Preface: I worked at Boeing while the Max was being certified, entered service, and was being produced. I very likely made some of the console parts that the pilots were looking at as they fought the controls in their final moments (and those of the passengers). I know it's not my fault, but I still have guilt over that. So many lives lost....... Some additional points: A - There was not a significant restructure of management. At best they had the CEO (who is in charge of executing the will of the board) fall on a sword, then glide to safety on a $62,000,000 parachute. They then replaced him with the guy who lead the board.......who gave the CEO his orders. So they had a guy take blame, give him more money than me and all my ancestors and descendants have ever seen, or will see, put together, then replaced him with the guy that was actually in charge of the corporate environment that caused the problem. I don't know of a worse way to "restructure" after such a disaster they caused. B - The true fallout in the company was that while the big wigs were congratulating themselves and trying to save face and retain shareholder value, that the people on the floor suffered the consequences for the company. A large part of the workforce was laid off or demoted. I was one of the ones laid off. But I was so demoralized from being treated like crap, had been vocal about my displeasure with the direction of the company, that it ended up being good for me. I want to reiterate that my life was infinitely less devastated than those that were in the planes, their family, and friends. They are the victims. Merely pointing out that the upper management suffered no consequences other than their shares being devalued.
I know it’s easy for me to type this, but don’t blame yourself. So long as you install them correctly you did all you could. And yet I think I understand. I work in ground handling and aircraft cleaning myself and what Boeing did feels like a betrayal to me and everyone else in the aviation industry who puts so much effort into making sure that the aircraft are safe. We’re on the ground using bankmen to guide us in when reversing the water and lavatory trucks up to the planes, aircraft have right of way and drivers are taught to be super cautious when driving around the ramp and apron, hundreds of little rules to follow to keep everyone and everything safe. We’re given the authority to ground aircraft if we spot something that looks broken, or even if we just don’t like the look or something or have a gut feeling. It doesn’t last long of course, there are always engineers and pilots on standby onsite who will come within minutes to check the thing we reported. And they don’t mind if we’re wrong-they tell us that they appreciate that we’re watching and care enough to report it. How could Boeing go against all the efforts of thousands of workers around the world doing their best to keep planes safe? It boggles the mind.
@@mikoto7693 Blame McConnell-Douglas and the beancounters who took over that company and drove it into the ground. When Boeing merged with McD, the beancounters from McD ended up running Boeing. (How that happened is beyond me.) Previously Boeing had an engineer first culture, but those new execs put a stop to that. They moved the corporate HQ to Chicago, while leaving the manufacturing in Seattle. Now it was harder for engineers to share their concerns, and much easier for the execs to ignore them. From there they've driven Boeing into the ground, much like the 737-MAX when the sensor malfunctioned. They've also ruined Boeing's space program. Boeing's having serious trouble with Starliner. There's so many issues it may never fly regularly. It's even possible they give up to cut costs, with its one flight being its last. But the execs don't care, they'll jump off the rotting corpse with their multi-million dollar golden parachutes and end up at another company. They'll destroy it as well.
The fact that the engineers who alerted the directors in charge that it was unsafe only to find themselves fired because of the warnings.. Amazing.. Also that it turned out that the FAA essentially "trusted" Boings own tests and required no proof before the certification was granted is also unbelievable in this day and age... (If my memory of everything is accurate)
I will say that the designee program the FAA and Boeing have are not unique to Boeing nor is this a new program. Though everyone must agree that ignoring engineers when they raise concerns is just asking for trouble, after all engineers are paid to see trouble long before the trouble comes to pass. Comes back down to the conflict between the safety of a product being at odds with the purpose of a company - money. 😩
Similar to what happened to Allan McDonald who was director of the booster rocket program at Morton Thiokol. The night before the Challenger launch he refused to sign the launch authorization due to the cold weather. Nasa overrode the nogo and the rest is history. McDonald then exposed NASA’s attempt at a coverup for what happened. Thiokol demoted him. “That alarmed members of the presidential commission and members of Congress. Rep. Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, introduced a joint resolution in the House that threatened to forbid Thiokol from getting future NASA contracts given the company's punishment of McDonald and any other Thiokol engineers who spoke freely. The company relented, and McDonald was promoted to vice president and put in charge of the effort to redesign the booster rocket joints that failed during the Challenger launch.”
As an electrical engineer my jaw literally dropped (yes, I sat there with an open mouth) when I heard the words "one sensor"... What the hell were they thinking!? Were they even thinking at all? This isn't an accident caused by negligence. This is basically as close to deliberate as you can get...
Well, if they had more than one sensor, it would look as a critical system. In that case, FAA would look at it more carefully. One sensor thing was intentional.
What disgust me even more was that BOTH Boeing and FAA tried to put/push the blame on the 4 pilots involved in the crashes citing, "inferior training/pilots" is what caused the incidents.
even more amazing that Lion Air asked Boeing for extra training for the Max before the crash, and were told by Boeing to go away and no extra training was needed
@@jamesnicholls9969 Even more amazing is that Boeing and FAA said the LionAir's captain was branded to have "inadequate training" coz he's from India. He IS from India but he trained in the United States of f*cking America,! Captain Bhavye Suneja trained in California. People need to point that out everytime the Max crashes are put into conversation--Boeing and FAA needs to be branded as r*cists.
Made worse that they said that, MCAS was supposed to get rid of training and Boeing purposefully hid the existence of MCAS from pilots and the FAA too.
@@SJR_Media_Group I'm just gonna straight up call you out on your blatant lie. By both Boeing's own sales/ engineering/ technical & the Court Documents. MCAS was created for & introduced specifically for the 737 Max. There are criminal convictions for numerous Boeing Execs which disprove your other BS.
I'm an aerospace engineer (not at the "B" compay) and my boss's boss once told me to stop looking for issues that were wrong but would add to cost and schedule to correct. I did not stop looking.
That’s pretty much par for the course in the industry though isn’t it. Any delay, any engineering issue that Has to be fixed can cost the company tens of millions of dollars and could result in delays and the loss of a contract and the company itself going under
My dad is an electric engineer. From the stories he’s shared, it sounds like he’s the only one that checks for and catches those “expensive, inconvenient” issues. He’s nearing retirement age. I get very scared about our future sometimes.
@@marycyr1668 Every engineer in every industry who does any kind of tests has tons of stories like these. Every other day feels like "why didn't THEY see that problem?" for any arbitrary definition of "THEY" and "problem". But that is the purpose of our existence - we test engineers check on the mistakes of our colleagues - we provide that fresh pair of eyes that every engineer needs to not be blinded by what they've done for ages. I'm also involved in training the next generation of test engineers in my particular corner of that particular industry I work in. I'm not worried. Those youngsters may be inexperienced at first, but they do a great job and learn quickly. The real trouble only begins when management starts to fire us "trouble makers".
Boeing did a similar thing in the 90s with the 767 thrust reversers. Lauda Air 004 had a thrust reverser activate just after take off and crashed. Boeing blamed the pilots for the crash and didn't want to ground the 767 and said that such an incident would have been recoverable. Lauda Air's owner (3x formula 1 champion Niki Lauda) called Boeing's bluff and volunteered to try it out in one of their planes. Boeing management eventually admitted it was a design issue.
I remember that one from TFC. A suddent reverse thrust activation mid flight caused the aircraft took deep dive to the ground and disintegrated mid air.
@@MissTeenageNothing Because no one strong or confident enough wants to sue them criminally. Not even the U.S. government. People are cowards, and only fear men and not God.
This makes me think of when McDonnell Douglas introduced the DC-10. There was a significant problem with the cargo door that they had been warned of, but they didn't fix it until after the crash of Turkish Airlines flight 981. 346 people died due to their negligence.
McDonnell Douglas has the culture that prioritised profits and shareholders over engineering quality products. Sadly with the merger, that is the culture that prevailed for Boeing thus the same issues and values are instilled from then. It’s precisely why recent aircraft are straying far from their heritage. Even the Dreamliner is very little boring then you would expect, much is done not in house and heavily outsourced, including the design.
McDonnell Douglas was going out of business I think and Boeing bought it. Part of the deal was some management position were going to be given to McDD executives, culture in Boeing changed for the worst after that according to a documentary I saw
It is weird seeing the difference between their remediation teams and the production teams. I work directly with Boeing's remediation folks at a couple sites in my state (the spills were not their fault, but McDonnell Douglas's).
@@goldenhate6649 The funny part is that it was only after absorbing McDonnell Douglas, that Boeing's new culture of letting bean-counters run most of the show took shape... and largely ENDED the "Golden Age" they'd enjoyed through their rise in the industry. You could legitimately argue that 90% or more of Boeing's problems are STILL McDonnell Douglas's fault! ;o)
@gnarth d'arkanen That's the view from the floor too. Folks were nervous when Boeing was given the power to inspect themselves, we knew what would happen it was just a matter of when.
@@KynMites Well, the history is relatively public knowledge. Within a couple years of absorbing McDonnell Douglas, the decline was visible... and every move since has only made it worse. Nobody in the history of humankind has been successful at self-governance. I still don't get why it keeps coming up as some kind of "new great idea"... It always costs lives and frequently ends in catastrophe. A strong CEO would step up the game with a chart of Boeing's historic rise and the recent fall, and present it as such to the stockholders. S/he'd deliver a simple and powerful message, "Get the bean counters OUT and the engineers back IN or close up shop and we liquidate. You'll only regret the fall if this trend continues." BUT I just don't know about seeing a strong leadership showing up any time soon... I'm certainly not holding my breath for it. ;o)
EVERY aviation safety rule was written in blood and yet, every generation or so along comes someone who thinks that they need to be rewritten, usually for sharehoider benefit. That means fresh blood will be needed... RIP to the lost😪
Every safety rule in every industry is written in blood. The US fire code is written in charcoal. There is always a balance between government regulation being strong enough to protect the consumer, but not so strong as to destroy a company when faced with international competition from companies that have no such scrutiny. How quick we are to forget that Airbus products used to just fall out of the sky because of some of the overly complicated automation used on them that took the pilot out of the loop….. but now those same technologies are being implemented in the US not because Boeing itself wants to go down that road after literally decades of prodding them self, and not being Airbus…. But because the FAA regulations and the guidelines, and the requirements are making it almost impossible for their customers, to be able to economically operate an aircraft that isn’t overly automated.
We’re reminded of that, we who work in ground handling. “The safety rules are written in the blood of those who came before you; be careful about deciding whether your blood should write the next one, or refresh an old one.”
I flew on a 737 Max a few months ago. I was one of the few that stayed on the plane for the next leg. It gave me time to talk to a flight attendant. She told me that when the Max got returned to service, they asked the attendants if they felt comfortable working on the Max. She also told me that there are plenty of passengers that are still nervous about it. I'll admit i was a bit as well, but quickly got over it, since i remember watching a few investigation documentaries about it.
Great to see this getting the coverage it deserves. Deliberately choosing to only use 1 data source as the input to MCAS was the most criminal decision Boeing bosses made. It was worse than just "they thought it would be fine with a single sensor input". It was that they DELIBERATELY chose to make it a single sensor input to avoid it being labelled as a Safety Critical system that would have invited more scrutiny. This is despite some of the engineers objecting to this. The Boeing bosses who decided this NEED to be sent to jail. I actually first read about the MCAS situation on the 737 Max a few months before the first crash. Was in some random aviation blog, but even then people in the know where saying the whole situation was a disaster waiting to happen.
