I was flying with American Airlines from Frankfurt to the US in December 2019, or let's say, I was supposed to. Thankfully, a conscious pilot decided to turn back to the gate as he noticed a small error. It was really not a big deal but didn't want to put his passengers in danger and turned back immediately. Even though AA had to manage to rebook all the passengers and to somehow get us to the US, plus pay for the canceled flight because of technical issues, I was very thankful that the pilot decided the way he did. No money on earth brings back dead people.. Thank you!
It's scary to think that the future of corporate America will only be held accountable to the amount of fatalities it takes for them to reach their next milestone. Keep loading those congressional pockets.
The problem it has often been said goes back to the Boeing/McDonnell Douglas merger. An engineer lead company, Boeing, was reverse taken over by a suit lead culture MD. An expensive false economy ensued. .
I don't think people or management teams in general knowingly took shortcuts on safety, for the sake of saving a few bucks on each flight, but unfortunately they also didn't know/understand/realize what were the consequences on safety of some decisions they took. The intention behind the MCAS was good I believe, but did they (want to) realize the side effects ? Perfection doesn't exist. The only way is to test, test, test and test again, in all kind of apparently stupid and meaningless situations. This takes time, a lot of time. And Joe is 100% right: don't rush, take all the time needed.
My father flew the 727 for years and retired on that airframe in 1990. We had a reverence for Boeing. “If it’s not Boeing, we’re not going” was a saying and testament to the trust we put in the safety culture of Boeing. Since the relocation of Boeing headquarters from Seattle to Chicago in the mid 1990’s there has been a titanic shift in the focus of the company. It’s telling when a company moves its HQ from its center of R&D, design, engineering, production, and “ancestral home” to a financial center.
737 MAX and 787, the first planes built by business executives and not by airplane engineers. They should be held accountable. Safety cultures and excellence starts at the top. Chasing after short term profits clearly backfired.
it's crazy how they could design a system that takes full control relying on a single sensor that can fail. Even the drive-by-wire accelerator pedal in your car has triple redundancy.
It was intentional because 737 already had automated stabilizer trim and the reasoning was that MCAS failure is no different from stabilizer trim failure. Both have similar endcome and both must be dealt with similar action. However, as far as I know, MCAS changes the trim faster which gives less time to pilots to figure out the problem. That was the part where Boeing was greedy and instead of requiring additional training for the pilots, the got FAA to believe that MCAS was similar enough to older system that it doesn't need any extra training. The pilots should have been trained about MCAS failure handling as a memory item even if it has redundant sensors because once it fails, you don't have time to search for the correct procedure.
The reasons is to avoid pilot training. MCAS is actually uses both sensors (Left & Right) but not at the same time. It's switch sensors between each flight and only one at the time for that flight. This has been reveal from whistle blower that Boeing know if they are using both sensors at the same time. FAA will required them to do additional pilot training in the simulator. This because by using both sensors, it will indicated that system is safety critical and pilot needs to be train on how to react if the system fail. Boeing deliberately designed MCAS to use one sensor, so they could claim that Max plane could save Airline money because it doesn't required pilot training.
@@MikkoRantalainen people keep saying "Boeing was greedy" but completely forget that it is the _airlines_ who have to pay to train pilots and who obviously coerced Boeing into cutting corners, and they had FAA help in that regard. Trying to blame Boeing but failing to see the big picture is tragic. It was the airlines who started this whole fiasco, by being too cheap to train their pilots - so they forced the manufacturer to issue an obviously different plane under the same type certificate, so said training could be avoided.
My understanding is that investigators discovered on the voice cockpit recording that the Ethiopian Air crew had seen the alert released after the Lion Air crash and correctly determined that their problem was being caused by MCAS, but that by the time they switched off MCAS they were simply heading down with too much velocity to pull out in time, which somehow feels doubly tragic. They were doing everything right, they just didn't have enough time to save themselves.
The sad part is that the managers that were responsible for the bad decisions and culminated in all of this will not be held liable themselves - no one's going to prison.
@@LeolaGlamour Clearly, the company cannot go to prison. However, companies are run by people, and the people involved should be held liable, depending on the details of the case. For example, if managerial decisions to save a buck result in loss of life, then why shouldn't the people who put money above customer safety be held liable?
The bicycle was a very good example, which I found out the hard way! when I was young I delivered newspapers with my bicycle. The first time my bike was fully loaded with a lot of newspapers on the back I was so stupid to try a wheelie. I flipped over backwards and the whole street was littered with newspapers!
I did that the first time I got a mountain bike with a ridiculously low bottom gear. It must have looked ridiculous but happily there was nobody there to see it.
One of the documentaries said that Ethiopian pilots deactivated MCAS and they were in such a hard dive, that they could not manually adjust the trim. They turned the switches back on in the hopes it would trim up. Such a shame.
If you have seen the full documentary its also stated there if pilots didnt act in 10 seconds there is no going back. This 10 second was not mentioned prior to the ethiopian accident, they were just told deactivating will able them to take control back, no time limit was mentioned. Plus boeing was against the need of pilots simulation training towards max, despite the fact that the max has major system upgrade which can lead to fatal accident if action is not taken in less than 10sec( which they are expected to do without enough understading of the system)... the shame is on boeing! making them fly blindfolded
@Steven Strain what happened was that the CEO needs to keep board and shareholders happy and their only concern is what colour their next Mercedes Benz S class will be.
My heart goes out to all the families affected by the max crashes. Cant imagine the horror the pilots and passengers endured while the aircraft were diving toward the ground.
I respect his decision, but I do not fully understand the argument behind it. Respect to what/whom? Or does he mean to speculate on crashes before the official (NTSB or other bureau) reports?
I've seen people make the very strange claim that discussion boards discussing an air accident might somehow "distract" the official investigation. Utter nonsense of course. In the case of the 737 Max discussions, one forum appeared to include an employee of Boeing or a subcontractor (speculation alert) that was an active party to the discussions and they were making outlandish excuses for Boeing, and were actively concocting reasons for blaming the pilots. His claims were strongly refuted. It's fair game that a prominent UA-cam channel (1.4M subscribers here) might wish to avoid controversy, and avoid getting ahead of the official investigation. That's fair and perfectly reasonable.
I was ready to fly for the first time before this happened, I have severe fearof flight, and the time i finally said "im going to do this" all this news came out and was just another nail into the coffin for me on not every wanting to fly. Finding out about the possible corner cuttings, the lack of communication to pilots, etc. grounded me for another year or so. I finally took my first flight last week in an a-320 and i must say it was nice, i did feel safe, while i did over think every little sound and bump i made it. I hope to keep doing this as there is alot of places and people i would like to meet, and i hope this is a learning experience for the companies that you can only stay the safest form of travel by not cutting corners.
An important detail left out, there are two alpha (angle of attack) vanes on the 737 MAX, but originally MCAS was designed to operate off of only one of them. As an IT engineer I was livid to learn that supposed professionals at Boeing would create a safety critical system with such a glaring single point of failure.
I still think there should be three AoA vanes on a Max. The A320 has 3 AoA vanes so that if one is faulty and gives a bad reading, the computers on board can isolate it as faulty due to the readings of the other two.
@@cjmillsnun and even so in an Airbus even if the AoA fails and it pitches down you just switch off 2 FACs and it reverts to alternate law or even down to direct law where pilot has control and alfa protections are disabled (it happent a few times allready).. considering how much pride Boeing marketing put in pointing out that the Boeings were all "pilot planes" where the pilot is who is in command and not "some computer" one would expect the MAX to be easily riden or any asistance on a switch or something...
Thank you Joe for this video and thank you for your words at 13:04. This needs to be heard by everyone who works in the aviation industry, no matter whether they're pilots, engineers, ATCs, FAA workers or CEOs!
You neglected to mention that in the environment where everything is redundant, the MCAS only relied on the single AOA sensor, even though the plane has 2 onboard. It would be interesting to hear the analysis of this. Thank you for the great content.
Truly terrible systems engineering. Lack of redundancy, automatic system which continually overrides pilot input, and an airplane with challenging handling characteristics in the first place. Boeing should've started with a clean-sheet instead of forcing engines that don't fit.
@@benjaminschwartz7616 I heard Boeing didn't want MCAS to use >1 sensor's data at a time as that would be legally considered a 'major' change, which mandates additional recertification, which result in additional cost & duration needed for development
11:00 I've seen FAA simulations trying to correct the run away trim manually but the load on the stabilizer was just too much to get the trim wheels round by human force.
@@benjaminschwartz7616 true, but they left the power settings at takeoff power and when the nose dropped, they oversped the airplane sealing their fate.
Hands-down, the most informative video that I have watched, related to the 737 MAX. That last part of the video sent shivers down my spine and I think it should be a staple of the training programs for all activities related to the aviation industry !
