Boeing takes $5 billion hit as Indonesian airline cancels 737 MAX order
Indonesia's largest air carrier has informed Boeing that it wants to cancel a $4.9 billion order for 49 Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft. Garuda Indonesia spokesperson Ikhsan Rosan said in a statement to the Associated Press that the airline was cancelling due to concern that "its business would be damaged due to customer alarm over the crashes."
Garuda had originally ordered 50 737 MAX aircraft, and Boeing delivered the first of those aircraft in December of 2017. The airline already operates 77 older Boeing 737 models; two of the aircraft ordered were conversions from earlier orders for 737-800s. Garuda also flies Boeing's 777-300 ER, and the company retired its 747-400 fleet in the last few years—so the airline was looking for an economical long-range aircraft to fill in gaps.
Doomed Boeing Jets Lacked 2 Safety Features That Company Sold Only as Extras
As the pilots of the doomed Boeing jets in Ethiopia and Indonesia fought to control their planes, they lacked two notable safety features in their cockpits. One reason: Boeing charged extra for them.
For Boeing and other aircraft manufacturers, the practice of charging to upgrade a standard plane can be lucrative. Top airlines around the world must pay handsomely to have the jets they order fitted with customized add-ons. Sometimes these optional features involve aesthetics or comfort, like premium seating, fancy lighting or extra bathrooms. But other features involve communication, navigation or safety systems, and are more fundamental to the plane's operations.
Many airlines, especially low-cost carriers like Indonesia's Lion Air, have opted not to buy them — and regulators don't require them. Now, in the wake of the two deadly crashes involving the same jet model, Boeing will make one of those safety features standard as part of a fix to get the planes in the air again.
See also: They didn't buy the DLC: feature that could've prevented 737 crashes was sold as an option
Previously: Second 737 MAX8 Airplane Crash Reinforces Speculation on Flying System Problems
Boeing 737 Max Aircraft Grounded in the U.S. and Dozens of Other Countries
DoJ Issues Subpoenas in 737 Max Investigation
Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 Day Before Deadly Crash
Related Stories
All 157 passengers of an Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 died today, an accident that looks similar to the Indonesian Lion Air crash which caused 189 victims in October 2018.
The Ethiopian Boeing 737, a brand new plane, lost contact six minutes after departure from Bole International Airport; the 737 departing from Jakarta had done the same twelve minutes after taking off.
In both cases the weather was optimal and the pilots were experts. Ethiopian Airlines has a good safety record.
Both planes belong to the MAX variant, which features a "Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System" software to increase safety. Depending on sensor input, such software lowers the nose of the airplane, to prevent stalling. Investigations into the first disaster suggest the pilot might have had trouble with the automatic systems over this issue.
The two black boxes (with cockpit voice and flight data respectively), are likely to be recovered.
Sources:
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/ethiopian-airlines-crash-news-latest-death-toll-addis-ababa-nairobi-boeing-737-max-a8816296.html
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/10/second-crash-of-new-boeing-737-max-8-aggravates-safety-concerns/
U.S. Grounds Boeing Planes, After Days of Pressure
After days of mounting pressure, the United States grounded Boeing's 737 Max aircraft on Wednesday, reversing an earlier decision in which American regulators said the planes could keep flying after a deadly crash in Ethiopia.
The decision, announced by President Trump, followed determinations by safety regulators in some 42 countries to ban flights by the jets, which are now grounded worldwide. Pilots, flight attendants, consumers and politicians from both major parties had been agitating for the planes to be grounded in the United States. Despite the clamor, the Federal Aviation Administration had been resolute, saying on Tuesday that it had seen "no systemic performance issues" that would prompt it to halt flights of the jet.
That changed Wednesday when, in relatively quick succession, Canadian and American aviation authorities said they were grounding the planes after newly available satellite-tracking data suggested similarities between Sunday's crash in Ethiopia and one involving a Boeing 737 Max 8 in Indonesia in October.
Previously: Second 737 MAX8 Airplane Crash Reinforces Speculation on Flying System Problems
Related: Boeing 737 MAX 8 Could Enable $69 Trans-Atlantic Flights
Justice Department issues subpoenas in criminal investigation of Boeing
US Justice Department prosecutors have issued multiple subpoenas as part of an investigation into Boeing's Federal Aviation Administration certification and marketing of 737 Max planes, sources briefed on the matter told CNN.
