Gradually, saving Boeing and its ill fated 737MAX have become more important in the US than the sustainable safety to the flying public. FAA is being derailed to join this international soap opera at the potential expense of people lives in the future! Chickens will come home to roost always...
11
The 737 MAX, rebranded or not, will forever be in the news.
Every encounter with severe turbulence, go around, engine out, skid off runway, wing clip on the tarmac will be over-sensationalized in the media.
JFK BOUND 737 MAX RAN OUT OF ICE DURING DRINK SERVICE
The aircraft will always fly with questionable, inherent risks.
The 737 MAX will be a PR headache for Boeing for years and a drag on its stock price.
Boeing must double down on a next generation single aisle replacement. Boeing needs to have one single goal in mind: quickly ending the 737 program.
One more catastrophic incident involving the 737 will be the end of Boeing.
At this point it’s all about managing probabilities and risk.
10
When the pilots’ union approves the 737 MAX, I will be willing to get on one, and not before. Only those whose lives are at stake have no significant conflicts.
1
Nothing can go wrong (click). Nothing can go wrong (click)That old joke from my school years 70 some years ago should have been burned into every executive and engineer at Boeing. Or maybe they should have had compulsory showings of HAL, the computer in 2001 A Space Odyssey, who has decided to kill the remaining astronaut who wants to shut him down:
Bowman: Open the pod bay doors, HAL.
HAL 9000: I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
CEO Muilenburg’s $60 plus million platinum parachute added wretched insult to appalling injury. Criminal charges of deceiving the FAA would have been more fitting. At the least, his parachute should have gone to start the fund to pay the survivors of those Boeing's greed and incompetence killed.
They kludged a design to put bigger engines on a fine model which then destroyed some of the airworthiness of the plane. They were trying to save money from redesign.
And all this so they could beat an new Airbus into the air.
How'd killing more than 350 people work out for you Boeing board?
A simple suggestion: Computer control is fine at altitude, but not for take offs and landings. And, it should be elementary to have a prominent big-red-button kill switch for any computer take over, and to train pilots when and how to use it.
9
@xpara It's important to note that MCAS became active at flaps up, after takeoff, and responded to a bad climb angle sensor to push the nose down. Pilots did then have 3 ways to override MCAS. The electric trim buttons on the column, a master cutout switch, and the manual trim wheels. When these were used properly, there was no accident.
This is why Boeing finally agreed to the training. Pilot testing found that not all pilots were quick enough to marshal these skills in time for recovery. So now they will be reviewed and renewed in the required training.
1
I’m a pilot, and I’ll never step on a Max miscarriage. Why fly on a plane that’s inherently unsafe? Boeing as a company is broken, their products are designed for profit first, safety second. Airbus for my family until this idiocy is reversed.
14
@slowhand515 You fly a Cessna 150?
Your acidic remarks are unfounded. Okay?
@Ernest Hendrickson MD they are not acidic. The MCAS on the MAX was an afterthought solution to the inherent aerodynamic stability caused by a mismatched engine on a vintage frame. You sound like a doctor. Do you treat the symptom or the cause of it?
7
@slowhand515
Boy, do I agree with you!
2
The only "FIX" they've submitted is to be able to disable/overpower the MCAS when it malfunctions. Isn't the MCAS unit there to correct a flight design problem? If you turn it off, aren't you left 5 miles up in a plane with a flight design problem?
6
@Van The flight design problem is a softening of the control column, which occurs only when the aircraft climbs more steeply than normal, outside the cruise flight envelope. That softening is not allowed by the regulations, hence MCAS applies a force to stiffen the column. If MCAS is turned off, the aircraft can still be flown, as pilots can still compensate manually for the softening.
1
There's an old saying, "as General Motors goes, so goes the nation." Look what happened there.
Now there's Boeing.
7
it seems that there are no credible entities involved with the recertification of this aircraft.
7
Just in case you missed it, the Federal Aviation Administration is an agency the Department of Transportation. The Secretary of Transportation is Elaine Chao, the wife of Mitch Mcconnell.
https://www.transportation.gov/mission/meet-key-officials
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_Chao#Personal_life
8
@Mel Yes, and she has had little visible or public leadership throughout the entire Boeing 737 Max issue, unlike some past DOT secretaries, like, for example Ray Lahood. I guess its not surprising, as none of Trump's cabinet really displays leadership skills or are an advocate for their agency.
5
@Mel So what? The whole GOP bashing angle has gotten really thin. You cite no influence on the process so what's the point of even mentioning that? NONE, whatsoever!
In the movie, The Right Stuff, Chuck Yeager attempts a new altitude record in annew Lockheed NF104A. The plane stalls at the apogee and enters an unrecoverable flat spin.
Traditional aircraft design puts the center of gravity forward of the wings which does what MCAS does - lowers the nose of the aircraft. The traditional, weight forward design was as reliable as gravity. Planes that are prone to flat spins have less drag and less fuel use.
The only reason to have the 737 Max MCAS system nose down when sensing that the airplane is nearing a stall, is to prevent stall entry.
Demonstration of stall recovery is mandatory for new aircraft certification. Boeing skirted this by amending a 50 year old certificate. The only FAA test that will make me board a 737 Max is to see if it can recover from a Stall with the Plane loaded to the aft Center of Gravity. I trust gravity, not Boeings/Collins software development outsourced to India.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-28/boeing-s-737-max-software-outsourced-to-9-an-hour-engineers
https://www.hcltech.com/press-releases/aerospace-and-defense/hcl-technologies-and-rockwell-collins%E2%80%99-strategic-aerospace
14
@JSH The reasoning for MCAS was not stall prevention or recovery. MCAS engages well before the critical angle of the wing that leads to stall. It's only meant to address the softening of the control column forces that occurs at higher angles of attack, but before stall. It's meant to add a slight nose-down trim to stiffen the column against the pilot pulling back. That was and is its only purpose.
Stall recovery demonstration cannot be skirted or grandfathered or avoided with an amended type certification. The MAX is recoverable from stall, with or without MCAS, because it complies with the guidelines you cited. The center of gravity remains forward of the center of lift, always.
@Rob I wonder if you would put your family, esp. your children if you have them, on board in MAX unlimited times after its recertification by FAA? This actually where things boil down to. Also forever there is stigma associated with MAX forever. Just one more accident, Boeing is cooked forever. Boeing should be split into several companies and the Commercial Division overseen by Govt Regulators for a period of time. The fox has been guarding the hen house for a while that needs to be cleaned up...
2
@Raja Govindaswamy Yes, I would once it has been recertified. That process has been very thorough. The MAX has already flown some 150,000 flight hours. The 737 family some 300 million flight hours. It's a safe platform.
After a year of review, the main problem uncovered was the one we already knew existed, MCAS. It's been thoroughly tested (some 2,000 flight hours and 1,500 simulator hours, many of those flown by regulators and airline pilots).
I don't trust either Boeing or the FAA - not when this much money is at stake and the FAA is under the control of the most self-interested and politically intrusive administration in American history. The software they are fixing is basically a bandaid being applied to a fundamentally flawed aircraft design, worked-up to shortcut production and save costs in order to compete with Airbus's more efficient and recent planes. I shall never fly or encourage any one I know to fly on either a Max or a 737NG. Risk to my life is a weightier issue than the inconvenience of shopping around for non-Max non-NG alternatives.
9
For years, I heard the refrain "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going".
I humbly propose a new one to introduce into the vernacular: "If it's a MAX, my money bax".
4
Shame on greedy corporations and a government gung-ho on pushing de-regulation. And on that comfy little relationship between the two. That sucker is not fit to fly and no one should believe Boeing, specially after it tried to keep it flying following the two crashes.
