheel on the wrong side to what a stupid american would expect. Go Airbus!
1
@Sherry So, why would the pilot consult the manual, as no information would be in the manual for the new system, if no training was required?
@Mr. Nasty, curmudgeon, Why would a manual on how to fly the plane in an emergency be in the cockpit? The presence of such a manual is troubling. Further, flying a plane is not like driving a car. However, in both instances, there is no manual in a car on how to drive a car in an emergency for a driver to consult while driving. The driver must know how to do so before he drives.
The major question I have is whether the procedure for dealing with an autopilot malfunction changed between the earlier and current versions of the 737, and whether the pilots performed the procedure correctly in this case. That's the critical piece of information that we still (apparently) don't have. Did these pilots properly disable the malfunctioning autopilot only to have the plane continue to fly itself into the ground?
2
@Will Crowder
My understanding is that the method of overriding the software changed on this plane. No longer would pulling on the throttle alone work, as in other 737s.
1
This system is new to the Max and functions outside of the autopilot. It’s not just a case of hitting a well labeled “off” switch. It should be.
1
It seems like there should be a switch that turns off all automated control systems and allows the pilot to just fly the plane manually, like an old Cessna. I know it's way more complicated than this, but maybe too much so.
10
@larsd4 some one must be testing something then someday in the near future the airplane can fly by itself.
That wouldn't happen in a B-52. They still have manual control.
1
With the facts now known, it is very difficult to avoid concluding that Boeing does not have criminal liability. Any pilot flying a Max 8 should have know beyond a shadow of a doubt how to compensate for these software glitches and Boeing clearly knew there were software problems. My guess that in an effort to avoid liability and business repercussions from the first crash they kept what they know close to the vest. So close that they did not prevent a recurrence of another crash. This is hubris of colossal magnitude. Boeing management should be fired and held responsible. And maybe we should all fly in aircraft manufactured in countries with non-corrupt governments and meaningful regulation.
32
Modern airplanes and their complex software will have "issues" from time to time, that's to be expected and is understandable, even excusable. But if Boeing knew of the problem after the Lion Air crash and before the Ethiopian Airlines crash - and the fact that they were working on a solution implies they knew there was a problem - there is blood on their hands.
18
Larger engines with more thrust and the relocation of the wings further back on the fuselage is cause for the nose of the jet to tilt upward. This makes the jet more fuel friendly to compete with Airbus. The software was installed to compensate this automatic lift, I believe. Design flaw plus software flaw equals little chance of survival.
7
The JT610 accident was caused by multiple problems.
There was a critical failure of the previous pilots to report the seriousness of the failures they experienced and or a failure of the maintenance crew to diagnose and fix the reported earlier failure.
There was an inexplicable failure on the part of the flight crew to not diagnose the problem as elevator trim and then to circumvent that failure in the same manner as any pilot of any aircraft with electric trim (most aircraft flying today) is trained to do: remove power to the trim motor with the switch provided for that purpose.
None of the above excuses Boeing for fielding an aircraft with a built in booby trap, nor does it excuse the FAA for not taking the time or going to the trouble of understanding the systems of an aircraft they were certifying.
Then there is the cover up. Had Boeing faced the obvious problem they had created, they would have taken steps to prevent it from happening again. The Ethiopian air disaster is all on Boeing.
9
Plenty of blame to go around, starting with Boeing, and moving to FAA. Unfortunately, it looks like Boeing and the FAA set a trap for pilots.
However, I have to say the following. There were 2 switches on the center console between the pilots. These switches were labeled something like "STAB TRIM". Did the pilots know the purpose of these switches? Personally, I expect *every* pilot to conduct his own cockpit familiarization in a new aircraft, and to understand the use and purpose of each control at his disposal.
I also expect any pilot carrying me as a passenger to devote 100% of his skill and effort towards resolving the emergency at hand, right up to the last second. "Jesus take the wheel", or its functional equivalent, has no place in a commercial cockpit.
4
Why is the FAA involved in this, two crashes of foreign companies?
1
@Rufus
If a highly trained pilot realises their plane is about to fly into the ground, the logical thing to do would be to give Jesus a try. I doubt that means they would stop trying themselves, though.
3
@Gabby B.
FAA is involved because they outsourced certification of Boeing to Boeing.
If you're OK with that, next time you owe me money, just hand me your wallet, and I'll hand it back when I'm done.
Boeing is clearly guilty of several hundred cases of negligent homicide, by its attempt to “soup up” the 737 design in ways that created unstable aerodynamics, compounded by (1) inadequate software (relying on too few indicators of airspeed and angle of the plane) and (2) failure to signal that additional pilot training would be necessary. The particular officials should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the (Indonesian or Ethiopian) law, and airlines that bought this “Frankenstein planes” should be given refunds.
10
Hope and prayers don't fly an airplane
12
@Jim Tankersly: In a moment of great crisis a person of faith will utter words of faith. That takes nothing away from the effort Mr. Harvino put into saving his passengers and crew. I have read several comments critical of Mr. Harvino utterance "God is great." I am shocked and dismayed that anyone would judge the final words of someone who surely knows he is going to die. Please, have some compassion even if you don't share his beliefs.
1825
@Kat: i disagree with your point. We now know that the "fix" seems to be disengaging the auto-pilot system. Perhaps he would have never figured out the solution in time, but perhaps he would have in those final seconds. Instead, he spent them giving up, and praying. Praying for himself, and dooming everyone on board.
7
@Kat No, a person of faith who is untrained to handle crisis management will utter words of faith. Read about US Airways Flight 1549 and what were the pilot's thoughts at that moment.
Mr.Havino did not give 100%. He used brain effort to speak to an invisible being while attempting to save hundreds of lives. You are NOT 100% focused in the task at hand if you are praying that something magical happens.
Not saying the accident is his fault, but his attitude does take away part of the effort that could have been put into saving the people. See how nobody is talking about the pilot focused on studying the manual? THAT is the difference.
5
Listen to recent NPR interview with the CEO of Boeing and you will get insight into the problem. He is a total Trump suckup, only interested in the profit instead of any management or morality. I was shocked - and that was before the Ethiopian airline crash.
He was a total Trump supporter/apologist and you can see how this coziness of business and "regulatory" government led to disasters.
He thought that it was appropriate that Trump negotiated directly with him on the price of the new Air Force One! Like this is normal? Ego danger just like Trump. Should be gone ASAP!
46
@Guy Long
But Trump is correct about the complex computer control of the aircraft. Nothing Trump does or says will please the liberals. He owns an aircraft the size of Air Force One. Of course you won't admit it but I'm inclined to think he might know something about the planes beyond any other politician.
1
Where do I go to put my down payment down on my self driving car? This horror is what we thought we wanted, or more like what some tricked us into thinking we did because it was the future and it was theirs for the taking, only at our expense. Poor guinea pigs.
2
It's all about numbers folks.
For Boeing - the number crunchers probably felt the cost of paying out for insurance payments for lives lost was so much cheaper than retrofitting or retro developing replacement technology for all the Max jets out there or under construction!!!
Simple mathematics for Boeings bottom line - Eh! who cares for a few hundred lives lost!
1
The Lion AIr aircrew definitely did not suspect that the MCAS was malfunctioning for whatever reason. If they had, they would not have been flipping through check lists seeking a remedy. It would appear that they simply didn't know about the MCAS installation and what triggers it ON.
