21 ms·

Boeing Believed a 737 Max Warning Light Was Standard

503 points by aaronbrethorst 8y ago

hawaiian 8y ago
Yet we're still not addressing how Boeing outsourced a lot of its software development efforts to India.
- curiousDog 8y ago
  Oh please stop blaming India for every one of your software fuckups. This incident is an aircraft design flaw that literally has nothing to do with outsourcing.
- rossdavidh 8y ago
  While I agree that having your software development on the other side of the planet can increase the chance of bad communication, I think it's not the biggest issue involved here. The biggest issue seems to be, "we need a new plane but we don't want to admit it's a new plane, let's fake that it's the same old plane", and that was not a software issue.
- throwvatars5 8y ago
  Some uninformed solipsists just can’t stop blaming India & China for everything ! And yes they exist in HN too, not just reddit.
runciblespoon 8y ago
“Boeing Believed a 737 Max Warning Light Was Standard. It Wasn’t.” This is retrospective ass-covering, to distract us from the fact that the the pilots were never informed as to the existence of MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) and therefore could not even know how to disable it. The presence of or lack thereof of a warning light being rendered specious. And MCAS read only the one AoA sensor, from the captains side. So to summarize, the pilots don't know about MCAS, MCAS is still engaged even when the auto-pilot is disengaged. A single AoA sensor failed, triggering the MCAS into a nose-down mode, the pilots begin ignorant of this, repeatedly tried to regain level flight using the trim wheel. This they failed at. “The warning light notifies pilots of a disagreement in the sensors that measure which direction the plane is pointed” This wouldn't even work in the way described, in a two sensor system, the computer can't tell which sensor is giving false readings. That's why they hooked up MCAS to only the one sensor. And Boeing didn't tell the FFC or the pilots as they would of had to get the plane re-certified and the pilots retrained.
- sundvor 8y ago
  It's (almost?) wilful. If ever there was a suitable time for using a military acronym such as FUBAR, this is it. In my own view, leadership should be held criminally responsible for the loss of lives. Of course it will never happen, but that's what ought to happen. Hopefully they'll at least be responsible for liability in a lawsuit by the victims' families. They deserve being taken to the cleaners, well and proper.
  - blotter_paper 8y ago
    At this point I feel like it's fair to call Boeing's actions malicious. You charge for safety features that cost you nothing to deploy? Yeah, that's malicious. They knew people could die, but they wanted more money, so they let people die. Now, the company needs to die. Buyers of aircrafts would be clever not to trust Boeing ever again, and buyers of tickets would be clever to avoid flights that use Boeing planes. If everybody acted cleverly, Boeing would die and other aircraft manufacturers would take note. I doubt everyone will act cleverly, but repeatedly informing people of their malicious actions could help facilitate it. Not flying on Boeing planes would help too, but unlike a traditional boycott you have an actual selfish incentive to do so (not dying). Just like a traditional boycott, your individual participation is statistically meaningless unless you're actually in a position to buy a large number of aircrafts. I honestly don't think I'll avoid flying on Boeing planes in the future, but I'm also probably more willing to gamble with my life than most people are; I never said I was clever.
    - sundvor 8y ago
      Agree on malicious, especially given that the Max change was a big hack of an existing airframe. It needed all the extra safety features it could get; to charge through the nose for them was shocking and callous. However, given the amount of Boeing planes out there, and the number of employees, the company dying would be harsh. What needs to happen is a fundamental shift of culture; this is why I think that leadership should be held responsible for what's happened, and that this (with leaders in jail, new ones would have to take their place) would help force the changes that need to happen for safety and engineering quality again to be the number one drivers - not just profits and bean counting. It's an opportunity for them to fully reset the company. Fingers crossed, it will happen.
FabHK 8y ago
One question to ponder: Would the two crashes still have happened without this particular mistake, that is, if the planes had had a working AoA disagree indicator? It depends, I think: 1. Did the AoA sensor malfunction occur before the takeoff roll? 2. Would the AoA disagree indicator come on early enough to abandon takeoff? 3. Would the crew reject takeoff once the AoA disagree indication comes on? If it's a "yes" on all three questions, then presumably the accidents would not have happened. Once you're in the air, and all hell breaks loose (stick shaker etc.) while MCAS tries to dive you in the ground, I doubt that the indication would have made any difference: before the Lion Air crash, crews didn't even know about MCAS. After, they did know, and the Ethiopian Airlines crew, from what I gather, diagnosed the problem, though maybe too late - but again, I doubt whether the AoA disagree indication would have helped. That leaves above questions. 1. For the Lion Air crash, the AoA malfunctioning was there before takeoff. For Ethiopian, I'm not sure. 2. I'd think yes. 3. Don't know. Anyone an idea? (Today, presumably you'd abort with a MAX and AoA issues. Back then?)
- maxden 8y ago
  Re:2. The article says the alert will only come once the aircraft is above 400ft. Originally Boeing told pilots it would activate on the ground.
  - FabHK 8y ago
    True, it does say that... Why would that be the case, though? At any rate, having had that AoA disagree warning (limited to above 400 ft) would not have saved these planes, it seems to me. Having had an AoA disagree warning on the ground might have.
    - FPGAhacker 8y ago
      It's because you have to have moving air for an AoA sensor to work. Unmatched sensors when there isn't enough air movement for proper operation doesn't mean anything.
      - 8y ago
mimixco 8y ago
It's a very bad sign when an aircraft manufacturer builds a warning light and then says, if it doesn't work, that's not a safety issue.
cmurf 8y ago
The warning light might matter for squawk reporting (pilot to maintenance bug report, if you will). But even if the pilot notices the warning, if they don't know about MCAS, then they don't know about "MCAS upset" which can result when MCAS acts on bogus AoA information. And this particular variety of "MCAS upset" quickly induces a mistrim, and high airspeed. So I'm unconvinced the indicator is a "safety" feature in-flight that will result in any different behavior on the part of pilots in an "MCAS upset" situation. It is a mistake to think that trim is only about attitude (nose up or down relative to the horizon), it also implies an airspeed. Nose down trim effectively translates into a higher airspeed, all other things being equal. If you reduce power, the plane will nose down (this is a function of positive static stability, a FAR 25 certification requirement for transport category airplanes), and the plane will stabilize to maintain the airspeed implied by that trim. Add power and it will climb, to maintain the airspeed implied by the trim. The central problem is still that the pilots weren't trained about MCAS in either it's intended working condition, or "MCAS upset", or how the airplane behaves with autotrim disabled and therefore without the benefit of MCAS. The pilot not being aware of these three of these behaviors is just flat out wrong. It's bad enough they weren't also required to demonstrate competency (knowledge and practical test) for all three.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
blt 8y ago
> In several instances, [Boeing] activated the angle of attack indicator for free, which then turned on the disagree alert. This sounds like the "indicator" and "warning light" are not physical devices that must be installed at extra cost, but rather are software features that can be "activated" by changing some configuration file. If so, then Boeing has blood on their hands. The active control system is already a cost-cutting hack. Charging extra for zero-cost safety features related to the new, unproven control system is an act of appalling greed.
- Causality1 8y ago
  Of course they're just software. "On-disc DLC" is how the world works now. Pay for the efficiency package and the computer starts mixing fuel/air better. Pay for the "enhanced maintenance" package and two dozen extra sensors turn on.
- kayfox 8y ago
  So, the AoA indication is a feature that can be activated for a fee (which most likely exists to cover costs of modifying the configuration from the base configuration, so imagine as an analogy a $2 fee for some really minor change to a car you ordered). The reason this is an option is that it requires additional training for the pilots, some airlines already have this training (American Airlines is one example) and theres no enabling it and then not training the pilots on it. As many have noted, AoA is not commonly used in non-military piloting in the United States, so its no surprise its not commonly ordered. I am also under the impression that the AoA Disagree indication was new on the 737 MAX, I haven't checked the 737 NG manuals for it.
tqkxzugoaupvwqr 8y ago
> In the months after the Lion Air crash, Boeing quietly worked to appease some customers, according to a person briefed on the matter. In several instances, it activated the angle of attack indicator for free, which then turned on the disagree alert. Instead of activating the indicator for all customers, Boeing only activated it for customers that explicitly asked. Greedy until the end.
- briandear 8y ago