8
Mr Gelles and Miss Kitroeff, would you kindly share with us your audience, your aviation credentials, aviation matters should be left to experts to write on, not general reporters.
@Martin Ricoy You suffer from FoxNewsItis. Not everything you hear or read is opinion unless it is Fox News. While I totally agree with you should the article offer an opinion or advice, but a reading of this article shows just the facts and only the facts. The article outlines the status and what the people who will do the work say is needed. That is all, a twelve-year old could accurately write this article.
8
@Martin Ricoy
I am a B-767, Airbus type rated pilot, who flew 30 years for a Major Airline, and I think the article was well written.
Any aircraft design, that depends on a single AOA sensor, that in a failure progressively trims the stab leading edge nose down is not a good design.
Worst of all, the 737 Type rated pilots, who flew the MAX, had no additional Sim Training on this new Aircraft Type, on the MCAS system, and there was no documentation in the FCOM (Flight Crew Operating Manual) about MCAS, and how it works.
4
@Martin Ricoy
Do you mean that passengers are not allowed a voice on airplane safety?
1
How long until we see Bernie, Eli, Joaquin, Brad Pitt, Jane Fonda, Greta Thurnberg and all the fancy liberal elites jetting the world in this new plane?
1
@Joseph Blow
Greta Thurnberg doesn't fly. You watch too much Fox News..
1
Anybody thinking of the Titanic? A couple of issues with the selling point of unsinkable: overtopping of the bulkheads if it had a gash at the front; bad quality control on rivets; insufficient lifeboats; poor design for launching said boats; operator pressure to go fast regardless of normal caution. A very rare sort of accident.
Now, imagine if, instead of a build of about three, shipyards had to keep the design for hundreds more, and vow to never learn from the tragedy.
We have somehow screwed ourselves into an aero build and certification modality where learning and improvement is economically and legislatively impossible. We get 5000 Max’s; a 1960’s relic for the 21st century. Thanks, FAA. Thanks, Boeing.
6
Let me suggest something for Boeing to make customers comfortable.
On Apollo 11 moon landing when the Lunar module was on the way to surface it experienced a mysterious error alert from the computer, maybe a minute before landing. The Astronauts were not 100% sure what to do. Abort or continue. Within seconds, ground control told them continue, because they knew what the mystery error code was, and would not affect the mission.
I suggest Boeing have a ground control for all aircraft. Pilots should be in almost instant contact about any issue around the world. Make it a single huge button. Engineers on the ground would be able to quickly asses the situation and notify pilots as to the next steps.
I would feel more comfortable flying the MAX knowing it was the most inspected airplane PLUS has engineers at the ready to respond.
2
Another sob-story, replete with hand-wringing about an American behemoth, a disturbingly ignorant, greed-driven darling of the military-industrial complex, with the more visible civilian aircraft manufacturing being a distant second on the balance sheet bottom line.
Boeing has completely lost its credibility and trust among the public (and deservedly so) with its cavalier handling of the 2 Max tragedies.
Instead of accepting full responsibility they offered complete and total denial of it.
Instead of offering financial compensation and voluntary grounding of the plane, they offered a faint promise and a lukewarm apology.
Instead of admitting cutting of corners to help the bottom line, they waited for non-US airlines to ground the planes (all the while the mainstream US media was rallying around the flag) before a global action followed.
Then they let the CEO go with a $40 million exit compensation (!) hoping that all problems are solved.
As of today, the so-called software fix is still not ready. The company promised it to be available within 2 months after the Ethiopian crash investigation identified the cause being the same as with the Lion Air one.
Boeing should be split into two, with the civilian arm restarted as an independent company with majority ownership in the hands of the Federal government for 5 years.
2
My prediction is that lots of people who are now adamant they will never fly on a MAX will come around in time. Everyone is big on boycotts until they realize they tend to be inconvenient in the long run.
When the MAX goes back into service it will be safe. There's no question this was a colossal snafu for Boeing, but the cause of the MCAS problem is known and it's been fixed. The actual issue wasn't really a head-scratcher.
2
@KN
It is still a badly designed aircraft that might well be refused certification by other aviation safety agencies.
2
@multalegi That's very unlikely because disapproval would need a basis in fact. We've just spent 12 months vetting the MAX. The FAA would not proceed without some degrees of certainty that the MAX has equivalent safety to previous generations of the 737.
I'm in IT. I watch software fail every day. It's my job.
I see the 737-Max as analogous to the catastrophic Iowa caucuses. Both crashed. Both were due to excessive reliance on poorly tested and poorly understood software to do a job it should not have been given in the first place. The pilots of the two doomed flights did not even know the MCAS software existed, because that information was deliberately withheld from them. Many of the typically-elderly election officials in Iowa were computer illiterate.
And we still haven't seen the full ramifications of either case.
2
@Voter
Yeah, but no one is dead because of the Iowa caucuses.
The public is not going to approve of this.
We know Boeing and the airlines will assume that passengers, having little reasonable choice, will suck it up and get on whatever plane is available for the route.
It’s a crass calculation and the public is not stupid. They will be on to it and they will punish the airlines that force them into this situation.
For example I’m not going to refuse to get on a 737 MAX but I also will no longer book with Southwest where I can avoid it (or American, but I already avoid that airline like the plague). Delta, Alaska and others will get my first and second look instead. And this will forever harm Southwest — having lost my allegiance you’re not too likely to ever get it back.
It’s a tough situation for sure but the only solution is to scrap the MAX. Don’t let Boeing force this on you and don’t assume your flyers are lazy and stupid.
11
@Tim yours is the most logical approach. Simply stick to airlines that don't fly 737MAX. It all depends on how much an individual values his or her life or his family members life over saving money. I do have choices in domestic flights and thankfully MAX is not used in overseas flights but most likely to Mexico, Canada and South America. Whoever at FAA sticks his or her head out, I dont envy! Trial attornies are getting ready as we speak!
1.It has been reported that Delta has no max planes in its fleet.
2.The max will be just another plane in the sky and people will forget this episode.
3. How is SW involved? Because they believed the FAA?
4.This is a symptom of the deregulation of industry to cut costs. Seems as though th max would have been developed under Obama or even Bush, given the lead time needed.
I will avoid airlines known to use this plane. Period.
3
Boeing should start from a clean slate and design a new aircraft for the market sector they are trying to cover with the overage 737. Artificial breathing is a very short term fix if it is that at all. There are many ongoing YouTube dialogs, some of them offer knowledgeable comments:
Appable ”The fix is not just pilot training. 737 Max can be safe, but MCAS must be far more robust than currently. Boeing is moving toward this but it is quite challenging because they are working with old systems.”
The public is not informed of what those “quite challenging” and “old systems” are? Boeing marketing department’s sweet-talk will not be sufficient. They have no credibility and FAA credibility has suffered severely. The re-certification requires a broader involvement by other organizations, which could be modeled after the classification systems widely used by the maritime industry plus regulatory bodies in EU similar to FAA. Quality management in engineering design, production and re-certification is essential in order to assure that all bases are effectively covered.
1
@Chris Isaksson
Certification societies are typically involved from the design stage on. That station has been passed by 737 Max long ago.
What would Boeing and airlines do if, after a year, people still refuse to fly it? Wanna bet that this plane gets an entirely new name?
I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't reborn as a 738 or maybe a Boeing 73x. Maybe Boeing will hold a "Name the Plane" contest with the general public. I already have a few suggestions, like: The Widow Maker, The Flying Ostrich, or The Flying Brick.
Maybe there are others in this comment section who would like to offer their own suggestion?
2
Delta's decision to not buy a single 737 Max is looking better and better.