I am glad, that company I am working for as AMT is pushing policy of "take your time when you are doing your job, safety first" I am really glad for that
I travel the globe abit and honestly am still terrified of flying (unless drunk/drugged). Here's how I look at it. The A320 didn't have a great start either (Air France Flight 296). It literally "landed" itself in a wooded forest at the Paris airshow. Airbus blamed the pilot and did everything to stop people looking into their design flaw. The 737 Max is a somewhat similar story. Moving forward to 2021, the 737 Max is the most scrutinised aircraft in the history of aviation. MCAS was only the first issue (other issue arose and then many more for each alteration). I would have to say that if the head of the FAA is happy to stick his kids on it, then the problem is no longer with the plane. Keep in mind the flight before the Lion Air crash, MCAS did kick in and they took the appropriate steps and continued with the flight. The crew of the crashed plane failed to comprehend the power of MCAS on trim and it was until the aircraft was handed to the first office (who didn't put enough input to overpower the system) that the plane crashed. All planes have issues and like planes, airlines also have issue (training etc). I would rather travel on a 737 Max over any other plane (short-haul), minus 737NG (which are just amazing planes. Just keep in mind the amount of time spent to make sure this would never happen again. Happy flying
@@steffiesing5449 Amen. My last flight was a Fokker 100 where I was in the emergency exit row. I didn't know the slides (blinds) do not go down in that row. Anyways we ended mid flight with the entire plastic panel on-top of me. The flight attendant said it happens all the time. Let's just say no more Fokkers for me
Well Boeing is not a person but gets rights of a person. But executives working for Boeing and owning lots of stock of Boeing deserve convictions for all the crimes they committed including mass murder. Boeing as a corporation has executives that are very rich in money but poor in character and back bone and not very smart even . These people live off the charity of a massive corporation they have control over. They use this control to steal from everyone the corporation touches from workers to customers to government agents that are suppose to regulate the product they produce. They get to act as there own dictatorship and then sit back and claim they are just being good businessmen(businesswoman). BULL SHIT.
One thing I didn’t hear you mention, which mystifies me, is why Boeing designed MCAS to take data from only one AOA vane. Everything else on the aircraft has one or more redundancy. Neither of these crashes would have happened.
I've seen a suggestion that working MCAS off two vanes would somehow have highlighted it as a safety-critical system which would then have invoked heavier certification & training requirements. By just driving it off one vane they could pretend it was just an unimportant adjustment that nobody needed to worry about. (But I agree, just driving a system that had the potential to cause a crash, off a single sensor - and these things have a known failure rate - is just bananas).
Yes, if it had 2 inputs, it would have required recertification of the pilots to fly it. To save money and encourage the airlines to buy the Boeing plane over the Airbus it was competing with.
Update : As of March 1, 2022 I - as passenger - have flown on 51 separate Max's. A quieter craft due, I will assume, to the engines which DO generate more power. The seats are no more comfortable (the worst!!!) - typical Boeing - but the cabin seems to be better ventilated.
On the contrary He was given very high severance package by Boeing when he resigned. Until the last moment he was insisting that max is a safe plane. He was the guy who was behind many wrong doings in Boeing.
I as a cyclist would say, "I'm not riding that bike with all those stones on the luggage rack. Especially with these powerful legs I have. It's totally unsafe."
That makes sense if you understand the aerodynamics (in the case of a plane). It’s basic physics. But it seems like pilots weren’t trained in the physics of this particular change. Did they not know about the change in engine placement - or more importantly what that would do to the center of gravity? And even worse, some pilots didn’t even know there WAS an MCAS - so why would the suspect something would be different with the cog?. My daughter is applying for university aviation programs and they spend quite a bit of time on physics and aerodynamics. College level classes. But what if you don’t obtain your commercial training at a university? Do those pilots receive the same training in physics and aerodynamics? I honestly don’t know. The pilots in those smaller, less wealthy countries may not have had the same training. It’s an interesting question I’d never considered before. Thanks for the insight!
Absolutely! !! Best example! I will never fly that thing. I prefer to try a Red Bull just for respecting people who died because a financial decision. The 737-max licence should be revocated but again they will take a wrong financial decision.
@CaptainJoe, your comparison with the bag on the luggage rack is not right. The pitch up momentum is mainly caused because of the aerodynamic characteristics due to the position of the engines. The thrust vector is roughly on the same spot as on the cfm56 on the NG. Therefore the pitch momentum, M = F x R, is roughly the same.
3:30 The image used is from April 2013, Lion Air flight 904 that crashed in the sea off Bali. It is a Boeing 737-800 Next Generation not a MAX (see winglets). I love captain Joe and am just trying to help.
That's because that video was recorded inside X-Plane 11 and there is no Max version of the 737-800NG available for X-Plane, yet, the Zibo 737-8X for X-Plane 11 can use those winglets from the Max in the options menu. Yet it would give it away because of the old CFM engines. :)
@Steven Strain I'm a native English speaker who has learned German. I recommend it. Wenn man Deutsch kann, dann wird man viele interessante Sachen lesen koennen. Deutsch ist ja eine wichtige Sprache. Sie klingt mir auch angenehm.🙂.
@Jason Unless you state those numbers as a proportion of the whole group, it’s meaningless. The number of Boeings currently IN SERVICE, isn’t a lot less than the total number of planes Airbus has built since they started.
@@brettdavies-young7102 Center of Gravity and Center of Lift are independent of each other. If the engines get moved forward the CG will move forward, and yes the engines will produce lift at high angles of attack due to momentum conservation and the flow having to be turned as it goes through the engine. This does move the center of lift forward as well. However these are counteracting effects. I think the bigger discussion here should be how Boeing is unconfident with the outboard wings ability to avoid stall at high angles of attack thus maintaining control surface power and forgoing the need for the augmentation. I.e. the wing isn't designed or twisted properly for stall recovery.
Thanks for this brilliant video Captain Joe. I was really mad at Boeing for such a negligent act when I actually found out what happened after the 2 737Max air crashes.
I was Boeing AOG mechanic for over 10 years and left in 2016 because I saw all this coming! I went from loving where I worked to hating my job! Hopefully they fix it.
I was hoping for some detailed information about the actual changes/improvements that have led to recertification. Many of the infos presented here are already widely spread. But I loved the way you presented the aerodynamical disadvantages of the 737 Max…
Can you do an updated video on the Boeing 737 Max and where we are now with it. Have you flew one? Are they still considered dangerous by pilots? I flew on one recently, it was definitely quieter and faster than its predecessor but I was definitely more nervous than usual for the flight. I still avoid them if I have the choice to switch up an airline that doesn't have them even at a higher cost.
I remember Boeing had offered to do a “clean sheet” design but the airlines wanted something sooner, and cheaper than an all new plane. Hindsight being what it is, they should have built a new plane.
I wonder if a 757 re-vamp would have avoided having to move the location of those big-fan engines. Tho, TBH if you have a FBW system that can take partial or full authority - don't you always run the risk of bad sensors resulting in bad data resulting in a very bad day?
As far as I know that that CEO wanted short cut method to beat Air bus growing share in that segment. He did not want a clean sheet design because it would take 8 years to come into existence.
Agreed. I hope it'll be like the DC10. Started out as a very problematic aircraft with many incidents, but ended up being one of the most iconic aircraft ever and some still fly to this day. Let's hope the 737MAX is the same because besides the crashes, it's a very capable and economical aircraft and very nice to look at in my opinion.
The plane has already gone through so many checks and exams, it will be the safest plane out there. I would gladly be one of the first passengers to get on one
The primary reason you have Mcas on this max is because you have different engines (more powerful) and is mounted higher on the wings than your standard B737 is for ground clearance due to size diameter of these engines. mcas was designed to push the nose over to prevent a stall during climb or other stages of flight ,the problem is Boeing built this system with only one sensor to detect angle of attack relative to the airflow over the wing to cut cost and if this sensor fails the aircraft becomes uncontrollable but Boeing never told the pilots about how to correct this situation ,The bottom line is this aircraft should never have been built as this old design 55 plus years trying to work with modern equipment does not cut it
@@mikethompson3534 everything you said has bits and pieces of facts grouped together, but are partially correct and do not tell the whole story. You obviously do not know what you are talking about!
@@donanders2110 yes bits and pieces as I can’t get into everything as it would require massive amounts of typing and explaining, This was just the basics and yes I love Boeing products but not the Max I worked on the best aircraft like the B777,747, 787 767 and 757 for a major airline for well over about 39 years
10:45 - I'm pretty sure the Ethiopian pilots did actually flip the kill switches for the electronic stabiliser trim on the accident flight. However, they left the engines at takeoff power while the aircraft was in a dive, and so the aerodynamic forces on the tail made it impossible to manually crank the stabiliser trim.
Boeing will be LET OFF with a Small amount of Fine .....called "Peanuts" with the help of The GREAT CORPORATE ATTORNEYS!!! SHAME ON YOU BOEING GUYS !!!
If you use them too late it is too late and you won't be able to trim back. 737 should be flown with a crew of 3 people as this AC definitely needs a flight engineer on board to handle all the nasty little engineering oopsies.
