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 Comments on "The real reason Boeing’s new plane crashed twice"


  1. Beautifully made and it explains everything really well. The overall feeling is sympathetic to the people that died on those planes while being aggressive to Boeing for it's lack of training

    Reply

  2. The reason the 737 is close to the ground is because cargo and baggage handlers asked it be that way a long time ago. Time to raise the landing gear.

    Reply

  3. This report fail sto mention two issues in the handling of the event that did take place. One. The pilots never made any attempt to throttle back, but continued to leave the engines at full thrust during the entire attempt to get the plane up in the air. The plane was in excess of its regulatory maximum speed at that altitude. Two. The pilots truned off the auto pilot system to take manual control as per the recommended procedure which gave them more control and stopped the MCAS control from repeatedly directing the trajectory of the 737 down but later turned it bck on which then repeated the same effect all over again. and was in operation when the plane went down.

    Reply

  4. This is an incredibly mis-informed synopsis. The fact that the presenter calls the 737 the "Seven Three Seven" instead of a "Seven-thirty-seven" tells a lot.

    Reply

  5. Boeing and the Airlines are forgetting one thing and that is will the general public ever put their butts on a max again. My guess is the general public will begin asking what model of plane will i be flying on and if the answer is a 737 max they will ask for another flight with another model. IMO Boeing has lost trust with the public and for them to put a plane in the sky they knew could have safety cocerns is inexcuseable. IMO in time Boeing bankruptcy will be a major news headline.

    Reply

  6. Man, that's phuqed up, So Boeing knew this was an issue, did a cheap quick fix and didn't tell anybody about it. I guess it time to place a long put on some of their stock!!!

    Reply

  7. You don’t turn off MCAS. MCAS is part of the flight control laws in the FCC’s. Can’t turn off FCC’s in any airplane even Airbus’

    Reply

  8. If a larger engine was too close to the ground at the correct COG, why not make the undercarriage stalks longer? May have been extra design costs with the wheel housing etc. but that's chicken feed compared with the the problem they have now.

    Reply

  9. Please respect human life how can whites be so heartless. So evil. Why wont you get the koreans or clever chinese sort out your computers man this hurts.

    Reply

  10. Could someone give me a reasonable explanation of why raising the engines would possibly cause a pitch-up situation?

    Reply

  11. I took the AIRBUS A320 200 AIRCANADA And the AIRBUS A321 200 honestly there both good plane better then the 737

    Reply

  12. I know it doesn't matter, but I saw the promotional video and thought that the plane would be so nice to fly on. Oh, how I was wrong.

    Reply

  13. Yeah, it was due to untrained pilots in third world countries that had less than 200 hours in the air and should not have been flying sophisticated aircraft.. Don't blame Boeing lack of intelligence.

    Reply

  14. New Technology isn’t Safer . Computers should NEVER BE THE FULL PILOT. STOP REYING ON COMPUTERS!!!! You’re Killing PEOPLE…Computers don’t Care. Families DO!

    Reply

  15. hmmm, no USA pilots flying crashed; that says a lot; it says the pilots that crashed were not qualified to fly the plane; it was mostly their fault for not knowing how to properly fly the plane and know its controls and instruments; the air bus A320 flies by computers controlling much more or the plane than a Max plane; how about telling the REST of the facts and placing responsibility properly upon the pilots

    Reply

  16. Executives protected by the corporation do not have enough at personal risk to prevent them form making short term decisions for bonus and options. Capitalism is failing us in our technological world.

    Reply

  17. "The real reason Boeing planes crashed twice"
    DIVERSIYU IS OUR STRENGH
    Hire more Indians and Africans, until your planes can't even fly anymore.

    Reply

  18. They could Just put the gears more down

    But nooo they had to put the engine up and install a software which increases risk of a crash

    Reply

  19. Boeing, over the years, has become more motivated my money then engineering. They've gone from great things like the 747 ,which changed air travel forever, to things like the 737 max. I miss the old Boeing.

    Reply

  20. Good morning gamers and welcome to another swiss 001 video
    The plane begins to stall
    737 MAX Wikipedia page opens up

    Reply

  21. Again… America rushing to compete I stead of carefuly and slowely brewing something new and better.

    Reply

  22. The problem is to not let the pilot override the autopilots decisions. if the plane is going down, the pilot should be able to pull it up. Just this little glitch has cost boeing Billions and billions of dollars, not to mention the compensation to their costumers.

    Reply

  23. 4:08 That altitude chart gave me a creepy feeling, just thinking about the people on-board, not knowing that they would eventually end up in the sea.😔

    Reply

  24. The real pilots downvoted this video. When it comes to safety Airbus has one of the worst track records. I would feel safer in an airplane designed by a toddler then I would in an Airbus.

    Reply

  25. The implications of this situation are both interesting and concerning, this is an example of an auto pilot or ai killing people. With self driving cars right around the corner this example is going to be something we as people have to remember moving forward. It's hard to tell if the MCAS prevented any fatal stalls in it's time of operation but we now know for sure without it 300+ people would of likely lived. The pilots lost control of their aircraft to a computer ai(although a simple one) and caused the death of a bunch of people. This is one of the realities we will have to face as we add automation to transportation.

    Reply

  26. Real problem w/adding Larger engines is misalignment of Jet Thrust w/AirFoil> A/C used to have a jet engine located in the Rudder above the wings to offset overturning (pitch up) moment of engines located BELOW the wing airfoil> so even tho Boeing raised engines up, it wasn't far enough so engine thrust overwhelms wing & elevator airfoil that has to provide an opposing moment to counter rotate A/C (pitch down) so the plane goes into an :"Oscillation" like that 1950s "Gallaping Gurty" bridge that resonated w/offshore wind blowing across it, giving airfoil lift to the bridge until it broke

    Reply

  27. Boeing's fix, they renamed MCAS to RCAS or "Roller Coaster Action Simulator" and everyone just started putting their hands up when it happened.

    Reply

  28. One aoa sensor…. watch AvE video about taking one of those apart… yeaaaah theres a reason military planes have 4 of the same aoa sensor

    Reply

  29. The pilots disabled something they didn't and couldn't know existed. They showed more ingenuity and intelligence than company heads.

    Reply

  30. Watched a video one time about times the MCAS kicked in and the (extremely experienced and somewhat lucky) pilots managed to recover. The maneuver to recover is counterintuitive – to keep from hitting the ground, you have to initially fly faster toward it, to gain lift. Only highly experienced pilots can be expected to pull this off, and even they will be SOL if they are close to the ground when they start dropping like a rock.

    Reply

  31. Never fly it let Boeing rot and lose billions it’s their fault never let anyone fly this even after the “fix” it – to honor those who died

    Reply

  32. The mcas reduces manueverabilty by forcing the tail to pitch up to accommodate the misplaced… essentially the engines are the problem if the engines engineered themselves

    Reply

  33. The planes crashed due to an "autopilot" malfunctioning. There is an option to turn this off and gain control of the aircraft manually. However this did not happen as the required training required to become a commercial pilot is very little in the countries where the crash happened compared to other countries around the world. Yes BOEING made the mistake of saying the planes could practically fly themselves but it also comes down the inexperienced pilots inability to take manual control and the airlines who employ these practices. The planes are built with redundancies so if one part fails it will not compromise the planes safety. The redundancy in these situations were the pilots which also "failed" that led to the unfortunate crash.

    I am not saying the information in this video is incorrect just incomplete. Painting a sunrise without blue turns a peaceful image into an inferno on the horizon.

    Reply

  34. None of what you say is incorrect, EXCEPT the insinuation that it should have taken far more than two hours to explain a single single with a single ON/OFF switch to pilots with thousands of hours of experience. We ALL know of throttle pitch-up, and we ALL know that more powerful engines would cause more pitch-up, probably into dangerous regimes, that MCAS is a sensor-based, software solution. But as highly trained and highly experienced pilots, we also know that the correct procedure when encountering either defective or malfunctioning systems is to TURN IT OFF and FLY THE PLANE. In one of the two crashes, that was never done. The pilot fought the malfunctioning system the entire time. In the other crash, the pilot flipped the system off several times, but for some unfathomable reason, instead of trimming their aircraft and/or using a lower throttle setting, he kept turning the malfunctioning system back on, which resulted in the crash.

    PILOT ERROR on BOTH occasions.

    Reply

  35. No, you are wrong , they are typical duopoly. None of them are willing to spend any money on R&D because they know that if they do so, their rival would do the same, which means they both have to spend more and more money on R&D. Boeing have been investing much more money in legal rather than R&D

    Reply

  36. It's a buncha people doing their best on a massive project with millions involved and your throwing a jet in the air… it's a miracle anything works.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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