Thank you so much for making this video! Many of us are flying the MAX because we have no other options and this video makes me way more calm. Once I know how things work and I can understand myself I get relaxed.
I can't say it is also one of the most erroneous because I've seen worse, but yeah it is erroneous. Simple check: if MCAS is needed to compensate for excessive pitch up due to high thrust, it would have been enabled at takeoff, but it remains disabled until the flaps are fully retracted. Also, wouldn't it be triggered based on thrust setting if the explanation is correct?
A very clear explanation of how corporate greed and regulatory incompetence are MANY times more important than consumer safety. Once again the value of money exceeds the value of human life! Thank you Boeing. Thank you FAA.
If you were better educated you would realize that the video's explanation of why MCAS is needed is wrong. THINK! If you can… If it was needed to compensate for excessive pitch up due to high thrust, it should operate at take off. But the flaps are extended during takeoff. MCAS only operates when the flaps are fully retracted. That confirms that the explanation is wrong. Simple minds using common sense (instead of a proper education) to try to understand complex subjects and explain it to others usually come up with plausible nonsense that other simpletons find easy to understand. What is easy to understand is easily believed to be the truth. That's how nonsense-spread via the internet-becomes education… just look at all the snide comments from Smart Alecs who believe they understand aeronautics and Boeing because they read a news article. LOL.
I have over 8,000 hours in the B-737. 200, 300, 500, and 700 only. What Boeing did in not advising pilots of this MCAS system is criminal. Excellent explanation!
No the Brazilian knew....what a load of shit . Let's poke the big bear in this case it's boeing. Weather they knew or not they were doom . Before take off grow up ..
Finally a clear and concise explanation of the situation and the fixes, thank you very much for making this video! But I just wonder, how is it even possible that Boeing would release an aircraft with a MCAS that 1) could automatically take the plane outside of its safe flight envelope, 2) depended on a single sensor without thinking of what would happen if that sensor ever malfunctions, and 3) was not even mentioned in flight manuals or pilot training? This was criminal negligence that caused the deaths of over 300 people.
Yes, it is also a strange thing for me how they could release the airplane with those issues. I think that responsible persons from Boeing should be charged with criminal justice.
@@PilotBlogDenys Even with the big rats removed, you are correct--to be human is to be imperfect and prone to error. Remove as many hole as you can, but be aware that, with human endeavours, holes will always exist.
I've been working on jets for 32 years, I've changed a handful of angle of attack sensors...they are very reliable, what fails are the AOA heaters. With 2 this will never happen again, the chance of 2 failing at the same time is zero. Also the pilots are all hyper aware that will be flying this plane, the software only allows one pitch down and if the sensors disagree the system is disabled. 100 percent non issue now.
This hasn't aged well at all.....We now have pilots AND Boeing execs who will NOT fly on a Max.....Another concern you should all have is they are doing some manufacturing in Charleston SC using the dumbest population on the planet.
Another company shrill. The plane has more problems every day. As does the manufacturer. What bolt is going to let go next? Should another 346 people die because Boeing wants more money. I don't trust the 737 and will not fly on it . A 60 year old design they still cant get right... I find that the most disgusting part of all.
Seeing as how jets have been equipped with stall warning sensors, stick shakers, stick pushers, etc for decades, is MCAS even needed still as a separate system..? It’s design impetus as was revealed after the accidents was to try to keep the same handling characteristics when applying power as the previous generation of 737, to avoid recertification and retraining. But now that the the Max did need after the accidents to be recertified and crews were retrained, is there any point in having the separate and redundant MCAS…?
@@pilotsam004 That is not about Boeing anymore it was checked by many of other authorities. Plus no one speaks about the wrong pilot actions that contribute to air crashes. I expect that many people will not fly on MAX, but after a while it will be usual thing. I also agree that the first design of MCAS was bad. Now if they realise what they promised with new upgrade I expect it to be as safe as B737NG or A320. Anyway Pilot Sam I do respect your opinion 👍. Thanks for your comment, awesome guy 🤘✈️
I have 20000+ hours in every kind of 737. No way I can relax in a MAX.. Not worth the risk to fly. Too many reasons to explain here. The new max training recovery is like fishing.. Pull, release, reel... Ridiculous
I have design autopilots, have an MS in aero form MIT. This situation troubles me. This situation raises fundamental design methodology issues. This is not the place for a major technical argument but let me raise one fundamental issue. The angle of attack is a much more complex flight parameter in this age of variable geometry AC than in was when flight control augmentation systems were first invented. Pitch, roll and Yaw are fundamentally inertial variables, and little has changed in regard to their utilization as feedback variables. Angle of attach is completely different. One could say it is an indicator of air speed direction at a particular sensor location. At a given time it's different all over the AC surface.This has impacted the 737, but really is an issue for all modern large AC. The Angle of attach sensed near the nose of an aircraft infers the angle of attack of the main wing through a complex relationship. This is a serious issue. I would agree with the Brits who are bucking for multiple aoc sensors.
The 737 MAX needs its own Pilot certification and certification process. The MCAS and its aerodynamic design makes it necessary, just because the MCAS allows the Pilot to fly it like a traditional 737 doesn't mean that it actually is one.
@@t_sixtyfivex_wing8787 agreed with you, rely on double AOA is not good, especially if the means of degree quite high on both AoA, even the MCAS not agresively to push stabilizer pitch down then not enough data will make another aircraft lost alt or power a bit
Very interesting. I was in Acquisition for the USAF for 35 years but I worked in Avionics, not flight controls. The Air Worthiness has become very controlled process. I'm surprised that the AOA system was not at least double redundant. With triple redundancy the flight control computer would be able to compare the different inputs and pick the two that agree the most. Computers require good input to provide good output.
You've explained it very well, but I still can't get over the fact that they didn't see the crashes coming. I mean, fancy reasons aside, at the end of the day they programmed an aircraft to pitch automatically down toward the ground, against pilot input, based on information from a single sensor with no redundancy, and seemingly with not a single thought as to the consequences of a false positive reading from the alpha vane. What the hell did they expect was going to happen?? How can anyone have ever thought this was a good idea?
They saw it coming. Their safety risk assessment flagged about 15 fatal crashes due to mcas over the lifetime of operation. Boeing just chose not to disclose these findings to the regulator.
I'm just upset no higher ups were jailed... For this obvious mishap by forcing through the process to green light it for flight for money purposes. Countless lives lost, people who have lost family all because of corporate greed. Just leaves a bad impression on me, it'll be impossible to look at this plane and think anything positive.
I also don't think positive about it. I like B737NG more. My airline cancelled the B737 Max order and I am absolutely ok with it. As for punishment I totally agree with you. Without the punishment it may happen again. Not with MAX but with other plane or maybe other aircraft manufacturer company. People Lives should have top priority, not money saving... They admitted that they were wrong only after the second crash knowing about the problem even before the first crash. Crazy. They thought pilots could handle it, but pilots are not ideal. Unfortunately it is everywhere in our modern commercialised world. Thanks for your comment 👍 Safe flights ✈️
To get an idea about the monetary value Boeing places on human life, one only needs to look at what they set aside for the victims of the accidents. There were 346 lives lost in the two accidents and Boeing set aside $100 million to pay out to the crash victims. The list price of a 737 Max is around $125 million and there were two of them so the value of the planes lost is $250 million. That makes the value of the planes worth two and a half times the value of the human lives they took.
Cleared up a lot of the mystery regarding the MCAS on the Max; why the crashes happened. The next thing in line, is the PROPER pilot training for this aircraft. Like the idea that MCAS has a limit on how much pitching down it is allowed to do, and that it can be disconnected using the switch on the yoke.
I’ve been watching air crash investigation for over a decade. I’ve also played a bunch of simulators and I can say for a fact that the Boeing 737 Max isn’t safe. Because the engines are not placed on the wing properly think about it if they had just simply extended the landing you it wouldn’t have changed the Plane that much but no they decided to install a system, that is so efficient at killing that I am surprised that the military isn’t considering using it to “silence people who speak too much” I know it’s actually called MCAS but I call it MKAS with a K. (Maximum Killing Annihilator Suicide) it killed maximum amounts of people and it annihilated them. It also committed suicide by destroying itself so the name is very fitting isn’t it? If someone was feeling suicidal, they would go on 737 Max hoping it would crash that’s how deadly it is! Its success rate of killing is 100% and that’s sickening for me it scares me all because they couldn’t be bothered extending the FU€KING landing gear by 3 feet! To be fair, they did extended by 10 inches, but it should’ve been 2’10” or 3 Feet just for a little more wiggle room. Sorry for the vile comment. I’m just really really angry at Boeing for becoming bloodthirsty killers. May the two whistleblowers rest in peace or should I say pieces according to Boeing Management?
That's a pilot with the right stuff. He knows the proper concepts, theory, and philosophies. I would fly my family under his command without hesitation.
@@PilotBlogDenys I believe you underestimate yourself. Your attitude, commitment, and attention-to-detail are more desirable and dependable than stick-and-rudder "talent." I flown with both kinds--I prefer the cerebral pilot over the so-called "gifted" pilot every time. Sulley is just one case-in-point. A cocky-jock might have turned back over Manhattan believing his superior piloting talents would get him back to the field. Sulley had the mental discipline to know better.
