Congressional Inquiry Faults Boeing And FAA Failures For Deadly 737 Max Plane Crashes (npr.org) 47
A sweeping congressional inquiry into the development and certification of Boeing's troubled 737 Max airplane finds damning evidence of failures at both Boeing and the Federal Aviation Administration that "played instrumental and causative roles" in two fatal crashes that killed a total of 346 people. From a report: The House Transportation Committee released an investigative report produced by Democratic staff on Wednesday morning. It documents what it says is "a disturbing pattern of technical miscalculations and troubling management misjudgments" by Boeing, combined with "numerous oversight lapses and accountability gaps by the FAA." Lion Air Flight 610 crashed in October 2018, and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crashed in March 2019, both Boeing 737 Max aircraft. "The Max crashes were not the result of a singular failure, technical mistake, or mismanaged event," the committee report says. Instead, "they were the horrific culmination of a series of faulty technical assumptions by Boeing's engineers, a lack of transparency on the part of Boeing's management, and grossly insufficient oversight by the FAA."
The report is the latest of many investigations into the 737 Max crashes and includes little new information. But it appears to be the most comprehensive in analyzing both Boeing's and the FAA's roles in developing and certifying an ultimately flawed commercial passenger jet. House Transportation Committee Chairman Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., says one of the most startling revelations uncovered by the investigation is that "both FAA and Boeing came to the conclusion that the certification of the Max was compliant" with FAA regulations. He calls that "mind-boggling." "The problem is it was compliant and not safe. And people died," DeFazio said, adding that it's "clear evidence that the current regulatory system is fundamentally flawed and needs to be repaired." "This is a tragedy that never should have happened," DeFazio added. "It could have been prevented and we're going to take steps in our legislation to see that it never happens again as we reform the system."
The report is the latest of many investigations into the 737 Max crashes and includes little new information. But it appears to be the most comprehensive in analyzing both Boeing's and the FAA's roles in developing and certifying an ultimately flawed commercial passenger jet. House Transportation Committee Chairman Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., says one of the most startling revelations uncovered by the investigation is that "both FAA and Boeing came to the conclusion that the certification of the Max was compliant" with FAA regulations. He calls that "mind-boggling." "The problem is it was compliant and not safe. And people died," DeFazio said, adding that it's "clear evidence that the current regulatory system is fundamentally flawed and needs to be repaired." "This is a tragedy that never should have happened," DeFazio added. "It could have been prevented and we're going to take steps in our legislation to see that it never happens again as we reform the system."
Re: (Score:2)
At least Congress stepped in and call it out for what it is... that's more than most countries can say. Gives me some confidence in the US.
Re: (Score:1)
The NTSB called it out as Boeing's fault.
The Congressional report is merely grandstanding.
Re:Is Airbus better? (Score:4, Informative)
The FAA's responsibility is towards American-bound flights and domestic air travel. None of the Boeing 737-MAX9 crashes qualified under their jurisdiction. Why is the FAA being dragged into this? The US carriers had trained pilots sufficiently to handle these situations in the planes.
a) The FAA is the national authority for Boeing. This means that they carry out the certification for Boeing aircraft once and then all the other authorities worldwide accept that. That allows Boeing to sell worldwide at a tiny fraction of the cost of the alternative. If the FAA ceases to be acceptable worldwide that will basically kill Boeing as a company. In fact, because of this situation, the FAA was a supporting authority in each of these investigations in any case.
b) The US pilots is actually just luck. Given the wrong set of conditions it was possible for the flight controls to get into a situation where there was so much force needed to move the control surfaces that you needed to have power active. One of the methods needed for some situations for disabling the automatic systems required removing a fuse which meant that power would not be available. That no Americans were killed is only luck.
c) This is a general failure - this report found serious problems in both Boeing and the FAA. This means that other planes produced recently by Boeing cannot be trusted. Basically, what this report is saying is that you should start boycotting airlines that use Boeing until all certifications of planes done in at least the last 10 years are redone from scratch. Possibly involving a rewrite of most of the software.
Yes, it's probably a troll.. but sometimes the trolls are saying what many people are secretly thinking. This is worth an answer.