I'm sure to the Boeing exects who made the call for the production of it, that was one sensor too many. I'm really not sure what them resigning from the position does for any sense of justice. They lost a job while others lost their lives. . . . I don't see how they equate. They ought to work their asses off free of pay to correct their f*ck ups and then quit; not just give up and scamper away because that's the norm for all corporate scumbags. Regardless, I will go out of my way to get tickets that steers me clear of 737 Max's.
@@SEAZNDragon It can be said that the idea of MCAS came from fighters, but two systems can't be more different. In fighters, this system never overrides the pilot input, but if the pilot becomes unresponsive during a dangerous dive, it automatically pulls up to avoid a crash.
Nothing will change until the executives and board members responsible for these decisions start paying for these lawsuits directly out of their pockets, or better yet start going to jail, instead of being allowed to simply resign.
Nothing will change until America gets money out of politics. The paid politicians to allow them to do their own safety checks. This would never happen in Europe. America is corrupt.
@@diana3653 Not the one Martha Stewart went to either. Honestly white collar crimes should have life altering and crippling consequences. It is still only a misdemeanor in some states to steal up to 100k in wage theft from your employees if they are even prosecuted. That same employee could get felony charges for stealing a PS5 to make up for lost pay.
At least they didn't use a SAM missile to shoot down a Malaysian Airlines passenger flight like those russians. If they haven't been punished, Boeing executives definitely should not be.
@@imnotyourfriendbuddy1883 Thats crazy. Just because one criminal wasn't prosecuted, no one should be? That is just a terrible, especially since one cannot be put to justice (because no one knows, who shot that thing) while the other can
Surprised that you didn't mention that Boeing also decided to move their HQ from Chicago to Arlington, VA. To be closer to their "customers and stakeholders".
I wonder if this "We are Boeing, it doesn't apply to us" attitude is related the StarLiner debacle. How can a company who has been involved in space for so long forget the Apollo 1 tragedy ?
One of the nastiest aspects of this SNAFU was Boeing trying to blame the Lion air pilots! And if I'm not mistaken, the CEO's involved all walked away with multi million dollar bonuses.
Yes, I am a pilot, actually pilots did screw up, they were facing a recoverable failure, they never even consulted the relevant checklist, their reaction should have been similar to a runway trim, this is a common emergency that pilots train for in simulators
@@olasek7972 Blatantly false. As soon as they tried to manually trim, the MCAS kicked in again. The checklists and standard procedures only made the problem much worse.
@@CorwinPearson wrong, they first disconnected the trim tab switches and then they reengaged them again which is no-no and specifically forbidden by the procedure, if trim tab switches are in CUTOUT position MCAS won’t kick in
One thing that that was missed in the financials section is that Boeing also lost money, or atleast margins, on orders placed before the crashes that were also not built before the crashes. Boeing had to halt production on planes while the recertification was being done and meanwhile manufacturing costs were going up and Boeing couldn't up the prices on planes they had already taken money for.
Then there are the hidden costs from people who no longer trust Boeing. Airline companies have already lost money from myself and most of my family who refuse to fly Boeing or at least refuse the max 8. It’s uncounted but it’s real. They’d have lost money from airlines who turned elsewhere during the grounding. But it’s not enough. Boeing should lose EVERYTHING for this.
Boeing also tried to pay less in wrongful death lawsuits by claiming the people died so quickly they didn't feel pain (and claimed they wouldn't be afraid as the planes stayed in the nosedive).
The part about physical pain was probably true given the speed of impact, especially for the second crash. As to not being afraid, that was a bold face lie.
@@cindyeisenberg8367 because we know the speed of the impact and how long it takes information to travel from people's nerves to the brain and be processed
@bryanb3352 Cindy was referring to the nosedive before impact. Boeing was also arguing the passengers weren't afraid as they were plumiting to the ground. That part is BS. The feeling pain of impact was most likely accurate. The point is how disgusting Boeing is for even arguing such points to pay less in wrongful death damages.
The 737Max was the first airliner built by Boeing designed to override and ignore pilot inputs. No other planes built by Boeing were capable of taking yoke control away from the pilot!
How did these Boing executives not go to jail??! What’s even more disgusting is that this, sadly, won’t be the last time that greed will cause the death of customers..
Any capitalistic economy, particularly the United States of America, money buys the law thus those Boeing executives bribed themselves out of jail time. Also many of those Boeing execs that resigned got their company shares paid out, vacation paid out, company pension paid out, and even got a multi-million US dollar severance pay (not Dennis Mullenburg). Being an socioeconomic elite in the USA exempts you from criminal charges/convictions no matter how many people you kill.
How did they avoid it? The folks that died weren't covered by US jurisdictions at the time. Folks from outside of the US rarely get positive results from US courts, even in cut and dried matters. Heck, in some areas, the US has laws that allow US companies to ignore the rights of people from outside of the US - see the way US companies get away with murder in mining, water theft (water for carbonated beveriges and manufacturing), farming, health care, and doing bio-research in other countries, such as laborotories in Wuhan.
The most scary thing about this story, one that surpasses the cost-cuts made at the expense of safety, is the fact that Boeing gave the flight control system the power to take away the control of the plane from the pilots 👌🏻 In an age in which companies and governments push for technologies to have more power and control over humans - from self-driving cars, trains, and with this example, planes - this aspect of the story is even more important than the usual corporate greed 👍🏻
@@peteconrad2077 no.. he isnt. Youre simply apparently ignorant and emotionally invested.. you "have feelings". Mcas absolutely took over control, the pilots werent trained in it (which is the whole point of the thing.. saving the buyers money on training by avoiding a new certification)
@@moonboy5851 because they hadn’t been trained how. That’s the real issue. Yes they should have made the system reliant on redundant sensors, but there’s a simple way to overcome an incorrect MCAS input, provided you’ve v been trained to recognise it and then act correctly.
All of this started when they bought MD taking their management, & worsen when they moved their corporate offices out of Everett, & moving them to Chicago, to get away from the engineers.
The Boeing 737 max’s reputation is tarnished, many people still question its safety. Boeing loved and respected money over the lives of people and it is reaping what it sowed. May those who lost their lives (due Boeings greed and extreme love for money) rest in peace.
Not just the 737, but the entire Boeing company. They cut corners in the name of money and for it murdered 346 people and got away with it. Boeing are a dangerous company that have zero care for the people that are sentenced to travel on their death planes.
Great video as always, I worked with a lovely lady who lost half her family in the second 737 accident. Absolute tragedy and such a waste and easily avoided. Still feel her pain.
One key reason for the decision of using MCAS was that with it they could argue that the plane was similar enough to the previous versions that any airline company could simply buy these babies and not need to pay big money to have the pilot go through extra training. Just jump from an old model to this one.
In that respect I’m glad that extra training is required now and this fiasco cost Boeing big time. I just wish it had put them out of business or forced them to fracture into smaller, different companies.
The pilots got a 2 hour course on an iPad , that is ALL , Boeing forgot to mention the MCAS could override the pilots yoke , shameful stuff im Glad boeing is suffering now , 737 max orders cancelled everyhwhere
@@mikoto7693you say that until you realize that would have absolutely CRIPPLED us aircraft production and severely impacted the US Military and well put tens of thousands of Americans out of work
We could start punishing corporate greed with corporate punishment... After all if your greed kills several hundred innocent people, wouldn't execution be in order?
It is more down to the fact that they bribe politicians to allow them to do their own safety testing. The American political system allows for this sort of thing. It's corrupt beyond words. Why else would companies pay hundreds of millions to political campaigns. They know they will let them cut corners or get away with murder.
It wasn’t corporate greed. “MCAS was a safety enhancing system”. It was a flawed design that relied on a single sensor to detect a stall. Selling a unsafe aircraft is against corporate interest and opens them to victim and shareholder lawsuits.
@@nicholasespinoza9610 - They didn't tell buyers about extra training needed for the MCAS system as they were afraid it would put them off buying their aircraft instead of their rival Airbus A320 which didn't need any additional pilot training. So they put lives at risk to sell more aircraft. How is that not corporate greed? But as I said American political corruption that allowed then to pass their own aircraft is what is really to blame. It would neve happen in Europe. So it is both political corruption and corporate greed - or just America that is to blame. Money befor human lives. The same reason the USA is the only developed nation with universal healthcare. Americans lack empathy and only care about money.
One of the best summaries discussing this unfortunate event in business and aviation history that I've seen... Kudos to you for creating this production!
In a nutshell: when McDonnell Douglas went under and it was given a life-vest by being acquired by Boeing, something changed. Boeing was a company headed by engineers and with good reputation. McDonnell Douglas was not. When the two "merged" guys from the McDonnell Douglas corporate ladder started to infiltrate higher and higher echelons of Boeing's power structure. In essence, in years that followed, it was actually McDonnell Douglas that took over Boeing, not the other way around. The company culture changed to that of McDonnell Douglas. The 737 MAX is the outcome, but not only that. Starliner troubles is another example.
As a lifetime aviation geek who is around Simon's age, I have to say that this video really does a great job of communicating the issues around this well. As a suggestion, maybe do a video on the 787 issues? That shows that these issues with the company still exist.
@@hedlund From the very get-go, the money they got compared to thier competetors pissed me the ^&*$ off, and of corse, they took significantly longer too. Good catch!
I seem to remember hearing something about the 787's having production line issues??? I'm sure Mentour pilot did a video on it awhile back, but can't remember what it was.
Issues that still exist, and may almost be endemic to the industry - the story of the Max and it's crashes has some signifigant parrallels to the of the De Havilland Comet, with engineers warnings going unheeded.
for rich people NO WAY! for that to happen wed have to actually hold rich people accountable for normal crimes, like possession of cocaine, spending money at strip clubs with prostitutes, since thats what Boeing execs do on any given day of the week...if they can do that and not even be looked at twice then why would this be any different? If their minds been tainted by drugs, nothing is working properly up there and any choices made after using the drugs is an uneducated and bad choice. they should be in jail and the company should be taken apart and sold as scrap
The pilots of the JT610 were not powerless to override MCAS. Auto pilot off, Auto Trim off, if the runaway continues then both stab trims off and fix your attitude after. The crew in the first fatal incident fought the controls for 10 minutes (an eternity) during which the captain handed controls to the first officer while he looked through the book for a solution. They didn’t try to try to cut out trim. Possibly the most incredible fact surrounding this incident is that this plane the day prior had the same incident occur in which the crew correctly ran the procedure and recovered the aircraft after the MCAS tried to fly them into the ground. They did not disclose the incident properly and even continued to the destination! The next crew was not as fortunate. Boeing was negligent no doubt but too much emphasis is put on MCAS when it’s simply another system that uses Stab trim. I wish Simon covered in more detail how Boeing did not require new pilots to the max to train in the MCAS differences specifically because that would require a new type training that they were desperate to avoid since training costs would balloon for prospective customers. Unreliable airspeed + stick shaker + anti stall lights after takeoff is certainly something that would trigger a max power and lower attitude gut response. Certainly not an “easy” procedure, on the end of a long pairing it would be ugly.
i am a new engineer at boeing, what they did was terrible and while we have restructured and rebuilt and are creating stuff the right way now we still have to work to clean up the mess management left behind which is why there’s issues with the current lineup. the first plane that’ll come out/ is being developed completely after the restructuring is the 777-8F and as of right now it might be done even before the -9. any new variants announced should be free of the carrying problems from a few years ago. they are really making a point internally that they fucked up badly and that any behavior similar to what happened has to be reported and told not to do something we deem to be potentially unsafe regardless of who gave the order
Christian, all I’ll say is that I really hope what you typed is true. I’m inclined to believe that the ground level staff actually on the factory floor do everything they can to make the aircraft safe. As we do in ground handling at the airport. But, it’s what middle and upper management do and behave like that concerns me.