Joe I'm a new subscriber to your channel.im a aviation enthusiast and have been following various channels ,links for a long time now. I must say that I'm very very impressed with the way you justify on the topic of discussion .From the time LION AIR max8 crashed I had anxiety .now that's sorted after a clear understanding of MCAS. Thanks for your subtle explanation and do come up with more informative videos in the future . Really appreciate your work!!
The crazy thing to me. Is Boeing CEOs actually allowed for this to happen just to try to save a few dollars. An Airplane is one of the few products in the world, Where you should never cut corners and rush to the sales floor. Your business runs on razor thin margins already, there should be a an absolute 0 tolerance in ever thinking about selling a plane that is not 1000% optimal. When you make a good quality product, you won't ever have to worry about going broke. Because your reputation as being best of best will always keep you alive, and you will alway make sales without even trying as hard. Like seriously was it worth it that you saved let's just say 2 billion dollars ( yes it's a ton of money to save) but you rushing out a bad product that is literally in control of millions of people lives yearly. Now all your planes are crashing due to selling a less than quality product then normal. Your basically committing company sucied!
@@JDBass36 there have been plenty of Airbus crashes. Your problem is the greed part, not the loss of life, because if you cared about that you wouldn’t just be stringing Boeing up.
@@superskullmaster Well I should had meant in general. And yes plane crashes are going to happen, it's impossible to ever predict and of course nothing is 100% fail proof. But I'm attacking Boeing for knowingly cutting corners and knowing that it wasn't 100% safe to continue to build planes that way. I know it takes a ton of money, time, and development to make a brand new plane, . But don't sacrifice quality for quick profits. Because a few string of preventable errors on your part. That will kill your companies brand easily. Why would I buy your plane or car or boat if I know your trying to cut corners. You will lose me as customer very quickly.
@@JDBass36 I work in aircraft manufacturing. Trust me, everyone cuts corners. The difference is, when you work on the scale of civil airliners, problems are more likely to make the news.
@@superskullmaster Oh I definitely don't doubt that companies cuts corners, I get it it's very expensive to run a business. But if there's a few things in the world that should never even be considered to afford to cut corners. It would probably be Airplanes, and Cars. The Airplane industry is already a tough business to be in, and it's probably one of the most sensitive businesses in the world to be in. There is nothing faster that can kill your airplane business than having a bunch of your planes crashing due to poor manufacturing. You are going to put fear in customer's in flying your brand of planes. No customers = No profit for Airlines = Airlines will refuse to buy your planes = Your business is DEAD....!
Joe. MCAS was for type rating purposes not for anti stall. Due to the extra pitch the stick force gradient when approaching a stall was different from the NG and not getting heavier like it should. This is the reason for MCAS not to counter act a stall, it came down to keeping costs to a minimum for airlines not requiring sim training. Source Boeing website states MCAS is designed to 'enhance pitch stability so that it flies like other 737's." So many UA-camrs and people in the media are misinformed about MCAS and assume it's an anti stall feature which it is not.
No issues in USA or EU. Those 2 crashes happened due to airlines saving money by opting for 1 aoa sensor instead of 2. Also poor maintainence. 1st plane, previous captain reported issue, but maintainance did nothing, crashed next flight. 2nd plane, again previous captain reported issues, maintainance changed the aoa sensor but did it wrongly resulting in not working and plane crashed next flight. Again USA and EU no issues at all as they all put safety first and opt for 2 aoa sensors. Plane cannot nose dive unless both aoa sensors agree. Hence no issues in USA and EU.
You are so good at explaining how things work, why they're there and what they do! I wish you all of a sudden released 100 new videos so I could binge watch them! I can't wait for new video's, I also re-watch your video's all the time! Great channel, great job! Thank you!!
Very well said ! I can see this happening where I work! “Rushing projects is a potencial risk of failure “ almost warranted! Awesome video to show to any company!
@@michlo3393 Usually (international travel at least) you know the aircraft type when you book. Won't help if the airline swaps planes on you, but 99% of the time the type doesn't change.
I have been worried to death all day after finding out about previous 737 MAX crashes (by accident) whilst trying to watch videos about my soon plane journey on this aircraft. I have a very big phobia of flying but a huge interest in aviation (weirdly enough). Your video has helped me so much, so thank you for uploading.
Hey Capt Joe... Just want to say another great vid, always makes my Thursday. I just finished my school work, and I’m greeted with ur vid. Literally the best feeling in the world. Keep it up buddy!! 😁😉😉
Same thing my mother said, she ended up getting on the max 2 weeks ago for vacation and said the inside looks amazing but the actual flight was kind of scary because the wings were shaking more than usual. The only real problem should be under-trained pilots which doesn't really exist in the US.
No, Joe didn't say that. The crew on a previous flight on one of the crashed aircraft turned off the stab trim but the fault was not fixed. It was a different crew on the crashed flight & they did not know about the previous issue.
@@TheRip72 Yes that is what Joe said but The Flight Channel has a video on the Ethiopian flight that suggests the stab trim was turned off and then later turned on again. ua-cam.com/video/a5P8CkVckmA/v-deo.html
@@TheRip72 I didn’t say he mentioned it at all hence the “glazed over” part. But in one of the crashes(don’t care which one) they actually disabled the electric trim, got control back and turned it back on to finish themselves off.
B737 check airmen at my company met with the leadership team to give a debrief after meeting with Boeing and looking over the FDR info and CVR transcripts, and they were blunt in their assessment: "We don't want to speak ill of the dead, but any 737 type-rated pilot should have known to hit the trim cutouts and keep them off once the trim runaway occurred from the AOA disagree and MCAS." This was a training issue more than a design issue.
i still dont want to get on one of these planes, even if they are deemed safe. eve tough it probably would be perfectly fine, i think the sheer anxiety of it would be a bit too much for me
@@ursodermatt8809 They did not publicise it but neither did they conceal it. The first does not imply the second. Details of the MCAS software were obtainable with very little effort. Boeing made some very serious errors but the incompetent performance of the pilots in response to the trim runaway cannot be overlooked. The trim cutout switches are virtually right under your hands; no need to go fumbling for circuit breakers. I fly 737s for a major domestic carrier so, yes, I do know what I'm talking about.
@@ursodermatt8809 There is some blame on the pilots. Especially these days, pilots are less qualified in other parts of the world(where these crashes took place) and more reliant on automation. Pilots need more hours in the air, and let them fly more!! Less autopilot, and more training on runaway stab trim(which they’ll all get now, before getting into a MAX cockpit).
Thanks Captain Joe for letting me understand easily how the MCAS works, its problems, and the how the 737 MAX became problematic since its service. Kudos to your channel 👍
1: They would like us to think it stands for New Engine Option. 2: It actually is a government conspiracy and it really stands for Not Even Original. 3: Awesome video! I can't wait to start flying on these planes again.
Great video! What kills me is that this system was built to compensate for an intentional design flaw. They could have increased its ground clearance with longer struts, but instead they moved the engines forward and added a system to compensate. It's overengineered. If it was too difficult to increase the plane's height, they could have just come out with a "757X." The original 757 had excellent ground clearance, a good safety record, and is still extremely popular despite being discontinued for almost 20 years.
There are reasons for the low ground clearance, the whole point of the 737 from the very beginning was to have low ground clearance so that it could be used at smaller airports etc. If they had increased it there would have been no point in the whole project.
@@pwhnckexstflajizdryvombqug9042 Then should never copied Airbus and put bigger engines on the wings. If you want bigger engines ditch the 737, build a whole new plane. Simple
Yes, including the greedy cell phone companies that made the phone your probably holding. Several hundred Chinese workers have killed them selves over the past 15 year while working for these phone manufacturing companies that Apple contracts work too. Gonna throw your blood phone away?
The greed starts with passengers demanding the cheapest ticket. Plenty of “greed” to go around. To suggest some sort of “corporate greed” is just plain silly. Any business tries to balance cost and outcome, and human beings make mistakes. But to suggest a collective will to intentionally allow this fiasco to occur is superficial thinking at best. It’s a series of human errors that collectively culminated in a tragedy.
@@superskullmaster Silly logic. The number of suicides is statistically normal as a percent of workers employed. And you have zero idea of the other factors in these workers lives.
@@cogitoergospud1 The greed of Boeing went way overboard. Their objective was to stay competitive against the A320-NEO at all costs (but not their cost). And in order to save time they deliberately disregarded all safety concerns by downplaying and hiding vital information from everyone from the FAA to pilots, client companies and passengers. They are not only greedy but also huge liars pretending a piece of software that can reject and override pilot actions on the flight commands is just a minor thing not worthy of mentioning.