With knowledge of the MCAS, and if there been a direct read-out of the AoA probe and it's faulty data, they would have realized what was causing the stall warnings and would have immediately disengaged the MCAS.
Flipping through check lists was an act of desperation and clearly shows their lack of knowledge of the B737 Max.
8
Sad as well as infuriating. When does the Boeing CEO, together with design and safety executives, resign? Boeing's board of directors needs to move swiftly on holding these people accountable.
5
Unrecoverable? No. The procedure for dealing with ANY unwanted operation of the stabilizer trim motor was established in the 1960s with the Boeing 707. Every pilot is expected to memorize the procedure. Check pilots are supposed to quiz line pilots to prove they have memorized it. Government regulators are supposed to make sure pilots have memorized them. These - having failed to do their job - have engaged in a ruse to blame Boeing.
2
Manslaughter by co-pilot?
1
MCAS software was a problem. But, from the way this article is written, it seems there was also a malfunctioning sensor? Add to this poorly-written manuals and training by Boeing, there seem to be multiple layers of problems. This suggests big problems in Boeing, not an one-off issue.
3
I'd rather they take every last second of life trying to fix the problem than to waste breath expressing ineffectual wishes to imaginary beings.
Sincerely,
Guy Who Doesn't Want to Die in a Plane Crash
5
Prayers never help. Then come thoughts and prayers, which also doesn’t help.
4
This was a design flaw it makes no sense to have a system that would mis interrupt a planes function to the point it needed to be over ridden by the pilot.. i think it shows such poor judgement that Boeing did not show they were concerned about safety first after the second accident instead of profit. Makes a great American company look reckless and greedy.
3
We turn to God, we turn to ourselves, we turn to technology... We turn to Enlightenment now in seeking answers that will let us balance the three in going forward in the transportation industry. God have mercy on their souls.
This whole thing is very sad. On the surface it seems like Boeing was trying to sell a plane by saying it was the same as the older model when it's not. It's probably a good plane however testing it with passengers on board is not so smart.
5
At the very least, the MCAS system should automatically disengage if the plane approaches a minimum altitude. Pointing the nose down to prevent a stall is never a viable option at 1,000 feet.
8
It was reported today that the Ethiopian flight that crashed March 10 had almost crashed the previous day but an experienced pilot who was flying as a passenger helped the pilots by pass the problem.
The executives of Boeing should be sitting in jail right now for murder. They knew about this problem and did nothing.
7
@Cynda Clarification: That was the Lion Air jet that crashed, not the Ethiopian Airlines' one.
@Julia They both crashed for the same cause!
And as reported by American Airline pilots on NPR, they were told it was just another 737, the manuals did not contain any information about the changes and NO training was provided.
It is tragically ironic that a system which is ostensibly designed to prevent accidents is actually causing them.
A reminder that the complexity of these systems is such that we may not be able to forsee how they will act in all circumstances and that reliance upon them is at the users peril.
These incidents have ramifications for many real world applications including self-driving cars and medical robots demonstrating that what we don't understand can hurt us.
I think that when we create or confront complex systems (and I would count our climate as such a system) the consequences of our actions may not be clear until it is too late.
4
I'm an engineer with more than forty years of experience.
Failure analysis is MUCH harder to do before, rather than after, the fact. Engineers have been analyzing airplane crashes in order to find and correct design flaws for as long as we've had airplanes. The extraordinary safety of today's air travel demonstrates how successful we've been.
That said, after the Lion Air event it was clear to even casual observers and pretty much every pilot that there were several flaws in the new MCAS system delivered with the the 737 Max8/9. Chief among them was that this system was critical to keeping the aircraft in the air, could not be readily turned off, and had a single point of failure (its reliance on a single AOA sensor). That combination should have grounded this equipment within days of the Lion Air crash. It did not.
The decision by Boeing to not ground this plane stands in stark contrast to the decision made by Johnson & Johnson to remove Tylenol from shelves during the cyanide episode. The latter is what responsible executives who care about life and reputation do when confronted with a life-threatening issue involving their product. The former is what unscrupulous predators do when their precious revenue stream is threatened.
The crimes here (and I suggest that these should be treated as crimes) include:
1. Why weren't these planes immediately grounded by Boeing.
2. Why weren't these planes immediately grounded by the FAA.
When government sells out, people die.
169
The Tylenol incident was almost 40 years ago. What passes for responsibility today is a very different animal - and driven by Wall Street greed.
5
While it does seem clear that the MCAS software is problematic and must be fixed ti make this plane airworthy, there are many good inaccurate assertions being made. I will try to clarify a few things:
- MCAS only operates when the autopilot is turned OFF and the pilot is flying manually. This is likely a huge reason pilots are confused because MCAS is performing an autopilot-type action while the plane is being flown manually.
- MCAS can be turned off. There is a prominent switch to disable electric trim, and all pilots know that it’s there.
- The assertions that the plane is fundamentally unsafe because the wing and engine positions are completely bogus. Yes, the airplane’s configuration is different and introduces some additional challenges, but these are not fundamental flaws.
- MCAS as originally designed is clearly ill-conceived as it has a single point of failure (a single AoA sensor reading), and because it mindlessly pushes the nose down without considering pilot input and other flight data.
- But MCAS being bad does not make the plane bad. That is like saying your furnace is faulty because your thermostat is broken. Boeing needs to fix the thermostat.
- ALL modern airliners and military aircraft depend on computers and electronics to keep them in the air. I know people want to believe that we shouldn’t depend on complex software systems to keep things running safely, but we do. Modern planes won’t fly without software.
10
This is a design flaw, and Boeing will pay in many ways for it. However, as a pilot having read the released NASA accounts of this system breaking down in the US vs what's come out so far from Lionair, the difference between the two sets of experiences seems to be pilots willing to shut down the automatic systems and fly the airplane by hand. As in total human control. It seems this may be along similar lines with the Eva air crash in SFO a few years back where type rated pilots were inexperienced in flying an approach and landing by hand. I thank my lucky stars I was raised a pilot in the United States with a very 'hands on' 'take positive control' outlook on teaching aviation. The first thing a pilot needs to do when something goes wrong is make sure they are positively flying the aircraft. Everything else comes second. When pilot in trouble starts to pray, they have already given up and have surrendered control of the aircraft.
3
But they weren’t told HOW to turn it off. That’s the point.
3
@Amy C That depends on the process they went through when they received their type rating. If you read the NASA incident reports those pilots knew how to disable the system. I'll bet their airline's type rating curriculum covered the problem. As reported on other news's sources a dead heading pilot on the Lion Air flight riding jumpseat the flight before informed the pilot and copilot how to disable the system. Why that flight crew did not ground the aircraft escapes me, or perhaps they did and the aircraft was put back into service.
Anyone ever notice that software products frequently don't work very well. It's an industry problem, and it's not going to change. The only real solution is to avoid their products to the max extent possible.
1
Have fun living in Amish country, then. Most software actually works exactly as intended for the vast majority of the time. If it didn't, we'd have hourly plane-crashes, there'd be no electricity, and the banks would go back to hand-written passbooks and letters-of-introduction.
1
This business about the FAA being both regulator of aviation safety and promoter of US airlines/aviation is not new. I wrote about this in my dissertation of 1984, an article in Transportation Quarterly in 1988, and my book published in 1989. That research examined the politics and economics that ultimately led to the 1974/1979 DC-10 crashes that killed hundreds of people. The very same issues were a problem then. Too bad nothing has happened to rectify the situation given the decades that have passed since then.
