Scandal: Boeing’s 737 Max Disaster | Short Documentary
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 06. 2024
- Learn with Plainly Difficult!
The 737 was the world best selling airliner, to keep up with their rival Airbus, Boeing brought out the 737 Max but hid some vital design flaws from pilots.....
Thank you to my Patrons, CZcams Members and Paypal Donors, your support keeps the lights on!
MY MUSIC:
► Made By John CZcams Channel:
/ @madebyjohnmusic
► Itunes: / made-by-john
► Spotify: open.spotify.com/album/67iIub...
SOCIAL MEDIA:
► Twitter: / plainly_d
CHAPTERS:
00:00 Intro
02:43 Background
04:35 The 737
09:20 Airbus
13:38 737 MAX
27:34 Music Time
28:17 The Groundings
37:36 The Criminal Case
39:23 My Summary
41:05 Outro Jam
EQUIPTMENT USED::
►SM7B
►Audient ID4
►MacBook Pro 16
►Hitfilm
►Logic X
MUSIC (In order of Appearance)
► My Song | Made By John (Intro)
► Ambient No.6 | Made By John
► Ambient No.3 | Made By John
► Ambient No.5 | Made By John
► Ambient No.4 | Made By John
► Ambient No.1 | Made By John
► Untitled | Made By John
► Untitled | Made By John
► Ambient No.6 | Made By John
► Ambient No.7 | Made By John
► Ambient No.6 Jam | Made By John (Outro)
OTHER GREAT CHANNELS:
► / dominotitanic20
► / cynicalc. .
► / jabzyjoe
► / @qxir
Sources:
►www.justice.gov/opa/pr/boeing...
►www.bloomberg.com/opinion/art...
►boeing.mediaroom.com/news-rel...
►knkt.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_av...
►edition.cnn.com/2018/11/07/as...
►www.ecaa.gov.et/Home/wp-conten...
►web.archive.org/web/202003100...
►www.seattletimes.com/business...
►www.documentcloud.org/documen...
►boeing.mediaroom.com/news-rel...
►transportation.house.gov/imo/...
►web.archive.org/web/201606031...
#disaster #Documentary #History #TrueStories #scandal
Any suggestions for future episodes of scandal? Let me know.
Here's the obligatory music promotion links:
czcams.com/channels/TJKjPWNMe27wg5T7yk9OnQ.html
open.spotify.com/track/1ib51WuCyDbAK9ULkaTp3c
Lauda flight 004. Boing have been doing this shit forever
May I recommend a couple. Aeroperu 603 - crashed because of ground crew performing improper maintenance.
ValuJet 592 - crashed because of cover-up and improperly handled oxygen generators.
Enron
How about all the Boeing safety problems that were never enforced, like the door lock latch on the 747
@@CaptainLicorice
Oh so long
You're afraid of being a couple hundred feet above the ground, I'm afraid of being a couple hundred inches above the ground. Yet I feel safer in a plane at 30,000 feet than I do on a ladder at 3 feet.
Same. Should see me trying to get into a tree stand lol..
Statistically, you are safer in a jetliner than on a ladder, I bet.
Yeah but ladders at least aren't 99% guaranteed death when something does go wrong
Your brain knows that temporary to permanent injury is likely to occur if you're more than 10 feet off the ground
Honestly you should be lol
The great thing about this video is that 50% of it can be reused on an almost yearly basis going forward. Looks like Boeing's 2024 scandal has just begun...
The whole company has become a scandal today
oh boy where you right]
Depressing isn't it
Oh, you mean Boeing 737 max 2: Boeing tries killing people on purpose
I never knew that the first officer on the Ethiopian flight had called out regarding the stabilator trim circuit breaker. That’s absolutely heartbreaking, to have THAT level of problem solving skills, under immense pressure with just 300 hours flying? That man had the potential to be an absolutely incredible pilot.
Yo.. WUT?
I actually met him. I flew frequently in and out of Addis Ababa. One day, I was standing in the galley asking for water, as the other passengers got on the plane. The captain, who was really young looking...looked like he was 21, but wasn't was referred to as the Captain. I said, ''you're the captain? you look so young.'' He laughed and said, '' yeah so do you.'' When it crashed, and I saw his picture, i really felt said. The Ethiopians are the nicest, funniest and most hospitable people you could ever meet.
Hmm, not exploding in mid-air is a really convenient feature for a passenger aircraft to have. It really helps, especially if you're counting on those passengers being repeat customers.
idk man imagine the profit you could make from airlines buying your aircraft again after the previous ones explode
Single use aircraft opens a whole can of worms. This bird is not incentivised to be early.
Not yo-yo'ing up and down in the air like a paper plane before nose diving into the ground is also a really convenient feature.
Nah, it's cheaper to explode the people (only witnesses), so you don't have to lose all that time and money on maintenance and fuel. Also, you don't need actual pilots for that- just use a monkey. Monkeys are cheap. A room on a catapult is cheaper than a plane too.
@@electroflame6188 Don't give General Motors any idea.
A $2.5bn settlement ist enough. This was criminal negligence and there should have been jail sentences for any member of Boeing management that covered this up. It wouldn’t be that hard to go through the emails and see who decided to kick the MCAS under the rug.
I agree
@@PlainlyDifficult The goverment wouldn't do that because Boeing is one of those companies that are "too big to fail" as the cunts like to say.
They should all had fired the whole board&bosses atleast, Mullenberg was dumped as scapegoat.
@@jarigustafsson7620 Yeah, that'll make flying safer.
@@PlainlyDifficult For some reason I thought you were an engineer?
This scandal is insane to me as an aerospace engineer.
Nothing should ever be single point of failure reliant in an aircraft, and giving the pilot no control authority is stupid.
How on earth is engineers ever thought this was a good system I will never understand.
"How on earth is engineers ever thought this was a good system I will never understand."
They didn't but were overruled by management.
Agree single point of failure for a flight control is beyond my ability to understand. However, with proper training and maybe easier way to disconnect MCAS, they could at least have prevented two crashes before redoing the software and going to a 2 AoA system.
As the others say I hardly believe there was an engineer that thought this was a good system, management decided it was good but like always the guys at the top hardly knows anything about engineering so sometimes they skip crucial points because they are “ignorant” on the subject
already beaten to this, but this was implemented by upper management that only cared about costs and sales, the older safer system was taking too long for them, so the new system was put in place. Frankly Boeing used to be a company by engineers for engineers and has gone to shit since McDonnell Douglas took over. Been nothing but rushed jobs, cash grab budgets, and desperate cover ups.
Read the book “Flying Blind”. Douglas management told the engineers that an aircraft is a commodity. MCAS wouldn’t have been that bad had pilots been trained.. but Boeing removed all references to MCAS because it told Southwest it would pay them $1m/day for any extra training. Airlines that asked for training were told they didn’t need it.
As a software engineer, I was taught about this disaster in class. It was about the importance of always having a manual override, redundancies in sensors, proper fault detection and signaling, and proper instructions for any program that controls real-world machinery and such as a basic safety feature (among other things). It was also a lesson on how management can really f*ck things up. This whole disaster is a case study for software engineers now, which is kinda amazing considering that it wasn’t even that long ago.
If they’d made the 737 Max fly-by-wire, they wouldn’t have even needed to make MCAS.
@@DeltaAssaultGaming agreed but they should at least made it redundant they to cut of mcas when their was different values in 2 aoa sensors
i will never fly with 737 again
So strange to hear people on the internet talk about this. I'm Typed on a 737 and I know that you turn off the Stab Trim cutout switches to disable anything weird happening with the stab trim, no matter what it might be. But NOT 10 times after the aircraft tries to kill you.
The second time the co-pilot actually turned it off, but "information overloading" caused them to lose focus and forgot to retard the throttle to idle, possibly assuming A/T still having control of the throttle. Then due to them running out of "options", they switched it back on again.