[...] Criminal investigators have sought information from Boeing on safety and certification procedures, including training manuals for pilots, along with how the company marketed the new aircraft, the sources said.
It's not yet clear what possible criminal laws could be at issue in the probe. Among the things the investigators are looking into is the process by which Boeing itself certified the plane as safe, and the data it presented the FAA about that self-certification, the sources said.
The FBI Seattle office and Justice Department's criminal division in Washington are leading the investigation.
See also: FAA: Boeing 737 MAX to get software update
Europe and Canada Just Signaled They Don't Trust the FAA's Investigation of the Boeing 737 MAX
Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 Day Before Deadly Crash:
As the Lion Air crew fought to control their diving Boeing Co. 737 Max 8, they got help from an unexpected source: an off-duty pilot who happened to be riding in the cockpit.
That extra pilot, who was seated in the cockpit jumpseat, correctly diagnosed the problem and told the crew how to disable a malfunctioning flight-control system and save the plane, according to two people familiar with Indonesia's investigation.
The next day, under command of a different crew facing what investigators said was an identical malfunction, the jetliner crashed into the Java Sea killing all 189 aboard.
[...] The previously undisclosed detail on the earlier Lion Air flight represents a new clue in the mystery of how some 737 Max pilots faced with the malfunction have been able to avert disaster while the others lost control of their planes and crashed. The presence of a third pilot in the cockpit wasn't contained in Indonesia's National Transportation Safety Committee's Nov. 28 report on the crash and hasn't previously been reported.
The so-called dead-head pilot on the earlier flight from Bali to Jakarta told the crew to cut power to the motor driving the nose down, according to the people familiar, part of a checklist that all pilots are required to memorize.
[...] The Indonesia safety committee report said the plane had had multiple failures on previous flights and hadn't been properly repaired.
The crew of a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 Max declared an emergency shortly after takeoff and returned to Orlando's main airport on Tuesday after reporting an engine problem, the Federal Aviation Administration said.
The FAA grounded this type of aircraft earlier this month following two fatal crashes of the popular model.
Airlines aren't allowed to fly passengers under the FAA's order. The Southwest plane, which was not carrying passengers, was bound for Victorville, Calif., where the carrier is storing the aircraft in a facility in the western Mojave Desert.
[...] The FAA said it is investigating the Southwest incident on Tuesday and that the issue was not related to other concerns about the 737 Max that led the agency to ground the plane.
Also at CNN.
See also: Boeing is handling the 737 Max crisis all wrong
Previously: Second 737 MAX8 Airplane Crash Reinforces Speculation on Flying System Problems
Boeing 737 Max Aircraft Grounded in the U.S. and Dozens of Other Countries
DoJ Issues Subpoenas in 737 Max Investigation
Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 Day Before Deadly Crash
Airline Cancels $4.9 Billion Boeing 737 MAX Order; Doomed Planes Lacked Optional Safety Features
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/17/788775642/boeing-will-temporarily-stop-making-its-737-max-jetliners
Production will stop in January. The jets were grounded after two crashes that killed nearly 350 people. Despite being grounded, Boeing continued cranking the planes out at its factory near Seattle.
(The interview had more good information, but at time of submission, the transcript wasn't available. There may be better articles out there.)
There are. Here's one:
Boeing will suspend 737 Max production in January at CNBC:
Boeing is planning to suspend production of its beleaguered 737 Max planes next month, the company said Monday, a drastic step after the Federal Aviation Administration said its review of the planes would continue into next year, dashing the manufacturer's forecast.
Boeing's decision to temporarily shut down production, made after months of a cash-draining global grounding of its best-selling aircraft, worsens one of the most severe crises in the history of the century-old manufacturer. It is ramping up pressure on CEO Dennis Muilenburg, whom the board stripped of his chairmanship in October as the crisis wore on.
The measure is set to ripple through the aerospace giant's supply chain and broader economy. It also presents further problems for airlines, which have lost hundreds of millions of dollars and canceled thousands of flights without the fuel-efficient planes in their fleets.
Boeing said it does not plan to lay off or furlough workers at the Renton, Washington, factory where the 737 Max is produced during the production pause. Some of the 12,000 workers there will be temporarily reassigned.
Previously:
Boeing's 737 Max Troubles Deepen, Taking Airlines, Suppliers With It
Review of 737 Max Certification Finds Fault With Boeing and F.A.A.
American Airlines Says It Will Resume Flights With Boeing’s 737 Max Jets in January
AP Sources: Boeing Changing 737 Max Software to Use 2 Computers
Boeing Falsified Records for 787 Jet Sold to Air Canada
Boeing Pledges $100M to Families of 737 Max Crash Victims
Capt. 'Sully' Sullenberger and Boeing 737 Max News
Boeing’s Own Test Pilots Lacked Key Details Of 737 Max Flight-Control System
Boeing CEO Defends 737 Max Flight Control System
Analysis: Why FAA-Approved Emergency Procedures Failed to Save ET302
Initial Findings Put Boeing's Software at Center of Ethiopian 737 Crash
Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 Max Flight Makes Emergency Landing (While Carrying No Passengers)
Airline Cancels $4.9 Billion Boeing 737 MAX Order; Doomed Planes Lacked Optional Safety Features
Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 Day Before Deadly Crash
DoJ Issues Subpoenas in 737 Max Investigation
Boeing 737 Max Aircraft Grounded in the U.S. and Dozens of Other Countries
Second 737 MAX8 Airplane Crash Reinforces Speculation on Flying System Problems
Boeing's promised 737 Max production halt begins:
The airline manufacturer had announced last month it would stop making the troubled craft at least until it was no longer grounded, but hadn't set a date. However the line has officially stopped producing planes while Boeing officials wait for regulators to give it the OK to fly again.
[...] The latest update estimated the grounding would last through at least mid-2020, Boeing said in a statement Tuesday.
Boeing will reassign 3,000 workers after 737 MAX production halt
Boeing Co said it will reassign 3,000 workers to other jobs as it halts production of the grounded best-selling 737 MAX jet in mid-January.
The announcement came after American Airlines Group Inc and Mexico's Aeromexico disclosed they were the latest carriers to reach settlements with Boeing over losses resulting from the grounding of the 737 MAX aircraft.
Neither airline disclosed the compensation. A number of airlines have struck confidential settlements with Boeing in recent weeks. Boeing said it does not comment on discussions with airlines.
Boeing's biggest supplier lays off 2,800 workers because of 737 Max production suspension:
Spirit AeroSystems (SPR), which makes fuselages for the Max as well as other items for Boeing, announced Friday that it is furloughing approximately 2,800 workers. Shares of the Wichita, Kansas-based company fell more than 1% in trading.
"The difficult decision announced today is a necessary step given the uncertainty related to both the timing for resuming 737 Max production and the overall production levels that can be expected following the production suspension," Spirit AeroSystems CEO Tom Gentile said in a press release.
Boeing wants to resume 737 Max production months before regulators sign off on the planes:
(Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 23 2019, @06:38PM (37 children)
No safety feature should be optional. All safety features should be standard equipment. Like that lost airliner that didn't have the option of communicating with a satellite tracking system. The system should have been in place, before the aircraft were ever offered for sale. Options are all well and good. Want to upgrade from a standard to a more powerful engine? Cool. Want to upgrade from a standard, to a more fuel efficient engine? I can go along with that. But safety features are never optional. End of story.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RamiK on Saturday March 23 2019, @08:28PM (21 children)
I wouldn't be so eager to buy into the Boeing's narrative. Different plane models flew for years without those safety system and haven't crashed*. The tone of those articles is pointing the fingers at the customers calling them cheapskates for demanding planes that operate normally and not willing to pay extra for no good reason other than to cover for unacceptable core avionics faults.
Over the years we've seen sudden unintended acceleration faults due to everything from cheap break pedals to buggy electronic throttle control in automobile. Following the same reasoning, those articles would be pointing the fingers at the customers saying they should have bought the self-breaking safety system...
Overall, unless the investigations say otherwise, it's highly likely Boeing screwed the pooch big time.