@@johnphillips519 Nah it's the same law, the diffrent is that they have a brigate of well-paid lawyers and dozens of lobbyist from their ill-gotten gain on their side, and we don't.
Talking about silent killers, Sabine Hossenfelder published a video today about a report that major leaders in the industry knew from the start of the production of PFAS chemicals, that these chemicals were toxic and resistant to breaking down. Yet they still went ahead with production because it was needed for, among other things, non-stick coatings, and even managed to get permits to dump significant fractions with their wastewater.
EPA has been captured for decades, just look at what they’ve been doing in East Palestine, Ohio, conducting a blatant cover-up after deciding that burning several rail cars full of toxic compounds; making the disaster exponentially worse than it otherwise would have been.
1:30 - Chapter 1 - A brief history of the 737 3:00 - Chapter 2 - The 737 MAX 7:55 - Chapter 3 - The crashes 10:35 - Chapter 4 - The investigation 14:45 - Chapter 5 - The consequences - Chapter 6 -
I was backpacking around the world when this happened and I remember the first crash and telling my friends and family that shouldn’t have happened on a brand new plane.. than plane 2 happens and I immediately panicked that I would find myself on a max, as well as making statements about it, than days later they grounded the planes and I told everyone.. see I wasn’t wrong. Glad to see you cover this topic as it was something I was deeply invested is, as I consistently fly from country to country. Eventually I’d fly on a max going to Mexico and back from Canada.. obviously I’m alive lol. But damned if I wasn’t hella observant that whole flight of anything weird.
If you were alive when the DC-10 crash in Chicago occured in 1979,;the investigation discovered that McDonnell Douglas did the same thing. Instead of making backup systems a standard feature, they made it optional and American Airlines decided not to have them installed in their jets. Had there been a back-up system, the pilots would have been warned that the plane was stalling, and a disaster could have been avoided. Then horror of all horrors; Boeing merged with this group of heartless people. This business " marriage" needs to be dissolved.🤔
The best technical explanation that I read of MCAS, not written by someone in the aviation industry, was titled "How the 737 Max Disaster looks to a Software Developer". That title alone should tell you everything you need to know about it
As an Aerospace and Aviation System Safety Engineer, every time I come upon this story, it makes the hair on my neck raise up. Like if you randomly see an ex who completely broke your heart when you're out in public. I’m fully convinced that there was a level 2 or 3 engineer writing the safety analysis who’s alarm bells starting ringing when they saw the residual risk scores come in from the reliability analysis and FTAs, and no doubt said something to their superior. I just can’t comprehend the mentality of 1) Saying this is acceptable risk (probably a residual score of 1C) to move forward from the Boeing management team, and 2) The FAA buying that risk while reviewing airworthiness criteria. Just shocking.
There should of been prison sentences for all the exec's involved at the very least, but if you have money power and influence in the good ol' USA you can buy anything and anyone.
This kind of corruption is present in pharmaceutical companies and the FDA as well. James Okeef has uncovered the cozy relationship of the companies and regulators.
The other reason for the low undercarriage was because the 737 was designed to service municipal airports in America, most of which didn't have air bridges, which is why early 737's had in built stairs. Having the aircraft low to the ground meant it could have in-built stairs that could fit underneath the floor.
This single Angle of Attack sensor was a major system architectural error. I am amazed that it didn’t come up with the flight testing. My brother is an avionics engineer. He said that his firm wouldn’t have approved this on a simple diagram on a napkin.
What kind of commercial aeroplane manufacturer produces an aircraft that is aerodynamically unstable and corrects it using software? This kind of thing is only done with unstable designs such as fighter aircraft where the design is deliberate and the risks are unacceptable. Boeing even did their own risk assessment on the likelihood of an aircraft loss due to MCAS and knew the heightened risk. It is truly astonishing.
@@PAC-fp9hy I don't think it is fair to characterize the Max as being aerodynamically unstable. The location of the LEAP engine, up and forward, produce torque with added thrust inducing pitch up and therefore acts differently than the 737 NG. The goal was minimal training for pilots to migrate from NG to Max and MCAS was intended to compensate for the propensity to pitch up, and a potential for stall, with added thrust.
@@albrechtjohnj the issue was downplaying it to prevent training being required and the lack of redundancy. Major systems with that much control usually have multiple back ups but here it wasn’t done. So much was done wrong and they obviously knew it. I believe the aircraft only has a pitch up issue during a certain phase of flight anyway
@@Horizon301. The pitch up happens when more thrust is applied to the underslung, and now more forward and raised, engines, and the torque that is applied as a consequence. There is a Wikipedia article that explains MCAS, which I recommend because the comments forum is too limiting for a thorough explanation. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuvering_Characteristics_Augmentation_System
It amazes me that there aren’t three AOA sensors. That’s safest. If one sensor disagrees, then the computer relies on the data from the other two. Instead now when the two disagree, they have to hand it back to the human pilots to solve. And that’s usually fine because airline pilots are usually very well trained. But they’re also human beings and under certain phases of flight they undergo heavy workload-particularly during takeoff and landing. Adding another factor for them to work around during such a time is less than ideal. If there’s no reliable airspeed indicator, as I understand it, the work around takes calculation and communication between pilots. But I’m not a pilot myself so take what I say with a grain of salt. You should be able to see why it’s not ideal to have two sensors handing back an airspeed issue when three would have sorted out the problem amongst itself in the computer.
Thanks for the great video, your research is amazing! I had this topic in my essay two weeks ago as a part of how corruption and negligence can cause catastrophes.
Flown Max a few times now, the operators don't tell you it's a max. It's no longer written on the fuse, or mentioned in the passenger info cards in front of your seat.
I'm an Avonic technician and I watch a lot of air disaster videos. The biggest fear we have is being called in on an investigation because something we worked on might have been the failure.
I think I understand. I work on the ground crews and my biggest fears is hearing an aircraft I worked on has gone down. Though the chances are slim I’d have had anything to do with what caused it to crash, I’d still dread it. Unless of course the nose gear collapsed and I’d been the one connecting and disconnecting the tug. Then I’d be really scared. But then again it’s that “what if” fear that makes me so careful about it. Sometimes I give the gear a little affectionate pat and wish the aircraft to return to me (often later in the day or next day) safely.
@@alieffauzanrizky7202 simulator operators are highly experienced, licensed pilots. My father-in-law was a senior pilot with Southwest before the MCAS debacle. He was actually the lead trainer for the 737 MAX when all that went down. He refused to keep training pilots on a broken bird, and elected for retirement. He lasted all of a year before going batty and taking the job he has now.
@@SkunkApe407 I'm surprised he lasted that long before retiring. PBS did a doc on the 737 Max and interviewed a test pilot who investigated the crashes. The man was in tears realizing the pilots did what they were supposed to do but still died because of the MCAS.
Even of the incidents and accidents that happen on airplanes a great number of them have a lot more survivors than you would expect. The story of the 737 max makes me so angry, a lot of bad ethics from the engineering all the way down to the digital aspects. I'm sure someone else can more clearly impart why the sensor number is such a big deal among other things, but it isn't that there is only 1 sensor (there is more than one), the problem was that there wasn't enough redundancy to prevent the MCAS from kicking in and continuing to kick in if only 1 sensor failed, which is not an acceptable threshold for the industry, and is apparently insane. Boeing and the FAA are the biggest to blame for this, but I think the carriers being so obsessed with keeping their gates/hangers (thus needing an updated plane that was still 737 sized), and reducing the cost of training pushed Boeing to make these planes.
High bypass turbofan engines are pretty much the lifeblood of efficiency and specific fuel economy of commercial airliners. Roughly 75-80% or more of the thrust is produced by the bypass section. The core section where the fuel and combustion occurs is basically a shaft that turns the bypass section. That’s how what seems like a small amount of fuel can go such extreme distances.
For those curious, boeings stock price still hasn't recovered. As of June 10th, 2023, their stock price is around $200 a share. Down from a height of $314 a share. Moving away from that, I'll never forget hearing the black box recording right as the pilots realized they couldn't correct the planes nose dive despite them using all their strength. It still gives me serious and I mean SERIOUS chills just thinking about it. They were panicking, the computer was telling them to "Pull up. Pull up. Pull up." They replied, "We're trying but you won't let us!!" Right before it crashes. It's the stuff of nightmares listening to that black box recording. To this very day whenever i fly i make sure its not on a Max. I dont trust max no matter how many times regulators and corporations like Boeing says its now safe to fly in. As someone thats wary of machines and AI (even though AI wasnt involved) any plane that is designed to take ALL control away from the pilots, im not flying on. I dont trust it.
The FAA got a new administrator, Steve Dickson, who was a former airline pilot. He personally took the 737 MAX up and put it through its paces, trying to get it to misbehave. He didn't sign off on the recertification until he was satisfied. "Shortly after I took the helm at the FAA, I made a promise that I would fly the 737 MAX and that I wouldn’t sign off on its return to service until I was comfortable putting my family on it." That is how it's supposed to be.
Fun fact.. here are only a handfull of airline crashes every year nowdays. This year it have been only one, a ATR72 crashed in Nepal on one of the most remote runways.
From personal experience, a larger engine in a car actually gets better fuel economy, because smaller engines struggle to get cars up to speed which uses more fuel.
Remember. It doesnt matter if a plane kills a bunch of people. It only matters if alot of planes kill enough people for it not to be a viable revenue stream.
Great straight to the point explanation of the cost-cutting measures Boeing implemented to extend the lifespan of the 737 by introducing the mcas system on it's new 737 max. But there's one thing bothering me you took a thumbnail screenshot from the Turkish Airlines flight 1951 that crashed approaching Schiphol Airport because of a malfunctioning autothrottle system the pilots didn't noticed, which was actually a 737 800. I know this is just minor nagging but I just had to say it.
Excellent video & I saw it on the day Boeing indefinitely delayed the Starliner. A lesson learned for catching the problem before people die, or a lesson forgot for allowing it to get so far in the development timeline with critical safety issues?
It seems that Boeing have forgotten all of the lessons it learned over the past decades. At the same time they were designing and building the Max, they were developing the Starliner. That also has many issues that are basic in nature.
Corrections. a. Boeing did see the problem of single-source sensors, but to make it dual or triple would have involved certification, pilots training, and compensation to airlines (they had promised no training). So they scrapped the duplex. b. The problem with the Max engine was not the CofG, it was the CofL (center of lift). In high angle of attack conditions the engine cowl acted as a large wing, well forward on the airframe, that tried to tip the nose of the aircraft up (and over). See the video “Death Plane” on the Russel Scott channel. R.