2
The only complete analysis of the two 737 MAX accidents I am aware of is the article by William Langewiesche." What Really Brought Down the Boeing 737 Max?" This article makes it clear don't worry about flying on the Boeing 737 MAX, worry about the airline you fly on.
1
@Jim Zane Nope, too easy to put the blame on the pilots and those airlines only. I read the article by Langewiesche also and yes, I agree that the airlines hd responsibility, but Boeing's responsibilities are huge. Exhibit A is the fact they claimed that no additional pilot trining was needed, because it would be damaging to their sales. Pilots were not told that MCAS existed, if you want an Exhibit B. Need I go on?
2
@Filippo Radicati Boeing overestimated the training and skill levels of pilots around the world. For a runaway trim event like MCAS caused, there is only about 30 seconds to respond before loss of control. Boeing had assumed the response would be within 4 seconds. Subsequent pilot testing has revealed that some pilots did this, and some didn't. So training is needed to help level that out. Also better problem identification and warning systems for pilots, to increase awareness and reduce the startle response.
What planes are our politicians flying on?
Seems to me they could demonstrate their confidence in the Max that way
1
@Ann Trump flying a MAX would certainly boost confidence in Boeing. He should seriously consider it out of duty and to support the national economy.
1
@Ann excellent question...
This is the first time we've heard in the NY Times who the software sub-contractor is for the MCAS system (Collins Aerospace). In complex systems like aircraft, the company who pays for the work (Boeing and their insurance carrier) is also assigned the liability for special, indirect, or consequential damages for any failures. The sub-contractor who does the work (Colllins) is usually limited to providing a fix for whatever they delivered, for free.
The "...indicator light that erroneously activated because of an issue with the flight control computer" is somewhat ominous. Most people would apply this same characterization to the 'check engine' light in their car. They need to supply a reason for it. It brings to mind the '1201' alarm (an indicator light) on the Apollo Guidance computer, which almost scrubbed the first moon landing. That alarm was caused by an overloaded computer. You can hear Neil Armstrong manage that indicator light in the cite below.
In electronic language, cable separation problems are often a 'catch-all' for rare occurrences that nobody seems to understand. Cable separation is a electronic interference problem, which can be exacerbated not only by cable separation, but by powerful radars and radios in the aircraft, not to mention the cacophony of electronic noise now radiating from a cabin full of cell phones and laptop WIFI equipment.
Cite:
Apollo 11 - the Eagle has landed
https://youtu.be/qCVySHDCqOA?t=25
1
One thing that I feel is crucial to ease the minds of the flying public is to remove all references to the word "Max" once seated on the aircraft, starting with the passenger briefing cards located in the seat pocket.
1
@Marc Jordan ~
I strongly disagree. Passengers should always know the particular plane they are on. Transparency! If the Max is truly safe, why hide what it is?
4
Even before the tragic crashes – this plane was not cleared to fly to/from some airports…
That list has – as far as I know – never been made public…
Even before the MAX – 737 cowls had to be flattened from circular…
As I’ve understood things – the cowl-bottom to ground distance had become too small, relative to the inner diameter…
Which might cause the incoming airflow to pick up ground debris, during take-off…
Just a snippet out there in one of the blogs of folks who’ve spent far more time in this business than I ever did…
(closest I ever got was close to combustion flame-front gas flow)
See, that means that – either via wind-tunnel tests or (airflow) simulation – these folks are likely more than aware of what dimensional or ratiometric rules-of-the-air are violated at imminent peril…
Ours…
PS
For clarity, find the 777X to be a thing of awesome and absolute beauty…
From its form-following-function trailing cowl edges, to the shape and contour and flex of its wings…
Have a hard time believing it was designed on the same planet as the MAX – let alone the same plane company…
(apologies in advance for any illicit and/or untoward allegation and baseless speculation in what precedes this disclaimer)
PPS
As far as why not just put one piece of tape over the MCAS switch and another over its dashboard light – already being intensely debated in other comments…
PPPS
Not a single mention of China’s market, or regulatory agency…
I wouldn't be caught dead flying on any of Boeing's 737 Max airplanes. Seriously.
2
As the debacle with the 737 Max and the problems with the Starliner show, Boeing has not just a software problem, but a fundamental problem with its entire corporate culture. Somewhere along the way Boeing began putting profits ahead of safety. Everything it touches now is suspect. Just look at the comments here, they will put the 737 Max back in the air, but the public may not use the plane.
The executives at Boeing may think this is no big deal, they can just rename the jet and everything will be fine, I believe they have an existential threat on their hands.
To paraphrase the late great Mr. Rogers. "Boys and girls can you say Convair, Learjet, McDonald Douglas? I knew you could."
2
Why? Who in their right mind would set foot on a Boeing plane again,?
I’ll never fly on a Boeing aircraft again. Ever.
They should just swap out the engines to the proper sized ones for the plane.
Then design a newer plane using the larger engines.
And design the newer planes around 21" seats instead of the 17" seats. You can't tell me that making the plane 3 feet wider and 1 to 2 feet taller will affect anything.
3
The obvious answer to this situation of a poorly engineered airplane is not to have built it in the first place. That is what other countries do. They make the best possible design they can and they trust their engineers to get it right.
But the peculiar American way is to think in terms of business as a crime. Take an old model airplane and slap new engines on it because you don’t have to incur development costs. Fire any engineer who complains that it is unsafe. Pay off the safety inspectors in the FAA. Remove any hints of problems from the pilots manuals. Spend big on an advertising campaign. Pump the stock, pocket the bonuses and get out before the problems happen. And blame the dead pilots from other countries instead of your management. And let the next CEO and the stock holders take the heat. Wait a year until the press gets bored with the story. Rinse and repeat.
American business leaders see no problem with criminal management but most other countries do. And most products designed in other countries now work much better than ours. There is only one destination for the present lawless and immoral trajectory of the American system and that is down to the third world society that shares our values. This is a bigger problem than one airplane, the whole house is on fire and we are fighting the firemen. How far down will we let this go?
8
From the beginning, Boeing’s statements about these tragedies focused on finances and getting the plane back in the air. Like the financial meltdown before it, “too-big-to-fail” is the mantra of the corporate executives and politicians. It seems unlikely that Boeing’s new CEO — a former hedge fund executive — thinks differently.
Doing the right thing and scrapping this flying death trap will cost billions. There will be ripple effects in the economy, for sure. But what good is a robust economy when people’s lives are traded for profits? As my dad used to say, “that seems ‘bassackword’ to me.”
6
More software band-aids on an air frame well past its sell-by-date for modifications. What could possibly go wrong? (Perhaps, again, the person monitoring the system?)
Pilots these days are systems engineers, they monitor systems, and the salary of co-pilots reflects that. Few pilots outside of the military ever get to actually manually fly a commercial aircraft except, perhaps, on the simulator. And pilots come in all varieties of experience and ability. Some are exceedingly arrogant in their abilities, until they aren't. It's when you merge that trait with a complex software band-aid on an inherently unbalanced inflight air-frame, and which needs an immediate reactionary remedy - due to adding increasingly more powerful engines - that problems will occur.
When software flies an unbalanced air-frame in a fighter jet the pilot at least has an ejector seat to offset a myriad of problems that might occur; mechanical issues, software faults, and human error.
5
It’s common sense to refuse to fly on these planes ever again, given that the FAA cannot be trusted to fulfill its oversight responsibilities and Boeing cannot be trusted to put safety over profits. These planes should never fly again and should be dumped as scrap metal on the lawns of Boeing executives.
6
@Donna ~
Agree that "These planes should never fly again and should be dumped as scrap metal on the lawns of Boeing executives."
I will add that these planes should never have flown in the first place.
