Why Boeing's 737 MAX 10 May Never Fly Commercially | WSJ
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ส.ค. 2024
- Boeing’s new 737 MAX 10 is facing a regulatory deadline that could force the planemaker to upgrade the jet’s cockpit, or consider scrapping its production-a possibility CEO David Calhoun floated recently. WSJ’s Andrew Tangel explains.
Photo: Leora Bermeister for The Wall Street Journal
More from the Wall Street Journal:
Visit WSJ.com: www.wsj.com
Visit the WSJ Video Center: wsj.com/video
On Facebook: / videos
On Twitter: / wsj
On Snapchat: on.wsj.com/2ra...
#Boeing #Farnborough #WSJ
"Boeing opened the doors to its new 737 Max 10."
The problem's that it was in the air at the time.
The 777 was probably the last decision made by Boeing prior to the MDC merger. That was the Boeing the world was proud of.
MDC as in McDonnell Douglas? If so, I agree. The only thing that comes close is the 777X and 787.
I can see by this video that the same Harry Stonecipher crowd of 20 years ago are still at the helm. Clean house and bring HQ back to Seattle!
737 ng 787 and 747-8 hello
737 NG is quite good though
I think it was EASA... allowing Airbus to build their planes in China! As such, Boeing had to lower it's costs tremendously, and with it, the quality of its products
This is absurd. The regulations that Boeing says it can't meet were designed _specifically_ to prevent pilot confusion. Pilot confusion with this non-compliant system has been the primary or contributing cause of SEVEN accidents and 823 deaths on Boeing 757 and 737 airplanes, including the two 737Max crashes. The regulations were put in in 2011. Eleven years should be long enough to expect Boeing to figure out a way to comply with the law and not keep asking for special exemptions.
Wait...their airplanes KILLED 823 people and they can't seem to update their planes? And they have the technology at their fingertips?
And the way this news pitch it like Boeing is the victim, lol.
The 757 incidents happened to Airbus too, Air France 447 had the same cause as Birgenair 301 (blocked pitot tube leading to pilot confusion). AeroPeru was straight up the fault of the Ground Crew, American 965 was just a dumb crew too.
The fact that Boeing and McDouglas (who bought Boeing in 1997) had a habit of needing two crashes to solve something has happened quite often.
DC-6 Inflight Fires: United 608 and 624
DC-10 Cargo Door: American 96 and Turkish 981
737 Rudder Jamming: United 585 and USAir 427
@@Dexter037S4 Other way around: Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas.
@@dbclass4075 Yes, but McDonnell Douglas's management ended up in control of Boeing after the merger, so it's understandable people get it reversed. They clearly didn't learn anything from destroying McConnell Douglas, either.
The B737 has required cockpit updates, including EICAS, since the FAA gave Boeing a deadline for its implementation almost 30 years ago this year! Boeing have done absolutely nothing in those 30 years to address this massive safety omission and now they seek a further exemption. Unbelievable!
That's right, Boeing knew since 1992 they had to implement it but they didn't do it with the NG series and not with Max. They couldn't imagine they would even build the 737 in 2022 any more back in 92, even older non fbw aircraft like the 767 have Eicas.
@@simonm1447 even the 747 managed to get EICAS retrofitted to them, and they’re from the same era as the 737!
@@adriananzano2292 They likely could have done this with the NG. Given that this was the first "glass cockpit" 737. Likely it comes down to wanting to keep a common type rating with earlier models.
With the 747 removing the flight engineer's position with the 400 series required a different type rating.
I don’t quite get why Boeing decided to fit EICAS to subsequent 747 models even as early as 1989 but they didn’t decide to fit it to the 737.
@@bjoe385 the reason may be the 737 did not sell very good until they offered the NG. It wasn't the cash cow back then like it was in the late 90s with the NG, while the 747 was the flagship of the fleet
Boeing management answering if the MAX 10 can accommodate EICAS: "Look, everything is technically possible, the question is [ *how much is this going to cost us and should we spend / invest money in the MAX 10* .... ] what is the safest alternative given the family".
This company never learns from its mistakes and still the only concern is the bottom line.
Boeing deserve everything they get. It’s a disgrace that they killed nearly 350 people and not a single Boeing employee went to prison for it.
Yeah and they paid peanuts to the victims families compared to the billions they paid in fines to the US Govt.
I don’t think the official report on the Ethiopian crash is released yet. The final interim is available.
I’ve read the Knkt’s lion air report. 3 times and counting.
I don’t see the logic train to Boeing or mcas being the triggering cause.
Lion air has a lot to answer for but are getting a pass because it’s easier to go after the big bear.
Let me add: the Ethiopian govt is doing the report. They own the airline in which some of their ministers have a financial stake. Just saying.
First Off:
1. Is Boeing Innocent?
-No
2. What was training like at the two carriers in question?
-TBD
I have flown the Max and currently do as a Captain at one of the US carriers that flies it. Now I’m not saying that Boeing doesn’t deserve some responsibility here but the safety record at those two carriers weren’t stellar. Your only as good as the training you receive.
Not oh that, but had the nerve to blame it on the pilots
@@Enzoblueblood i like how you’re just drawing up some “the people doing the report have ulterior motives” and not looking at the fact that one faulty sensor can screw up a pilot’s orientation and mess with their ability to control the aircraft
I find it astonishing any self respecting operator would be placing orders with a company that flat out committed fraud and lied so they could cut costs at the expense of human lives.
You must be aware that the 737 is the single safest transportation device in the history of mankind. It isn’t as though we are discussing a Dodge Viper
@@cargopilotguy305 Not disputing the safety record of the 737. I'm disputing the conduct of a company attempting to capitalize and dodge obvious safety concerns in the name of profit margins. The behavior of Boeing during the max fiasco i would consider sickening and has left a sour taste on the brand i'm afraid yet operators seem to lack any principles and continue to place orders. However its a double edge sword as i guess Airbus are the only real alternative. Boeing need to go back to their roots and let the engineers/designers call the shots.
@@chrisgermann6658 737 is the single safest way to travel ever so how exactly is it the case that adding a system its never had which would require greatly increased costs and delays going to achieve a greater level of safety since the issue causing the MAX crashes has been solved and has nothing to do with EICAS?
@@chrisgermann6658 don’t get me wrong. I fly Boeings for a living. I have an interest in them being made properly. But in this specific instance its not obvious why the MAX 10 needs EICAS when that was never the issue associated with grounding the MAX
@@cargopilotguy305 To my knowledge and please correct me if im wrong investigations found that the newly implemented MCAS pitch correction facility would have required fleet operators to invest further in their pilots training as the FAA would have recognized the added technology significant enough that pilots would need to know how to approach any given situation relating to any sudden pitch adjustments via the MCAS system. This ultimately did not happen and was withheld during submission as Boeing execs knew beforehand further financial overheads would be incurred. Don't get me wrong i'm not hating here i've always been very fond of Boeing aircraft my personal favorite being the 777 but it is what it is. Yes the 737 statistically is the safest AC going however this would be prior to the manufacture making a revision in order to compete with the 320 neo and then one thing led to another all in the name of saving $$. This ultimately cost many lives and they even refused to ground the fleet after the initial accident hoping they could engineer a fix in time before a second crash might take place.