The issue with a single sensor was not just because "Boeing thought it was ok" but because critical systems require at least two sensors and a whole lot of certification from the FAA plus the inclusion in pilot training manuals which would: - Make the aircraft take longer to be certified, with orders and promises already they needed that as soon as possible. - Make the MCAS a critical "visible" system which would require pilot training, something Boeing has promised not to be needed when companies started ordering the Max. There are interviews with pilots already showing that their initial manuals never mentioned MCAS not even once. So, basically, the decision to keep such a critical system under the wraps was corporate greed, I'm still baffled on how easy Boeing and the FAA got away with this.
The part THAT seems to get overlooked always is that Boing sold an optional back-up for it but cost in the million so most airlines for the most part oped out
That’s why it was an option…. Because doing it “right” added millions to the cost of the aircraft in a market that generally wouldn’t have born that cost.
Why make it an expensive optional thing at all? Why not just integrate it and sell it as one single model? I get the airlines chose the cheaper version without it, but ultimately Boeing is the one who made it optional. It should have just come with the safety system as standard.
It also proves that Boeing were knowingly selling a plane with no backup of a critical sensor and trying to pass the responsibility of a failure to their customers. That should have been enough to destroy them in court. But no. Big American companies are protected by their bought politicians.
@@Matt-yg8ubnah that's just the price tag Boeing set, it's been proven that was a marketing ploy, an airline would rather put in a purchase for an entire new aircraft rather than pay a few dozen grand to put in new parts, so Boeing upcharged the shit out of the parts to basically force airlines to buy new planes Boeing could have easily upgraded old airframes (and that's been proven) but they wanted to prioritize money over customer safety
@@mikoto7693because Boeing and other aerospace manufacturers do this to force airlines to buy whole new airframes, they upcharge the shit out of new parts basically forcing an airline to buy a new airframe
IIRC when the first crash happened to Indonesia's Lion air, Boeing representative blamed the crash on the pilot and said Indonesian pilots are incompetent. But then the second crash happened in Africa and Boeing went silent.
THAT is absolutely TRUE! The list is long and growing: big tech companies, telecom companies, vehicle companies, aircraft companies, railroads, banks, insurance companies, Florida condo builders, and on and on and ON.
I flew Lion Air’s new Max from Jakarta to Belitung on the same schedule 1 week before the crash. The hair at back of my neck stands as it could be anyone on that fatal flight. Following the 2nd crash in Africa really makes all noticed how Boeing is pushing and rushing out their planes fast. Then we also learned of how Boeing used a dummy aircraft as they were behind schedule in launching the first generation of Dreamliners 787. Following incident of batteries problem and grounding of ANA fleet of 787s. God bless all if that is Boeing company’s culture & moral in the industry. Thus, I always tried to avoid flying in Boeing’s aircrafts.
The 787 issue was minor and was resolved many years ago. It was using brand new technologies, which very rarely work flawlessly the first time. I don’t believe there is any issue with the 787
this cost be personally a lot of money. I work for Collins Aerospace, and Boeing is our biggest customer, in fact we wrote the MCAS software I was working insane overtime working on the GLU (global landing unit) then almost overnight no OT then transfered to military systems.
I was working for a sister company of Boeing where we made the fuselage and other partsof the MAX. We were all shocked when we heard about the crashes. Then the grounding happened and 8 months later thousands of people (myself included) were shown the door. Hundreds die, thousands lose their jobs and the people responsible simply walk away. And people wonder why I'm cynical.
The rot at Boeing set in after their merger with MD, which resulted in many ex-MD executives being appointed to senior positions in Boeing. The MD mindset was more profit focused than those of the previous Boeing management. The 737Max is not the only issue at Boeing. You only need to look at the fiascos surrounding their 777X and the 787 to find more troubling issues. And then there is the shambolic story around the Boeing Starliner space craft as well. Apart from their financial woes, Boeing is definitely not the company it used to be
My father worked for Boeing for nearly 30 years, and I literally grew up around Boeing back when it was focused on engineering quality. Now it's more like enginERRing. Dad would be rolling in his grave if he had any idea about the depth to which Boeing has sunk.
Simon, you should watch the SBS Dateline report (in 2011) on the INSANE production shortcuts on the earlier Boeing 737-NG. Clear FAA violations to the Type Certificate, that was never addressed to this very day. SBS Dateline is an Australian reporting channel much like USA's PBS. That video is on UA-cam.
As a commercial airline pilot this was a phenomenal video. Boeing was an amazing company back in the day but profits over safety have made it go downhill unfortunately.
There was also a problem with 737s in the 90s…2 flights crashed, one of them Flight 427 that crashed near Pittsburgh. The father of one of my sisters friends was on that flight😔it was like a solenoid problem that would stick
@@erich930 Boeing knew the valve could malfunction if the temperature difference between the hydraulic fluid and the valve would be very high - but they didn't expect the temperature difference to be that big. Additionally they knew the speed they had in their flight manual with flaps would be too low to overcome the rudder with the ailerons, but then they blamed the pilots for not bring able to recover the aircraft. The whole story sounds very similar to the Max disaster where they only acted after pressure from authorities
The truly scary thing is that the medical industry is far worse when it comes to this sort of thing. The only reason why we don’t get similar situation’s of cost cutting is because the medical industry is also able to place 500% mark ups on basic equipment. This was an attempt by Boeing to be price competitive in a heavily regulated industry without much wiggle room….. the medical industry by contrast can charge you $50 for a $5 dollar bag of saline and $100 for a tongue depressor. They can afford to use slightly better pine and genuine salt water because either adds only Pennies per unit… but tripling up on a sensor and triggering a higher level engineering reviews with greater scrutiny can add millions to each aircraft. It’s Definitely Boeing’s fault…. But also the result of bad policies from the FAA.
Boeing moved from an internal advancement senior/executive succession plan to one of bringing in outside “business school graduate” execs with no background in either aviation or engineering, they were guided by bottom liner/stock maximize/quarterly results. It’s also why the company had issues (ongoing) with the 787 program and further evolution of the 777. Another bad move was to take HQ away from the shop floor from Seattle to Chicago…and most recently to the DC area (to be closer to lobbyists and regulators and even further from “home”! I fly a lot and have flown on the MAX, though I don’t seek it out. But I’m also aware of how complex modern planes (less so the air frame, more so engines and avionics) are and how many things could go wrong but fortunately don’t (99.99999999999%> of the time).
Pilot training is one of the most expensive things airlines have to pay for. It adds up very quickly and Boeing thought these airlines wouldn’t buy their planes over airbus if they had to take on more training.
don't forget "additional pilot training" is very expensive and avoiding this is very attractive for airlines and allows boeing to sell more aircraft. which is one reason they downplayed how big of a change the mcas is so that pilots do not need alot of retraining.
Preface:
I worked at Boeing while the Max was being certified, entered service, and was being produced. I very likely made some of the console parts that the pilots were looking at as they fought the controls in their final moments (and those of the passengers). I know it's not my fault, but I still have guilt over that. So many lives lost.......
Some additional points:
A - There was not a significant restructure of management. At best they had the CEO (who is in charge of executing the will of the board) fall on a sword, then glide to safety on a $62,000,000 parachute. They then replaced him with the guy who lead the board.......who gave the CEO his orders. So they had a guy take blame, give him more money than me and all my ancestors and descendants have ever seen, or will see, put together, then replaced him with the guy that was actually in charge of the corporate environment that caused the problem. I don't know of a worse way to "restructure" after such a disaster they caused.
B - The true fallout in the company was that while the big wigs were congratulating themselves and trying to save face and retain shareholder value, that the people on the floor suffered the consequences for the company. A large part of the workforce was laid off or demoted. I was one of the ones laid off. But I was so demoralized from being treated like crap, had been vocal about my displeasure with the direction of the company, that it ended up being good for me. I want to reiterate that my life was infinitely less devastated than those that were in the planes, their family, and friends. They are the victims. Merely pointing out that the upper management suffered no consequences other than their shares being devalued.
This whole situation is one of the fundamental flaws with capitalism where the bottom line means more than people's lives.
@@jonathonspears7736 it’s not unique to capitalism.
I know it’s easy for me to type this, but don’t blame yourself. So long as you install them correctly you did all you could. And yet I think I understand.
I work in ground handling and aircraft cleaning myself and what Boeing did feels like a betrayal to me and everyone else in the aviation industry who puts so much effort into making sure that the aircraft are safe. We’re on the ground using bankmen to guide us in when reversing the water and lavatory trucks up to the planes, aircraft have right of way and drivers are taught to be super cautious when driving around the ramp and apron, hundreds of little rules to follow to keep everyone and everything safe.
We’re given the authority to ground aircraft if we spot something that looks broken, or even if we just don’t like the look or something or have a gut feeling. It doesn’t last long of course, there are always engineers and pilots on standby onsite who will come within minutes to check the thing we reported. And they don’t mind if we’re wrong-they tell us that they appreciate that we’re watching and care enough to report it.
How could Boeing go against all the efforts of thousands of workers around the world doing their best to keep planes safe? It boggles the mind.
@@mikoto7693 Blame McConnell-Douglas and the beancounters who took over that company and drove it into the ground. When Boeing merged with McD, the beancounters from McD ended up running Boeing. (How that happened is beyond me.) Previously Boeing had an engineer first culture, but those new execs put a stop to that. They moved the corporate HQ to Chicago, while leaving the manufacturing in Seattle.
Now it was harder for engineers to share their concerns, and much easier for the execs to ignore them. From there they've driven Boeing into the ground, much like the 737-MAX when the sensor malfunctioned. They've also ruined Boeing's space program. Boeing's having serious trouble with Starliner. There's so many issues it may never fly regularly. It's even possible they give up to cut costs, with its one flight being its last.
But the execs don't care, they'll jump off the rotting corpse with their multi-million dollar golden parachutes and end up at another company. They'll destroy it as well.
@@jonathonspears7736 Please move to another nation that is suitably socialist.
The fact that the engineers who alerted the directors in charge that it was unsafe only to find themselves fired because of the warnings.. Amazing.. Also that it turned out that the FAA essentially "trusted" Boings own tests and required no proof before the certification was granted is also unbelievable in this day and age... (If my memory of everything is accurate)
I will say that the designee program the FAA and Boeing have are not unique to Boeing nor is this a new program.
Though everyone must agree that ignoring engineers when they raise concerns is just asking for trouble, after all engineers are paid to see trouble long before the trouble comes to pass. Comes back down to the conflict between the safety of a product being at odds with the purpose of a company - money. 😩
IDK, with how lazy the US federal government is, it seems totally expected.
Similar to what happened to Allan McDonald who was director of the booster rocket program at Morton Thiokol. The night before the Challenger launch he refused to sign the launch authorization due to the cold weather. Nasa overrode the nogo and the rest is history. McDonald then exposed NASA’s attempt at a coverup for what happened. Thiokol demoted him.
“That alarmed members of the presidential commission and members of Congress. Rep. Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, introduced a joint resolution in the House that threatened to forbid Thiokol from getting future NASA contracts given the company's punishment of McDonald and any other Thiokol engineers who spoke freely.
The company relented, and McDonald was promoted to vice president and put in charge of the effort to redesign the booster rocket joints that failed during the Challenger launch.”
@@georgejones3526 exactly what I came to comment about
This means nothing. Engineers alert all the time and are usually wrong, you just never here about it.
