Before Crash American Officials Had Twice Considered Grounding Boeing's 737 Max -- But Didn't (businessinsider.com) 132
An anonymous reader quotes Business Insider:
Southwest Airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officials who monitor the carrier were unaware that a standard safety feature, designed to warn pilots about malfunctioning sensors, on Boeing 737 Max jets was turned off when Southwest began flying the model in 2017, reported Andy Pastzor of the Wall Street Journal... Like other airlines flying the Max, Southwest didn't learn about the change until the aftermath of the Lion Air crash [in October of 2018], Pastzor reported.
According to WSJ's investigation, which reviewed documents, the carrier then asked Boeing to reactivate the alerts on its Max fleet, causing FAA inspectors to contemplate grounding the Max fleet until it was determined whether or not pilots needed additional training -- but the idea was quickly dropped. Once the feature was reactivated, some FAA officials again considered grounding Southwest's 737 Max fleet to determine whether pilots needed new training -- and again, the discussions, which happened via email, were dismissed after a few days, Pastkor reported.
According to WSJ's investigation, which reviewed documents, the carrier then asked Boeing to reactivate the alerts on its Max fleet, causing FAA inspectors to contemplate grounding the Max fleet until it was determined whether or not pilots needed additional training -- but the idea was quickly dropped. Once the feature was reactivated, some FAA officials again considered grounding Southwest's 737 Max fleet to determine whether pilots needed new training -- and again, the discussions, which happened via email, were dismissed after a few days, Pastkor reported.
Deregulation, regulatory capture, budget-emphasis (Score:5, Informative)
Allowing industry to police itself costs lives, over and over, in every direction.
Re:Deregulation, regulatory capture, budget-emphas (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly this. The FAA tried a hands-off approach letting the market decide, the industry regulating itself, blah blah blah, and here we are. People died. Really bad for them, bad for Boeing, bad for Boeing's customers.
Re:Deregulation, regulatory capture, budget-emphas (Score:4)
And? What's your point? Go easy on the FAA, they didn't do no wrong?
Yes, they did (or their political masters did), when the self-centred instinct of companies to preserve profit was given primacy by letting companies self-certify their own airplanes.
OP is right.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you aren't even reading the headlines anymore!
Re: (Score:2)
How many commercial airline fatalities in the US? (Score:2)
So, how many commercial airline fatalities in the US last year? Statistically, they are doing a terrific job. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a bizarre message. Are you supposed to carry a hammer or baseball bat and start breaking windows or are you supposed to break some other part of the car? Does the manufacturer provide a hammer in the glove box as part of the standard equipment for this purpose?
Re: (Score:2)
What make and model is this? And have you spoken with the manufacturer's safety hotline about it?
Re: (Score:1)
You literally posted this on an article which is about how the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) might have done a better job policing things.
Last I checked, that was a government agency, not the industry policing itself. Both recent 737 crashing airlines were being policed by government agencies. In fact, Ethiopian Airlines is wholly owned by the Government of Ethiopia. How is that industry policing itself?
Re:Deregulation, regulatory capture, budget-emphas (Score:4, Informative)
Here y' go ...
How the FAA allows jetmakers to ‘self certify’ that planes meet U.S. safety requirements
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-the-faa-allows-jetmakers-to-self-certify-that-planes-meet-us-safety-requirements/2019/03/15/96d24d4a-46e6-11e9-90f0-0ccfeec87a61_story.html [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, this is because of the new US protectionism. Boeing was given a pass because maga. The FAA didn't let Boeing regulate themselves out of negligence, they actively protected Boeing until practically all other countries had grounded the MAX. It was a political decision.
Re: (Score:2)
We did it maybe 1 or 2 days tops after Canada. And that is with having no accidents here.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, no thanks to Boeing and the FAA. It's likely down to dumb luck, airline and geographical differences (hotter airports have less lift and higher power to the engines pitches the nose up).
Even the optional indicator that richer airlines like Southwest paid for wasn't working.
Re: (Score:1)
Wrong. Ethopian pilots followed the Boeing training to the letter.