4
Any aircraft that needs to be grounded for 15 months (provided that it receives certification in the middle of the year) in order to fix its problems is an aircraft that has been poorly certified from the beginning. Probably shouldn't have been certified at all.
Boeing was marketing the MAX as state of the art, but the problems are numerous (technical, software, certification, company culture, interface with pilots, etc.). How anyone allowed this to happen?
Groundings do happen (remember the 787?), but the problems are solved, and life goes on. The MAX story will probably last for two years, and any airline that flies it is sentenced to operate "for a generation" an airplane so deeply flawed that it took a year for the FAA even to consider a test flight.
Would you fly it knowing all these?
4
One of the many previous fine reports done by the NYT has pointed out that the root cause of this Boeing disaster is a focus on finance had replaced the original engineering-first culture at Boeing. I wonder whether Boeing has addressed this issue or not.
4
With the FAA amongst the long list of US agencies compromised by unregulated capitalism, it's going to be tough convincing people to have faith in the 737 Max. I'll be on the sidelines for a few years watching, preferring European carriers with Airbus fleets.
Good luck, Boeing. I hope your celebrity board of directors with no experience in aviation is of help.
6
There is NO way I am going to fly in this plane, especially after the sham trials that were done on the initial evaluation.
4
I think the Boeing Board and their families should be required to fly on these for the first week back in service, don’t you all?
Until that happens, I’m going to pass on all things 737 Max.
4
I found this article frustrating to read. Its emphasis seems to be on an indicator light and separation of wiring trains. Surely, these aren't the primary problems that brought the planes down. What were the primary problems? How are they being addressed? Are the measures taken considered sufficient by independent experts? Those are the issues that need to be addressed and evaluated. I don't see that happening here.
5
The new MAX will still not have the required three sensors to insure that their outputs can be compared to determine which one is malfunctioning. If there are only two then how do you determine which is bad flip a coin?
6
@Ken if the sensors disagree a warning will appear but the MCAS system will not engage. It will leave the decision with the pilots.
Stop making it and go back to the original 737. It was wildly successful because it filled a needed niche and was well designed for that. Then somebody got greedy and jammed a V8 into a hatchback and lo and behold it was dangerous.
5
There isn't enough money in the world to get me on one of those planes. If I'm going to risk my life, I want it to be in a good cause--not to enrich some corporate execs.
6
@ Matthew. The point is that this plane should have been gone over by the FAA with a fine tooth comb before a passenger was ever allowed to board. That we had to wait for hundreds to die so that it is safe “going forward,” points to the third-world nature of today’s United States. You may still have faith in your government agencies up there in Canada, but it increasingly appears that ours have been bought and sold by corporate profiteers.
4
This plane should never fly again. Period. If it does I will do everything I can to avoid flying on it. And most likely there will be another crash soon if it does, so I won't have to worry about it. Any plane that is to poorly designed aerodynamically that it needs a software "fix" to correct a fundamental structural imbalance clearly should not be in the air. End. Of. Story.
6
I am sensing that before long, Smithsonian Channel's "Air Disasters" will devote an entire season to the MAX.
3
Boeing decided to retrofit an earlier model 737 with larger sized engines in order to compete with more modern Airbus models. In doing so they created a fundamentally unstable aircraft -- the 737 Max. Boeing then tried to fix this instability with software. This failed.
Unfortunately, they have been able to largely suppress this basic fact and pretend that they still have a software fix. The real conclusion is that they need to scrap the entire project. That might mean the end of the company. It's not good. They cut corners. There is no way to fix the new 737 Max.
Boycott the 737 Max.
11
@Eric Incorrect. The MAX is not "fundamentally unstable."
@KN Do you have something substantive to say about this. My argument is the argument that is made by the lawsuit from the family of a young woman who died on the African flight. She was the niece of Ralph Nader who is involved in the lawsuit. I have never heard Boeing respond to this argument, and your fact free response makes me even more suspicious that the argument is correct.
2
@KN
When reaching a high angle of attack the lift of the engine nacelles make the aircraft difficult to control. To make it resemble the flying characteristics of the previous version it was given a very badly designed band aid. Would a well designed band aid make it acceptable? I wait for the judgement of aviation safety agencies not including FAA.
1
We should be thinking about the Max the same way we thought about the Corvair: It is “unsafe at any speed.” A Boeing engineer told me that the engine positioning on this plane changes the center of gravity so that its operating dynamics are different from other planes’. Boeing covers this up with software. When these planes crashed, it was because that software failed, and the pilots’ training & instincts were not useful in a plane that is fundamentally out-of-balance.
One of the things that Boeing did to save time and money on this plane was to convince the FAA that additional pilot training was unnecessary. But even if pilots now receive training, they will be learning a unique set of emergency procedures that apply only to the Max.
Software fails, and it will likely fail again on the Max at some point. In that moment, we will be relying on a pilot to remember and deploy training that is counter to everything s/he knows about the fundamentals of flying.
(It’s as if something went wrong with your car, and your instincts and training say “brake!” But in this particular car that you are driving today, braking will cause a crash. You have to remember in *this* car to accelerate while turning the wheel left — even though all your training and experience tells you that’s the wrong move.)
4
These folks stating they will never fly on a 737 Max remind me of two related recent occurrences. First, remember all those Dems who insisted they would move to Canada if Trump won? Second, remember all those GOPers who claimed they were NeverTrumpers?
I predict that when the Max is cleared to fly again there will be no problem filling the seats. Humans love to shoot off their mouths (particularly when venting) but most can later find a way to rationalize a 180 degree turn. For example, suppose Max ticket prices were initially VERY low.
IMO Boeing is a typically corrupt company, run by typically corrupt people and some not-so-corrupt people. Its customers are drawn from the same pool as its executives and engineers: humans, who deceive themselves sometimes without even trying or realizing it.
2
I fly transcontinental flights once a month and I will not knowingly get on a 737 Max, ever. I will only fly an Airbus and I doublecheck to make sure that is what it will be. Boeing is not to be trusted when it comes to any assurances that this plane is now safe.
6
I’m a scared flier - always have been and always will be. Heights don't thrill me in any capacity. So I am very far out of my comfort zone when I step onto a plane to begin with. I can’t help but look at the condition of the doorway to the gangway, all the “stuff” I see when I walk in. It’s amazing the power and technology that gets us up and down safely. I used to travel frequently for work, but still never get comfy and can’t sleep a wink.
So I will now have to look at my flights aircraft and decide which flight to take, as I will never be able to get into the Max. Murphy’s law maybe...but I swear I would be In the doomed flight when they finally decide to scrap the entire thing. And will have to check my kids’ flights when they travel...
3
The design flaw which was either ignored or kept secret by Boeing which killed 356 innocent lives is only half the problem in my book. It appeared as if the FAA were more focused on protecting Boeing than the flying public.
The issue of a negative and terrified public perception squarely lands on both Boeing AND the FAA. It's difficult to trust either one ever again.
7
The only thing promising about the corrective action process is the first victims of a failed process are likely to be those in charge of the process. How rare it is for those in charge to be held responsible for their own failings. Usually the buck passes to the botton of the ladder in crises. That notion is never mentioned at the great MBA schools.
2
Whether traveler reluctance to board the MAX proves to be a long or short term problem for Boeing and their airline customers remains to be seen. In any case, B-737 operators worldwide should encourage Boeing to make this the last generation of the venerable jet and begin development of a 'clean sheet' replacement.
The multi-billion dollar development of a new design will be difficult for Boeing to pull off in the short term, given their significant MAX related losses.
A fuel efficient design that incorporates the very latest technology and includes characteristics to ease the transition for current 737 operators is inevitable.
@Paul Mc
The way to "encourage" Boeing to come with a new design is not buying this one.
