The Boeing 737 Max crisis goes way beyond software

[Right_in_Virginia]

The Boeing 737 Max crisis goes way beyond software
Quartz, Mar 23, 2019, Tim Fernholz

[...]

By now, you may well have heard of MCAS, software that automatically pitches 737 Maxes downward to avoid stalling in mid-air. It exists only because Boeing wanted to upgrade its 737 without changing it fundamentally—so it added new engines that made the aircraft more likely to stall, rather than starting from scratch. In the emerging picture of the two accidents, the software only failed because the mechanical sensor it depended on also malfunctioned.

But all that pales next to what will likely be the highlight of investigations into the incident: the training and user experience of the people in the cockpits. Pilots did not have sufficient training to understand how MCAS worked, and two vital safety features—a display showing what the sensor detected, and a light warning if other sensors disagreed—were optional extras (paywall).

Minimizing training and cockpit changes was an economic decision: The upgraded plane would be more attractive to potential purchasers if they did not have to spend expensive hours retraining their pilots. The Federal Aviation Administration determined Boeing’s training and safety plans were fine. Now, investigators want to know why. The answers could be costly for Boeing, and for America’s reputation as a leader in the safe deployment of aviation technology.

Software is easy to blame, because for many people computer science is a mystery. But these crashes emerged from an experience we’re all familiar with: the pressure to deliver on a tight timetable, the temptation to cut corners, and the hope that in a big, complex world, one little kludge won’t mess up the whole program.


Read more:  https://qz.com/1577986/the-boeing-737-max-crisis-goes-way-beyond-software/

[Cyber Liberty]

I saw the item about the "optional" sensor monitors on the TeeVee.  That sounds like it could be a Big Deal.

How on Earth could somebody think that's OK? 

[massadvj]

Boeing is going to recover from this for the simple reason that the company is the premier aircraft manufacturer in the world, with far more capabilities and expertise than anyone else in the world.  By all accounts from people who know, the 737 Max is a cutting edge aircraft that surpasses anything on the market in terms of fuel efficiency, flying capabilities and low cost per flyer.  It will likely be around for as long as the original 737 has been around, and will ultimately be recognized as one of the safest airliners ever built.  In the meantime, there will be a lot of hand-wringing and political posturing until the investigations are done.  When all is said and done, both accidents will have come down to "pilot error" in the sense that they could have been prevented by the pilot overriding the software.  Unfortunately, the way it looks now the pilot error was not the fault of the pilots since they apparently weren't trained properly in procedures.  Boeing will fix that, and then these planes will fly again, and the thousands of back orders will be filled.

I'd be looking at this as a good opportunity to invest in BA as the company's valuation is down more than 25 percent.  It will be back. 

[truth_seeker]

Pilots and co-pilots scrambling through paper manuals, trying to find instructions to reboot software?

How did pilots fly planes, before software "innovations" like this?

[Right_in_Virginia]

Boeing is going to recover from this

Agree.  But first Boeing will pay a heavy price.  They've earned that.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Fix to 737 MAX anti-stall software is ready: industry sources
Yahoo, Mar 23, 2019, AFP

New York (AFP) - A fix to the anti-stall system suspected in the crash of a Boeing 737 MAX 8 jet that killed 189 people in Indonesia is ready, industry sources said Saturday, as the company tries to avoid a lengthy grounding of its planes.

Boeing was due to present the patch to officials and pilots of US airlines -- American, Southwest and United -- in Renton, Washington state, where the plane is assembled, other sources said.

"Boeing has already finalized the necessary corrective measures for the MAX," an aviation sector source told AFP on condition of anonymity.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will receive the patch "early next week," a government source added.

Asked how long the certification process could take after the patch is in the hands of the authorities, this source said that nothing has been decided yet.

The FAA declined to comment.


More:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/fix-737-max-anti-stall-software-ready-industry-203046003.html

[Victoria33]

Pilots and co-pilots scrambling through paper manuals, trying to find instructions to reboot software?  How did pilots fly planes, before software "innovations" like this?

@truth_seeker

A family member is a pilot for a US major airline.  There is no paper manual, no actual maps to hold in your hand.  Every pilot in this country has a Pad; the instruction for flying the plane is on the Pad. Pilots are supposed to read any new instruction on the Pad before they report for duty that day.  Many do not do it.  They think they know how to fly a plane, and it takes time to read on the Pad, so they don't read it.  If a pilot's 737 regular or Max, plane is headed nose down to the ground at high speed, it is too late to open the Pad to find out why it is happening and correct it.  The reason for the crash should be, FTR - "Failure to Read".

[TomSea]

Ford recovered from the Pinto... I mean, car companies have to recover from some pretty horrendous occurrences, some of the automakers in Japan so yes, Boeing may well recover eventually as well.  A terrible set of events.