* Or so they say. New model... Questionable sample size...
compiling...
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 23 2019, @09:01PM (19 children)
The funny thing is that if the pilots had executed the memory items for runaway stabilizer trim, it would have disabled the MCAS system as well. That's why these safety features were considered optional. Whether present or not, the steps required to fix an error in the MCAS system is the same, which is the same as fixing any problem with the stabilizer trim. And, those steps are so important that pilots are supposed to have them memorized anyway. People are going to bellyache when the final conclusion is pilot error, because the MCAS, but fact of the matter is that proper training would have fixed the problem regardless of the actual cause.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 23 2019, @10:36PM (6 children)
If faulty sensors can crash the plane, they are supposed to be redundant. The plane should never have been built that way, and now Boeing engineers get to sit down with the FBI.
But go ahead, blame the victims who can't defend themselves because they are dead.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @03:16AM (5 children)
But go ahead, blame the victims who can't defend themselves because they are dead.
Well, see there's a whole bunch of people that aren't dead because the pilot knew how to deal with a runaway trim (and that's all this was). Pulling the breakers should be innate to any technically minded operator. Notice where these accidents occurred, and you will see the similar cultural issues behind the errors the pilots made. That's the real similarities here, not the airplane's systems. But we are not allowed to go there...
(Score: 1) by Coward, Anonymous on Sunday March 24 2019, @05:41AM (4 children)
Speaking of third-world standards:
Boeing engineering and management were certainly living up to them when they designed that POS system. They even have a second AOA sensor on the plane to cross-check the other one. But due to stinginess or deadline pressure or idiocy, chose to not use it for MCAS.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @07:56AM (3 children)
All that is a given, and doesn't address the cultural issues that are necessary to discuss. In reality the malfunction, even if dramatic, is relatively minor. The workaround is trivial for any technically adept pilot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @05:42PM (2 children)
AF447 pilots were from a western culture and similarly clueless. America can make more foolproof planes. They can't enforce world-wide pilot standards. And without testing how US pilots would respond to that situation, you can't even claim they would have saved the plane. Boeing purposefully kept MCAS a secret, reinforcing the notion that the plane is a black box that can't be understood.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25 2019, @12:31AM
AF447 pilots were from a western culture and similarly clueless.
Well, they were French (Air France has one of the worst records of all "western" airlines), and that was an Airbus, with those stupid video game side controls (and also no angle of attack indicator). It's easy to crash one of those. And most of the wrecks with those too, are in third world countries. Look at the aviation safety website. The numbers tell the whole story in an instant. We bump into each other on the tarmac. They pile drive 'em into the ground.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25 2019, @12:57AM
Sorry, forgot to add:
Boeing purposefully kept MCAS a secret
Even that is irrelevant. If you see the trim running away on you, regardless of the cause, you pull the breaker. And I will speculate that this has happened many times, and the real pilots handled it instinctively, wrote it up and forgot about it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by RS3 on Saturday March 23 2019, @10:46PM (9 children)
I hesitate to write this because I generally like and agree with your comment, but, are you sure this situation would/should have triggered the reaction of disabling stabilizer trim?
What's bugging me is the word "trim". The wild climbs and dives don't make me think of "trim". I'm not a pilot, but I've been in the copilot seat a bunch, and I have 1.5 hrs. FAA flight lesson. I know you use the trim to make the plane fly level with no stick / yoke pressure. It's a fine-tune- not used for significant climbs or dives, and it just fine adjusts wing flaps.
From what I've read, the pilots were not aware of the MCAS system's existence. How would they logically conclude the trim system was causing the huge climbs and dives?
Also from what I've read, the MCAS system has major control of the whole elevator angle, not just flaps, but again, I read it somewhere in a valid source, but not a Boeing manual, so please correct me if that's wrong.
Not knowing what was causing the plane's behavior, esp. without pilot input, would be very disorienting to anyone.
I'd love to hear from some behavioral scientists, but I opine that training might make someone overly confident, IE., just stick to predefined procedures, and when they don't work, now you're disoriented because you know you're trained and should know what to do... "am I forgetting something? Is the plane malfunctioning and there's a procedure? Or is the malfunction outside of procedure and I need to do an Apollo 13 fix?"