I am a frequent traveler and one of the 40% who will not set foot in a MAX. This will be a boon for Delta which wisely has no MAX's in its fleet. The design of the MAX is FUNDAMENTALLY unsound. Large engines were grafted onto a body that was made for smaller engines. No amount of 'fixing' can change this design flaw. Without the software system MCAS, the plane is not safe to fly. Software used in autopilot systems is fine because an airplane can be flown safely without it. MCAS is NOT fine, because the airplane CANNOT be flown safely without it. Boeing and the FAA are playing with people's lives. The MAX should not have been certified by the FAA, and it should not be certified now.
13
@ShenBowen Delta and Alaska Airlines should be your airline of choice. Which is ironic because those were already consistently ranked as the best airlines (along with Southwest, which will go to the dustbin of history with their Faustian bargain on the MAX).
I wonder if Delta and Alaska knew the MAX was flawed and that’s why they didn’t get heavily invested? Or perhaps they’re just lucky. Either way, they will be my airlines of choice henceforth.
4
@ShenBowen "Without the software system MCAS, the plane is not safe to fly. Software used in autopilot systems is fine because an airplane can be flown safely without it. MCAS is NOT fine, because the airplane CANNOT be flown safely without it."
This is not true, you are either fundamentally mistaken or deliberately trying to sow fear.
MCAS as designed activates in a very specific situation that the plane will never normally see, and even then it only changes the "feel" of the airplane.
It would be perfectly fine to fly the MAX with MCAS permanently disabled, but the plane would then not meet some of the detailed requirements on how stick forces change when approaching the stall. During normal flight conditions it would make no difference whatsoever.
2
@Patrik Jonsson: I am neither mistaken nor am I trying to sow fear. This aircraft has already taken many lives. You say, "It would be perfectly fine to fly the MAX with MCAS permanently disabled". No, Patrik, if that was the case, then MCAS would not have been required in the first place. Your statement "but the plane would then not meet some of the detailed requirements on how stick forces change when approaching the stall", is simply a statement that the plane does not handle properly under extreme conditions. That's not okay. To be certified, I expect a plane to handle well under both normal and extreme conditions. You say "During normal flight conditions it would make no difference whatsoever." That may be true, but I'm not flying in a plane that flies well only under NORMAL conditions. It's difficult for me to understand why you would claim that this aircraft is safe. There is a wealth of engineering data and experience to suggest that it is not.
6
This aircraft will likely be one of the the safest airliners of all time going forward. Each and every system will have been gone over by the FAA and the now hugely risk (and prison) averse engineers and leaders at Boeing.
Each aircraft will now have two Angle of Attack (AOA) sensors, instead of being able to opt for the cheaper single AOA option. As I understand it, every North American and European Max operator already had the two AOA sensors, which may explain why these accidents didn't occur here. Lastly every first world pilot will be aware of and trained on MCAS.
I'll feel confidently safe if I see I am booked on a 737 Max on a first world airline. Now, put me on a Ilyushin Il-96 flown by Cubana de Aviación and I may refuse to board.
1
@Matthew So assume AOA sensor #1 gives one reading & AOA sensor # 2 gives a different one. Which has failed?
The answer is 3 sensors.
3
@Matthew
I wouldn't hold my breath about engineers being prison-averse. Remember the housing collapse, when millions common people lost their savings. Who know how many killed themselves in despair? Not one of those responsible for the collapse was sent to prison.
2
@PhilipB My understanding is that if the two AOA sensors do not agree, the MCAS and auto-trim systems disengage and turnover full attitude control to the pilot(s) to fly manually.
I do believe that, once cleared by the FAA, the MAX will be as safe to fly on as any other commercial aircraft. However, I will continue to boycott it. It's safety has been purchased by the lives of innocent passengers, and no one in Boeing leadership has been held to account.
5
@Boris Your sentiment is understandable, but this situation isn't unique to this airplane. Many others, both made by Boeing and Airbus, have had design deficiencies that were fixed after people died. You'll pretty much be boycotting flying at all if that's your standard.
Furthermore, I'd argue it's misguided. Commercial aviation is so safe not only because of certification rules but also precisely because every accident is exhaustively investigated and corrective action taken. If it wasn't, those lives lost would have been for nothing.
@Patrik Jonsson: Yes, "every accident is exhaustively investigated and corrective action taken." But, in this case, the fix is to replace the new oversize engines with the original engines for which the airframe was designed. Boeing tried to save money and time by putting big engines on an aircraft designed for smaller engines, rather than redesigning the aircraft. Additional sensors will not fix the fundamental problem with this aircraft. The MAX was an engineering kludge, and the fix is to properly engineer the aircraft. Adding systems like MCAS to 'compensate' for a poor design is asking for trouble.
3
Shouldn't members of the Board of Directors also be required to fly on the Max? Other commenters have suggested this.
There's Nikki Haley and Caroline Kennedy. A couple of other directors are affiliated with insurance companies, for example Mr. Liddy from Allstate and Mr. Williams from Aetna.
I haven't read a bio of one aviation engineer who sits on Boeing's Board of Directors.
Not one member of the Board appears to be a pilot or former pilot.
We don't fly much anymore, but if we do, we're hoping we can afford a private charter.
7
It appears that it is the design of the Max itself that is flawed, not just the software. Call it an 18 billion dollar (?) mistake, scrap it and redesign. American, United and Southwest should be cancelling their contracts. With this history, airlines themselves are now taking a big risk by putting these planes into their rotation.
36
@Muso I disagree with this assertion. Yes, the design probably pushes the basic design of the 737 a little far, but MCAS is really there to ensure the MAX responds similarly to previous 737 models. MCAS has a limited role and the 737 MAX is NOT inherently unstable.
1
Boeing, are you kidding me? Why would you expect anyone to knowingly fly on this aircraft?
19
One or two small changes have to be made first.
1. Take the big engines off the wing.
2. Put them on the rear fuselage.
3. Give it a new name.
4
@Roy B I suppose the new name would be "Boeing 727" :)
@Pablo The DC-10 moniker is available.
@Roy B thats an out of the box idea!
How about not kill people and claw back that $60 million severance package the failed CEO got to go away? If he owns the successes, he owns the failures - and this was a spectacular failure.
7
Doubt any paying customers will ever set foot on one of these planes. The market will do what Boeing lacks the courage to do. The airlines will switch to alternative planes and Boeing can eventually send these flying coffins to the airplane boneyard where they belong.
4
Planes that burn fuel and emit CO2 don't need to fly. Keep them grounded.
3
I will only fly on one of these jets after they have been in use again for at least a year. I will not be a guinea pig.
3
We now have a new definition of Top Gun: those pilots from the FAA who are willing/planning to take the Max to the skies over Seattle. That's a level of courage I last saw in 'Nam. All I ask is: please don't fly it over downtown. Big Pacific Ocean out there. Harder to pick up all the pieces, yes, but less collateral damage.
Count this former pilot among those who won't fly the Max.
4
They need to change the name before anyone will get on it, how about The Boeing Flying Pinto!
5
@Barb: How about the Boeing CorvAir?
I won't fly on a 737 Max. Ever!
4
The willing suspension of disbelief...
2
I will never fly on a Max
3
Is there another Bob Hoover around someplace to fly this airplane and show its capabilities to the ticket-buying public?? Ralph L Seifer, Long Beach, California
Calling this plane the "737 max" is a ruse to avoid all of the requirements to certify a new plane as airworthy. The ruse is a matter of cost savings for the airlines and manufacturer at the expense of the safety of the public who have fewer choices about how to fly.