Let me guess, it doesn’t need pilot training?
No need to guess it is in the video.
And then there was another crash again.
@@4evertrue830 when?
That’s the entire point lol
Well, I’m sorry, Boeing. Your business decisions cost lives, and you gotta deal with the consequences of your actions. Airbus made better decisions, and they deserve to be rewarded for their safety focus. You shouldn’t depend on government cutting you slack, just pull yourself up by your bootstraps and move on.
So cut 10k jobs in South Carolina
Well, I don't think you know what you are talking about. Everything that went wrong with the mcas system has been completely overhauled, and it is bullet proof. Airbus had many problems with there A320 A330's too, but people tend to forget that ! Airbus's mistake cost lives too. But people are forgetting, it's not just the plane, it's the training culture and skill level in the specific airlines. - I my self are rated on the 737 fleet, and I would fly them any day ! Even before the accidents.
@@Pilotfarmand Airbus' mistakes were decades ago, so understandable. Boeing's mistakes were recent, so shocking.
@@Pilotfarmand I understand that the Max 8 has become the most scrutinized airplane in history, and that reassures me. I recently took a flight in one, actually. However, it doesn’t take from the fact that Boeing prioritized profits over engineering and held undue power over the FAA, even calling them “clowns.” It wasn’t Airbus planes that were grounded for two years after having identified a systemic failure, and it wasn’t Airbus planes the ones on the news for months after having cost 300+ in such a short period of time. I don’t need a degree in aerospace engineering to understand any of that.
@@Pilotfarmand Airbus are far safer. The a340 has never had a fatal crash
This video is about what happens when a real estate photographer enters a cockpit.
😂😂😂
Rushing through aircraft to try and avoid retraining pilots is exactly the reason the 2 Max 8 crashes happened.
Pilot training is up to airlines. The media likes to ignore the fact that those crashes happened because of incompetent third-world pilots and incompetent third-world airlines.
In both crashes, the airlines knew the aircraft were malfunctioning. They knew their were problems. And in both cases the airlines ignored the problems, refused to conduct the simple maitence that would fix the problems, and didn't fully inform the pilots.
@@TheOwenMajor Sad! Booeing put software into the aircraft and told no one.
@@benwilson6145 Because they didn't need to. MCAS was simply an additional mode on an existing system.
Auto trim on the 737 was not new, it was on the very first aircraft. And the procedure to correct malfunctioning trim also did not change, the procedure the pilots should have followed has never changed.
Malfunctioning trim does not cause a crash in the western world. It causes crashes when you have pilots that only have their job because their national airline needs to hire local.
@@TheOwenMajor Glad you read the Official report!!!!
@@TheOwenMajor Lies lies and damnable lies. What basic training is required is driven by the airplanes themselves and implemented by the airlines. Excuses for Boeing hiding MCAS for profit, even after their planes killed people, is how we got into this mess.
Why is Boeing constantly using Airbus to justify shortcuts around safety regulations?
Airbus has a normal R&D department that is developing new planes. They have regulations, design rules and basic engineering principles for their work. The result are reasobably well engineered planes which are popular with the Airlinea and pilots.
Airbus just chugged on and talked to airlines and pilots and developed a superior product, even in the face of a dominating competitor like Boeing.
Boeing on the other hand invests as little as possible in R&D. They designed a great series of planes in the 60s with a state of the art user interface of the time.
So, instead of developing new planes for consecutive models or variants, they kept bolting one kludge after another kludge.
After all they know all there is to know about jets and customers bl00dy well should buy those old planes. They were Boeing quality after all!
That seemed to.be very prifitable until it killed hundreds of people.
Congress and the FAA are justifiably wary of Boeing's certification behaviour and understandvthatbthey need to protect the flying public of Boeing's shoddy practuces.
Now once again the competitor argument is being made to justify another shortcut!
How about doing the engineering right for once and not just politic around! Another shortcut may kill more people.
But then, the US Congress finds it acceptable to hace schoolkids shot at school in the hundreds every year.
If a government is not able to protect vulnerable kids, can it really be expected to give a flying fμ©k about a few hundred dead every few years?
Probably not.
the 737 is a frankenplane monster. it wants to be retired.
@@kentofmississippi it may want to.be, but developing a new plane is too expensive. I wonder if a new 737 replacement project would have been more expensive than the damage they had from the fallout of the MCAS kludge. Probably not. But a greedy mangement without basic personal integrity or morals will be happy to continue on the kludge path. After all a quick fix is cheaper than the steady expenditure of Airbus. I wonder how they xan sleep at night.
Plus Airbus aircraft meet current safety requirements and not those stipulated back in the 1960s when the B737 received its type certificate.
I think Steves Jobs said something like this. Usually the tech companies were founded by engineers, pioneers etc, who are really excited about how techonology could change the world.But slowly the company falls into the hands of salesman, focusing on the profits more than anyting else , even lives. That is when things go in the wrong direction.
@@jimmyshieh12 if I rolled up to the airport in a 727 I doubt anyone would voluntarily board. Why do we operate a plane that was produced in a different century? That is rhetorical.
Embrace the 757 while it’s still around. Arguably the best twin engine jet Boeing has ever produced.
The 757 and the 767 have Eicas, even if the 757 is no longer built and the 767 today only as a freighter and air force tanker version
@@simonm1447 I’ve had the privilege of touring a KC-46. It’s an incredible multi role airplane. The flight deck is reminiscent of a 787 but with the tan instead of grey.
Literally marked 40 years this year since it’s first flight. It’s solid, but old technology. And it only had one generation. To be fair, the 737 frame has been in production for about 55 years across 4 generations. It’s grown too big for its frame.
757 and 767 mech here, can confirm the 777 is a superior aircraft but probably the last good one Boeing developed.
I still can't believe that nobody went to prison for the MAX crisis.
Government tried to put someone in prison. They were acquitted on all counts.
Why are you surprised? Our country is run by oligarchs and the military industrial complex.
why is that your concern
@@nickolliver3021 It is a sign of cultural corruption. Since it is a culture that affects me, it is my concern.
@@teekaa2520 culture so called corruption doesn't mean its your concern to bring this up. life has moved on. it shouldn't affect you
Fun fact: the Airbus A320 has had an ECAM (bascically the same as an EICAS) since they launcehd the plane in the 1980ies.
That technology didn’t exist in the 1960s
@@JayJayAviation When the NG came out in the late 90ies it definitely did. And even when the 400/500 came out, it was possible
I’m glad Boeing has kept the Max name. Makes it easier to avoid flying on it.
hhaha
Million of people flying on it . Every day. They are fine.