  Why didn’t airlines pay Boeing for the extra option to be turned on? Apparently they’re greedy until the end. That extra indicator software didn't write itself for free did it? Some engineer got paid to write that software right? So why should Boeing give it away? Airlines aren’t charities.
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    At least Southwest thought that they had the AoA disagree light enabled, and they released a shockingly brutal press release calling Boeing liars over the issue. [0] Beyond that, critical safety features are not supposed to be charged add ons. If 10,000 extra people died because they didn’t pay for Ford’s airbags, who would be at fault? Now imagine that all of those people thought they had airbags because the steering wheel said “airbag” and the brochure talked about airbags, even though they were turned off by software. Who would you blame? 0: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/28/boeing-didnt-tell-southwest-that-safety-feature-on-737-max-was-turned-off-wsj.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/28/boeing-didnt-tell-southwest-...
  - sl1ck731 8y ago
    Boeing believed they shipped it as a standard feature, and included it in the plane's the manual. They found out in 2017 that it wasn't working. After their shitty planes start falling out of the sky they turn it on for the loudest customers, keeping what was intended to be standard now a premium. Which part of this shitty behavior exactly are you trying to defend?
  - Jonnax 8y ago
    Their scheme to generate some extra revenue resulted in hundreds of deaths. Why was a safety feature optional to begin with?
os7borne 8y ago
It’s surprising that there has been no legal proceeding initiated against Boeing for this. They traded the lives of hundreds of people in exchange for an important safety feature.
- sseth 8y ago
  There are cases in court filed in relation to both crashes. And there are various official investigations, including an FBI investigation.
Aeolun 8y ago
This sounds so much like my enterprise experience, where you can bring up a huge security vulnerability, have everyone senior to you explain to you that it isn’t a problem. Leaving you utterly confused. Then when someone else finds out a few months later, suddenly alarm bells start ringing, and everyone up to the CTO is called into an emergency meeting because there is a huge security vulnerability. Yeah, no shit. sigh
- chithanh 8y ago
  That isn't surprising. A security bug that is known only to the vendor does not cause any damage in reputation or finances. In fact, fixing it costs money for no perceived economic benefit. I guess the "responsible disclosure" culture is partly to blame here. If you get 90+ days to fix any vulnerability, then software that ships with (internally) known security issues is much more viable.
- joe_the_user 8y ago
  The disturbing thing is that this "ordinary corporate crap" level of quality and decision making seems to have crepped into the production processes of a company that making aerospace products - ie planes that fly through the air. 'Cause there's a reason the standards for aerospace are different. Your plane crashing is a different matter than your insurance advertising campaign tanking.
- mikekchar 8y ago
  Sometimes I think this is a victim of the "invented here syndrome". I don't know why it is, but many, many people seem to have absolutely no respect for their coworkers. If you bring up an issue (of any kind), it's often treated with suspicion before people even understand what it is. But if the issue is generated by "an authority", suddenly it's a massive problem -- again even before people understand what it is. I've found this also happens for good things. "I've found this amazing thing that will save us millions of $". "It'll never work and as soon as I understand what you are talking about, I'll tell you why". What's absolutely horrible about this is that I've caught myself having the same attitude! I've been trying to stop myself from doing it, but man is it difficult. The default, "My coworkers are brilliant" point of view is just so contrary to my cultural upbringing ;-)
msiyer 8y ago
This is "crime against humanity" level of corporate bullshit. I think, they saved a lot of money by neglecting thorough testing. Also, like in all large corporates, they have n number of departments with terrible infighting and consequentially poor communication.
ww520 8y ago
Is Boeing's problem lack of competition?
- kn0where 8y ago
  If anything the problem is they rushed this plane so they could compete with Airbus
decker 8y ago
Send the CEO to jail for life, only way to be sure.
- hu3 8y ago
  Pretty sure everyone who died in the two crashes would agree with you if they could voice their opinion. Specially the pilots.
known 8y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvkEpstd9os https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvkEpstd9os explains about MCAS
distant_hat 8y ago
If you look at Boeing stock price over the year, it seems none of this has significantly affected it. It is actually up YoY. I can safely say that this scandal will have no major effect on the management.
nicolas_t 8y ago
Even next year when the 737 max will no longer be grounded, I will pay special attention not to fly on them. I'm also increasingly worried about flying on 787s... I wonder what percentage of customers will do the same and how that will impact airline's bottom line.
- hu3 8y ago
  I'm doing the same and instructed my parents to do as well. I don't care if I sound lunatic or alarmist. If Boeing was astute enough to take this kind of shortcut to rush the 737 MAX, who knows what other shortcuts linger in that project, hidden.
- Dirlewanger 8y ago
  How does one even figure that out though? Almost every flight one books, the aircraft model isn't listed.
  - nicolas_t 8y ago
    You can enter the flight number and date in seatguru to get the aircraft model. It's not 100% accurate but helps. The other way is to check flightaware for that flight number. This doesn't protect you from an aircraft change and I don't know how I would deal with it if it happened.
connorcodes 8y ago
This is a sad month for Boeing.
computerex 8y ago
What gross negligence. I hope this forever remains a stain on Boeing's legacy.
nerdbaggy 8y ago
I think part of the blame can be placed on the airlines. They willingly didn’t buy the Warning light
- ulfw 8y ago
  You’re right and wrong. It’s not about ‘they willingly didn’t buy the warning light’ but it was indeed American Airlines who pushed Boeing into making another shortcut warmed up 60 year old design plane with the 737max by asking for a quick lower cost plane. Lower cost that could only be achieved by lower kerosine sucking engines (which didn’t fit under the 737) and by ‘oh god forbid we do not want to train pilots’ type rating commonality. Let’s not forget that the whole “we only got training via an iPad lesson” is exactly what American et al wanted. They wanted to save money on simulator lessons / new typerating training.
- phire 8y ago
  The airlines thought they had the warning light. Boeing thought they had delivered the warning light all airlines as a default. It was only later that Boeing discovered they messed up and had made the warning light dependant on another feature which was optional. And then Boeing didn't tell airlines about the broken warning light until just a few months ago.
  - jordache 8y ago
    what a cluster F of permissions management F Boeing
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- mort96 8y ago
  Hmm, I don't know. It seems reasonable for an airline to think that A) the standard plane is more than safe enough (as it should be), and that B) other airlines will have a competitive advantage if they don't opt for the warning light. We can certainly blame them for putting profits above safety by taking calculated risks, but I don't think we can expect companies to act otherwise, at least under current economic systems. Really, it's Boeing, and governmental oversight bodies, who were in the best position to know if the plane was dangerous without a warning light, and therefore to make sure all planes have a warning light.
jzwinck 8y ago
So even now Boeing will not include all safety features for all customers. Not that Airbus is doing better, but this indicates that Boeing is not concerned that it could face serious charges for continuing to sell planes with some safety features missing. That's interesting! Why are they so assured?
- AlexCoventry 8y ago
  Corruption. After the Ethiopia crash, the CEO/Chairman was on the phone to Trump, to ask him not to ground the rest of the 737 MAXs. (He changed positions on that once it was clear Boeing wasn't going to be able to dodge culpability.) The board member responsible for the audits which should have demanded a fix for these issues has been re-elected. Even the dual CEO/Chairman role is a significant governance failure. https://beta.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/05/06/safety-was-just-given-inside-boeings-boardroom-amid-max-crisis https://beta.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/05/06/safety-w...
- solarkraft 8y ago
  The USA have a long history of being very supportive of their companies ("regulation is evil!").
0n0n0m0uz 8y ago
I bet even more will come to light.....https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-knew-about-safety-alert-problem-for-a-year-before-telling-faa-airlines-11557087129 https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-knew-about-safety-alert-...
lqet 8y ago
> After discovering the lapse in 2017, Boeing performed an internal review and determined that the lack of a working warning light “did not adversely impact airplane safety or operation,” it said in its statement. > As a result, Boeing said it did not inform airlines or the Federal Aviation Administration about the mistake for a year. There was a warning light installed in the cockpits which was completely non-functional in 80% of the 737 max fleet, and Boeing did not notify the airlines for an entire year? Did they honestly think that "lack of a warning light" is equal to "lack of working warning light"?