Dear Capt just a note about wheelies... You don't recover by pushing on the handlebars but just braking the rear wheel. Just in case you go out and try it yourself that's the safe way to do it
Its not a joking matter all those lives lost due to their airliner being skin flints and pool airliner engineers. No issues in USA or EU. Those 2 crashes happened due to airlines saving money by opting for 1 aoa sensor instead of 2. Also poor maintainence. 1st plane, previous captain reported issue, but maintainance did nothing, crashed next flight. 2nd plane, again previous captain reported issues, maintainance changed the aoa sensor but did it wrongly resulting in not working and plane crashed next flight. Again USA and EU no issues at all as they all put safety first and opt for 2 aoa sensors. Plane cannot nose dive unless both aoa sensors agree. Hence no issues in USA and EU.
Hi Joe, based on what you and other polit and eningeers have expmailed, it seems like this plane will never be stable. The fact that you need a system to monitor stalling means the frame design itself is not correct. I have read the recertification documents, bascially they added one more sensor, better manual documentation and pilot training. But the major issue (the high licklyhood of stalling) was not discussed at all anyhwere. What are your thoughts?
Great video @captainjoe! I totally agree on the corporate greed explanation, we simply can’t have this in the aviation world. Though the Max is recertified I’d never fly it. It’s one thing to convince the aviation geeks but it’s another to convince the public. The Max will forever be a symbol of greed and disrespect for human lives. Have a great day!
Thinking it would have been so much easier to increase the landing gear height but I know that would have involved major manufacturing changes and probably re certification. Still it seems like it would have been worth in in hindsight considering the ongoing damage to Boeings reputation and loss of revenues. Great video Joe, glad I found your channel.
All grounded airplanes, 737 MAX or any other due to Covid, are regularly maintained to keep them airworthy. There is no reason to not fly them, just because they were grounded.
@@thejoker2214 this plane hasn't been fixed . It can still crash . MCAS system that crashed it is still in the plane . Anybody who thinks otherwise is a complete idiot
How often does an AOA sensor go haywire? Is it not a relatively not complex device? The pilots should have known that the MCAS system works of the AOA sensor( of which there should be more tha one, although the MCAS works of one, apparently. Maybe it could be switched to work off another), and if the plane was playing up, the pilots could have switched the MCAS dooda off and flown the aircraft manually. Apparently, some did not know of the existence of the MCAS system?
Another brilliant video Joe, that last 90 seconds were so powerful and true, respect!
...... real words........ 👍👍👍
Love your first name buddy ;)
@Stefan Haha awesome buddy! Yeah love some aviation content, watched Joe's stuff for many years! Hope you're loving the M2! Cheers
Another disaster thanks to Trump’s FAA. Hopefully now with Biden the aviation professionals will be back in charge.
Yeah I'm surprised to Joe here as well... small world indeed
I was flying with American Airlines from Frankfurt to the US in December 2019, or let's say, I was supposed to. Thankfully, a conscious pilot decided to turn back to the gate as he noticed a small error. It was really not a big deal but didn't want to put his passengers in danger and turned back immediately. Even though AA had to manage to rebook all the passengers and to somehow get us to the US, plus pay for the canceled flight because of technical issues, I was very thankful that the pilot decided the way he did. No money on earth brings back dead people.. Thank you!
Nice to hear they have concious pilots!
Nice fly
@Mr. E.W Good question. I honestly don't remember but he didn't make a big deal out of it. Still big enough that he had to cancel the flight.
Rest in Peace to these almost 350 lost souls and my condolences to their family members, friends and loved ones!
Only about making profit.
Nobody is resting.
@@North_West Check out Boeing's profit after those crashes.
@@AnimMouse They didn't inform the pilots after test Flying and they installing the System. That why its only about making profit dumbass.
It's scary to think that the future of corporate America will only be held accountable to the amount of fatalities it takes for them to reach their next milestone. Keep loading those congressional pockets.
MCAS: Money Comes Above Safety
Yep.
Boeing : I like money
Everyone :what inspired you to create the 737 MAX
Boeing : M O N E Y
Superb
quite literally.. and it makes me SICK to think about haha
This.
Never rush when dealing with another persons life
Amazing video as always.. Captain Joe God bless you and keep you safe wherever you are...and thank you for the class again!!!
Go tell that to soldiers during war😂😂
Measure twice; cut once and never take shortcuts when it comes to safety, particularly when you also have other people's lives in your hands.
I see what you did there lol
The problem it has often been said goes back to the Boeing/McDonnell Douglas merger. An engineer lead company, Boeing, was reverse taken over by a suit lead culture MD. An expensive false economy ensued. .
I don't think people or management teams in general knowingly took shortcuts on safety, for the sake of saving a few bucks on each flight, but unfortunately they also didn't know/understand/realize what were the consequences on safety of some decisions they took. The intention behind the MCAS was good I believe, but did they (want to) realize the side effects ? Perfection doesn't exist. The only way is to test, test, test and test again, in all kind of apparently stupid and meaningless situations. This takes time, a lot of time. And Joe is 100% right: don't rush, take all the time needed.
@@adewouters and they choose not to take the time.
They'll lose another for technical reasons soon enough.
My father flew the 727 for years and retired on that airframe in 1990. We had a reverence for Boeing. “If it’s not Boeing, we’re not going” was a saying and testament to the trust we put in the safety culture of Boeing. Since the relocation of Boeing headquarters from Seattle to Chicago in the mid 1990’s there has been a titanic shift in the focus of the company. It’s telling when a company moves its HQ from its center of R&D, design, engineering, production, and “ancestral home” to a financial center.
I think it was the merger with McDonnell- Douglas where business executives somehow know more than the engineers.
737 MAX and 787, the first planes built by business executives and not by airplane engineers. They should be held accountable. Safety cultures and excellence starts at the top. Chasing after short term profits clearly backfired.
Now the new slogan is Airbus or Bust.
Now: “if it’s Boeing, we ain’t going”
@@drgLACity Airbus or Bust
it's crazy how they could design a system that takes full control relying on a single sensor that can fail. Even the drive-by-wire accelerator pedal in your car has triple redundancy.
It was intentional because 737 already had automated stabilizer trim and the reasoning was that MCAS failure is no different from stabilizer trim failure. Both have similar endcome and both must be dealt with similar action. However, as far as I know, MCAS changes the trim faster which gives less time to pilots to figure out the problem. That was the part where Boeing was greedy and instead of requiring additional training for the pilots, the got FAA to believe that MCAS was similar enough to older system that it doesn't need any extra training.
The pilots should have been trained about MCAS failure handling as a memory item even if it has redundant sensors because once it fails, you don't have time to search for the correct procedure.
The reasons is to avoid pilot training. MCAS is actually uses both sensors (Left & Right) but not at the same time. It's switch sensors between each flight and only one at the time for that flight. This has been reveal from whistle blower that Boeing know if they are using both sensors at the same time. FAA will required them to do additional pilot training in the simulator. This because by using both sensors, it will indicated that system is safety critical and pilot needs to be train on how to react if the system fail. Boeing deliberately designed MCAS to use one sensor, so they could claim that Max plane could save Airline money because it doesn't required pilot training.
@@mukamuka0 Wow! I didn't know that pilot training is *required* if a feature is redundant. That explains the full MCAS failure!
Honestly it is still a bad design, its a software fixing a hardware bug. What is actually the solution for the mcas so the plane can be recertified?
@@MikkoRantalainen people keep saying "Boeing was greedy" but completely forget that it is the _airlines_ who have to pay to train pilots and who obviously coerced Boeing into cutting corners, and they had FAA help in that regard. Trying to blame Boeing but failing to see the big picture is tragic. It was the airlines who started this whole fiasco, by being too cheap to train their pilots - so they forced the manufacturer to issue an obviously different plane under the same type certificate, so said training could be avoided.
My understanding is that investigators discovered on the voice cockpit recording that the Ethiopian Air crew had seen the alert released after the Lion Air crash and correctly determined that their problem was being caused by MCAS, but that by the time they switched off MCAS they were simply heading down with too much velocity to pull out in time, which somehow feels doubly tragic. They were doing everything right, they just didn't have enough time to save themselves.
The sad part is that the managers that were responsible for the bad decisions and culminated in all of this will not be held liable themselves - no one's going to prison.
Just like the CRIMINALS who run Washington DC!
@@websurfin9575 The world is corrupted and that’s probably never gonna change.
Should airbus go to prison for the air France crash?
@@LeolaGlamour Clearly, the company cannot go to prison. However, companies are run by people, and the people involved should be held liable, depending on the details of the case.
For example, if managerial decisions to save a buck result in loss of life, then why shouldn't the people who put money above customer safety be held liable?
@@code-dredd
So again should the managers of any plane company in the history of ever go to jail?
The bicycle was a very good example, which I found out the hard way! when I was young I delivered newspapers with my bicycle. The first time my bike was fully loaded with a lot of newspapers on the back I was so stupid to try a wheelie. I flipped over backwards and the whole street was littered with newspapers!
Oh my god, I have image in my head!
@@flywithcaptainjoe It was just as bad as you think ;-)
F
I did that the first time I got a mountain bike with a ridiculously low bottom gear. It must have looked ridiculous but happily there was nobody there to see it.