Also, you are completely wrong - the FAA is the worldwide ICAO certifing authority for the 737. Other aviation authorities recognise FAA certs (and vice-versa). Essentially, every aircraft type has a certifiying authority that signs off on the plane.
Certifying that the 737 is safe is, absoultey, 100%, the FAA's responsiblity. THEY SIGNED OFF ON IT.
PROOF [europa.eu]. This is the EUROPEAN union aviation safety agency's data sheet on the 737. Look at
The scandal here (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The scandal here (Score:4, Informative)
Right, rundamentally different, and fundamentally more broken [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Fundamentally different, and fundamentally more broken. [forbes.com]
It's a good plane if it stalls on takeoff with you in it, or at least an intelligent plane.
Re: The scandal here (Score:4, Insightful)
The scandal is the computer overriding manual inputs
The scandals lie thick and deep here. That is just one of them, admittedly horrifying in itself. But all the scandals in this whole sad fiasco are horrifying.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what the STAB TRIM CUTOUT is for.
Re: (Score:2)
But the Ethiopian Air pilots did hit the cutout switches at around 2 minutes after takeoff and there is evidence that it worked. MCAS was trying to trim the plane into a dive because MCAS hates the sky and wants wants wants the ground, but it seems like it wasn't working to actually nosedive the plane like it wanted so badly because it was disconnected from directly controlling the flaps.
My understanding is that they still could not get the plane to nose up because they were still at nearly maximum throttle
Re: (Score:2)
There is a manual override, but they really mean it when they say "manual". The manual cut out works by switching off all power to the stabiliser trim motor, so the only way to change the trim is to manually crank a handle that is connected to the stabiliser by cables.
Re:The scandal here (Score:5, Insightful)
Somehow Boeing managed to convince the FAA and the airlines that pilots didn't need much additional training
FAA let Boeing self certify its aircraft and aircraft technology for years now. That is the real problem: FAA handed Boeing a blank cheque. According to this article [seattletimes.com], Boeing had its authority on self certification extended in 2009 (I think the article hints that Boeing already had some significant freedom before then).
Re: (Score:1)
Blowjobs and job offers go a long way.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the problem is that it is fundamentally the same plane as all the previous Boeing 737's but with physically bigger engines that won't fit under the wings in the same position as previous models.
They should have designed a fundamentally different plane, but didn't because they needed something in the market now to go head to head with Airbus.
Re: (Score:2)
The scandal is that the 737 Max is a fundamentally different plane than the standard 737. Somehow Boeing managed to convince the FAA and the airlines that pilots didn't need much additional training (read: save a bunch of money) to be certified on the Max when they were already certified on the Standard -- which isn't the case.
Apparently this was a big selling point, when trying to counter the Airbus offering.
At the same time anything that changes the way a vehicle handles should be a flag for more training. Changing the center of pressure and gravity are included in them. I am curious how many engineers in the airlines so this as a potential issue?
Re: (Score:2)
What r
Re: Another scandal - lying faggots like nonalphac (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard some 737 pilots state that the 737 MAX would have been perfectly fine w/o MCAS (i.e., claims that the 737 MAX is "inherently unstable" or "required MCAS to be safe" are untrue). But, yes, the 737 MAX behaved enough differently that MCAS was grafted onto the 737 MAX to make it behave enough like the other 737 models to make sure it could fall under the same type certification as the other 737 models.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, MCAS is not active when the plane is on autopilot.
Also, no "MCAS" sensors failed, one of the AOA sensors did. AOA sensors are not new to the 737 MAX or unique to MCAS.
This is going to make VW dieselgate scandal.... (Score:5, Insightful)
... look like a fight in a kids playground when the dust has settled I suspect. The more we learn about this the worse its looking for Boeing and the FAA. If Muilenberg and his execs arn't worried they bloody well should be because if some VW execs can potentially be jailed for fraud imagine what causing the deaths of 350 air passengers through negligence and cost cutting drives will get you.