[Rivergirl]

Something terribly wrong with the sales process.  The disappearance of the Malaysian plane revealed the information that Boeing could track their planes for a fee.   The airlines chose not to pay that fee.
Now we learn that there were safety add ons for the Max that were not part of the sale but an additional fee.
Am I alone in being outraged by this sales process?

[truth_seeker]

Report: Boeing Trained 737 Max Pilots on iPads to Save.................


https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/03/boeing-trained-737-max-pilots-on-ipads-to-save-cash

[Cyber Liberty]

Something terribly wrong with the sales process.  The disappearance of the Malaysian plane revealed the information that Boeing could track their planes for a fee.   The airlines chose not to pay that fee.
Now we learn that there were safety add ons for the Max that were not part of the sale but an additional fee.
Am I alone in being outraged by this sales process?

@Rivergirl

You are not alone.  There is no excuse for not providing every cockpit crew with the add-ons you mentioned.  I think a Captain has to know if sensors are providing inaccurate data that does not correlate with other sensors, especially when the plane's software is acting on that false data.

How this can be treated as an "option" like air conditioning for your car is beyond me.  Airbags and seat belts aren't optional.

[truth_seeker]

Boeing is gonna throw in the full crash prevention software, at no extra charge.

It was previously an extra charge item, which some turd world shitehole countries didn't purchase.

[Absalom]

Boeing is going to recover from this for the simple reason that the company is the premier aircraft manufacturer in the world, with far more capabilities and expertise than anyone else in the world.  By all accounts from people who know, the 737 Max is a cutting edge aircraft that surpasses anything on the market in terms of fuel efficiency, flying capabilities and low cost per flyer.  It will likely be around for as long as the original 737 has been around, and will ultimately be recognized as one of the safest airliners ever built.  In the meantime, there will be a lot of hand-wringing and political posturing until the investigations are done.  When all is said and done, both accidents will have come down to "pilot error" in the sense that they could have been prevented by the pilot overriding the software.  Unfortunately, the way it looks now the pilot error was not the fault of the pilots since they apparently weren't trained properly in procedures.  Boeing will fix that, and then these planes will fly again, and the thousands of back orders will be filled.

I'd be looking at this as a good opportunity to invest in BA as the company's valuation is down more than 25 percent.  It will be back.

-------------------------------
While each is entitled to their opinion, this is absurd nonsense,
akin to the daily puffery from Wall Street yappers touting stocks. 
Boeing hustled its customers to maximize money quickly. Reality.
Many nations have nationalized air carriers. Watch as they jointly
bring suit in our Courts for breach of contract against Boeing, where
the amounts of the damages will most certainly not be trivial.
Even more damaging will be the negative publicity.
Yeah, Boeing will be back all right, way back!!!

[Cyber Liberty]

-------------------------------
While each is entitled to their opinion, this is absurd nonsense,
akin to the daily puffery from Wall Street yappers touting stocks. 
Boeing hustled its customers to maximize money quickly. Reality.
Many nations have nationalized air carriers. Watch as they jointly
bring suit in our Courts for breach of contract against Boeing, where
the amounts of the damages will most certainly not be trivial.
Even more damaging will be the negative publicity.
Yeah, Boeing will be back all right, way back!!!

@Absalom

Do you watch the markets very much?  @massadvj and I watch them all the time.

[Bigun]

"The Federal Aviation Administration determined Boeing’s training and safety plans were fine. "

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the key to it all!  The administrative state strikes yet again!

Tocqueville warns how administrative despotism might come to a democracy like America (1840)

[Smokin Joe]

a display showing what the sensor detected, and a light warning if other sensors disagreed—were optional extras

Seems it wasn't so long ago an Airbus from Air France went nose down into the Atlantic with all souls on board because a sensor was sending bad info to an automatic pilot. Obviously, figuring it out was post mortem for the plane and all on board.

Having a sensor verification subroutine, or a way to monitor such would be a real winner, but making it optional? at an extra charge?

Put it on the price tag and sell it as a standard feature to stay ahead of the competition. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Seems it wasn't so long ago an Airbus from Air France went nose down into the Atlantic with all souls on board because a sensor was sending bad info to an automatic pilot. Obviously, figuring it out was post mortem for the plane and all on board.

Having a sensor verification subroutine, or a way to monitor such would be a real winner, but making it optional? at an extra charge?

Put it on the price tag and sell it as a standard feature to stay ahead of the competition. 

And ahead of the lawsuits.

[Absalom]

@Absalom

Do you watch the markets very much?  @massadvj and I watch them all the time.

------------------------------------
Respectfully, I have several more vital things to do than "watch the markets".
Repeating, all are entitled to their opinions.
Several hundred are dead in these crashes and early indicators are emphatically
NOT encouraging for Boeing.
Suggest caution before investing home equity in Boeing!!!!!

[Elderberry]

Boeing Owes the World Some Answers

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-owes-world-answers-120028029.html

First, why didn’t Boeing warn pilots about the risks of the new system? A big selling point of the 737 Max was that it wouldn’t require much retraining for aviators accustomed to other 737s, a benefit the company boasted would save “millions of dollars” per fleet. By one account, U.S. pilots received less than an hour’s instruction on the new plane. Most flight manuals didn't mention MCAS — let alone what to do if it malfunctioned — and pilots say they weren’t told of it. What was the rationale for these omissions?

Second, what did regulators know? For years, the U.S. has been criticized for delegating too much air-safety oversight to manufacturers like Boeing. Doing so isn’t inherently foolish; the FAA lacks the staff to inspect every feature of new aircraft, and companies have every incentive to get things right. But by all indications, this process broke down. Most worryingly, a safety analysis that Boeing submitted to the FAA understated the risks of the new MCAS system in crucial respects. Was this deliberate? And did regulators knowingly give the company excessive leeway for commercial reasons?

An awful lot hangs on the answers to these questions. If Boeing minimized the risks of its new design to sell more planes, that would be an extraordinary corporate scandal. If the FAA has become so deferential to companies that it overlooked a potentially fatal flaw in hundreds of jets, its mission is fundamentally compromised. And if the U.S. knew of a serious problem with these planes even while vouching for their safety, it may have put lives at risk.

[SZonian]

@truth_seeker

A family member is a pilot for a US major airline.  There is no paper manual, no actual maps to hold in your hand.  Every pilot in this country has a Pad; the instruction for flying the plane is on the Pad. Pilots are supposed to read any new instruction on the Pad before they report for duty that day.  Many do not do it.  They think they know how to fly a plane, and it takes time to read on the Pad, so they don't read it.  If a pilot's 737 regular or Max, plane is headed nose down to the ground at high speed, it is too late to open the Pad to find out why it is happening and correct it.  The reason for the crash should be, FTR - "Failure to Read".

Aviation in general, including the Armed Services have moved to electronic tech data because the updates can be "pushed" immediately vs. the days or weeks it would take with paper manuals.  Pilots and mechanics are "supposed to" review them prior to any activity to see if any revisions have been released.  Many have operator required "inputs" to the data prior to continuing, like "acknowledgement" of Warnings, Cautions and Notes before the screen will continue.

Back in the day when I was engine run qualified on USAF aircraft, Emergency Procedures were "Mandatory Memorization and Action".  When taking the annual requal exam, any failure was grounds for decertification until accurately demonstrated via memory.

At the end of the day though, it is incumbent upon the operator or technician to have viewed and complied with the tech data.  They and they alone bear that responsibility, just like I do when releasing flight clearance forms for the aircraft under my purview.

[berdie]

I'm not sure, in my mind, that there is a difference between Ipad and paper manual instructions.

[Smokin Joe]

I'm not sure, in my mind, that there is a difference between Ipad and paper manual instructions.

Yes! If you do crash land the plane, you can use the paper manual to help start fires....(provided you survive)


(And yes, I'm being a smartass again...)

[berdie]

Yes! If you do crash land the plane, you can use the paper manual to help start fires....(provided you survive)


(And yes, I'm being a smartass again...)

 

[NavyCanDo]

Boeing is going to recover from this for the simple reason that the company is the premier aircraft manufacturer in the world, with far more capabilities and expertise than anyone else in the world.  By all accounts from people who know, the 737 Max is a cutting edge aircraft that surpasses anything on the market in terms of fuel efficiency, flying capabilities and low cost per flyer.  It will likely be around for as long as the original 737 has been around, and will ultimately be recognized as one of the safest airliners ever built.  In the meantime, there will be a lot of hand-wringing and political posturing until the investigations are done.  When all is said and done, both accidents will have come down to "pilot error" in the sense that they could have been prevented by the pilot overriding the software.  Unfortunately, the way it looks now the pilot error was not the fault of the pilots since they apparently weren't trained properly in procedures.  Boeing will fix that, and then these planes will fly again, and the thousands of back orders will be filled.

I'd be looking at this as a good opportunity to invest in BA as the company's valuation is down more than 25 percent.  It will be back.

I keep telling the younger BA investors, interns we hired over the last couple of years to not sale because historically it always returns to it's high water mark despite  what news tends to be in the headlines. Is the news worrisome? You bet. Never in my 33 years at Boeing have I seen 737s stack up like this, but the grounding is allowing suppliers to get caught up and we really needed that.

[NavyCanDo]

I'm not sure, in my mind, that there is a difference between Ipad and paper manual instructions.

Paper manuals do not send alerts when there is an update. Standard in aerospace today, at Boeing, Airbus, NASA, and the military.  Speaking of Airbus, there A320 was not without its fly by wire disasters the killed people. At the 1998 air show in France for instance when the brand new airplane plowed through a forest in front of prospective buyers.