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.
... on plane manufacturing safety and design... say it isn't so.
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.
That concept is a pile of brown goopy stinky material such as emanates from the South end of a North facing fertile male bovine!
{O.O}
Unless some additional paid options are bought. Was it in the brochure that hundreds would automatically die at some point without these options? It seems like just a matter of time before it happens to every 737-Max. I think Boeing lost some feathers in this whole debacle...
Amateur could be a reason, but Muslim? Anyway, the pilots were not amateurs.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
[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 funny thing about this is that nobody responsible for this will actually suffer any real consequences.
How is an indicator that vital sensors are malfunctioning a safety feature? The pilots may have known a little earlier that they were doomed, but a 737 with short legs and big engines won't fly safe without these sensors (the exact place of the engines is dictated by the ground, not by aerodynamics, but we'll fix it in software)
While it's not explicitly stated...
Lion Air captain: probably Hindu
Ethiopian Airlines captain: probably Christian
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.
Beoing's CEO, the FAA chief, and others need to be fired.
That is far too friendly. A long prison term would be more like it and appropriate to the damage they have done.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
We don't want expert pilots. The people have had enough of experts
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...
Well what do you expect. That is just pure capitalism at work.
Really, if they want to make something optional, how about a low-security airline for people who are sick and tired of all that anti-terrorist BS? Only catch is your clothes travel separately.
I just can't get over the sheer gall of it. Boeing was worried about it to the point that they developed two safety mechanisms. And then didn't enable them? How about making the safety features mandatory with an option to pay more to turn them off? You know, for the pilots and passengers who want the extra thrills.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
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.
Thank you. Sincerely, Thank you, for once not making me be the one who has to point out this is all somehow Microsoft's fault. Keep telling it like it is, AC.
Do you have a car? Is it safe? Would it be safer if you paid more? Are there safety features available on the premium or luxury version of your car?
This is the equivalent of putting a price on the value your family's safety. Safety costs extra. Pay up or die.
If any car brands can be found to have more safety for a premium price, there will be lawsuits now that this concept of corporate greed has been made apparent to us by Boeing.
Boeing: New Intercontinental Plane only $5 ...
Customer: There are no wings
B: They are extra, it is like with your fees for essentials, like luggage, meals and seating.
C: Oh [pause] And wheels?
B: Extra
C: Seats?
B: Extra
C: How much is it with all these extras?
B: $ 121.6 for the basic configuration
C: Huh?
B: There is also a do not crash feature and avoid mountains features
C: Too expensive. For that price we could by an Airbus
People have had enough of paid shills pretending to be experts. Since they themselves are not experts, they can't tell the difference, unfortunately.
Your translation of [1] is wrong.
That flight was saved by the third pilot (non-flying) who was in a jump seat and could afford the luxury of observation from the side. The two flying pilots were busy with instruments and plane systems. It has nothing to do with experience.
Could I get one that puts more emphasis on physics than metaphysics?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
We have had enough of self proclaimed "experts" telling us blatant lies. We still like experts at the helm of stuff that actually affects us. Well, obviously not in politics, but at least where it actually matters.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I doubt you'll get many upvotes, but that is a fairly accurate description.
How about being honest? There wasn't a single 737 Max delivered with the additional angle of attack sensor, low cost or not.
Fucking media just lies lies lies.
Boeing is selling airplanes where safety is optional?
When your aircraft design precludes the option to turn off the auto pilot and fly the damn plane, you’ve got a bad aircraft design.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
The Seattle Times has a good article on this although it should be taken as preliminary data subject to change.
To summarise
Due to airframe changes from previous models Boeing introduced MCAS which automatically lowers the nose when approaching a stall.
The MCAS was introduced to allow pilots with 737 experience to fly the 737 MAX with a minimal amount of conversion training thus saving airlines a lot of cost and making the MAX even more attractive to them.
As initially designed a failure of MCAS was classed as a "Major" hazard in that it could cause passenger discomfort but not death. This was because MCAS was limited to a very small change to the flight control surfaces. For this category the use of a single sensor is allowed assuming the sensor reliability is sufficient.