I dont understand the reasoning of wiring up the trim cutout switch in new 737s. Should have keep the AP (MCAS) trim and Elec Trim switches separately. The MCAS trim down the aircraft so fast, that even with reasonable airspeed and AOA, it will be an intense workout just to rotate the manual trim for the aircraft to go back in trim. Similar plane with actual manual trim wheel, such as the Airbus A320 / 330, do not required that amount of turns on the trim wheel just to put it back in position. Should just leave the elec trim switch cutoff alone, allowing the pilots to have option to level the trim using thumb trim switches. Then after level only cutoff the elec trim switch. It was actually proven that elec-manual trim switches is almost unlikely to cause a runaway trim scenario, and actually have a redundancy compared to the original MCAS system.
It's taught about in classes already?
Was recommended this video by the algorithm after learning about the most recent Boeing Max incident in Portland where one of the doors was ripped off mid flight. Good reminder of Boeings trend of incompetence.
It was NOT a door. It was a fuselage plug. Big difference!
I was not "ripped out".
It fell out because some lazy worker failed to put 4-essential bolts in.
Stop blaming the CEO, and the designers eh!
Let's put the blame where it belongs - with lousy half-asleep workers! Highly paid ones at that!
@@DennisMerwood-xk8wp Lets be realistic, it's a little bit of everyone fault. Workers didn't put the bolts for some reason, maybe they were never told to, I don't think they just refused to put the bolts in, somethings up there; management never noticed, and inspectors never noticed.
@on2535 Maybe they were never told to ...ppppfffft! Bovine excrement!
They just refused to put the bolts in...ridiculous ~ why would they do that? They WANTED their airplanes to crash! No way.
It was NOT managements job to notice. OR the inspectors! It was the workers job to ensure their work was 100%!!!!
You can't inspect quality into the work! It's the pride of workmanship that gives you quality.
These modern American workers don't give a shit! The working ethic has long been lost in America!
And now Boeing executives may (or may not) face actual criminal punishment because of this incident.
I thought I was familiar with this story but had no idea that giving pilots an onscreen warning that their MCAS was borked was something boeing charged extra for...a minimal amount of software and effort with a maximal effect on safety and they treated it like a cosmetic extra. Of all the reckless and greedy decisions that led to this debacle that one really takes the cake.
Capitalism yeehaw
murica baby
"You see the broken light indicator and tires pressure indicator on this car are in option. That's an additional 3500$ sir."
Thats a oversimplification. Problems were many and complex. Systemic failure, really.
The onscreen warning would have only told the pilots that there was an AOA sensor disagree. It wouldn’t have told them about MCAS or highlighted the extreme stabilizer trim being used.
I am an aircraft mechanic and I want to thank you for your discussion of this topic. I have extremely strong feelings about this incident, I teared up many times during this video and often do during aircraft accident videos. Safety sits so far forward in my mind, and videos like this help me keep it there. The MCAS design angers me so badly, I can barely describe it. The stall recovery protocol should be ignorable by the pilots. I've worked on Dash-8s for a while, and they use a nitrogen charge and a gas piston for the stick pusher. If you hold the yoke, it won't move. You'll have to fight it, but it won't push the nose over. Then once the pusher fires, it's done. You have control again. So even if it tries to fire erroneously you can keep it from actually pushing the nose. I feel exceptionally strongly the yoke should have final authority. The control surfaces should match the yoke unless the autopilot is engaged.
One of the worst things about this incident is how severely it impacted the planet's trust in American aviation. No foreign country will trust any future Boeing quite the same as they might have, nor will they necessarily trust the FAA's approval as they had, and it's 100% the fault of both of those bodies. Aviation is one of the US's strongest areas, and it's reprehensible to gamble that by cutting the corners they did.
In a way, I think I partially understand how you feel. I’m not a pilot or an engineer but I work on ground crew. Technically aircraft services and that is my primary role and by a peculiar twist of fate I end up cleaning the max 8s during turnaround, as well as dealing with the lavatory and water trucks, marshalling, pushbacks, towing things like the steps and positioning them next to the aircraft doors. Though the ramp tasks I’m cross trained in apply to other kinds of aircraft.
So as a consequence I’ve come to know quite a few of the pilots that fly them pretty well, a natural result of meeting them several times a week. And I suppose when, one slightly chilly dawn one day the captain accidentally spilt his fresh cup of coffee over his chair, the floor and even the wall and snags you to clean it up and you not only do so, but actually makes sure he doesn’t have to spend the next few hours confined in a tiny space sitting on a wet chair by spreading a clear bin bag over the affected area and tape it in place, both he and his first officer will tend to remember you. 😁
The thought of them just not coming back one day because of an autopilot glitch that they weren’t even aware of, gives me a cold and chilly emotional discomfort.
That aside, I’d want to avoid being a passenger in the Max because it’s an ugly little thing for passengers. Cattle class really, minimal leg room, pathetically tiny limited galleys and just nothing inside is designed for comfort.
We need more people like you. Keep that mindset on safety, always. There's no telling how many bad things you've avoided already just by being safe and responsible.
Read up on the Air France AF11 incident on 2022-04-05. Both pilots pushed their yokes in opposite directions with enough force to cause the mechanism synchronizing the two to separate (as designed to prevent damage to the controls). There are a multitude of different possible failure modes. And designing to prevent one failure mode from turning fatal, can cause a different failure mode to turn fatal.
And in the case of MCAS, the problem wasn't the yoke. The problem was the trim. The video didn't explain it, but the effect of the horizontal stabilizer varies with speed and altitude (and plane center of gravity). So it needs to be trimmed properly at a particular speed, altitude, and weight distribution in order for "centering" the yoke to result in level flight. MCAS pushed the trim to the limit causing a nose-down attitude even with the yoke pulled all the way back. Adjusting the trim with MCAS disabled requires turning the trim wheels (wheels about 8 inches in diameter next to the throttles) several dozen revolutions. But the planes were at a low enough altitude that the pilots didn't have enough time to do this manually. On the second plane that crashed, the pilots realized this and tried to use the electronic trim adjust (button which uses a motor to spin the trim wheels in the desired direction). But enabling that also enabled MCAS again, and it overrode their button press to put the plane back into full nose-down trim. They knew how to save the plane, they just didn't have enough time to do it.
The answer is simple ..... Boeing needs more diversity hires before meritocrit hires.
We don’t know each other, but I want you to know that there’s at least one person here in the world that is heartened by people with values such as yours. This world may undervalue the “people over profit” mindset, but I never will. Thanks for being who you are, and for caring about the work you do.
My dad worked at boeing while this went down. He was at the company for 30 years and watched it evolve into something he resented by the time he retired last year. The turning point was in 1997 when Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas. There was a company-wide in joke that McDonnell Douglas bought them, as the old boeing executives were fired and they were the replacements. In the beginning, everyone was treated like a member of the family, hence the "boeing family." After the buyout, the culture became much more corporate and hierarchical where you are under me and must do what I say.
My dad was not directly involved with the 737 Max, but he worked in the plant that constructed them. He and basically everyone else in the plant protested against the practices mentioned in the video, but they were always waved off because the executives knew better. After the big scandal, the executives were looked down on and openly chastised when they happened to drop by. The incident itself didn't necessarily lead to his retirement, but it definitely helped speed up the decision making process.
when an engineering company moves its HQ across the country and fills the tower with accountants and Wall Street yes men you know its not going to go well. I mean look at Starliner, If someone were to tell me 10 years ago that after the space shuttle shut down, a rocket company started by a dude who shit posts on the internet would beat Boeing to crew operations to the ISS id have laughed it off. Yet here we are with regular crewdragon flights and Starliner yet to carry crew.
Why was the big merger allowed anyways ? Destroying competition can only give bad results. Especially at a time of the rise of Airbus
@@Spido68_the_spectator McDonnell Douglas was one step of close it's doors. They ran out of cash after the MD-11 commercial failure ( basically a DC-10 MAX). But their military portfolio still was a very valuable asset, that's why buying the company made a lot of sense for Boeing. However, they didn't payed in cash to buy the company, they payed in Boeing's own shares. So, after closing the deal and receiving the shares, MCDonnell Douglas former owners became one of the main Boeing shareholders. It's unbelievable!