The bike should have been grounded
One of the documentaries said that Ethiopian pilots deactivated MCAS and they were in such a hard dive, that they could not manually adjust the trim. They turned the switches back on in the hopes it would trim up. Such a shame.
If you have seen the full documentary its also stated there if pilots didnt act in 10 seconds there is no going back. This 10 second was not mentioned prior to the ethiopian accident, they were just told deactivating will able them to take control back, no time limit was mentioned. Plus boeing was against the need of pilots simulation training towards max, despite the fact that the max has major system upgrade which can lead to fatal accident if action is not taken in less than 10sec( which they are expected to do without enough understading of the system)... the shame is on boeing! making them fly blindfolded
Captain Joe explains each and every details so perfectly that he should be teaching in the world's best Aviation University! Keep it up!!
Don't want to say he isn't, but there are a few mistakes in this video.
I think the ending message was extremely appropriate.
Thank you very much!
Agree!
I agree too, He spoke facts and was totally right about how greedy Boeing was for profit in this situation.
Like this vid Capt Joe, but that sounds very ‘MzeroA’ regardless of how true it is
@@flywithcaptainjoe as your subscribers and viewers, we thank you
What happens when you let accountants run a company instead of the engineers.
Not just accountants. Shareholders. Quick money on the cheap! 😉 They all 🤞🤞
If you let engineers to run it, they wont make any money. You idiot
James McNerney was not an accountant (he was a Harvard MBA).
Bean counters strike again!!!
@Steven Strain what happened was that the CEO needs to keep board and shareholders happy and their only concern is what colour their next Mercedes Benz S class will be.
She's back. Now with sections blowing out mid-air!
the truth sometimes hurts bro
@dolleHengst - don't forget the "limited time" engine de-icing (or it burns through) and the chaffed wires controlling the spoilers and ....
My heart goes out to all the families affected by the max crashes. Cant imagine the horror the pilots and passengers endured while the aircraft were diving toward the ground.
Everyone like this so he do a video on this. "What do pilots do in the cockpit while cruising on long haul flights" Please answer this Captain Joe.
I'll make a video about it then
@@flywithcaptainjoe YEEESS
While cruising, pilots need to monitor all systems, fuel burn etc.
When they get bored, they shake it a little.
" Ladies and Gentlemen, we're having some turbulence"
I have always wondered that actually!
14:22 Best decision Captain Joe!
I respect his decision, but I do not fully understand the argument behind it. Respect to what/whom? Or does he mean to speculate on crashes before the official (NTSB or other bureau) reports?
I've seen people make the very strange claim that discussion boards discussing an air accident might somehow "distract" the official investigation. Utter nonsense of course. In the case of the 737 Max discussions, one forum appeared to include an employee of Boeing or a subcontractor (speculation alert) that was an active party to the discussions and they were making outlandish excuses for Boeing, and were actively concocting reasons for blaming the pilots. His claims were strongly refuted.
It's fair game that a prominent UA-cam channel (1.4M subscribers here) might wish to avoid controversy, and avoid getting ahead of the official investigation. That's fair and perfectly reasonable.
I was ready to fly for the first time before this happened, I have severe fearof flight, and the time i finally said "im going to do this" all this news came out and was just another nail into the coffin for me on not every wanting to fly. Finding out about the possible corner cuttings, the lack of communication to pilots, etc. grounded me for another year or so. I finally took my first flight last week in an a-320 and i must say it was nice, i did feel safe, while i did over think every little sound and bump i made it. I hope to keep doing this as there is alot of places and people i would like to meet, and i hope this is a learning experience for the companies that you can only stay the safest form of travel by not cutting corners.
Blue sky's and happy landings, glad you have your wings! 😁
An important detail left out, there are two alpha (angle of attack) vanes on the 737 MAX, but originally MCAS was designed to operate off of only one of them. As an IT engineer I was livid to learn that supposed professionals at Boeing would create a safety critical system with such a glaring single point of failure.
I still think there should be three AoA vanes on a Max. The A320 has 3 AoA vanes so that if one is faulty and gives a bad reading, the computers on board can isolate it as faulty due to the readings of the other two.
@@cjmillsnun That's even better.
@@cjmillsnun and even so in an Airbus even if the AoA fails and it pitches down you just switch off 2 FACs and it reverts to alternate law or even down to direct law where pilot has control and alfa protections are disabled (it happent a few times allready).. considering how much pride Boeing marketing put in pointing out that the Boeings were all "pilot planes" where the pilot is who is in command and not "some computer" one would expect the MAX to be easily riden or any asistance on a switch or something...
@@stever4899 the programming was outsourced to people not familiar with the way of thinking in the aviation industry (low labor costs).
@@sparrowlt Bingo! You got it! Bigger question is why the FAA does not get it (ONE switch to disable ALL the automation).
you can tell joe puts a lot of time and effort into these videos. Much respect, and keep up the good work!
Thank you for appreciating that!
Most definitely. When Captain Joe does finally retire from flying, he'd make a great aviation consultant.
One would argue that she is more widely known to be ‘infamous’ rather than ‘famous’...!
wouldn't call that an argument, I'd call that a fact.
Thank you Joe for this video and thank you for your words at 13:04.
This needs to be heard by everyone who works in the aviation industry, no matter whether they're pilots, engineers, ATCs, FAA workers or CEOs!
NEO stands for New Engine Option.
Correct, and it's a very clever name, since Neo also mean New/Revised in Latin.
I started with my PPL training this week. You are one of the reasons I wanted to pursue a career as a pilot. Thank you Joe🔥
I'm very happy to hear that! Enjoy your training!
@@flywithcaptainjoe Thank you Joe! 💙
You neglected to mention that in the environment where everything is redundant, the MCAS only relied on the single AOA sensor, even though the plane has 2 onboard. It would be interesting to hear the analysis of this. Thank you for the great content.
It would switch every flight to the other AOA so it would only crash every other flight unless both failed.
PROSPERITY
BONANZA
HONESTY
Truly terrible systems engineering. Lack of redundancy, automatic system which continually overrides pilot input, and an airplane with challenging handling characteristics in the first place. Boeing should've started with a clean-sheet instead of forcing engines that don't fit.
@@benjaminschwartz7616 Making the AoA sensor disagree warning an extra option the airlines could order was a big red flag for me.
@@benjaminschwartz7616 I heard Boeing didn't want MCAS to use >1 sensor's data at a time as that would be legally considered a 'major' change, which mandates additional recertification, which result in additional cost & duration needed for development
I’d fly on it. (I’m eighty). The problems started when the bean counters in the boardroom took precedence over engineers.
When (if) I get to 80 y.o. I’ll fly on a kite with a broken string. Who gives a fuck
11:00 I've seen FAA simulations trying to correct the run away trim manually but the load on the stabilizer was just too much to get the trim wheels round by human force.
That's right. In fact, the Ethiopian Airlines crew followed the correct procedures but couldn't overcome the extreme forces already on the stabilizer.
@@benjaminschwartz7616 if they were higher I think it woudve been better, but they just didn't have enough time
@@benjaminschwartz7616
So they switch on the power to the jack screw motors to assist them and MCAS takes over again...
@@benjaminschwartz7616 true, but they left the power settings at takeoff power and when the nose dropped, they oversped the airplane sealing their fate.
So I'm confused. If turning stab trim off is the way to resolve it but the load is to much on the stabilizer then what is the resolution?
Hands-down, the most informative video that I have watched, related to the 737 MAX. That last part of the video sent shivers down my spine and I think it should be a staple of the training programs for all activities related to the aviation industry !
I am glad, that company I am working for as AMT is pushing policy of "take your time when you are doing your job, safety first" I am really glad for that
Yep, It's grounded again! This time for a plug door that doesn't want to stay closed.
That plane still scares the hell out of me
i'm more scared of stepping in a 40 year old jumbo that's been flyin ever since.
@@steffiesing5449 and still hasn’t crashed....
it should
I travel the globe abit and honestly am still terrified of flying (unless drunk/drugged). Here's how I look at it. The A320 didn't have a great start either (Air France Flight 296). It literally "landed" itself in a wooded forest at the Paris airshow. Airbus blamed the pilot and did everything to stop people looking into their design flaw. The 737 Max is a somewhat similar story. Moving forward to 2021, the 737 Max is the most scrutinised aircraft in the history of aviation. MCAS was only the first issue (other issue arose and then many more for each alteration). I would have to say that if the head of the FAA is happy to stick his kids on it, then the problem is no longer with the plane. Keep in mind the flight before the Lion Air crash, MCAS did kick in and they took the appropriate steps and continued with the flight. The crew of the crashed plane failed to comprehend the power of MCAS on trim and it was until the aircraft was handed to the first office (who didn't put enough input to overpower the system) that the plane crashed. All planes have issues and like planes, airlines also have issue (training etc). I would rather travel on a 737 Max over any other plane (short-haul), minus 737NG (which are just amazing planes. Just keep in mind the amount of time spent to make sure this would never happen again. Happy flying
@@steffiesing5449 Amen. My last flight was a Fokker 100 where I was in the emergency exit row. I didn't know the slides (blinds) do not go down in that row. Anyways we ended mid flight with the entire plastic panel on-top of me. The flight attendant said it happens all the time. Let's just say no more Fokkers for me
Boeing got greedy and got a well-deserved smackdown.