During the flight test phase the ability for MCAS was extended to unlimited repeat operations. These repeat operations have a cumulative effect on the flight control surfaces. The MCAS can now lead to a catastrophic failure.
At this point the category of hazard should have been changed. This should have lead to a design change but because the category remained at "Major" and not "Catastrophic" no further changes were made.
There could be any number of reasons why this categorisation change was missed, hopefully any future investigations will get to the root cause.
I'm pretty sure neither Wilbur nor Orville Wright had either system and it didn't stop them from taking off and landing in a (for the time) safe manner.
The airline knew these options existed. They knew they were "extras", in the same manner someone looking to buy a new Subaru knows the Eyesight system is an extra (or was when I bought my 2019 Legacy) yet they had meetings, debated the cost benefits, and ultimately chose NOT to buy the otpions which could have prevented the accident.
Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
The keyword is optional, not safety feature. There is probably a huge catalogue of them, but from the sound of it this should never EVER has been made optional. This is an essential crashing-and-die feature and as such should not be OPTIONAL. And that does not even start on how it was presented to the airline : possibly as "do not matter much here is an optional feature" or was it "very important optional feature" my bet is on the first.
ultimately only Boeing can know if a feature is essential or not. By making it optional they made it non essential. Do you really think from the crash that assessment is correct ? IMO not therefore boeing has the full responsibility.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Because Boeing charges a pretty penny for those options, same as car manufacturers do for higher trims. And the failures have been a bit more catastrophic than buying a Forrester without Eyesight. More like if Ford had offered a safer gas tank in the Pinto - if you bought what would be the Platinum trim today for an extra $8000.
These Boeing failures have been a bit more catastrophic than buying a car that doesn't have lane departure warnings. More like if Ford had sold the Pinto with a better gas tank that wouldn't explode in low speed collisions - for a hefty premium. But the Pinto never should have shipped with a bad gas tank, and Boeing never should have sold critical safety features as expensive add-ons.
So if one should pick one instrument to be critical for operating your plane, this would be it, ESPECIALLY if the plane is going to override human input based upon it...
...$100,000, we'll add this red button to the plane that says "Don't Crash".
I mean, now airplanes are like modern games with paid DLC where the content is already on disc?
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.
Seems like boeing has learned a thing or two from EA.
Soon there will be microtransactions.
"pay 100 coins to lower the landing gear or wait 5 minutes"
"pay 1000 coins to use redundant sensors for more reliable readings"
Well, you have a choice. You can fly somewhere for $50, or you can be reasonably sure to arrive alive.
Air travel has become cheap, but so much more crappy in every aspect, from the nickel-and-diming where you pay extra for the smallest service (such as picking your own seat during check-in, I mean seriously?) to saving on safety.
As long as price is the dominating reason for decisions, it will continue to go this way.
When we stop being cheap assholes and ready to pay the price that things cost, it will change.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Don't give me a "disagree" light, which may as well be a "you're about to die" light.
It's cheaper than a third sensor, which is what something this critical really needed.
"Boeing should just scrap the design."
. (Mar. 20, 2019)
The 2 comments above this one disagreed. I think you are correct. I've done electronic design and computer programming. The entire 737 MAX-8 new system components need re-consideration.
Others agree. For example: Boeing 737 MAX-8 Scandal Grows: Doomed Lion Air Flight Should Never Have Flown. (Yesterday, Mar. 21, 2019)
FBI joining criminal investigation into certification of Boeing 737 MAX
Pentagon to probe if Shanahan used office to help Boeing. (Mar. 20, 2019) "Shanahan, 56, joined Boeing in 1986, rose through its ranks and is credited with rescuing the troubled Dreamliner 787 program."
Boeing has a history of flawed management: A flawed missile defense system generates $2 billion in bonuses for Boeing (Sept. 2, 2016)
The incidents happened in Indonesia and Ethiopia, with Indonesia having first crack.
Having driven a few cards with backup cameras, I find them useful primarily for checking the area immediately behind the car before reversing otherwise normally. Secondarily, they're handy for when you must back up against a wall or car, and you want to get very close. They often display a warning along the lines of "check your surroundings before moving the car!". I suspect many people have stared into the screen while dragging their bumper across the car next to them.
There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
cars, even. Never driven a card.
There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
even the cheapest car on the market right now has a raft of safety features. Once you get to the level of a Nissan Sentra or Toyota Corolla there's not much difference between that and a BMW. The advanced features of the BMW can easily be compensated for with more careful driving.
In this case it's more like if a Tesla's auto pilot engaged and sent you careening off a cliff.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
No.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
if I paid more my car wouldn't be any safer. More of the fancy safety features are things like lane assist and automatic breaking. I can do both of those things without a computer telling me, and having them is likely to lull me into a false sense of security.
One of the most maddeningly dangerous drivers I've ever met drives modern Lexuses with all the bells and whistles. Gets a new one about every 3-5 years after he wrecks the old one. He's not any better off in the crashes because of the Lexus (even my 2014 Sentra has airbags up the wazoo) and he crashes just as often as he did before he had those features.
Finally, Airlines != Car Companies. The Airlines and plane manufactures are quasi-public companies. They have to be. If you're letting several tons of metal fly over cities 365 days a year you can't leave that up to private citizens. We just tried actually, and this is the result.
We're just lucky this didn't happen over a populated area. Keep this up and it will.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."
Richard Feynman's famous conclusion to his report on the shuttle Challenger accident, similar management issues occurring again in the Columbia accident.
And now, I think, in the MAX 8 preventable tragedies.
As with most software engineering failures, it's necessary to look a few levels "upstream" for the root cause.
There is a natural tendency among technical people (such as the denizens of Slashdot) to assume all the blame (y2k is another clear example).
However, in this case, I want to point the finger directly at Boeing Management and Marketing, plus the FAA, which is where I think most of the blame for these tragic deaths belong. Shame on you!
As I understand it, Boeing had to introduce changes to handle Max 8's new flight characteristics - fair enough...
Sales and Marketing wanted to avoid forcing pilot re-training, to remove it as a cost barrier to sales...
So they hid complex and risky details in obscure automation, with minimal documentation, while implementing a massive and fatal design failure.
Then convinced the FAA to let them do the testing certification, a clear due-diligence failure by the FAA...
Then they half-assed the actual testing, because no-one is looking, and it the system will only ever get called to do a trim adjustment once, right?!... it would never be cumulative right... Naive clueless dumbasses... stupid does not even begin to cover it...
Then when nature is not fooled, and the crashes kill hundreds of innocents, move into full-on PR cover-up mode... effectively preventing the first set of deaths, being used to diagnose the issues and thus prevent the second crash...
IMHO, we need to look even further upstream, past the small-minded, and tragically predictable failures of Boeing and FAA management.
The core issue that falls on the software engineering profession is that we have collectively failed to insist that Software Engineering must become a real Engineering discipline, as say Civil Engineering, with unavoidable legal and regulated sign-off authority.
Safety-critical software designs are done in secret by businesses and do not require the signature of a registered Software Engineer, as for example buildings and bridges do...
We can all see the tragic result of that short-sighted, profit-seeking policy failure.
Sadly, I think that issue is at least partly on us, not stating the problem clearly enough, and loudly enough, and repeatedly.
It's a failure that falls on computer science, and software engineers, all of us.
Plus of course, the government policymakers that prevented the obvious from being recognized, twisted by the usual industry lobbyists.
Makes me sad, I wish I had personally pushed much harder for this in the past...
Hence this post... Too little for sure, way too late to help the MAX 8 victims, but together perhaps we can help others...
Call to action: It's time for the government to enforce a proper software engineering design review of all human safety-critical software,
by qualified and registered Software Engineers, this needs to be forced against any and all opposition of big tech and business, it is a public safety issue, plain and simple.
Otherwise, this tragedy will inevitably repeat itself again, in a few months or years,
whenever this current tragedy gets forgotten, and the same lethal and degraded management practices and processes re-surface.
We have the best government money can buy! so bribe your congress critters and senators, maybe we can prevent this from happening again?
There is no god; get over it already! Never exchange a walk on part in the war, for a lead role in a cage.
Seatbelts aren't optional now, but they were at one time! Volvo got their start as a safety-oriented brand by making shoulder belts standard.
The market wanted to cut corners and they got it, now you blame the provider?
Capitalism, fuck yeah!