Eroding safety is a bit like watching grass grow -- it doesn't become a problem overnight, but once overgrown, it can be catastrophic in impact and very hard to fix.
15
How awful for the pilots of the Indonesian and Ethiopian planes to struggle to save their passengers, not knowing that they were neither responsible nor capable of averting the tragedy because the design was flawed.
It is heartbreaking to imagine their fearful and futile final moments.
800
It’s true the pilots didn’t figure out what to do, but they would have regained full control of their aircraft simply by flipping a single switch to turn off electric stabilizer trim.
10
@Jeff are you referring to that red switch with the large arrow that says, turn me off if you can't find a solution in the manual?
15
@GA No, Jeff is referring to the clearly marked switch in this NYT pic: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/16/world/asia/lion-air-crash-cockpit.html
8
Software taking precious lives without a human override? Let's all pass on self driving cars while we still can.
713
@Scott S,
Except that technology has made flying safer. I expect self-driving to do the same with cars.
16
@Scott S
Actually, had they known how to disable the system, they should have been able to control the plane. However, it appears they were completely unaware of the system. While there may be some questions about the software and the design of the plane, there is a big training issue. Boeing put this plane into service and said if you know how to fly previous versions of the 737, you can fly the Max 8. This proved to be false.
As for self-driving cars, 33,000 people are killed every year by cars driven by people. Time will tell if computers can do better.
50
@Scott S
As someone in the SDC industry, there is a toooooon of human oversight and ability to override
5
As a retired software designer for and Boeing pensioner myself this is very disheartening. One would like to think that a system that can literally fly the plane into the ground if in a failure state would: A) not be based on the output of a single sensor, B) be given an extreme prominence in training, training manuals, and emergency checklists, and C) have a very obviously marked disengage in the cockpit. It is sure sounding like none of these occurred. If true, it's also puzzling how such safety deficiencies got past the eyes at the FAA.
65
Having spent a career developing software I'm disturbed by the increasing reliance on software to fly planes. Completely bug-free software is extremely difficult to produce. It's also extremely expensive (ask NASA). Even in normal situations one has to contend with management who want it sooner for less money. I'm sure Boeing does fine software engineering but it's difficult to believe there was none of that, particularly since Airbus (who have had a few problems of their own) is a major competitor.
6
We now have additional information from the Lion Air incident. The aircraft had sensor issues, and had had a similar (recovered) incident with a similar profile to the MCAS involved aircraft losses on an earlier flight. That incident was successfully resolved only because a third person was in the cockpit who had specialized knowledge--according to published reports.
Lion Air clearly should not have let the fatally flawed aircraft fly had they had procedures in place to collect and act on the reports of bad sensor data and strange aircraft control issues. Boeing should have made it clear that discrepancies between the two angle of attack sensors should cause grounding until repairs were completed.
Often aircraft loss reports result in recommendations impacting several different operational, training, and equipment areas. These incidents should do the same.
2
This is a sad example of failing to understand the limitations of computerization.
Boeing apparently redesigned the 737 Max 8 into an aircraft that could not fly safely without computer software to correct the poor avionic design. It's supposed to be the other way around - the aircraft should be designed to fly safely with or without the computer upgrade.
I feel terrible for the people at Boeing who were instructed by their superiors to overcome the inherent design flaws with software. These superiors knew better and now 300+ lives have been lost because these people thought computers could save the day. They can't.
15
We have not reached the limits of computerization. Nearly every day there is a new breakthrough in speed, computing power, size, accuracy, etc. Ut isn't the computer's fault, all it does is process O's and 1s. The problem lies in the design, the engineering, the programming, testing or wherever. I doubt if we've even scratched the surface with them.
2
What begs an answer here, from an engineering safety point of view looks pretty obvious, but no one seems to ask the question. Disconnecting a faulty or unpredictably running MCAS will return the aircraft to an unpredictable and potentially stalling flight state. Where is the failsafe here? The system fails to a potentially unsafe mode. Which engineering team decided this is a good approach?
29
@Bogdan
Not one I would hire.
3
The failsafe is the pilots. If they know how to turn the system off and fly the plane.
@Amy C to my (largely rhetorical question) : is software compensation to a mechanical change in the airframe, without any redundancies or a fail safe a good engineering practice , you replied with essentially “pilots were bad”. This is called deflection.
As we ring our hands again, again, and mourn the dead, we need to keep in perspective that engineering a plane, or space shuttle is probably one of the most difficult and complicated jobs on the planet. With this much complexity, no one program or group of people can predict every possible flaw in a design until it completes many hours of acutal commercial flying. Boeing possibly made a mistake not grounding the plane sooner, but answers won't come soon.
There are 37 million commercial flights each year (approx) and very few crashes. We still have one flight that disappeared completely from Mylasia and still have no answers as to it's where abouts. Yet, flying is still one of the safest modes of transportation.
@John
It was not safe on the two that crashes so all the other data is immaterial. Safety statistics can be misleading.
6
@John
A missed opportunity to use the great word "wring" :o(
I been writing software for over 18 years. What happen here is not a bug in the code; it’s a design flaw in the MCAS software. For a system so critical it shouldn’t rely on just one AOA sensor that might be faulty. And for it to not have an intuitive way to shut off is just bewildering.
1314
@Ed I too work in the software industry on real time critical systems. Stuff like what you speculate happens all the time. The mantra is lets be agile and get the system developed ASAP bugs and all.
58
@Ed
I also work int he software industry. In my opinion, the design of the system should always allow for pilot override over a fatal incident. I suspect a critically flawed design (even allowing for faulty sensor data)
112
@Ed I also develop software for the Aerospace industry and have worked on flight critical system, not for Boeing though. The problem in Boeing's 737 Max goes way beyond the critical design. The program management team at Boeing obviously took shortcuts in terms of using more sensors, allowing more time to test and evolving a better design. Obviously, for them the competition against the Airbus 320 was at a higher priority than the lives of Crew and Travelers. Sadly, FAA is an accomplice too as they probably signed off without thoroughly analyzing the test data.
311
This is heartbreaking. As more and more reports re: this crash surface, Boeing increasingly appears to have engaged in negligent practices, at best. Pilots should be trained in new aviation softwares that they are using; cutting costs around trainings in this particular context is a great and grave risk. I have a difficult time believing a company as large and well-resourced like Boeing did not know this. I smell greed and arrogance, and unfortunately those costs cut (which, for a company like Boeing, likely amount to the most marginal reductions) come at the expense of real lives (both the dead and the living who grieve).
445
@eli I place far more blame on Lion Air's failure to train this crew properly. A previous crew encountered the SAME problem but used the correct checklist and landed safely. I'd also put some blame on Lion Air's maintenance staff for failing to ground the plane after they were unable to fix the problem faced by the previous crew.
2
@Barry Actually it wasn't a previous crew, it was a dead-heading senior pilot who had been briefed on the system earlier and before others. As a factual matter, nothing about this coherent was in the checklist . Go blame someone else. Boeing perhaps? You might be unaware that many pilots reported serious problems prior without crashing. Lets wait to see what emails the FBI uncovers...just one is all it takes...
6
We put men on the moon in 1969 and now we can't even make an airplane. Corporate greed could be the answer.
460
@Jacquie More likely deregulated corporate greed is the answer.
96
@Jacquie Yes, we put men on the moon in 1969 and then a few years later, we blew Sally Ride out of the sky while her students watched in horror. Humans make mistakes and it isn't always about greed.