As an electrical engineer my jaw literally dropped (yes, I sat there with an open mouth) when I heard the words "one sensor"... What the hell were they thinking!? Were they even thinking at all? This isn't an accident caused by negligence. This is basically as close to deliberate as you can get...
I still can’t believe that 737s fly with only two AOA sensors instead of three like Airbus.
Not a good design, should be two sensors but save more instead to save lives .....!!!!
Well, if they had more than one sensor, it would look as a critical system. In that case, FAA would look at it more carefully.
One sensor thing was intentional.
As an ex systems analyst I came here to make the exact same comment :O
and im the ceo of Boeing. gee wizz all these so called experts who arent really at ll
At Boeing, MCAS stands for Money Comes Above Safety.
I read it as may crash any second
Great Defination
What disgust me even more was that BOTH Boeing and FAA tried to put/push the blame on the 4 pilots involved in the crashes citing, "inferior training/pilots" is what caused the incidents.
even more amazing that Lion Air asked Boeing for extra training for the Max before the crash, and were told by Boeing to go away and no extra training was needed
@@jamesnicholls9969 Even more amazing is that Boeing and FAA said the LionAir's captain was branded to have "inadequate training" coz he's from India. He IS from India but he trained in the United States of f*cking America,! Captain Bhavye Suneja trained in California.
People need to point that out everytime the Max crashes are put into conversation--Boeing and FAA needs to be branded as r*cists.
Inferior airplanes (by Boeing)
Made worse that they said that, MCAS was supposed to get rid of training and Boeing purposefully hid the existence of MCAS from pilots and the FAA too.
@@SJR_Media_Group I'm just gonna straight up call you out on your blatant lie. By both Boeing's own sales/ engineering/ technical & the Court Documents. MCAS was created for & introduced specifically for the 737 Max.
There are criminal convictions for numerous Boeing Execs which disprove your other BS.
I'm an aerospace engineer (not at the "B" compay) and my boss's boss once told me to stop looking for issues that were wrong but would add to cost and schedule to correct. I did not stop looking.
That’s pretty much par for the course in the industry though isn’t it. Any delay, any engineering issue that Has to be fixed can cost the company tens of millions of dollars and could result in delays and the loss of a contract and the company itself going under
My dad is an electric engineer. From the stories he’s shared, it sounds like he’s the only one that checks for and catches those “expensive, inconvenient” issues. He’s nearing retirement age. I get very scared about our future sometimes.
@@marycyr1668hearing that makes me terrified to ever step on a plane again.
@@marycyr1668 Every engineer in every industry who does any kind of tests has tons of stories like these. Every other day feels like "why didn't THEY see that problem?" for any arbitrary definition of "THEY" and "problem". But that is the purpose of our existence - we test engineers check on the mistakes of our colleagues - we provide that fresh pair of eyes that every engineer needs to not be blinded by what they've done for ages.
I'm also involved in training the next generation of test engineers in my particular corner of that particular industry I work in. I'm not worried. Those youngsters may be inexperienced at first, but they do a great job and learn quickly. The real trouble only begins when management starts to fire us "trouble makers".
Boeing did a similar thing in the 90s with the 767 thrust reversers. Lauda Air 004 had a thrust reverser activate just after take off and crashed. Boeing blamed the pilots for the crash and didn't want to ground the 767 and said that such an incident would have been recoverable. Lauda Air's owner (3x formula 1 champion Niki Lauda) called Boeing's bluff and volunteered to try it out in one of their planes. Boeing management eventually admitted it was a design issue.
What a legend for calling them out.
I remember that one from TFC. A suddent reverse thrust activation mid flight caused the aircraft took deep dive to the ground and disintegrated mid air.
Lauda was a legendary human being
@johnson-ez4td How when people die because of design issues do they escape criminal charges?
@@MissTeenageNothing Because no one strong or confident enough wants to sue them criminally. Not even the U.S. government. People are cowards, and only fear men and not God.
This makes me think of when McDonnell Douglas introduced the DC-10. There was a significant problem with the cargo door that they had been warned of, but they didn't fix it until after the crash of Turkish Airlines flight 981. 346 people died due to their negligence.
negligence is not what Boeings mentality is
McDonnell Douglas has the culture that prioritised profits and shareholders over engineering quality products. Sadly with the merger, that is the culture that prevailed for Boeing thus the same issues and values are instilled from then. It’s precisely why recent aircraft are straying far from their heritage. Even the Dreamliner is very little boring then you would expect, much is done not in house and heavily outsourced, including the design.
@@nickolliver3021 ... don't know man. 346 people say otherwise.
@@chudchadanstud they can't, 346 people don't exist anymore
McDonnell Douglas was going out of business I think and Boeing bought it. Part of the deal was some management position were going to be given to McDD executives, culture in Boeing changed for the worst after that according to a documentary I saw
I don't understand how the CEOs did not go to jail for murder.
When you have that level of money it's pretty easy to buy your way out. Even if you are at fault. Sadly
Money
Its corporate America. The companies are what the government want to protect. Humans are just a byproduct of capitalism
Same reason noone goes to jail if your traction control fritzes out and you spin on ice...
Thank the development of limited liability corporations in the 20th century for that.
Jesus, that was a factually brutal introduction. I wanted to quit Boeing and I don't even work there.
It is weird seeing the difference between their remediation teams and the production teams. I work directly with Boeing's remediation folks at a couple sites in my state (the spills were not their fault, but McDonnell Douglas's).
@@goldenhate6649 The funny part is that it was only after absorbing McDonnell Douglas, that Boeing's new culture of letting bean-counters run most of the show took shape... and largely ENDED the "Golden Age" they'd enjoyed through their rise in the industry. You could legitimately argue that 90% or more of Boeing's problems are STILL McDonnell Douglas's fault! ;o)
@gnarth d'arkanen
That's the view from the floor too. Folks were nervous when Boeing was given the power to inspect themselves, we knew what would happen it was just a matter of when.
@@KynMites Well, the history is relatively public knowledge. Within a couple years of absorbing McDonnell Douglas, the decline was visible... and every move since has only made it worse.
Nobody in the history of humankind has been successful at self-governance. I still don't get why it keeps coming up as some kind of "new great idea"... It always costs lives and frequently ends in catastrophe.
A strong CEO would step up the game with a chart of Boeing's historic rise and the recent fall, and present it as such to the stockholders. S/he'd deliver a simple and powerful message, "Get the bean counters OUT and the engineers back IN or close up shop and we liquidate. You'll only regret the fall if this trend continues."
BUT I just don't know about seeing a strong leadership showing up any time soon... I'm certainly not holding my breath for it. ;o)
just did 2 months ago
EVERY aviation safety rule was written in blood and yet, every generation or so along comes someone who thinks that they need to be rewritten, usually for sharehoider benefit.
That means fresh blood will be needed...
RIP to the lost😪
Every safety rule in every industry is written in blood. The US fire code is written in charcoal.
There is always a balance between government regulation being strong enough to protect the consumer, but not so strong as to destroy a company when faced with international competition from companies that have no such scrutiny.
How quick we are to forget that Airbus products used to just fall out of the sky because of some of the overly complicated automation used on them that took the pilot out of the loop….. but now those same technologies are being implemented in the US not because Boeing itself wants to go down that road after literally decades of prodding them self, and not being Airbus…. But because the FAA regulations and the guidelines, and the requirements are making it almost impossible for their customers, to be able to economically operate an aircraft that isn’t overly automated.
We’re reminded of that, we who work in ground handling. “The safety rules are written in the blood of those who came before you; be careful about deciding whether your blood should write the next one, or refresh an old one.”
Same with OSHA regulations.
I flew on a 737 Max a few months ago. I was one of the few that stayed on the plane for the next leg. It gave me time to talk to a flight attendant. She told me that when the Max got returned to service, they asked the attendants if they felt comfortable working on the Max. She also told me that there are plenty of passengers that are still nervous about it. I'll admit i was a bit as well, but quickly got over it, since i remember watching a few investigation documentaries about it.
The MAX is the Death Chamber 10 of this generation.
No matter how safe it is in the future, people will always look at it with contempt
Bet you feel stupid now that they had a door blow out.
Great to see this getting the coverage it deserves.
Deliberately choosing to only use 1 data source as the input to MCAS was the most criminal decision Boeing bosses made. It was worse than just "they thought it would be fine with a single sensor input". It was that they DELIBERATELY chose to make it a single sensor input to avoid it being labelled as a Safety Critical system that would have invited more scrutiny. This is despite some of the engineers objecting to this. The Boeing bosses who decided this NEED to be sent to jail.
I actually first read about the MCAS situation on the 737 Max a few months before the first crash. Was in some random aviation blog, but even then people in the know where saying the whole situation was a disaster waiting to happen.
I'm sure to the Boeing exects who made the call for the production of it, that was one sensor too many. I'm really not sure what them resigning from the position does for any sense of justice. They lost a job while others lost their lives. . . . I don't see how they equate. They ought to work their asses off free of pay to correct their f*ck ups and then quit; not just give up and scamper away because that's the norm for all corporate scumbags. Regardless, I will go out of my way to get tickets that steers me clear of 737 Max's.
Because Boeing didn't make that decision, the airlines that ordered them did. All FAA and EASA governed airlines had to have the dual sensor input.
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the MCAS also originally designed for fighter jets as well? A plane that flies very differently from an airliner.
@@dankinusmc1 do you work for boeing? Because you're simping wayy to hard in multiple comment theads under this video.
@@SEAZNDragon It can be said that the idea of MCAS came from fighters, but two systems can't be more different. In fighters, this system never overrides the pilot input, but if the pilot becomes unresponsive during a dangerous dive, it automatically pulls up to avoid a crash.
Nothing will change until the executives and board members responsible for these decisions start paying for these lawsuits directly out of their pockets, or better yet start going to jail, instead of being allowed to simply resign.
Nothing will change until America gets money out of politics. The paid politicians to allow them to do their own safety checks. This would never happen in Europe. America is corrupt.
Exactly. Take everything they have and then toss them into prison for willful disregard for the lives of the passengers.
@@diana3653 Not the one Martha Stewart went to either. Honestly white collar crimes should have life altering and crippling consequences. It is still only a misdemeanor in some states to steal up to 100k in wage theft from your employees if they are even prosecuted. That same employee could get felony charges for stealing a PS5 to make up for lost pay.
At least they didn't use a SAM missile to shoot down a Malaysian Airlines passenger flight like those russians. If they haven't been punished, Boeing executives definitely should not be.
@@imnotyourfriendbuddy1883 Thats crazy. Just because one criminal wasn't prosecuted, no one should be? That is just a terrible, especially since one cannot be put to justice (because no one knows, who shot that thing) while the other can
Surprised that you didn't mention that Boeing also decided to move their HQ from Chicago to Arlington, VA. To be closer to their "customers and stakeholders".
Even though United placed a huge order for their aircraft?
I wonder if this "We are Boeing, it doesn't apply to us" attitude is related the StarLiner debacle. How can a company who has been involved in space for so long forget the Apollo 1 tragedy ?
ridiculous that the compensation for the victims was the smallest number used in the aftermath
Because corporations and governments have more money for lawyers
@@scoobiusmaximus9508 But also consider cost of living in India and especially Ethiopia.
