The real reason Boeing’s new plane crashed twice

The real reason Boeing’s new plane crashed twice


This is an airplane engine. It’s sitting in a field in Bishoftu, Ethiopia—
part of the wreckage of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, which crashed on March 10, 2019. 157 people died. This was just a few months after another flight,
Lion Air 610, crashed in Indonesia and killed 189 people. These two flights were operating the same
plane: The Boeing 737 MAX 8. And its engine is the key to understanding
why this particular plane has caused so many problems. But there’s nothing actually wrong with this
engine. In fact, airplane manufacturers raced to put
them on their new planes. That’s where the problem started. The two biggest airplane manufacturers in
the world are Airbus and Boeing. And they have a fierce rivalry. If one of them can offer a better plane, the
other could lose a lot of money. That’s exactly what was about to happen in
2010. Airbus announced that they would update their
most popular model, the A320, a single-aisle airplane that services many domestic flights. You’ve probably been on one. For this new plane, Airbus had a big update. It would have a new kind of engine. It was much larger than the previous engine, but it would make the plane 15 percent
more fuel efficient. And just as importantly, this upgrade wouldn’t
change the plane that much. A pilot could walk into the new model, with
little additional training, and be on their way. It was called the A320 NEO, and it would save
airlines a lot of money. This was a problem for Boeing. To compete with Airbus, Boeing’s obvious move
was to upgrade the engine on their single-aisle plane, the 737. But there was one issue. Here’s a sketch of the 737 next to the Airbus
A320. Notice how the 737 is lower to the ground
than the A320. This meant Airbus could slide a new engine
under the wing of their A320. But there wasn’t enough room under the wing
of the Boeing 737. But a few months later, Boeing’s product development
head had big news. He said: “We figured out a way to get a big
enough engine under the wing.” Their solution was to move up the engine on
the wing, so that it would be slightly higher and it would fit on their 737s. Here’s a promotional video of that updated
737 in the air. You can actually see that the top of the engine
is above the wing. Boeing called this model the 737 MAX. And just like Airbus with the A320, Boeing
said their new plane was so similar to its predecessor that pilots would only need minimal
additional training. The 737 MAX became the hottest selling plane
on the market. And it helped Boeing keep up with AirBus. Except, moving the engine up on the 737
had a side effect. When the 737 MAX was in full thrust, like
during takeoff, the nose tended to point too far upward, which could lead to a stall. This was a problem, because these planes were
supposed to behave exactly like the old ones. So Boeing came up with a workaround. Instead of re-engineering the plane, they
installed software that automatically pushed the nose downward if the pilot flew the plane
at too high of an angle. They called it the Maneuvering Characteristics
Augmentation System, or MCAS. But because Boeing was selling the 737 MAX
as pretty much the same plane as the 737, they didn’t highlight the new MCAS system. Many pilots only got a two-hour iPad course
before entering the cockpit for the first time. And the “training material did not mention”
the MCAS software. In 2018, several American pilots complained
to the federal government that the 737 MAX was “suddenly nosing down.” On October 29, 2018, Lion Air Flight 610 took
off from Jakarta. In the flight report, which shows the plane’s
altitude over time, you can see that the plane was in full thrust during takeoff. But at a certain point, the nose of the plane
kept lurching downward. The pilots couldn’t figure out why this was
happening. The captain “asked the first officer to check
the quick reference handbook.” They couldn’t find the solution. The pilots continued to fight with the MCAS. The plane struggled to gain altitude. Reports show it was likely because the computer
was getting incorrect sensor data, pushing the plane toward the earth below. 12 minutes after takeoff, the plane crashed
into the Java Sea. In the Ethiopia crash, the report shows that
the pilots were actually able to disable the MCAS, but it was too late to overcome the
malfunctioning MCAS sensors. For now, nearly every 737 MAX 8 in service
has been grounded. And the Federal Aviation Administration is
facing scrutiny over how they rushed this plane through certification. Boeing’s response has been to apply a software
update and make the MCAS “less aggressive,” while also saying they’ll increase pilot training
on how to turn it off. This problem started with a company’s race
to compete with its rival. It pushed them to pretend like their new plane
behaved exactly like their old one. Even when it didn’t.

94 comments on “The real reason Boeing’s new plane crashed twice

  1. MrDviR Post author

    If there is a Justus in world , hop it came true- for the victims and their family. And for the pilots. 😡😡

    Reply
  2. PEWNTANG Post author

    This is typical in aviation to be honest, a lot of people have not watched air crash investigation, a lot of new planes have issues like this, the trouble is that when these issues happened they caused fatal accidents.

    Reply
  3. Indrid Cold Post author

    This is a case of, "If it is not broken, do not fix it." Boeing rushed to get this jet out when the venerable Boeing 737 was perfect. They could have taken their time to make the new jet right. But they had to rush things and now everyone is saying.
    "Airbus looking out for all of us."
    "With Boeing, we're not going."

    Reply
  4. Victor Victor Post author

    Eliminate the Windows in the Center and Raise the Wings the Engine Should Never Compete with the Wings For Air .

    Reply
  5. Abomi Post author

    Everyone: Boeing go to jail

    Me: its glitch that over powers the plane

    Also me right now: add double mcas so if 1 fails another mcas could fly the plane.

    Reply
  6. Clash Forever Post author

    I got so scared when I went on a Boeing 737 but when I asked the flight attendant they said this wasn’t a Boeing 737 max I was so relieved

    Reply
  7. Thecrazytoad gamer Post author

    Boeing should have just angled the stabilisers upward to make it go on a normal flight path

    Reply
  8. Hezekiah Van Farthinghorn III Post author

    This is nothing but blundering, unqualified second and third world pilots with poor flight skills and even less training, being allowed to operate a complex airplane that they shouldn’t even been allowed near….

    Reply
  9. R136a1 R136a1 Post author

    all to make money and stay at the same pace as airbus ;sad .. paid the price are always poor innocent people

    Reply
  10. M N Post author

    Hey is it just me or did the plane engines used to be more under the wing rather than it's current position moved forward?
    I remember when I flew I could see the engine when I would sit behind the went a few rows behind…… No I can barely see the rear of the engine.

    Reply
  11. 3eeemeee Post author

    Rest In Peace to all the lives lost, may God forgive your sins and bless you where your resting ground is.

    Reply
  12. Kirk Bunn Post author

    Boeing made some mistakes, but those mistakes did not cause either plane to crash. True, they were contributing factors, but not the cause. The planes crashed and people died because neither crew recognized or effectively managed a condition called “RUNAWAY STABILIZER TRIM”. Poorly trained pilots flying for substandard airlines in loosely regulated environments caused both crashes.

    It’s clear that most contributors to this dialogue are not professional pilots. Using an analogy, let me compare runaway trim to a telephone ringing. If the phone rings we all know what to do. Answer it! It doesn’t matter who has caused the phone to ring. The procedure is the same.

    If the trim begins to runaway, regardless of the cause, the procedure is to stop it. That procedure has been around and taught to pilots long before anyone ever heard of a B-737 MAX. It’s basic. It’s simple. It’s difficult to believe that a pilot at the controls of an airliner couldn’t handle it. Unfortunately, there are places outside the USA where this level of incompetence is prevalent.

    Reply
  13. lim eddie Post author

    well human always progress from mistakes, those who lost their life can request God to let them be reborn if they want.

    Reply
  14. jairus hasta Post author

    This is what happens when a company try to compete and rush the engineering of their products which the safety of the people comes first and foremost.

    Reply
  15. glathoppa Post author

    So Boeing's "solution" is to install a second sensor. If there's disagreement between the sensors beyond specified limits, the MCAS is disengaged, presumably automatically. MCAS protection will thus be lost for the remainder of the flight. No doubt there'll be a cockpit warning and corrective maintenance would be obligatory after landing.

    The above isn't good enough, IMHO. There should be THREE sensors. If one sensor (lets call it "A") disagrees with the other two (lets call them "B" and "C") beyond specified limits, but B and C agree with each other within specified limits, then the output of A should be removed from the system (by automatic or pilot selection) and the flight may then continued to destination (or any suitable alternate) WITH MCAS OPERATIONAL. There should be a cockpit warning. Corrective maintenance would be obligatory after landing,

    The above philosophy is identical to, for example, the fitment of three attitude indicators (artificial horizons). If an excessive disagreement becomes apparent, simply ignore the odd one out and continue safely with two (unless it really isn't your day and a second failure occurs, although other solutions may then be applied).

    Reply
  16. Hansul Hudson Jr Post author

    I have a tech background. And though I am not a pilot, I’m starting to believe that the saying “You CAN’T fix a (physical) design flaw with software “ applies across the board with everything.

    Reply
  17. Its Banana Kitten Post author

    The flight 610 of lion air was devestating. If im not wrong, it was going to Pangkal Pinang. So many people lost their families and friends. And i think one of the passengers knew my grandpa. And the news didnt even say anything about MCAS.

    Reply
  18. scrmepal Post author

    Boeing thinking, that to counter the low ground clearance, they would fit the bigger new engines higher up on the wing to the point where the engine cowling is above the top surface of the wing……….umm surely that would affect the airflow over the wings? No wonder the flying characteristics of the plane are different to the original 737's.
    With this MCAS system, Boeing knew there could be potential problems, so keeping it quiet from pilots was a criminal act. I think Boeing should give up on this 737 Max version, as i mean if you were heading out of the airplane terminal to an aircraft, and saw it was a 737 Max, would anyone seriously want to get onboard?

    Reply
  19. Madam_Meow99 Post author

    So, basically, Boeing thought it would be better to create an entirely HIDDEN work around known as MCAS vs actually TELLING pilots and airlines that their new bigger engines make the plane PITCH UP! Being truthful is always the way to go even if it hurts monetarily.

    Reply
  20. Robert Binner Mattfeldt Post author

    Shame on Boeing! The 737 was a bad design from the start. Any plane that depends upon software for something as critical as angle of attack, is already in danger. Unexpected, and undetected stalls, and pilots having to fight against automated systems, are the most common causes of airliner accidents in this century.