It’ll be hard as it becomes dominant in the airspace and many airlines fly them every single day. The plane is fine, the fact that nobody went to prison is what should make u mad.
not really cuz you'll eventually fly on it when all previous models get replaced
I generally avoid the 737 in general.
Well, the Qatar airlines has signed $3.3 billion USD contract with BA for its 737 Max 10 fleet. But, the contract also has a long list of stipulations to prevent BA from a free ride like the Indonesia or Ethiopia cases, in which, many options may require to fly the BA crafts. The BA future is not good so it moves its general headquarters to near Pentagon for miracles.
Boeing won't cancel. They will update the cockpit. Too much money and company is invested in the aircraft. 750 orders for the max 10 is worth billions. Do the math, it would cost Boeing way more money to cancel the type than to bite the bullet and make the required changes. In reality the MAX should have already had the system installed.
So Pilots needs to re-Training ?.
Which will put Boeing at disadvantage with same product of AirBus..
The selling point of 737- max ..
@@kentershackle1329 the alternative is waiting many more years to get the Airbus product, which has an enormous backlog due to how popular it is. In the case of airlines that don't care about the compatibility across 737 versions (like Delta, for example, which doesn't have an 737s) then it's not even really a problem.
Thank you for saying this. That's how the video should've started - Boeing is making a big hysterical fuss over ths situation, but the reality is that they won't let 750 orders and a huge amount of market share to go to Airbus. Case closed, Boeing's poker face is poor.
@@RM-el3gw Delta has many 737's?
Absolutely, it doesn't take much for pilots to understand and use an EICAS
Lets be honest here, Boeing will lobby its way out of regulation it is all about who they pay in congress and how much. Just keep close attention to how things unwind.
It looks like the Senator in charge of the committe overseeing Boeing is Maria Cantwell from Washington State where Boeing has thousands of jobs
Boeing doesn’t have an engineering department . Only accountants looking for shortcuts to cut cost, killing Boeing to oblivion. Bean accountants don’t have mathematical skills measuring up to engineering requirements. But engineers can easily count beans. Boeing, cut accountants and hire engineers! Bring corporate management back to Seattle closer to engineering.
Sounds like the typical American business mentality. General Motors and Ford do that for years, finding every way to save pennies only to end up paying out millions of dollars in damages. Remember Ford Pinto?
Watch a movie from the 70's and you will see streets filled with US brand automobiles. Look outside today and you will see what happens when accountants run companies.
accountants don't make adm decisions.
It is what it is, McDonnell Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing’s own money.
It’s arguably safer to certify the -10 as is with the same cockpit architecture as the -8 & -9 already in service so that commonality is retained across the platform. That way in unexpected/hazardous events, the pilots are more likely to be familiar with what best to do. Changing this 1 single model to new system could very well be argued to cause more issues in the sense that pilots might be confused as they now must memorize 2 completely different systems day to day. Let the -10 be certified as is. THEN mandate the new system be applied to all future models. Even the man who helped put the rule through congress argued this as the case. Is the safer route
The pilot will be CONFUSED which airplane he is flying? Are you for real?
Sounds sensible, but they correctly don't trust Boeing anymore
@@paulpark1170 Ahh yes, i am for real. Most 737 pilots are certified on multiple models. Moving the controls in only 1 model could cause issues. Its not like jumping from a 737 to an Airbus A320. All these variants of the 737 Max are virtually identical. Imagine you owned 3 cars. All of the same make & model. And from the outside they looked just about the same, abit ones longer than the others, but in the drivers seat they are identical. Identical dashes. And they feel the same to drive on the road. One had the wipers on the left stock with the directional, the other 2 had the wipers on the right. You drive all 3 cars every day, constantly swapping between the 3. When you go to hit the wipers, sometimes you'd reach for the wrong side, guaranteed, and go 'oh whoops, other car has them on that side'. Same concept here, except instead of windshield wiper controls, its warning messages and alerts. it adds a few precious seconds, having to remember 'ok in this model the controls i need are here, but in all other models there over here'. Seconds that are precious in a real emergency. And remember the pilots are jumping between the 3 variants all day long. I.E. United already has the Max 8 & Max 9 and has ordered the Max 10 as well. The same pilots will be flying all 3 guaranteed. Pilots don't fly 1 plane per day, they usually fly several different planes per day, at least for domestic flights like the 737 is primarily used for. Its not like their jumping from a 737 to a 777 where its obvious what their flying at all times. All 3 models of the max look almost identical (they just get longer & longer) & most importantly FEEL identical to fly. Yes absolutely in emergencies or even in general the pilots might forget if their flying a -8 or a -9 or a -10 variant. I agree an updated cockpit layout is smart, but not on this generation solely due to the fact that 2 models of this generation already exist. Now add a 3rd model that pilots will be certified to fly all 3, and on 1/3 of the models the most critical controls are in a different spot? Not smart at all.
@@STiGuy
Who would buy a car with a dashboard and technology aching back to the 70’s! So, who would fly or buy an aircraft in 2022- with 70’s technology patched with upgrades resembling a Frankenstein? And having a Frankenstein safety record! Cheapskate airlines will buy anything approved by government regulators. FAA’s credibility suffered badly with the 737 already. Enough is enough.
After seeing like 10 air crash investigation videos all with causes preventable by the Airbus ECAMs, I disagree. These systems identify and alert to human error that otherwise might be left unchecked. Also, a little screen showing warnings with corrective action isn’t terribly complicated to get used to, if anything it’s a supplemental instrument that would benefit the flight crew!
I flew 737 400/500s back in the early 2000s for 6 years and I can't believe the cockpit is almost still the same.
It's well past its sell by date.
Even the A320 cockpit which is decades old looks space aged compared to the 737.
I’m calling bs on ya bud. There’s no way that the cockpits are the same, not even close. Facts
@@user-wn6pr4qh5v Same systems,same overhead panel,same mode control panel,same pedestal.Only change is the display screens!
@@Mark-oj8wj Your giving a very very loose discription man. The main thing your missing even though you flew them is that anything in the cockpits that are the same or similar, we’re done that way on purpose. Because the airlines customers who order 737’s have always requested that the 737 be as similar as possible. That’s exactly what got Boeing messed up with the max. They were under pressure to keep the new 737 as close to the same as the NG series. The cockpits have stayed similar not bc Boeing can’t or didn’t design them newer or whatever your emplying.
I believe that they could easily meet the requirements...they just don't want to
“Easily” scrap the R&D thats gone into the MAX 10 and build a novel jet with a new cockpit?
I love how they try sooo hard to paint Boeing as a victim and airbus as an evil but even then you just think ya I’d rather fly on an airbus, haven’t heard of these falling out of the sky randomly
I’ll remind you then of the Air France A330 that did just that between Rio and CDG.
@@markg7963 that was pilot error... the 737 max crashes were both pilot and error on the side of Boeing.