The plane in question was a chimera from the outset -- engines, mounts and frames, controls, lack of redundancy in the angle of attack sensor and SECRET software that was supposed to smooth over the imbalance. How did the design get approved before they made so many?
Oversight is not as powerful as profit. I will never fly this plane.
9
The 737 Max got approved because the FAA abdicated ALL it's authority to Boeing.
Muilenburg/executives should be sitting in a cell awaiting trial for cold-blooded murder of 346 people.
Same for FAA heads.
Scrap the plane.
Scrap the company that made it.
1
I think, we need to be careful how much control and power we give to computer systems.
As of this date it is very clear that all computer programs have flaws and all computers are unreliable and often do unpredictable actions.
8
Boeing and the FAA are failing to address the ROOT CAUSE of the trustworthiness issue. The MCAS System was introduced after airframe/engine modifications were made for the 737 MAX model. MCAS was supposed to fix an air worthiness issue with software - a "cheap fix" in lieu of an aircraft redesign. Boeing and the FAA are deluding themselves - compromising safety in favor of the bottom line.
18
Regulation is a good thing. Oversight is a good thing. Don’t let ideological Republicans or libertarians convince you otherwise.
Where would we be if the tobacco or asbestos industries had been allowed to self-regulate?
12
I will not fly on a Max again. I fly frequently. I have notified Southwest and American, the airlines I fly with most frequently. I suggest you do the same if you haven't already.
31
@Sherry B. This the best approach. If you dont fly the Airlines that forces you to fly the MAX the airlines will respond as the market behaves which is a better approach than trying to convince FAA and Boeing otherwise!
A number of articles have been written in the past year about why the 737 Max may never return to the sky. Now suddenly, "there are signs that the Max may return to service relatively soon."
I find that sentence and notion troublesome, if not frightening. Why the acceleration to get this technology up and running again other than financial ones?
Until Boeing can fully prove that the current lack of trust concerns are no longer an issue, good luck trying to get passengers to fly any plane that is equipped with the 737 Max. Boeing's reputation may never survive the public perception of fear.
Boeing officials were never up front and honest about the 737 Max issues which caused both crashes. Why would or should the flying public believe them now?
26
I am planning some upcoming travel. Can we have a list of airlines that have these planes? The article mentions Southwest, American, and United. Are there others?
I will not be booking my travel with airlines that will be flying these planes.
15
Every airline has these planes. Before this debacle Boeing was the most reliable airplane in the sky.
@Bobotheclown I believe you are wrong. I believe Delta has none and Alaska has only a couple. Could be wrong on the particulars but certainly some airliners rely on the MAX far more than others
There is no way under the sun that I would ever fly on a 737 Max. To be honest, I would prefer to not ever fly on any Boeing product. When a company puts executive compensation above my safety, they no longer deserve my patronage.
45
I will not fly on a Max. PERIOD. I have lost faith in Boeing and, even with the inconvenience, will search out Airbus planes and anything other than the Max.
25
“Another major sticking point is whether Boeing needs to separate wire bundles that could, in rare circumstances, cause a short circuit and possibly lead to a catastrophic fire.”
I’m no aviation engineer, but isn’t it a no-brainer that despite what I suppose would be increased costs, you would want to do everything possible to avoid something that could lead to a “catastrophic fire” even in “rare circumstances?” The fact that Boeing is “evaluating the issue“ and will turn the findings over to an F.A.A which failed us so miserably recently, does not inspire confidence. I’ll fly Airbus.
32
Susan, you may not be an engineer (BTW, I am), but you are correct with where you’re going here. I as an engineer and a frequent flyer want to know who defined the possibility of wiring issues possibly resulting in catastrophic failures, and what scientific analysis did they use to determine this. Did Boeing themselves uncover this issue? Did Boeing determine it might only become an issue under “rare” circumstances? And what does “rare” mean to whoever defined it? Let’s remember the lesson of the space shuttle. When the FIRST disaster occurred, Richard Feynman exposed the sheer lunacy of NASA’s “analysis” of a potential catastrophic failure. Well, NASA had it at a “rare” 1 in 100,000. His numbers were 1 in 100! We all know who was closer in the end.
Given all that has come out about Boeing recently, and their obvious self-interests to get these planes flying as quickly as possible, I would want to see a true independent analysis of the wiring issue. Nothing less should be accepted by either the FAA or us, the flying public.
5
@John Thank you for your informed comment. I was also thinking about “what” and “who” defines the word “rare.”
1
The Atlantic had a great article on when the culture of sound engineering and safety at Boeing was replaced by the marketing and sales folks from Douglas.
I would be surprised if there weren't at least a couple of designs for other replacements for the 737 that were inherently airworthy. The idea that a plane is inherently not airworthy, except when dependent on software, is shocking.
23
I don’t want to fly on a max 8. Any plane that relies on software to remain stable is not safe enough for me.
24
@Phillip Then I suggest you never fly an Airbus product again as this airframer is much more dependant on software than Boeing.
3
@Martin Ricoy -- Software flies the plane, but at least Airbus planes are aerodynamically stable intrinsically. MCAS was a failed attempt to make software paper over a hardware deficiency.
3
Boeing will not change until the yearly method of executive compensation is modified. Currently, a large bonus is paid for meeting yearly Goals and Objectives, which are quantifiable and easily measured. During a development cycle, these always focus on cost and schedule, so that raising serious engineering issues will likely result in a significant delay, and financial loss for an individual executive. So long as compensation is delivered in this way, long term change is impossible.
31
Boeing lost a lot of credibility with the way it handled the Max, and how stories around safety lapses took root. The article seems to suggest Boeing is still resisting changes that could compromise safety (like separating the cables). This passenger is not getting on a Max.
21
Everything I've read indicates that the problem with the Max is software related. The computer misread something which caused it to fly the aircraft incorrectly, resulting in crashes. The pilots were unable to gain control and fly the Max manually before they crashed.
In addition to fixing the software, they need to add the equivalent to a Big Red Button that the pilot can push to instantly convert the aircraft to manual control.
Software that is complicated enough to fly an aircraft will always have some set of conditions that cause it to do something unexpected. That's why you need to have human pilots, and why you need to give them the ability to take control away from the automated systems instantly, without having to do anything complicated or time consuming.
9
@mlbex
Boeing used software to stabilize the plane. The engines are too big for the airframe and can cause the nose to rise leading to a stall. Rather than design a completely new plane to compete with Airbus, they tried to update a design that is too old for today's market.
6
@Zane Does that mean that human pilots can't fly it manually, or just that it is more difficult?
That sounds like a real design problem, but I've read that the actual crashes were caused by the software misreading a sensor and flying the aircraft incorrectly while the pilots struggled unsuccessfully to override the automated system.
If it is capable of being flown manually, the Big Red Button would have prevented both crashes.
2
@mlbex
My father was a Navy and commercial pilot for decades. He's no longer here, but I think he'd say that many accidents could have been avoided if the pilots understood exactly what was happening. The problem is diagnosing a problem sucessfully under duress and taking the correct action. It's not as simple as turning automated systems "off" and saying "we're safe now" and simply flying a swept wing jet manually like it was a Cessna.
1
Anybody remember what happened to all those Toyotas of a few years ago where the power would just suddenly quit while driving? A lot of people got new floor mats under the gas pedal but today it was like it never happened and does anybody really know why it did in the first place?
6
No one's going to fly on these planes again. Airlines are better off ditching them and ordering their replacements now, then head to litigation to get a refund.
30
No way would I pay to fly on a 737 max plane. I wouldn't even take the golden parachute of a boeing exec salary to go on these planes. I would not trust Boeing software patches or FAA vetting.