Well Boeing is not a person but gets rights of a person. But executives working for Boeing and owning lots of stock of Boeing deserve convictions for all the crimes they committed including mass murder. Boeing as a corporation has executives that are very rich in money but poor in character and back bone and not very smart even . These people live off the charity of a massive corporation they have control over. They use this control to steal from everyone the corporation touches from workers to customers to government agents that are suppose to regulate the product they produce. They get to act as there own dictatorship and then sit back and claim they are just being good businessmen(businesswoman). BULL SHIT.
No the FAA was dumb
Lion Air had shocking training. It was 95% their fault.
Not enough apparently. They continue their behaviors.
@@richardpluim4426 737 max is the goat plane
One thing I didn’t hear you mention, which mystifies me, is why Boeing designed MCAS to take data from only one AOA vane. Everything else on the aircraft has one or more redundancy. Neither of these crashes would have happened.
I've seen a suggestion that working MCAS off two vanes would somehow have highlighted it as a safety-critical system which would then have invoked heavier certification & training requirements. By just driving it off one vane they could pretend it was just an unimportant adjustment that nobody needed to worry about. (But I agree, just driving a system that had the potential to cause a crash, off a single sensor - and these things have a known failure rate - is just bananas).
Yes, if it had 2 inputs, it would have required recertification of the pilots to fly it. To save money and encourage the airlines to buy the Boeing plane over the Airbus it was competing with.
Update : As of March 1, 2022 I - as passenger - have flown on 51 separate Max's. A quieter craft due, I will assume, to the engines which DO generate more power. The seats are no more comfortable (the worst!!!) - typical Boeing - but the cabin seems to be better ventilated.
"Corporate Greed" is the key word here. I want to see Mullenburg the CEO in Jail.
death penalty!
@@pavelfernandezdotnet Exactly. When can a regular human kill 300 people and not get the death penalty?
@@benghazi4216 ask Cuomo
On the contrary He was given very high severance package by Boeing when he resigned. Until the last moment he was insisting that max is a safe plane. He was the guy who was behind many wrong doings in Boeing.
@@allgrainbrewer10 Yes his capitalist tendencies has destroyed the health care system in New York, and thus more died.
But have you asked Trump btw?
neo = No Engineering Oopsies
For anyone wondering it’s new engine option but no engineering oopsies makes more sense to annoy Boeing
Yes I love it
N: New
E: Engine
O: Option
But
N: No
E: Engineering
O: Oopsies
Sounds more reasonable
No engine Option lol, im just joking. I love Airbus
NEO stands for new engine opción
If you don't know, NEO also had some engineering oopsies
I as a cyclist would say, "I'm not riding that bike with all those stones on the luggage rack. Especially with these powerful legs I have. It's totally unsafe."
wot u talk`n`bout willis?
That makes sense if you understand the aerodynamics (in the case of a plane). It’s basic physics. But it seems like pilots weren’t trained in the physics of this particular change. Did they not know about the change in engine placement - or more importantly what that would do to the center of gravity? And even worse, some pilots didn’t even know there WAS an MCAS - so why would the suspect something would be different with the cog?. My daughter is applying for university aviation programs and they spend quite a bit of time on physics and aerodynamics. College level classes. But what if you don’t obtain your commercial training at a university? Do those pilots receive the same training in physics and aerodynamics? I honestly don’t know. The pilots in those smaller, less wealthy countries may not have had the same training. It’s an interesting question I’d never considered before. Thanks for the insight!
@@jahbern Boeing did not tell the pilots about the new MCAS. It was Boeing's job to inform about new software or procedures.
Absolutely! !! Best example! I will never fly that thing. I prefer to try a Red Bull just for respecting people who died because a financial decision. The 737-max licence should be revocated but again they will take a wrong financial decision.
It was just a chalkboard example.
@CaptainJoe, your comparison with the bag on the luggage rack is not right. The pitch up momentum is mainly caused because of the aerodynamic characteristics due to the position of the engines. The thrust vector is roughly on the same spot as on the cfm56 on the NG. Therefore the pitch momentum, M = F x R, is roughly the same.
3:30 The image used is from April 2013, Lion Air flight 904 that crashed in the sea off Bali. It is a Boeing 737-800 Next Generation not a MAX (see winglets). I love captain Joe and am just trying to help.
That's because that video was recorded inside X-Plane 11 and there is no Max version of the 737-800NG available for X-Plane, yet, the Zibo 737-8X for X-Plane 11 can use those winglets from the Max in the options menu. Yet it would give it away because of the old CFM engines. :)
For all Germans here, I can recommend you a documentary from WDR about Boeing. It is called „Boeings tödliches System“. Very interesting!
Werde ich mir anschauen
Danke dir!
@Steven Strain I wish more English native speakers would say that 👍🏼
@Steven Strain I'm a native English speaker who has learned German. I recommend it. Wenn man Deutsch kann, dann wird man viele interessante Sachen lesen koennen. Deutsch ist ja eine wichtige Sprache. Sie klingt mir auch angenehm.🙂.
Shame on Boeing and the FAA! This will hurt the Boeing brand for many years to come.
Just need a couple of the NEO planes to present their pilots with another Airbus anomaly, then they will be the bad guy again.
@Andrew_koala I'm curious...do people often accept your arbitrarily made up rules for grammar and naming conventions?
@Jason Unless you state those numbers as a proportion of the whole group, it’s meaningless. The number of Boeings currently IN SERVICE, isn’t a lot less than the total number of planes Airbus has built since they started.
Amazing video as always,God bless you and keep you safe wherever you are Captain Joe...and thank you for the class again!
Mounting engines forward on the wings moves the overall CG forward, not aft.
@@geoh7777 also the wings rarely ever experience laminar flow but this is just my masters degree in aerospace engineering talking
His "bicycle comparison" sort of lost its wheels.
@@brettdavies-young7102 Center of Gravity and Center of Lift are independent of each other. If the engines get moved forward the CG will move forward, and yes the engines will produce lift at high angles of attack due to momentum conservation and the flow having to be turned as it goes through the engine. This does move the center of lift forward as well. However these are counteracting effects. I think the bigger discussion here should be how Boeing is unconfident with the outboard wings ability to avoid stall at high angles of attack thus maintaining control surface power and forgoing the need for the augmentation. I.e. the wing isn't designed or twisted properly for stall recovery.
@Firsthgyhgyhuy Lastujhujhuj Prove him wrong and be constructive instead of going straight for the insults.
Thanks for this brilliant video Captain Joe. I was really mad at Boeing for such a negligent act when I actually found out what happened after the 2 737Max air crashes.
NEO: The One
Your profilepicture says it all
New engine option
@@chensich7519 Really?
I was Boeing AOG mechanic for over 10 years and left in 2016 because I saw all this coming! I went from loving where I worked to hating my job! Hopefully they fix it.
Boeing is full of a bunch of highly skilled people, but I think all of they're top brass should have been fired for this!
Thank you for that Capitan joe. It’s a shame people lost there lives to greed.
They were murdered.
@@ericbanner7630 manwomanslaughter
Just returned from another Captain Joe video !
I was hoping for some detailed information about the actual changes/improvements that have led to recertification. Many of the infos presented here are already widely spread. But I loved the way you presented the aerodynamical disadvantages of the 737 Max…
You can find detailed information of the MAX recertification on the websites of both the FAA & EASA.
@RadhaKrishnan Nair your comment is incorrect, and you should introduce much reading of freely available information on the website of the FAA & EASA.
Can you do an updated video on the Boeing 737 Max and where we are now with it. Have you flew one? Are they still considered dangerous by pilots? I flew on one recently, it was definitely quieter and faster than its predecessor but I was definitely more nervous than usual for the flight. I still avoid them if I have the choice to switch up an airline that doesn't have them even at a higher cost.
It has been flying flawlessly for nearly 3 years now and every pilot I’ve talked to loves it
Love the SloMo Guys slow motion effect to underscore your serious talking points :)
I remember Boeing had offered to do a “clean sheet” design but the airlines wanted something sooner, and cheaper than an all new plane. Hindsight being what it is, they should have built a new plane.
I wonder if a 757 re-vamp would have avoided having to move the location of those big-fan engines. Tho, TBH if you have a FBW system that can take partial or full authority - don't you always run the risk of bad sensors resulting in bad data resulting in a very bad day?
As far as I know that that CEO wanted short cut method to beat Air bus growing share in that segment. He did not want a clean sheet design because it would take 8 years to come into existence.
Well, in fairness id rather have a safety belt retrofit than have to buy a whole new car...
How’d that workout for them?
Boeing, Boeing . Gone..
RIP ..