Tomorrow i'll be on a 737 max , Montreal/México City flight .... honestly I'm a little bit afraid becouse I saw some stadistics about the 737 max , but after this video I feel more confident ,Thank You so much for your great video ! Wish me luck
@@redtailarts101 his accent is pretty neutral. And yeah, bad speakers can be a pain... But try some headphones instead. Dennis is a great English speaker, believe me... I can understand even Indian accent, and his is good hahaha
Thanks for this video. I have to fly on a B737-Max 8 in a week's time and with the recent incidents of missing bolts and then with Alaska Air, I'm not feeling safe anymore. If I have the choice of choosing a different aircraft, I would, but the airline I am flying with only has a fleet of B737-Max 8 in service. I am praying and hoping for an incident free flight in both directions.
After what happened with the 747 Max, I'm going to have a hard time ever trusting Boeing again. It's clear that as a company they are willing to put profit over safety and even though the 747 Max is now safe, the culture of profit over safety is still something that exists at Boeing and because of that I will always be weary of them.
Boeing halted deliveries of new 787s because of production flaws including gaps where panels of the carbon-composite fuselage are joined. Boeing has been unable to come up with a fix that satisfies the Federal Aviation Administration.
2 Things: Thanks for bring up the fact that ALL airplanes that have under-wing mounted engines have "pitch-up" moments and not just the Boeing 737 Max (this is the only time in the last 20 months I have heard this fact stated) and pilots not following the "runaway trim" "stab trim" procedure. Great video explanation !
I have been avoiding flights on the 737Max. After watching this video, I am more confident about flying on this plane. Not only has this video provided clarity on a complex situation, it is enabling me to fly again on a plane that is used by so many airlines. Thank you.
I have heard so many people say that the engine mounting is a design flaw and how dangerous and stupid it is, that it is aerodynamicly unstable, that it requires MCAS to fly and other nonsense bla bla bla etc. I have not heard anyhone complaining about the design of T-tailed aircraft which are extremely hard to impossible to recover from a Stall, yet so many are flying. It´s so hypocratic. Thanks for the detailed explanation! :)
Very good video! Thank you for taking the time to share your knowledge and personal opinion. Even as an avgeek and heavy global traveller (multiple round-the-world trips per year), I'm still not comfortable with the MAX. It seems to me that this is still a compromise. If I understand the MCAS is really only there as a cost saving measure - to save cost of more extensive training. But training is a short-term problem. Once pilots have converted to the MAX, then it's not such a big problem. I think it would have been better to disable MCAS completely and require the more extensive training. After all, it's a plane from the 1960s that's undergone extensive changes, yet still is the same "type." At some point the plane is just too different. Maybe these changes will be enough, but I can't help but feel that the FAA has allowed minimal changed (e.g., limited hardware changes) to help Boeing commercially. Adding to my fears that a deeper solution may be needed (plane and training), is the uncommanded pitch event of the 777x late last year. Even with all of the scrutiny and tragedy of the MAX, similar problems have made their way into the 777x. At least in the case of the 777x, the FAA seems to be taking a harder stance in telling Boeing that it will be years before it can be certified. Hopefully continued concerns are unnecessary and the MAX will be just as safe as the NG. Meanwhile, I will be avoiding the MAX for the foreseeable future.
Very good video! I liked the Swiss cheese analogy, and the good distribution of the issues leading to those crashes. BTW, your English language skills are just fine, you have a better "accent" than many Slavic language speakers, and excellent vocabulary.
The problem is Boeing are messing around with a 1960s designed fuselage that's fairly low to the ground that was only designed for the older torpedo style engines found on the 100/200 series 737s. Airbus launched its a320 neo which is a far more stable aircraft, this caused Boeing to launch the max with its bigger engines but like the great explanation on here these engines had to be fitted slightly further forwards and higher on the wings.
As a 30k hour training captain, with over 10k hours in command on the 737, I would jump in and fly a Max literally in a heartbeat. Yes, the MCAS was very poorly done, (yet still flyable when it misbehaves by properly trained pilots) and yes, it’s fine now with a software rewrite. Well explained, couldn’t pick any significant problems with your description.
Months ago I talked to a Southwest Airlines pilot, and he basically said the same thing you did. He said everyone shares the blame, but better trained pilots would have known to flip the 2 switches reduce the throttle and manually trim out the aircraft. Great video!
I am comercial,multi-engine rated pilot and was CFI CFII flight instructor. For those of you who do not know anything about how aircraft work at this moment the 737MAX is probably the safest airliner to fly because of the attention from the FAA and EASA. Mr Pilot Blog I never read the accident report but it sounds like the electric pitch trim with mcas just went completely nose down if a stall was about to happen. If mcas was turn off did the electric trim work normally or was the trim wheel the only way to adjust the pitch ? Good video and thanks. In 1998 I visited Ukraine and took British airways in a 777 from the U.S. back then I could show my pilots lic. to the flight attendant she asked the captain and I could ride in the cockpit during cruise it was the good times before 9/11
Hi, Russell! Thanks for your comment! If you turn of the MCAS, you turn off the electric trim as well. Actually you turn of the electrical trim together with MCAS. So only the manual trim function is available in that case. If the speed is high (as was in Ethiopian case) the manual trim won't work because of the high aerodynamic loads on the stabilizer surface, so firs you need to decelerate the airplane, and than trim it manually. All the information about it is in FCTM, it seem like Ethiopian pilots didn't know about that (they should have known), so they selected the electrical trim back to operation, causing the MCAS to trim the stab. full nose down...
Thank you for the response, Have you had the training for the updated system ? I was wondering if the trim control can now be turn to manual like before, where you can use your thump and trim like you want ?
I usually avoid commenting about controversial topics but i really want to speak about this. I think creating the MCAS is a great thing and I always support innovation that's how we progress in technlogy. However, Boeing created MCAS not for science advancement reasons but for economical reason. They could have still sold the 737 Max even without the MCAS, even by forcing pilotes to do extra training , airlines would want to invest because the engines efficiency is very tempting. But Boeing wanted to create the deal of the century by making it not only fuel efficient but Also no training required, as i said MCAS is a good thing but created for the wrong reasons. I'd be honestly happy to See some officials doing jail for this. rip to all the victimes.
@@PilotBlogDenys thank you for the quality content , I think I heard you mentioning Ukraine , not sure if you are from there but I'm an expat in Ukraine. I really love this country. Thank you for the effort you put to this channel keep it up please .
MCAS wasn't developed simply for economical reasons. If it really was then there would have been no need to update its design. Boeing would have simply removed it since all aviation authorities were going to make retraining of MAX pilots compulsory anyway. MCAS was actually developed to tackle a real technical problem in the design of the MAX. The official documents prove that the MAX did not meet the FAA's requirement for static stability at high AOAs in certain airplane configurations and that was what MCAS aimed to correct (as the name "maneuvering characteristics augmentation" implies). However the fact that Boeing put undue emphases in economy led to them making some of the errors in its design that contributed to the crashes.
I flew the MAX (as a pilot) before it was grounded and I'm excited to fly it again. Actually today I just received my updated training materials and expect to be in the simulator within 90 days to retrain.
Wish you safe flights, Sean! I would like to fly it, but my airline had cancelled the order for Boeing 737 MAX. From what I heard it is great airplane, but the engines start takes time)
@@PilotBlogDenys I hope you do too comrade, it's very quiet (compared to the NG). And yes the starts take forever, plus after rollback it's a minimum of 3 minutes wait before you can set takeoff power!
Just flown from São Paulo to Panama , and found out it was a Max just before boarding the plane. Not gonna lie, almost shit my pants the entire flight , but did noticed that the plane is very very stable and the landing a take off were pretty smooth and super fast. But still didn't sleep for the whole flight. Also I never really liked flying even knowing it is safer than driving and all. Good explanation also thanks!
That was an excellent explanation of the 737 MAX's defects and subsequent fixes. I am due to fly the MAX soon. I was already confident to do it as I felt it was now safe (It is apparently the most scrutinised plane ever safety wise) but this video just made me me even more confident. Thanks for that.
As a flight attendant who works for an airline that flys the MAX, I am completely confident in this aircraft. This plane has been scrutinized more than any other aircraft. I will fly on it all day long.
Great explanation! Very clear and easy enough to share with people with little knowledge in aviation! - I just can’t get over the fact that this airplane has a propensity to pitch-up and needs a software to correct it and to fly “normally”
Every airplane with underwing engines has a propensity to pitch up, some more than others, the problem with the Max was trying to make it perform like the older 737NGs. If they had just left it alone, and let the pilots fly it, it would have been safe. It didn't need the software to make it fly normally, it needed software to make it fly like an NG.
It is the first time I heard of "swiss cheese model" in years! Nice to see it again. But I would like to see this from the "Chain of events" point of view.
I was on a Lion Air 737 max in Indonesia on a route Surabaya Bali 2 weeks prior the first crash. I knew about the crash when a i was back home and left me astonished. My thoughts are that unfortunately we are living in a very competitive environment in all business, and i think in aviations is even worst. From the moment airbus launched the A320 NEO, Boeing was out of time. The clearance from the wings to ground in the 737 family didn't allow a bigger engine to fit and redesign all the frame would have been impossible moneywise. I think the chain started there, but other holes were made in the layers...cost reduction, time running out and really bad decisions taken from management ( not only at Boeing ). There are certainly big responsabilities that have to be addressed. As you said we are humans, the hope is to learn by mistakes. Also the Atr is a great regional plane but had some problems with the deicing system that led to crashes. Nice video, very clear thumb up!
Just as an avgeek flying mainly Australia to the UK and back with Qantas on the 787 and got the prized platinum card, I feel MCAS is a bandaid solution of compensation for a more powerful engine having to be mounted further forward for attitude characteristics, there should have been a major design update of the wing structure, but I guess Boeing wouldnt spend the money as its got too much competition from Airbus, which now has a presence in China. Ive only done 40 hours in a Cessna 152 before getting cancer (now cured thankfully, but didnt return to flying) also did the theory you presented early in your video (without the MCAS of course!) but it was all beautifully explained by you and brought back memories of my early flight theory. Thanks so much for the explanation but Qantas hasnt purchased the 737 Max and I personally feel better about that for the worlds most safe airline even though pilots are now fully competent with the Max and the boffins have fixed the fault. Cheers !
Excellent, the best explanation of the MCAS issue I have ever seen! Just a supplementary information to get the whole picture (tell me if I am wrong): 1. The MAX was developped to challenge the A320 Neo. The main change refers to implementing bigger engines and there's where the problem starts: for the A320 Neo this was not a big deal since there is enough room under the wings, so they did it and at the end they get better performances while avoiding extra training because there is no real impact on the airplane behaviour. 2. Due to the short distance between the wings and the ground in the 737, they could not do the same thing, that's why they had to move the new engines forward. But this is not without consequences, hence the MCAS. 3. To stay competitive it was mandatory for them to avoid extra training and therefore they somehow hid this new feature to the pilots. That's malpractice, to say the least. You explained the rest perfectly. Now, about the future of the MAX: I am sure the problem will be fixed in such a way that these mishaps will not happen again but the reputation of the aircraft might be terribly damaged. May be there will be no impact on the sales, I don't know, but remember the DC10 and its cargo doors issue: it had been fixed but commercialy the airplane was dead. Moreover it's not the first time the 737 has design issues: remember the crashes due to rudder lock (United 585 on March 3rd, 1991 - USAir 427 on Sept 8th, 1994). The problem was solved after 6 years of investigation when a third 737 encountered the same mishap but succeeded to land safely (Eastwind 517 on June 9th, 1996). So from now on, even if I know that it's not rational, I will personally avoid flying with an airline using 737. That doesn't prevent me to wish you the best for 2021 after having gone through a very bad year ... Let's stay optimistic. Best regards
@B B we respect everyone on the two planes that went down in the Third World countries. They were not engineering oversights on old airframe redesign and marketing competition?
Excellent presentation! You did a superb job of explaining the 737 MAX problem and the improved modifications. Thank you for taking the time to share this information.
Yay I was waiting for it! Now I need to watch it :) I think the MAX will be safe now, Boeing would not want to mess with the MAX again and make their reputation will go down the hill. If the crashes happen again (I hope not) the orders of the 777X will also be start getting cancelled. At last, Airbus will prosper and be defined as the giant of the aviation industry!
If the Captain and crew show up at the gate in a Max, I’ll fly with them. If they believe I’m with them. Thank you for a most informative video, well done. Edward
Thanks for the vid! How would you put this as a "post-it" in the cockpit? I am thinkning on something like: - IF NOSEDIVING: Maybe faulty angle of attack reading. Disable MCAS to recover manual control. - I know that's not the only reason to nosedive, but it sounds like a good "fast-to-read" reminder.
Excellent video. I agree "You need to close as many holes as possible" (video 13:07). Here are some of my thoughts. ------- As I hear more & more talk of the 737max being re-certified to fly, I am amazed that the FAA has completely missed half of the needed “fix”. 346 people died and the FAA has ignored the primary reason that they died. They died because the crews in the cockpits of these two planes did not have the physical strength to manually retrim the horizontal stabilizer. They died because the crews did NOT have electric trim available to them. And why was there no electric trim? Did the jackscrew electric motor fail? Did it’s wiring fail? No, both the motor and wiring were just fine. After all, MCAS had just used the jackscrew electric motor to put these two planes nose down! So why did these two crews not have electric trim? Because the Runaway Trim Procedure they were using told them to activate the two cutout switches which disabled the jackscrew electric motor. The Procedure told the crew to disable the autopilot & the autothrottle BUT left MCAS in play, alive & well. Of course it did not help the situation that the first crew (Lion Air) knew NOTHING about MCAS. So after disabling the autopilot & autothrottle they assumed all the automation was disabled and any further trimming was faulty wiring or a faulty motor and so followed the Procedure and disabled the jackscrew electric motor. Anytime you have a pilot struggling to turn manual trim wheels with a good jackscrew electric motor & wiring, you have a big problem that needs to be investigated and fixed pronto! So why is this Procedure not being fixed? MCAS will be neutered & watered down, but there is no guarantee it will never misbehave in the future. I would not fly on this plane until this is fixed. ONE switch to disable ALL the automation (including MCAS) would be a good place to start. The 737 has 2 cutout switches, a simple easy change is to repurpose one to disable the automation (Peter Lemme, 10may2019 Seattle Times article) and let the other one disable the jackscrew electric motor. In the case of runaway trim, 1st disable the automation and then if you still have runaway trim disable the jackscrew motor. The goal here is to NEVER kill electric trim when the problem is in the automation. You really should fix all the problem areas exposed by these two crashes. Anything less is disrespectful to the victims and their families (not to mention future pilots, crews and passengers of this plane) and is evidence of incompetence and/or a payoff/bribe/corporate pressure/political pressure/economic profit pressure. I am coming at this from a system engineering perspective, not an MBA or legal perspective. The MBA would want to maximize profit & the lawyer would want to minimize the risk of being sued. The system engineer wants to address the human factors issues (multiple audio alarms, some real & some not so real, very distracting if loud & repetitive) and make the total system (man & machine) as safe as possible in a realistic amount of time & cost. I think the real reason this procedure is not being changed (other than minor wording changes) is that if it were to be changed in any substantial way to increase safety, someone would say “Wait a minute here, this is NOT your daddy’s 737 anymore, it is a new type”. They would be right and the FAA would be shown to be a rubber stamping bureaucracy that totally screwed up here and is not fit for purpose. -----
Answer: NO! It was not the pilots fault since no one told them about the MCAS and certainly no one trained them to handle the situation. The MAX has oversized engines and this modification to the ancient fuselage design results in an aircraft that is inherently unstable. Now Boeing used software to rectify this mechanical problem. This is criminal on Behalf of Boeing. If its Boeing then I ain't going.
Wow, the guy here explains the problem and you miss it completely and cling to the myth that the plane is unstable because of the engines. Watch the video again. Especially the first minute or three. Pay attention.
@@DaveMiller2 one pilots thoughts on the matter are not the ultimate truth. Go and watch the case agaisnt boeing on Netflix. The plane had a single point of failure on the angle of attack sensor and sabotaged the untrained pilots. The pilot was trained in the USA.
This made me feel a bit better, I have my first flight in 8 years, and my flight is on a 737 Max 8, and my return flight is on the same plane on September 11th. Great. lol
@@greenfly0917 Ironically enough, a day or two before both flight there and home we were switched to Airbus aircraft, once for a maintenance issue and once for a new crew when our intended on maxed out their hours or something.
The problem will remain they want to keep it within the NG type rating and it's not an NG. The MAX will be safe when and only when it get it's own type rating.
I don’t think it need it’s own type rating. A type rating consists of knowledge of how the components in the aircraft work and the maneuvering characteristics. The second part is where the simulator training and extra pilot training goes into. No doubt the 737 replacement will be the new type rating.
I think the press/media had a “high angle of attack” on the Max. However, I’m confident that the new version will be good! Well explained Captain! Subscribed!
@@ambc8970 Indeed - not being able to recognize a stall should be unthinkable. The same with cruise parameters in terms of attitude, EGT, fuel flow N1/N2 to set in case of partial panel conditions. And another - who came up with the idea to cut off audible stall-warning below 60KIAS and who OK'ed it?
@@birgerkagan6087 This was more than 10 years and today there's not as many A330s flying than back then. And those which still do, a lot of them are pretty recent (5-6 years at max) and many of the early versions defaults have been corrected, just as much as pilot training was.
I heard that the manual trim is so hard to do when you’re fighting a dive, that it’s unrealistic to expect pilots to recover a forced dive by manually trimming up. They need to be able to use electric to override the MCAS. It sounds simple, have an off switch for the mcas that’s separate from the trim motors.
If you have high speed it may be impossible to trim stabilizer manually due to large aerodynamic forces. First you need to reduce the airspeed. This thing is written in flight crew training manual for both B737 NG and B737 MAX.
@@elliottdiedrich2123 No training on the system failure modes, could have caught it early and disabled before it was uncontrollable. Airlines did not want to have to type certificate pilots for the Max changes.
I think it would have been good to point out that the trim runaway procedure is common knowledge amount pilots and that they occur in many types and models of aircraft. Good video nonetheless.👍
Thank you for this video, sir! much appreciated. after watching James Asquith's video after 737 Max, I got interested and looked for other related videos, then I landed in this page hehe Good luck on your next video :)
I always buy reconditioned electronic devices because I know a human has actually run it through its paces. I've never had a problem with a reconditioned device and they are less expensive for some reason. Sounds the MAX might be the safest new plane ever since they have gone over everything with a fine toothed comb because if it fails again Boeing is done.