Working in the tech industry, I can say undoubtedly that the best (or even 2nd tier or 3rd tier) programmers, who understand the SW-HW space, that the world has produced in the last 30 years have not gone to work in the aviation field and certainly not at the FAA.
20
"Boeing’s 737 Max could be flying again before too long."
If so, which is doubtful, let's make sure that each MAX is so ID'd with a large sign on the fuselage, and reservation systems tell us what kind of aircraft will be flying us.
39
@Bartolo Great idea. Because I will refuse to fly it!
2
@Bartolo AND, if one shows up at the boarding door and there is a MAX where the reservation said there wouldn't be, then let's make a loud scene so all other passengers know what is going on and refuse to get on board. I think this will be the only way to end this tragedy.
Just like backing off on fossil fuels, we knew from the start that there was too much ‘invested’ in this build to abandon it. We knew that the pressure, political and market, was eventually going to put this plane back in the air with mostly paper modifications. We also knew that those who said they’d never fly on it, were not going to hold to their resolutions, or not for very long.
There is no way to demonstrate that Boeing’s business philosophy, and the mandated engineering and construction methods are actually changed.
So a few thousand of these planes will fly for at least two decades, and the overall statistics will look average. Pilots will, if not love their assignments, but will get used to the bugs, rebranded as features.
To me, though, the entire 737Max story is one of the turning points in transportation history; the point where we decided that better and safer was a business decision.
10
Let's zero in on the issue here - design flaws cannot be fixed with software patches. I have flown more than 2,000,000 air miles, mostly on United and Alaska. I will NEVER fly on a 737 MAX. Neither will most frequent travelers that I know.
Time for Boeing to get their old act together and scrap this Edsel of the sky and come out with a new design entirely.
59
@Joe Let's not insult the Edsel. Woukld this be a Corvair or a Pinto of the sky?
4
@Joe The new CEO gets a $7m bonus when the MAX flies again. ... Instead of a $7m bonus when he scraps the MAX and builds a newly designed single-aisle replacement.
2
Any plans to ask the pilots who will be flying the MAX how confident they feel ?
Any plans to survey customers of the affected airlines about whether they may switch to MAX-free airlines?
Have these airlines considered whether bringing back the MAX may be more damaging to their bottom line than canceling flights until they can get better planes?
I think that Boeing and these airlines are taking their customers for granted. It looks as if we will soon find out how this goes.
26
@Ajax Thats a really Good idea ask the pilots how happy they are about all this .Boeing has Lost all credibility with passengers and pilots alike - a great shame - I always preferred Boeing due to its lake of automation
1
@Ajax
"Any plans to ask the pilots who will be flying the MAX how confident they feel ? "
That should have been the lead in this article. Wonder why the reporter skipped the most obvious.
4
I can see the ads now: fly with us, we are MAX free! Cut to a shot of the latest burning debris. There is not a lot that other companies are going to be able to do about that. They need to ditch those MAXs now.
1
"Another major sticking point is whether Boeing needs to separate wire bundles that could, in rare circumstances, cause a short circuit and possibly lead to a catastrophic failure."
A thought experiment: Only in rare circumstances would a person firing a handgun hit a small target 300 feet away. Would you put your child at the other end of that football field? Neither would I.
20
That argument could be used for any commercial plane, though. A more scientific analogy would suggest shortening the length of the field for the Max.
1
As a frequent flier both domestically and internationally, I will Never fly on a 737 Max ever again. This is the only way to keep large corporations accountable.
28
@J-M Gery Yes, agree completely. I have 2.5M with Delta and many flight options available to me. I don't see myself ever boarding a Max again.
19
Should I have to fly, I will preferentially choose airlines that do not fly the Max. If those airlines do not offer flights, I will go out of my way to not fly on a Max.
Clearly the only say I or any of the flying public have is through customer loyalty. Hopefully others won't be fooled by fire sale pricing on Max flights... let them go empty.
34
The hard sell is getting folks like me to board.
31
@Ron B My current outlook is that is that a negative fare (paying me to fly) would be an insufficient incentive to get me on a flight of the re-certified aircraft. I might reconsider after a couple of incident-free years have transpired.
They need to put the engines in the proper location to have the correct center of gravity location before they do anything.
32
@Keystone
That is indeed the primary issue. In order to accommodate the engines, a new airframe was required. In short, a totally new aircraft requiring new certification and extensive new pilot training-exactly what Boeing tried to avoid.
Since the guys from the South won out in the Douglas merger, this became inevitable. They moved the Corporate headquarters far from the manufacturing site, tried to destroy the dedicated ,highly paid Union workforce by shifting production to "Right to work for nothing" States ,and divorced themselves from the founding ethic.
Of course, Bill Boeing was a right winger, but he built safe airplanes.
6
Put the Boeing Board of Directors and their families on the first dozen or so coast-to-coast test flights.
That's putting your money where your mouth is...
33
@VJR Boing executives should take a number of short flights too. Let them demonstrate that take off and landing are safe
4
The article is missing the big picture here. Where is a publicly issued lessons learned document from Boeing disclosing what were the causes of the 737 max accidents. More importantly the document should disclose the weaknesses in Boeing's design and construction procedures of the 737 max that allowed this to occur and and what was done to correct them. Even more importantly the FAA also needs to publicly issue a lessons learned document to show it examined its inspection and certification process to identify the weaknesses in their procedures that caused them to allow this unsafe plane to pass its safety standards. For example will the FAA continue to allow Boeing to inspect, self certify the planes and determine the required training for pilots? The FAA must take back these essential functions and develop internally its own technical staff to do this and work with independent experts that it hires to help them perform this.
18
@P Locke Regarding your recommendations about the FAA role. Changing the balance of power in the certification process will require a legislative change; its not that the FAA voluntarily ceded so much authority to Boeing, its that the law (pushed by Boeing and other manufacturers) set up a framework in which much of the detailed work of certification is conducted by the manufacturer, with FAA relegated to an oversight role. And as far as developing FAA's technical staff, that requires funding and authorizations for staffing from Congress, as would setting fees on the manufacturers to help cover those increased governmental costs. Independent experts don't work for free, either, so that requires more funding ... by Congress. So the likelihood of any substantive changes in the current certification and regulatory framework is ... vanishingly small.
As far as "lessons learned" ... well, they make for interesting reading and fodder for future text books in aeronautical engineering and human factors but will have zero impact in reality. They will look nice on a bookshelf.
8
@Dana Broach you miss the point of my comments. The article should examine and point out whether or not the lessons learned processes by Boeing and the FAA occurred or not. Exposure of a deficient self examination process by the media would go a long way towards correcting any legal impediments for proper FAA regulation.
How about finding those Boeing engineers who brought up all these problems during development and who were fired for their trouble. Many of them have been black balled from their industry because they are not “team players”. We have to end the culture of dumbing down our engineering staffs if we are ever to produce anything that works again.
A modern airplane is a tremendously complex machine, true. But Boeing has built great aircraft for a long time and problems of the severity and magnitude of those affecting the Max have not been an issue for many decades. An outsider’s perspective is that in all probability they could have done it right, but they didn’t. If that so, it’s pretty clearly a management issue, not an engineering or build issue. And also, possibly a matter of criminal negligence.
A fish stinks from the head.
34
The 373 was designed for small 1960ies engines. Now that they have mounted those huge energy efficent engines the plane is structurally inclined to nose-dive. But in this article you make it look like some control light it the only thing that still needs fixing???
35
True. There is no way to fix wrong. Many engineers at Boeing tried to point this out and they were fired or transferred. Now the plane is an accident waiting to happen being held together by a mess of software patches and the expertise of pilots who have to fight against its tendency to dive all the time.