Now the door blows out. Good quality
I'm not sure if Boeing could have messed this up more then they already have. What a cluster F.
Hand shake deals and being cheap in using a 50 plus year old platform isn’t my idea of modern aviation.
Never mind the negligent lack of proper training.
It seems like they just don’t wanna change so they don’t have to have pilot re-trained
@@jturner123456798 pilot retraining is not Boeing's job , it's the airlines job, and changing the cockpit will indeed pose a safety risk to pilots who have been flying the 737 for years . Call it muscle memory
@@mmm0404 It is also Boeing's job to inform everyone of all systems clearly, not hide a seemingly trivial system. 747-400 flight deck is considerably different than 747-300, yet that didn't stop it from being the best-selling 747 variant. Why be afraid of the changes when it worked properly before?
The whole problem stems from the fact that Boeing is trying to push a dated plane design well past it's prime. Hundreds have already paid with their lives for this.
It's about time Boeing is forced to retire the entire 737 family and move on to a new architecture. Will it be painful in the short term? Yes. But it's vital for the long-term.
Nonsense. Today's 737 MAX is vastly different from the original 737 classic in systems and design elements. Boeing initially screwed up the MCAS FCS but has now fixed its flaws. It has evolved like the Airbus A320 family has evolved from its early 1980s form. Neither family is the same as their original iterations, many detail changes were made over the years.
@@RagShop1 you just shot yourself in the foot there. The whole reason MCAS exists is exactly because the 737 is an old airframe which is not designed to carry larger modern engines.
There are only so many updates you can put on a tired airframe before you should start again with a clean slate.
And just so you know the A320 is two decades younger than the 737.
So what would happen to Southwest Airlines with a forcibly retired 737?
L take from a man with a room temperature IQ
No , thats not the dated plane design which was the cause of the crashs, but negligence of the mcas system was a factor. Also ,the choices of plane designs only concern them.
The mcas is not here because of a too old airframe with new engines, you dont get it at all. It's just the easy and very unprecise explanation from tv.
The max doesnt need the mcas to fly normally. The pitch up tendency is not constant and is only a problem in certain situations...the mcas is not a software installed to keep the nose down, it is just a manual flight aid installed in order to avoid costly pilot trainings by mimicking the behavior of the ng to the pilots in those particular situations with a high aoa.
Otherwise this pitch up tendancy would make the 737 max a tottaly different plane which requires a new pilot training.
So Please, stop spreading nonsenses from the TV, before trying to tell boeing what to do.
No matter what Boeing does, the 737 Max will always leave a bad taste in my mouth. Update after update of an old design, using computer programs to overcome engineering issues, and Boeing's relentless push against safety legislation. I will always choose other planes if I can
Your mistake is assuming regulations with the stated goal if safety actually achieves safety.
Two things I want to point out. The MAX 9 and 10 are bigger planes, so they never needed that faulty software, and are way safer than the MAX 8. Secondly, I know you won’t actually try not to fly the MAX.
Max-10 fine the way it is. and the faa is trying to save face over the max crashes.
@@andrewlarson7895 The FAA had the oversight to know they would need this regulation to save face 30 years prior? Nice!
@@Shadow__133 they fell flat on there face i cant believe they didn't get sued over the max crashes.
The funny thing is, there IS a 737 with EICAS! They have implemented it into the P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft which is closely based on the 737-800 from the NG family. So the technology is there.
What? Honestly?
Did you watch the Netflix Boeing documentary? Would recommend. Boeing has an issue with its profit driven decision making which has corrupted its safety culture and has lost customer confidence. It has now a decision to install latest safety features with pilot retraining or try pass through this older spec plane AND again it undoubtedly shows its commitment to profit over safety even when this is an opportunity to rebuild customer trust. Let’s keep things in perspective because crashes are rare but could you put your loved one on one of those planes without feeling a sense of mild anxiety. It blows my mind. I hope all those people that died in the Boeing crash get the justice they deserve from the selfish decisions that Boeing made. I bet the Boeing CEOs don’t fly the max.
I’ve seen it but they got a lot of things wrong and now suddenly all these people are “experts” on what’s wrong with the MAX
The Boeing CEOs don’t, they fly in larger Boeing jets
I wonder if aviation regulators outside the USA will certify the MAX10 for operations in their airspace, even if Congress allows an extension to the exemption for modern safety alert systems.
More lazy engineering by Boeing?
Why would airlines not demand modern safety alert systems on new aircraft? Other than saving money at the cost of safety.
If I’m honest, I sort of wonder why any airline would want any Boeing aircraft in their fleets. In Airbus flight decks there’s a safety system so that if one pilot starts making mistakes that could endanger the plane, reasons ranging from being arrogant enough to ignore company policy, getting confused, to something medical like a seizure or something then the other pilot can effectively lock the erring pilot out of the controls. I imagine it’s preferable for it to be a momentary problem and equal control can be restored.
The erring pilot couldn’t retake control without physically attacking the one with the priority control. And for awhile I was convinced that Boeing must have an equivalent, but then I learned they don’t.
It sounds like sales are a bigger concern than safety.
Actually, not having commonality when pilots regularly shift between an 8/9/10 in the same day is probably a much bigger safety issue!!
Going forward for future models it should of course be implemented
Airlines moving from one version to another too quickly should be blamed for that not FAA regulators.
@@4evertrue830 But airlines have been doing this for ages. For example, an Air France A32S pilot can fly an A319 one day, and a A321 the other. I believe the only issue is the awareness of the extra length. Same thing with a KLM 737 pilot that can rotate between -700s, -800s and -900s.
It doesn't make sense to need additional training to fly a Max 10 when you're type rated on a 8 and 9.
I agree, EiCAS should be retrofitted on all 737 Maxes.
Man our memories are short but they aren't THIISSS short... lolol
The Boeing 737 Max is losing out to the Airbus because Boeing 737 Max has had a lot of problems and the FAA has already identified a whole series of issues well in the past and it has been certified to fly again. With Boeing 737 Max two crashes in the past, consumer confidence about Boeing 737 Max was pretty low and they know how poorly designed that Boeing 737 Max was. Whether the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) is a flight stabilizing program developed by Boeing that become notorious for the crashes of two 737 Max and whether it will prevent future 737 Max from crashing again will remain to be seen. The FAA allowed Boeing to self-certify so Boeing didn’t go through the certification process. Boeing took an old design and they simply made it longer and then to compensate its fault, they put a bigger engines on it and try to solve it with software by putting an anti-stalling feature in and the glitches started to add up to the poor substandard design. It wasn’t a complete new design like Airbus. The Airbus is making better airplane than Boeing and America is losing out to Europe. Almost 300 planes that China ordered from Europe is a very small part as China will be needing 8000 planes just in the Chinese market for its 1.5 billion people. Europe plane is designed for medium and short-term distances that is suitable for China’s need.