21
@Jacquie Sigh. If it was only that simple. Remember Apollo 1? Apollo 13?
16
The more information that comes out of the investigation, the more it sounds like an aircraft design problem as opposed to pilot error.
In the end, a human is always at fault. It is just a matter of who - airline pilot or the airline executive.
302
@mrpisces Bloomberg reports today that the same plane experienced the same problem on the previous flight with a different crew. A third pilot, sitting in the jump seat, told the flying crew how to disable the electric pitch trim, and that resolved the problem.
For reasons that remain unexplained, the crew that crashed didn't seem to know how to disable the electric pitch trim. But where one crew acted appropriately and another didn't, it's hard to say there wasn't pilot error.
17
@Piper Driver You are making assumptions that the mechanical, electrical, or software fault was malfunctioning exactly the same way every time. It appears that the problem started on previous flights and got worst on subsequent flights.
Either way, the aircraft automation should have never REPEATEDLY put the flight in a dive for no valid reason. That in itself is an aircraft design problem that executives allowed to go through and tried to band aid by using software to mitigate it. The other manufacturer problem is that Boeing did not thoroughly test this design change or otherwise it would have been detected during the Flight Test phase. All of this points to rushed manufacturing for the sake of profits.
73
@Piper Driver You are just speculating. The crew may have done the right thing, but the system failed to disable. We need to wait for the complete accident report.
17
A horrific report. And it also seems that Boeing did not adequately inform or train pilots about the new system, which makes the company, at the very least, negligent in both crashes. In general, air travel is safe, but changes in planes and systems should have to be checked, checked and rechecked by independent experts before anything is put into service. The consequences of errors, even seemingly minor ones, are too grave.
580
Looks like negligence on parade.
23
@Expat
Money first, people second.
54
@Expat
I own Boeing stock and as a shareholder I am outraged.
This points to gross negligence, incompetence and corporate greed. Make them pay dearly. It seems that is all they understand.
662
Boeing is in big trouble this time. This reminds me of the 3 accidents within 12 months of the first commercial jet plane ever developed, the Dehavilland Comet. For those of you not old enough to remember or don’t know your history: the Comet was found to have inherent design issues. Particularly with the rivets used and problems with square windows (the reason why all airplane windows are now somewhat rounded at the corners). That was the cause of the accidents. But Boeing is an established aerospace company with decades of experience. There is no excuse for the 737Max’s problems. We are going to found out that invariably all this happened because of money. Bottom line: in an effort to save money and catch up to the Airbus A320 Neo, Boeing rushed out the 737 Max by getting it certified as a variant of the 737 when in reality it is a completely different plane aerodynamically and should have been certified as such.
61
@Mike L -- I think you are absolutely right. The MCAS system was devised to obscure the fact that the MAX's flying characteristics are different from those of the original 737. The more than likely reason was Boeing's sales pitch to the airlines that the MAX was just an upgrade which would not require a costly program to train 737 pilots to fly it.
8
@Mike L You are correct. A variant of the 737 is much easier, cheaper, and quicker to certify than an all new design.
The original Boeing 737 had much smaller cigar shaped engines that went directly beneath the wings.
Now the same 737 aircraft design has to accommodate much bigger and heavier engines in the 737 MAX series. Instead of designing a new aircraft frame more suitable for the larger and heavier engines, Boeing jerry-rigged the engine installation which introduced instability to the airplane and tried to band aid it with MCAS.
4
THe FAA shortcomings to mandate global pilot alerts to the corrective software shut off switches after the first fatal crash has to have some link to the recent unnecessary government shutdown and lack of resources on the ground to promptly follow up due to short staff and huge workloads. Trump is like a bull in a china shop. But nobody seems to connect these dots.
11
God is great, but a pilot who knows how to fly is greater. Even if Boeing's flight software were at fault in both crashes the onus is on someone in the cockpit to switch it off and fly the plane manually.
It's clear a computer and not a pilot was flying the airplane. So, I would point the finger at airlines and pilot training before Boeing. The Ethiopian Airlines first officer only had 200 hours of flight experience which is absurd.
If we don't have pilots who know how to fly airplanes we might as well board drones. Pilots are in the cockpit to fly; not flip through manuals or pray as the plane nosedives into the ocean because of their inept handling of the situation.
5
@Hollis
I generally agree. However, Boeing apparently neglected to make this change clear enough to pilots. Also, turning off the MCAS should not require a “checklist”. It should be a big red button, as it should be for the autopilot.
1
@Hollis "Since the Lion Air crash, pilots certified to fly the Max have complained that they were not briefed on the new system or on how to counter it should incorrect data force the nose down"
Of course pilots are in the cockpit to fly and not just "flip through manuals and pray". What a ridiculous and callous statement to make in this horrible situation. They were not the only pilots who were unaware of how to counter the incorrect data. They had seconds to try and figure out why their plane was malfunctioning and apparently weren't given enough training or information to do so.
And they lost their lives, along with over 300 other people. Show some compassion.
1
Pilots shouldn't have to rely on a wing and a prayer to keep Boeing's 737 Max in the air.
10
Outsourcing mission critical software to third world countries will be the death of us all. Not through malicious intent, but instead through shear incompetence.
4
I know Mr. Harvino was dealt the worst hand imaginable in this situation, but his passengers needed him to act, not pray.
@Russell
Once the aircraft proved non-responsive to his inputs on the controls, and once the aircraft was in a non-recoverable position, Mr. Harvino did the very best thing he could do. As a non-believer, I applaud his doing all that any pilot could do, under control, using his skills, before making the traditional believer's prayer. Unlike many US pilots, the information he needed was neither given to him, nor available from any source he might have had access to.
23
@Russell Please, sir, some compassion. I am an atheist to my core, but I trust this pilot did all that he could do. Prayer came after all else failed.
2
Rather than a prayer it would have been better if the three pilots just landing in that very same plane in Jakarta would have raised the alarm and blocked take off. Management there has a lot to answer.
3
OK Did previous versions on the 737 also have MCAS? And, if so, was the protocol of [interventions] [remedies] [fixes] [overrides] the same, as in this latest version?
I am asking because, as I am understanding this, or not, isn't this Boeing's argument, that the latest MCAS was not of enough significant operational difference to warrant special mention, or additional training, or purchase of a craft specific simulator, etc.?
In my minds eye I imagine the two pilot teams stripping control down to, as utter manual control, (the manual crank wheel), as possible, much more quickly than was the case in these two flights. Maybe that would have saved the day? But that did not happen, but could have happened, (to completely turn off the automatic functions)? But the pilots did not appear poised to go to: (totally switch off automatic systems, and go to totally manual flight) at least enough to get back to where take off just happened. So sorry - more questions than assertions. The pilot community would respond differently, today? Disable MCAS much more quickly?
1
@dgls There is no single button that disables all automatic systems. It's a process. The MCAS is new to the 737-MAX series. When they first installed it, Boeing provided no training or documentation for use in training pilots. The system was developed and installed to satisfy the FAA since the aerodynamic characteristics of the plane changed with this model. The engines are larger, and had to be moved forward and up compared to the wing. That change meant the anti-stall system had to be overhauled ... that's MCAS. It's too early to say for sure, and it's far more likely a combination of factors were involved -- sensors incorrectly reporting a stall, the system lacking proper redundancy, poor documentation, obsolete emergency procedure manuals, lack of available or mandatory training -- but what IS clear is that the process by which the model was deemed airworthy did not ensure these issues were addressed.