Re: Is Airbus better? (Score:3)
They already have. Europe refused to take the FAA's word on the recertification of the 737MAX. It could be a long time before the FAA regains trust abroad. Remember trust takes a lifetime to gain and a second to loose.
Re: (Score:2)
When banks operate interntationally, they become subject to the regulators in those local jurisdictions. Just accepting the FAA's certification seems lax, given that the FAA does certify foreign made craft if they operate here (domestically). Here is for example, the FAA certifying a Bombardier jet, which is a Canadian company. Why therefore does the aviation administration of a foreign nation not certify the aircraft coming out of Boeing? It seems reasonable to
Re: (Score:2)
A number of factors here. Airline software and design is different - the level of bugs that you would expect in normal software development are far far beyond acceptable. The only way to achieve that level of quality is to have a completely different, much more expensive, development process which has to be directly supervised by the engineers that are doing the certification of the system. Even within this failure, you can partly see that in the simple fact that the software followed it's design perfectl
Re: (Score:3)
This is an excellent analysis of how the 737 MAX clusterfuck happened, from the IEEE web site.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/aero... [ieee.org]
Some of the errors are so egregious that they almost defy comprehension.
BTW, before someone brings up the trope of "Boeing contracted the work out to India", the MCAS was a purely domestic project. The Indian and Chinese programmers worked on other parts of the system, mostly the entertainment package.
Re:Is Airbus better? (Score:4, Interesting)
This may be the most revealing comment in the thread below the article:
http://disq.us/p/21907e1 [disq.us]
One really essential reason those planes crashed was that each time the MCAS triggered, it acted like it was the first time. If it added 1 degree of trim last time, it adds a second this time, a third next time, up to the five degrees that runs the trim all the way to the stops. A second reason is that, under the design still on file at the FAA, it could only add a maximum of 0.8 degrees (each time). This was raised to 2.4 degrees after testing, so only two hits could, in principle, put you almost to the stops. A third was that the only way to override the MCAS was to turn off power to the motor that worked the trim. But above 400 knots, the strength needed to dial back the trim with the hand crank was more than actual live pilots have, especially if it is taking all their strength to pull back on the yoke. A fourth was that, with two flight control computers, the pilot could (partly) turn off a misbehaving one, but there is no way to turn on the other one. You have to land first, to switch over, even though the other is doing all the work to be ready to fly the plane. A fifth was that it ignored that pilots were desperately pulling back on the yoke, which could have been a clue that it was doing the wrong thing. A sixth was that, besides comparing redundant sensors, it could have compared what the other flight computer thought it should be doing.
My own reply was:
it adds a second this time, a third next time
Holy carp. If I had written something like that in BASIC Programming 101 my instructor would have laughed at me in front of the class.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Newt Gingrich's moment of brilliance was when he realized that he didn't have to eliminate popular agencies like the FDA or EPA or FAA, all he had to do was to make their enforcement budgets a separate line item that they could then strangle. Laws and rules may still be on the books, but if there is no budget to enforce them then his goal was accomplished.
As neo-con 'thought leader' Grover Norquist told an assembly of congresscritters in the 1990s, "The best way to convince voters that government is broken
Re: (Score:3)
NTSB reports cannot be used in litigation - Congressional reports *can*.
Important difference there.
Re:Is Airbus better? (Score:4, Insightful)
Airbus is a French company, and the French government probably isn't dumb enough to let an aircraft manufacturer self-regulate.
"Don't leave the free market in charge of anything more important than a Twinkie. And keep an eye on 'em while they're making that Twinkie or they'll fill it with sawdust." -rsilvergun
Re: (Score:3)
The best regulation will come from the airlines who don't want to be burdened with the cost of a crash, the PR of a crash, and their instance that Boeing's planes have such and such a failure rate upper bound.
Re: (Score:2)
And how many people have to die (and how many airline companies need to go bust when management gets too greedy) for the free market to produce this species of inherently trustworthy aircraft manufacturers?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
None, if the free market were allowed to operate. The airlines would hold the manufacturers liable, and the passengers would hold the airline liable. With each person responsible for their part of the service, each person takes it upon themselves to mitigate their risk through testing, quality assurance, and checks and balances at the design stage. The costs of which are passed onto the consumer who then has a high degree of confidence in the service they pay for...