@Jon Nunn Boeing's victims can no longer worry about the cost of living, why should I?
@Scoobius Maximus the victims were poor. Guess their lives were worth less
(Sarcasm)
Let's not forget the Boeing CEO also got a compensation package of $600mil+ after he resigned....
One of the nastiest aspects of this SNAFU was Boeing trying to blame the Lion air pilots! And if I'm not mistaken, the CEO's involved all walked away with multi million dollar bonuses.
To be fair our safety record/standard is kinda crap...
Yes The pilots should not be blamed
Yes, I am a pilot, actually pilots did screw up, they were facing a recoverable failure, they never even consulted the relevant checklist, their reaction should have been similar to a runway trim, this is a common emergency that pilots train for in simulators
@@olasek7972 Blatantly false. As soon as they tried to manually trim, the MCAS kicked in again. The checklists and standard procedures only made the problem much worse.
@@CorwinPearson wrong, they first disconnected the trim tab switches and then they reengaged them again which is no-no and specifically forbidden by the procedure, if trim tab switches are in CUTOUT position MCAS won’t kick in
One thing that that was missed in the financials section is that Boeing also lost money, or atleast margins, on orders placed before the crashes that were also not built before the crashes. Boeing had to halt production on planes while the recertification was being done and meanwhile manufacturing costs were going up and Boeing couldn't up the prices on planes they had already taken money for.
Then there are the hidden costs from people who no longer trust Boeing. Airline companies have already lost money from myself and most of my family who refuse to fly Boeing or at least refuse the max 8. It’s uncounted but it’s real.
They’d have lost money from airlines who turned elsewhere during the grounding. But it’s not enough.
Boeing should lose EVERYTHING for this.
Unlike the passengers and crew, the c-suite got their golden parachutes.
Also, can you please cover Starliner, Boeing's latest disaster.
Boeing also tried to pay less in wrongful death lawsuits by claiming the people died so quickly they didn't feel pain (and claimed they wouldn't be afraid as the planes stayed in the nosedive).
How dreadful! The people on board definitely suffered dreadfully in their final minutes, especially the poor pilots.
The part about physical pain was probably true given the speed of impact, especially for the second crash. As to not being afraid, that was a bold face lie.
I think feeling terrified is suffering and how do they know that people didn’t feel pain. Even if for a short time.
@@cindyeisenberg8367 because we know the speed of the impact and how long it takes information to travel from people's nerves to the brain and be processed
@bryanb3352 Cindy was referring to the nosedive before impact. Boeing was also arguing the passengers weren't afraid as they were plumiting to the ground. That part is BS. The feeling pain of impact was most likely accurate. The point is how disgusting Boeing is for even arguing such points to pay less in wrongful death damages.
The 737Max was the first airliner built by Boeing designed to override and ignore pilot inputs. No other planes built by Boeing were capable of taking yoke control away from the pilot!
Some genius thought that the way to be “better” was to copy Airbus and build an inferior product run by a computer
Pretty terrifying.
Airbus isn’t that simple. Contrary to what people might tell you, if push comes to shove the pilots can turn off Airbus autopilot.
@@mikoto7693
They could turn MCAS off as well, only Boeing failed to share that procedure and knowledge it existed.
@@Matt-yg8ub Bold of you to call Airbus inferior after 20 minutes of showing what a fraudulent and negligent company Boeing is.
Air travel is much safer than driving.
Boeing: hold my beer.
14:37 a rare glimpse of angry Simon. Criminal fines levied against the corporation and no legal repercussions for those responsible.
I work with and on planes, including the Max and am glad to see your reporting is spot on with everything I've learned from the inside. Good work.
How did these Boing executives not go to jail??! What’s even more disgusting is that this, sadly, won’t be the last time that greed will cause the death of customers..
Any capitalistic economy, particularly the United States of America, money buys the law thus those Boeing executives bribed themselves out of jail time. Also many of those Boeing execs that resigned got their company shares paid out, vacation paid out, company pension paid out, and even got a multi-million US dollar severance pay (not Dennis Mullenburg). Being an socioeconomic elite in the USA exempts you from criminal charges/convictions no matter how many people you kill.
Boeing was just charged with criminal fraud. The DoJ is meticulous
2 justice systems…
How did they avoid it? The folks that died weren't covered by US jurisdictions at the time. Folks from outside of the US rarely get positive results from US courts, even in cut and dried matters.
Heck, in some areas, the US has laws that allow US companies to ignore the rights of people from outside of the US - see the way US companies get away with murder in mining, water theft (water for carbonated beveriges and manufacturing), farming, health care, and doing bio-research in other countries, such as laborotories in Wuhan.
Most of them came from McDonell Douglass and have deep ties with thw democrats.
The most scary thing about this story, one that surpasses the cost-cuts made at the expense of safety, is the fact that Boeing gave the flight control system the power to take away the control of the plane from the pilots 👌🏻 In an age in which companies and governments push for technologies to have more power and control over humans - from self-driving cars, trains, and with this example, planes - this aspect of the story is even more important than the usual corporate greed 👍🏻
Wrong. Wrong in spades.
@@peteconrad2077 no.. he isnt. Youre simply apparently ignorant and emotionally invested.. you "have feelings". Mcas absolutely took over control, the pilots werent trained in it (which is the whole point of the thing.. saving the buyers money on training by avoiding a new certification)
@@peteconrad2077so why couldn’t they override the pitch when the computer thought they were in a stall?
@@moonboy5851 because they hadn’t been trained how. That’s the real issue. Yes they should have made the system reliant on redundant sensors, but there’s a simple way to overcome an incorrect MCAS input, provided you’ve v been trained to recognise it and then act correctly.
@@peteconrad2077 gotcha - thanks for taking the time to explain.
All of this started when they bought MD taking their management, & worsen when they moved their corporate offices out of Everett, & moving them to Chicago, to get away from the engineers.
The Boeing 737 max’s reputation is tarnished, many people still question its safety. Boeing loved and respected money over the lives of people and it is reaping what it sowed. May those who lost their lives (due Boeings greed and extreme love for money) rest in peace.
I no longer question its safety, but I still will never fly on one strictly out of principle
I agree. Personally, I prefer flying in airbus planes when I can. I find them to be more comfortable in economy on jetblue
I would worry about all the other planes the FAA certified using the ODA procedure.
Not just the 737, but the entire Boeing company. They cut corners in the name of money and for it murdered 346 people and got away with it. Boeing are a dangerous company that have zero care for the people that are sentenced to travel on their death planes.
@@derbagger22 you should say that to Boeing. i wonder why you still have that mentality?
Great video as always, I worked with a lovely lady who lost half her family in the second 737 accident. Absolute tragedy and such a waste and easily avoided. Still feel her pain.
You're not going to believe this Simon, there was almost a crash a few days ago of another 737 which popped it's cherry after take off.
And a month later it is pretty obvious it was the same exact issue...
I do not understand why this is allowed.
Which airlines was this?
One key reason for the decision of using MCAS was that with it they could argue that the plane was similar enough to the previous versions that any airline company could simply buy these babies and not need to pay big money to have the pilot go through extra training. Just jump from an old model to this one.
In that respect I’m glad that extra training is required now and this fiasco cost Boeing big time. I just wish it had put them out of business or forced them to fracture into smaller, different companies.
The pilots got a 2 hour course on an iPad , that is ALL , Boeing forgot to mention the MCAS could override the pilots yoke , shameful stuff im Glad boeing is suffering now , 737 max orders cancelled everyhwhere
@@mikoto7693you say that until you realize that would have absolutely CRIPPLED us aircraft production and severely impacted the US Military and well put tens of thousands of Americans out of work
Sadly this won't be the last time corporate greed costs human lives.
We could start punishing corporate greed with corporate punishment... After all if your greed kills several hundred innocent people, wouldn't execution be in order?
It is more down to the fact that they bribe politicians to allow them to do their own safety testing. The American political system allows for this sort of thing. It's corrupt beyond words. Why else would companies pay hundreds of millions to political campaigns. They know they will let them cut corners or get away with murder.
It wasn’t corporate greed. “MCAS was a safety enhancing system”. It was a flawed design that relied on a single sensor to detect a stall. Selling a unsafe aircraft is against corporate interest and opens them to victim and shareholder lawsuits.
@@nicholasespinoza9610 - They didn't tell buyers about extra training needed for the MCAS system as they were afraid it would put them off buying their aircraft instead of their rival Airbus A320 which didn't need any additional pilot training.
So they put lives at risk to sell more aircraft.
How is that not corporate greed?
But as I said American political corruption that allowed then to pass their own aircraft is what is really to blame. It would neve happen in Europe.
So it is both political corruption and corporate greed - or just America that is to blame. Money befor human lives. The same reason the USA is the only developed nation with universal healthcare. Americans lack empathy and only care about money.
One of the best summaries discussing this unfortunate event in business and aviation history that I've seen... Kudos to you for creating this production!
In a nutshell: when McDonnell Douglas went under and it was given a life-vest by being acquired by Boeing, something changed. Boeing was a company headed by engineers and with good reputation. McDonnell Douglas was not. When the two "merged" guys from the McDonnell Douglas corporate ladder started to infiltrate higher and higher echelons of Boeing's power structure. In essence, in years that followed, it was actually McDonnell Douglas that took over Boeing, not the other way around. The company culture changed to that of McDonnell Douglas. The 737 MAX is the outcome, but not only that. Starliner troubles is another example.
As a lifetime aviation geek who is around Simon's age, I have to say that this video really does a great job of communicating the issues around this well. As a suggestion, maybe do a video on the 787 issues? That shows that these issues with the company still exist.
And we're still only talking terrestrial aviation here. Enter Starliner.
@@hedlund From the very get-go, the money they got compared to thier competetors pissed me the ^&*$ off, and of corse, they took significantly longer too. Good catch!
I seem to remember hearing something about the 787's having production line issues??? I'm sure Mentour pilot did a video on it awhile back, but can't remember what it was.
@@Rekuzan is this it?
ua-cam.com/video/ZI8Ey6IlB3w/v-deo.html
Issues that still exist, and may almost be endemic to the industry - the story of the Max and it's crashes has some signifigant parrallels to the of the De Havilland Comet, with engineers warnings going unheeded.
Actual accountability needs to be handed down to the people responsible for allowing this to happen
You mean the FAA, right?
@@vigilantenfdl4424 The FAA, Boeing management, every person and group that is supposed to be making sure this never happens
@@codyphillips1821 so the fact it hasn't happened again still means the FAA, Boeing management still need to be responsible?
@@vigilantenfdl4424 Nobody ever holds the FAA accountable…. And corporations are always set up with fall guys.
for rich people NO WAY! for that to happen wed have to actually hold rich people accountable for normal crimes, like possession of cocaine, spending money at strip clubs with prostitutes, since thats what Boeing execs do on any given day of the week...if they can do that and not even be looked at twice then why would this be any different? If their minds been tainted by drugs, nothing is working properly up there and any choices made after using the drugs is an uneducated and bad choice.
they should be in jail and the company should be taken apart and sold as scrap
I lost a friend on the Ethiopian flight 302. It was a sad day hearing the news. Hard to believe we had just been talking the previous day
The pilots of the JT610 were not powerless to override MCAS. Auto pilot off, Auto Trim off, if the runaway continues then both stab trims off and fix your attitude after.