2
@MuTru : So - according to this, MCAS was a totally new feature in the MAX 8, and nothing like it was installed in previous 737's?
There is an MCAS disconnect button. First thing to do is shut it off and fly manually.
4
@T
Sigh...
There is not a MCAS disconnect button or switch. There was no information in the FAA approved FCOM about the MCAS system, at least in the Lion Air case.
Once the flaps/slats are retracted, after takeoff, the MCAS system becomes active. With a misaligned AOA sensor sending bad data to the MCAS system, it started pushing the nose down.
One can disable the elevator trim system (which also stops MCAS inputs) by switching the two trim switches, on the center pedestal off, but normally this would only be done for a runaway trim scenario.
With MCAS pushing the nose down (through elevator trim) the cues are different than a runaway trim; in the second case, opposite yoke pressure will stop the runaway, then switches go off. But not in the MCAS case. And the MCAS fault trims nose down momentarily, then resets itself, over time increasing nose down trim.
Not as easily recognized IMHO as a runaway trim situation. Especially as this appears to be a new software add-on only introduced with the 737 MAX, without any training or documentation.
1
@T : Today - in the Max 8 - Pilots would do this much more quickly?
There is NOT an “MCAS disconnect button”.
This is what you get when you say things like "government is not the solution, it's the problem".
You reap what you sow and our country continues to reap nothing but bad things: health care, wealth concentration, man made global climate change and so on.
And here we are going in the direction of authoritarian fascism. We get what we vote for.
19
Hm. So there is a common thread here that runs from Bush to Trump. Bush put the government on auto-pilot in the summer of 2001 so he could take a month-long vacation to Texas to prove that he was running the government like a corporation. The result was 911. Trump puts the whole government on hold for 5 weeks and cannot even be bothered to nominate a head to the FAA; Boeing was fine with this as they were happy to have little to no government oversight. The result--dangerous planes falling from the sky. The common thread: gross presidential misconduct and arrogance, and of course Republican acquiescence to it all. Farce, Tragedy, and Coverup. Here we go again.
4
This is what happens to please the Wall street and to that effect, bribing all politicians and taking control of FAA. Airline manufacturing should be perfect and not to make profit first motto!
Certifying it airworthy is a decision made by one of those "death panels", republicans' favorite term!
2
Is there a need to "examine" the "Heads" of Engineering, Sales, General Administration etc. in these type of industries? Will it help to analyse issues such as stress, motives, ethics, robotic mediocrity etc.?
Trying to remember that 'government is the problem."
Will anyone from Boeing be charged with a crime?
Are the executives responsible only for the profits, or are they responsible for the passengers’ lives entrusted to them?
4
Divest and boycott. If you are holding Boeing stock (BA), consider it blood money.
12
These tragedies give us a glimpse at what the Republican dream of a regulation-free world would look like: the god of the free market would tell us to fly on planes that don't crash, just like John Galt would. Freedom!
14
Boeing should never allow an automated system to take over the plane--particularly one as poorly designed as this one with inadequate redundancy and no system override. A simple cross-check of the angle-of-attack sensors on the ground would have revealed the error. What happened here should be the stuff of a movie script, not real life. The loss of life is haunting and tragic.
4
The first thing lawyers for the dead should is get the records of software testing to see if this bug ever turned up during development. If it did what did Boeing do about it.
It may be the software in fine and maybe it was a bad sensor. However if the software is bad no amount of duplicate sensors will help.
10
@Areader That is not really correct. Mission critical systems have to have redundancy built in. One cannot trust the fate of 300 people on a sensor and dismiss their death as "it wasn't the software, it was the sensor, too bad". A second sensor and software to compare and discern between an accurate one and a faulty one is one solution. The MCAS would also need to be overruled by the pilot, with the MCAS flashing a code as to why it was attempting to correct the plane.
The currently implemented system is clearly flawed through and through.
3
This is like an anesthesiologist trying to read the text book as the patient under anesthesia has a plummeting blood pressure and oxygen saturation. You don’t really have time to read the manual, even if it’s available.
So sad for all the lost souls who put their lives in the hands of what was supposed to be a highly advanced aircraft piloted by experienced professionals. When the first plane crashed with such unusual behavior that should have been a giant red flag that something was amiss.
65
At a national conference on election-technology security last week, I heard several presentations on the emerging science of cyberwarfare.
Before last week, I would have read this story and not wondered about Boeing's security systems and who might have motive, means, and opportunity to do a few practice runs to see whether they could bring passenger jets down. (just Boeing's? Others?)
As far as protecting our elections, we need only to force our election officials to start checking Election-Night results against manual audits using voter-marked paper ballots. I dunno what to do about airplanes. As least you can correct election results if you notice the problem before the results are declared final.
20
As an engineer I find strange is that automated systems would ever allow the plane to enter dangerous aerodynamic regimes. That is, if the plane existed the zone of normal operating conditions that all automatic controls would not turn off and control returned to the pilot. Maybe an aerodynamic systems engineer or pilot can comment?
10
@B MCAS does not activate if autopilot is on. It only activates if autopilot is off. It is designed to correct for incorrect human control inputs (excessive pitch up). You cannot correct for incorrect human control inputs by handing control back to the human.
In the Lion Air crash, it triggered erroneously because of a malfunctioning angle of attack indicator. There was a documented procedure for the pilots to turn off MCAS. They just did follow it.
5
@Piper Driver
Except there was no redundancy in the system and little to no training worldwide.
2
@Piper Driver
What I have read is that they did not even know about MCAS or were trained. A feature buried in the operating manual read with an iPad. You would have thought this to required simulator training let alone communicated to pilots.
2
The pilots while fearing for their life should have followed the checklist to get control of the aircraft or the computer be programmed not override the pilots commands on the controls.
Clearly the computer is not seeing the larger picture. The aircraft is nowhere near stalling so the computer is trying to prevent something that is not a risk.
We expect our controls to work, always. Boeing has taken that away. When we are down to seconds or fractions of seconds a checklist is insanity.
26
G.O.P control of regulatory agencies always equals less oversight in favor of shareholder profit. Always. Honest career employees in every area of government are muzzled, driven out or replaced by private , profit driven contractors. In the case of the FAA, tragically, the effects of their policies came with loss of human life in a very immediate, visible, horrific way. The lack of qualified department heads, embassy personnel, regulatory personnel and advisors will cause many more disasters in all fields- security, international affairs, environment, healthcare, human rights. The damage will be just as unnecessary and just as tragic to those involved. The chain of events may not be as obvious, but it will be there.
180
@Michael Meninger The Boeing 737 MAX was launched during the Obama administration and first flew in early 2016.
While I'm in agreement that the Trump (mis)administration has appointed low quality people to head various departments and reverse a lot of public policy progress, I don't think this malfeasance can be laid entirely at the feet of this (mis)Administration.
Get ready for a Tweet-Storm, blaming everything on Obama, rather than on Boeing and the FAA process of certification, which relies primarily on feedback from Boeing employees.
12
@Michael Meninger please read this L.A. Times op-ed regarding deregulation. Remember Carter? He got the ball rolling when he deregulated the airline industry in 1978. This article is from 2018. You and other TIMES readers always point fingers to the GOP when the Dems are to share some of the blame for what takes place in the United States.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-welch-deregulation-carter-20180208-story.html
4
"The plane had recorded days of questionable data related to air speed, altitude and the angle of the plane’s climb."