Excellent satire of the Libertarian fantasy.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such thing as a free market in the manufacture of these kinds of aircraft, if taxpayers stopped funding Airbus and Boeing, they would shut their doors tomorrow and the cost of air travel would double.
Re: (Score:2)
Sawdust is an all-natural ingredient that helps keep food affordable for consumers. As part of our sustainability initiative, it also brings CO2 directly out of the atmosphere.
With our renewed commitment to quality, we are now able to guarantee less than 1% metal shavings in the finished product - or your money back.
Re: Is Airbus better? (Score:1)
Airbus has, or had, management problems, also. (Score:2)
That is my understanding. However, I was not able to find the story that indicated that.
Air France Flight 447 Crash Didn't Have to Happen, Expert Says [go.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, your understanding is incorrect.
Air Worthiness Directives always have a timescale for implementation which allows for continued operations, unless they are covering serious issues and require grounding of the aircraft (very uncommon - the AWD in the case of AF447s pitot tube icing issue had mitigation options). Manufacturers are required to implement AWDs, not the manufacturer - Air France chose to fly the aircraft on a normal schedule while replacing the parts in the fleet.
This is normal, as replaci
The Airbus CEO did not handle the issues well. (Score:2)
The CEO of Airbus knew it would take 6 months to fix the problem that had been discovered. He should have immediately required additional pilot training, in my opinion.
I'm guessing that the CEO has little understanding of technical issues.
Re: (Score:2)
The CEO doesnt get to decide these things, they are a negotiation between the engineering department of the OEM and the regulatory body and heavily depend on how quickly parts can be replaced.
No additional pilot training is required because air data sensor disagree errors are already part of the basic training and recertification that pilots go through - its just that in this case the pilots didnt follow that training. So if the pilots didnt follow the training they already had and are regularly required t
I respectfully disagree. (Score:2)
A lot of people say that CEO's don't need to fully understand the business they are leading.
Re: (Score:2)
Disagree all you want, respectfully or not, the CEO had nothing to do with the outcome in the case of AF447. Your posts show a woeful lack of understanding about how the commercial aviation industry and regulatory bodies work.
Was the pro-business FAA somewhat responsible? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The design and certification work was done primarily under the Obama administration. The certification plan (between Boeing and the FAA) is finalized before engineering pen is put to paper. The aircraft design was effectively complete by January 2016, the date of its first flight. If you want an administration to blame, look for the one that left town just before the SHTF.
Realistically, the Boeing/FAA poisonous relationship has been in the work for decades. Pretty much since the McDonnell Douglas takeover
Re: (Score:3)
The FAA accepted company data without question. That's amazingly stupid for something as complex as a new airplane model with advanced electronics. Is this what happens when a "reduce the burden on business" administration is in office?
You do realize that the 737 Max completed it's test flights and was certified by the FAA in March 2017 right? This was almost exactly one month after January 20, 2017 when the current administration took control. Type certifications take many months to complete. I dare say that if any administration had anything to do with this, it was the previous one. Also, the FAA wasn't the only aviation authority to accept the 737 Max and issue a certification, the Europeans did too, albeit mostly based on the FAA's
Re: Was the pro-business FAA somewhat responsible? (Score:2)
As it stood at the time Europe took the FAA's word lock stock and barrel on the quid pro that the FAA would take their word when it came to Airbus, Eurocopter etc. Already Europe refused to take the FAA's word on the recertification of the 737MAX. It will probably be a long time before it takes the FAA's word again. That will make life more difficult for Boeing, but they only have themselves to blame.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure this will be a two way street and Airbus will suffer if the mutual certification agreements fall through.
Boeing obviously messed up here and the FAA let them by not exercising enough oversight.. Those are all facts.. But the mutual certification agreements benefit Airbus too, so you can bet that if the FAA and Europe have a falling out and require different sets of rules be followed that Airbus will pay the price too.