The crew in the first fatal incident fought the controls for 10 minutes (an eternity) during which the captain handed controls to the first officer while he looked through the book for a solution. They didn’t try to try to cut out trim.
Possibly the most incredible fact surrounding this incident is that this plane the day prior had the same incident occur in which the crew correctly ran the procedure and recovered the aircraft after the MCAS tried to fly them into the ground. They did not disclose the incident properly and even continued to the destination! The next crew was not as fortunate.
Boeing was negligent no doubt but too much emphasis is put on MCAS when it’s simply another system that uses Stab trim.
I wish Simon covered in more detail how Boeing did not require new pilots to the max to train in the MCAS differences specifically because that would require a new type training that they were desperate to avoid since training costs would balloon for prospective customers.
Unreliable airspeed + stick shaker + anti stall lights after takeoff is certainly something that would trigger a max power and lower attitude gut response. Certainly not an “easy” procedure, on the end of a long pairing it would be ugly.
i am a new engineer at boeing, what they did was terrible and while we have restructured and rebuilt and are creating stuff the right way now we still have to work to clean up the mess management left behind which is why there’s issues with the current lineup. the first plane that’ll come out/ is being developed completely after the restructuring is the 777-8F and as of right now it might be done even before the -9. any new variants announced should be free of the carrying problems from a few years ago. they are really making a point internally that they fucked up badly and that any behavior similar to what happened has to be reported and told not to do something we deem to be potentially unsafe regardless of who gave the order
RUBBISH! Boeing will do whatever they can to save money even at the risk of passengers lives. What counts at Boeing is management bonuses.
Christian, all I’ll say is that I really hope what you typed is true. I’m inclined to believe that the ground level staff actually on the factory floor do everything they can to make the aircraft safe. As we do in ground handling at the airport.
But, it’s what middle and upper management do and behave like that concerns me.
@@mikoto7693greedy accountants and MBAs.
Just want to give a heads up and the plane used in the thumbnail is from Turkish Airlines flight 1951, which didn't crash because of MCAS
And it crashed in the Netherlands. So yeah.
I noticed the same thing... got me thinking and yep, the Turkish 1951 crash happened long before the 737 MAX's maiden flight. Almost 7 years earlier.
Sadly people have short memories and this will all be forgotten in time.
The executives who made these decisions should be in jail for the rest of their lives, and everything they have should be paid to the victims.
Yes indeed but there is one law for the rich and one for the poor
@@johnphillips519 Nah it's the same law, the diffrent is that they have a brigate of well-paid lawyers and dozens of lobbyist from their ill-gotten gain on their side, and we don't.
@@Mar1s3z You just confirmed what i had previously said
@@johnphillips519 ??? Huh?
It's still a shit system no matter how you put it, but I lost you.
Talking about silent killers, Sabine Hossenfelder published a video today about a report that major leaders in the industry knew from the start of the production of PFAS chemicals, that these chemicals were toxic and resistant to breaking down. Yet they still went ahead with production because it was needed for, among other things, non-stick coatings, and even managed to get permits to dump significant fractions with their wastewater.
Speaking about that: dark waters is a fantastic film
@@sheevone4359 agree 100% an absolutely well made movie
EPA has been captured for decades, just look at what they’ve been doing in East Palestine, Ohio, conducting a blatant cover-up after deciding that burning several rail cars full of toxic compounds; making the disaster exponentially worse than it otherwise would have been.
1:30 - Chapter 1 - A brief history of the 737
3:00 - Chapter 2 - The 737 MAX
7:55 - Chapter 3 - The crashes
10:35 - Chapter 4 - The investigation
14:45 - Chapter 5 - The consequences
- Chapter 6 -
I was backpacking around the world when this happened and I remember the first crash and telling my friends and family that shouldn’t have happened on a brand new plane.. than plane 2 happens and I immediately panicked that I would find myself on a max, as well as making statements about it, than days later they grounded the planes and I told everyone.. see I wasn’t wrong. Glad to see you cover this topic as it was something I was deeply invested is, as I consistently fly from country to country.
Eventually I’d fly on a max going to Mexico and back from Canada.. obviously I’m alive lol. But damned if I wasn’t hella observant that whole flight of anything weird.
There's a special place in hell for those that thought making safety critical features an optional extra-cost upgrade was a good idea. 😡
probably a place with the best liquor and woman
in hell but not jail. Thanks Military Industrial Complex!
Probably learned from EA's microtransaction model.
If you were alive when the DC-10 crash in Chicago occured in 1979,;the investigation discovered that McDonnell Douglas did the same thing. Instead of making backup systems a standard feature, they made it optional and American Airlines decided not to have them installed in their jets. Had there been a back-up system, the pilots would have been warned that the plane was stalling, and a disaster could have been avoided. Then horror of all horrors; Boeing merged with this group of heartless people. This business " marriage" needs to be dissolved.🤔
Lol yeah hell has the best coke be best bourbon the best hoes we all need to go
The best technical explanation that I read of MCAS, not written by someone in the aviation industry, was titled "How the 737 Max Disaster looks to a Software Developer". That title alone should tell you everything you need to know about it
As an Aerospace and Aviation System Safety Engineer, every time I come upon this story, it makes the hair on my neck raise up. Like if you randomly see an ex who completely broke your heart when you're out in public. I’m fully convinced that there was a level 2 or 3 engineer writing the safety analysis who’s alarm bells starting ringing when they saw the residual risk scores come in from the reliability analysis and FTAs, and no doubt said something to their superior. I just can’t comprehend the mentality of 1) Saying this is acceptable risk (probably a residual score of 1C) to move forward from the Boeing management team, and 2) The FAA buying that risk while reviewing airworthiness criteria. Just shocking.
There should of been prison sentences for all the exec's involved at the very least, but if you have money power and influence in the good ol' USA you can buy anything and anyone.
This kind of corruption is present in pharmaceutical companies and the FDA as well. James Okeef has uncovered the cozy relationship of the companies and regulators.
The other reason for the low undercarriage was because the 737 was designed to service municipal airports in America, most of which didn't have air bridges, which is why early 737's had in built stairs. Having the aircraft low to the ground meant it could have in-built stairs that could fit underneath the floor.
This single Angle of Attack sensor was a major system architectural error. I am amazed that it didn’t come up with the flight testing. My brother is an avionics engineer. He said that his firm wouldn’t have approved this on a simple diagram on a napkin.
There are actually 2 AOA sensors on the Max. Unfortunately MCAS only used 1 and if that particular AOA sensor is damaged then MCAS could activate.
What kind of commercial aeroplane manufacturer produces an aircraft that is aerodynamically unstable and corrects it using software? This kind of thing is only done with unstable designs such as fighter aircraft where the design is deliberate and the risks are unacceptable. Boeing even did their own risk assessment on the likelihood of an aircraft loss due to MCAS and knew the heightened risk. It is truly astonishing.
@@PAC-fp9hy I don't think it is fair to characterize the Max as being aerodynamically unstable. The location of the LEAP engine, up and forward, produce torque with added thrust inducing pitch up and therefore acts differently than the 737 NG. The goal was minimal training for pilots to migrate from NG to Max and MCAS was intended to compensate for the propensity to pitch up, and a potential for stall, with added thrust.
@@albrechtjohnj the issue was downplaying it to prevent training being required and the lack of redundancy. Major systems with that much control usually have multiple back ups but here it wasn’t done. So much was done wrong and they obviously knew it. I believe the aircraft only has a pitch up issue during a certain phase of flight anyway
@@Horizon301. The pitch up happens when more thrust is applied to the underslung, and now more forward and raised, engines, and the torque that is applied as a consequence. There is a Wikipedia article that explains MCAS, which I recommend because the comments forum is too limiting for a thorough explanation. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuvering_Characteristics_Augmentation_System
It amazes me that there aren’t three AOA sensors. That’s safest. If one sensor disagrees, then the computer relies on the data from the other two. Instead now when the two disagree, they have to hand it back to the human pilots to solve.
And that’s usually fine because airline pilots are usually very well trained. But they’re also human beings and under certain phases of flight they undergo heavy workload-particularly during takeoff and landing. Adding another factor for them to work around during such a time is less than ideal. If there’s no reliable airspeed indicator, as I understand it, the work around takes calculation and communication between pilots. But I’m not a pilot myself so take what I say with a grain of salt.
You should be able to see why it’s not ideal to have two sensors handing back an airspeed issue when three would have sorted out the problem amongst itself in the computer.
This was very well done.
Thanks for the great video, your research is amazing!
I had this topic in my essay two weeks ago as a part of how corruption and negligence can cause catastrophes.
Flown Max a few times now, the operators don't tell you it's a max. It's no longer written on the fuse, or mentioned in the passenger info cards in front of your seat.
I'm an Avonic technician and I watch a lot of air disaster videos.
The biggest fear we have is being called in on an investigation because something we worked on might have been the failure.
I think I understand. I work on the ground crews and my biggest fears is hearing an aircraft I worked on has gone down. Though the chances are slim I’d have had anything to do with what caused it to crash, I’d still dread it.
Unless of course the nose gear collapsed and I’d been the one connecting and disconnecting the tug. Then I’d be really scared. But then again it’s that “what if” fear that makes me so careful about it. Sometimes I give the gear a little affectionate pat and wish the aircraft to return to me (often later in the day or next day) safely.
Well, we can then certainly say the Boeing execs were fearless.
This massive balls up is what led to my father-in-law retiring from a 37 year career as a 737 pilot. He's an AirBus simulator operator now.
Thank goodness he’s alive to tell the tale
Does applying to an airbus simulator operator need the same certification as applying to fly a real airbus? Must be a long and painful process
@@alieffauzanrizky7202 simulator operators are highly experienced, licensed pilots. My father-in-law was a senior pilot with Southwest before the MCAS debacle. He was actually the lead trainer for the 737 MAX when all that went down. He refused to keep training pilots on a broken bird, and elected for retirement. He lasted all of a year before going batty and taking the job he has now.
@@darlenefraser3022 he and I have expressed the same sentiment, many times.
@@SkunkApe407 I'm surprised he lasted that long before retiring. PBS did a doc on the 737 Max and interviewed a test pilot who investigated the crashes. The man was in tears realizing the pilots did what they were supposed to do but still died because of the MCAS.
Even of the incidents and accidents that happen on airplanes a great number of them have a lot more survivors than you would expect.
The story of the 737 max makes me so angry, a lot of bad ethics from the engineering all the way down to the digital aspects. I'm sure someone else can more clearly impart why the sensor number is such a big deal among other things, but it isn't that there is only 1 sensor (there is more than one), the problem was that there wasn't enough redundancy to prevent the MCAS from kicking in and continuing to kick in if only 1 sensor failed, which is not an acceptable threshold for the industry, and is apparently insane. Boeing and the FAA are the biggest to blame for this, but I think the carriers being so obsessed with keeping their gates/hangers (thus needing an updated plane that was still 737 sized), and reducing the cost of training pushed Boeing to make these planes.
High bypass turbofan engines are pretty much the lifeblood of efficiency and specific fuel economy of commercial airliners. Roughly 75-80% or more of the thrust is produced by the bypass section. The core section where the fuel and combustion occurs is basically a shaft that turns the bypass section. That’s how what seems like a small amount of fuel can go such extreme distances.