How far along the chain did this information go before the crash?
The airline execs? The Indonesian govt.? The FAA? Boeing?
And how many other aircraft recorded similar anomlies between the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes?
Who knew what and when did they know it?
14:15 EDT, 3/20
86
All very good questions, for which there should be plenty of data to answer. If the MCAS system was directly involved, then this should have occurred on other flights that fortunately didn’t crash.
It raises an even bigger question. If there was enough data to suggest a problem that could result in a crash, what was done about it? It would seem nothing, as the pilots have said they weren’t aware of MCAS, much less trained on the system.
A series of fatal errors all in the name of cost efficiency? Don’t tell that to the families and friends of the victims. I see a lot of lawsuits ahead here, unless another reason(s) is found.
14
@HeyJoe
The news reports indicate that other pilots had reported this malfunction of MCAS to the FAA.
8
@mancuroc Yes, this seems like a really important line of questioning.
5
Will Boeing be charged with murder? If corporations get to be like people in so many other ways why not treat them like people when they knowingly send innocent people to their death through negligence motivated by greed?
605
Corporations like Remington Firearms, for example?
46
@Casey Carlson
Individuals in situations such as this one are never indicted, let alone prosecuted or sent to prison. Just look at the pharmaceutical industry - thousands die from the hidden (by the company, for the sake of profits) side effects of drugs taken as prescribed. Sometimes there are giant fines for civil/criminal misdeeds but that's about it.
3
@Casey Carlson
Excellent point that you bring up.
7
Boeing cares just as much - or more - about safety as does the FAA and the flying public.
The suggestions that they don’t are just ridiculous.
Nothing is worse for their business than lost lives.
Boeing has delivered 10’s of thousands of aircraft and along with many other elements has created a remarkably safe - probably the safest- mode of transportation.
Still, even with the best enginnering and oversight and testing there is always the very small risk that a systematic problem will make it through that gauntlet.
Keep in mind the pilots in both cases could have deactivated the MCAS system and should have known how to do so.
Please stop the ridiculous comment suggesting negligence, incompetence or worse that Boeing intentionally sought certification of an unsafe plane.
15
@Mark Marks
How can we know this when we did not have "the best oversight?" Allowing a corporation to do its own safety tests because they "care just as much - or more" is a calamity waiting to happen. Right now we should be more concerned about saving lives. How can you be so sure the company "cares" and irresponsibly shift the blame to the individual pilots?
If a corporation failed to uphold standards then it should accept that and be willing to correct it. And they should welcome independent, publicly funded oversight, i.e. FAA regulation. That is what it means to care about safety.
44
@Mark Marks
Boeing did not tell the pilots about the MCAS system. It wasn't in the manual. I've loved Boeing but the purposefully built an airplane that wasn't stable and used software to try to fix a kluge rather than designing a new aircraft of raising the height of the aircraft to clear the engines for other considerations.
40
@Mark Marks What a weird take to have--an apologist for a corporation in the aftermath of two major tragedies. Do you work for Boeing or own a lot of their stock?
Also, you're wrong. Have you not read a single article about the MCAS system and how pilots were not, or were not adequately, trained in how to use it? Or how about how after some of the testing was outsourced to Boeing itself by the FAA, meaning it was more or less allowed to vet itself?
Corporations exist to make profits. Show me an example of a corporation acting against its own interest/profit to be a good "citizen," and that is an exception, not a rule. Just look at the lead industry with paint, with the asbestos industry, with big tobacco, etc. Corporations don't change unless they're held accountable. If they act without being forced to by a government or major popular protest, it's an exception.
40
Admittedly without intending it, Boeng through its failings and oversights doomed the passengers and the pilots of two planes to virtual certain death.
28
It would be interesting to know if the MCAS operation had ever been activated in routine operation (was it there for assurance, not use?) or was its function constantly being active in routine flights (dealing with a design flaw?).
12
@Harpo It was discuss someone I saw (I will try to find it again) that there was sensory issues with the plane and was reported to the airline companies by pilots, but in the end profit over safety, the airline didn't do anything about it. In addition to that, pilots were only given a 56 minute ipad training to fly the Boeing Airplane 737 Max 8
4
It seems obvious that aircraft (like cellphones) have become so computerized and complicated to operate: that previous test and evaluation protocols (by company engineers) of systems for safety and reliability are no longer adequate.
7
Based on your assumption that test and evaluation protocols have not also change?
More blood on the hands of this incompetent, criminal republican administration.
146
@markymark I fail to see how the Republican administration had anything to do with this. Trump does not make Boeing decisions and if you check, Boeing started selling this plane back in 2015 before Trump took office.
2
@markymark Everything is Trump is fault right? At least that is how everyone one is programmed. For those on the extreme right, it is AOC’s fault. Has everyone lost their minds?
2
@tom & Andy: 'Like many US federal agencies under Trump, the FAA isn’t operating under optimal conditions to deal with a big issue like the two Boeing crashes. It hadn’t had a permanent top official for 14 months, the White House pushed gutting its employees and trimming budgets for two years in a row, and the recent government shutdown delayed officials’ approval of safety upgrades.'
https://qz.com/1571147/boeing-737-max-crisis-puts-spotlight-on-faa-under-trump/
1
Prior to the Boeing 737 Max 8 living hell nightmare, it was understood that human pilot error was the primary culprit in most airplane crashes.
But in both of these Boeing 737 Max 8 nightmares, it was a cruel, greedy, sadistic confluence of corporate greed, right-wing deregulation, fatal corporate product design, horrendous computer programming by Boeing humans, lack of Boeing transparency, Boeing's refusal to pay for pilot training and a lack of basic humanity at Boeing's corporate headquarters that caused these two very man-made crashes that have collectively slaughtered 346 human beings.
The root of most human evil is unregulated greed.
Boeing and the right-wing United States of Greed have collectively failed their humanity and public safety tests, in case you anyone has been completely asleep.
Greed is not good....and deserves to be regulated to death.
Remember in 2020.
812
@Socrates It seems pretty clear that human error, ground and pilot, is the primary culprit in Lion Air.
The AOA error, resulting in an inappropriate triggering of MCAS occurred on the immediately preceding flight. The airline didn't fix the problem.
The pilots on the preceding flight did, however, know how to turn off the pitch trim, and did so (see today's Bloomberg report). The pilots on the crashed flight didn't know the procedure (which should have been committed to memory and not required a search through the manuals), and failed to take corrective action.
19
@Piper Driver Or maybe Boeing shouldn't have rushed faulty aircraft to carry passengers in the first place..... There is a reason for thorough test flights but it appears that was rushed too.
It would be interesting to see Boeing's documentation and procedures on the testing program for the 737 MAX.
63
@Socrates
No, it was the human inability to anticipate contingencies. That is not political---if you think it was, consider all the coal mining deaths in in "left-wing", "socialist" countries such as Russia and China.
Good design anticipates contingencies, and defends against them, with backups, fail-safe, training, and off-switches. This was a human failure, not a political one.
16
RE: "But they did not seem to know about the MCAS system"
That is because Boeing didn't believe pilots needed to know about it so it wasn't included in the manual and there was no training. By design.
In regards to information on MCAS, Jon Weaks, the president of the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association said “We felt and we feel that we needed to know about that, and there’s just no other way to say it.”
242
@Marie The pilots knew about the runaway pitch trim procedure, which applies to all runaway pitch trim situations, regardless of whether they are caused by MCAS or otherwise.