- sidcool 8y ago
  Time to call their BS and fine heftily to avoid such behavior in future. Imagine Boeing responsible for manned space flights.
  - Kliment 8y ago
    Boeing is in fact in the certification pipeline for crewed spaceflight at NASA, and has received more NASA funding for this than every other applicant together, including SpaceX. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CST-100_Starliner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CST-100_Starliner
- AnssiH 8y ago
  The "warning light" is an "AOA DISAGREE" text that appears on the main flight display: http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/commercial/737max/updates/AOA_VaneIndicator_AoA_Disagree_lg.jpg http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/commercial/737m... So there was no non-functional physical light on the cockpit.
  - lqet 8y ago
    Ah, I was not aware of that. But surely the pilots were under the impression that such a warning message existed?
    - nraynaud 8y ago
moron4hire 8y ago
This is a phenomenal failure of management. The failure of the team is always the fault of the leader. I've seen this so many times in industry. Some decision on high comes through that costs need to be cut, which means cutting corners. It always means cutting corners, because the only way they have to measure costs is Salary × Butts-In-Seats. So they hire lower cost people (i.e. less experienced, often off-shore where there is no oversight on process) and cut the number of people (often several key roles that would put the brakes on bad plans). They make a short-staffed team of people who don't know any better, then look around confused when things go wrong. "But the PowerPoints said we'd be successful. The management consultants said everything was on track". When it's a website for a government bureau, people just throw up their hands and act like this is normal. The customer eats the cost of the useless product and they start over, usually with the same contractor on an extension, often not learning any lessons in the process (how could they? They can't imagine a world in which any of this is their fault). It should never happen for any project. It should be a damn crime, upwards of fraud, with massive fines. But stuff that can kill people, this should be sending people to jail. I can hear the meetings in my head, I've been through them so many times. "Who knew this was a problem?" "Uhhh, I brought it up at the outset, you said it wasn't my place to bring it up." "You're on report for your negative attitude."
ErikVandeWater 8y ago
> But months after the planes were flying, company engineers realized that the warning light worked only on planes whose customers had bought a different, optional indicator. If I am to read this correctly, the angle-of-attack disagree light is installed on all Boeing 737-MAX aircraft. For customers who did not buy on optional additional indicator, the angle-of-attack disagree light was always off, even if there is a disagreement between to sensors of the angle of attack of the aircraft. Doesn't this seem dangerous in-and-of itself? If a pilot assumes that the light is off because there is not a disagreement, instead of because there is no information available, she is acting on incorrect information, and might try to address problems unrelated to the actual problem. Also, pilot may switch aircraft and expect the same functionality of safety features and may make incorrect assumptions about the functioning of this light.
- peteretep 8y ago
  > Doesn't this seem dangerous in-and-of itself? To me, more dangerous, is that some safety systems are considered optional. Surely the plane either needs a safety feature or not, and it shouldn't be down to someone at an airline to make a decision on?
  - firethief 8y ago
    Different countries have different standards of safety, and different budgets. Boeing got more $$$ from airlines in the US by making planes in Ethiopia and Indonesia less safe. Yay capitalism.
    - ddalex 8y ago
      Not less safe. Perhaps not as safe at others. Such as of those where the front doesn't fell off.
      - FabHK 8y ago
        Well, it's not built of cardboard and rubber... Does everyone know this delicious skit? "Clarke and Dawe - The Front Fell Off" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM
pornel 8y ago
> Boeing performed an internal review and determined that the lack of a working warning light “did not adversely impact airplane safety or operation,” > after the crash of Lion Air Flight 610 […] conducted another review and again found the missing alert did not pose a safety threat How was it possible to come to this conclusion? Twice!? Even after it caused a crash!?
- cjbprime 8y ago
  "Well, we didn't tell pilots that MCAS exists, which means we didn't tell them that AoA is hooked up to it, which means that AoA failure isn't relevant to their decision making, so there's no safety threat from not communicating it." (In case there's doubt: I am not joking, I think this is seriously the argument.)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
Havoc 8y ago
>“You better start knowing things about the airplane you’re building and selling because my life and the passengers that I carry safely across the globe depends on it,” Mr. Tajer said. haha wow. If that's representative of how pilots feel then Boeing is in trouble.
- yborg 8y ago
  Pilots don't buy the planes.
- tqkxzugoaupvwqr 8y ago
  May I ask how this gets Boeing into trouble? The only thing pilots could do is strike which I find improbable.
  - Tor3 8y ago
    SAS had a seven-day pilot strike just last week, over (mainly) working conditions, so how would a pilot strike over this be so improbable?
mvonthron 8y ago
Boeing statement: https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-releases-statements?item=130431 https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-releases-statements?item=1... This PR is helpful in that it reminds me that there are actually people paid to take a simple set of information and mix in with a ton of PR bullshit so that you have to read it 4 times before you actually understand that yes, they screw up.
- nobrains 8y ago
  Here is the ass saving statement from the press release: "Senior company leadership was not involved in the review and first became aware of this issue in the aftermath of the Lion Air accident."
  - hef19898 8y ago
    Courious they try the same strategy as VW. We all know how that is most likely to end...
    - neuronic 8y ago
      With increased sales and better revenue? https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news/2019/03/VW_Group_deliveries_2018.html https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news/2019/03/VW_Group_delive...
      - hef19898 8y ago
        And got a the former CEO and other exects indicted in two countries and cost the conptany billions. The story is still ongoing. And might have contributed to the issue with the new Golf 8. Did I mention that some former managers are in jail already?
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - user5994461 8y ago
killjoywashere 8y ago
This is the sort of fault that causes everyone to pray the investigation comes back "pilot error". Because the alternative is the entire company gets pulled through the mud. Rightfully, but man, this is going to hurt Boeing, and by extension the US.
- na85 8y ago
  I find the idea that society should not keep corporations and their behaviour in check because "the economy may be damaged" to be frightening and dangerous.
  - killjoywashere 8y ago
    I didn't say we shouldn't. I'm fairly comfortable with the idea of bitter medicine. But acknowledging "this is going to be bitter" is a remarkably helpful way to gain rapport, and doesn't actually interfere with the administration of the treatment. If anything, it reduces the patient's odds of rejecting the medicine.
- mikeash 8y ago
  What has hurt Boeing is the design problem and the poor response to it. At this point, the best way to mitigate the damage is for Boeing to step up, acknowledge fault, fix the problem, and demonstrate concrete changes that will prevent similar problems from occurring in the future.
dbg31415 8y ago
So a year from now, when we are flying and see that it’s a 737 Max... who is going to opt for another flight? Everyone? Because this shit is kinda fucked how flippant Boeing was with getting around safety testing. This video was both hilarious and terrifying. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NhZ0D-JRtz0 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NhZ0D-JRtz0
- bdowling 8y ago
  Note: The linked video is by foul-mouthed Canadian YouTuber AvE, in which he disassembles and comments on an angle-of-attack sensor from a C-130 military aircraft. He comments favorably on the build quality of the assembly, but is not impressed with the sensor itself or the lack of internal redundancy. The analysis is interesting but of limited value to consideration of the sensors and MCAS system on the Boeing 737 MAX.
  - dbg31415 8y ago
    Yeah, I just thought the guy's voice was hilarious. He sounds like someone who lives in the machine shop, knows his shit, and has never had to interact with customers. If I had a personal J.A.R.V.I.S., I'd want to use his voice for it.
- quickthrower2 8y ago
  Or don't book such a flight in the first place. I guess you can get unlucky and have it changed on you.
cletus 8y ago