For those curious, boeings stock price still hasn't recovered. As of June 10th, 2023, their stock price is around $200 a share. Down from a height of $314 a share.
Moving away from that, I'll never forget hearing the black box recording right as the pilots realized they couldn't correct the planes nose dive despite them using all their strength. It still gives me serious and I mean SERIOUS chills just thinking about it. They were panicking, the computer was telling them to "Pull up. Pull up. Pull up." They replied, "We're trying but you won't let us!!" Right before it crashes. It's the stuff of nightmares listening to that black box recording. To this very day whenever i fly i make sure its not on a Max. I dont trust max no matter how many times regulators and corporations like Boeing says its now safe to fly in. As someone thats wary of machines and AI (even though AI wasnt involved) any plane that is designed to take ALL control away from the pilots, im not flying on. I dont trust it.
The FAA got a new administrator, Steve Dickson, who was a former airline pilot. He personally took the 737 MAX up and put it through its paces, trying to get it to misbehave. He didn't sign off on the recertification until he was satisfied. "Shortly after I took the helm at the FAA, I made a promise that I would fly the 737 MAX and that I wouldn’t sign off on its return to service until I was comfortable putting my family on it."
That is how it's supposed to be.
I do everything I can to NOT fly on American made planes. The saying used to be "If it aint Boeing I aint going" Now its "In Airbus we trust."
i like airbus
Fun fact.. here are only a handfull of airline crashes every year nowdays. This year it have been only one, a ATR72 crashed in Nepal on one of the most remote runways.
From personal experience, a larger engine in a car actually gets better fuel economy, because smaller engines struggle to get cars up to speed which uses more fuel.
The 737 in the introduction picture is the Turkish Airlines 737-800 which crashed near Amsterdam, not a Max
Remember. It doesnt matter if a plane kills a bunch of people. It only matters if alot of planes kill enough people for it not to be a viable revenue stream.
Great straight to the point explanation of the cost-cutting measures Boeing implemented to extend the lifespan of the 737 by introducing the mcas system on it's new 737 max.
But there's one thing bothering me you took a thumbnail screenshot from the Turkish Airlines flight 1951 that crashed approaching Schiphol Airport because of a malfunctioning autothrottle system the pilots didn't noticed, which was actually a 737 800.
I know this is just minor nagging but I just had to say it.
Absolutely amazing video! Thanks team!
Excellent video & I saw it on the day Boeing indefinitely delayed the Starliner. A lesson learned for catching the problem before people die, or a lesson forgot for allowing it to get so far in the development timeline with critical safety issues?
It seems that Boeing have forgotten all of the lessons it learned over the past decades. At the same time they were designing and building the Max, they were developing the Starliner. That also has many issues that are basic in nature.
Corrections.
a. Boeing did see the problem of single-source sensors, but to make it dual or triple would have involved certification, pilots training, and compensation to airlines (they had promised no training). So they scrapped the duplex.
b. The problem with the Max engine was not the CofG, it was the CofL (center of lift). In high angle of attack conditions the engine cowl acted as a large wing, well forward on the airframe, that tried to tip the nose of the aircraft up (and over).
See the video “Death Plane” on the Russel Scott channel.
R.
The issue with a single sensor was not just because "Boeing thought it was ok" but because critical systems require at least two sensors and a whole lot of certification from the FAA plus the inclusion in pilot training manuals which would:
- Make the aircraft take longer to be certified, with orders and promises already they needed that as soon as possible.
- Make the MCAS a critical "visible" system which would require pilot training, something Boeing has promised not to be needed when companies started ordering the Max. There are interviews with pilots already showing that their initial manuals never mentioned MCAS not even once.
So, basically, the decision to keep such a critical system under the wraps was corporate greed, I'm still baffled on how easy Boeing and the FAA got away with this.
I hope they put the engineers back in charge. Accountants should not run a high tech company.
The part THAT seems to get overlooked always is that Boing sold an optional back-up for it but cost in the million so most airlines for the most part oped out
That’s why it was an option…. Because doing it “right” added millions to the cost of the aircraft in a market that generally wouldn’t have born that cost.
Why make it an expensive optional thing at all? Why not just integrate it and sell it as one single model?
I get the airlines chose the cheaper version without it, but ultimately Boeing is the one who made it optional. It should have just come with the safety system as standard.
It also proves that Boeing were knowingly selling a plane with no backup of a critical sensor and trying to pass the responsibility of a failure to their customers. That should have been enough to destroy them in court. But no. Big American companies are protected by their bought politicians.
@@Matt-yg8ubnah that's just the price tag Boeing set, it's been proven that was a marketing ploy, an airline would rather put in a purchase for an entire new aircraft rather than pay a few dozen grand to put in new parts, so Boeing upcharged the shit out of the parts to basically force airlines to buy new planes
Boeing could have easily upgraded old airframes (and that's been proven) but they wanted to prioritize money over customer safety
@@mikoto7693because Boeing and other aerospace manufacturers do this to force airlines to buy whole new airframes, they upcharge the shit out of new parts basically forcing an airline to buy a new airframe
Simon, your channels constantly cut corners on FACTS! Please call yourself "fact boi" as often as possible, I can always use a good laugh!
IIRC when the first crash happened to Indonesia's Lion air, Boeing representative blamed the crash on the pilot and said Indonesian pilots are incompetent.
But then the second crash happened in Africa and Boeing went silent.
The bigger a company gets, the less they care about end users and more with lining their pockets. Doesn't matter what the industry is.
THAT is absolutely TRUE! The list is long and growing: big tech companies, telecom companies, vehicle companies, aircraft companies, railroads, banks, insurance companies, Florida condo builders, and on and on and ON.
I flew Lion Air’s new Max from Jakarta to Belitung on the same schedule 1 week before the crash. The hair at back of my neck stands as it could be anyone on that fatal flight. Following the 2nd crash in Africa really makes all noticed how Boeing is pushing and rushing out their planes fast. Then we also learned of how Boeing used a dummy aircraft as they were behind schedule in launching the first generation of Dreamliners 787. Following incident of batteries problem and grounding of ANA fleet of 787s. God bless all if that is Boeing company’s culture & moral in the industry. Thus, I always tried to avoid flying in Boeing’s aircrafts.
The 787 issue was minor and was resolved many years ago. It was using brand new technologies, which very rarely work flawlessly the first time. I don’t believe there is any issue with the 787
this cost be personally a lot of money. I work for Collins Aerospace, and Boeing is our biggest customer, in fact we wrote the MCAS software I was working insane overtime working on the GLU (global landing unit) then almost overnight no OT then transfered to military systems.
I was working for a sister company of Boeing where we made the fuselage and other partsof the MAX. We were all shocked when we heard about the crashes. Then the grounding happened and 8 months later thousands of people (myself included) were shown the door. Hundreds die, thousands lose their jobs and the people responsible simply walk away. And people wonder why I'm cynical.
I'll keep on flying the airbus thanks.
The airport I worked at, was cluttered with 737MAX.
I had so many pictures.
Love the way you talk your definitely not boring to listen to like most thank you
you explain it much better than those real pilot channel out there.
So many deaths and no one got into jail 🤯
That's not very clear to me
The rot at Boeing set in after their merger with MD, which resulted in many ex-MD executives being appointed to senior positions in Boeing. The MD mindset was more profit focused than those of the previous Boeing management. The 737Max is not the only issue at Boeing. You only need to look at the fiascos surrounding their 777X and the 787 to find more troubling issues. And then there is the shambolic story around the Boeing Starliner space craft as well. Apart from their financial woes, Boeing is definitely not the company it used to be
My father worked for Boeing for nearly 30 years, and I literally grew up around Boeing back when it was focused on engineering quality. Now it's more like enginERRing. Dad would be rolling in his grave if he had any idea about the depth to which Boeing has sunk.
Simon, you should watch the SBS Dateline report (in 2011) on the INSANE production shortcuts on the earlier Boeing 737-NG. Clear FAA violations to the Type Certificate, that was never addressed to this very day. SBS Dateline is an Australian reporting channel much like USA's PBS. That video is on UA-cam.
Petter's deep dive into this on the Mentour Pilor channels is definitely worth a watch.
"Well, I hope this experience hasn't put any of you off flying. Statistically speaking, it's still the safest way to travel." -- Superman
It’s easy for him to say because he does it all the time with no problems, though.
Boeing is one of the biggest arms manufacturers in the world. They can probably print their own money. Deficit is not a problem then.
binging with babish covers different topics nowadays but i like it!
As a commercial airline pilot this was a phenomenal video. Boeing was an amazing company back in the day but profits over safety have made it go downhill unfortunately.
There was also a problem with 737s in the 90s…2 flights crashed, one of them Flight 427 that crashed near Pittsburgh. The father of one of my sisters friends was on that flight😔it was like a solenoid problem that would stick
Was it the servovalve problem of the rudder?
@@simonm1447 Yes, the servo would jam due to thermal shock and cause rudder to deflect in opposite direction
I think that was one of those things that no one could have seen coming. IIRC 737s had been flying for a while by the time that started happening.
@@erich930 Boeing knew the valve could malfunction if the temperature difference between the hydraulic fluid and the valve would be very high - but they didn't expect the temperature difference to be that big. Additionally they knew the speed they had in their flight manual with flaps would be too low to overcome the rudder with the ailerons, but then they blamed the pilots for not bring able to recover the aircraft. The whole story sounds very similar to the Max disaster where they only acted after pressure from authorities
Wow, imagine if the pharmaceutical industry was the same and the 737 was a mandated medical intervention!
The truly scary thing is that the medical industry is far worse when it comes to this sort of thing. The only reason why we don’t get similar situation’s of cost cutting is because the medical industry is also able to place 500% mark ups on basic equipment.
This was an attempt by Boeing to be price competitive in a heavily regulated industry without much wiggle room….. the medical industry by contrast can charge you $50 for a $5 dollar bag of saline and $100 for a tongue depressor. They can afford to use slightly better pine and genuine salt water because either adds only Pennies per unit… but tripling up on a sensor and triggering a higher level engineering reviews with greater scrutiny can add millions to each aircraft.
It’s Definitely Boeing’s fault…. But also the result of bad policies from the FAA.
1:25 a brief history of the 737
2:55 the 737-max
7:49 the crashes
10:29 the investigation
14:41 the consequences
Boeing moved from an internal advancement senior/executive succession plan to one of bringing in outside “business school graduate” execs with no background in either aviation or engineering, they were guided by bottom liner/stock maximize/quarterly results. It’s also why the company had issues (ongoing) with the 787 program and further evolution of the 777. Another bad move was to take HQ away from the shop floor from Seattle to Chicago…and most recently to the DC area (to be closer to lobbyists and regulators and even further from “home”!
I fly a lot and have flown on the MAX, though I don’t seek it out. But I’m also aware of how complex modern planes (less so the air frame, more so engines and avionics) are and how many things could go wrong but fortunately don’t (99.99999999999%> of the time).
Pilot training is one of the most expensive things airlines have to pay for. It adds up very quickly and Boeing thought these airlines wouldn’t buy their planes over airbus if they had to take on more training.
don't forget "additional pilot training" is very expensive and avoiding this is very attractive for airlines and allows boeing to sell more aircraft. which is one reason they downplayed how big of a change the mcas is so that pilots do not need alot of retraining.