Should be top comment
The two 800 Max crashes were Piloted by 3rd World Pilots that Failed to prevent the accident. Not ONE 800 MAX Crashed in the US. Before the Crash, the nearly 50 carriers that flew the Max were using it for an estimated 8,600 flights per week without one single incident! I fly the 800 MAX almost every week! Love It!
@@trex9368 No airplane accidents pinpoint to a single point of error. It is always a list of contributors combined that caused the problem. While 3rd world pilots can possibly be a contributor (which investigators believed it was not by the way), it does not excuse Boeing from the design flaw of the (invisible) MCAS system, by having no redundancy for the AOA sensor which led to the crash in the first place. This design flaw would not be accepted by the older Boeing staff, and I would say it is not acceptable to require pilot skills to cover incompetent designs from aircraft manufacturers, which the 737 MAX clearly is compared to Airbus.
@@ccloak Fact: Not One Boeing 737-800 MAX Crashed in the US. US Pilots are better trained than any in the world. An Airbus' design flaw caused an AIRBUS A300 Rudder to Tear Off in response to Air turbulence. Can't use full rudder? Yet another AIRBUS Design flaw both pilots tried to operate the side stick at the same time, canceling each other's actions and pushing the plane into a stall and Crashing into the Atlantic. Brilliant!
This shows, Airbus was WAY AHEAD of its time when designing their cockpit and overall aircraft design philosophy.
Last time Boeing or its customers said that requiring additional training for its pilot was detrimental to the operation of the type, 2 crashes happened and the entire world wide fleet of MAX were grounded...
Remember Air France 447. There are pros and cons to both theories of architecture.
Boeing just keeps adding weight to a 1960s frame. And they put on engines way bigger than that frame can handle without MCAS.
@@cargopilotguy305 Negative…. Those pilots entered a deep stall and pulled back on the stick for nearly 6 minutes. Horrible airmanship and blatant pilot error.
Every Airbus hater uses 447 as an example, but it’s totally invalid. I could list five examples where Airbus automation and protections specifically prevented a crash which has actually occurred on a Boeing aircraft, but you never hear about it because… well… it didn’t crash.
Birgenair 301 (Boeing 757) was no different - wasn’t FBW but pitot tubes were likely blocked. Pilots failed to identify a stall, and pancaked into the ground like 447.
The difference is that the Birgenair crash would have been impossible with the Airbus backups, while the 447 flight would have still resulted in a crash as well if it was a similar Boeing type (assuming crew actions were equally pathetic.)
SOP and training for the A330 dictate that you fly pitch and power in the event of unreliable airspeed (which the plane TOLD them.)
Also, Airbus invented the BUSS / backup speed scale system which is standard on all Airbus wide bodies and optional on their narrow body aircraft. Even in the event of complete pitostatic failure, the computers can calculate a safe operating speed margin based on power, AoA, and other data, displayed where the speed tape usually resides on the PFD. Yet another layer of protection you get on an Airbus (for over a decade now) and something Boeing is just starting to figure out. Only one of their models has a similar system. 🤦♂️
@@EstorilEm not pilots. Pilot. The First Officer was the one pitching the nose up, the captain was attempting to pitch down but the flight envelope would only average the control inputs between the two pilots and did not alert one pilot as to what the other was doing. Airbus has since addressed that software issue
@@EstorilEm I flew an a320 for 7 years. I don’t hate Airbus and nothing about anything I’ve said insinuates that I do.
Since the Max 8 debacle, Boeing has been on a steady decline. I dunno it seems rather pathetic that Boeing is asking for exceptions and making excuses rather than engineering their way out of problems, like a proper company should.
I'm not slamming them because I'm an Airbus person, quite the contrary. I am/was a huge Boeing supporter
Per the video, it’s not so simple. Even if Boeing was able to comply with the new legislation, which presumably they could after some delay, the significant change to this particular variant of the 737 MAX would make it undesirable for the airlines to integrate into the fleet, an odd man out which requires different training and maintenance.
I'm with you as it seems like Boeing has nothing new to bring to the market and is getting eaten up by so many many other companies and not just AirBus...
Adding the system to the plane would single it out from the rest of the max family and therefore defeat the purpose of its appeal to airlines because training pilots to fly the same plane with 2 systems is timely and not an efficient form of operations. It’s not an engineering problem.
@@frankiexv4533 The engineering challenge is to incorporate the secondary system into the existing system. The inital mistake was attempting to make this transparent to the pilots but a migration would not hurt the sales and it is just an additional system and a more advanced plane. This is particularly easy as all systems more toward more software driven and GUI interfaces.Think of it like a Windows upgrade for instance.
@@superbmediacontentcreator there is no crew alerting system on the 737, it’s the only Boeing airplane that has never had it. There is no challenge to Boeing actually doing it; the challenge is that is disrupts commonality with the other max variants already in service. The -10 already has some added safety features the others do not but do not require extra training.
"What Is the Peter Principle? The Peter Principle is an observation that the tendency in most organizational hierarchies, such as that of a corporation, is for every employee to rise in the hierarchy through promotion until they reach a level of respective incompetence."
i think the same observation holds true for the boeing 737 and now airbus is laughing all the way to the bank...
HUUURRRRR DURRRRR YOURE SO ORIGINAL AND CLEVER
But the NG has no EICAS and has a great safety record (better than the 320 btw although they're both super safe) and the MAX8 and MAX9 have been certified without it.
IMO if a pilot needs a special system telling him or her what to do in a sequence covered by memory items maybe the issue lies with the pilot and the training, not the airplane.
NG is A stable aircraft. Due to the shift in the center of gravity because of the larger engines, how they affect lift due to different placement makes the max unstable in many situations. That's why MCAS was used. It's older warning system confused the pilots on their way to their deaths. Stop being a schill.
@@eleventy-seven the MAX has never been unstable in any situation, MCAS was used to mimick the NG in certain conditions but with a different type rating the MAX wouldn't need any MCAS. Communality and same rating are the reason for MCAS.
Only the victim's family and some of their lawyers say that the plane is "unstable" in certain conditions but it's just not true.
And if you read the report, u can see that the crews in both flights did not know their memory item, for JT610, the crew did not know 2 separate memory item.
@@eleventy-seven It's perfectly stable. Transport Canada actually requested Boeing remove MCAS and replace it with more training, which you can't do with a stabilizing feature.
@@eleventy-seven This is a false narrative spread by the ever incompetent main stream media. I'm no Boeing fan as of late, but the Max is inherently stable. As others have pointed out, MCAS was put in to make the Max behave more like the NG in very specific and rare situations. It has absolutely nothing to do with stability or centre of gravity.
@@eleventy-seven you completely missed the topic. No one mentioned MCAS.
Poor Boeing, they just can't seem to get things together on most anything and then they cancel the 747. They sure do seem like they need some top-down management change and a total management cleaning of their house...
The 747 does not sell, why waste resources on it ? The 777 twin engine essentially killed it years ago and the 777x will further kill it.
neither can airbus. every plane must be cancelled and the industry to close for good? much better for everyone right?
@@nickolliver3021 no, just make sure Boeing suffers.
Only a fool would think that the Boeing 747 was feasible for the new millennium, from year 2000 onwards. The Boeing 777 essentially succeeded the 747 as a for more economical twin engine platform.
Not poor Boeing! They put the stock price ahead of innovation. They knew the small jet market was changing a decade before the MAX8. They chose to do nothing because innovation costs money which affects the quarterly earnings. MBA thinking at play.
Boeing suffered two fatal crashes because they want to tell the airlines that no additional pilot training is required to fly their new planes. They are trying to do the same thing with the Max 10 now. Go figure!
It doesn't make any sense to treat the -10 any different to the other max models -9/-8 which are already flying..
The -10 and -9/8 basically have the same cockpit and the -9/8 have been deemed safe to fly by the FAA without the EICAS
@@mmm0404 this is so true I mean the 737 has been flying since the 70s which are still flying today why do we need more safety systems in place? /sarcasm off
By that logic, we woudve still be flying on 737-200 era cockpit
@@topethermohenes7658 Well said! Instead of fighting the new laws that Congress has passed, wouldn't it be better for Boeing to work on EICAS for Max 10 now and then trickle down the new cockpit for the other members of the Max family? It would be a good selling point, safety wise, and it also shows to customers that Boeing is indeed taking safety as their top priority.
@@fleemwings207 people seem to forget the 2 MAX crashes. If the max crash didn't happen then this woudve been a non issue at all.
@@mmm0404 the story dates back to 1992 (far before even the NG series was built), when Boeing got a deadline of 30 (!) years to implement Eicas, even the 757/767 from the early eightees have it. They didn't do it with the NG, but they could easily have done it with the Max, but they thought they would certify all versions before the end of 22. Now their bet has failed and the - 7 and - 10 are still not certified.
EICAS was certified on the 757/767 back in the 1980s. Come on WSJ, do your homework.
The 737 Max problem is not in the cockpit, It's engines position the wing. engine too high cut downforce on the wings. Without a software (MCAS) to keep the plane nose down, This plane goes nose up and has a tendency to stall. A higher landing gear and lowering the engine so it do not interfere with the airflow over the wings would solve the problem, but it's a massively expensive solution.
Did you even watch that the video is about?
The max doesnt need the mcas to fly normally. The pitch up tendency is not constant and is only a problem in certain situations...the mcas is not a software installed to keep the nose down, it is just a manual flight aid designed to avoid costly pilot trainings by mimicking the behavior of the ng to the pilots in those particular situations with a high aoa.
Otherwise this pitch up tendancy would make the 737 max a tottaly different plane which requires a new pilot training.
So Please stop spreading this nonsense from the TV.
I will NEVER fly another Boing aircraft. AirBus only for me.
Why does it appear that the stories you do on the Boeing 737 have a color of dislike for the aircraft or company and not about actual safety and practicality... commonality is a good practice.
Technology can be incorporated into an existing certification with training instead of requiring a separate certification for one version.
They aren’t going to answer that because it’ll kill there videos
@@henryyoung2116
It would kill their stock potentials... a WSJ writer cast this same shade over the MCAS problems... making gains from short selling?
BOEING DIED when it mergd with McDonald Douglas and replaced Boeing's engineers with MD's bean counters
Oh look someone figured out how to use the internet.
@@nutsackmania "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." ~ Mark Twain
You can’t possibly think this is a legitimate comment because that is definitely not accurate and Boeing didn’t merge with McDonald Douglas They Bought McDonald Douglas
Good news: you did get to ride it. Bad news: they forgot to bolt down the doors.
The MAX does not need EICAS. If all systems work just as the rest of the 737 line then don’t fix it. Adding EICAS is just going to make it more confusing to pilots and require extra training and change of procedures. The RECALL system on the 737 works well, pilots understand it
But hey... Congress "must" know best because they got a 10 minute briefing on the matter to press for such laws 🤦♂️🤦♂️
Airbus has EICAS, why doesn't Boeing??? We're in 2022. Are they still building the first Gen of 737's?
So have them train more. If you’re certified for a MAX 10 you won’t fly a MAX 9 so that shouldn’t cause confusion. Boeing isn’t the victim, all the people who died because of their negligence are.
I can agree. I just hope that they can solve the MAX-10 issue, before it can get more back-fire. They really need this airplane in service already.
EICAS isn’t that complicated. It just sorts warning/caution messages by priority.
After 60 years, the problem might not be be cockpit but the overall design of the airframe
It is quite out of date.
60s frame… it wasn’t meant to handle stuff this heavy. And how about those engines, much too big for the frame.
@@ryanthompson2893 it absolutely is, but easier to modernize than the general frame design
@@MircoWilhelm not to mention modernizing the design would take years of R & D especially if they went to something like a composite design
@@ecoRfan it easily can handle the weight, aircraft have hardly changed since the 60s. Sure, there’s more computers and much more efficient engines these days. (And in rare cases composite airframes). But with a little modification, a 60s aluminum airframe can easily be as good as a modern aluminum one.
There is no NEED for EICAS on the MAX. The two MAX crashes had very little to do with the aircraft but had everything to do with the skill of the pilots in command.
Not forgetting that Boeing failed to inform the pilots there was a system on the plane that had more power than them...the investigation team had no idea either until Boeing told them it had triggered to explain the weird traces in the FDR.
@@cigmorfil4101 MCAS is a system that should have been divulged which is true. However, Automation 101 states that if the automation isn’t working properly then you turn it off. MCAS had NOTHING to do with Lion Air. Their Maintenance department put an NG AOA vane and transmitter into the aircraft, THE ADC didn’t know what to do and started to provide spurious inputs. However, turning off the automation works every time. Ethiopian was pure lack of aviation skill. You do not call for “command” over 20 times if the automation isn’t working. The only Pilot who had sense in that case was the 350 hour First Officer. Sorry, I’ve flown both scenarios in a MAX sim and still can’t comprehend that MCAS is such a big culprit. I flew the aircraft for nearly a year before the grounding and never had saw any issues. Unnecessarily grounded.
@@LEVELGAZANOW
Except MCAS could *NOT* be turned off. Only the effects of its output could be disabled.
All the time the pilots had disabled the horizontal stabilizer screw motors MCAS was still ordering it to turn and they themselves could not use the motors to overcome the aerodynamic forces.
If they enabled the motors for then to use them it re-enable MCAS's use of the motors, which it immediately did.
If the pilots had:
1) known about MCAS, and
2) there was a way to disable MCAS and not just disable MCAS's command from being obeyed
then I'll agree it was 100% pilot fault.