This runs deeper than MCAS. This is the result of the formerly engineering company being taken over by the accounting department. The entire corporate culture changed for the worse after the merger with McD. This is not just Boeing, it is widespread across many industries. This is what destroyed the American auto industry. Accountants are necessary for very specific and limited things. When they take over, they invariably destroy the company. In this case, also killed over 300 people. I see two major problems with MCAS: First, it relies on just one AOA sensor. I can't think of anything in aviation that doesn't have some kind of redundancy, yet Boeing did this, and the FAA approved it. Second, the software is incredibly bad. It apparently has to logic as to whether it is getting good data or not. And it has no limits, if it gets bad data, it will drive the tailplane as far as it will go and keep trying. A high-school kid could have written better software. Thirdly, Boeing hid the whole mess. There should be a great big flashing red light on the dashboard when MCAS is active. Instead, Boeing barely even mentioned it to the pilots. It goes further than that though. The 737 design is now over 40 years old, and should have been retired decades ago. Instead, the accountants retired its successor, the excellent 757, because they figured in the short run they could make more money milking the older design. You can bet the engineers weren't happy about that. The 737 was designed for small-diameter turbojet engines. The new large-diameter turbofans not only increase the thrust, but they change the thrust line, which is the reason for the pitching moment. Also, the landing gear is short and stubby, and as a result, the new engines practically drag on the ground. How the FAA approved all of this is beyond me. There should have been a witch-hunt at Boeing, but the FAA is just as complicit and soon would have been hunting themselves, so basically nothing came of it. Flying is still safer than driving, but not as safe as it used to be. Airbus is no better.
If we’re going to really receive all the silver lining benefit from this tragedy, we should focus as much on its revelation of third world pilot limited experience and competency, as these crews’ failures to follow long standing runaway trim procedures turned a Boeing/FAA hazardous situation into a deadly one.
@@davidthompson4540 Years ago, a civil engineer friend of mine told the story of when he was in engineering college in Tennessee, he arrived at class one day to see a pop quiz on each desk. The test consisted of making a number of calculations to come up with a single numeric correct answer, with the result of the first calculation to be used in the second - the second in the third, and so on. Seeing that if only one mistake was made anywhere in the process he would score a zero on the test, my friend raised his hand and asked the Chinese professor: "If we show our work in the margins, will we get partial credit?" To which the wise old professor replied in his heavy accent: "Partial credit? You want partial credit? You design bridge, bridge fall down, you get partial credit? No no, you get whole blame. No partial credit!" Wise indeed.
The revelation of the AOA system in other planes was critical. Until this video i did not even know that all planes had some kind of MCAS ! Thanks for enlightening but personally i will wait at least 6 months to see what happens.
@@sekabkilo22rangedog8 They're the ones that weren't designed to be aerodynamically unstable and need computer flight software to fix. And the original MCAS system was flawed and only compounded the problem. I put much more faith in aeronautical engineers than I do computer software programmers. At Boeing, the accountants and marketing geniuses won out over the engineers.
@@drummingjack7055 MCAS had to be designed/installed to counter the pitch instability caused by moving the engines forward which was contrary to the recommendations of the aero engineers. And on top of this, the designated authority process put the Boeing foxes in charge of the FAA hen houses. A prescription for deadly failure. This has to be fixed by Congress too!
@@DrJohn493 Well, every aircraft with underwing installed engines has this pitch instability. In the case of the 737 Max, it‘s just a bit more pronounced than in the 737 NG. As explained in the video. But that aside, I‘m completely with you.
I´m a design engineer... and when ever something is made that have some capability of being dangerous, there is always a quite sever discussion and often redesign to remove or some other way mitigate the problem. I can´t believe the Boeing engineer sitting there and not realizing this could be dangerous. At the same time, i really can´t see any mitigation. One mitigation could be to stop the trim if the pilot pulled back on the stick hard. That would be a indication that its really not the engines that is pitching the aircraft up, but there is some other reason. Also.. isn´t there two angle of attack sensors? So there isn´t... That is strange. A automatic system should always operate of at least two sensors (if its critical)
MCAS is not the first time this type of computer knows better has happened without the pilots being trained. In 1991 a DC9 crashed departing Stockholm, Sweden. After wing ice was ingested into the rear-mounted engines causing surging, the pilot throttled back to stop the surging. Unknown to the pilot, the DC-9 had been equipped with an Automatic Thrust Restoration - ATR to override the captain's input and increased the throttle causing the engines to surge again and eventually fail after the breakup of the stage 1 stators.
Can we all appreciate he read and liked almost every single comment on his video?
Like! Like! Like! Like! 😅✈️👍
ok ok
@@PilotBlogDenys lol!😅
Yes! Yes! Yes! @Pilot Blog 😄✈️👍
Thank you so much for making this video! Many of us are flying the MAX because we have no other options and this video makes me way more calm. Once I know how things work and I can understand myself I get relaxed.
One of the easiest to understand explanations I have seen on UA-cam regarding the 737 Max issue. Thanks for sharing Captain.
Glad it was helpful!
I can't say it is also one of the most erroneous because I've seen worse, but yeah it is erroneous. Simple check: if MCAS is needed to compensate for excessive pitch up due to high thrust, it would have been enabled at takeoff, but it remains disabled until the flaps are fully retracted. Also, wouldn't it be triggered based on thrust setting if the explanation is correct?
A very clear explanation of how corporate greed and regulatory incompetence are MANY times more important than consumer safety.
Once again the value of money exceeds the value of human life!
Thank you Boeing. Thank you FAA.
You have explained it better than Boeing themselves.
Thats their job to not explain anything
Boeing will not explain properly because it is a money thing. A marketing race. it's a ME ME situation.
@@georgereyes8445 what blame do the airline’s chief pilot have for not asking questions and not properly training the pilots he was in charge of?
If you were better educated you would realize that the video's explanation of why MCAS is needed is wrong. THINK! If you can… If it was needed to compensate for excessive pitch up due to high thrust, it should operate at take off. But the flaps are extended during takeoff. MCAS only operates when the flaps are fully retracted. That confirms that the explanation is wrong. Simple minds using common sense (instead of a proper education) to try to understand complex subjects and explain it to others usually come up with plausible nonsense that other simpletons find easy to understand. What is easy to understand is easily believed to be the truth. That's how nonsense-spread via the internet-becomes education… just look at all the snide comments from Smart Alecs who believe they understand aeronautics and Boeing because they read a news article. LOL.
I have over 8,000 hours in the B-737. 200, 300, 500, and 700 only. What Boeing did in not advising pilots of this MCAS system is criminal. Excellent explanation!
Would you be happy flying the max ?
Pilots before flight 610 switched it off and landed safety ... pilot you should know better
No the Brazilian knew....what a load of shit . Let's poke the big bear in this case it's boeing. Weather they knew or not they were doom . Before take off grow up ..
Would have made no difference Ethiopians crew knew about i, and yet they still crashed .. Mr. Pilot Man
@@michael-y8c was the system , not the pilots. the research was doneeeee
Finally a clear and concise explanation of the situation and the fixes, thank you very much for making this video! But I just wonder, how is it even possible that Boeing would release an aircraft with a MCAS that 1) could automatically take the plane outside of its safe flight envelope, 2) depended on a single sensor without thinking of what would happen if that sensor ever malfunctions, and 3) was not even mentioned in flight manuals or pilot training? This was criminal negligence that caused the deaths of over 300 people.
Yes, it is also a strange thing for me how they could release the airplane with those issues. I think that responsible persons from Boeing should be charged with criminal justice.
@@PilotBlogDenys
Even though any competent pilot of a transport category aircraft since 1958 knows what runaway trim is, and how to deal with it?
@@alhanes5803 but it isn’t runaway trim,,, you are making thr same mistake as many others 😢
@@andyb.1026
So, the trim didn't runaway on it's own?
You don't have a clue.
@@andyb.1026 But you still treat it like a runaway trim thats why mcas is not in the pilots handbook.
To stop having big holes on the cheese, big rats might need to be removed.
That is interesting comment. With deep sense. 👍
😄
@@PilotBlogDenys As a metafor perhaps, but holes in cheeses are the result of its maturing - not some animal that takes away lumps of cheese
@@PilotBlogDenys Even with the big rats removed, you are correct--to be human is to be imperfect and prone to error. Remove as many hole as you can, but be aware that, with human endeavours, holes will always exist.
Big MBA management rats can sometimes eat entire slices of cheese!
Then you have NO protection & any bad event will pass to the next level unimpeded.
I've been working on jets for 32 years, I've changed a handful of angle of attack sensors...they are very reliable, what fails are the AOA heaters. With 2 this will never happen again, the chance of 2 failing at the same time is zero. Also the pilots are all hyper aware that will be flying this plane, the software only allows one pitch down and if the sensors disagree the system is disabled. 100 percent non issue now.
Thanks Michael 👍✈
Yeah except for the trust that Boeing has lost. They clearly put profit before safety.
This hasn't aged well at all.....We now have pilots AND Boeing execs who will NOT fly on a Max.....Another concern you should all have is they are doing some manufacturing in Charleston SC using the dumbest population on the planet.
Another company shrill. The plane has more problems every day. As does the manufacturer. What bolt is going to let go next? Should another 346 people die because Boeing wants more money. I don't trust the 737 and will not fly on it . A 60 year old design they still cant get right... I find that the most disgusting part of all.