No matter what, as bad as this situation is, at least it's getting serious attention.
(Score: 3, Informative) by deadstick on Sunday March 24 2019, @01:09AM
RS, the trim on an airliner has much more authority than the one you were exposed to, because it operates over a much wider range of airspeeds. Get far enough out of trim and moving the yoke can take a serious grunt.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @02:19AM (1 child)
Because the 737 has two 1-foot diameter wheels, which spin and make an obvious noise when the trim is adjusted, and trim indicator. Regardless of the adjustment coming from the MCAS, or autopilot, or the switches or a short in some wiring, the wheel will obviously spin and make noise. Plus, having your plane suddenly pitch down, the reaction by the pilot should be to pull up and check the trim, in case they or the copilot accidentally bumped it or the autopilot, which they did know about, adjusted it.
Here is a video of the exact same situation in a simulator. It is set to go full stabilizer trim down and they respond accordingly: https://youtu.be/xixM_cwSLcQ?t=1010 [youtu.be]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 24 2019, @03:49AM
Very informative. I've never sat in a pilot's seat, but that short video pretty much matched the visualization the articles painted for me. What I didn't visualize, were the positioning and the size of those two wheels. When they start turning, it's pretty damned obvious, isn't it? You have to be dead asleep to miss them.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @07:52AM (5 children)
You are too used to small planes with little power, slow speeds, and good weather. It is true that trim is what it takes to make the plane fly with as little input as possible on the stick, but big situations need big trim. A jet like the 737 has engines that give off tons and tons of thrust that are located below the center of gravity, which pushes the nose up due to Newton's laws. Literally the only thing that keeps a jet from flipping over is the counter rotation force of the horizontal stabilizer, which can be quite a bit to balance out the engines when at high power. That is why the wheels are so big and obvious, that way the pilots always know what is going on with it. Then, there is the corrections needed for bad weather, unbalanced cargo, etc., all of which can require huge forces to balance out. So yes, the trim can be made with sensitive changes, like on smaller planes; but big planes facing big forces need big adjustments too.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Monday March 25 2019, @01:23AM (4 children)
Wow, great reply, thank you. I never thought about thrust's effect on pitch, but it makes sense. I guess it all comes down to diction and context. I prefer to think of "trim" as a very fine adjustment, no matter the context. So do the big birds have automatic thrust pitch compensation - as its own thing?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25 2019, @02:00AM (3 children)
Depends on what exactly you mean. The altitude hold will automatically adjust for the change of pitch caused by the thrust, if it is enabled. The reason that the plane doesn't always compensate for the thrust is that pilots actually use the change in rotational force purposefully. For example, in the video I linked in another reply, the pilot increases the thrust, in order to help counter the trim down. Another example is landing, when you adjust power for altitude automatic trimming would cause you to pitch for speed at the same time, rather than keeping it constant.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Monday March 25 2019, @02:55AM (2 children)
Well, of course I didn't know what I meant. Often people do their best to ask a question, but ignorance prevents formulating the question in a way that the questionee wants to hear. But thank you again- it's awesome. Very interesting. So my more informed question would be: is there a system that compensates for thrust changes and keeps the plane at the same angle- IE: no change in rotation regardless of increase or decrease in thrust? I think you implied that this exists, but I'm not 100% sure.
But that said, I would want to be able to fly a plane fully manually, so I'd need to understand all of the dynamics anyway.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25 2019, @04:54AM (1 child)
There are two parts to answer that, the first is that the autopilot can cancel it out when using "altitude hold" because not doing so would change your altitude.
The second part is "Yes" with a huge "but" because it depends on the stability augmentation systems (SAS) installed on the plane.
In terms of SAS, almost all planes have a wing leveler, as roll can be the most finicky and distracting to hold yourself. Most delta-winged and multi-engine aircraft also have a yaw dampener, otherwise they can have problems with Dutch Roll or have asymmetric thrust, respectively. However, most planes do not have any form of independent pitch correction.