However, as the pilots had (2) no means to actually disable MCAS (and I mean disable MCAS so that it was no longer functioning, not just prevent MCAS's commands from being obeyed which also hindered their control of the plane) and (1) no knowledge of MCAS and its capabilities, I have to put the blame squarely on Boeing's shoulders who, not least, failed to take into account the crash of XL88T on 27 November *2008* for which the final report was published in September *2010,* predating the maiden flight of the 737 MAX on 29 January *2016* by at least *5 years* - this crash was caused by faulty AoL data supplied to the A320 when the pilot was _deliberately_ trying to stall the plane to test the anti-stall feature.
Boeing should have known what faulty AoL data could cause having learnt it from this crash, and ensured the [redesigned] MCAS system didn't rely on a single sensor - two were available and MCAS should have had a failsafe mode of: if the AoLs disagree turn itself off until reset (on the ground).
This would have resulted in the plane doing weird things (nosing up) which a pilot would easily combat and handle with manual horizontal stabilizer trim - their workload may increase but they'd have a flyable plane, not one which was trying to nosedive into the ground.
Boeing failed to implement this failsafe design; instead Boeing designed MCAS to just keep trying to lower the nose. It is Boeing's fault.
Mcas was poorly designed. Sanity 101 states that you shouldn't allow a plane to fly if one of its critical system is flawed. The pilots didn't crash the plane by themselves, the mcas did , the pilots were supposed to prevent that.
Hopefully most of the world doesn't follow your mindset.
When you book a flight and something essential for the plane doesnt seem to work , you ll get an another aircraft. But you won't get to the damaged plane for the reason that pilots are trained to deal with this failure.
That's sanity.
@@Hk-uw8my Well, since I’m certain that you’ve never flown the MAX and have no real professional expertise, I can only debunk your comment as “yea, OK….WHATEVER.”
As a 737-800 pilot i don't see a big problem to fly without EICAS. I'm more worried about the tailstrike risk of 737 max 10!
Don’t pull so hard
As a former 737-700 pilot but with valid type rating I agree with you.
I don't see the porblem: Just expand the Public Relation division in Arlington. And buy back more shares.
Boeing Boeing Boeing what the heck is going on. They need to clear house at the top, fire them all. It seems like this all happened when they left the Northwest they really went down the tubes they became to top-heavy with CEOs with business degrees instead of CEOs with engineering degrees
When they went to the South, even opioids and burger flippers were hired as factory engineers.
@@islanddweller4263 I knew somebody that was going to move to North Carolina and then he found out the public schools were funded by alcohol and tobacco tax and they were grossly under funded and all the kids went to religious school I don’t know how true it is
@@bjkjoseph It is true.
The fish stinks from the head down.
1. Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely
2. Pride Goeth before a Fall
3. Higher you rise the harder you'll fall.
..... Please feel free to add on...
Well, if the Max 10 doesn't get certified, it will need a new type rating or Boeing will have to build a new plane from scratch
To be fair The Boeing 737 Max08 & Max09 were not reliable, I do not expect a Max10. Few decades back airline manufacturers have air disasters but they responded to that particular incidents, but I don’t see that happening with Boeing now .
*The MAX-10 is expected to be Certified by the End of the Year.*
I choose tickets according to the plane now. I don't trust Boeing with my life, they are more interested in short term money than security and it isn't gonna get better as Airbus wipes the floor with them in sales, they are just gonna get more desperate. Them trying to push this plane out before new regulations are enacted, instead of adapting to said regulations proactively, just proves my point.
Funny that you say you don’t trust Boeing with your life, even though they have millions of flights safely take off and land daily. You do realize that Airbus has had catastrophic crashes as well?
I'm a former military pilot and current corporate driver. I only qualify that because it informs my views.
I will not book a flight on a MAX8. I will fly all day long on a pre-McDonnell Douglas design such as a Next Gen 73, 75, 76, 777 or 74.
The MD merger ushered in a Boeing who only values stock price and actively rejects safety.
@@amamdawhatever I trust ur insight based on ur experience and expertise. that explains a lot already.
I 100% agree. I am flying in a week and I read an article saying that some companies, when using a 737 max (yes it is back flying trust me) don't mention it.
And on my ticket there is a flight that has no mention of the aircraft used.
I contacted them and they told me "we will know last minute".
Honestly if I see that this is a Max, i will freak out. But as usual nobody will follow me among the passengers so I'll emd up being taken for a crazy and or anxious person affraid to fly.
Let’s not forget Boeing put the Max into initial,operation knowing about the issues that led to two crashes.
EICAS should be standard on all Boeing aircraft.
Considering Delta put in orders for 100, and United for 250 they have to much riding on the MAX 10 to cancel it
Wow, they really will squeeze every drop of life out of this archaic airframe till there’s simply nothing left.
Slapping additional systems on top of antiquated systems to make things SEEM automated is NOT the answer.
Airbus knew this half a century ago, and developed a completely integrated architecture from the very beginning of their FBW program, which factors include every single one of the issues Boeing has faced with the MAX. The Airbus NEO program didn’t have the engine height restraints that Boeing did, but even if they had - a simple software reprogram would have made the aircraft handle identically to legacy A320 family models. All flight protections would have functioned as designed as well, adding a further layer of protection and further impossibly of a MAX-type incident. I’m sorry, fanboy or not, one approach IS absolutely better than the other.
Boeing simply refuses to cave to the 21st century and admit that a fully integrated FBW architecture is required for ALL of their products. The 787 was a step in the right direction, but their integration and system intuitiveness glaringly demonstrates their lack of commitment to the technology for many decades.
This means it’s the end of the 737 Max as we know it.
Moving forward will require a clean sheet new design for today’s consumer. It’s what they should’ve built in the first place.
You will never get hired at Boeing with that level of common sense
@@bobbbobb4663 with options like space x and blue origin paying more with more benefits, I wouldn’t work for Boeing anyways.
I disagree.
@@MrEkg98 The 737 NG were long in the tooth, the Max should have been a clean sheet design. Which to save money Boeing didn't opt for. Boeing itself needs a clean sheet design.
Good. Now just tell that to the FAA who have made it so combersome and slow to get new aircraft certified that its not economically feasible. Ever wonder why GA pisto aircraft are still using engine technology from the 1940s?? Yeah go talk to the FAA
It will fly. Each variant of the 737 should have the same cockpit. Boeing is the US’ greatest export earner. It will get the extension.
Acquisition cost is not lower than F-35, roughly on par. TCO is significantly lower though.
After the whole mcas thing I'm surprised every single airline hasn't just switched to airbus
airlines that fly boeing planes aren't going to change manufacturer because of a little problem that has long been fixed in the max.
Scrapping the MAX 10 is a business decision, if the CEO needs to cancel it then that is what Boeing should do. I'm sure that Boeing is currently busy designing the MAX 11 and the MAX 12
I doubt the max 11 and on will ever be a thing, with the stretched airframe the aircraft would need to sit higher on the ground along with a bunch of other changes. It would be a big redesign and most likely not worth the cost. They really should just bring back the 757 though. It would compete well with the a321 xlr I think
@@chrishutchins8448 Oh, I agree. I believe that the xlr has been popular because there are no other options. A new 757 would be great!
