Slashdot Mirror
Crashed Boeing Planes Lacked Safety Features That Company Sold Only As Extras (apnews.com)
The recent Boeing 737 MAX crashes involving an Ethiopian Airlines flight and a Lion Air flight may have been a result of two missing safety features that Boeing charged airlines extra for (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source). The New York Times reports that many low-cost carriers like Indonesia's Lion Air opted not to buy them so they could save money, even though some of these systems are fundamental to the plane's operations. "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," the report says. From the report: It is not yet known what caused the crashes of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 on March 10 and Lion Air Flight 610 five months earlier, both after erratic takeoffs. But investigators are looking at whether a new software system added to avoid stalls in Boeing's 737 Max series may have been partly to blame. Faulty data from sensors on the Lion Air plane may have caused the system, known as MCAS, to malfunction, authorities investigating that crash suspect.
The jet's software system takes readings from one of two vanelike devices called angle of attack sensors that determine how much the plane's nose is pointing up or down relative to oncoming air. When MCAS detects that the plane is pointing up at a dangerous angle, it can automatically push down the nose of the plane in an effort to prevent the plane from stalling. Boeing's optional safety features, in part, could have helped the pilots detect any erroneous readings. One of the optional upgrades, the angle of attack indicator, displays the readings of the two sensors. The other, called a disagree light, is activated if those sensors are at odds with one another. The angle of attack indicator will remain an option that airlines can buy. Neither feature was mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration. All 737 Max jets have been grounded. "Boeing will soon update the MCAS software, and will also make the disagree light standard on all new 737 Max planes," the report adds, citing a person familiar with the changes. "Boeing started moving on the software fix and the equipment change before the crash in Ethiopia."
Slashdot reader Futurepower(R) adds to the story: The FBI has joined the criminal investigation into the certification of the Boeing 737 MAX, lending its considerable resources to an inquiry already being conducted by U.S. Department of Transportation agents, according to people familiar with the matter. "The federal grand jury investigation, based in Washington, D.C., is looking into the certification process that approved the safety of the new Boeing plane, two of which have crashed since October.
The jet's software system takes readings from one of two vanelike devices called angle of attack sensors that determine how much the plane's nose is pointing up or down relative to oncoming air. When MCAS detects that the plane is pointing up at a dangerous angle, it can automatically push down the nose of the plane in an effort to prevent the plane from stalling. Boeing's optional safety features, in part, could have helped the pilots detect any erroneous readings. One of the optional upgrades, the angle of attack indicator, displays the readings of the two sensors. The other, called a disagree light, is activated if those sensors are at odds with one another. The angle of attack indicator will remain an option that airlines can buy. Neither feature was mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration. All 737 Max jets have been grounded. "Boeing will soon update the MCAS software, and will also make the disagree light standard on all new 737 Max planes," the report adds, citing a person familiar with the changes. "Boeing started moving on the software fix and the equipment change before the crash in Ethiopia."
Slashdot reader Futurepower(R) adds to the story: The FBI has joined the criminal investigation into the certification of the Boeing 737 MAX, lending its considerable resources to an inquiry already being conducted by U.S. Department of Transportation agents, according to people familiar with the matter. "The federal grand jury investigation, based in Washington, D.C., is looking into the certification process that approved the safety of the new Boeing plane, two of which have crashed since October.
Could you tell me in advance when booking a flight if the plane in question is missing any optional safety features that should obviously be standard so I can choose a provider that does not save money on no-brainer stuff like like this?
I mean right now I have whole Boeing lineup set as "this plane may be missing obviously useful redundancies in safety systems that might mean it can crash, so I will not book a flight on this plane" and I know that is probably unfair to most of those planes. But without available information, that is the only option available to me.
[1] We now know that the Lion Air 787 had the same issue on an earlier flight, but it was saved from disaster by the presence of a third pilot aboard who knew what to do, and then the airline chose not to fix the sensor before the fatal flight. Translation: the problem was avoidable if either of two things happened: the presence of a competent pilot, or the aircraft being properly maintained. People should prepare themselves for the very possible scenario that in perhaps a year when the NTSB finishes investigating (They're extremely diligent and objective) it will be determined that there's nothing wrong with the 787Max and that a combination of maintenance and pilot training and skill were the core issues (and I say that as a Boeing critic).
[2] The over-regulation of aviation in the US by the FAA makes the development and deployment of things like avionics and engines particularly expensive. [stay with me for a moment for the payoff...] It's not enough to develop a new flight instrument and get it approved - you must get a "Type Certificate" to allow the instrument to be installed into each make and model of plane. As a result, if you are only going to have a few customers for your new instrument in a particular sort of aircraft, then there's no way you'll ever recover the regulatory costs of getting a TypeCert for it, so you won't bother, and that means owners of that type of plane cannot get your new instrument for their plane. It's THIS aspect of FAA regulation that has made it so that most private planes in the US do not have (and indeed cannot get) an Angle-of-Attack instrument - the very thing this article complains about being optional on these 787s!!!!! Many private aviation incidents in the USA occur on departure, and on approach, and that's where an AOA indicator would save lives, but where many private pilots are only served by a squawking stall indicator.
The thing is, if you have only two AOA detectors and they disagree, there is no way for the computer to know which one is wrong. The 737 Max is really weird in that, with bigger engines posed forward, the airplane has different handling characteristics from the rest of the 737 family. But, instead of opting for the more expensive and slow option of retraining pilots to fly the new model, they wrote the software augmentation system that supposedly makes the airplane behave exactly like the classic 737. When the computer has good air data, that is.
This is what happens the US government constantly protects Boeing from having to compete on the free market by trying to kill off competitors like Bombardier with illegal protectionism.