Seeing as how jets have been equipped with stall warning sensors, stick shakers, stick pushers, etc for decades, is MCAS even needed still as a separate system..?
It’s design impetus as was revealed after the accidents was to try to keep the same handling characteristics when applying power as the previous generation of 737, to avoid recertification and retraining.
But now that the the Max did need after the accidents to be recertified and crews were retrained, is there any point in having the separate and redundant MCAS…?
I read all of your comments. Tell me what do you think... You are awesome!
You are awesome!!!
I'm too scared to fly the Max. After what Boeing done i dont think the deserve to have it ungrounded
@@pilotsam004 That is not about Boeing anymore it was checked by many of other authorities. Plus no one speaks about the wrong pilot actions that contribute to air crashes. I expect that many people will not fly on MAX, but after a while it will be usual thing. I also agree that the first design of MCAS was bad. Now if they realise what they promised with new upgrade I expect it to be as safe as B737NG or A320.
Anyway Pilot Sam I do respect your opinion 👍. Thanks for your comment, awesome guy 🤘✈️
@@PilotBlogDenys yes i understand 👍. Thanks for that :)
I have 20000+ hours in every kind of 737. No way I can relax in a MAX.. Not worth the risk to fly. Too many reasons to explain here. The new max training recovery is like fishing.. Pull, release, reel... Ridiculous
I’m flying for the first time in 3 years on a 737 max . This helped to calm my nerves . Thanks for this explanation
I have design autopilots, have an MS in aero form MIT. This situation troubles me. This situation raises fundamental design methodology issues. This is not the place for a major technical argument but let me raise one fundamental issue. The angle of attack is a much more complex flight parameter in this age of variable geometry AC than in was when flight control augmentation systems were first invented. Pitch, roll and Yaw are fundamentally inertial variables, and little has changed in regard to their utilization as feedback variables. Angle of attach is completely different. One could say it is an indicator of air speed direction at a particular sensor location. At a given time it's different all over the AC surface.This has impacted the 737, but really is an issue for all modern large AC. The Angle of attach sensed near the nose of an aircraft infers the angle of attack of the main wing through a complex relationship. This is a serious issue. I would agree with the Brits who are bucking for multiple aoc sensors.
The 737 MAX needs its own Pilot certification and certification process. The MCAS and its aerodynamic design makes it necessary, just because the MCAS allows the Pilot to fly it like a traditional 737 doesn't mean that it actually is one.
@@vincentletzner8638
True. See comments on angle of attack
Agreed and I think the MCAS must take the reference data from inertial pitch Gyroscopes to compare with the both AOA data for sure.
@@t_sixtyfivex_wing8787 agreed with you, rely on double AOA is not good, especially if the means of degree quite high on both AoA, even the MCAS not agresively to push stabilizer pitch down then not enough data will make another aircraft lost alt or power a bit
Very interesting. I was in Acquisition for the USAF for 35 years but I worked in Avionics, not flight controls. The Air Worthiness has become very controlled process. I'm surprised that the AOA system was not at least double redundant. With triple redundancy the flight control computer would be able to compare the different inputs and pick the two that agree the most. Computers require good input to provide good output.
Agree with you. I am also waiting foe 3rd AOA.
What do you think about adding parachutes for the passengers?
You've explained it very well, but I still can't get over the fact that they didn't see the crashes coming. I mean, fancy reasons aside, at the end of the day they programmed an aircraft to pitch automatically down toward the ground, against pilot input, based on information from a single sensor with no redundancy, and seemingly with not a single thought as to the consequences of a false positive reading from the alpha vane. What the hell did they expect was going to happen?? How can anyone have ever thought this was a good idea?
Yes, sadly it is probably the worst and the most stupid mistake or negligence....
They saw it coming. Their safety risk assessment flagged about 15 fatal crashes due to mcas over the lifetime of operation. Boeing just chose not to disclose these findings to the regulator.
@@winniethepoof44 15 😮 and there's only been two.😮. let's hope that's now been made totally redundant !
Poor maintenance installed incorrectly that's how..
It makes one wonder how many more similar issues are waiting to kill people
I'm just upset no higher ups were jailed... For this obvious mishap by forcing through the process to green light it for flight for money purposes.
Countless lives lost, people who have lost family all because of corporate greed.
Just leaves a bad impression on me, it'll be impossible to look at this plane and think anything positive.
I also don't think positive about it. I like B737NG more. My airline cancelled the B737 Max order and I am absolutely ok with it. As for punishment I totally agree with you. Without the punishment it may happen again. Not with MAX but with other plane or maybe other aircraft manufacturer company.
People Lives should have top priority, not money saving...
They admitted that they were wrong only after the second crash knowing about the problem even before the first crash. Crazy. They thought pilots could handle it, but pilots are not ideal.
Unfortunately it is everywhere in our modern commercialised world.
Thanks for your comment 👍
Safe flights ✈️
It’s a process...one that takes a full investigation with good evidence. Give it some more time.
To get an idea about the monetary value Boeing places on human life, one only needs to look at what they set aside for the victims of the accidents. There were 346 lives lost in the two accidents and Boeing set aside $100 million to pay out to the crash victims. The list price of a 737 Max is around $125 million and there were two of them so the value of the planes lost is $250 million. That makes the value of the planes worth two and a half times the value of the human lives they took.
The guilty weasels got huge bonuses and golden parachutes.
@@charlesharper2357 you know this, or are you just repeating what the conspiracy theorists like to blabber on about?
Cleared up a lot of the mystery regarding the MCAS on the Max; why the crashes happened. The next thing in line, is the PROPER pilot training for this aircraft. Like the idea that MCAS has a limit on how much pitching down it is allowed to do, and that it can be disconnected using the switch on the yoke.
I’ve been watching air crash investigation for over a decade.
I’ve also played a bunch of simulators and I can say for a fact that the Boeing 737 Max isn’t safe.
Because the engines are not placed on the wing properly think about it if they had just simply extended the landing you it wouldn’t have changed the Plane that much but no they decided to install a system, that is so efficient at killing that I am surprised that the military isn’t considering using it to “silence people who speak too much” I know it’s actually called MCAS but I call it MKAS with a K.
(Maximum Killing Annihilator Suicide) it killed maximum amounts of people and it annihilated them. It also committed suicide by destroying itself so the name is very fitting isn’t it?
If someone was feeling suicidal, they would go on 737 Max hoping it would crash that’s how deadly it is!
Its success rate of killing is 100% and that’s sickening for me it scares me all because they couldn’t be bothered extending the FU€KING landing gear by 3 feet!
To be fair, they did extended by 10 inches, but it should’ve been 2’10” or 3 Feet just for a little more wiggle room.
Sorry for the vile comment. I’m just really really angry at Boeing for becoming bloodthirsty killers.
May the two whistleblowers rest in peace or should I say pieces according to Boeing Management?
That's a pilot with the right stuff. He knows the proper concepts, theory, and philosophies. I would fly my family under his command without hesitation.
Wow! I feel very honored to read your comment. I am average pilot. There are many who are much better than me.
@@PilotBlogDenys I believe you underestimate yourself. Your attitude, commitment, and attention-to-detail are more desirable and dependable than stick-and-rudder "talent." I flown with both kinds--I prefer the cerebral pilot over the so-called "gifted" pilot every time. Sulley is just one case-in-point. A cocky-jock might have turned back over Manhattan believing his superior piloting talents would get him back to the field. Sulley had the mental discipline to know better.
Tomorrow i'll be on a 737 max , Montreal/México City flight .... honestly I'm a little bit afraid becouse I saw some stadistics about the 737 max , but after this video I feel more confident ,Thank You so much for your great video ! Wish me luck
How'd the flight go?
Hello, thank you for the clean explanation and for the very clean accent. I'm from Brazil and could understand your info very well.
Many thanks for your support! Glad that you can understand me...👍✈
I couldn't understand him perfectly but I'm gonna blame my shit speakers instead of his accent.
@@redtailarts101 his accent is pretty neutral. And yeah, bad speakers can be a pain... But try some headphones instead. Dennis is a great English speaker, believe me... I can understand even Indian accent, and his is good hahaha
@@djgustavvo I have earbuds but idk where they are rn
Thanks for this video. I have to fly on a B737-Max 8 in a week's time and with the recent incidents of missing bolts and then with Alaska Air, I'm not feeling safe anymore. If I have the choice of choosing a different aircraft, I would, but the airline I am flying with only has a fleet of B737-Max 8 in service. I am praying and hoping for an incident free flight in both directions.
im 100% sure youll be completely fine
After what happened with the 747 Max, I'm going to have a hard time ever trusting Boeing again. It's clear that as a company they are willing to put profit over safety and even though the 747 Max is now safe, the culture of profit over safety is still something that exists at Boeing and because of that I will always be weary of them.
*737
Boeing halted deliveries of new 787s because of production flaws including gaps where panels of the carbon-composite fuselage are joined. Boeing has been unable to come up with a fix that satisfies the Federal Aviation Administration.
@@david.m5768 yes, after the last ceo resigned they have gotten a lot better
@@david.m5768 😮
2 Things:
Thanks for bring up the fact that ALL airplanes that have under-wing mounted engines have "pitch-up" moments and not just the Boeing 737 Max (this is the only time in the last 20 months I have heard this fact stated) and pilots not following the "runaway trim" "stab trim" procedure.
Great video explanation !