@@Parc_Ferme bah... just give a loan (to McDonnell Douglas), impose new CEO and board of directors, task them to turn around the situation and call it a day. Although the MD 11 was a good plane, the DC 10 reputation was (nearly) always going to hurt it. Going for a 757 and /or 767 rival would have made more sense to salvage the pieces
Boeing was definitely in the wrong, but I put far MORE blame on the FAA, whose job it is to reign in corporate greed in favour of safety. They didn't. There should be NO WAY that Boeing should influence the FAA's decision, and yet.... So I am more disgusted with them.
It should also be noted that the 737 MAX would have been perfectly flyable without MCAS. It's just that the plane handled differently enough that additional pilot training would have been required. Essentially, Boeing ended up spending a few billion to save a few million.
That's not true
@@kirilmihaylov1934 your denial means nothing
@@adamk203 they put MCAS because the engines are bigger forward looking than the previous models. That meant the aircraft pitches up in a take off .Hence , MCAS .so basically it couldn't fly without MCAS . So you are completely wrong
@@kirilmihaylov1934 I have no idea where you're getting your misinformation.
The plane is perfectly pilotable with an MCAS malfunction; provided the pilot understood what was happening and how to react.
There were incidents where it failed and the flight was completed safely.
A successful takeoff can be achieved with an MCAS failure and corrective action.
@@kirilmihaylov1934 that shows a rather poor understanding of aerodynamics. Placing heavier engines further ahead of the wing shifts the plane's center of gravity further forward relative to the center of lift. This actually has the added benefit of increasing aerodynamic stability. The MAX is without question flyable without MCAS.
MCAS only exists for the atypical situation of extreme angle of attack (that should never be encountered in normal flight), at which point the added lift of the larger engines does come into play, making the controls feel lighter. Because of this, there was the risk of a pilot inadvertently pulling too hard on the yoke and putting the plane into a stall. MCAS adjusts the the trim to counteract this added lift and thus requires more force from the pilot to pitch the nose up further.
Deliberately deceiving pilots and your industry regulator was never likely to lead to a happy ending. Putting the company's reputation at risk in this way has may be one of the worst business decisions in aviation history.
Agreed
The question is, did they learn anything or will the megacorporation try to cut corners next chance it has? We all know the answer.
@@lordbertox4056 of course they did not
They need to be canceled for this.
@@streettrialsandstuff the Pay the government
What I find egregious is Boeing kept safety system hidden to avoid scrutiny by the FAA. then charge a premium to have the option of notifying pilots of a fault with the sensors.
They didn't hide it from the FAA for pete's sake. They couldn't get approval without it, duh.
Safety DLC for air planes.
@@jokuvaan5175 lol
Capitalism
“Don’t worry about the engine on fire, it’s a feature!”
Well….this explains a lot.
My Grandfather is one of the creators of Boeing’s 747s and even though he’s retired he still keeps an ear on things. (also is the only 80 year old I know of that can write code) I remember him being adgetated when he would end a conversation with one of his friends and one time heard him cussing out someone over “max’s softwear ain’t the problem”.
I thought he was cussing out someone named Max but I think I’ve realized what he was actually talking about now.
Well to say all this if Dennis where to be a black man he would have been in jail already.
The fact that something related to safe operation like the AOA warning is even "optional" to begin with is disturbing, and the whole 'paid extras' system probably needs to be looked at. Also company management types really need to face jailtime for things like this. Seeing the entire Boeing Board go to Prison would have been an interesting wakeup call.
True, but then who would pay their political patsies to eff over "the little people"
That would be awesome!😂
29:53 Sam Graves represents Missouri. Something to know about Missouri: Boeing has a HUGE facility in the St. Louis, Missouri area, it employs over 16,000 workers and wins billion dollar military contacts.
I'd question his ability to remain objective on a panel questioning the safety processes at Boeing.
Lemme add - I did not know this ahead of time. Looked this up after seeing that. Happens all the time with government panels. Same reason why the shuttle is a failure.
His statement rubbed me the wrong way and I didn’t even know that. Good ol’ “America is best” narrative when hundreds of people died and it was fairly obvious these were not pilot-related crashes.
@@chris-hayes The shuttle wasn’t a failure. It went to space and back….a lot.
So annoying how he was trying to blame the pilots little did he know the captain of the first flight was literally trained in U.S
@@Drizzit572 out of 4 blew up after rich it was scrapped, and the inbuilt rockets weren’t really reusable without massive refurbishment which resulted in a complete rebuild. It cost far more than the Russian program on which the USA relied for over 20 years after the space shuttle was cancelled.
Thing that makes this so damn egregious in some ways is that it wouldn't have been that expensive in the long term, but in some ways the whole self-assessment process is just a complete failure in any industry its ever been allowed to function in. Like literally, no one in history has been very objective about themselves when it came to selling something and I don't think anyone in Boeing was going to be down in skid row eating pot noodles after each one rolling off the line.
Will check out your music channel too
This company needs shutting down immediately in my opinion. Hiding stuff from documentation? Not wanting simulators? Gotta be joking. Airbus... thats the way.
If it’s Boeing, I ain’t goin
@@MrJC1 This is the result of the military-industrial complex. A company not deeply networked into the government can't get away with this crap. People in the comments going on about capitalism, this isn't it. This is closely related to socialism where the company is merely an extension of the government with a different name. Rules for thee but not for me.
@@arc00ta no i am all for this miliary side of things. But when it was employed that way, they didn't have it override the pilot. Now all of a sudden they do? That aint military. That is stupidity.
@@arc00ta but i agree... it isnt capitalism. Capitalism is airbus coming in to be a competitor... the rest is criminal.
One story I haven’t seen discussed anywhere here in this video and the comment section is the development of the MD-11. McDonnell-Douglas, in an attempt to save costs on a next-gen competitor to the Airbus A340 (and later the Boeing 777) reused the tried and tested DC-10 design and stretched the fuselage to increase capacity. They also added new aerodynamic elements such as the winglets co-designed by NASA. However, due to the extended fuselage sections the centre of gravity balance was shifted forward, which required a redesigned tail section. The original DC-10 tail section was also heavier and thus reduced the efficiency, so alongside the reduced tail size, they also added a sensor and an autocorrection software in the new fly-by wire system to correct potential stability issues for takeoffs and landings. As a result of the tail changes, the MD-11 landing speed is one of the highest for any commercial aircraft of its size, and it has a tendency to bounce after initial touchdown. Unfortunately, these bouncing issues lead to two fatal crash landings as there isn’t any way for the sensors to correct the disturbance caused by the bouncing.
Guess which Seattle-based company merged with McDonnell-Douglas in 1997?
And they used flammable idolation foam, which ultimately doomed Swissair flight 111... 😢
Watching this the same day a Boeing 737 Max had an emergency landing after a window was ripped off the plane mid flight, whats happening to this company?
Shareholder value 😉
It was actually a whole door ripped out of the plane.
That's just wrong on so many levels.
@@Mjg503 It was NOT a door.
I was not "ripped out".
It fell out because some lazy worker failed to put 4-bolts in.
Stop blaming the CEO, and the designers eh!
Let's put the blame where it belongs - with lousy half-asleep workers! Highly paid ones at that!
@@DennisMerwood-xk8wp Even though that's an oversimplification and a massive assumption, it's still Boeing's responsibility to ensure everything is assembled correctly (quality control/assurancr). When your computer crashes, you don't complain to the developers, you complain to the company.
Dei
Great video! 33:40 As far as I know, Boeing was "forced" to use only one sensor because FAA has strict rule that any system that's built redundant is considered a critical system. And all critical systems require pilot training to handle any malfunction in critical system. As Boeing had already decided that MAX shall not require any additional training, they decided to pretend that MCAS is a non-critical system and to make this pass FAA rules, they couldn't use both sensors at the same time.
I guess the FAA rules should also say that any system that can override pilot input is considered critical. That way Boeing or anybody else couldn't try to use tricks like this.
Any system whose failure can result in uncontrolled contact with terrain might seem to be critical on its face. Expecting To rely on the FAA to make key design decisions like that for Boeing simply indicates the failure of Boeing and its customers to understand what makes an aircraft work.
@@francesconicoletti2547 I mean I think it's not really a failure of understanding by boeing or the customer, boeing *knew*, it was a strategic, intentional (and stupid) marketing decision, and the customers were completely in the dark. Boeing made a system less safe to slip it under the FAA's regulations
Wow, I did not know that. Thanks for bringing attention to that fact!
Looks like another example of how a change in order to improve a system (the FAA implementing a rule about critical systems) can lead to the opposite intented effect.
I believe that as originally conceived the system was not capable of completely overriding the pilots inputs. This allowed them the single AOA sensor input. It was found to be insufficiently effective and it’s power was doubled (oh so easy to tweak in software). This enabled it to override the pilot input. At this point it needed to not have a SPF which would require certification and that is where the lies started to become really egregious.
@@ShaunieDale Oh, I would have assumed that doubling the power in software shouldn't have been possible. I thought that aircraft designs such as this had to be limited by mechanical strength. If that was the way that things progressed then Boeing engineers must have known for sure that they are breaking the rules when they doubled the effect.
One thing which simply *CANNOT* be understated is the absolute decimation of the workplace culture of Boeing after they were bought by McDonnell Douglas and the exodus of quality focused engineering management which resulted. Every dead passenger is the moral responsibility of the United States Congress which forced the terms of this deal on Boeing.
The worst is that it's not just Boing. Everyone's cutting corners now. Short term profit is all they care about, consequences be damned.
This was covered in the Netflix documentary I believe. Interesting that different documentaries have taken their own take on this story - it's definitely multifaceted
I came here to say the same thing (and also to criticize the FAA funding cuts that led to the ODA program).
@@Nono-hk3is
Unfortunately Americans love of hating the government is responsible for this. There are those that for some reason believe that corporations will behave better without any oversight.
That they will find you the safest and most cost-effective things. Even though Historically this has never happened. These safety organizations only exist because of the behavior of the industry in the past.
Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas
Hiding the MCAS from the FAA, was not just done to reduce red tape, they where criminally trying to hide their dirty secret, that the Airframe was altered, and the handling characteristics changed enough to require a system to auto compensate.
There is some good information out there about the change in culture at Boeing that contributed to this tragedy. Apparently, Boeing went from being a family-owned company focused on safety to a corporately owned company focused on profits at all cost. It has been pointed out that when this shift occurred the new owners fired a lot of staff, mostly those concerned with ensuring that the planes passed safety inspections.
Merger with McDonnell-Douglas. MD management group took over and changed the business model.
@charlesfaure1189
And made me change my mind about the desirability of travelling on railway trains.
I had known about the MCAS bringing down these two planes, however the extent to which it has been lied about and covered up I was not aware of. Thanks for another great and informative video!
They were talking sh*t in the emails. Attitude of "Oh look at how dumb they all are! They really bought it, I'm just that good."
It's actually worse John couldn't cover the whole story in a short video.
any company that puts profit over safety should have the higherups purged and arrested.
Not arrested, purged of their existence
The entire culture of boeing changed when engineers in charge were replaced by accountants. Staff who discovered problems were sacked. Then they had the 787 that didn't fit together properly and staff were told to put it together anyway!
It's so disheartening that day and day out these companies get away with things like this.
But thank you for covering such a subject with grace and dignity.
Speak for yourself. I am glad that great American companies like Boeing are still allowed to operate and innovate, out of the clutches of strangling government regulation, supported by worthless biomass such as yourself.
It’s so cool to hear that you’ve had a life long passion about safety. Thanks for educating all of us.
Thank you
@@PlainlyDifficult I can tell you’re very knowledgeable about aircraft. This video is as good as the ones actual pilots on CZcams have made.
I'm with you 100% brother. My dad worked for the airlines however, but he would take me to work all the time and I would be able to go and hang out with the mechanics and sit in the airplanes while they were working on them. Yes, that was a different time in history. The 1970s. I'm 54 years old now but my passion for airplanes is still as strong as ever
TWA brat checking in. Those are some great memories.
🤗
Those were the days when they still listened to their mechanics' warnings about faulty parts... as far as I've learned from this and other stories about the problems that have caused crashes. Increasing time pressures to get planes into the air and producing income, fatigue of mechanics due to this, and complete silencing of mechanics when they attempted to warn of deadly issues. Is this your understanding of the climate change from safety focus to completely monetary? It seems that even if a mechanic wished to warn of impending disaster their voice would be silenced and there was no way to be heard even if they tried. This was supposedly vastly different from the Boeing climate in it's early years when those employees engineering and working on the planes were given the power to ground a plane until issue was resolved. Today it feels like these corporations figure into their financials how much a human life is worth in comparison to their earnings to keep an unsafe plane in the air. Interested to understand how much their CEOs were being paid during this time as well... way too much, imo.
@@nrvouspotatoe1519 that's exactly what happened
I think the most shocking part of this is that Boeing engineers will have known that a single AOA sensor failure “could” have caused a nose down. After the first crash they would have know that the AOA sensor failure “will” cause a nose down and yet nothing was done about it to prevent the truth from getting out. They let that second crash happen and directly caused the deaths. How that doesn’t result in jail sentences I don’t understand.
One of the engineers said, in a memo to management, something along the lines of 'If you keep a system like MCAS on one sensor, people will die'
@@twilightnawi1194 Got a link to that, twilight? Its bovine excrement! You pulled this outa your ass!
No matter how many versions of this incident I watch, I still can't get over how open greed overrode critical safety systems and took the lives of 300+ persons. May they R.I.P....😢😢
And that's why Regulations exist. Companies hate them and try to dodge them because they're expensive but they exist for a reason and that reason is often saving lives
Boeing was also shady with the 377 Stratocruiser. They allegedly pressured the CAB (the FAA's predecessor) to find crew faults to blame for what were likely mechanical or design failures.
13 of 56 manufactured were destroyed in accidents, others lost entire propellers or propeller blades and some suffered other dangerous malfunctions.
@@srubberalittle MIC labor. Union had nothing to do with it, Pratt & Whitney couldn't lose business if they wanted to.
Well..... it was a derivative of the unreliable B-29, it’s quite unknown but most brought themselves down due to failures, and I heard that once the props were started, they had to hurry into the air or the engines would literally catch fire
The culmination of the Boeing - McDonnell Douglas merger, it truly destroyed Boeing family structuring where concerns were listened to and safer was first. Now it's just shareholders.... no soul
Exactly it was well explained in the the Netflix documentary
That's no merger. McDonnell Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing's money, not a single shred of Boeing was left in the new company after McDonnell Douglas's purchase, that company stopped caring about product quality and only cared about profit.
Show me a large corporation with a soul and then we can watch as its soulless competitors stomp it into the ground.
@@uglybetty8747 which documentary is this?
@@timburrr no reply
I somehow missed this video earlier, but CZcams is recommending this video, just as the 737 Max is grounded again in the US.
And you did yhis one a year ago? Well done, Psychic Man!!
Boeing has been on a decline for decades, it's not seeing the future as much as the writing in the wall.
I lived in Aliquippa Pennsylvania at the time that Flight 427 crashed outside of my grocery store complex, the Green Garden Plaza. My next door neighbor was the police and fire chaplain for the rescue and recovery workers, and though I was 15 at the time, it had a profound impact on me and spurred a life-long interest in plane crashes. I attended the public memorial. If anyone is interested in the investigation I highly recommend a book called the Mystery of Flight 427, which goes in-depth about the years of unprecedented investigation trying to figure out wtf happened, including using analysis of the effort noises the pilots made in the cockpit when synced up with their actions from the black boxes. It was mere chance that my mother and I drove back a different way than we usually would have; the exit from the highway curves around, facing the crash site, and we nearly always drove that way at the exact time of the crash. I remember hoping it was a light aircraft when I heard about it that evening.
Thanks for recommending the book.