This is most likely because pilots sort of level-up through the system to the point where that could be necessary. Along the way, they have already learned how the thrust affects the plane and are comfortable using thrust to control the plane. The only real exception is planes in non-standard configurations, (such as "pushers," which thrust behind the CoG, or top-mounted engines) because the configuration could cause pitch down on added thrust, instead of the usual pitch up, or other aerodynamic issues pilots might not react to properly or fast enough. I haven't looked, but I'd be surprised if something like the B-2 or Concorde didn't have one that could be used when on manual flight without using an altitude hold. However, most jumbo jets, the kind you think of when you think of passenger planes, won't have one installed because it isn't even an optional part to the avionics, and even if it is available is usually considered unnecessary as most pilots would not use it anyway.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Monday March 25 2019, @05:44AM
This is fascinating and awesome, thank you again. I only wish I could mod you up more.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 23 2019, @10:48PM
Unless, of course, proper training is impossible in the situation. An example of this is partially automated driving and piloting systems that drop out seconds before a crisis happens. It's insane to expect even the highest levels of training to compensate for the human inability to concentrate intently on a passive activity for hours at a time. There is no proper training for that. But failure to handle the vehicle in the situation is still human error. It's just human error that will happen almost every time the situation occurs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 23 2019, @11:10PM
But how many of those steps got added every year to the core procedures? And how many so called optional systems, safety or otherwise, either add or remove procedural branches from the pilots cognitive loads? There's a real possibility those "optional" features are hitting the sweet spot between reasonable reaction times and nose diving into the ground at certain events for many real world pilots. And what's worse is the possibility this was planned to force companies to buy those systems... That much we see in commercial software every day.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by epitaxial on Sunday March 24 2019, @07:02AM
The bottom line is the plane was poorly designed. There shouldn't be "quirks" that pilots need to watch out for. Like say the sensors being confused and doing a nose dive.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday March 23 2019, @10:36PM (7 children)
Sorry, that's ridiculous. Are we to install parachutes and an ejection system for every passenger on every flight? Surround them with airbags to survive even a head on collision with another plane? Carry automated fire fighting equipment to put out even the worst fires?
The cost of the safety feature as well as how often it'd get used needs to be considered as well. Parachutes and ejection systems, for example, aren't that useful because common accidents routinely happen in seconds and accidental deployments can cause more harm than the system is meant to prevent. And they add a huge amount of weight per passenger (though not as much as the fire fighting system would add!). Adding safety systems to a high performance environment like a passenger jet makes it very easy to turn a safe, functioning system into a poor performance system that is actually less safe.
Here, Boeing's two safety features were apparently very cheap to install and looks like they would have helped survival odds with all the fatal accidents the airplane has had to date. I think that'll be what makes the situation so damning.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 24 2019, @04:07AM (5 children)
You've ridden that slippery slope into silly land. No airliner manufacturer puts airbags at every seat, in anticipation of a head on collission, so, no, it's not an option, nor is it standard equipment. All manufacturers routinely install de-icers, so those should not be optional. The manufacturers and the operators see a need for them, they should be standard equipment. In the case of this misbehaving MCAS, the over ride switches must be standard equipment. It is reasonable to believe that the MCAS will misbehave some time in it's life, so you give the pilot the training and the equipment to deal with it. If the equipment is there, and the pilot doesn't know about it, or doesn't know how to use it, THEN the resulting accident is quite clearly operator error.
What do we have right now? It appears that we have two aircraft down, and Boeing being held guilty by public opinion, and the jury still out with the regulatory agencies. And, Boeing is losing money on canceled contracts. Maybe Boeing is regretting some of their decisions? They could have installed those switches, and avoided these cancelations, not to mention the loss of life and bad publicity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @04:22AM
no airbags... I want ~250 ejection seats
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @04:27AM (1 child)
I've pointed out in another thread that Boeing already had a disconnect switch for the MCAS system (well, that and a whole bunch of other stuff) in case of malfunction and the correct reaction for all of them, whether you know of the MCAS system or not, is to flip them. It is the pilots who didn't do their memory items in the event of a malfunction that ultimately caused the accidents, as the third instance of malfunction (where they were done) clearly shows.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @06:36AM
Yeah they had the off switch. But the little light that came on and said "the AOA sensor is faulty, turn off the MCAS" was a $6000 optional extra that they didn't have.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 24 2019, @03:01PM (1 child)
The safety modifications that Boeing could have done weren't standard equipment either. Is standard != should be standard.