Re:This is going to make VW dieselgate scandal.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: This is going to make VW dieselgate scandal... (Score:1)
Piss poor black people in Africa or orientals don't count as real people, like a plane load of rich waspy amurricans crashing between New York and LA would have.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
if some VW execs can potentially be jailed for fraud imagine what causing the deaths of 350 air passengers through negligence and cost cutting drives will get you.
Germany is not Murica. I see scape goats, promotions and early "retirement" packages.
Re: (Score:1)
You forget that the culprit is an american company.
Most likely nothing will happen.
See also Monsanto: never convicted of any wrongdoing until it was bought by a german company.
Re: (Score:1)
There is quite a difference between the Boeing and VW cases (at least to the extent that we know about things now).
VW actively deceived and intentionally implemented software to deceive - it was not an accident, it was not an oversight, it was not the result of cutting costs or reducing review. What VW did was also 100% certain to result in "out of spec" emissions performance. That's fraud.
On the other hand, at this point, I've heard nothing that indicates that Boeing was anything but alarmingly sloppy (pos
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, after a few minor changes to the MCAS software and some documentation and training changes, no one will have any problem with the 737 MAX being classified as the same type as the rest of 737s.
Recall that the 737 series has had many changes over the years. This includes moving from a completely "analog" cockpit to having a substantial number of "digital" screens (and, as an extra cost option, even a HUD), different engines, different wings, different lengths, etc. A new type classification was not
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The problem with this is that it is going to throw a lot of light into dark places in American Aerospace. The problems going on at Boeing are systemic to a whole lot of companies in American Aerospace/Defence, they're just the ones that got 'caught'.
They're run by mid level managers that have no clue. There is 'being conservative' and there is 'refusing to ever do anything ever again because this is already certified'.
I would start questioning the entire airplane at a component level. I doubt that these are
Why always (Score:3)
Why do we always hear that the authorities were warned but didn't do anything? It happens with plane crashings, shootings, other terrorist attacks and even the Titaninc went down because the person in power didn't think it necessary to act. We humans seem to have some erroneous subroutine built in when handling with this kind of situations.
Re:Why always (Score:4, Insightful)
Southwest got lucky and no 737s dived into the ground on American soil. Just dumb luck. Still doesn't make it right.
Re:Why always (Score:4, Informative)
That tired and indeed disgusting Boeing talking point has been thoroughly debunked, [cnbc.com] however what is not debunked is that you are a flaming asshole.
Re: (Score:1)
That tired and indeed disgusting Boeing talking point has been thoroughly debunked, [cnbc.com] however what is not debunked is that you are a flaming asshole.
It's doubly bullshit. The whole point of these software hacks was to let airlines avoid additional expen$$$ive training.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, probably a coincidence. Are you seriously refuting all the articles and claim that American pilots are training against defects and situations that they are told will never happen? American carriers are cutting corners just as much as any carrier overseas. Stop fooling yourself that America is superior in all things.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes because the US is its own planet and everything is perfect there and all the people who live there are happy and nothing ever goes wrong. /s because many /.-ers don't recognise sarcasm if it hits them in the face.
Re:Why always (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do we always hear that the authorities were warned but didn't do anything? It happens with plane crashings, shootings, other terrorist attacks and even the Titaninc went down because the person in power didn't think it necessary to act. We humans seem to have some erroneous subroutine built in when handling with this kind of situations.
Because authorities receive lots of "warnings" from all sorts of people that like to complain about everything. There isn't time to follow up on every potential issue. Sure, sometimes it is due to incompetence, but frequently it is simply the sheer number of complaints - many of which are nuisance - that make it hard to filter out and decide what to follow up on. In addition, hindsight is always 20-20.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think so because a sensible government has people to sort out the noise.
And we never hear the authorities tell us that terrorist attacks came out of nowhere. The culprits were often known by the police, or there were other warnings.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do we always hear that the authorities were warned but didn't do anything? It happens with plane crashings, shootings, other terrorist attacks and even the Titaninc went down because the person in power didn't think it necessary to act. We humans seem to have some erroneous subroutine built in when handling with this kind of situations.