So I draw two conclusions from this clusterF of astronomical proportions: 1. The A320neo really caught Boeing off guard. The 737 MAX was a panicked reaction to something that they thought would threaten their business to a significant degree. The A320neo and A320 have a common type rating too. Googling seems to suggest the differences are fairly minor however. I guess Airbus benefits in the A320 being a newer airframe than the 737 (which is ~50 years old now)? 2. Somewhere along the line this is a management failure of gigantic proportions. That management would risk Boeing's reputation on something that, in hindsight, is so incredibly foolish is mind-blowing. And the buck stops with the CEO. If this ends with anything less than the CEO deciding to spend more time with his family it's a joke. And whoever replaces him should clean house with anyone remotely responsible for this. This isn't unprecedented either. Through this fiasco I came to learn about the 1990s 737 rudder issue [1] and it's scary how similar the reaction is. "The planes are fine". "There is no issue". You know, until there is. I expect the only thing stopping a lot of airlines from cancelling their 737 MAX orders and buying A320neos instead is at this point they'd probably have to get in the back of the line and wait years. They really have no choice but to stick with the 737 MAX now. Actually I guess airlines like Southwest (who are 100% 737 IIRC) are kind of stuck anyway. It's the likes of American Airlines who has such a large and diverse fleet that really bet on the wrong horse. I really hope this ends in a court case or even better, a criminal case. I really want to know who signed off on this plan and at what point warnings were given and ignored. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues
- dahart 8y ago
  > I really hope this ends in a court case or even better, a criminal case. I really want to know who signed off on this plan... There are multiple lawsuits against Boeing going already, but don’t forget the FAA signed off on the plan, and some time ago formally adopted a policy of trust whatever the airlines say without checking carefully. Why even have a federal regulatory agency for air safety if they’re not going to independently scrutinize what the airlines do?
  - briandear 8y ago
gimli9500 8y ago
The media seems to be on a mission to kill commercial aviation similar to what happened to recreational aircraft. I wonder how long before we see an article about how Boeing knowingly omitted flare and chaff systems despite the risk of surface-to-air missiles. They'll talk about how the AN/ALE-47 system could avoid 22 deaths/year for only $30k.
phkahler 8y ago
This story is really starting to annoy me. Now there's a new person named "Boeing" who somehow lacks self awareness to know what they're doing or selling even though this Boeing character designed, built, and sold two variations on their product. I feel like Boeing will soon become the main character, and try to plead insanity.
- CoolGuySteve 8y ago
  Hey now, if we started holding individuals accountable for the criminal negligence of the corporation they run, surely bedlam would errupt. It's Limited Liability in it's purest, most distilled form.
  - cjbprime 8y ago
    Interesting linguistic phenomenon: Commonwealth grammar uses plural verbs for collective nouns -- i.e. English newspaper articles will say "Boeing have decided.." instead of "Boeing has decided..". Strikes me as subversive in this current environment: language reminding you that a corporation's decisions are made by actual people.
    - aitchnyu 8y ago
      As an Indian, I was surprised at "Collective are..." and believe it arose after the colonial days.
      - cjbprime 8y ago
        That's interesting! I wonder when this strong preference for plural verbs appeared in British English.
  - phkahler 8y ago
    >> It's Limited Liability in it's purest, most distilled form. I didn't say what should happen. The company is just publicly waffling about it's own behavior. I find that annoying is all even if it's kind of expected.
village-idiot 8y ago
It’s probably time to revoke the 737 Max’s type certificate and send Boeing back to the regulatory drawing board.
blensor 8y ago
What worries me even more is the monkeypatching they are now trying to do in order to get the permission to fly the plane again. In the original design they had designed the MCAS to be able to make drastic changes which then caused the crash. Now they are trying to fix that by making the system less intrusive, but didn't the engineers design the system to be so strong for a reason (because of the changed position of the engines)? This seems to me like going through a codebase from someone else because there were errors and just deleting stuff that made problems. Even if the initial version had problems, it was designed that way for a reason?
antihero 8y ago
What fucking piece of shit decides that MORE SAFETY is a PREMIUM ADDONT? That is literally suggesting that some passengers lives are worth less than others. Planes should be as safe as they can possibly be. Full stop. Premium should be for things like comfort and things you can do with out.
- retSava 8y ago
  It's the same in the car industry, unfortunately. Many options that are more or less pure safety-only, and not convenience, are not included unless you open up a little more. It economically (to the car industry) may make sense (opt ups, recover costs, etc), but it's sad in a way.
oakmad 8y ago
Here’s an article from 1995 that talks about how 737 pilots didn’t know they had to turn off auto throttle on takeoff abort - https://www.csmonitor.com/1995/0821/21082.html https://www.csmonitor.com/1995/0821/21082.html I wonder how software testing will change (if at all) in the industry post this revelation. There was an old joke during 777 development (Boeing’s first full fbw) about the difference between airbus and Boeing software testing architecture - airbus used formal techniques and Boeing put the software engineers on the first flight.
ponderatul 8y ago
Sure, but they are still responsible for the effects. That we can't forget. Ignoring the complex system they have created is their fault
zaphar 8y ago
This sounds like a case of a system so complex that the humans trying to reason about were unable to do so. As a software engineer I've sometimes had to run a piece of software to properly understand how it works. This doesn't seem like a desirable property for systems that are critical for safety.
addicted 8y ago
I find Boeing's dismissal of this as not being a safety concern unconvincing. Boeing spent the money adding this to their design. They spent the money adding the capability to every plane they had. And they thought it was important enough that they shouldn't be charging airlines for it, unlike the addition of a backup sensor (which wasn't considered important enough to be delivered standard). What was the thinking when doing the review? Hey, here's this feature we thought was important enough that we added several costs without charging airlines for it, while we were nickel and diming them on backup sensors, but actually it was all a big mistake. We were just being generous on this for no reason at all?
swamp40 8y ago
The money quote: The anti-stall system, created to compensate for the Max’s large new engines, will push down the nose of the plane if the angle of attack sensors indicate the plane is dangerously close to stalling. But the system relied on only one of the two angle of attack sensors, introducing a potential single point of failure into a critical flight system. And the anti-stall system was also changed late in the design process to make it much more powerful.
RaceWon 8y ago
Reading the article I was reminded of the depths auto makers would sink to in order to saver pennies on every car made. On another note; am I the only person that these AOA vanes seem so hokey and inelegant to? I am not a pilot, nor a designer, but if I was buying and flying something that had these sticking out like an after thought; I'd be like WTF are you kidding me?!
jordache 8y ago
so these Boeing fools set the entitlement flag for the necessary AOA disagree display as a child of another, non-required "safety" display option? Idiots. How the hell do they not have a robust system to validate the correct application of instrumentation rules?
zzma 8y ago
> Boeing performed an internal review and determined that the lack of a working warning light “did not adversely impact airplane safety or operation,” Why is this review not done by a third party auditor? The cynical view is that corporations have a conflict of interest. They are only incentivized to act ethically up to the point that the cost of ethical behavior exceeds the damage done by unethical behavior... These costs do include future fines/penalties, but these are often woefully disproportionate to the damage done as evidenced by the fraudulent NASA metal supplier incident.
- salawat 8y ago
  Because the third party auditor (the FAA) has had it's operating budget slashed so viciously, it can't compete in attracting the talent required for independent certification. Remember, to regulate something, you need to be 10% smarter than what you are regulating. Which means you have to be able to make sure you can attract the best talent possible. As a regulator, you have to be on your game all the time. The regulated just need to get lucky once to get away with what they shouldn't.
godson_drafty 8y ago
This issue of the AOA-disagree warning light keeps getting brought up again and again, which is unfortunate because the presence of such a light would not have saved those 346 lives. Imagine you are a pilot and your airplane's nose keeps getting pushed toward the ground no matter how much you pull back on the stick. You try everything. Now you notice a little warning light 'AOA disagree'. How does that help you, exactly? The lack of this warning light is completely irrelevant. The problem is that they allowed the readings from 1 single sensor to force the nose of the aircraft toward the ground.
rconti 8y ago
Sort of OT, AvE did a BOLTR on an AoA sensor last week. (from a military cargo plane, I forget which. Said plane has 4 of them) I watched it last night in the same state that he apparently films his vidjeos, and I enjoyed it. YMMV. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhZ0D-JRtz0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhZ0D-JRtz0
godson_drafty 8y ago
Not only is Boeing too big too fail, it's too big to succeed.