As soon as you take away the need to compete from a company, it can act in the most absurd of ways, exactly as Boeing has here.
It doesn't matter how important the US government thinks Boeing is as an aircraft manufacturer, it has to be forced to compete against Airbus et. al. on even terms otherwise more people will die because Boeing has been turned into another "too big to fail", and "too big to compete" and given a free ride. The fact people have now died due to safety failings is precisely why protectionism pushed by the current US (and still to a lesser degree, previous governments) is bad; it means that unless you have sufficient competition in your protected home market, all it will do is reduce quality.
Frankly I see it in cars too nowadays, every time I'm in the US as opposed to elsewhere, it's pretty clear that US cars are horribly behind the times, dated, and much poorer quality nowadays than thus coming out of the rest of the world like Asia and Europe. The more insular the US becomes, the more shit it's products become, and the less relevant it's products become on the world stage. As soon as you stop competing and start using protectionism it's an inevitable spiral towards game over. I agree that Huawei is a massive security risk, but simply banning them access to your market isn't suddenly going to make Cisco et. al. wake up and say "Okay, now let's figure out how they're getting ahead of us technologically and make better products", it's going to make Cisco go "lol, we don't even have to put any effort into competing now".
What is this? The 60s, where we need a separate indicator for any given failure?
Last time I looked, there are some big screens in there. If two of my most crucial sensors would disagree, I would expect a message on those screens, accompanied with a sound effect, making abundantly clear that something is wrong. No need for a pricey indicator in some corner, that can be easily overseen...
They literally nickel and dimed hundreds of people to death.
I agree this is appalling but I'm struggling with whom I should be most appalled by: Boeing for their willingness to sell planes without all the safety features or the airlines that refused to pay for the safety features.
Yeah, and if you don't have any in your Cessna I don't give a fuck if you stall and crash.
In a commercial airliner I, as a customer, have to depend on the safety of the vehicle because I cannot audit it beforehand. Hell, 9 out of 10 times you don't even get to know for sure what kind of airplane, let alone what specific plane, you'll be flying on.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Actually, Steve Dickson, who I used to work for, is exactly what the FAA needs. He's a safety first kind of guy and an excellent leader. He's also a pilot and knows his shit. He'll be a good thing for the FAA.
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
A friend of mine from college is a senior Delta pilot and has served as a flight instructor for many years, including the training of pilots from other countries. He has also flown the 737 MAX. His conclusion is the same as yours, and is an unfortunate reflection of the state of pilot training and aircraft maintenance in developing countries.
That Lion Air plane should have been grounded the day before, after the first incident. And as many new stories have reported, that particular aircraft had a backlog of maintenance issues that Lion Air failed to address.
His observation: "Everyone thinks that flying is "safe". It's not. It's difficult and dangerous. What makes it appear "safe" in the developed world is the constant routine of aircraft maintenance and pilot training that keeps the accident rate very, very low. But in other countries, that isn't the case."
Who modded that comment to 5? It is all crap.
The US has the biggest freest market in the world. It has cars from manufacturers all over the world. When you fly on a plane in the US there is a 50/50 chance that it is Boeing or Airbus.
When I fly European airlines, what kind of planes are there? Airbus, Airbus, and Airbus. When I go to any other country the variety of autos is much smaller.
I don't know who modded that up, but they have not been in the US.
That is an air stream indicator as seen in gliders to this day. It may indicated stall, high angle of attack, side slip, falling backwards, or be stuck by liquid water or ice in an incorrect position. Every sensor including windshield being frosted over is trained for, these crews for some reason could not find strait and level after the first stall and got themselves into the MCAS flight regime with power pitching them up in a deep stall (like every 737) and fighting a secondary system.
No matter how much one wants to jam it to Boeing entering a stall condition outside of wind sheer is pilot operating error. Now lowering the nose immediately and slowly increasing power is all 737 basics. However this went on into deep stall we will soon see but the lack of understanding of a checklist in their hands is a major factor.
I as a private pilot jump through 40 years of aviation history depending on what is ready to go at the place I rent from. It is my responsibility to be familiar and use all checklists. Every single plane I rent I stall and recover from at least 6 times, sometimes with a flight instructor. mostly without at altitude with huge safety margin. This is more than my 737 pilot friend has ever herd the stall horn during his 20 year commercial career. My three and only considerations on departure is clear ground obstacles, conflict with other aircraft and do not stall on departure. These 4 pilots had do not stall on departure task and all failed.
Stalling a large commercial aircraft during departure is a bad thing. From day one in a piper cub the stall regime and recovery is trained in. Deep Stalling a commercial aircraft during departure without a mile of air under you is typically fatal. Both flights something more than a computer driven recovery went wrong. MCAS making only one attempt at cleaning up the pilot mistakes seems to be the fix that was going on before the second crash. Adding both sensors to the MCAS, clear indications MCAS is doing something seems reasonable and prudent additional aid but letting poor pilot standards off the hook will be fatal in the future.
"That's the kind of thing you're suggesting here ...."
That'd be because, you fucking dumbass, that is the actual goddamned standard procedure for in-flight troubleshooting for large aircraft.
Try again when you have a fucking pilot's license. I'm 5 solo hours away from mine.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
This is a little different. Imagine a new model of an existing car. The engineers note that the new car has an odd tendency to turn to the left all on it's own. Rather than fix that or alert drivers to the oddity, they devise a system that will pull the steering wheel a bit to the right when it detects the surprise left steering. The warning light to tell you that the sensor for the steering correction system has failed is OPTIONAL. But since it's cheaper to build all of the cars with the indicator, the dealer is instructed to disable it with wire cutters unless you choose to pay for it.