The real reason Boeing’s new plane crashed twice

The real reason Boeing’s new plane crashed twice


This is an airplane engine. It’s sitting in a field in Bishoftu, Ethiopia—
part of the wreckage of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, which crashed on March 10, 2019. 157 people died. This was just a few months after another flight,
Lion Air 610, crashed in Indonesia and killed 189 people. These two flights were operating the same
plane: The Boeing 737 MAX 8. And its engine is the key to understanding
why this particular plane has caused so many problems. But there’s nothing actually wrong with this
engine. In fact, airplane manufacturers raced to put
them on their new planes. That’s where the problem started. The two biggest airplane manufacturers in
the world are Airbus and Boeing. And they have a fierce rivalry. If one of them can offer a better plane, the
other could lose a lot of money. That’s exactly what was about to happen in
2010. Airbus announced that they would update their
most popular model, the A320, a single-aisle airplane that services many domestic flights. You’ve probably been on one. For this new plane, Airbus had a big update. It would have a new kind of engine. It was much larger than the previous engine, but it would make the plane 15 percent
more fuel efficient. And just as importantly, this upgrade wouldn’t
change the plane that much. A pilot could walk into the new model, with
little additional training, and be on their way. It was called the A320 NEO, and it would save
airlines a lot of money. This was a problem for Boeing. To compete with Airbus, Boeing’s obvious move
was to upgrade the engine on their single-aisle plane, the 737. But there was one issue. Here’s a sketch of the 737 next to the Airbus
A320. Notice how the 737 is lower to the ground
than the A320. This meant Airbus could slide a new engine
under the wing of their A320. But there wasn’t enough room under the wing
of the Boeing 737. But a few months later, Boeing’s product development
head had big news. He said: “We figured out a way to get a big
enough engine under the wing.” Their solution was to move up the engine on
the wing, so that it would be slightly higher and it would fit on their 737s. Here’s a promotional video of that updated
737 in the air. You can actually see that the top of the engine
is above the wing. Boeing called this model the 737 MAX. And just like Airbus with the A320, Boeing
said their new plane was so similar to its predecessor that pilots would only need minimal
additional training. The 737 MAX became the hottest selling plane
on the market. And it helped Boeing keep up with AirBus. Except, moving the engine up on the 737
had a side effect. When the 737 MAX was in full thrust, like
during takeoff, the nose tended to point too far upward, which could lead to a stall. This was a problem, because these planes were
supposed to behave exactly like the old ones. So Boeing came up with a workaround. Instead of re-engineering the plane, they
installed software that automatically pushed the nose downward if the pilot flew the plane
at too high of an angle. They called it the Maneuvering Characteristics
Augmentation System, or MCAS. But because Boeing was selling the 737 MAX
as pretty much the same plane as the 737, they didn’t highlight the new MCAS system. Many pilots only got a two-hour iPad course
before entering the cockpit for the first time. And the “training material did not mention”
the MCAS software. In 2018, several American pilots complained
to the federal government that the 737 MAX was “suddenly nosing down.” On October 29, 2018, Lion Air Flight 610 took
off from Jakarta. In the flight report, which shows the plane’s
altitude over time, you can see that the plane was in full thrust during takeoff. But at a certain point, the nose of the plane
kept lurching downward. The pilots couldn’t figure out why this was
happening. The captain “asked the first officer to check
the quick reference handbook.” They couldn’t find the solution. The pilots continued to fight with the MCAS. The plane struggled to gain altitude. Reports show it was likely because the computer
was getting incorrect sensor data, pushing the plane toward the earth below. 12 minutes after takeoff, the plane crashed
into the Java Sea. In the Ethiopia crash, the report shows that
the pilots were actually able to disable the MCAS, but it was too late to overcome the
malfunctioning MCAS sensors. For now, nearly every 737 MAX 8 in service
has been grounded. And the Federal Aviation Administration is
facing scrutiny over how they rushed this plane through certification. Boeing’s response has been to apply a software
update and make the MCAS “less aggressive,” while also saying they’ll increase pilot training
on how to turn it off. This problem started with a company’s race
to compete with its rival. It pushed them to pretend like their new plane
behaved exactly like their old one. Even when it didn’t.

100 thoughts on “The real reason Boeing’s new plane crashed twice

  1. There is no theoretical limit People can og to when gripped by GREED;we have a short saying, `Much wants more` which basically means that those who have much,like fex wealth always want more and there`s no upper limit and this scandal serves Boeing right,well deserved. Greed has existed for millennia but in the last 20-30 years a New type of almost fanatical greed has taken root,evident in countless goods and services all across the Board combined With an even greater Focus on materialism than ever.

  2. The end stages of capitalism: big corporations buying government safety administration to make more money of its unsafe products

  3. The video is largely correct but omits another part of the problem. To mount the engines higher without redesigning the wing the heavier engines were also installed further forward by extending the engine mounting, changing the center of mass. This, added to raising the center of thrust from raising the engines compounded the the problem significantly. It should be noted that Boeing had already done a similar thing when installing earlier fatter engines on the -300 series which required them to create a fix called Speed Trim. They didn't learn, did they.

    MCAS – May Crash Any Second.

  4. When they Fix the problem. They should put the entire board of directors onboard and take the plane through a 1000 take offs and landings. Only then the FAA must clear this plane. I guess the engineers of the FAA who clear this plane for use must also be onboard.

  5. personally I don't think the mcas is to be blamed
    but the lack of training about it for the pilots
    if the pilots know how to control the mcas thing, none of this would've happened…
    preparation guys!