I'll be honest I still don't 100% trust it. I'd want to see 6 months of trouble free flights before I go near it
That's very reasonable compared to some people who won't even fly on a Boeing again. I can entirely understand your viewpoint.
hmm. its up to the Ticket Price XD
Agreed. I hope it'll be like the DC10. Started out as a very problematic aircraft with many incidents, but ended up being one of the most iconic aircraft ever and some still fly to this day. Let's hope the 737MAX is the same because besides the crashes, it's a very capable and economical aircraft and very nice to look at in my opinion.
The plane has already gone through so many checks and exams, it will be the safest plane out there. I would gladly be one of the first passengers to get on one
@Nic Lazzari I’d hardly call that a dictation, just a reasonable assumption.
I thought MCAS was also installed to make stick forces the same as the NG to keep type rating the same, making it fly the same
The primary reason you have Mcas on this max is because you have different engines (more powerful) and is mounted higher on the wings than your standard B737 is for ground clearance due to size diameter of these engines. mcas was designed to push the nose over to prevent a stall during climb or other stages of flight ,the problem is Boeing built this system with only one sensor to detect angle of attack relative to the airflow over the wing to cut cost and if this sensor fails the aircraft becomes uncontrollable but Boeing never told the pilots about how to correct this situation ,The bottom line is this aircraft should never have been built as this old design 55 plus years trying to work with modern equipment does not cut it
@@mikethompson3534 everything you said has bits and pieces of facts grouped together, but are partially correct and do not tell the whole story. You obviously do not know what you are talking about!
@@donanders2110 yes bits and pieces as I can’t get into everything as it would require massive amounts of typing and explaining, This was just the basics and yes I love Boeing products but not the Max I worked on the best aircraft like the B777,747, 787 767 and 757 for a major airline for well over about 39 years
Bottom line Boeing was in a tough competition with airbus but the new airbus was a totaly new redesigned acft Boeing lost to save money and got burned
10:45 - I'm pretty sure the Ethiopian pilots did actually flip the kill switches for the electronic stabiliser trim on the accident flight. However, they left the engines at takeoff power while the aircraft was in a dive, and so the aerodynamic forces on the tail made it impossible to manually crank the stabiliser trim.
Probably a mistake to let a pilot with only 300 hours fly with the airlines.
The report by professionals said so??
one of the people onboard ET302 was a doctor here in my city may she rest in peace
:(
Boeing will be LET OFF with a Small amount of Fine .....called "Peanuts" with the help of The GREAT CORPORATE ATTORNEYS!!! SHAME ON YOU BOEING GUYS !!!
10:38 When you realize that you know more about MCAS than most pilots do.
Did
If you use them too late it is too late and you won't be able to trim back.
737 should be flown with a crew of 3 people as this AC definitely needs a flight engineer on board to handle all the nasty little engineering oopsies.
Joe I'm a new subscriber to your channel.im a aviation enthusiast and have been following various channels ,links for a long time now. I must say that I'm very very impressed with the way you justify on the topic of discussion .From the time LION AIR max8 crashed I had anxiety .now that's sorted after a clear understanding of MCAS.
Thanks for your subtle explanation and do come up with more informative videos in the future .
Really appreciate your work!!
Me,- "how often do these planes crash?" Pilot, - "oh, just the once!"
Lesson: rushing things can have major consequences
The crazy thing to me. Is Boeing CEOs actually allowed for this to happen just to try to save a few dollars.
An Airplane is one of the few products in the world, Where you should never cut corners and rush to the sales floor. Your business runs on razor thin margins already, there should be a an absolute 0 tolerance in ever thinking about selling a plane that is not 1000% optimal.
When you make a good quality product, you won't ever have to worry about going broke. Because your reputation as being best of best will always keep you alive, and you will alway make sales without even trying as hard.
Like seriously was it worth it that you saved let's just say 2 billion dollars ( yes it's a ton of money to save) but you rushing out a bad product that is literally in control of millions of people lives yearly. Now all your planes are crashing due to selling a less than quality product then normal. Your basically committing company sucied!
@@JDBass36 there have been plenty of Airbus crashes. Your problem is the greed part, not the loss of life, because if you cared about that you wouldn’t just be stringing Boeing up.
@@superskullmaster Well I should had meant in general. And yes plane crashes are going to happen, it's impossible to ever predict and of course nothing is 100% fail proof.
But I'm attacking Boeing for knowingly cutting corners and knowing that it wasn't 100% safe to continue to build planes that way. I know it takes a ton of money, time, and development to make a brand new plane, . But don't sacrifice quality for quick profits.
Because a few string of preventable errors on your part. That will kill your companies brand easily. Why would I buy your plane or car or boat if I know your trying to cut corners. You will lose me as customer very quickly.
@@JDBass36 I work in aircraft manufacturing. Trust me, everyone cuts corners. The difference is, when you work on the scale of civil airliners, problems are more likely to make the news.
@@superskullmaster Oh I definitely don't doubt that companies cuts corners, I get it it's very expensive to run a business.
But if there's a few things in the world that should never even be considered to afford to cut corners. It would probably be Airplanes, and Cars.
The Airplane industry is already a tough business to be in, and it's probably one of the most sensitive businesses in the world to be in.
There is nothing faster that can kill your airplane business than having a bunch of your planes crashing due to poor manufacturing.
You are going to put fear in customer's in flying your brand of planes. No customers = No profit for Airlines = Airlines will refuse to buy your planes = Your business is DEAD....!
WOW, the last seconds of the video made me feel in a world I want to be in.
I just flew on a Max and I think I was nervous the entire flight. That said, it was the smoothest airplane I have ever been on.
Joe. MCAS was for type rating purposes not for anti stall. Due to the extra pitch the stick force gradient when approaching a stall was different from the NG and not getting heavier like it should.
This is the reason for MCAS not to counter act a stall, it came down to keeping costs to a minimum for airlines not requiring sim training.
Source Boeing website states MCAS is designed to 'enhance pitch stability so that it flies like other 737's."
So many UA-camrs and people in the media are misinformed about MCAS and assume it's an anti stall feature which it is not.
No issues in USA or EU. Those 2 crashes happened due to airlines saving money by opting for 1 aoa sensor instead of 2. Also poor maintainence. 1st plane, previous captain reported issue, but maintainance did nothing, crashed next flight. 2nd plane, again previous captain reported issues, maintainance changed the aoa sensor but did it wrongly resulting in not working and plane crashed next flight. Again USA and EU no issues at all as they all put safety first and opt for 2 aoa sensors. Plane cannot nose dive unless both aoa sensors agree. Hence no issues in USA and EU.
Awesome video Joe! Greatly in-depth as always, a true inspiration to any aspiring aviator!
You are so good at explaining how things work, why they're there and what they do! I wish you all of a sudden released 100 new videos so I could binge watch them! I can't wait for new video's, I also re-watch your video's all the time! Great channel, great job! Thank you!!
@4:50...just asking...why not just elongate the landing gear just like the Airbus instead of mounting it infront of the wings?
Very well said ! I can see this happening where I work! “Rushing projects is a potencial risk of failure “ almost warranted! Awesome video to show to any company!
You should also check James Asquith UA-cam video as he gave his honest review regarding the 737 max :) if it is really safe haha
The last part of the video was just pure gold.
Thanks Ammar! Means a lot!
@@flywithcaptainjoe The pleasure is mine.
Does the saying "when it's Boeing, I'm not going!" Still being in the minds of many passengers?
I thought NEO means NEW from Greek Neos.
Bring back the three holers!
Lmao 🤣 🤣 🤣 When it's Boeing I'm not going I got to use that one
LMAO what choice do passengers actually have though?
Passenger: "excuse me miss, I'm not getting on that plane."
Gate agent: "bye then."
@@michlo3393 Usually (international travel at least) you know the aircraft type when you book. Won't help if the airline swaps planes on you, but 99% of the time the type doesn't change.
NEO= new engine option. (CEO= current engine option.)
I have been worried to death all day after finding out about previous 737 MAX crashes (by accident) whilst trying to watch videos about my soon plane journey on this aircraft. I have a very big phobia of flying but a huge interest in aviation (weirdly enough). Your video has helped me so much, so thank you for uploading.
Hey Capt Joe... Just want to say another great vid, always makes my Thursday. I just finished my school work, and I’m greeted with ur vid. Literally the best feeling in the world. Keep it up buddy!! 😁😉😉
Your comment keeps me working hard on future videos ;)
@@flywithcaptainjoe joe mama
No way will i ever get on one of these, rather be proved wrong on the ground than right at 27000 ft.
Sure you won't.
Is a death jet. Built by murdering monkeys.
Eric Banner, bruh
Same thing my mother said, she ended up getting on the max 2 weeks ago for vacation and said the inside looks amazing but the actual flight was kind of scary because the wings were shaking more than usual. The only real problem should be under-trained pilots which doesn't really exist in the US.
@@ericbanner7630 I didn't know you could make an aircraft by murdering monkeys😆
Just gonna glaze over the fact that on one of these flights, the crew actually turned off the stab trim but turned it back on?