Because in this case doing something in a timely manner would have benefitted the public but been extremely detrimental to Boeing's bottom line and we can't have the public benefitting at Boeing's expense now can we?
Re: (Score:3)
That argument doesn't hold much water. Have you looked lately at Boeing's bottom line? If they'd addressed the issue it would likely have cost a ton less than it's costing them now. They're also making the airlines lose a pile of money. A single airline being pissed enough that they turn to Airbus for their next round of jets is going to hurt far more than any preventative stuff would have.
Re: (Score:2)
That argument doesn't hold much water. Have you looked lately at Boeing's bottom line? If they'd addressed the issue it would likely have cost a ton less than it's costing them now. They're also making the airlines lose a pile of money. A single airline being pissed enough that they turn to Airbus for their next round of jets is going to hurt far more than any preventative stuff would have.
It holds water if Boeing made the decision to do nothing and that they'd be better off just letting passengers die in the unshakable belief that they'd get away with it and they were right in a sense, the FAA did allow them to get away with just doing nothing and letting passengers die. What Boeing did not take into account is that the rest of the planet would do something and not let passengers die. Boeing is good but they do not always assess risks correctly, in this case because they only took the reacti
Re:Why always (Score:5, Insightful)
If you artificially limit your analysis to cases C and D like the media tends to, then it looks like you should always take warnings seriously. But cases A and B are actually far more common, albeit unreported by the media. If the government evacuated every building every time someone called in with a bomb threat, the economy would grind to a halt because your local police gets dozens of such threats each day. The vast majority of such warnings are hoaxes or errors, and the authorities properly dismiss them as not credible. They just go unreported by the media because "nothing happened" is not newsworthy.
Re: (Score:2)
Concerning B - not so fast there.
If "warning turned out to be incorrect" because of subsequent engineering analysis or other verification, then all is good.
But, if testing and analysis and oversight are lax, then you might never get to the truth. The problem is that if "warned and did something" and the warning was actually correct, then doing something prevented disasters. But, since no disasters then occurred, it cajoles people into a complacency that there was nothing wrong or no need to further analyz
Re: (Score:2)
In your country the place is not evacuated after a bomb threat? I live in a small country (6M) that is not a focus for terrorists and NO bomb threat ever proved credible as far as I can remember (~40 years). There was one attack in 2016 that resulted in explosion and was prosecuted as terrorism, but I'm not sure there was any warning and nobody was hurt. In my opinion it should
Re: (Score:2)
In your country the place is not evacuated after a bomb threat?
Of course not. That costs money!
Commie bastard.
Re: (Score:3)
Because if you act on every nutjob's reports, you never get anything done. Similarly, just because a thousand people report it doesn't mean it's actually a problem.
You know that the UK airport safety advisers advised the US airline safety people specifically about their cockpit access pre-9/11? And were ignored? How utterly terrible, eh? But how many times does it go wrong compared to not?
At this level, admitting a fault that's not a problem could crash the share prices of major companies, initiate a la
Re:Why always (Score:4, Informative)
The UK warning is a really bad example for your argument. The fix was cheap and easy, the warning came from competent people in the industry (not random nutters) and the consequence of that rare failure was huge, expensive, and still reverberating through the industry and the larger society.
As for the current case, had action been taken either before the first crash (lat's face it, it really was an accident waiting to happen), or after the first crash, a case might have been made for quietly fixing the problem without grounding the fleet. The operative expression is "a stitch in time saves nine". Then there wouldn't have been a second crash, orders wouldn't have been canceled left and right, and instead of a serious loss of confidence, Boeing would have enhanced it's reputation.
Re: (Score:2)
Money! Shut something down, or slow it down for to fix defects, and money may be lost! All money making involves some risk, and that's the calculation being made here.
Into this mix toss in politics. Protect the big money that pays for your reelection, keep pushing the idea that governments shall never do even the smallest thing that might cost money or jobs, and blame any problems when they happen on the other side.