I'm only a few minutes away from the crash site
@@sonic23233 I've since moved into Pittsburgh itself but hi there, former neighbor! I'll never forget after the memorial service there was this 7 or 8 year old kid, one of the family members of a victim, and I wanted so badly to walk up to them and keep them busy while the rest of the family took a helicopter up to see the site. I just felt like it was such a bad idea for someone that young... and none of them were probably from around here, you know? I didn't, because I was 15 years old and aware of how odd that would look. Last year, someone posted in r/lastimages a picture of the dad they lost and spoke about how they HATED going to see the site as an elementary kid.
It was the same kid.
I should have gone by that instinct, it seems.
My dad was part of a plane crash recovery operation as a volunteer firefighter in Cecil County, MD when he was 16 or 17. Apparently the older guys had him manage easier jobs while they picked through the debris and found corpses. Despite this, he came into contact with a few body parts scattered about. He didn't tell me the story until very recently. Considering how much my first time attending to a lethal (motorcycle) accident affected me, just last year, I can't imagine going through that as a kid.
Thanks for the book recommendation! I'm from Pittsburgh and I was a kid when this accident happened. It made me scared of flying. But eventually as I got older, I studied more about airplanes and became fascinated. It led me to a career in aerospace engineering... Best decision of my life to be honest. Really love my job though it would have been cool to be a pilot. I get motion sickness though so that dream kinda died lol.
When I train new safety professionals, this channel is one I have them watch. It is informative, approachable, and covers so many different industries that it’s an invaluable resource.
You’re doing great things and making a real impact. Keep it up!
That’s scary, you ‘train’ safety professionals with CZcams videos?
Perhaps your employers should investigate your methods before you get someone hurt or killed
@@devondetroit2529 Interesting take. How exactly will showing new professionals detailed, yet easy to understand, break downs of famous occupational safety disasters lead to someone getting killed?
He also "one of" not "the only" training methods.
@@devondetroit2529 The reading comprehension is nowhere to be seen
My first semester of college I took a speech class, and I talked about this whole situation for my final. The whole thing still blows my mind today. Drives me nuts how companies will put money over peoples' safety, especially in a flying vehicle that will definitely kill someone if it doesn't work! (I can't say I'm surprised though, this happens so often, but still yuck)
To be fair, any airplane is a flying vehicle that will definitely kill someone if it doesn’t work.
>this happens so often
No it does not lmfao, except in the fever dreams of people who consume CZcams rageporn.
@@natowaveenjoyer9862..Just try to look at every disaster caused by Maintenance or design cost cutting partner.
Stop drinking the Capitalism is a non flawed system kool aid
I might have to spell your last word there a bit more forceful! But that's just me...
This one was a bit close to home, I used to admire Boeing, I have lost all faith in them now though. I was working at Bole International in Addis Ababa for Ethiopian Airlines around the time, working alongside people that knew the crew of that flight. So sad that it was all a direct result of greed.
I feel so bad for those pilots and passengers. If only MCAS had been attached to both AoA sensors. If only the pilots had been warned and trained to handle it.
@@mikoto7693 If only the Boeing execs were not greedy and actually valued lives.
@@frogboi1346 unfortunately i dont get much of a choice in choosing the aircraft. All domestic flights in my country are almost exclusively 737-800s. Probably only international flights are where I would get to pick the aircraft, but even then I am sure; other things like price will always end up being the primary selection criteria.
@@frogboi1346 My alltime favourite for comfort is definitely the A380, but that turned out to be a Lemon for all the airlines. But as a passenger, I cant think of anything more bliss.
Lately idgaf as long as its a newish plane.. had to fly 10 hours in an isle seat ath the back of an old 747 a few years back... could watch the whole plane twist and flex like a snake all the way down the aisle to the front.. 😅😅
but I also think I'm over travelling for work, happy to stay grounded for a while
@@PoseidonDiver exactly
There's a joke a Brazilian writter made one time about his fear of flying.
"A car could fall into a hole or something if you're not careful, so you'll always have to pay attention to the road, but in a plane, the hole follows you everywhere you go"
HAHAHAHAHAHA... All I could think of was how my mother would retort, "No, the A-hole is in the PILOT'S SEAT IN FRONT OF YOU!!! It's INESCAPABLE!!!" ;o)
Probably the closest thing that comes close to this in terms of damage to an aircraft and the reputation of the company that built it, was the MacDonnell Douglas DC-10. In the first two years of operation, there were two incidents involving explosive decompression related to the rear cargo door not locking properly. In 1972, an American Airlines DC-10 had it's rear cargo door blow out over Windsor, Ontario, but the crew were able to land safely. Two years later, a Turkish Airlines DC-10 had almost the same failure over Paris. This time, due to the flight having a lot more people onboard, the decompression led to the loss of all hydraulic systems and the plane crashed killing all 346 people onboard.
Although the loss of the 346 people was horrifying enough, the really troubling thing, the one that led to at the time the largest payout of damages due to lawsuits by victims families, was that not only did MacDonnell Douglas know there was a problem with the rear cargo door after Windsor, they knew during the development of the aircraft. In 1970, 4 years before the Paris crash and 2 years before Windsor, the rear cargo door failed during a pressure test. Despite this, the fundamental design of the door stayed the same
And these issues were addressed. And the DC-10 went on to be one of the best civil aviation aircraft built.
A favorite of airlines and passengers - with a great safety record.
And the same thing will happen with the 737MAX
Already with >4,000 on back order - by folks who fly this wonderful plane every day.
You think they think it is dangerous? Yeah right!
@DennisMerwood-xk8wp why did MacDonnell sell far fewer commercial DC-10's and companies stop using them in promotional material if it was "so popular"?
Hello from 2024 where doors are now optional on this aircraft.
New old sayings: "If it ain't Airbus I'm not going"
First and foremost, What I think show clear disregard for safety is that there is no automatic switch for the MCAS when you have other warnings, like an Overspeed or GPWS. I think it would be quite easy to realise that, no matter the situation, the MCAS should f off if the pilots have a warning that requires pulling the yoke, especially such a high priority one like overspeed, GPWS or sink rate.
yea, why it still nose diving if it already yelling "crashing"... lol silly design.
@@xponen Do you really think it's that simple? We can just evaluate a system like MCAS in isolation, ignoring the rest of the flight control system as a whole?
I believe MCAS was linked to flap status somewhere along the line.
@@ShaunieDale flaps 1 to 40 disables MCAS
@@bradleypeterson2208 wasn’t that the problem with the Ethiopian crash. The moment they stowed the flaps, down went the nose?
Interesting and thorough documentary; I wondered about this subject after it stopped being covered much in the news. Love that it's nearly the length of a 1-hour program, and of high-quality. Make more of this series please.
Thank you
It was in the regular news less, but there'd been several documentaries about the 737max, including one by PBS.
There'd also been a much earlier documentary(generally relating to the 787) by Al Jazeera about problems at one of the Boeing plants with sloppy workmanship, drug use at the plant, etc.
It was trashed by some people(with more than a little assistance by Boeing it seems), but while perhaps somewhat sensationalist it ultimately turned out to be right. eg: this ironic review, considering what came after: "The piece strikes me as sensationalist tabloid journalism. I don’t see the benefit to Boeing to push out an aircraft that compromises safety."....
@@PlainlyDifficult also agree, would love more aviation content as a fellow aviation nerd, I’ll eat that right up knowing the high quality you produce
If we hadn't have had a global health emergency that grounded thousands of aircraft, we probably would have heard more.
What strikes me with all your videos, is that in many cases these events could have been prevented by more careful design, and/or operating. Corners seem to be cut time and time again in the name of profitability, but ultimately costing w-a-y more in the long run once rework, punitive damages, loss of life and reputation are figured in.
Five days into 2024 and the Max is at it again
As a developer, it's so egregious to me that only one sensor was used.
Not necessarily blaming the devs, so much as there's clearly bigger process issues at Boeing if that never gets questioned. Compounded by Boeing trying to hide the existence of this new safety critical system.
As one who works with max pilots every shift and have a few as friends, it really pisses me off that the two crashes could have been them.
Another commenter said if it was redundant it would be considered critical (why else make it redundant?) And then the FAA would force them to train pilots what to do if it went wrong and they'd already decided there would be no training needed.
Those freaking pitot tubes have been the cause of so many accidents because of junk readings causing confusion. There's one that was caused by a piece of tape, one caused by a mud dauber, one caused by ice... It's crazy how one tiny thing can cause so much destruction.
My take is that mcas should have been implemented with checks and balances such as:
Monitoring altitude, rate of descent, and airspeed for deviations from expected values.
Verifying pilot inputs align with safe parameters.
Predicting flight paths to detect deviations from the intended profile.
Comparing parameters to established limits.
Setting autonomous behavior limits to prevent excessive interventions.
Providing clear indications of system activity to pilots.
I am an aircraft hydraulic systems mechanic on KC-135s and your explanation of hydro mechanical flight control systems was spot on. Well done! We have rudder PCUs in our aircraft too and they’re always a source of problems.
My uncle was one of the designers of the Concord engines, he worked for Rolls Royce. I have been on board the Concord, & from then I developed a fascination with aviation. I always remember my uncle would fly on any Boeing with the exception of the 737 - he would refuse a flight & pay extra to avoid flying on them ... His favourite is still the Queen of the Sky 747.
Don't worry the doors will fall out before the MCAS gets you 😞
It really all came down to Airbus seizing the particular subset of the market the 737 exist in with an incredibly simple upgrade to the A320 (called that 320 neo) in which they smacked a larger engine on it. What was even better about that plane for airlines is that it flew exactly the same, pilots needed no additional training if they knew how to operate an A320.
Boeing couldn't replicate this because the 737 sat lower to the ground on the runway, not leaving enough room for bigger engines. So they moved the wings on the body to accommodate them. The problem is that this did change the way the plane flies and would require airlines to have to give pilots training to operate it.
So Boeing in all of their infinite wisdom starts working on software to try to make the plane behave like a normal 737, and hide it from everyone including the pilots so they can claim that the 737 max is just like a normal 737 just with a bigger engine, like the 320 neo.
Now cue one of the biggest scandals in aviation history and hundreds of lifes lost ultimately because the pilots didn't know WTF was happening to their plane.
If I remember correctly you've almost got it right. Boeing didn't move the wings though, they made different pylons that were both shorter and pushed the engines further out in front of the wings which allowed them to mount the engines just that little bit higher to create more ground clearance for the engine cowlings. That changed position of the engines moved the central thrust point (the point where the plane "feels" the point of thrust), causing the plane to raise its nose on high engine power settings, like on take-off and climbing rapidly to high altitude.
To compensate for this Boeing implemented the MCAS system, that automatically pitched down the nose of the plane at high thrust settings. Normally a flight system like this has to have mandatory redundancy, but that would've meant pilots had to be re-certified for the MCAS equipped planes, so Boeing decided to use just one sensor for the MCAS system. To further prohibit re-certification of the pilots, Boeing decided to hide the MCAS system in plain sight by pretending it didn't exist in the flight manuals and troubleshooting guides.
When MCAS failed due to its dependency on a single sensor that went bad, the pilots had no clue about what was happening and even if they'd had the time to start troubleshooting the problem, the MCAS system wouldn't have been mentioned in the trouble shooting guide.
Yes, we watched the video too
The problem is just how old the design is. The original 737 was designed to be able to operate from grass runways, it's so old. The body being close to the ground was a feature, not a bug, as it allowed for easy maintenance to the engines that wouldn't require either step ladders or even scissor lifts. But Boeing wanted to keep the 737 going, because retraining thousands of pilots would cost airlines lots of money, and would make them more likely to go for Airbus that doesn't face the same problem. It's the law of the handicap of a headstart. The design should have been retired around the turn of the millenium. It would be expensive in the short term, but could be lucrative in the long run. Of course, shareholders don't care about making money 20 years from now, they want money right now, and Boeing listened.
Add a thick layer of corruption to that, and you've got a recipe for disaster.
@@SRFriso94 The low ground clearance is also the result of the 737's expected market niche of short domestic flights, meaning they expected it to operate from smaller airports/airfields which at the time rerely had bridge-type gates and instead used mobile staircaises. A lower airplane would have facilitated embarking and disembarking of passengers (as well as the loading and unloading of luggages, as stated in the video)
"um, we blame the pilot who's control was ripped away from them by a system they didn't know exist,, yes deff their fault not ours"
-Boeing probably
IIRC Lion Air is Indonesia's equivalent of United Airlines, but they had the decency to actually ask for a simulator to train with the 737 MAX. Boeing called them idiots.
@@IllusionistsBane Really? If one of the Max 8 pilots I work with every shift and particularly if one of my friends had died in the way those two Lion Air pilots did I would be so pissed off. I can’t imagine how their families must feel.
What boiled down to "Them gosh durn furriners dunno how tah fly" pissed me off.
Single Sensor (Biggest WTF there, it's a bloody airplane, redundancy should be redundant), Pilot Warning "optional add-on," and "nah, they don't need training."
Isn't this the same Boeing 737 Max that just got its window blown out shortly after take off few days ago?
That’s the MAX9, this is about the MAX8. There’s technically a difference, although the models are quite similar so far as I know.
@@drrisen-9442the Max9 is just the stretch. The flight control system is the same.
However contrary to the crashes which were caused by very poor engineering and criminal fraud the door plug which fell off recently seem to be caused by negligence and poor workmanship in assembly
It was NOT a window. It was a fuselage plug. Big difference!
I was not "blown out".
It fell out because some lazy worker failed to put 4-essential bolts in.
Stop blaming the CEO, and the designers eh!
Let's put the blame where it belongs - with lousy half-asleep workers! Highly paid ones at that!
@@DennisMerwood-xk8wp Right.
@DennisMerwood-xk8wp there should have been multiple checks before it would have been sent out. If a system like thus is vulnerable to a single lazy employee then the system is wrong. If there were multiple lazy employees then that is still a management problem.
Fun fact: the higher ups of McDonald Douglas, the ones that made the infamous DC-10, when the Boeing merger happened, a bunch of the executives got high up jobs in Boeing, let's just say that the 'profit over safety' mentality came with them to their new jobs.
Hey John,
This has to be one of your best videos. Great job mate! Seriously, you presented a difficult technological story that started with a vision of “new and better” which very quickly turned to tragedy and suffering for many people. The fact that every 737 Max around the world was grounded is testament to how big and complex the issue really was. At first Boeing made it sound like it was a coding error in the computer program however, we later found out it was a much more complex technology issue simply due to Boing’s neglect and deceit. Now that the 737 Max is starting to return to service, I’m sure many people will have a bit of anxiety as they board the plane... at least for a while. Cheers!
The sad thing is that both Boeing and Airlines are perfectly aware that people would be nervous about riding on the 737 max 8s and designed spreadsheets to advise staff on how to calm and persuade people to fly on them and arrange alternate flights on different models of aircraft. Some of the measures included getting the pilots out of the flight deck to personally affirm that the max is safe.
And yet despite this, I’d be okay with riding as a passenger on the Max due to the deep level of scrutiny it endured to return to the sky across the world. Indeed in a few weeks my parents will ride on one. The amusing part for me is that I work on ground crew at the airport they fly out of and likely have cleaned, marshalled, pushbacked and handled the water and lavatory trucks on the exact plane they’re going to ride on.
And I know several of the pilots who fly them. And yet if it were me, I’d prefer to use EasyJet because their planes are Airbus whose planes I think are safer.
@@mikoto7693 Airbus planes are safer yes
@@mikoto7693I won’t be flying on a max, or any new Boeing, for a long time. Their culture is to sacrifice safety for cost, and then hide any dangers to the public as much as they can. This culture hasn’t been changed, and will continue. There have been numerous problems with all Boeing’s made in the NC plant for starters. I gave no doubts there will be another crash and Boing will do their best to hide the real reasons behind it from the public.
I was in the ATC a few years before you - really did love the rifle training and live round firing. From SLR to 303, from .22 to a Sterling. I'll always remember camps at RAF Wyton (visiting an active Alconbury), RAF Buchan (spending an entire day within the radar controllers), and RAF Leuchars and being able to be up-close with the QRA Phantoms accessed through the nuclear bunker.
Anyway, back onto subject. Nice video.
As an American, I’m actually a bit jealous. I’d be happy to fire a Martini-Henry or an SMLE. They’re extremely rare here, and therefore expensive.
This aged well.
Thanks for making this video. When I heard about the Alaska Airlines grounding today I immediately went to look up what kind of plane it was, and sure enough, it was a 737 Max.
This one really burns me up inside. I've known about the details for ages but it doesn't make me any less annoyed by it.
The simple installation of a second sensor as required by all primary aviation systems, would have saved hundreds of human lives, and the company's reputation.
Trust is hard won, but easily lost.
There is no way I'll fly on a Max plane, regardless of updates.
If my work flights involve one, then I will be rebooking on something else.
The worst part? There was no need to install a second sensor, because the sensor was already there. They decided to use only one sensor because that way it wouldn't be a "flight critical" system and would receive less oversight.
The B737s have always had two sensors. The problem was in how they were used in the MAX, acting on the data when the two sensors disagreed. Previous versions of the 737 did not take any action which would imperil the plane as a result of bad sensor data. Ironically, the problem was caused by a break from traditional Boeing philosophy, which holds that the pilot has ultimate control of the aircraft.
I feel the same way Dangermouse. But in addition to being really annoyed that Boeing could have simply connected MCAS to both AoA sensors and if they disagreed due to one having a fault, it would flag the issue to the pilots who would then have the final say on what to do about it, it makes me particularly angry because I work with 737 max 8 pilots every day and I’m friends with a few of them. The thought of them just not coming back one day due to what was essentially an autopilot glitch that not only hid from them but put in a single point of failure pisses me off.
@@samueldavila2156 "If it's a Boeing, I'm not going" is a fantastic slogan which I will now start using.
@@Toksyuryel I've become particularly fond of saying "Boeing is the sound they make when they crash", but that's not near as catchy.
Love the scandal series, I can't wait to see what you'll do next. I hope the highly problematic Mcdonald Douglas DC-10 will be on your list one of these days
This video aged like fine wine, I hope you get a lot of new views on this video with everything that's in the news right now.
Very informative video.
You did miss the fact that Air Canada trained their pilots very well. They had a simulator and many, many, hours of both classroom work and simulator hours.
If I am not mistaken the only, or one of the few companies who had such training. How do I know?.. My brother is a captain for Air Canada and received every hour of said training.
I think it is VERY important to explain that MCAS doesn't push the elevators to nose down, which is a small surface area of the horizontal stabilizer, MCAS tilts THE WHOLE ELEVATOR (nose) DOWN.
And then 💥
The MCAS trimmed the plane down for 10 seconds then 5 seconds where the pilot could try to pull the plane up repeat
So it essentially forces a nose down by using the trim system instead of the normal flight surfaces?
@@rubiconnn Yes, if you look at the trim system on commercial airliners, they are not the "trim tabs" that are on GA or smaller jets. The entire horizontal stabilizer is a movable surface, and can apply MUCH more pitch force to the aircraft than the elevator.
@@stegx2853 15 seconds of horizontal stabilizer jackscrew actuation is a pretty significant change in the pitch moment.
I was in a regulatory law class at the time that the 737 Max scandal went down and my professor laid out exactly what had happened and how exactly Boeing had tried to get around the regulatory requirements a couple of weeks before everything was announced publicly. It was really cool to have that feeling of seeing behind the curtain.
If you subscribe to Mentour Pilot, you've been watching this whole thing unfold as it has been happening. Thank you for putting together a full length video including everything in one place!
I love this new series, sometimes I'm really not in the mood for something dark or disastrous, so this has been a surprisingly pleasant change of pace where I can still listen to your content but not at the expense of my mental health
This is the first time I've seen anyone put this scandal in the context of Boeing's complacency with the 737's market position. Without that context, its impossible to understand the panicked attempt at justifying something like MCAS.
17:01 is showing the horizontal stab going the wrong way under MCAS control. MCAS was not functioning during manual control, as the video says. Only in auto. Beyond that, it was a trim control that moves the entire horiz stab and not just the elevator tabs used by the pilots.
No amount of pilot input could ever change a trim setting which was set for balancing the plane according to weight distribution dictated by cargo and possibly other variables.
Sam Graves of Missouri, based on that jacket and tie, shouldn't be allowed to make any decisions.
Now we’re here in 2024 and Boeing has door covers flying off mid flight 😂
It was NOT a door cover. It was a fuselage plug. Big difference!
It fell out because some lazy worker failed to put 4-essential bolts in.
Stop blaming the CEO, and the designers eh!
Let's put the blame where it belongs - with lousy workers! Highly paid ones at that!
And half-asleep FAA inspectors
Thanks John, first time comment, long time fan. For me the delivery of your content is the best on CZcams, no exaggerated drama, no emotion inducing word play, just the right amount of background and of course the relevant facts in the right order.
Thanks again for your efforts.
Dan
As an American I'll say that the fact that the FAA didn't ground the 737 MAX 8 earlier is scary and a huge "embarrassment"... and maybe other far worse things. IDK WTF is going on now! This video is very good! I haven't seen it laid out quite this well before. I took notice and subscribed to your channel a while back because of your Therac 25 video when I was researching that subject "semi-seriously" because of my other interests, influenced by family and other work. (I read a lot about Therac 25 as well / of course the study of the intersection of stubborn people, science, stupid people and powerful forces is fascinating for too many reasons.) You make GOOD videos.
"Yo, it's Boeing here: we're putting out some new DLC on your airplane through Steam that will mean you can purchase an upgrade that means everyone on the plane gets to live"
"I'm not paying for that - modders will fix it"
"uh... what?"
WHO THE HELL SELLS UPGRADES THAT MEAN PEOPLE DON'T DIE IN AN EXPLODING AIRCRAFT AS AN OPTIONAL EXTRA JESUS FUCKING GOD I CAN'T
Also - 'Less Crashy'. A marvellous nu-verb deployment there. Literally fired tea out of my nose when you said it. Top marks!
Less crashy is a good upgrade by any standard
Capitalism yeehaw
@@davidjr4903 Yeah. 'Sure, there might be a few more corpses, but look NUMBER GO UP HYUCK HYUCK HYUCK!'
They're a ghoulish lot, whoever it was. But you're not wrong.
Well well well John! Me thinks this video needs a continuation/Part 2! We now have windows and whole sides of Maxes coming apart and news of dodgy screws/bolts holding them into place! Another scandal video incoming!!
Bovine excrement my woke friend!
It seems this documentary needs a bit of an update now
wait a minute, did I just hear Boeing had a microtransaction on the 737? 😅
The worst thing about the situation for me is that, although MCAS was inherently faulty and unreliable in these situations, with the correct knowledge and training these flight crews most likely would have made a positive diagnosis of the situation and disabled the auto trim. I work daily with pilots who Fly the max, and it's clear to me that given the correct knowledge and training, they would have easily prevented these accidents, even if the original MCAS system was still installed. A true shame that Boeing put profits as more important than pilot knowledge.
As always, a brilliant and informative video!
Me too Thomas, me too. I’m also friends with a few of them outside of work. The thought of them just not coming back one day due to something like this royally pisses me off.
@@mikoto7693 ask Boeing executives
The most American line of thinking
The story of the L96A1 would probably make a good scandal episode, between the original manufacturer lying about their ability to produce and then the lacklustre firing pin materials injuring people in malfunctions :D
Just want to let you know John I greatly enjoy your content! They are well-researched, impartial and you seem to love making them, too. Can feel the care behind each one.
Thank you I really appreciate it
Couple of comments from someone in the industry. Boeing was forced by the FAA to switch to the ODA designation for certification. As an experiment to help with FAA work load. It wasn't a willing change as it massively increases the amount of paperwork on the OEM side. Second the ODA program was always intended for full aircraft certification and not just incidental changes.
In the end the MCAS system could actually work, like you say the issue was the single point failure of the AOA sensor, Airbus uses a similar system called Alpha floor and with 3 AOA sensor there was never an incident like this, what happened is incredibly sad
Indeed, the updated MCAS works fine. The problem was never really MCAS at all but Boeing's profit-focussed corporate mindset that made the system fatally dangerous when it did not need to be and made addressing this problem in a way that cost money unthinkable.
Crazy to be someone who found you and subscribed before you had 100k subscribers. Its awesome to see how much your content and quality has grown!
Just came across this video the week a 737 Max 9 had a door blow out at 16000ft! Thankfully the entire fleet is grounded as I write this
Not the entire fleet but yeah
It’s not grounded. The plug doors just needed to be inspected before they can fly again, and that was only for MAX9s. Not the MAX7 or 8.
The research that went into this was amazing and much more comprehensive than many other videos on the topic. Subscribing.
I've watched tons of episodes of Mayday: Air Disasters so I felt oddly well informed going into this video. Very well done, as usual, good sir. I especially enjoy the longer videos.
I’ve watched all seasons like 7 times, send help please 💀
Spent half my childhood on two airforce bases full of C-130's and a few other planes. Miss the sound of them taking off, not so much their weapons testing though. I'd love to go back to visit the base air museum and the large on in Pensacola. For sure the larger one has had many upgrades and things added on in the past 15 years.
Very informative and well-presented as always. Looking forward to upcoming episodes of this new series 👍
Great new series !! Very important tool for informing the public. I wish you great success and many more scandals uncovered.
You could have mentioned that the reason for moving the engines forward is because they had been growing in size over the years and now they were so big that being mounted under the low wings, they would hit the ground. In fact many times they do hit the ground in unstable landings, and during gear collapses. You could also mention that the angle of attack sensors are little flimsy devices sticking out from the side of the plane, easily susceptible to damage, a bird strike was suspected as the cause of the disagreement and crash in the second accident.
TWA800 is worth researching if you want to find out how Boeing has always been dodgy too... They knew before the first 747 had ever flown that there's a chance having minimal fuel in the centre fuel tanks could mean the air conditioning packs could heat the tanks above them enough to vapourise the fuel if sat on a hot hard standing... They decided it would be cheaper to pay off the victims families than fix the issue. Since then all 747's had to have a minimum of 30% fuel in the centre fuel tanks to prevent it from happening again.
Consequently lead to all aircraft mechanics having to go on an SFAR88 course, and all aircraft wiring that goes through fuel tanks must be coloured pink. And if they open any panel on the aircraft for whatever reason, if they see a pink cable, they have to check it.
"Cheaper to pay off the victims" is a common industrial decision, hardly limited to Boeing, unfortunately.
actually, it was common knowledge in the industry that fuel fumes could cause an explosion, they just thought there was no ignition source, this was something they found out in the 50s.
It's sad that conspiracy theories have done more to silence scrutiny of Boeing than anything else.
They built an air fuel bomb but all you hear about is "the cover-up"
@@kommandantgalileo yeah, iirc there was a case were a plane (don't remember if it was a 707 or DC-8) was struck by lightning and blew up mid air. The cause of the explosion was never truly found, but the theory at time was that the lightning ignited fuel fumes in the wing fuel tanks.
There's also an email leak that boeing employee calling Lion Air pilots are "stupid" because they asked about simulator training...
Aye, which is particularly insulting if you know how smart someone has to be to even qualify as a junior first officer in commercial aviation jetliners.
The problem was not a design flaw, this is what happens been the people from the budget department design the plane. They were looking for ways to save a buck and they chose to take short cuts when it came to flight controls. I lived it too, 40 years at Boeing, 31 of my 40 years at Boeing was in the 737 program, all of it in Final Assembly. One of the reasons I retired 2 years ago today was my mistrust in Boeing management, especially at the factory level. Those of us that built the planes use to have a voice in how the planes were built, this allowed the company to build 52 planes a month and be very successful. Then upper management got rid of managers that knew how to build planes and replaced them with a bunch of yes men. Then it was toe the line or you were out. Boeing lost a lot of good people with years of experience with their voluntary layoffs, I am glad I was one of them. Now I am enjoying my retirement from Boeing and living the good life.
Well done sir. This one never fails to get me angry. A constant cautionary tail for generations to come.
Love the new series! Great video to start it off. When you said that Southwest was one of the biggest users of the 737 MAX I got nervous. Can’t wait to see more scandals
And don’t forget it was customers like Southwest that pushed for a new 737 just like the old 737 to maintain common type ratings...
I've followed this via The Aviation Herald and The Seattle Times since the first accident in relation to the MAX. What scares me about this is that they never fixed the core issue with the aircraft - it is aerodynamically unstable in certain flight conditions. Although they upgraded the computers and fix the software, it is effectively creating a bigger better Band-Aid to fix what is at its core an aerodynamic fault.
What is even scarier is that this Band-Aid can fail at any time - and the event of a computer failure, a pitot tube being clogged, or an AOA sensor failing (and they didn't really upgrade these either!), your aircraft will fly completely differently than what it was originally programmed to do. It would be the equivalent of driving a car and suddenly losing a power steering, except at the same time your Chevrolet Corvette suddenly becomes a 20-year-old Toyota Corolla with no power steering.
They should have redesigned the landing gear, the wings, and/or the tail. But now if this were to ever happen again in relation to this aerodynamic design flaw, the second costs are so huge it will torpedo the company if they were to be permanently grounded as a result.
That is simply NOT true - the aircraft is stable, as is every other transport aircraft. All MCAS does is is alter the handling characteristics to replicate those of the other 737 models. There's no dispute that Boeing under-engineered the system, which led to the accidents. If the system were not installed the aircraft would still be quite flyable, it was the malfunctioning of the system that caused the problem; it would have been better if the system had just completely quit working, rather than effectively running away.
Yeah, aren't mission critical systems supposed to be "fail safe"? Even if the software and sensors were perfect MCAS was a terrible idea.
@@bradcrosier1332
Yea, umm, no.
The plane is able to have the engines overpower the elevator authority.
It’s unstable
I will never, ever fly on a MAX. In our current world of *imperfect* software, software should never be capable of completely overruling the pilot. In a future environment, that may be a wonderful thing ... But not now. Not in our current time.
@@bradcrosier1332
With the mcas fault the plane is still flyable.
The pilot could operate the trim as normal.
The toggle under their thumb, the wheel at their knee, etc.
It takes 180seconds of mcas failure without pilot inputting normal trim adjustment before the plane fails.
Three minutes of not pushing the toggle to releive the felt pressure.
I so love your scandals series 💜💜💜 I've watched this one a couple of times now, and I take away something new each time. Thank you so much for what you do! (And if you wanted to do more scandals, that would be ok 😜) But seriously, thank you.
Now Boeing is murdering whistleblowers. Thomas Pynchon said they had “wet work” teams way back in 1962. Total vindication.
My dad was actually driving home from Pittsburgh International after he flew in from New York when all of the first responders were flying up the highway and closing it down up to the airport exit. He forgot to call my mom from the airport to tell her he was home safe like he always did so my mom was panicking when she got a call from one of my dads coworkers wife about how a plane had crashed that was coming in from New York. My dads flight went out from JFK while flight 427 flew out of O’Hare
Very interesting to get an in depth idea of what happened. I knew people who worked in the factories making these planes and during this time they all lost their jobs. It's was a bad time for many who lost their jobs and I recall people saying the plane wasn't safe and they were crashing. Now I know what was actually happening.
The CEO bonus situation also really stung for the lowest workers who were taking pay cuts or getting laid off amid the scandal. I remember my friend being very angry about that after he lost his job.
The copilot of the second flight mentioned might have had little experience. However, credit where it’s due, they did correctly identify the runaway trim issue and took steps (along with the captain) to address it.