There appears to be some concrete facts to back that public opinion this time. On the safety modifications, it's not clear to me that it would have prevented the accidents and the subsequent cancellations. But they would have at least been additional data for the pilots to use.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 25 2019, @04:01AM
An AC posted this link to a 737 simulator video. It appears to be two real pilots, in a very real airline simulator training session. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xixM_cwSLcQ&feature=youtu.be&t=1010 [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @09:50AM
If it means we can eject unruly or unpleasant passengers onto the tarmac, then I am 100% in favor of this.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by darkfeline on Sunday March 24 2019, @04:07AM (5 children)
> No safety feature should be optional.
Any absolute statement is automatically suspect. A car analogy is perfect here. There are lots of car safety features that are standard and required, for example seatbelts and airbags. There are also lots of safety features that are optional, for example cruise control distance sensor, lane departure warning system, backup camera, traction control system, emergency brake assist, the list goes on.
Are you seriously claiming that all of these safety features should be required on all vehicles? I suspect you own a car or two that lacks many of these features and would get quite uppity if someone suggested that you should be required by law to upgrade all of your current vehicles to have these safety features.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 24 2019, @04:25AM (2 children)
Fair enough - but not fair either.
Fair, because not all safety features are required on all vehicles. An air dryer, found on many vehicles with air brakes, would be redundant and wasteful on virtually all family cars. But, on family cars, it is required that the master cylinder for the braking system control two separate systems so that a leak in one of them doesn't make all of the vehicle's brakes inoperative. That safety feature is even required on motorcycles.
Now where you are being unfair, is by pulling in new, untested, technology, which the auto manufacturers are trying to test right now. None of those should be mandatory on vehicles based on older technology.
Now, we both know that over the next few decades, our current established tech will be phased out, and maybe even outlawed. The new tech will be phased in, and made mandatory for all new drivers. The question of mandatory and optional equipment will be decided within the next 20 years or so. And, I'll go on record right now, by stating that no autonomous vehicle should rely on only one type of detection. I'll go a bit further, and say they probably shouldn't rely on only two types of detection. Autonomous vehicles should have three (or more) means of detecting obstructions, and they should default to evasion maneuvres if any of those three detection systems sees an obstruction.
No, I'm not going to try to itemize every group of safety features, and I'm certainly not going to offer an opinion on each group. But, I'll stand by the above. If you're going to rely on an autonomous machine for your life and safety, that machine must have redundant backup systems to ensure that the machine doesn't routinely kill it's occupants.
(Score: 3, Informative) by deimtee on Sunday March 24 2019, @06:48AM
As an example of this in AU, all the old cars are still legal to drive, but all new cars must have ESC (traction control). It was an optional extra for a while, but now it is mandatory.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 24 2019, @03:04PM
This is a circular argument. Automakers and airplane manufacturers aren't in the habit of leaving required safety features off of a vehicle. What should make a safety feature a required safety feature?
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday March 24 2019, @02:24PM
>Any absolute statement is automatically suspect.
why did you say that? -.-
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday March 24 2019, @02:29PM
I think he is claiming that if your safety feature is itself a safety risk, the safety risk's mitigator should NOT be sold separately, nor at a premium.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @09:46AM
Does that include trigger locks or universal background checks?
(Score: 2) by ledow on Saturday March 23 2019, @07:33PM (4 children)
Boeing will have made money. If their contracts don't have a cancellation clause which makes them good on any investment they may have had to make to start building, then they're idiots.
Sure, it's reputationally bad, but small-fry compared to having a entire model grounded worldwide.
And I bet they have a number of customers who don't cancel but make sure they buy the safety features.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Saturday March 23 2019, @08:06PM (2 children)
On the other hand, a court might take the worldwide grounding as evidence that the contracts are based on a material mis-representation and so cancel the penalty clauses.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday March 23 2019, @10:43PM
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @10:41AM
They are screwed. If they offer all the extra safety stuff for free to keep the contracts, then they are admitting liability for the two crashes. If they don't then they will get hammered in any court case over the cancellation.