Bloomberg reports today that the same airplane, flown by a different crew, immediately before the Lion Air crash, experienced the same problem (because the airline failed to fix the underlying AOA problem). A third pilot, sitting in the jump seat, told the flying pilots how to disable the electric pitch trim. The procedure was documented and known. What was not known was every scenario in which pitch trim could be automatically activated. But the pilots did have the information needed to save themselves, and the flight.
8
@Piper Driver No, clearly they did not. In the flight you mention, only one of three people in the cockpit understood how to disable this pitch trim thing. What makes no sense is that the aircraft wasn't immediately pulled and tested in order to at least TRY to figure out what scenarios would automatically activate pitch trim. Nothing is perfect, but it doesn't sound as if Boeing tried very hard to bring a quality item to market.
7
@Sarah
Flight jet manuals are 100s of pages.
Fighter jet manuals are 100s of pages.
You have to memorize it. That's your job.
My sibling flew F-16s; his total recall of specs was better and faster than my 5000 Chinese and Japanese characters' total recall. He had to be able to perform manually under total distress, 8Gs, software issues, and in an old fleet (F-16s in the USA!). You memorize the flight manual.
Then sure, go do auto-pilot for all your commercial jet hours.
1
No mention of the two stab trim cutout switches that would have disabled the system causing the problem and make the aircraft perfectly safe to fly!
11
@Fintan - The switches did nt make the aircraft "perfectly safe". Erroneous data activated MCAS and caused the downward push. Pilots have reported that even when they switched off MCAS, it re-engaged. This was recoverable if the plane was at a sufficient altitude. However, if the problem occurred soon after takeoff and the plane was already flying at a low altitude, it was not recoverable.
35
@Fintan you mean the solution that they weren't trained on?
1
@Fintan
According to an on line article published by Aviation Week: "The trim switches interrupt the MCAS for 5 sec. and establish a new stabilizer trim reference point."
MCAS is not disabled by hitting the stab trim only paused and even worse the software now has a new reference point which will cause the MCAS to push the nose further down when it comes back on after 5 seconds and then stays on for nine seconds.
3
Boeing is clearly criminal in not making pilots aware of this system. Faulty sensors initiating an unknown "anti-stall system" that can push the nose of an airplane down so severely it crashes into the ground in an almost vertical angle? How can this be good systems engineering? And not telling pilots clearly how to disable this system? That's the really, really bad part of all of this.
224
Exactly right. Talk about your design flaws.
Boeing should scrap its 737 Max and begin again with a clean sheet. We, the flying public, are not interested in risking our lives on its jerry-rigged and inherently unstable aircraft, originally designed in the 1960's. Thanks for the software patch but "putting lipstick on a pig" has resulted in the death of more than 300 people!
131
@John Curtin
Boeing's backlog of 737-800 Max 8 orders total almost three times Boeing's 2018 revenue -- and 2018 was a record revenue year. I understand they have no other product that can replace that income.
You are quite correct. Boeing was desperate to maintain its income stream in spite of Airbus introducing the A320neos, a more efficient craft than the existing 737 models, and rushed an unstable craft to market.
People made the decision to bury the instruction on when and how to disable this potentially fatal MCAS system in a thick manual and advise the airlines that their pilots needed no additional training or certification. Their concern was to avoid publicizing that this 737 version had a fatal failure mode that might hinder sales.
Those individuals need to be identified and prosecuted.
92
@John Curtin
They don't need to scrap it. From all we've seen of the Boeing 737 Max history, this has been a fine airplane in all respects. The safety record prior to this programming failure shows that, until now. The FAA should be chartered with doing an extensive review of the "upgrades" that Boeing has released and double-verify them. The FAA needs to be PURGED of its corporate complicity practice. We need to spend the money for expertise within to validate, not give in to self-regulation as Boeing has essentially done here.
2
@Austin Liberal The idea of getting the names of those who made the profit over risk decisions at Boeing would be great if at all possible-but this is likely another prevalent example of groupthink
Flipping through the manual? You gotta be kidding me.
63
@Bobb At the same time the other one was flipping through the Bible. I wonder why the thing crashed. Considering the outcome I suspect maintenance crews, previous day flight crew and Boeing engineers turned to God as well. Less fairy tales, more education and maybe, maybe we succeed in saving this messed up place.
5
@Bobb What's strange about that? 'Flipping through the manual' is what Sullenberger and his co-pilot did, too, when they landed their plane in the Hudson. From what I understand, going through a checklist to try to spot and fix an issue is part of procedure. The issue at hand is that Boeing chose not to put this new software in the manual in any adequate way.
9
@Anonymus
Maybe. How about this for a (somewhat educated) thought: more priority (money, & engineering, including cleaner fuels & new track that doesn't require suddenly slowing from 80mph to 30mph) to Amtrak & other public ground transit? No religious material needed on board. When the trains get too computerized & fail, you just get out & stretch your legs while waiting for the bus.
Absolutely heartbreaking.
And criminal.
148
@Lee Yes, heartbreaking and criminal that professional pilots didn't know a basic procedure for dealing with a malfunctioning auto-trim.
@Lee Yes, heartbreaking and criminal that professional pilots didn't know a basic procedure for dealing with a malfunctioning auto-trim. Clearly these individuals were not properly prepared for flying a jet liner with hundreds of passengers in their care.
1
If GM was guilty of criminal negligence, Boeing is definitely guilty of the same.
Throw the book at this back scratching aviation industry.
74
Boeing needs to hire a female CEO like GM at the time of deflecting crisis.
What a tragedy to have lost so many lives at once. My prayers and condolences goes out to the families affected by this horrific incident.
I can't even imagine the fear and chaos that was going on in that cockpit while the pilot was trying to find a solution in the manual while the copilot is trying to stabilize the aircraft.
So, so sad.
25
The engineers and managers at Boeing who decided that the MCAS should only look at the output from one of the attitude sensors, and didn't include any sanity checks on that output are directly responsible for all the deaths on both these planes.
The FAA, with its complete lack of oversight, is also responsible.
104
A horrible tragedy. And a reminder of the inherent dangers we overlook when strapping in to 75 tons of metal and projecting it miles into the air. Kudos to the author for making these abstruse aviation issues comprehensible to the lay reader.
20
God gave us good common sense and voices to complain, coerce, resist, boycott, expose and demand. When we use these gifts, we are praying. That's the way to hold Boeing accountable.
10
I would reasonably expect my pilots not to be in the cockpit furiously going through a paper manual to keep our plane from crashing and praying for divine intervention when they cannot find a solution.
And, though Boeing shares a large part of the blame, the "swamp" that Trump lied about cleaning up has rendered the FAA entirely and utterly emasculated.
The Max 8 would never, never, never have been approved for flight had the FAA done its job instead of being wined and dined by the aviation industry.
Are you a member of a political party that worships "deregulation" like it is some kind of god? Think about that when you board your next flight.
843
@Didier But the 737 Max 8 rolled out during the Obama years meaning it was on his watch that the FAA dropped the ball. Granted, it was Barack's last month in office but Trump and his crew had nothing to do with Boeing design practices.
6
@tom harrison
President Obama had not had to deal with Mitch McConnell and his merry band of GOP abettors who swore to thwart him at every turn and make him a one-term president You think that perhaps the regulations would have been more stringent and less permissive to the corporate GOP donors?