An original design that would have flown right would not have taken long to engineer given the expertise of the company and its state of the art design tools. Forcing such a system to instead kludge up an old airplane to save a few cents on developments costs is malpractice. To produce an unsafe airplane and hide the fact is a crime. That is back when we were a country of laws it would have been a crime. Today it is an invitation to the White House.
1
Why not start from scratch and build a plane whose engines aren't too heavy for it? Otherwise, I prefer Airbus.
69
@dr. c.c. Cost, pure and simple. Direct cost and opportunity cost preclude starting from scratch on a new airframe design.
@Dana Broach if you started today, it'd be 7-10 years start to finish, that's why... Versus 30 days to get these birds in the air.
But yes - Boeing should be drafting plans for a 737-2030 based on from-the-ground up specs and tech now.
4
What? Do the same thing as all the other airline companies do? But original design costs more money and you have to hire engineers! Don’t they see how much money can be saved (and how much more bonuses can be received) by cutting those corners that no one sees? Isn’t business about providing the the lowest quality at the highest price? These foreign companies just don’t have the management expertise that we Americans have. And all our companies go out of business after a while in what we call the normal business cycle. It is a mystery why foreign companies stay in business and profitable for centuries. It must be because they are dumb and we are smart. After all, only American CEO’s have golden parachutes.
2
Won’t be boarding that plane. FAA/Boeing exemplify how the “free market” can work when a company is “freed from burdensome government regulation.”
Oh—and the generous golden parachute given the failed Boeing CEO? Yeah....that, too.
92
Thank you for this update. However, news stories reported that regular 737's had problems, too. Please update us on that.
As for the Max, I agree that Boeing exec's should fly with their families on them. By the way, the new CRJ550 we flew on United last month was the best.
11
It would be great if the public gave Boeing the ultimate sanction via the airlines by refusing to book flights on these aircraft. More likely the typical scenario will continue to unfold:
1. Preventable disaster happens because of cost-cutting and lax oversight.
2. Company denies and covers up until it can't any longer.
3. Congress holds a few show hearings to pretend they're doing something.
4. A few lower-level people are blamed and maybe even the CEO "retires to spend more time with his family" with his enormous pension and benefits intact, of course.
5. The product is patched up, airlines hold fare sales to get people to overcome their fears, and everyone waits because they know the public's memory is short.
6. Business as usual continues.
63
@Pat This is brilliant. Let us know if you have a Twitter, I'd def follow you.
1
@Pat
True..
Sharp and realistic analysis.
It applies on everything in life.
2
It's presumptuous to ask: What will it take for the Boeing 737 Max to fly again? The FAA has already illustrated that what it takes to get a plane certified is political hostage taking by a monopolistic giant.
Investors should own up to the underlying question: Should the Boeing 737 Max ever fly again?
Answering that call should mean replacing Boeing's entire board and executive management team--without golden parachutes because none of them had the character to call out repeated failures of design, operations, and oversight.
Dividing up Boeing into separate companies might also help insulate commercial, military, and space systems from confusing the core values the distinguish these missions. Travelers should be safe above all, while military and space systems place other objectives above safety.
Boeing's board and executives demonstrated their ethical and management weakness in letting this debacle roll forward from ill-consiered design, through sloppy software, to the inevitable killing of innocent travelers. Do investors have the moral fiber to hold them accountable and dispense with their legacy of failure?
17
@NYC Nomad
How well has Boeing responded to the major issues related to the 737 Max and also explain how the dysfunctional FAA has changed such that their “oversight “ can be trusted beyond a doubt ? This issue rests with both Boeing and the FAA.
I will also make the FAA people who will be certifying the plane fly on the plane too. Come to think of it, put all the politicians and Donald Trump on the test flight as well.
29
@Alex Stave I feel conflicted now.
If Trump's on the plane, ....
2
I've followed this issue very closely for the almost 12 months of its existence. One thing bothered me at the outset, and bothers me still: the long, painful and absolute silence of our secretary of transportation.
We do have one, don't we?
130
@Nick
We sure do -- Elaine Chao, wife of none other than Mitch McConnell. So you can be sure she's busy protecting the public and holding the powerful to account. Just kidding.
134
Very perspicacious, Nick.
Excellent point about our corrupt Trumpian Grand Oligarch party.
10
@Pat
Oh my. I never heard the name before. I read the Wiki page on Elaine Chao and I just about barfed.
Brotherhood of man? Everywhere you go people are people and we all care about the same things?
I need an antidote to get the taste of nepotism and hypocrisy out of my mouth and I'm not finding it in any platitude.
I didn't know there was a direct line from incompetent oversight in the FAA to the Trump family of elites. Elections matter.
3
Not that anyone who needs to fly has much of a choice, but I’d feel great about flying on one after the entire Boeing board and top management fly on them for a few weeks.
45
@Luke I agree with your sentiment, but I'm concerned that Boeing's board and executives have already demonstrated sufficient disregard for safety as a priority. So they may be perfectly willing to fly as a demonstration -- with fully trained pilots -- betting that the odds of that flight crashing don't reflect the cumulative risk from a return to commercial service.
10
The government (with the right president) has the power to break Boeing up, fire the dead heads that caused this problem, reorganize the company into a safety first organization, and make the airlines that depended on Boeing whole again.
Or we can watch some crony give a speech, cash his check, and move on.
On a random and repeated basis, every person in a top management position at Boeing must undergo multiple take-offs and landings, with at least two hour flights in between, on the Max before I will consider flying on it.. There is much reason not to trust anything management says, only what they do. When I see that they are willing to risk their lives on the Max, then I might be willing also. The remainder of the certification system seems fine but is simply not enough.
28
@Frank
Agreed. Let the fly not only on their own, but also with their whole family: kids, grandkids, etc...
If they are so confident in the safety of this aircraft, they will not mind.
13
@M,
IMO, the families are innocent and should be left out of it.
@Frank Think they would turn OFF MCAS during those flights?
Why are we talking about indicator lights, wire bundles, MCAS when the plane is poorly designed. Boeing placed too large, and too heavy engines on an old frame. The plane is not aerodynamically sound. A software patch to compensate for poor design is not the answer. The Max needs to be recalled and refitted with smaller engines, or just canned. The sooner Boeing recognizes this the better it will be for the company.
130
@an observer
I agree that the Max probably is DOA without a massive overhaul.
That probably requires overhauling Boeing's board and C-suite.
Further, the failures in Boeing's space systems suggest that the company is too big to succeed and needs to be split up.
28
@an observer I think you may be right about this. The problem is the FAA doesn't internally have the expertise and the political courage to determine if the design of the 737 max is fatally flawed. They are owned by Boeing.
17
@an observer The 737 Max is perfectly sound as designed. The problem is that Boeing devised the MCAS software to paper over the fact that the new design does not fly the same was as the original 737, a airlines wouldn't buy it if all pilots had to be recertified. It sounds like Boeing has finally admitted that pilots need to be recertified.
Still, this is the same Boeing and FAA that let this disaster walk out the door in the first place. I don't know why anyone should trust them now.
13
Boeing execs and FAMILIES should fly around the world showing how safe the plane is. Unless they are afraid to do that.
79
GOOD SUGGESTION! I loved it when Erin Brockovich offered PG&E lawyers glasses of water from the polluted wells. Not one of them drank it.
3
@John B.
I agree--Boeing corporate board members should be on every 737 Max flight for at least a year to prove this can be flown safely.
3
Correct. When I see Boeing execs and CEO’s get on the plane with their entire families aboard I will start to reconsider the value of this kludge job airplane. But until then I will not fly it. The airlines are going to have a lot of empty seats on this plane after it is “certified”. I wonder if Boeing execs took the cost of the loss of their companies reputation into consideration when they approved putting their name on this piece of junk?
1