How would you like to be the Boeing rep on the stand; "Answer the question Sir, 'Why is essential safety equipment an optional extra?' " ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @04:38AM
Companies better get the extras, MCAS and whatever they can think of... for free. And Boeing will accept, if not already offering to cut loses. They painted themselves in that corner, so the companies are going to take advantage, and even abuse it. MCAS? Nah! Free courses for all my crews too, including basic refresh, not just new things! No? Wait while I set up a conference call with news and Airbus...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 23 2019, @08:38PM (5 children)
Probably easier to get super-safe planes than it is to just train them to know what to do when things go wrong.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Saturday March 23 2019, @09:53PM (4 children)
These crashes have involved experienced pilots who had flown on this exact model of airplane many times before. Plus pilots have a whole bunch of safety procedures they can pull up when things start going wrong. I don't think the problem was training.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @04:30AM (3 children)
And yet we already have an instance in the news (on the same plane, IIRC) being saved from an accident by a pilot who did remember his training in the event of runaway trim.
(Score: 2) by sonamchauhan on Sunday March 24 2019, @09:05AM (2 children)
Yes, of course. That's it -- we should all fly this mis-designed plane in the hope an extra pilot is present, and he recalls the relevant footnote in training manuals, while the duty pilots fight to keep the aircraft in the air.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @09:54AM
Do you have a better use for that little fold out seat that is just outside of the cockpit?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25 2019, @02:08AM
Or, the actual pilots could remember the memory items for the situation without a third person needing to do it for them. It only takes one person to pull back and throttle up, while the other person goes through the runaway trim procedure, which is the same on all autopilot-equipped 737s whether or not the new MCAS system is installed (and almost identical in all other planes of which I am aware).
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 23 2019, @09:01PM (1 child)
You fucked up. You really did.
Kill all the MBAs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @09:56AM
[nostalgic sigh] I miss Bender.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by chewbacon on Saturday March 23 2019, @11:45PM (6 children)
Not trying to defend Boeing, but competition with Airbus is pretty fierce on that side of the world. You have the low cost airlines saying “make it cheaper or we will go with another jet” and Boeing will bend to that will. Now, if you offer a company a cheaper model of anything, they’ll buy it every time. I wouldn’t be surprised if Boeing put it all out on the table for the airlines and they said “All we hear is ‘blah blah blah, it’s cheaper.’ The CEO has a bonus to earn by saving cash.”
If the airlines are opting to let a safer plane go by for a cheaper one, they’re also to blame.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @12:55AM
Heinlein's law of but-phrases punctuation:
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday March 24 2019, @01:00AM (1 child)
At a price-point of approx $10M, I have a hard time believing a redundant sensor and the software implementing the logic to use it would have been a cost significant enough to justifies price-listing that as not one but two "extra optional features".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @04:34AM
I've had bean counters reject proposals because the sales tax put them over the limit by literal cents. If the budget says you can spend $X then that is all the money that you can get.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday March 24 2019, @01:11AM (1 child)
Competition is bad! For Boeing at least...
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @10:00AM
Crashing is bad! For passengers at least ...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 24 2019, @03:10PM
It'd be fiercer and safer with more competition than one other major company. A big part of the problem is that Boeing and Airbus shouldn't be the only large passenger jet manufacturers in the developed world.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @04:20PM
in 99% of cases when boarding a bus you can see the driver if you want to.
we never get to see the the pilot of plane ... before take-off :(
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ilsa on Monday March 25 2019, @12:44AM
I'm seeing a lot of comments about whether the features should have been standard,or whether the pilots screwed up, etc.
But based on what I've read, the problem is squarely Boeing's faults. They made modifications to the plane including a system that auto tilted the plane based on certain criteria. They then failed to document these changes. Then they made optional the safety features that mitigated potential issues with this new system.
This whole mess is clearly due to some very poor decisions on Boeing's part. If they had simply documented the tilt feature so that pilots would be aware of it, then the crashes likely would not have occurred. If they had made the safety features mandatory, the crashes wouldn't have occurred. If they hadn't played around with the engines to create this scenario, the crashes wouldn't have occurred.
Boeing made not one, but several cascading errors, and as far as I'm concerned they deserve every bit of criticism they're getting.