Given that the FAA has yet to reinstate the type certification, we are all just
Re: (Score:2)
The FAA accepted company data without question. That's amazingly stupid
And there we have Libertardianism in a nutshell. Once upon a time the FAA had engineers on staff and on contract who would have been competent to look at the clusterfuck that was the 737 MAX and say "No way in hell is that going in the air." Of course all the Libertards believe that regulation is counterproductive and no corporation would EVER sell an unsafe product because they'd be sued, so after a decade and a half of budgetary strangulation there is no one left at the FAA with the qualifications to do
Re: (Score:1)
NO you are reading a LIE and giant big fat corporate lie. The FAA and BOEING did NOTHING, that is a lie, they are paperwork, writing on a page. People at Boeing and People at the FAA colluded to allow a defective aircraft to pass, in order to maximise profits and fuck the consequences, to the people they killed, the planes destroyed, or to Boeing, or to the FAA. They filled their individual pockets first and fuck everyone else, let em die they go their money, now THEY, THEM, the INDIVIDUALS involved should
My favorite Part was Sam Graves (Score:4, Insightful)
Classic Sam Graves. "How Dare Democrats point that the system is broken and work backwards to find out that the system is broken."
I hope he gets voted out. That man has be a bane to North Missouri for nearly 20 years.
Re: (Score:1)
I never thought I'd see the day (Score:3)
when the FAA itself should be factored in as a failre mode in the FMECA [wikipedia.org] of aircraft parts :) That sure wasn't foreseen in ARP4754.
Re: (Score:2)
when the FAA itself should be factored in
Primarily due to their absence.
The corner cutting was obvious and intentional (Score:1)
Will anybody be punished for making these decisions? Rhetorical question!
Congress never Helps anything (Score:1)
The only thing Congress does is mess stuff up. Who in Congress is a subject matter expert in aerospace design and system safety due to human factors?
By all means, round up the "usual suspects" in your for show hearings, act like you are on some fact finding mission, but let's be honest, there isn't anybody in Congress who would see a salient fact about this if it was wrapped in a bow with flashing lights on it sitting in the middle of the hearing room.
This is political theater, dangerous political theater
Airlines and Pilot Training Are At Fault, Too. (Score:2, Insightful)
Boeing and the FAA are both at fault for sending out shoddy aircraft. But the story here is how poorly-trained pilots are, especially in developing nations. Even in developed nations, pilots are increasingly becoming custodians of the auto-pilots. When the systems fail, the pilots are unable to fly the aircraft properly. Air France 447 crashed because the co-pilot freaked out when the computer stopped and held the stick back until the plane crashed. If he let go, then the plane would've recovered. Boeing do
Re: (Score:2)
How was it compliant? (Score:4, Insightful)
The hardware and software can't possibly have passed the DO-178C standard (which is quite rigorous) given that there were single points of failure and those are generally discouraged.
There were SPFs in the exterior sensors, not unlike those which have caused prior crashes in both Boeing and Airbus aircraft. That they were not unlike it means that there will be air safety decisions which are relevant and which would have either restricted or prohibited such practices.
Situational awareness was poor, due to poor training and poor documentation. Although that's true of most software, it's discouraged in Mission Critical systems.
The aircraft automagically flying itself into the terrain has been considered bad manners on the part of the software engineers ever since an Airbus decided a forest made an excellent runway.
This whole mess is a farce. And, no, it makes not one jot of difference who else is doing it. The ESA learned, after Arianne V software decided that - was +. I don't really care if Airbus has to learn as well as Boeing, what I care about is that all those who are being pillocks learn. I have no time to waste on blame games, and as I'm not a 900 year old Time Lord from Gallifrey with, or without, a dozen remaining regenerations, I am in no position to say "oops!" if the plane I'm in suddenly decides to have attachment issues with a nearby mountain.
If this doesn't get fixed, bugger all I can do, but I'm confident that it wouldn't take more than a couple more crashes for one or both makers to go belly up. The airline industry is having enough problems, it's not going to want to do anything that places consumer confidence at further risk. It'll play safe, and playing safe generally means not buying aircraft passengers aren't willing to fly in.
Complacency is Death (Score:1)
nuf sed
The root, root cause... (Score:2, Interesting)
While there are plenty of technical reasons for those crashes, as we have discussed here before, there is actually a deeper root cause, which may be found in Washington DC, exactly where the congress critters never want to look.
There was an era in the US when airlines had a choice of domestic plane builders: Boeing (727,737,747, etc), McDonnell Douglas(Dc-8, DC-9, DC-10, etc), and Lockheed (L1011) a little earlier there was also Convair but we need not go that far back in the jet age. This was competition,