Yes
I have been avoiding flights on the 737Max. After watching this video, I am more confident about flying on this plane. Not only has this video provided clarity on a complex situation, it is enabling me to fly again on a plane that is used by so many airlines. Thank you.
Excellent video. You put it in "for dummies" language so even non-aviation professionals can easily understand. You earned yourself a subscriber!
✈✈❤❤
Great explanation best I’ve heard!
Happy to see this channel Literally BLOW UP!
Awsome explainations & visuals!
Excellent video, certainly the best I have seen regarding the function of the MCAS system.
My little cousin is at Vaughn College in NYC , i pray he has a great instructor like you. He loves flying!
As an aircraft mechanic I really enjoyed this video. I’m looking forward to see the MAX fly again.
I have heard so many people say that the engine mounting is a design flaw and how dangerous and stupid it is, that it is aerodynamicly unstable, that it requires MCAS to fly and other nonsense bla bla bla etc.
I have not heard anyhone complaining about the design of T-tailed aircraft which are extremely hard to impossible to recover from a Stall, yet so many are flying.
It´s so hypocratic.
Thanks for the detailed explanation! :)
Very good video! Thank you for taking the time to share your knowledge and personal opinion.
Even as an avgeek and heavy global traveller (multiple round-the-world trips per year), I'm still not comfortable with the MAX. It seems to me that this is still a compromise. If I understand the MCAS is really only there as a cost saving measure - to save cost of more extensive training. But training is a short-term problem. Once pilots have converted to the MAX, then it's not such a big problem. I think it would have been better to disable MCAS completely and require the more extensive training. After all, it's a plane from the 1960s that's undergone extensive changes, yet still is the same "type." At some point the plane is just too different. Maybe these changes will be enough, but I can't help but feel that the FAA has allowed minimal changed (e.g., limited hardware changes) to help Boeing commercially.
Adding to my fears that a deeper solution may be needed (plane and training), is the uncommanded pitch event of the 777x late last year. Even with all of the scrutiny and tragedy of the MAX, similar problems have made their way into the 777x. At least in the case of the 777x, the FAA seems to be taking a harder stance in telling Boeing that it will be years before it can be certified.
Hopefully continued concerns are unnecessary and the MAX will be just as safe as the NG. Meanwhile, I will be avoiding the MAX for the foreseeable future.
Very good video! I liked the Swiss cheese analogy, and the good distribution of the issues leading to those crashes. BTW, your English language skills are just fine, you have a better "accent" than many Slavic language speakers, and excellent vocabulary.
I feel like he’s looking into my soul😂
👤👀
Weird
The problem is Boeing are messing around with a 1960s designed fuselage that's fairly low to the ground that was only designed for the older torpedo style engines found on the 100/200 series 737s. Airbus launched its a320 neo which is a far more stable aircraft, this caused Boeing to launch the max with its bigger engines but like the great explanation on here these engines had to be fitted slightly further forwards and higher on the wings.
As a 30k hour training captain, with over 10k hours in command on the 737, I would jump in and fly a Max literally in a heartbeat.
Yes, the MCAS was very poorly done, (yet still flyable when it misbehaves by properly trained pilots) and yes, it’s fine now with a software rewrite.
Well explained, couldn’t pick any significant problems with your description.
Many thanks, Captain. Safe flights to you!✈️🤘
Safe flights
A great design is one where the pilot does not have to manage a crisis caused by a flaw design deliberateley not corrected for profit.
Months ago I talked to a Southwest Airlines pilot, and he basically said the same thing you did. He said everyone shares the blame, but better trained pilots would have known to flip the 2 switches reduce the throttle and manually trim out the aircraft. Great video!
It's amazing over the years how great American trained pilots have tried to take off without flaps and crashed
An excellent explanation was so clear that I don't might to use the 737 Max in the future now.
Yes, wonderful propaganda.
I am comercial,multi-engine rated pilot and was CFI CFII flight instructor. For those of you who do not know anything about how aircraft work at this moment the 737MAX is probably the safest airliner to fly because of the attention from the FAA and EASA. Mr Pilot Blog I never read the accident report but it sounds like the electric pitch trim with mcas just went completely nose down if a stall was about to happen. If mcas was turn off did the electric trim work normally or was the trim wheel the only way to adjust the pitch ? Good video and thanks.
In 1998 I visited Ukraine and took British airways in a 777 from the U.S. back then I could show my pilots lic. to the flight attendant she asked the captain and I could ride in the cockpit during cruise it was the good times before 9/11
Hi, Russell! Thanks for your comment! If you turn of the MCAS, you turn off the electric trim as well. Actually you turn of the electrical trim together with MCAS. So only the manual trim function is available in that case. If the speed is high (as was in Ethiopian case) the manual trim won't work because of the high aerodynamic loads on the stabilizer surface, so firs you need to decelerate the airplane, and than trim it manually. All the information about it is in FCTM, it seem like Ethiopian pilots didn't know about that (they should have known), so they selected the electrical trim back to operation, causing the MCAS to trim the stab. full nose down...
Thank you for the response, Have you had the training for the updated system ? I was wondering if the trim control can now be turn to manual like before, where you can use your thump and trim like you want ?
@@rgood66 Thump trim is still not available on new version if both elec. trim switches in cutout.
I usually avoid commenting about controversial topics but i really want to speak about this.
I think creating the MCAS is a great thing and I always support innovation that's how we progress in technlogy.
However, Boeing created MCAS not for science advancement reasons but for economical reason.
They could have still sold the 737 Max even without the MCAS, even by forcing pilotes to do extra training , airlines would want to invest because the engines efficiency is very tempting. But Boeing wanted to create the deal of the century by making it not only fuel efficient but Also no training required, as i said MCAS is a good thing but created for the wrong reasons.
I'd be honestly happy to See some officials doing jail for this.
rip to all the victimes.
Thanks for your comment! Agree with you!
@@PilotBlogDenys thank you for the quality content , I think I heard you mentioning Ukraine , not sure if you are from there but I'm an expat in Ukraine. I really love this country. Thank you for the effort you put to this channel keep it up please .
@@samrossi2641 Yes, Sam I live in Boryspil. Have a pleasant stay in Ukraine, my friend 👍
Sam, Airbus has the same functionality built into their software for the airplanes that share type ratings. Same reasons.
MCAS wasn't developed simply for economical reasons. If it really was then there would have been no need to update its design. Boeing would have simply removed it since all aviation authorities were going to make retraining of MAX pilots compulsory anyway. MCAS was actually developed to tackle a real technical problem in the design of the MAX. The official documents prove that the MAX did not meet the FAA's requirement for static stability at high AOAs in certain airplane configurations and that was what MCAS aimed to correct (as the name "maneuvering characteristics augmentation" implies). However the fact that Boeing put undue emphases in economy led to them making some of the errors in its design that contributed to the crashes.
Excellent explanation. You did a great job explaining the issues with the 737Max as well as the fixes. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for watching me 😊
I flew the MAX (as a pilot) before it was grounded and I'm excited to fly it again. Actually today I just received my updated training materials and expect to be in the simulator within 90 days to retrain.
Wish you safe flights, Sean! I would like to fly it, but my airline had cancelled the order for Boeing 737 MAX. From what I heard it is great airplane, but the engines start takes time)
@@PilotBlogDenys
I hope you do too comrade, it's very quiet (compared to the NG). And yes the starts take forever, plus after rollback it's a minimum of 3 minutes wait before you can set takeoff power!
@@PilotBlogDenys
Safe flights to you too
How did you feel about not being briefed on the system before the two disasters and crash investigations.
Just flown from São Paulo to Panama , and found out it was a Max just before boarding the plane. Not gonna lie, almost shit my pants the entire flight , but did noticed that the plane is very very stable and the landing a take off were pretty smooth and super fast. But still didn't sleep for the whole flight. Also I never really liked flying even knowing it is safer than driving and all. Good explanation also thanks!
That was an excellent explanation of the 737 MAX's defects and subsequent fixes. I am due to fly the MAX soon. I was already confident to do it as I felt it was now safe (It is apparently the most scrutinised plane ever safety wise) but this video just made me me even more confident. Thanks for that.
Hey, Ian! Many thanks for supporting me with your view and comment!
How was the flight?
Mr Pilot, I admire you’re videos brother 🙏🏼 you have helped me with my flight anxiety. Thanks so much!
As a flight attendant who works for an airline that flys the MAX, I am completely confident in this aircraft. This plane has been scrutinized more than any other aircraft. I will fly on it all day long.
Me too)
This really helped me to understand the issues. Captain Dennis you are so good at explaining things 👏
Awesome, thank you!
Brilliant presentation! I just subscribed to the channel, liked the video and activated the notifications. Looking forward to future posts!
Awesome, thank you! You are now officially awesome guy!
Great explanation! Very clear and easy enough to share with people with little knowledge in aviation! - I just can’t get over the fact that this airplane has a propensity to pitch-up and needs a software to correct it and to fly “normally”
Every airplane with underwing engines has a propensity to pitch up, some more than others, the problem with the Max was trying to make it perform like the older 737NGs. If they had just left it alone, and let the pilots fly it, it would have been safe. It didn't need the software to make it fly normally, it needed software to make it fly like an NG.
It is the first time I heard of "swiss cheese model" in years! Nice to see it again. But I would like to see this from the "Chain of events" point of view.
Great suggestion!
I was on a Lion Air 737 max in Indonesia on a route Surabaya Bali 2 weeks prior the first crash.