I thought I heard that too.
No, Joe didn't say that. The crew on a previous flight on one of the crashed aircraft turned off the stab trim but the fault was not fixed. It was a different crew on the crashed flight & they did not know about the previous issue.
@@TheRip72 Yes that is what Joe said but The Flight Channel has a video on the Ethiopian flight that suggests the stab trim was turned off and then later turned on again.
ua-cam.com/video/a5P8CkVckmA/v-deo.html
@@TheRip72 I didn’t say he mentioned it at all hence the “glazed over” part. But in one of the crashes(don’t care which one) they actually disabled the electric trim, got control back and turned it back on to finish themselves off.
B737 check airmen at my company met with the leadership team to give a debrief after meeting with Boeing and looking over the FDR info and CVR transcripts, and they were blunt in their assessment: "We don't want to speak ill of the dead, but any 737 type-rated pilot should have known to hit the trim cutouts and keep them off once the trim runaway occurred from the AOA disagree and MCAS." This was a training issue more than a design issue.
Simplifying flying for simpletons like myself. Thanks captain Joe
i still dont want to get on one of these planes, even if they are deemed safe. eve tough it probably would be perfectly fine, i think the sheer anxiety of it would be a bit too much for me
@@Bobspineable
yeah, like two years ago
@Richard Iredale
did you actually watch the video?
boeing did not publicise the mcas. they kept it secret.
@@ursodermatt8809 They did not publicise it but neither did they conceal it. The first does not imply the second. Details of the MCAS software were obtainable with very little effort. Boeing made some very serious errors but the incompetent performance of the pilots in response to the trim runaway cannot be overlooked. The trim cutout switches are virtually right under your hands; no need to go fumbling for circuit breakers. I fly 737s for a major domestic carrier so, yes, I do know what I'm talking about.
@@omniryx1
yes blame the pilots
@@ursodermatt8809 There is some blame on the pilots. Especially these days, pilots are less qualified in other parts of the world(where these crashes took place) and more reliant on automation. Pilots need more hours in the air, and let them fly more!! Less autopilot, and more training on runaway stab trim(which they’ll all get now, before getting into a MAX cockpit).
Hi Joe! Love from Italy 🇮🇹🇮🇹
Captain Joe's videos are the BEST!!
Thanks Captain Joe for letting me understand easily how the MCAS works, its problems, and the how the 737 MAX became problematic since its service. Kudos to your channel 👍
1: They would like us to think it stands for New Engine Option. 2: It actually is a government conspiracy and it really stands for Not Even Original. 3: Awesome video! I can't wait to start flying on these planes again.
Great video! What kills me is that this system was built to compensate for an intentional design flaw. They could have increased its ground clearance with longer struts, but instead they moved the engines forward and added a system to compensate. It's overengineered. If it was too difficult to increase the plane's height, they could have just come out with a "757X." The original 757 had excellent ground clearance, a good safety record, and is still extremely popular despite being discontinued for almost 20 years.
There are reasons for the low ground clearance, the whole point of the 737 from the very beginning was to have low ground clearance so that it could be used at smaller airports etc. If they had increased it there would have been no point in the whole project.
@@pwhnckexstflajizdryvombqug9042 Then should never copied Airbus and put bigger engines on the wings. If you want bigger engines ditch the 737, build a whole new plane. Simple
Im so glad you mentioned that last part captain joe. Thats why im your subscriber
Wait, didn't the 2nd crew get this RIGHT?
They turned the system off, but by then had no way out of the issues.
You said it right sir... Corporate greed which resulted in loss of so many innocent souls😢😢
Yes, including the greedy cell phone companies that made the phone your probably holding. Several hundred Chinese workers have killed them selves over the past 15 year while working for these phone manufacturing companies that Apple contracts work too. Gonna throw your blood phone away?
@@superskullmaster oh shut up you deflector
The greed starts with passengers demanding the cheapest ticket. Plenty of “greed” to go around. To suggest some sort of “corporate greed” is just plain silly. Any business tries to balance cost and outcome, and human beings make mistakes. But to suggest a collective will to intentionally allow this fiasco to occur is superficial thinking at best. It’s a series of human errors that collectively culminated in a tragedy.
@@superskullmaster Silly logic. The number of suicides is statistically normal as a percent of workers employed. And you have zero idea of the other factors in these workers lives.
@@cogitoergospud1 The greed of Boeing went way overboard. Their objective was to stay competitive against the A320-NEO at all costs (but not their cost). And in order to save time they deliberately disregarded all safety concerns by downplaying and hiding vital information from everyone from the FAA to pilots, client companies and passengers. They are not only greedy but also huge liars pretending a piece of software that can reject and override pilot actions on the flight commands is just a minor thing not worthy of mentioning.
One of the things that I love most about your channel is that you don't start off by saying 'what's happening, guys?' 😂A rare thing on UA-cam.
LETS START A VIDEO BY ASKING A QUESTION SO ONE SIDED THAT IT'S PRACTICALLY RHETORICAL.,.....
*facepalm*
Simply the best and most interesting aviation channel on UA-cam 👍
Means a lot! Thanks Richard!
@@flywithcaptainjoe ok joe who joe
Joe mama
Try mentour pilot too
@@lallumanohar4107 I agree that is a good channel too even when I prefer this channel
Dear Capt just a note about wheelies... You don't recover by pushing on the handlebars but just braking the rear wheel. Just in case you go out and try it yourself that's the safe way to do it
Oh so they could have stopped those accidents by using the thrust reversers! Got it. (I am kidding by the way).
Straight from insta, glad to be early
The right path you choose (Speaking in "Yoda" voice;) )
@@flywithcaptainjoe joe mama
I’d fly it specially if Captain Joe was my captain :))
Can’t agree more... 😀
He isnt a captain, he's first officer.
Boeing: pull up
Pilot: pulls up
Boeing: how about no
😂
*737 MAX not boeing
Its not a joking matter all those lives lost due to their airliner being skin flints and pool airliner engineers. No issues in USA or EU. Those 2 crashes happened due to airlines saving money by opting for 1 aoa sensor instead of 2. Also poor maintainence. 1st plane, previous captain reported issue, but maintainance did nothing, crashed next flight. 2nd plane, again previous captain reported issues, maintainance changed the aoa sensor but did it wrongly resulting in not working and plane crashed next flight. Again USA and EU no issues at all as they all put safety first and opt for 2 aoa sensors. Plane cannot nose dive unless both aoa sensors agree. Hence no issues in USA and EU.
neo means new engine option
max means mcas and xtermination
Hi Joe, based on what you and other polit and eningeers have expmailed, it seems like this plane will never be stable. The fact that you need a system to monitor stalling means the frame design itself is not correct. I have read the recertification documents, bascially they added one more sensor, better manual documentation and pilot training. But the major issue (the high licklyhood of stalling) was not discussed at all anyhwere. What are your thoughts?
Great video @captainjoe! I totally agree on the corporate greed explanation, we simply can’t have this in the aviation world. Though the Max is recertified I’d never fly it. It’s one thing to convince the aviation geeks but it’s another to convince the public. The Max will forever be a symbol of greed and disrespect for human lives.
Have a great day!
Thank you for a great discussion on the issues with the Boeing 737 Max. I also appreciate your decision not to review air crashes.
Thinking it would have been so much easier to increase the landing gear height but I know that would have involved major manufacturing changes and probably re certification. Still it seems like it would have been worth in in hindsight considering the ongoing damage to Boeings reputation and loss of revenues. Great video Joe, glad I found your channel.
ethiopian crew did turn off stab trim, but it was in a dive overspeeding and it was too hard to manually trim up so they truned stab trim back on
9:00 small correction, you don't need laminar flow to have attached flow. Lots of the flow over a wing can be turbulent without flow separation :)
They lie before (several times, even after the first accident happened), they may be lying now! if u flight one of them is up to you...
They kept insisting that it is a safe plane even after the second accident.
Boeing equals murder.
@Arias Delmar True. Because of the Max scandal cat is now out of the bag
Imagine all them grounded planes not flying for 20 months? No way I'm getting on board.
All grounded airplanes, 737 MAX or any other due to Covid, are regularly maintained to keep them airworthy. There is no reason to not fly them, just because they were grounded.
@@CerberusTenshi You're being sarcastic, right?
@@CerberusTenshi if some plane have had two breack down , I nihter will make a step inside !
@@rhynosouris710 no he is stupid
@@thejoker2214 this plane hasn't been fixed . It can still crash . MCAS system that crashed it is still in the plane . Anybody who thinks otherwise is a complete idiot
How often does an AOA sensor go haywire? Is it not a relatively not complex device? The pilots should have known that the MCAS system works of the AOA sensor( of which there should be more tha one, although the MCAS works of one, apparently. Maybe it could be switched to work off another), and if the plane was playing up, the pilots could have switched the MCAS dooda off and flown the aircraft manually. Apparently, some did not know of the existence of the MCAS system?