Re: (Score:2)
Because nobody cares when the authority makes the right decision.
Re: Why always (Score:2)
Because the world is far more complicated than taking the next issue off the queue and clicking the button that fixes the issue. In any complex system, things will fall through the cracks. The only way to really address this systemic failure is to attempt to achieve functioning systemic stasis, which destroys innovation, including innovations to systemic stability or safety.
Re: Why always (Score:2)
Computers have nothing on humans for erroneous subroutines killing people. Our risk analysis subroutines are ridiculously out of whack in the modern world. Between that and the stranger danger interrupt handler, we kill millions. Itâ(TM)s getting better though.
Something stinks in Seattle (Score:2)
"Boeing has yet to specifically address why the feature was turned off, but in March, it unveiled a software fix and updated training procedures for the 737 Max"
I'm guessing it had something to do with this, which was reported yesterday:
"At least four current or former Boeing employees called a Federal Aviation Administration hotline to report issues with the company's 737 Max line of jets on April 5, the day after Ethiopia's minist
Reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
There still isn't a permanent administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, just a couple of "acting" administrators appointed by Trump.
Re:Reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe he's finding it hard to find someone with the proper mindset he wants who will completely dismantle the regulatory body from within?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That's patently false. We know that Trump has converted most of the administrative heads to temporary heads because it avoids Congressional approval and oversight. The intent of the law was to allow a brief stay of a temp if something happens to an administrator, not to convert the entire administrative body of the US government into temp positions that need no Congressional approval. It also allows the president to immediately threaten the administrator with termination if he/she does not conduct the ac
Re: (Score:2)
Reminder:
The Boeing 737 Max was certified by the FAA March 8th, 2017. Michael Huerta [wikipedia.org] (who had been Acting Administrator for over a year) was nominated by Obama and then confirmed by the Senate as the permanent Administrator on January 1, 2013 for a 5 year term.
Do you want to do the math and see if 2013 + 5 is > 2017? Let me give you a hint, in a similar fashion to Huerta's progression (from Assistant Administrator to Acting Administrator), Trump made Daniel Elwell Acting Administrator on January 7, 2018
"Before crash" (Score:2)
I think you a word there.
Re: Wtf is wrong with everyone? (Score:2, Insightful)
The craziest thing is that even if a pilot catches this and disables the power to the malfunction, they have to hand crank the trim system a lot to get the plane back to a normal offset level.
Even if a pilot recognizes the problem right away it still takes a non-trivial amount of time to get everything under control again.
Re: (Score:2)
Ever try turning those wheels at 400+ knots? Go youtube it. It's basically not possible unless you let the plane go into a dive while you do it to take tension off the trim screw, a procedure that used to be in the manuals, but isn't anymore. I think that was the real cause of the Ethiopian Air crash at least: no effective manual trim system. Not one that actually works in a real crisis when slow speeds and/or high altitude cannot be assumed. The Ethiopian pilots turned off the madly suicidal MCAS system, b
This article deserves channeling Feynman... (Score:2)
Truer words have never been written...
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."
- Dr. Richard Feynman in his closing statement in his final report to the commission for the space shuttle Challenger disaster
Re: (Score:2)
Feynman was of the opinion that NASA's bureaucracy (the entire management layer) essentially needed to be torn down in its entirety and rebuilt. Unfortunately, he was apparently the only one on the Rogers Commission who thought this. Even more unfortunately, after the Columbia broke up on reentry years later, few people pointed out that the same bureaucratic issues Feynman p
software only fix is specious (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So? Has nothing to do with the 2 crashes (Score:2)
The 2 crashes happened in foreign countries that are not under the jurisdiction of the FAA. I'm not saying that there's nothing wrong with the plane. But the summary and article make it sound like the FAA dropped the ball and people died because of it.
Re: So? Has nothing to do with the 2 crashes (Score:2)
It sounds like that because they did. The aviation industry is an example of international cooperation. A new aircraft doesnâ(TM)t have to be individually certified in every country. A single certifying agency does it, and the others agree to recognise that certification.