Yet we're still not addressing how Boeing outsourced a lot of its software development efforts to India.

curiousDog 8y ago
Oh please stop blaming India for every one of your software fuckups. This incident is an aircraft design flaw that literally has nothing to do with outsourcing.
rossdavidh 8y ago
While I agree that having your software development on the other side of the planet can increase the chance of bad communication, I think it's not the biggest issue involved here. The biggest issue seems to be, "we need a new plane but we don't want to admit it's a new plane, let's fake that it's the same old plane", and that was not a software issue.
throwvatars5 8y ago
Some uninformed solipsists just can’t stop blaming India & China for everything ! And yes they exist in HN too, not just reddit.

“Boeing Believed a 737 Max Warning Light Was Standard. It Wasn’t.” This is retrospective ass-covering, to distract us from the fact that the the pilots were never informed as to the existence of MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) and therefore could not even know how to disable it. The presence of or lack thereof of a warning light being rendered specious. And MCAS read only the one AoA sensor, from the captains side. So to summarize, the pilots don't know about MCAS, MCAS is still engaged even when the auto-pilot is disengaged. A single AoA sensor failed, triggering the MCAS into a nose-down mode, the pilots begin ignorant of this, repeatedly tried to regain level flight using the trim wheel. This they failed at. “The warning light notifies pilots of a disagreement in the sensors that measure which direction the plane is pointed” This wouldn't even work in the way described, in a two sensor system, the computer can't tell which sensor is giving false readings. That's why they hooked up MCAS to only the one sensor. And Boeing didn't tell the FFC or the pilots as they would of had to get the plane re-certified and the pilots retrained.

sundvor 8y ago
It's (almost?) wilful. If ever there was a suitable time for using a military acronym such as FUBAR, this is it. In my own view, leadership should be held criminally responsible for the loss of lives. Of course it will never happen, but that's what ought to happen. Hopefully they'll at least be responsible for liability in a lawsuit by the victims' families. They deserve being taken to the cleaners, well and proper.
- blotter_paper 8y ago
  At this point I feel like it's fair to call Boeing's actions malicious. You charge for safety features that cost you nothing to deploy? Yeah, that's malicious. They knew people could die, but they wanted more money, so they let people die. Now, the company needs to die. Buyers of aircrafts would be clever not to trust Boeing ever again, and buyers of tickets would be clever to avoid flights that use Boeing planes. If everybody acted cleverly, Boeing would die and other aircraft manufacturers would take note. I doubt everyone will act cleverly, but repeatedly informing people of their malicious actions could help facilitate it. Not flying on Boeing planes would help too, but unlike a traditional boycott you have an actual selfish incentive to do so (not dying). Just like a traditional boycott, your individual participation is statistically meaningless unless you're actually in a position to buy a large number of aircrafts. I honestly don't think I'll avoid flying on Boeing planes in the future, but I'm also probably more willing to gamble with my life than most people are; I never said I was clever.
  - sundvor 8y ago
    Agree on malicious, especially given that the Max change was a big hack of an existing airframe. It needed all the extra safety features it could get; to charge through the nose for them was shocking and callous. However, given the amount of Boeing planes out there, and the number of employees, the company dying would be harsh. What needs to happen is a fundamental shift of culture; this is why I think that leadership should be held responsible for what's happened, and that this (with leaders in jail, new ones would have to take their place) would help force the changes that need to happen for safety and engineering quality again to be the number one drivers - not just profits and bean counting. It's an opportunity for them to fully reset the company. Fingers crossed, it will happen.

FabHK 8y ago

One question to ponder: Would the two crashes still have happened without this particular mistake, that is, if the planes had had a working AoA disagree indicator? It depends, I think: 1. Did the AoA sensor malfunction occur before the takeoff roll? 2. Would the AoA disagree indicator come on early enough to abandon takeoff? 3. Would the crew reject takeoff once the AoA disagree indication comes on? If it's a "yes" on all three questions, then presumably the accidents would not have happened. Once you're in the air, and all hell breaks loose (stick shaker etc.) while MCAS tries to dive you in the ground, I doubt that the indication would have made any difference: before the Lion Air crash, crews didn't even know about MCAS. After, they did know, and the Ethiopian Airlines crew, from what I gather, diagnosed the problem, though maybe too late - but again, I doubt whether the AoA disagree indication would have helped. That leaves above questions. 1. For the Lion Air crash, the AoA malfunctioning was there before takeoff. For Ethiopian, I'm not sure. 2. I'd think yes. 3. Don't know. Anyone an idea? (Today, presumably you'd abort with a MAX and AoA issues. Back then?)

maxden 8y ago
Re:2. The article says the alert will only come once the aircraft is above 400ft. Originally Boeing told pilots it would activate on the ground.
- FabHK 8y ago
  True, it does say that... Why would that be the case, though? At any rate, having had that AoA disagree warning (limited to above 400 ft) would not have saved these planes, it seems to me. Having had an AoA disagree warning on the ground might have.
  - FPGAhacker 8y ago
    It's because you have to have moving air for an AoA sensor to work. Unmatched sensors when there isn't enough air movement for proper operation doesn't mean anything.
    - 8y ago

mimixco 8y ago

It's a very bad sign when an aircraft manufacturer builds a warning light and then says, if it doesn't work, that's not a safety issue.

cmurf 8y ago

The warning light might matter for squawk reporting (pilot to maintenance bug report, if you will). But even if the pilot notices the warning, if they don't know about MCAS, then they don't know about "MCAS upset" which can result when MCAS acts on bogus AoA information. And this particular variety of "MCAS upset" quickly induces a mistrim, and high airspeed. So I'm unconvinced the indicator is a "safety" feature in-flight that will result in any different behavior on the part of pilots in an "MCAS upset" situation. It is a mistake to think that trim is only about attitude (nose up or down relative to the horizon), it also implies an airspeed. Nose down trim effectively translates into a higher airspeed, all other things being equal. If you reduce power, the plane will nose down (this is a function of positive static stability, a FAR 25 certification requirement for transport category airplanes), and the plane will stabilize to maintain the airspeed implied by that trim. Add power and it will climb, to maintain the airspeed implied by the trim. The central problem is still that the pilots weren't trained about MCAS in either it's intended working condition, or "MCAS upset", or how the airplane behaves with autotrim disabled and therefore without the benefit of MCAS. The pilot not being aware of these three of these behaviors is just flat out wrong. It's bad enough they weren't also required to demonstrate competency (knowledge and practical test) for all three.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

blt 8y ago

> In several instances, [Boeing] activated the angle of attack indicator for free, which then turned on the disagree alert. This sounds like the "indicator" and "warning light" are not physical devices that must be installed at extra cost, but rather are software features that can be "activated" by changing some configuration file. If so, then Boeing has blood on their hands. The active control system is already a cost-cutting hack. Charging extra for zero-cost safety features related to the new, unproven control system is an act of appalling greed.