I knew about the crash when a i was back home and left me astonished.
My thoughts are that unfortunately we are living in a very competitive environment in all business, and i think in aviations is even worst.
From the moment airbus launched the A320 NEO, Boeing was out of time.
The clearance from the wings to ground in the 737 family didn't allow a bigger engine to fit and redesign all the frame would have been impossible moneywise.
I think the chain started there, but other holes were made in the layers...cost reduction, time running out and really bad decisions taken from management ( not only at Boeing ).
There are certainly big responsabilities that have to be addressed.
As you said we are humans, the hope is to learn by mistakes.
Also the Atr is a great regional plane but had some problems with the deicing system that led to crashes.
Nice video, very clear thumb up!
Thanks for this! Will be flying on the MAX in a month or so and this video just made me feel a lot better and confident flying on it!
How did you find the flight?
The Bob Ross of aviation, just always happy and 100%. Love all the videos
One of the best videos I've seen, well done sir. In my veiw these deaths were caused by corporate greed by Boeing, people should be in jail!
Indeed
Just as an avgeek flying mainly Australia to the UK and back with Qantas on the 787 and got the prized platinum card, I feel MCAS is a bandaid solution of compensation for a more powerful engine having to be mounted further forward for attitude characteristics, there should have been a major design update of the wing structure, but I guess Boeing wouldnt spend the money as its got too much competition from Airbus, which now has a presence in China. Ive only done 40 hours in a Cessna 152 before getting cancer (now cured thankfully, but didnt return to flying) also did the theory you presented early in your video (without the MCAS of course!) but it was all beautifully explained by you and brought back memories of my early flight theory. Thanks so much for the explanation but Qantas hasnt purchased the 737 Max and I personally feel better about that for the worlds most safe airline even though pilots are now fully competent with the Max and the boffins have fixed the fault. Cheers !
I personally would feel okay with flying on it. Not that I'd be first in line but if I do get that plane I don't have an issue
Excellent, the best explanation of the MCAS issue I have ever seen! Just a supplementary information to get the whole picture (tell me if I am wrong):
1. The MAX was developped to challenge the A320 Neo. The main change refers to implementing bigger engines and there's where the problem starts: for the A320 Neo this was not a big deal since there is enough room under the wings, so they did it and at the end they get better performances while avoiding extra training because there is no real impact on the airplane behaviour.
2. Due to the short distance between the wings and the ground in the 737, they could not do the same thing, that's why they had to move the new engines forward. But this is not without consequences, hence the MCAS.
3. To stay competitive it was mandatory for them to avoid extra training and therefore they somehow hid this new feature to the pilots. That's malpractice, to say the least. You explained the rest perfectly.
Now, about the future of the MAX: I am sure the problem will be fixed in such a way that these mishaps will not happen again but the reputation of the aircraft might be terribly damaged. May be there will be no impact on the sales, I don't know, but remember the DC10 and its cargo doors issue: it had been fixed but commercialy the airplane was dead. Moreover it's not the first time the 737 has design issues: remember the crashes due to rudder lock (United 585 on March 3rd, 1991 - USAir 427 on Sept 8th, 1994). The problem was solved after 6 years of investigation when a third 737 encountered the same mishap but succeeded to land safely (Eastwind 517 on June 9th, 1996).
So from now on, even if I know that it's not rational, I will personally avoid flying with an airline using 737.
That doesn't prevent me to wish you the best for 2021 after having gone through a very bad year ...
Let's stay optimistic. Best regards
Hi! Thanks for your comment! Very interesting to read it...
"We make mistakes, we are not perfect like machines" Hahaha! I hope that "the machines" didn't mean 737Max.
No he meant Robocop and his brother Robopilot which now works for Tesla.
@@gunnarkaestle Ahhh Tesla that slammed in to the truck while auto pilot engaging right?
Human lifes first always.
Design problems, must redesign to be safe plane.
MCAS was causing the problem to counter bad design?
@B B we respect everyone on the two planes that went down in the Third World countries. They were not engineering oversights on old airframe redesign and marketing competition?
Their engineers at BOING messer dup relly bad. If they ran it in the STIMULAROT and di dnof find aproblem the BOING IS SUPER DANGOROUS.
Excellent presentation! You did a superb job of explaining the 737 MAX problem and the improved modifications. Thank you for taking the time to share this information.
Not at all worried about flying on the Max more people are trying to kill you on the drive to the airport. Great video
Haha) You are right 👍
My last 3 flights have been on Max 8’s
I was scared, I am still here! Lol
Great explanation Captain... thank you very much!
I'm glad more people are explaining the true problem and dispelling the myth about the plane being unstable. Very good explanation.
Many thanks, Dave!
Yay I was waiting for it! Now I need to watch it :) I think the MAX will be safe now, Boeing would not want to mess with the MAX again and make their reputation will go down the hill. If the crashes happen again (I hope not) the orders of the 777X will also be start getting cancelled. At last, Airbus will prosper and be defined as the giant of the aviation industry!
The Europeans respect nuture and delight in their engineering talent. Enough said.
Thank you for this video , it was very well made and I really enjoyed it ! 🤍
If the Captain and crew show up at the gate in a Max, I’ll fly with them. If they believe I’m with them. Thank you for a most informative video, well done. Edward
🤟✈
I understand much better now. If a 737 captain feels it is safe, then I know it will be safe for me too.
Thanks for the vid! How would you put this as a "post-it" in the cockpit? I am thinkning on something like:
-
IF NOSEDIVING:
Maybe faulty angle of attack reading.
Disable MCAS to recover manual control.
-
I know that's not the only reason to nosedive, but it sounds like a good "fast-to-read" reminder.
For the amount of scrutiny this plane has been through, it will probably be the safest aircraft around.
Excellent video. I agree "You need to close as many holes as possible" (video 13:07). Here are some of my thoughts.
-------
As I hear more & more talk of the 737max being re-certified to fly, I am amazed that the FAA has completely missed half of the needed “fix”. 346 people died and the FAA has ignored the primary reason that they died. They died because the crews in the cockpits of these two planes did not have the physical strength to manually retrim the horizontal stabilizer. They died because the crews did NOT have electric trim available to them. And why was there no electric trim? Did the jackscrew electric motor fail? Did it’s wiring fail? No, both the motor and wiring were just fine. After all, MCAS had just used the jackscrew electric motor to put these two planes nose down! So why did these two crews not have electric trim? Because the Runaway Trim Procedure they were using told them to activate the two cutout switches which disabled the jackscrew electric motor. The Procedure told the crew to disable the autopilot & the autothrottle BUT left MCAS in play, alive & well. Of course it did not help the situation that the first crew (Lion Air) knew NOTHING about MCAS. So after disabling the autopilot & autothrottle they assumed all the automation was disabled and any further trimming was faulty wiring or a faulty motor and so followed the Procedure and disabled the jackscrew electric motor. Anytime you have a pilot struggling to turn manual trim wheels with a good jackscrew electric motor & wiring, you have a big problem that needs to be investigated and fixed pronto!
So why is this Procedure not being fixed? MCAS will be neutered & watered down, but there is no guarantee it will never misbehave in the future. I would not fly on this plane until this is fixed. ONE switch to disable ALL the automation (including MCAS) would be a good place to start. The 737 has 2 cutout switches, a simple easy change is to repurpose one to disable the automation (Peter Lemme, 10may2019 Seattle Times article) and let the other one disable the jackscrew electric motor. In the case of runaway trim, 1st disable the automation and then if you still have runaway trim disable the jackscrew motor. The goal here is to NEVER kill electric trim when the problem is in the automation. You really should fix all the problem areas exposed by these two crashes. Anything less is disrespectful to the victims and their families (not to mention future pilots, crews and passengers of this plane) and is evidence of incompetence and/or a payoff/bribe/corporate pressure/political pressure/economic profit pressure.
I am coming at this from a system engineering perspective, not an MBA or legal perspective. The MBA would want to maximize profit & the lawyer would want to minimize the risk of being sued. The system engineer wants to address the human factors issues (multiple audio alarms, some real & some not so real, very distracting if loud & repetitive) and make the total system (man & machine) as safe as possible in a realistic amount of time & cost.
I think the real reason this procedure is not being changed (other than minor wording changes) is that if it were to be changed in any substantial way to increase safety, someone would say “Wait a minute here, this is NOT your daddy’s 737 anymore, it is a new type”. They would be right and the FAA would be shown to be a rubber stamping bureaucracy that totally screwed up here and is not fit for purpose.
-----
Good thoughts!
Answer: NO! It was not the pilots fault since no one told them about the MCAS and certainly no one trained them to handle the situation.
The MAX has oversized engines and this modification to the ancient fuselage design results in an aircraft that is inherently unstable. Now Boeing used software to rectify this mechanical problem.
This is criminal on Behalf of Boeing.
If its Boeing then I ain't going.
Wow, the guy here explains the problem and you miss it completely and cling to the myth that the plane is unstable because of the engines. Watch the video again. Especially the first minute or three. Pay attention.
@@DaveMiller2 one pilots thoughts on the matter are not the ultimate truth. Go and watch the case agaisnt boeing on Netflix.
The plane had a single point of failure on the angle of attack sensor and sabotaged the untrained pilots. The pilot was trained in the USA.