45
@tom harrison My point wasn't to blame Trump for certification of the plane by the FAA. My point was to note the hypocrisy of his claim to be draining the swamp when his Acting Defense Secretary is a former Boeing executive and now is under investigation by the Inspector General as to whether he steered military contracts to his former company. Shame on the Obama Administration, but shame and condemnation on the Trump Administration for lying to the American people.
38
Sad to hear prayer played a role in this disaster. Instead of prayer, had the two pilots read the airworthiness directive FAA published on 11/7 (like I did), studied it (like I did), familiarised themselves with the off switch to MCAS (like I did), 157 people might still be alive.
Of course, FAA was in shutdown mode so they could not fulfill the foreign airline support role specified in their charter. FAA was struggling to keep air traffic control operating with bare bones staff.
Invariably, it all comes back to Trump. When Trump & the Rs gut FAA agency funding and then have the temerity to shut down the agency so vital to the safety of people, disaster is sure to happen.
Wherever I fly in the world, the people I meet are amazed and aghast that Trump is still in office.
528
@Larry Joe Mikels, this story is about the Lion air crash that happened October 29, before the 11/7 publication date of the airworthiness directive.
381
@Larry Joe Mikels
Don't you think Boeing should have alerted it's customers? Of course this might have highlighted that contrary to Boeing's sales pitch, the MAX had different flight characteristics which clearly required some pilot simulator training, if only to train on how to disconnect the new anti-stall software!
26
@Larry Joe Mikels the two pilots were dead when the directive was released on 11/7.
205
"The report noted that the plane’s nose suddenly shifted downward more than 20 times, a motion that investigators think may have been caused by the incorrect triggering of a new automated anti-stall system on the Boeing Max model."
This "incorrect triggering", if confirmed as the culprit cause of the crash, needs to be stated, emphasized, and repeated in every outlet, everywhere. Essentially, the programmers of that automated anti-stall system would be responsible for hundreds of deaths. If so, that can not be allowed to be lost amidst other sentiments or contextual reporting, however well-intention-ed.
27
@Tom
Agreed. Reads like a freshman software project. Where’s the AI I keep hearing about? Deep learning? Forcing the nose down more than one or two times should have at the very least triggered a pause in the program. How about checking airspeed and gps speed to see if the plane was acting like it was really in a stall?? My God I have written code in 30 years but this is embarrassing.
2
What a chilling account of the final minutes of this flight.
29
Boeing rushed this plane past the FAA keeping this software a secret. They hid it from the airlines and pilots too because to reveal it's existence was to reveal a flaw in the plane's flight worthiness it was supposed to correct. Boeing needs to be liquidated and it's remains given to the victims.
33
Can a pilot shut off all automatic systems and just fly the plane?
11
Not if the system is designed to re-engage automatically after a short period of time.
5
@Robert I believe the answer is : yes, if they know how and have been trained to do so. Some pilots however were not even informed this system was built into the new planes, and the way to shut off the automatic systems was not in the manual, I have read. This was the cause of the outrage at the pilots' union meeting a few weeks back, I think.
3
In light of the countless software bugs in various programs I have to wrestle with on a daily basis, I can't say I am surprised that planes are being brought down by the same reason.
Somehow, it feels better to die because of human error than because of a software glitch.
66
@Kara Ben Nemsi the software glitch is most likely a human error.
7
@Kara Ben Nemsi Software doesn't "glitch" by itself. All software is written by humans. Of course, algorithms are often used to check for basic mistakes in the software, but ultimately, it is humans who put it together. Any way you look at it, it was human error that brought down the planes.
5
@Kara Ben Nemsi I know it's easy to blame software (and this case it maybe true). But take a look at the aviation accident statistics over past 50 years and you'll see that software has greatly improved safety.
3
It is clear that Boeing is guilty of crminal negligence. It took shortcuts to build a plane quickly in order to compete with Airbus, loading huge new engines onto a 50 year old airframe. The plane was not airworthy, but was necessary for Boeing’s profits as designing a new plane - as Airbus did - would have taken too long. Its own employees of course turned a blind eye to the dangers, and certified the plane - critical to Boeing’s profits and their jobs - as safe. Boeing management should be criminally charged and locked up. Only then will a safety culture be instilled in this criminal enterprise.
267
@Ernesto Where's the outrage about Lion Air failing to fix the malfunctions on the crashed aircraft, malfunctions that exhibited themselves in the immediately preceding flight? Where's the outrage about the pilots flying for 12 minutes and still failing to perform the documented runaway pitch trim procedure, a procedure that the crew on the immediately preceding flight performed when faced with the same problem (see today's Bloomberg report)?
9
@Piper Driver No aircraft made for carrying large numbers of passengers should be turned over to commercial airline operators and have such a deadly system design flaw. Where is the outrage over that?
11
@Piper Driver Would you and your family get on a 737 MAX with the current design problems and rely on the band aid solution for the pilots to quickly disable the trim motor in the event of a nose dive?
I didn't think so.
8
How many large passenger planes crashed due to the errors the MCAS system was designed to alleviate before the system was introduced? How often did large passenger planes stall out that such a design was necessary? Could a larger problem be that corporations like Boeing have to keep making newer planes and engineering new problems in order to sell more planes?
11
@Dmurphy "How many large passenger planes crashed due to the errors the MCAS system was designed to alleviate before the system was introduced?"
As I understand it, the answer is none. The MCAS was introduced on the 737 MAX because of design changes to engine placement. It was unnecessary on previous models.
@thomco evidently the larger engines cause the plane to nose up and enter stall configuration after takeoff when power is still near full. The tragic loss of life is almost unimaginable but the frustration and anger that must be mounting for folks who feel they should have been told about the MCAS system and how to defeat it, is going to be transformed into some dark days ahead at Boeing
Sensors are ubiquitous in modern devices. Two examples of malfunction (much, much less serious than the airplane malfunction) have occurred in my devices.
There is an tire air pressure light in my car which comes on when I drive in heavy rainfall or very cold ambient temperature. No real problem with tire pressure -I was told by Honda mechanic. Just ignore the sensor and the light.
My new sewing machine has sensors for just about everything. The bobbin sensor does not work correctly. It detects no bobbin thread, and then the machine stops sewing, about every four stitches. I have manually turned off that particular sensor, and the machine sews perfectly.
Can the plane be flown with the sensor turned off?
25
@Judy Yes the plane can be flown with the sensor off. You just have to know how to disable that system. Boeing did a poor job helping to train the pilots how to do that, imho.
52
@Judy That is an excellent comparison, the sensors in cars and other small motors, Judy. I can relate! After having replaced my temperature gauge that was causing the check engine light to go on, I finally learned it ws the sensor itself giving off false readings in my vehicle. Ignore it, I was told. Here, it sounds like the incorrect readings were going on for days prior to the accident, but that was not caught in the maintenance of the logs. (?) (Who reads the readings, or is that all automated too?) For the sake of the lost lives and the pilot(s) praying for a miracle, I hope we learn from this.
4
@Judy "Can the plane be flown with the sensor turned off?"
It's not quite that simple. The sensor is feeding a trim motor that moves the tail stabilizer trim, causing the plane to go nose up or nose down. I doubt that the sensor itself can be disabled, but the motor can be turned off, and the trim moved manually from the cockpit. Of course, to do that you need to know that the system is operating in the first place. Apparently, this "MCAS" system was independent of the auto-pilot, and was only mentioned in an appendix in the back of the flight manual.
5