Causality1 8y ago
Of course they're just software. "On-disc DLC" is how the world works now. Pay for the efficiency package and the computer starts mixing fuel/air better. Pay for the "enhanced maintenance" package and two dozen extra sensors turn on.
kayfox 8y ago
So, the AoA indication is a feature that can be activated for a fee (which most likely exists to cover costs of modifying the configuration from the base configuration, so imagine as an analogy a $2 fee for some really minor change to a car you ordered). The reason this is an option is that it requires additional training for the pilots, some airlines already have this training (American Airlines is one example) and theres no enabling it and then not training the pilots on it. As many have noted, AoA is not commonly used in non-military piloting in the United States, so its no surprise its not commonly ordered. I am also under the impression that the AoA Disagree indication was new on the 737 MAX, I haven't checked the 737 NG manuals for it.

tqkxzugoaupvwqr 8y ago

> In the months after the Lion Air crash, Boeing quietly worked to appease some customers, according to a person briefed on the matter. In several instances, it activated the angle of attack indicator for free, which then turned on the disagree alert. Instead of activating the indicator for all customers, Boeing only activated it for customers that explicitly asked. Greedy until the end.

briandear 8y ago
Why didn’t airlines pay Boeing for the extra option to be turned on? Apparently they’re greedy until the end. That extra indicator software didn't write itself for free did it? Some engineer got paid to write that software right? So why should Boeing give it away? Airlines aren’t charities.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  At least Southwest thought that they had the AoA disagree light enabled, and they released a shockingly brutal press release calling Boeing liars over the issue. [0] Beyond that, critical safety features are not supposed to be charged add ons. If 10,000 extra people died because they didn’t pay for Ford’s airbags, who would be at fault? Now imagine that all of those people thought they had airbags because the steering wheel said “airbag” and the brochure talked about airbags, even though they were turned off by software. Who would you blame? 0: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/28/boeing-didnt-tell-southwest-that-safety-feature-on-737-max-was-turned-off-wsj.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/28/boeing-didnt-tell-southwest-...
- sl1ck731 8y ago
  Boeing believed they shipped it as a standard feature, and included it in the plane's the manual. They found out in 2017 that it wasn't working. After their shitty planes start falling out of the sky they turn it on for the loudest customers, keeping what was intended to be standard now a premium. Which part of this shitty behavior exactly are you trying to defend?
- Jonnax 8y ago
  Their scheme to generate some extra revenue resulted in hundreds of deaths. Why was a safety feature optional to begin with?

os7borne 8y ago

It’s surprising that there has been no legal proceeding initiated against Boeing for this. They traded the lives of hundreds of people in exchange for an important safety feature.

sseth 8y ago
There are cases in court filed in relation to both crashes. And there are various official investigations, including an FBI investigation.

Aeolun 8y ago

This sounds so much like my enterprise experience, where you can bring up a huge security vulnerability, have everyone senior to you explain to you that it isn’t a problem. Leaving you utterly confused. Then when someone else finds out a few months later, suddenly alarm bells start ringing, and everyone up to the CTO is called into an emergency meeting because there is a huge security vulnerability. Yeah, no shit. sigh

chithanh 8y ago
That isn't surprising. A security bug that is known only to the vendor does not cause any damage in reputation or finances. In fact, fixing it costs money for no perceived economic benefit. I guess the "responsible disclosure" culture is partly to blame here. If you get 90+ days to fix any vulnerability, then software that ships with (internally) known security issues is much more viable.
joe_the_user 8y ago
The disturbing thing is that this "ordinary corporate crap" level of quality and decision making seems to have crepped into the production processes of a company that making aerospace products - ie planes that fly through the air. 'Cause there's a reason the standards for aerospace are different. Your plane crashing is a different matter than your insurance advertising campaign tanking.
mikekchar 8y ago
Sometimes I think this is a victim of the "invented here syndrome". I don't know why it is, but many, many people seem to have absolutely no respect for their coworkers. If you bring up an issue (of any kind), it's often treated with suspicion before people even understand what it is. But if the issue is generated by "an authority", suddenly it's a massive problem -- again even before people understand what it is. I've found this also happens for good things. "I've found this amazing thing that will save us millions of $". "It'll never work and as soon as I understand what you are talking about, I'll tell you why". What's absolutely horrible about this is that I've caught myself having the same attitude! I've been trying to stop myself from doing it, but man is it difficult. The default, "My coworkers are brilliant" point of view is just so contrary to my cultural upbringing ;-)

msiyer 8y ago

This is "crime against humanity" level of corporate bullshit. I think, they saved a lot of money by neglecting thorough testing. Also, like in all large corporates, they have n number of departments with terrible infighting and consequentially poor communication.

ww520 8y ago

Is Boeing's problem lack of competition?

kn0where 8y ago
If anything the problem is they rushed this plane so they could compete with Airbus

decker 8y ago

Send the CEO to jail for life, only way to be sure.

hu3 8y ago
Pretty sure everyone who died in the two crashes would agree with you if they could voice their opinion. Specially the pilots.

known 8y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvkEpstd9os https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvkEpstd9os explains about MCAS

distant_hat 8y ago

If you look at Boeing stock price over the year, it seems none of this has significantly affected it. It is actually up YoY. I can safely say that this scandal will have no major effect on the management.

nicolas_t 8y ago

Even next year when the 737 max will no longer be grounded, I will pay special attention not to fly on them. I'm also increasingly worried about flying on 787s... I wonder what percentage of customers will do the same and how that will impact airline's bottom line.

hu3 8y ago
I'm doing the same and instructed my parents to do as well. I don't care if I sound lunatic or alarmist. If Boeing was astute enough to take this kind of shortcut to rush the 737 MAX, who knows what other shortcuts linger in that project, hidden.
Dirlewanger 8y ago
How does one even figure that out though? Almost every flight one books, the aircraft model isn't listed.
- nicolas_t 8y ago
  You can enter the flight number and date in seatguru to get the aircraft model. It's not 100% accurate but helps. The other way is to check flightaware for that flight number. This doesn't protect you from an aircraft change and I don't know how I would deal with it if it happened.

connorcodes 8y ago

This is a sad month for Boeing.

computerex 8y ago

What gross negligence. I hope this forever remains a stain on Boeing's legacy.

nerdbaggy 8y ago

I think part of the blame can be placed on the airlines. They willingly didn’t buy the Warning light

ulfw 8y ago
You’re right and wrong. It’s not about ‘they willingly didn’t buy the warning light’ but it was indeed American Airlines who pushed Boeing into making another shortcut warmed up 60 year old design plane with the 737max by asking for a quick lower cost plane. Lower cost that could only be achieved by lower kerosine sucking engines (which didn’t fit under the 737) and by ‘oh god forbid we do not want to train pilots’ type rating commonality. Let’s not forget that the whole “we only got training via an iPad lesson” is exactly what American et al wanted. They wanted to save money on simulator lessons / new typerating training.
phire 8y ago
The airlines thought they had the warning light. Boeing thought they had delivered the warning light all airlines as a default. It was only later that Boeing discovered they messed up and had made the warning light dependant on another feature which was optional. And then Boeing didn't tell airlines about the broken warning light until just a few months ago.
- jordache 8y ago
  what a cluster F of permissions management F Boeing
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mort96 8y ago
Hmm, I don't know. It seems reasonable for an airline to think that A) the standard plane is more than safe enough (as it should be), and that B) other airlines will have a competitive advantage if they don't opt for the warning light. We can certainly blame them for putting profits above safety by taking calculated risks, but I don't think we can expect companies to act otherwise, at least under current economic systems. Really, it's Boeing, and governmental oversight bodies, who were in the best position to know if the plane was dangerous without a warning light, and therefore to make sure all planes have a warning light.

jzwinck 8y ago

So even now Boeing will not include all safety features for all customers. Not that Airbus is doing better, but this indicates that Boeing is not concerned that it could face serious charges for continuing to sell planes with some safety features missing. That's interesting! Why are they so assured?

AlexCoventry 8y ago
Corruption. After the Ethiopia crash, the CEO/Chairman was on the phone to Trump, to ask him not to ground the rest of the 737 MAXs. (He changed positions on that once it was clear Boeing wasn't going to be able to dodge culpability.) The board member responsible for the audits which should have demanded a fix for these issues has been re-elected. Even the dual CEO/Chairman role is a significant governance failure. https://beta.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/05/06/safety-was-just-given-inside-boeings-boardroom-amid-max-crisis https://beta.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/05/06/safety-w...
solarkraft 8y ago
The USA have a long history of being very supportive of their companies ("regulation is evil!").

0n0n0m0uz 8y ago

I bet even more will come to light.....https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-knew-about-safety-alert-problem-for-a-year-before-telling-faa-airlines-11557087129 https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-knew-about-safety-alert-...

lqet 8y ago

> After discovering the lapse in 2017, Boeing performed an internal review and determined that the lack of a working warning light “did not adversely impact airplane safety or operation,” it said in its statement. > As a result, Boeing said it did not inform airlines or the Federal Aviation Administration about the mistake for a year. There was a warning light installed in the cockpits which was completely non-functional in 80% of the 737 max fleet, and Boeing did not notify the airlines for an entire year? Did they honestly think that "lack of a warning light" is equal to "lack of working warning light"?

sidcool 8y ago
Time to call their BS and fine heftily to avoid such behavior in future. Imagine Boeing responsible for manned space flights.
- Kliment 8y ago
  Boeing is in fact in the certification pipeline for crewed spaceflight at NASA, and has received more NASA funding for this than every other applicant together, including SpaceX. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CST-100_Starliner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CST-100_Starliner
AnssiH 8y ago
The "warning light" is an "AOA DISAGREE" text that appears on the main flight display: http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/commercial/737max/updates/AOA_VaneIndicator_AoA_Disagree_lg.jpg http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/commercial/737m... So there was no non-functional physical light on the cockpit.
- lqet 8y ago
  Ah, I was not aware of that. But surely the pilots were under the impression that such a warning message existed?
  - nraynaud 8y ago

moron4hire 8y ago

This is a phenomenal failure of management. The failure of the team is always the fault of the leader. I've seen this so many times in industry. Some decision on high comes through that costs need to be cut, which means cutting corners. It always means cutting corners, because the only way they have to measure costs is Salary × Butts-In-Seats. So they hire lower cost people (i.e. less experienced, often off-shore where there is no oversight on process) and cut the number of people (often several key roles that would put the brakes on bad plans). They make a short-staffed team of people who don't know any better, then look around confused when things go wrong. "But the PowerPoints said we'd be successful. The management consultants said everything was on track". When it's a website for a government bureau, people just throw up their hands and act like this is normal. The customer eats the cost of the useless product and they start over, usually with the same contractor on an extension, often not learning any lessons in the process (how could they? They can't imagine a world in which any of this is their fault). It should never happen for any project. It should be a damn crime, upwards of fraud, with massive fines. But stuff that can kill people, this should be sending people to jail. I can hear the meetings in my head, I've been through them so many times. "Who knew this was a problem?" "Uhhh, I brought it up at the outset, you said it wasn't my place to bring it up." "You're on report for your negative attitude."

ErikVandeWater 8y ago

> But months after the planes were flying, company engineers realized that the warning light worked only on planes whose customers had bought a different, optional indicator. If I am to read this correctly, the angle-of-attack disagree light is installed on all Boeing 737-MAX aircraft. For customers who did not buy on optional additional indicator, the angle-of-attack disagree light was always off, even if there is a disagreement between to sensors of the angle of attack of the aircraft. Doesn't this seem dangerous in-and-of itself? If a pilot assumes that the light is off because there is not a disagreement, instead of because there is no information available, she is acting on incorrect information, and might try to address problems unrelated to the actual problem. Also, pilot may switch aircraft and expect the same functionality of safety features and may make incorrect assumptions about the functioning of this light.

peteretep 8y ago
> Doesn't this seem dangerous in-and-of itself? To me, more dangerous, is that some safety systems are considered optional. Surely the plane either needs a safety feature or not, and it shouldn't be down to someone at an airline to make a decision on?
- firethief 8y ago
  Different countries have different standards of safety, and different budgets. Boeing got more $$$ from airlines in the US by making planes in Ethiopia and Indonesia less safe. Yay capitalism.
  - ddalex 8y ago
    Not less safe. Perhaps not as safe at others. Such as of those where the front doesn't fell off.
    - FabHK 8y ago
      Well, it's not built of cardboard and rubber... Does everyone know this delicious skit? "Clarke and Dawe - The Front Fell Off" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM

pornel 8y ago

> Boeing performed an internal review and determined that the lack of a working warning light “did not adversely impact airplane safety or operation,” > after the crash of Lion Air Flight 610 […] conducted another review and again found the missing alert did not pose a safety threat How was it possible to come to this conclusion? Twice!? Even after it caused a crash!?

cjbprime 8y ago
"Well, we didn't tell pilots that MCAS exists, which means we didn't tell them that AoA is hooked up to it, which means that AoA failure isn't relevant to their decision making, so there's no safety threat from not communicating it." (In case there's doubt: I am not joking, I think this is seriously the argument.)
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

Havoc 8y ago

>“You better start knowing things about the airplane you’re building and selling because my life and the passengers that I carry safely across the globe depends on it,” Mr. Tajer said. haha wow. If that's representative of how pilots feel then Boeing is in trouble.

yborg 8y ago
Pilots don't buy the planes.
tqkxzugoaupvwqr 8y ago
May I ask how this gets Boeing into trouble? The only thing pilots could do is strike which I find improbable.
- Tor3 8y ago
  SAS had a seven-day pilot strike just last week, over (mainly) working conditions, so how would a pilot strike over this be so improbable?

mvonthron 8y ago

Boeing statement: https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-releases-statements?item=130431 https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-releases-statements?item=1... This PR is helpful in that it reminds me that there are actually people paid to take a simple set of information and mix in with a ton of PR bullshit so that you have to read it 4 times before you actually understand that yes, they screw up.

nobrains 8y ago
Here is the ass saving statement from the press release: "Senior company leadership was not involved in the review and first became aware of this issue in the aftermath of the Lion Air accident."
- hef19898 8y ago
  Courious they try the same strategy as VW. We all know how that is most likely to end...
  - neuronic 8y ago
    With increased sales and better revenue? https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news/2019/03/VW_Group_deliveries_2018.html https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news/2019/03/VW_Group_delive...
    - hef19898 8y ago
      And got a the former CEO and other exects indicted in two countries and cost the conptany billions. The story is still ongoing. And might have contributed to the issue with the new Golf 8. Did I mention that some former managers are in jail already?
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - user5994461 8y ago

killjoywashere 8y ago

This is the sort of fault that causes everyone to pray the investigation comes back "pilot error". Because the alternative is the entire company gets pulled through the mud. Rightfully, but man, this is going to hurt Boeing, and by extension the US.

na85 8y ago
I find the idea that society should not keep corporations and their behaviour in check because "the economy may be damaged" to be frightening and dangerous.
- killjoywashere 8y ago
  I didn't say we shouldn't. I'm fairly comfortable with the idea of bitter medicine. But acknowledging "this is going to be bitter" is a remarkably helpful way to gain rapport, and doesn't actually interfere with the administration of the treatment. If anything, it reduces the patient's odds of rejecting the medicine.
mikeash 8y ago
What has hurt Boeing is the design problem and the poor response to it. At this point, the best way to mitigate the damage is for Boeing to step up, acknowledge fault, fix the problem, and demonstrate concrete changes that will prevent similar problems from occurring in the future.

dbg31415 8y ago

So a year from now, when we are flying and see that it’s a 737 Max... who is going to opt for another flight? Everyone? Because this shit is kinda fucked how flippant Boeing was with getting around safety testing. This video was both hilarious and terrifying. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NhZ0D-JRtz0 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NhZ0D-JRtz0

bdowling 8y ago
Note: The linked video is by foul-mouthed Canadian YouTuber AvE, in which he disassembles and comments on an angle-of-attack sensor from a C-130 military aircraft. He comments favorably on the build quality of the assembly, but is not impressed with the sensor itself or the lack of internal redundancy. The analysis is interesting but of limited value to consideration of the sensors and MCAS system on the Boeing 737 MAX.
- dbg31415 8y ago
  Yeah, I just thought the guy's voice was hilarious. He sounds like someone who lives in the machine shop, knows his shit, and has never had to interact with customers. If I had a personal J.A.R.V.I.S., I'd want to use his voice for it.
quickthrower2 8y ago
Or don't book such a flight in the first place. I guess you can get unlucky and have it changed on you.

cletus 8y ago

So I draw two conclusions from this clusterF of astronomical proportions: 1. The A320neo really caught Boeing off guard. The 737 MAX was a panicked reaction to something that they thought would threaten their business to a significant degree. The A320neo and A320 have a common type rating too. Googling seems to suggest the differences are fairly minor however. I guess Airbus benefits in the A320 being a newer airframe than the 737 (which is ~50 years old now)? 2. Somewhere along the line this is a management failure of gigantic proportions. That management would risk Boeing's reputation on something that, in hindsight, is so incredibly foolish is mind-blowing. And the buck stops with the CEO. If this ends with anything less than the CEO deciding to spend more time with his family it's a joke. And whoever replaces him should clean house with anyone remotely responsible for this. This isn't unprecedented either. Through this fiasco I came to learn about the 1990s 737 rudder issue [1] and it's scary how similar the reaction is. "The planes are fine". "There is no issue". You know, until there is. I expect the only thing stopping a lot of airlines from cancelling their 737 MAX orders and buying A320neos instead is at this point they'd probably have to get in the back of the line and wait years. They really have no choice but to stick with the 737 MAX now. Actually I guess airlines like Southwest (who are 100% 737 IIRC) are kind of stuck anyway. It's the likes of American Airlines who has such a large and diverse fleet that really bet on the wrong horse. I really hope this ends in a court case or even better, a criminal case. I really want to know who signed off on this plan and at what point warnings were given and ignored. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues

dahart 8y ago
> I really hope this ends in a court case or even better, a criminal case. I really want to know who signed off on this plan... There are multiple lawsuits against Boeing going already, but don’t forget the FAA signed off on the plan, and some time ago formally adopted a policy of trust whatever the airlines say without checking carefully. Why even have a federal regulatory agency for air safety if they’re not going to independently scrutinize what the airlines do?
- briandear 8y ago

gimli9500 8y ago

The media seems to be on a mission to kill commercial aviation similar to what happened to recreational aircraft. I wonder how long before we see an article about how Boeing knowingly omitted flare and chaff systems despite the risk of surface-to-air missiles. They'll talk about how the AN/ALE-47 system could avoid 22 deaths/year for only $30k.

phkahler 8y ago

This story is really starting to annoy me. Now there's a new person named "Boeing" who somehow lacks self awareness to know what they're doing or selling even though this Boeing character designed, built, and sold two variations on their product. I feel like Boeing will soon become the main character, and try to plead insanity.

CoolGuySteve 8y ago
Hey now, if we started holding individuals accountable for the criminal negligence of the corporation they run, surely bedlam would errupt. It's Limited Liability in it's purest, most distilled form.
- cjbprime 8y ago
  Interesting linguistic phenomenon: Commonwealth grammar uses plural verbs for collective nouns -- i.e. English newspaper articles will say "Boeing have decided.." instead of "Boeing has decided..". Strikes me as subversive in this current environment: language reminding you that a corporation's decisions are made by actual people.
  - aitchnyu 8y ago
    As an Indian, I was surprised at "Collective are..." and believe it arose after the colonial days.
    - cjbprime 8y ago
      That's interesting! I wonder when this strong preference for plural verbs appeared in British English.
- phkahler 8y ago
  >> It's Limited Liability in it's purest, most distilled form. I didn't say what should happen. The company is just publicly waffling about it's own behavior. I find that annoying is all even if it's kind of expected.

village-idiot 8y ago

It’s probably time to revoke the 737 Max’s type certificate and send Boeing back to the regulatory drawing board.

blensor 8y ago

What worries me even more is the monkeypatching they are now trying to do in order to get the permission to fly the plane again. In the original design they had designed the MCAS to be able to make drastic changes which then caused the crash. Now they are trying to fix that by making the system less intrusive, but didn't the engineers design the system to be so strong for a reason (because of the changed position of the engines)? This seems to me like going through a codebase from someone else because there were errors and just deleting stuff that made problems. Even if the initial version had problems, it was designed that way for a reason?

antihero 8y ago

What fucking piece of shit decides that MORE SAFETY is a PREMIUM ADDONT? That is literally suggesting that some passengers lives are worth less than others. Planes should be as safe as they can possibly be. Full stop. Premium should be for things like comfort and things you can do with out.

retSava 8y ago
It's the same in the car industry, unfortunately. Many options that are more or less pure safety-only, and not convenience, are not included unless you open up a little more. It economically (to the car industry) may make sense (opt ups, recover costs, etc), but it's sad in a way.

oakmad 8y ago

Here’s an article from 1995 that talks about how 737 pilots didn’t know they had to turn off auto throttle on takeoff abort - https://www.csmonitor.com/1995/0821/21082.html https://www.csmonitor.com/1995/0821/21082.html I wonder how software testing will change (if at all) in the industry post this revelation. There was an old joke during 777 development (Boeing’s first full fbw) about the difference between airbus and Boeing software testing architecture - airbus used formal techniques and Boeing put the software engineers on the first flight.

ponderatul 8y ago

Sure, but they are still responsible for the effects. That we can't forget. Ignoring the complex system they have created is their fault

zaphar 8y ago

This sounds like a case of a system so complex that the humans trying to reason about were unable to do so. As a software engineer I've sometimes had to run a piece of software to properly understand how it works. This doesn't seem like a desirable property for systems that are critical for safety.

addicted 8y ago

I find Boeing's dismissal of this as not being a safety concern unconvincing. Boeing spent the money adding this to their design. They spent the money adding the capability to every plane they had. And they thought it was important enough that they shouldn't be charging airlines for it, unlike the addition of a backup sensor (which wasn't considered important enough to be delivered standard). What was the thinking when doing the review? Hey, here's this feature we thought was important enough that we added several costs without charging airlines for it, while we were nickel and diming them on backup sensors, but actually it was all a big mistake. We were just being generous on this for no reason at all?

swamp40 8y ago

The money quote: The anti-stall system, created to compensate for the Max’s large new engines, will push down the nose of the plane if the angle of attack sensors indicate the plane is dangerously close to stalling. But the system relied on only one of the two angle of attack sensors, introducing a potential single point of failure into a critical flight system. And the anti-stall system was also changed late in the design process to make it much more powerful.

RaceWon 8y ago

Reading the article I was reminded of the depths auto makers would sink to in order to saver pennies on every car made. On another note; am I the only person that these AOA vanes seem so hokey and inelegant to? I am not a pilot, nor a designer, but if I was buying and flying something that had these sticking out like an after thought; I'd be like WTF are you kidding me?!

jordache 8y ago

so these Boeing fools set the entitlement flag for the necessary AOA disagree display as a child of another, non-required "safety" display option? Idiots. How the hell do they not have a robust system to validate the correct application of instrumentation rules?

zzma 8y ago

> Boeing performed an internal review and determined that the lack of a working warning light “did not adversely impact airplane safety or operation,” Why is this review not done by a third party auditor? The cynical view is that corporations have a conflict of interest. They are only incentivized to act ethically up to the point that the cost of ethical behavior exceeds the damage done by unethical behavior... These costs do include future fines/penalties, but these are often woefully disproportionate to the damage done as evidenced by the fraudulent NASA metal supplier incident.

salawat 8y ago
Because the third party auditor (the FAA) has had it's operating budget slashed so viciously, it can't compete in attracting the talent required for independent certification. Remember, to regulate something, you need to be 10% smarter than what you are regulating. Which means you have to be able to make sure you can attract the best talent possible. As a regulator, you have to be on your game all the time. The regulated just need to get lucky once to get away with what they shouldn't.

godson_drafty 8y ago

This issue of the AOA-disagree warning light keeps getting brought up again and again, which is unfortunate because the presence of such a light would not have saved those 346 lives. Imagine you are a pilot and your airplane's nose keeps getting pushed toward the ground no matter how much you pull back on the stick. You try everything. Now you notice a little warning light 'AOA disagree'. How does that help you, exactly? The lack of this warning light is completely irrelevant. The problem is that they allowed the readings from 1 single sensor to force the nose of the aircraft toward the ground.

rconti 8y ago

Sort of OT, AvE did a BOLTR on an AoA sensor last week. (from a military cargo plane, I forget which. Said plane has 4 of them) I watched it last night in the same state that he apparently films his vidjeos, and I enjoyed it. YMMV. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhZ0D-JRtz0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhZ0D-JRtz0

godson_drafty 8y ago

Not only is Boeing too big too fail, it's too big to succeed.