@@aibel99 well that problem is fixed. Mcas has a failsafe one single sensor can’t cause a nosedive
This made me feel a bit better, I have my first flight in 8 years, and my flight is on a 737 Max 8, and my return flight is on the same plane on September 11th. Great. lol
How was the flight?
@@greenfly0917 Ironically enough, a day or two before both flight there and home we were switched to Airbus aircraft, once for a maintenance issue and once for a new crew when our intended on maxed out their hours or something.
The problem will remain they want to keep it within the NG type rating and it's not an NG.
The MAX will be safe when and only when it get it's own type rating.
I may agree with you. Now it is flight simulator that pilots need to pass. Almost the type rating...
I don’t think it need it’s own type rating. A type rating consists of knowledge of how the components in the aircraft work and the maneuvering characteristics. The second part is where the simulator training and extra pilot training goes into. No doubt the 737 replacement will be the new type rating.
I think the press/media had a “high angle of attack” on the Max. However, I’m confident that the new version will be good! Well explained Captain! Subscribed!
Thanks for your subscription! You are now officially the awesome guy!
I'll let people fly it for a year or two and watch.... Luckily, my local airport (GVA) is mostly served by Airbus airlines.
Luckily? read (and preferably understand) the accident report of AF447.
@@birgerkagan6087 yesss.exactly. And pilots who where not properly trained
@@ambc8970 Indeed - not being able to recognize a stall should be unthinkable. The same with cruise parameters in terms of attitude, EGT, fuel flow N1/N2 to set in case of partial panel conditions. And another - who came up with the idea to cut off audible stall-warning below 60KIAS and who OK'ed it?
You can only polish a Turd so far
@@birgerkagan6087 This was more than 10 years and today there's not as many A330s flying than back then. And those which still do, a lot of them are pretty recent (5-6 years at max) and many of the early versions defaults have been corrected, just as much as pilot training was.
I heard that the manual trim is so hard to do when you’re fighting a dive, that it’s unrealistic to expect pilots to recover a forced dive by manually trimming up. They need to be able to use electric to override the MCAS. It sounds simple, have an off switch for the mcas that’s separate from the trim motors.
If you have high speed it may be impossible to trim stabilizer manually due to large aerodynamic forces. First you need to reduce the airspeed. This thing is written in flight crew training manual for both B737 NG and B737 MAX.
@@PilotBlogDenys The tricky part is reducing your airspeed when you are already in a dive.
@@elliottdiedrich2123 No training on the system failure modes, could have caught it early and disabled before it was uncontrollable. Airlines did not want to have to type certificate pilots for the Max changes.
Bean counters must never be involved in an aircraft`s design or redesign!
In this case, the bean counters were the customers who refused to pay for extra training or install extra sensor.
Excellent! This a perfect primer for those of us that are neither pilots or engineers. Very well done!
If the 737 max doesn't have any issues i would feel pretty safe the 737 is my favorite plane
Theb737 has a long history of killing people due to lousy engineering.
Nice video Captain, as always! Very interesting! ✌🏼
Thanks, Nico🤘✈️
I think it would have been good to point out that the trim runaway procedure is common knowledge amount pilots and that they occur in many types and models of aircraft. Good video nonetheless.👍
Already flying with GOL here in Brasil, I have flown on all Boeings for the last 50 years
Greetings to Brazil!
@@PilotBlogDenys Left the UK 12 years ago
1:27 HAHAHA HE IS A FUNNY MAN TOO😂😂
That made me laugh too
Thank you for this video, sir! much appreciated. after watching James Asquith's video after 737 Max, I got interested and looked for other related videos, then I landed in this page hehe Good luck on your next video :)
Glad it was helpful!
I always buy reconditioned electronic devices because I know a human has actually run it through its paces. I've never had a problem with a reconditioned device and they are less expensive for some reason. Sounds the MAX might be the safest new plane ever since they have gone over everything with a fine toothed comb because if it fails again Boeing is done.
That makes sense
Refurbs are great, man. Costs less, have long warranties, and cheaper because people are stuck on buying "new."
Human built it, human made mistake, human correct the mistake . It happend. Your explaination is exellent. You have very beautiful eyes.
Leonardo Di Caprio, is this you
This runs deeper than MCAS. This is the result of the formerly engineering company being taken over by the accounting department. The entire corporate culture changed for the worse after the merger with McD. This is not just Boeing, it is widespread across many industries. This is what destroyed the American auto industry. Accountants are necessary for very specific and limited things. When they take over, they invariably destroy the company. In this case, also killed over 300 people.
I see two major problems with MCAS:
First, it relies on just one AOA sensor. I can't think of anything in aviation that doesn't have some kind of redundancy, yet Boeing did this, and the FAA approved it.
Second, the software is incredibly bad. It apparently has to logic as to whether it is getting good data or not. And it has no limits, if it gets bad data, it will drive the tailplane as far as it will go and keep trying. A high-school kid could have written better software.
Thirdly, Boeing hid the whole mess. There should be a great big flashing red light on the dashboard when MCAS is active. Instead, Boeing barely even mentioned it to the pilots.
It goes further than that though. The 737 design is now over 40 years old, and should have been retired decades ago. Instead, the accountants retired its successor, the excellent 757, because they figured in the short run they could make more money milking the older design. You can bet the engineers weren't happy about that.
The 737 was designed for small-diameter turbojet engines. The new large-diameter turbofans not only increase the thrust, but they change the thrust line, which is the reason for the pitching moment. Also, the landing gear is short and stubby, and as a result, the new engines practically drag on the ground. How the FAA approved all of this is beyond me.
There should have been a witch-hunt at Boeing, but the FAA is just as complicit and soon would have been hunting themselves, so basically nothing came of it. Flying is still safer than driving, but not as safe as it used to be. Airbus is no better.
Love the Cheese model
Very good explanation - thanks for pointing it out! 👍
The tarnished MAX!!!!!!!
If we’re going to really receive all the silver lining benefit from this tragedy, we should focus as much on its revelation of third world pilot limited experience and competency, as these crews’ failures to follow long standing runaway trim procedures turned a Boeing/FAA hazardous situation into a deadly one.
There's no respect for engineering in the USA
@@davidthompson4540 Years ago, a civil engineer friend of mine told the story of when he was in engineering college in Tennessee, he arrived at class one day to see a pop quiz on each desk. The test consisted of making a number of calculations to come up with a single numeric correct answer, with the result of the first calculation to be used in the second - the second in the third, and so on. Seeing that if only one mistake was made anywhere in the process he would score a zero on the test, my friend raised his hand and asked the Chinese professor: "If we show our work in the margins, will we get partial credit?" To which the wise old professor replied in his heavy accent: "Partial credit? You want partial credit? You design bridge, bridge fall down, you get partial credit? No no, you get whole blame. No partial credit!" Wise indeed.
The revelation of the AOA system in other planes was critical. Until this video i did not even know that all planes had some kind of MCAS ! Thanks for enlightening but personally i will wait at least 6 months to see what happens.
Hi, the other planes doesn't have MCAS... Mostly. They just have the pitch up moment if the thrust in high.
I'm sticking to aircraft with more stable flight envelopes
How do YOU know which ones are more "stable"
@@sekabkilo22rangedog8 They're the ones that weren't designed to be aerodynamically unstable and need computer flight software to fix. And the original MCAS system was flawed and only compounded the problem. I put much more faith in aeronautical engineers than I do computer software programmers. At Boeing, the accountants and marketing geniuses won out over the engineers.
@@DrJohn493 The 737 Max is in fact an aerodynamically stable aircraft. Just the MCAS was not so „stable“. I agree with your last sentence.
@@drummingjack7055 MCAS had to be designed/installed to counter the pitch instability caused by moving the engines forward which was contrary to the recommendations of the aero engineers. And on top of this, the designated authority process put the Boeing foxes in charge of the FAA hen houses. A prescription for deadly failure. This has to be fixed by Congress too!
@@DrJohn493 Well, every aircraft with underwing installed engines has this pitch instability. In the case of the 737 Max, it‘s just a bit more pronounced than in the 737 NG. As explained in the video. But that aside, I‘m completely with you.
Very very good analysis and explanations. Expert level. I started my subscription immidiately. Thanks!
Welcome on board! You are now officially the awesome guy 🤘✈️
The Safety of a Plane is largely dependent on the training and skill of the Pilot Flying and the Pilot Monitoring, and their interactions!!!
Yes, we are the final border...
I´m a design engineer... and when ever something is made that have some capability of being dangerous, there is always a quite sever discussion and often redesign to remove or some other way mitigate the problem.
I can´t believe the Boeing engineer sitting there and not realizing this could be dangerous. At the same time, i really can´t see any mitigation.
One mitigation could be to stop the trim if the pilot pulled back on the stick hard. That would be a indication that its really not the engines that is pitching the aircraft up, but there is some other reason.
Also.. isn´t there two angle of attack sensors? So there isn´t... That is strange. A automatic system should always operate of at least two sensors (if its critical)
Watch it on 1.25 speed
Thanks for the tip!
MCAS is not the first time this type of computer knows better has happened without the pilots being trained.
In 1991 a DC9 crashed departing Stockholm, Sweden. After wing ice was ingested into the rear-mounted engines causing surging, the pilot throttled back to stop the surging. Unknown to the pilot, the DC-9 had been equipped with an Automatic Thrust Restoration - ATR to override the captain's input and increased the throttle causing the engines to surge again and eventually fail after the breakup of the stage 1 stators.