  6. Wouldn’t it make more sense for Boeing to raise the plane higher so they could fit the bigger engines. It seems a lot less troublesome than moving the engines up and ruining that balance of airflow.

  7. Im an engineer. This is true. The 737 was originally designed 1960s to compete with the DC-9 at small airports. And include its own air-stairs. Get the passengers on and off quickly. That's why the 737s sit lower to the ground than an A320. Back in the 60s Boeing engineers never imagined trying to stuff a huge fuel efficient 15 million(each) GE LEAP engine under a 737 40 years later. Big trouble

  8. My dad was at the Boeing headquarters he said there was not one plane on displayed wherever he walked very sad

  9. These planes now with glass cockpits give out too many warnings when there is a computer failure with the plane the pilots don't know what to address first

  10. The 737 perhaps need to be redesigned in a big way, especially the engine. It needs to be the same size as the 737-900 but more efficient.

    Hopefully this problem can be resolved quickly.

  11. Oh great!Boeing plans to fix a software issue with another software issue!
    If The Boeing 737 Max is ungrounded I am gonna get scared

  12. Americans proving again their endless greed… of course it's not happening just there, but others are not saying that they are the "greatest country on the planet"… You really should and could do better.

  13. Lots of hate here for Boeing but I mean seems more like a training thing and an airlines skimping out a bit. Since to my knowledge it's not like the DC-10 cargo door issues, now is it bad these things happened but well so far it's only 2 crashes to my knowledge which if one adds in the rest of the 737's track record and compare it to other aircraft it's about average so far. Plus it's a 52 year old design that due to pressure from well Airbus because that's the way it works they could not really develop a whole new plane with out cutting lots of corners, so we got a remix of an old plane and some executives who bought it did not really check to make sure they trained the guys(pilots and ground crew)on everything.

    Now don't get me wrong it's a horrible thing but hey airlines have different training methods or regiments so maybe they left something out. Again it's a 52 odd year old plane, executives without really looking into it may have just assumed that all they did was change the engines and it would be normal like the previous generation.Though the MCAS sensor problems maybe there was a design fault idk, maybe they should have just taken their time again idk.

  14. This is a tragically eye-opening wake up call to differentiate what should be controlled by humans and what should be left to machine. No matter how advanced or should I say "intelligent" you think your technology is, it is just a lifeless piece of machine – whether it is good or bad, useful or useless depends a lot on the knowledge and moral of the humans who create it. So before you create anything, whether it is a business, a product, a service, or anything, please be a decent human being first!!

  15. Dude! It appears you have identified the elevator as the stabilizer. You might want to check that out. Thanks for the video.

  16. Strange, I thought murdering people has consequences. But I guess psychopaths have figured out that you can do it this way instead.

  17. Sorry, just a question, what will happen to the MAX if Boeing fitted a new and taller landing gear to overcome the clearance issue instead of repositioning the engines entirely?

    Edit: spelling

  18. Boeing Are A Disgrace They Should Be All Put Up On Charges And Hand All Profits From That Plane To The Victims Family Because They Do Not Deserve That Profit…

  19. They should have gone with an adjustable landing gear. Lower the landing gear while taxiing. When the plane is ready to take off, raise the landing gear. Then the plane is in the air, lower and retract the landing gear.

  20. This video only covers the tip of the iceberg. The largest underlying problem takes much longer to explain and boils down to what one author called airmanship. A it of the pilots in these small, foreign, lowpay, regional airlines are not trained to the level of traditional military aviators and basically have only been exposed to aircraft that literally fly themselves. They are able to disable all of the automatic stabilization of the plane with one switch and take over control of it themselves, but that either didn't happen or they didn't have the skills to deal with the situation after disabling them. It was a LONG article. I'm going to dig it up and read it again.

  21. Or is it because one airline used junk repair parts and the pilots were not well trained in general? Sure, Boing made mistakes. But American pilots handled it a lot better.

  22. This is a big learning for aerospace industry. Never hurry up to make quick money you will be putting lots of peoples life in danger…

  23. I know it doesn’t have that much to do with the video but see what happen you rush the things? Many people are complaining about crowdfunding games taking too long and that’s basically an example, a tragic one, of what happens when you rush the things, furthermore then you come and complain.

  24. so boeing already knew that their design was doomed due to the low level of the engine… they just wanted to milk it as much as they could

  25. Real reason it crashed- pilots who do not know how to turn off two switches and were improperly trained and NEVER trained to fly manually. This video is mostly a lie

  26. Boeing could get away from fines.. but they can't get away from major business losses.. Boeing can't control people or airlines..

  27. Wow, this us nuts, i was actually on this type of plane, and I remember there was a huge amount of turbulence in good weather.

  28. Pickle forks! Ansi. It looks like the airflow is not optimal, their airframes are deteriorating faster than expected which is a problem averted. How long have the jets been using flight characteristics manipulation software? They should be able to fly the planes without robotic interference. Doesn't the software reduce maneuverability? The plane pitches up, the surfaces compensate, and that's what's putting the extra load on the pickle forks. It's like drive a car with bad tow angle

  29. I expected b s but this was seemingly straight- forward video I guess because I don't really know how this is spun, Perceived or all factual data involved.

  30. If I put 4 smaller engines on my plane I may have more reserve power and less engine speed overall reducing fuel consumption but I don't have a plane.

  31. The airbus company is rushing there plane and not teaching the pilot about the mcas and that caused hundreds of lives back then i loved airbus but now i dont think so

  32. It doesn’t hurt saying the MAX is slightly different. Boeing messes up by saying a couple of words

    “They are very similar” talking about the 737 MAX and 737-800.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *