Flying the Boeing 737 Max 8: A pilot’s view from inside the cockpit

Share
Embed
  • Published on Mar 18, 2019
  • Capt. Dennis Tajer of American Airlines and the Allied Pilots Association explains what it’s like to fly the Boeing 737 Max 8, and why a new flight control system was a surprise to pilots. That system could have played a role in two recent Max 8 crashes. Read more: wapo.st/2HGASfo. Subscribe to The Washington Post on RUclip: wapo.st/2QOdcqK
    Follow us:
    Twitter: twitter.com/washingtonpost
    Instagram: instagram.com/washingtonpost/
    Facebook: facebook.com/washingtonpost/

Comments • 1 901

  • Paragon Jaya Teknik
    Paragon Jaya Teknik 3 hours ago

    Thank you Ipad & Boeing !!! You save company alot of money and cause people life !!!

  • K. S.
    K. S. 20 hours ago

    "it WAS an enjoyable plane to fly" - let's hope it stays that way.

  • broomsterm
    broomsterm Day ago

    Don't stall the damned thing.

  • SuperGreenlaser
    SuperGreenlaser Day ago

    Cost of doing buisness Boeing?

  • Zaalim Rajput
    Zaalim Rajput Day ago

    Times Up for Boeing. SORRY

  • Seah Han Sheng
    Seah Han Sheng 3 days ago

    No one fking care about what u say anymore. This air plane is doom for its safety and design failure.

  • Pity me Nonchalang
    Pity me Nonchalang 3 days ago

    Why that software when you have a trained pilot for the aircraft. So many lives

  • Andrea Mendes
    Andrea Mendes 4 days ago

    BOYCOTT Boeing 737 MAX aircraft period!!

  • Edward Jam
    Edward Jam 4 days ago

    Fucken American greed!!!

  • Occams Razor
    Occams Razor 4 days ago

    The problem is that an airplane is a big, complicated network of interconnected parts.
    To get the engine under the 737 wing, Boeing engineers had to mount the engine nacelle higher and more forward on the plane.
    But moving the engine nacelle (and a related change to the nose of the plane) changed the aerodynamics of the plane, such that the plane did not handle properly at a high angle of attack.
    That, in turn, led to the creation of the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS that this pilot makes out too be a blessing instead of a BAND-AID!
    Yeah, It fixed the angle-of-attack problem in most situations, but it created new problems in other situations when it made it difficult for pilots to directly control the plane without being overridden by the MCAS.
    NOTE that the underlying problem isn’t really software; it’s with the effort to use software to get around a whole host of other problems.

  • Valerie Griner
    Valerie Griner 4 days ago +1

    So...56 minutes of training on an iPad. Hmmmm. That really sucks.

  • GL K
    GL K 4 days ago

    He should be a Boeing spokesman.

  • marc atkinson
    marc atkinson 4 days ago +2

    MCAS is band-aid to save money for Boeing. The entire airframe needs to be re-designed to accommodate huge diameter HBTF engines.
    This plane is a coffin. I will never fly on it.

  • Integrity Guo
    Integrity Guo 5 days ago +3

    Why he wasn’t flying those doomed planes? That would be ironic right?

  • lsb3340
    lsb3340 5 days ago +2

    Congrats Boeing, your race killed people.

  • Roy Gutfinski
    Roy Gutfinski 5 days ago

    Boeing should have originally developed the 737 Max flight control software around the scenario of a "design basis accident," in which failure of sensor inputs was anticipated and allowing all flight control to revert immediately to full crew override of the MCAS system. It appears that is what is being done now, but why was it not done before the aircraft series was allowed into service?

  • Rumen Lazarov
    Rumen Lazarov 6 days ago

    Watch the VOX video that explains why they had to create the MCAS. Basically these scumbags couldn’t keep up with Airbus that were able to put bigger engines on existing planes that save money for airlines. Boeing are killers

  • Ray Gao
    Ray Gao 6 days ago

    Just wake up! I will not ever fly on these planes. Boeing needs to write them off. The plane has fundamental flaws. (it is too low to the ground, so the bigger engines has to be moved to the front, while Airbus Neo planes did not need to do so). Basically the Plane is flawed with air dynamics, it is basically unstable to fly itself and need constant correction. Bad design bad plane, avoid it to save your life and your families lives.

  • Budi Situmorang
    Budi Situmorang 6 days ago +1

    MCAS, killing my colleague at Lion Air Flight 610 crash!

    • Doctor F
      Doctor F 5 days ago +1

      Budi Situmorang ... it’s a terrible and shocking loss of life. Entirely unacceptable that people died for this bullshit.

  • anton brum
    anton brum 7 days ago

    The courtroom and the huge loss of life will determined whether this aircraft flies again, not Boeing nor the FAA. Both airline and passenger confidence are needed. What if there is is another crash, who's head will be on the chopping block?

  • Anthony Almgren
    Anthony Almgren 7 days ago

    Shouldnt this just be a photo of the ground

  • Todd Lavigne
    Todd Lavigne 7 days ago

    engines are more forward on the wing, so therefore the center of gravity has moved forward, meaning it's a little more prone to nose down bias. MCAS isn't so good at low altitude.

    • John Majane
      John Majane 6 days ago

      Wrong they are at out front and more powerful producing a moment arm that pitches the nose up when in the "clean' configuration. The MCAS is there to help the pilot by pitching the nose down to counteract that issue at high angles of attack.

  • Jafan Fauzi
    Jafan Fauzi 7 days ago

    I smell bullshit and capitalism here

  • RoamArrow
    RoamArrow 8 days ago

    2:30 so basically the causes of the crash is negligence of putting the system in their training system?

  • Alikou Brujup
    Alikou Brujup 8 days ago

    Just curious, are those 2 new engines are the rootcause?

  • Imogen Harrison
    Imogen Harrison 8 days ago

    Once again. American commercial interests put above safety. Disturbing and shocking. But in the Trump era of economics, not surprising.

  • Milos Radojcic
    Milos Radojcic 8 days ago

    Fack the Boeing , Airbus is no 1

  • anselm sequeira
    anselm sequeira 8 days ago

    Reminds me of the time I worked for a company that made modems. They had fired a lot of the older engineers because they didn't know new technologies like C programming. So they ended up with engineers who could program in C but knew nothing about modems.
    I have been in a Boeing 747 simulator in 1978. The pilot told me that with the plane on auto-pilot he could take the controls and the controls would not 'fight back'. The auto-pilot would automatically disengage and then resume after he let go of the controls.

  • chris quirke
    chris quirke 8 days ago

    56 minutes shame shame shame

  • Kimmy Middleton
    Kimmy Middleton 8 days ago

    BOEING NEEDS TO ANSWER FOR THEIR OVER 300 COUNTS OF NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE!!!!!!!!!!! IDGAF WHAT ANYONE SAYS..THIS IS A FACT!!!!!!!

  • Dwi Cahyo Prasetyo
    Dwi Cahyo Prasetyo 8 days ago

    People life = iPad lesson.
    wow

  • Edward
    Edward 8 days ago

    There should have been two sensors...or 3 if possible

  • Ewan Black
    Ewan Black 8 days ago +2

    It would be interesting to find out the number of instances that MCAS activates on a regular flight for EVERY Max8 out there - is it a once in a blue moon occurrence, or an every flight occurrence - or even multiple times on every flight occurrence - as this will determine from a personal level - whether or not I'll ever fly in one.

  • Frank Lee
    Frank Lee 8 days ago

    Boeing makes a plane cannot fly straight. Even William Boeing could not believe it.

  • MrAlwaysBlue
    MrAlwaysBlue 8 days ago +4

    Between a rock and a hard place. Switch off MCAS via trim disable and you are flying an unstable aircraft. Good luck with that.

    • John Majane
      John Majane 6 days ago

      It is not unstable. You do know that Airbus is completely fly by wire all computer and is unstable don't you? There have been issues with them also but it seems for some reasons people want to destroy a US company and give others a pass.

  • Jeff Bourke
    Jeff Bourke 8 days ago +2

    737 Max should never fly again.

    • cvcoco
      cvcoco 6 days ago +1

      @Jeff Bourke
      it wont if people will refuse to fly in it. I never will.

  • Jeff Bourke
    Jeff Bourke 8 days ago

    0:24 "complements to boeing for whatever control laws they put in"

  • julini
    julini 9 days ago

    Just book me on an airbus already, flying is risky enough without some software point the nose down. You make radical changes to a plane, then please demand radical training, not reading on an ipad for less than an hour then taking off with 140 souls on board. These are two accidents too many, totally unacceptable.

  • suhail1452
    suhail1452 9 days ago +14

    MCAS MEANS "MAY CRASH ANY SECOND"

  • formerib
    formerib 9 days ago

    Case study in cutting corners. Boeing feeling competitive pressure from Airbus Neo (after they ignored it initially) they decided to keep stretching and modifying the 40 year old 737 platform instead of designing a brand new modern one. This was to save money and time. And to also make a competitive argument that the Max is same as old 737 and thus no training needed. But went too far with the limits of that 40 year old 737 airframe design. They made it unstable. Engines size and thrust are an integral part of the aerodynamics and balance of an aircraft. They simply stretched the plane too much and put too big of an engine on it that they upset the balance of the aircraft. MCAS was invented to stealthy correct a problem that did not exist with any of the previous 737 variants. Keep the plane from stalling because the engines under certain conditions can throw the nose up. And they designed it to act quietly in the background to give the impression that the plane did not need special training to fly and is no different the the previous 737’s. To make matters worse they did not document any of that. To make matters even worst the MCAS correction ability was more than an order of magnitude higher than what it was “certified” for as Boeing changed the limits (during the test flights) AFTER certification was granted and did not tell the FAA or document it for the airlines. And to make matters even even even further worst, they stupidly designed MCAS to receive input from a single sensor thus making it too prone to failure due to single false input (angle of attack). This was a managerial and engineering FUBAR. This will take Boeing down. One of the largest engineering FUBARs in aviation history. CEO and entire senior management team should be fired immediately.

  • Robert Stewart
    Robert Stewart 9 days ago +1

    MCAS. Make Crashing Automatic System. Its a faulty aircraft. they should not have to make correction software. A plane that cannot fly straight and level with all flight systems set at neutral should not be certified to carry passengers

  • cndvd
    cndvd 9 days ago +3

    Sounds like you should leave the two switches for MCAS off all the time. Then it won't take over the plane.

  • mari kiuchi
    mari kiuchi 9 days ago

    After the 2 crashes, if i lost my family in the crash. i would hate this pilot who is so confident in the safty of the 737 MAX.

  • King Mojo
    King Mojo 10 days ago +6

    A design flaw lead to the introduction of the MCAS, which sends the aircraft nose down lazy Boeing should have redesign the whole fuselage this plane not safe to fly.

    • John Majane
      John Majane 5 days ago

      +King Mojo many planes exhibit the same behavior, rapid pitch up under full power. My Bonanza in the landing configuration will pitch up strongly when you apply full power during a go around. You must push hard on the yoke while putting in down trim. Unchecked the plane would stall. The design flaw was with the MCAS. Only one source of information, nothing in the manual, no indicator it is working or has failed, no emergency procedures. The fact is the Ethiopian plane suffered an failure previously and a pilot riding jump seat pulled the breakers per Boeing's instructions and they flew the rest of the flight. The accident pilots pulled the breakers then reset them against the new procedures. I never said it wasn't Boeing's fault but the design error is in the MCAS not the plane.

    • King Mojo
      King Mojo 5 days ago

      +John Majane The MCAS was set up to compensate for the aircraft design flaw....Boeings fault mate

    • John Majane
      John Majane 6 days ago

      It was not a design flaw. They recognized that there had to be something to counteract the pitching up at full power and they put the MCAS in. The design flaw was having it get it's information from one source instead of two to have a referee and then also not putting the system in the manuals, not including a failure indicator or at least one that showed it was engaged and not having a procedure.

  • Tomas Av.
    Tomas Av. 10 days ago

    WOW WHAT A PAID PROMOTION FOR A KILLER PLANE.

  • SV methos
    SV methos 11 days ago

    And 90% chance of dying.

  • Allen Yeong
    Allen Yeong 11 days ago

    Boeing claim MCAS installed is to offset a stall, when Boeing explain a stall, they put up a photograph of a 737 at 45 degree with wind flowing horizontally, and that is not what is happening, when the plane is at 45 degrees and at high speed, wind does not flow horizontally as claim by Boeing, but should be flowing horizontally with the plane, and therefore stalling will not occur, period

  • jan kowalski
    jan kowalski 11 days ago +1

    I am a biomedical engineer. For example a dialysis machine has 5 or at least 3 sensors for monitoring critical parameters. For redundancy. 737 max employed one AOA sensor! That is a No No.I can't believe an engineer decided on that. How can we trust Boeing product and FAA again?? Next I am a sailor. I let the controls of my boat loose and it will position itself upwind in a safe position. 737 max seems is unstable by design. It needs computer to keep it stable. Probably the plane has to be redesigned. And Boeing management replaced with real engineers.

    • John Majane
      John Majane 6 days ago

      +jan kowalski basically what I said. Nothing to referee the system, no indication it is active or has failed. No mention of it in the manuals either. They screwed up. There is also an issue with the pilots, many are trained in the simulator, have no small plane experience where you learn the basic reflexes and why things happen and what to do.

    • jan kowalski
      jan kowalski 6 days ago

      +John Majane ok. I am just saying. To control critical parameter automatically - like plane's pitch. And to rely on one AOA sensor for this. Is something I had never seen in medical equipment - to make a comparison. Minimum two sensors are needed for something like this. With an alarm in case of disagreement. And autotest of the system and sensors before takoff. If engineers came up with one sensor design. That is even worse and really really bad.

    • John Majane
      John Majane 6 days ago

      Not unstable, the system is to counter a pitch up movement when the engines are at full power and the plane is in the clean configuration. This was an engineering decision not a management decision.

  • BR549
    BR549 11 days ago

    This guy reminded me of that line in Driving Miss Daisy, when Daisy said "I thought I was going to spit up."

  • Your Best Secretary
    Your Best Secretary 12 days ago

    I'm not going to risk my life flying in this plane. There shouldn't be any scenario for any stall to happen to any plane in mid air. I'm not an engineer but I don't like to fly on a plane whose big engines title the plane's nose at such a dangerous angle that a mid air stall has become the expected events that need to be corrected. It's like cooking on a stove that is going to explode once it reaches a certain temperature and I'm supposed to be vigilant in monitoring the temperature while cooking to avoid an explosion. To me, this plane seems to have an inherent design flaw which is dependent on the use of an additonal software to correct, and the software in turn creates an additonal mechanism for the possibility of mistakes and mulfunction.

  • Hugh Mungus
    Hugh Mungus 12 days ago

    There’s a lot of aircraft experts in this comment section🤔

  • tiffsaver
    tiffsaver 13 days ago

    There's actually a name they give people who fly the Boeing 737 Max 8: "Kamikazi Pilots."

  • DAV
    DAV 13 days ago

    Boing you were dumb stupid. Now you will pay wait and see. No excuse for stupidity.

  • Don Moore
    Don Moore 13 days ago

    This video troubles me. It is biased towards Boeing. Not cool, WP.

  • Don Moore
    Don Moore 13 days ago

    It's crystal clear that software can not compensate for the airframe design. This thing will never be safe - it will either over or under compensate depending on how they write the software. Simulator training should have been required for such a complex system, with failure scenarios (AOA sensor) replicated. 300+ people died for the sake of $$$ - ridiculous. Someone should go to prison.

  • fruit
    fruit 14 days ago

    THE 737 MAX IS AN INHERENTLY UNSTABLE. SOFTWARE IS NOT GOING TO FIX IT. STOP MAKING AND SELLING THE FLYING COFFIN

  • jzm
    jzm 14 days ago

    Boeing should be held accountable. Fuckn cunts

  • Sean Bailey
    Sean Bailey 14 days ago

    Put the 717 and MD 90 back in production. You're better with Douglas!

  • suhail1452
    suhail1452 15 days ago

    DID BOEING DONE ENOUGH TO RESPOND TO DEADLY CRASH OF LION AIR DT. 29-10-18 INVOLVING IT'S 737-MAX 8 ---KILLING 189 INNOCENT PASSENGERS?

    ANSWER IS BIG NO!!!!!!!!!!!

    BOEING waited for about five months for Ethiopian air crash catastrophe to happen---killing another 157 passengers on board---THAN ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY POINTBLANK


    IS THIS DELAY NOT ENOUGH TO CHARGE BOEING FOR CULPABLE HOMICIDE?

  • Marcus Morrison
    Marcus Morrison 15 days ago

    A.I flying the plane in the most dangerous moments in flight. 100% guarantee that information, technology, cuts in service maintenance and bad weather present a ton of challenges ahead.

  • RON JAGRAF/X
    RON JAGRAF/X 15 days ago

    Interrogetories to the Boeing Product Design Organizaton need to be made as to why the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) [which is now being press-released as "stall prevention software"] was deemed necessary for these models in the first place. We have heard assertions that among the objectives of the MCAS system was to make the newly configured MAX models have similar flight characteristics to the older, smaller, lower powered 737 configurations. Inquiries may indeed prove that the Company’s objectives were more related to pilot recertification requirements than flight control & stability conditions of the specific aircraft being sold. The MCAS may indeed be a type of “training wheels bridge” which indeed computer-simulates the older aircraft to the MAX without the bothersome stop for training in the interim or recertification of pilots on what is ostensibly a new and different aircraft.

  • santa gemma
    santa gemma 16 days ago

    No Rush on going back to The sky please

  • santa gemma
    santa gemma 16 days ago

    Can you Trust the Máx?

  • Eritrawi seb
    Eritrawi seb 16 days ago +1

    I bet that this plane type will be discontinued shortly

  • mangalores-x_x
    mangalores-x_x 17 days ago

    Well, the new news reported that the pilots knew and went through all the procedures taught by Boeing and in their manual. but the system spazzed out anyway. Also: Probably SW airlines gets preferrential treatment to some airlines from Africa or Asia.

  • farras irfano
    farras irfano 17 days ago

    This is bullshit

  • Srinivasan Sadasivam
    Srinivasan Sadasivam 18 days ago

    Wow, he basically says the Lion Air and Ethiopian pilots didn't know the existence of MCAS and the cut off. The truth came out yesterday. US pilots have tendency to think pilots from third world airlines are not properly trained and they just can't fly this darn airplane. Whew ! The facts are coming out and indeed in both crashes, the pilots tried electrical switches on their columns to bring the nose back up but MCAS was too aggressive. Damn, they flipped the switch to cut off power to the stab and tried the hand wheel to stabilize. But lower altitude and massive forces counteracting on the jackscrew didn't help them. Try googling roller coaster method used to control similar runaway conditions in very old 737s. Those recovery procedures disappeared from recent manuals.

  • Cesar Vargas
    Cesar Vargas 18 days ago

    Boeing 737 MAX is the result of a desperate manner to win the race of the Aircraft Manufacturers against Airbus, A perfectly airborne ,trustworthy ,reliable frame which allowed 737 to evolve through years into different generations since the JT8D to powerful CFM's but never in life threaten the aerodynamics of the frame ,which MAX designers have pushed it so far beyond limits making it dangerous to fly ,with lifting moments never considered in previous generations that put it in to stall after certain angle of attack. And yet dare to correct it with an automated software that force the trimmable horizontal stabilizer against pilots control, the THS a second control surface,crucial for flight.This is not about a software Fix ,this a Mayor Frame Alteration due to bigger diameter Fan cowlings with less fuel consumption thus generating dangerous extra lift for a former dependable 737 frame and its behaviour for years. Is not a slight change in its aerodynamics. Its a dangerous change.

  • Supreme Unicorn
    Supreme Unicorn 19 days ago +1

    And all of the sudden everybody in the comment section becomes and engineer, pilot, politician, judge etc...
    May the soul of those gone rest in peace and their families find strength to move forward,
    I personally can't wait to either be a passenger on 737 Max 8or fly one of those.
    It's ok to feel how you guys feel and its ok for me to want to move forward.

  • knight fox
    knight fox 19 days ago

    Ohhh, so minute video was enough for me to learn to turn off MCAS and those pilots driving the damn thing had no clue about that? More like a bs there

  • Doutor Gori
    Doutor Gori 19 days ago

    It's an enjoyable plane to fly. Until it crashes and kills everyone on board.

  • DJ FX
    DJ FX 19 days ago

    Flying coffin

  • Dragzilla 66
    Dragzilla 66 19 days ago

    Outdated defected plane design.

  • Jeff Bryan
    Jeff Bryan 19 days ago

    Nicest Cattle Truck with Wings I ever rode in.

  • Artur
    Artur 19 days ago

    MCAS - Multiple Corpses Augmentetion System - Dont leave home without it

  • Tommy Sullivan
    Tommy Sullivan 19 days ago

    Could the Boeing system which allows ground systems take control of the plane since 2001 have anything to do with important persons aboard some planes have any connection to these crashes of convenience?

  • Ravinbernstin
    Ravinbernstin 19 days ago +3

    What it actually looks like to fly in a 737 max:
    Straight to the ground while

  • Dhenis asmara suryadarma
    Dhenis asmara suryadarma 20 days ago +2

    The pilot had follow all boeing emergency procedures, how about that?

    • Dragzilla 66
      Dragzilla 66 19 days ago

      That's one crazy update right there. This plane is defective.

  • Kevin Lee
    Kevin Lee 20 days ago +1

    Theres no problem about Boeing 737 MAX the problem is lack of training to all Pilot regarding the new MCAS installed. 👆👍

    • Lazic B.
      Lazic B. 19 days ago

      Surprise, surprise! It's NOT! Investigation of Ethiopian airlines Boeing 737 MAX crash just confirmed that pilots followed procedure. Issued by Boeing after crash of Lion Air. This video is blatant mocking of Ethiopian airlines pilots that did the correct thing!

  • Joe Patroni
    Joe Patroni 20 days ago

    Due to lawsuits and safety issues, I strongly believe this plane will NOT fly again for 24-36 months. This is pure tragedy that could have been prevented. A recession could arise from this as they usually start with the airlines,,,,Safety trumps profits. Always.

  • Sean Pan
    Sean Pan 20 days ago

    The tendency to go nose-up? OMG!

    • Artur
      Artur 19 days ago +1

      Constant tendency, the only crews survive flight on that hell machine are the ones which swith off this system and done trimming manually.

  • ciaran kelly
    ciaran kelly 20 days ago

    Boeing put profits before lives! I will be flying Airbus on next trip on short European break!

    • Mrbrain bob
      Mrbrain bob 18 days ago

      Lmaooo other way around Airbus is known for its greed and corruption world wide, airbus doesnt innovate it copies.

  • Myron Proudput
    Myron Proudput 21 day ago

    You tell that pilot that he should know that it takes one gentle push foreward of the elevator control to decrease the angle of attack of the airflow confronting the wing, to recover from a stall at cruise, trimmed configuration at 500kts. nobody wants repeated attempts of a defective (since 1980) MCAS device to recover from a stall when a smart pilot would only do it once...You have got to be a pretty incompetent pilot to allow a plane to stall at strait and level cruise flight anyway...the 737 doesn't need that crazy gagit!

  • brian carno
    brian carno 21 day ago

    If the FAA had done its job properly and not been in the pocket of boeing this would never have happened...a symptom of how corrupt the USA has become

  • Abdul Hamid
    Abdul Hamid 22 days ago

    how much did Boeing pay him to say that

  • Amado Leon
    Amado Leon 22 days ago +1

    I've been flying for 45 years they got these guys coming here from other countries with 1500 hours and they put them in the left seat of a jet liner that's the problem

  • Ardent Fan
    Ardent Fan 22 days ago

    I bet this guy wished he never appeared in this video in the first place to promote this killer plane.

  • William B
    William B 22 days ago +1

    Corporations become arrogant, they tell the regulator what they choose to tell these regulators.
    The regulator doesn't like it? Well, that regulator can get stuffed, Boeing will see to it that the smartarse regulator gets the chop. No more problem. Keep churning them airplanes out, you guys. Same goes with the weapons manufacturing corporations, they tell the regulators what their job is "just don't interfere with what we do." Remember old Bob, well he had to go, otherwise, production would have been halted just because a couple of duds had popped out of the end chute and were delivered as good to go. Yep, we got rid of him.

  • Martin B
    Martin B 23 days ago

    MAX SAFETY FIRST BOEING. ALWAYS. NO OPTIONAL SAVINGS FOR AIRLINES.

  • Elaine Blackhurst
    Elaine Blackhurst 23 days ago +1

    How come the pilots of a brand new aircraft get 56 mins training on an I Pad to fly it no simulator nothing else totally unbelievable and scary
    How could Boeing put its customers at such risk and why was the FAA not overseeing this no wonder Mr Trumps wants an investigation through Congress to see why and whom certified this flying death trap to fly with things unknown to pilots
    All this rush to get the Maxx out because Airbus has a brilliant new safe plane called the Airbus Neo 20 years younger than theMaxx technology
    I would never ever fly Boeing. Airbus is the best in the world

  • Chris Bard
    Chris Bard 24 days ago

    So they've wanted to sell the airplane and told buyers not to worry about training all pilots for the newly added system, which led to these accidents.

  • crystal words
    crystal words 24 days ago

    If the pilots immediately activated the Auto Pilot ? The Auto Pilot has the ability to restore the problem ?

    • Robert Brandywine
      Robert Brandywine 15 days ago

      I don't think the auto-pilot will stay engaged if sensors are giving weird readings.

  • ju2au
    ju2au 24 days ago +1

    How about making a better plane that won't need a software fix like the MCAS?

  • ionut Lungu
    ionut Lungu 25 days ago

    Boeing palid promovation

  • James Hennighan
    James Hennighan 25 days ago +2

    Transitional Training from one type of aircraft to another is nothing new......has gone on since flight began.
    There is nothing wrong with computer or tablet training, (often quoted in derogatory terms in the media by calling it just IPad training).
    These pilots are already trained......they are not learning to fly, but to handle a different aircraft which may have different / improved handling characteristics.
    It's the same as driving a new car..... we can already drive, but we have to look at the handbook to see what is different in the new car. OK a car is different from an aircraft....but the principle is the same.
    When this is all fully examined I would think that the two airlines involved, (Indonesian and Ethiopian), might be found wanting in the training of THEIR pilots...........
    Boeing will likely take the hit unto themselves to clarify what they have improved.......and they have already done so with an additional warning light, code and tone on the display screen, advising of the MCAS stall system being disconnected.
    They probably should have stuck with the Max8 being left as originally intended with MCAS and not 'softened' it's handling characteristics to make it seem more like the model it superseded. This would have 'told' pilots that they were flying something slightly different....and they would have had to learn this.
    Making the Max8's handling characteristics 'softer' probably meant that the pilots, in both the Indonesian and the Ethiopian downed aircraft, thought they were handling a problem in the same way that they did with the previous model AND NOT the Max8.
    This did not work because it could not work and in both accidents the pilots did not have the benefits of the safety of altitude......and therefore the time, to resolve the problems they faced.
    Its rather like, say, putting power steering into a car, (something we are all used to these days), and then deciding to alter it a little to give us the sensitivity and handling of a car without power steering. Fine as we are driving along in a straight line, but something that becomes a problem when we turn the steering wheel to go round the bend.......when we realise things are a little more difficult for us.
    Have we time to recognise that we need to act and turn the wheel to prevent us crashing into the approaching wall.......OR.........are we spending, (and wasting), useful seconds trying to figure out why turning the wheel is harder than it should be...?
    James Hennighan
    Yorkshire, England

  • AC Robertson
    AC Robertson 25 days ago +1

    According to Boeing - "MCAS does not control the airplane in normal flight; it improves the behavior of the airplane in a non-normal part of the operating envelope." ie - Decreases the Pilot load during the automated take-off and lazy turns...
    IMO - It boils down to an AOA failure and untrained Pilots...
    I worked Avionics during the Harrier AV-8A introduction & later during the AV-8B/na introduction. The numerous AV-8A hover incidents were due to the Pilot, not securing his flight suit sleeve Velcro. When they were rotating the nozzles to hover, their sleeve caught the throttle and pulled it out of max thrust. Gravity @ 33 ft sec, and throttle lag did the rest... The automated AV-8B/na were crashing during normal flight, finally a Pilot survived & landed his aircraft. The problem was due to water intrusion into a flap position sensor. The erroneous info caused a uncommanded flap extension @ cruse speed, flipping the airframe on it's back. A redesigned sensor was installed and the problem went away...

  • Tony Graham
    Tony Graham 25 days ago

    Ipad trained pilots??? No thanks!!!

  • bonanzaboomer
    bonanzaboomer 25 days ago

    There should be a criminal investigation. A good pilot knows when the plane stalls and should be alerted with only an alarm from MCAS or other system - and not immediately nose-dived and crashed causing death to all aboard. The belief in self driving cars and self flying planes has caused such thinking - and has led to the loss of close to 350 lives including an able pilot and co-pilot aboard! Someone is responsible for this. A good plane should be designed to glide down even after losing all power and a good pilot can land a plane on the Hudson River without any loss of life!

  • Jan Mardi
    Jan Mardi 26 days ago

    Boeing money before everything

  • Stephen Czislowski
    Stephen Czislowski 26 days ago

    Finally a decent description of the MCAS’s intended operational characteristics!