Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)The Boeing 737 Max crisis goes way beyond software [View all]
Source: Quartz
The Boeing 737 Max crisis goes way beyond software
By Tim Fernholz 4 hours ago
There is no small complexity in the task of carrying hundreds of people through the sky at hundreds of miles an hour. More than 100,000 airliners take off and land each day, but two deadly air crashes in six months have shocked passengers, regulators, and industry alike.
Crashes of Boeings 737 Max in Indonesia and Ethiopia offer a window into all that complexity. Boeing and its CEO Dennis Muilenburg want the story to be simple: a software problem that can be fixed with a quick patch. But that doesnt capture the mistakes made by Boeing and American aviation regulators in certifying the plane to carry passengers.
By now, you may well have heard of MCAS, software that automatically pitches 737 Maxes downward to avoid stalling in mid-air. It exists only because Boeing wanted to upgrade its 737 without changing it fundamentallyso it added new engines that made the aircraft more likely to stall, rather than starting from scratch. In the emerging picture of the two accidents, the software only failed because the mechanical sensor it depended on also malfunctioned.
But all that pales next to what will likely be the highlight of investigations into the incident: the training and user experience of the people in the cockpits. Pilots did not have sufficient training to understand how MCAS worked, and two vital safety featuresa display showing what the sensor detected, and a light warning if other sensors disagreedwere optional extras (paywall).
Minimizing training and cockpit changes was an economic decision: The upgraded plane would be more attractive to potential purchasers if they did not have to spend expensive hours retraining their pilots. The Federal Aviation Administration determined Boeings training and safety plans were fine. Now, investigators want to know why. The answers could be costly for Boeing, and for Americas reputation as a leader in the safe deployment of aviation technology.
-snip-
By Tim Fernholz 4 hours ago
There is no small complexity in the task of carrying hundreds of people through the sky at hundreds of miles an hour. More than 100,000 airliners take off and land each day, but two deadly air crashes in six months have shocked passengers, regulators, and industry alike.
Crashes of Boeings 737 Max in Indonesia and Ethiopia offer a window into all that complexity. Boeing and its CEO Dennis Muilenburg want the story to be simple: a software problem that can be fixed with a quick patch. But that doesnt capture the mistakes made by Boeing and American aviation regulators in certifying the plane to carry passengers.
By now, you may well have heard of MCAS, software that automatically pitches 737 Maxes downward to avoid stalling in mid-air. It exists only because Boeing wanted to upgrade its 737 without changing it fundamentallyso it added new engines that made the aircraft more likely to stall, rather than starting from scratch. In the emerging picture of the two accidents, the software only failed because the mechanical sensor it depended on also malfunctioned.
But all that pales next to what will likely be the highlight of investigations into the incident: the training and user experience of the people in the cockpits. Pilots did not have sufficient training to understand how MCAS worked, and two vital safety featuresa display showing what the sensor detected, and a light warning if other sensors disagreedwere optional extras (paywall).
Minimizing training and cockpit changes was an economic decision: The upgraded plane would be more attractive to potential purchasers if they did not have to spend expensive hours retraining their pilots. The Federal Aviation Administration determined Boeings training and safety plans were fine. Now, investigators want to know why. The answers could be costly for Boeing, and for Americas reputation as a leader in the safe deployment of aviation technology.
-snip-
Read more: https://qz.com/1577986/the-boeing-737-max-crisis-goes-way-beyond-software/
28 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If someone at FAA or DOT were to declare the Max 8 safe, and there was another crash
DFW
Mar 2019
#5
Oh, I suspect it will survive though it will be years before the tarnish wears off.
cstanleytech
Mar 2019
#12
Not the "737" but the "737 MAX". The 737 new gen is one of the best and safest ever built.
lostnfound
Mar 2019
#27
Instead of "job killing regulations" we have no life saving protections.
TheOther95Percent
Mar 2019
#9