    Reply
  21. Techno dystopian Post author

    The info in this video is not wholly technically accurate. Boeing made a mistake for sure, but it happens, and it's happened to Air Bus too. Let's not throw Boeing under the Air Bus too soon, they will sort it out.

    Reply
  22. Heckie 15 Post author

    if they have told them how new they are and hiw to deactivate it it woudnt cost so much money. The rush of boing was Unnecesary

    Reply
  23. Ron Wylie Post author

    Beautifully made and it explains everything really well. The overall feeling is sympathetic to the people that died on those planes while being aggressive to Boeing for it's lack of training

    Reply
  24. Charles Long Post author

    The reason the 737 is close to the ground is because cargo and baggage handlers asked it be that way a long time ago. Time to raise the landing gear.

    Reply
  25. Greg Neaves Post author

    This report fail sto mention two issues in the handling of the event that did take place. One. The pilots never made any attempt to throttle back, but continued to leave the engines at full thrust during the entire attempt to get the plane up in the air. The plane was in excess of its regulatory maximum speed at that altitude. Two. The pilots truned off the auto pilot system to take manual control as per the recommended procedure which gave them more control and stopped the MCAS control from repeatedly directing the trajectory of the 737 down but later turned it bck on which then repeated the same effect all over again. and was in operation when the plane went down.

    Reply
  26. BOT Chad Post author

    This is an incredibly mis-informed synopsis. The fact that the presenter calls the 737 the "Seven Three Seven" instead of a "Seven-thirty-seven" tells a lot.

    Reply
  27. bob Post author

    Boeing and the Airlines are forgetting one thing and that is will the general public ever put their butts on a max again. My guess is the general public will begin asking what model of plane will i be flying on and if the answer is a 737 max they will ask for another flight with another model. IMO Boeing has lost trust with the public and for them to put a plane in the sky they knew could have safety cocerns is inexcuseable. IMO in time Boeing bankruptcy will be a major news headline.

    Reply
  28. William King Post author

    Man, that's phuqed up, So Boeing knew this was an issue, did a cheap quick fix and didn't tell anybody about it. I guess it time to place a long put on some of their stock!!!

    Reply
  29. Me ontenz Post author

    You don’t turn off MCAS. MCAS is part of the flight control laws in the FCC’s. Can’t turn off FCC’s in any airplane even Airbus’

    Reply
  30. Peter Taylor Post author

    If a larger engine was too close to the ground at the correct COG, why not make the undercarriage stalks longer? May have been extra design costs with the wheel housing etc. but that's chicken feed compared with the the problem they have now.

    Reply
  31. St Peter Post author

    Please respect human life how can whites be so heartless. So evil. Why wont you get the koreans or clever chinese sort out your computers man this hurts.

    Reply
  32. Alex T Post author

    Could someone give me a reasonable explanation of why raising the engines would possibly cause a pitch-up situation?

    Reply
  33. Alessandro silverthunderbird Post author

    I took the AIRBUS A320 200 AIRCANADA And the AIRBUS A321 200 honestly there both good plane better then the 737

    Reply
  34. That creepy clown next door Post author

    I know it doesn't matter, but I saw the promotional video and thought that the plane would be so nice to fly on. Oh, how I was wrong.

    Reply
  35. ReaperCK6 Post author

    Yeah, it was due to untrained pilots in third world countries that had less than 200 hours in the air and should not have been flying sophisticated aircraft.. Don't blame Boeing lack of intelligence.

    Reply
  36. golfmaniac007 Post author

    i heard the slogan changed from "if ain't boeing, i ain't going" to "if its a boeing, i ain't going"

    Reply
  37. Laurie Huntley Post author

    New Technology isn’t Safer . Computers should NEVER BE THE FULL PILOT. STOP REYING ON COMPUTERS!!!! You’re Killing PEOPLE…Computers don’t Care. Families DO!

    Reply
  38. Johnny Post author

    hmmm, no USA pilots flying crashed; that says a lot; it says the pilots that crashed were not qualified to fly the plane; it was mostly their fault for not knowing how to properly fly the plane and know its controls and instruments; the air bus A320 flies by computers controlling much more or the plane than a Max plane; how about telling the REST of the facts and placing responsibility properly upon the pilots

    Reply
  39. Nelson Swanberg Post author

    Executives protected by the corporation do not have enough at personal risk to prevent them form making short term decisions for bonus and options. Capitalism is failing us in our technological world.

    Reply
  40. Pagani Zonda Post author

    "The real reason Boeing planes crashed twice"
    DIVERSIYU IS OUR STRENGH
    Hire more Indians and Africans, until your planes can't even fly anymore.

    Reply
  41. arsolnexTV Post author

    They could Just put the gears more down

    But nooo they had to put the engine up and install a software which increases risk of a crash

    Reply
  42. CoolToaster Post author

    Boeing, over the years, has become more motivated my money then engineering. They've gone from great things like the 747 ,which changed air travel forever, to things like the 737 max. I miss the old Boeing.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *