Boeing MAX crashes due to lack of company transparency and insufficient oversight

[stroopwafel]

Just..why. I know it's to cut corners and save money but why take such a huge gamble with a malfunctioning anti-stall sensor in the first place? 346(!) people were unnecessarily killed. Boeing lacks transparency but the FAA also relies heavily on ''authorised representatives'' for certification of designs and systems which happen to be Boeing employees. WTF? Sad thing is this will just be passed aside as a regulation issue. Not many other companies that can make huge jets like this and they are also pretty much the biggest government contractor.

After 18-Month Investigation, Chairs DeFazio and Larsen Release Final Committee Report on Boeing 737 MAX | The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

transportation.house.gov

 

[Worgen]

Thanks deregulation.

 

[Agema]

Just..why. I know it's to cut corners and save money but why take such a huge gamble with a malfunctioning anti-stall sensor in the first place? 346(!) people were unnecessarily killed. Boeing lacks transparency but the FAA also relies heavily on ''authorised representatives'' for certification of designs and systems which happen to be Boeing employees. WTF? Sad thing is this will just be passed aside as a regulation issue. Not many other companies that can make huge jets like this and they are also pretty much the biggest government contractor.

Well. 346 dead people (and a sizeable reputation hit) translates into money. I suspect Boeing looked at the economic cost of not having a plane to fill the niche that the MAX was designed to fill compared to the economic risks of potentially killing passengers, and decided the latter was more profitable.

Although that's maybe giving them too much credit. They potentially made no calculation at all: some executive insisted that the company absolutely needed a plane like the MAX, and then everyone in the chain institutionally ignored or downplayed the warnings from the engineers that this was a dangerous botch-job to ensure the company had got the plane it insisted on.

 

[Chimpzy]

Boeing stock value so far doesn't seem to have taken any hit over this report, and that is of course the most important thing.

 

[stroopwafel]

Well. 346 dead people (and a sizeable reputation hit) translates into money. I suspect Boeing looked at the economic cost of not having a plane to fill the niche that the MAX was designed to fill compared to the economic risks of potentially killing passengers, and decided the latter was more profitable.

Although that's maybe giving them too much credit. They potentially made no calculation at all: some executive insisted that the company absolutely needed a plane like the MAX, and then everyone in the chain institutionally ignored or downplayed the warnings from the engineers that this was a dangerous botch-job to ensure the company had got the plane it insisted on.

Yeah, I understand that but why didn't they just disable the MCAS if these planes needed to be rushed out the door? They could always implement it later after more rigorous testing. I mean, they were aware the system malfunctioned. The airlines they sold this jet to didn't ask for this feature or were even aware MCAS overrid manual controls. Both crashes happened because pilots didn't know how to disable it.

 

[stroopwafel]

Boeing stock value so far doesn't seem to have taken any hit over this report, and that is of course the most important thing.

True, ofcourse, but like I said they don't really have competitors.

 

[Agema]

Boeing stock value so far doesn't seem to have taken any hit over this report, and that is of course the most important thing.

It was probably already priced in, as investors will have already assumed there was a big negative on the way months ago.

Yeah, I understand that but why didn't they just disable the MCAS if these planes needed to be rushed out the door? They could always implement it later after more rigorous testing. I mean, they were aware the system malfunctioned. The airlines they sold this jet to didn't ask for this feature or were even aware MCAS overrid manual controls. Both crashes happened because pilots didn't know how to disable it.

I think - and my memory may be faulty here - the MCAS was created as a response to aerodynamic problems with the plane. As a cost and time saving measure, rather than design a whole new plane, they attempted to adapt the existing 737. Unfortunately the basic 737 structure was not suited to the changes desired, which meant the plane was unstable in certain circumstances. Therefore they designed the MCAS, which was to automatically correct for this instability, and it was integral to the plane's functioning.

I would suggest the crashes didn't just happen because the pilots didn't know how to disable it, but that they didn't know why they should disable it and in what cirucmstances. And they didn't because Boeing had concealed so much about it - because it was inherently a cover-up for a poor aeroplane design. As for holding delivery even just to fix the MCAS design flaws, it would have cost money. Someone didn't want to lose that money, and whoever in Boeing recognised there was a problem evidently weren't powerful enough to dissuade the powers that be that wanted it released.

 

[Tireseas]

Thanks deregulation.

I would argue that deregulation was less of a problem and more defunding of federal experts that led the FAA to outsource a lot of its compliance inspections to the companies that they were supposed to regulate as well as a climate of essentially the same FAA officials and experts being a revolving door between the agency and Boeing.

Regardless, the FAA and Boeing fucked up badly when simply a disclosure of the system, how it worked, and when it should be disabled, something that, in retrospect, was so simple that it's going to be hard to not just roll over to the settlement demands when the civil suit gets to that point.

 

[09philj]

True, ofcourse, but like I said they don't really have competitors.

Airbus is the only company that really competes with Boeing.

 

[Worgen]

I would argue that deregulation was less of a problem and more defunding of federal experts that led the FAA to outsource a lot of its compliance inspections to the companies that they were supposed to regulate as well as a climate of essentially the same FAA officials and experts being a revolving door between the agency and Boeing.

Regardless, the FAA and Boeing fucked up badly when simply a disclosure of the system, how it worked, and when it should be disabled, something that, in retrospect, was so simple that it's going to be hard to not just roll over to the settlement demands when the civil suit gets to that point.

They are kinda one in the same. Deregulation goes hand in hand with defunding and relying more on the manufacturers to self regulate, which can work, but only if they aren't really bottom line driven and try and cut corners. Which as history has shown, you cannot rely on.

 

[Trunkage]

Yeah, I understand that but why didn't they just disable the MCAS if these planes needed to be rushed out the door? They could always implement it later after more rigorous testing. I mean, they were aware the system malfunctioned. The airlines they sold this jet to didn't ask for this feature or were even aware MCAS overrid manual controls. Both crashes happened because pilots didn't know how to disable it.

As far as I understand MCAS give more accurate readings. Without it there would be more crashes

I believe a lot of this has to do with United Airlines demanding Beoing to keep the same control scheme in the cockpit, otherwise they would have to retrain pilots

And it costs money to redesign an airframe. It's more cost effective to slap an extra module onto an old design

 

[Tireseas]

They are kinda one in the same. Deregulation goes hand in hand with defunding and relying more on the manufacturers to self regulate, which can work, but only if they aren't really bottom line driven and try and cut corners. Which as history has shown, you cannot rely on.

Ideologically, you are correct. The same impulse that guts other regulatory agencies rules and restrictions also tends to lead to personnel decisions such as this.

 

[SilentPony]

Thanks deregulation.

Hey do you know how many jobs the jobs creators created thanks to deregulation? Job creators create jobs that otherwise wouldn't be jobs, and its all thanks to deregulation and generous tax breaks that mean job creators can create jobs.
Its basic Math Economics Capitalism 101: 1. Give large Corporations money.

 

[stroopwafel]

I think - and my memory may be faulty here - the MCAS was created as a response to aerodynamic problems with the plane. As a cost and time saving measure, rather than design a whole new plane, they attempted to adapt the existing 737. Unfortunately the basic 737 structure was not suited to the changes desired, which meant the plane was unstable in certain circumstances. Therefore they designed the MCAS, which was to automatically correct for this instability, and it was integral to the plane's functioning.

I would suggest the crashes didn't just happen because the pilots didn't know how to disable it, but that they didn't know why they should disable it and in what cirucmstances. And they didn't because Boeing had concealed so much about it - because it was inherently a cover-up for a poor aeroplane design. As for holding delivery even just to fix the MCAS design flaws, it would have cost money. Someone didn't want to lose that money, and whoever in Boeing recognised there was a problem evidently weren't powerful enough to dissuade the powers that be that wanted it released.

They definitely hid it well. They didn't even reveal the existence of MCAS until after the Lion Air crash. It wasn't in the manual and pilots weren't aware of it. It makes it even that much worse that Boeing was aware of it's malfunction and that the plane prioritized the system over manual inputs. When MCAS puts the plane in downward pitch it's almost impossible to pull it back up b/c electric power to the stabilizer is cut. That's the way it was designed; that MCAS must not be prevented when it's activated. Obviously Boeing puts more faith in faulty technology than airline pilots. But you're right that MCAS was implementd in 737 MAX to compensate for the plane pitching up due to further forward and higher placement of engines. Apparently Boeing didn't mention MCAS b/c they considered it part of the flight control system that could emulate the previous 737 so pilots would require no additional training. The downside ofcourse is that pilots also assumed the plane wouldn't fly in a low pitch after take-off they then couldn't recover from by manual controls.

I would argue that deregulation was less of a problem and more defunding of federal experts that led the FAA to outsource a lot of its compliance inspections to the companies that they were supposed to regulate as well as a climate of essentially the same FAA officials and experts being a revolving door between the agency and Boeing.

It's even worse. Findings of FAA's own technical experts were overruled at the behest of Boeing.

''Multiple career FAA officials have documented examples where FAA management overruled a determination of the FAA’s own technical experts at the behest of Boeing. These examples are consistent with results of a recent draft FAA employee “safety culture” survey that showed many FAA employees believed its senior leaders are more concerned with helping industry achieve its goals and are not held accountable for safety-related decisions.''

Airbus is the only company that really competes with Boeing.

In commercial airplanes maybe but Boeing is also the biggest DoD contractor and much of the technology carries over(MCAS in this case was first used in a KC-45 air force tanker).

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

The best regulation money could buy (off). Why spend money on safety when it's cheaper to pay out on wrongful-death judgments?

 

[Trunkage]

It's even worse. Findings of FAA's own technical experts were overruled at the behest of Boeing.

''Multiple career FAA officials have documented examples where FAA management overruled a determination of the FAA’s own technical experts at the behest of Boeing. These examples are consistent with results of a recent draft FAA employee “safety culture” survey that showed many FAA employees believed its senior leaders are more concerned with helping industry achieve its goals and are not held accountable for safety-related decisions.''

I'm pretty sure I read that it even a bunch of safety officials in Boeing said this was a bad idea but we're overruled