So... After 300+ dead, recommendations made to mitigate flaws are still being debated to rather than made mandatory - as usual in the name of money. Shows the true colours of a company
It's not the company, it is the way the game is played at all levels...
The 737 has one of the safest records despite its 2 max crashes. It didn’t have the crew alerting system, and it has nothing to do with the MCAS software that caused the plane to crash in the first place.
@@frankiexv4533 The 737 Max has a horrible safety record: 8 times higher than the next closest airplane from Boeing or Airbus. It's an unsafe pile of s*** that never should have been allowed in the air.
@@frankiexv4533 Still a bone-headed decision by Boeing to make a cheaper version of the Max 8 by not adding that alert system, directly causing their demise. MCAS is fine except it needs triple redundancy like Airbus for those unlikely but plausible situations. EICAS made the 737M fairly safe and very likely prevented those 2 crashes. Without it, not very safe, and that's on Boeing for making that cheaper version.
The Model -8 that was involved in the crash is currently flying safely with airlines and doesn't have the EICAS...
The absence of such a system wasn't the cause of the crash , and the MAX doesn't necessarily need it to fly safely
MCAS should have been tested to ensure redundancy. Pilots often mistakes but who relies on simply one sensor? That's not production code. Pilots have attempted to rely on a single pitot tube and that failed. Independent systems should be used to improve redundancy including easy access by the pilot through visual feedback, guages, ATC, and smart systems.
Boeing installed MCAS to avoid pilot training. For the same reason they somehow convinced the FAA that it was not a safety-critical system and the pilots did not know about it and a single sensor was good enough. Of course the pilots should have been trained, they should have been told what MCAS was and that it will kick in in certain situations to simulate 737 NG handling, how to switch it off, and of course MCAS should use at last three independent sensors. But then customers wouldn't have liked to need extra training for different 737 variants, and the sales-oriented people at Boeing put their money into lobbying against pilot training.
I’m siding with not giving them an extension sorry dawg
"Safest alternative"this coming from the guy recently fired, not safest just cheapest.
lol the max-10 is 100% not getting cancelled. Even the CEO said if they don't meat the deadline, it's just a few month delay.
Its called SAFETY first- its like having an EV in the air or like being a patient in a drug trial 😅
All Boeing has in mind is not how to improve the plane, but how to go around the rules, "negotiate with faa", "go to congress", how come i didn't hear him say we will make it safe enough in time?
The Boss of STARLUX or former ceo of Eva air said that Boeing is not trying to make a new plane anymore they are just reusing the same old design and that cause problems
Cue in 747 (-8f and -8i) and 777 (-8 and -9). Fortunate for Boeing, 747-8 turned out to be mostly trouble-free during the launch and deliveries to the airlines.
.....'debuting to a crowd that may never ride in it'.....that is because there were no crowds at the show..as of 2019(prior to the 2020 show), when it was decided that the show would be trade only. Boeing made the same error in the title of their video
The half-century old 737 is damaged goods at this point. Boeing really needs to think about a successor to this model.
The a310, 320 and 321 have had more than 35 crashes and incidents involving the loss of the airframe since the type first flew in 1987. As a former military pilot, I believe switching off the autopilot and flying the plane in the two Max crashes would have saved the day from the lousy software supplied from the vendor in India.
@@coolbreeze253 The 737 has a pretty horrible record. From 2000 - 2010, 31 incidents, only four of which didn't have fatalities. 2010 - 2020, another 20 incidents (including the 737 max incidents), 8 more since 2020.
Then of course there were the awful rudder issues of the 1990s that caused quite a few deaths.
I agree with your assessment about turning off the auto-pilot. Not sure why the pilots were reluctant to do that, or why it wasn't in their checklists? Aviate first ...
@@coolbreeze253 i thought the problem was u couldnt permanently turn it off. It would just reboot and turn on again bc of bad programming, there was an override but it wasnt easy or something like that.
@@coolbreeze253 they did have the autopilot disengaged at the time of the crashes, but the software was forcing the plane to trim its nose down so hard that pilot inputs were hopeless in saving the plane.
@@driven01 lol wrong the MCAS only activated if you were on manual flying, it was to prevent the pilot from putting too much pitch. It would have been safer on autopilot since MCAS would NOT have engaged
737 Max, "the flying coffin"
Imagine driving a car that has tendencies to drift to the left because of design flaws, then the maker add "software" to turn it to the right automatically. Problem solved, right?
That’s is how most single engine prop planes are, with a left turning tendency, just without the software
Yes it is. You only know about the max, but many modern aircraft, which are perfectly safe to fly, have similar tendencies to the 737 Max 8, and also use software to fix them. Its totally fine as long as the system is designed well. If you want to avoid aircraft that require systems to correct for aerodynamic deficiencies, then I'd avoid basically every modern jet you'd find at an airport. I'd suggest you drive everywhere, but modern cars also have software to help improve stability during tight turns, so I guess you'll be walking
The max had two crashes. How many deaths occur with autos? Yet we still drive them
The plane is perfectly safe it’s just that Boeing didn’t say anything to anyone about it’s features, that’s the mistake
@@javiernolasco4973 Now, maybe. But with the old software it was anything but safe.
what does enhanced "angle attack sensor" ? The failure of the disastrous accidents was caused bei the stupid "MCAS" taking only information from ONE sensor! This ridiculous ! In Airbus there are 3 sensors providing input !!!
This position by Boeing hasn’t aged well…. They need a whole new C-suite and 2 levels below. They need an all-new plane developed, led enirely by engineers, not GE acolites.
Boeing only has themselves to blame for this predicament.
This aged like fine wine
A delay is better than a catastrophe I always say.
That's the type of video you make when you are lobbying to short-cut certification procedures because your shoddy bolt handling and lack of documentation has no hope to meet the actual standards.
You should reach out to BCA to consult on how to control the 737 Max. The future of the plane is still in doubt, as Boeing is not going to make the two year grace period after their own mishaps caused changes to cockpit safety standards. Feels a bit wrong for them to ask for an extension to the deadline so the very jet that caused the safety changes can stay exempt from the new laws. Looks like your plane flies better.
The boeing 747 engine incident and the Boeing 757 nose wheel incident, is in no way connected to the Boeing 737 Max 9 Plug Door incidents, they are all separate incidents.
Please update it 👏🏻
Boeing needs to design a new plane ground up and leave 737 behind
Just because the plane crashed people don’t have to do that just try to help it with improve safety probably
Airlines seem just fine with retraining pilots when new versions of their Airbus planes are released, not sure why Boeing needs such special treatment 🙄
Most if not all Airbus aircraft have the same cockpit though… A318, A319, A320, A321 and A330 all have the same exact cockpit. The A350 and the A380 have similar cockpits but all in all, those newer cockpits still follow the same flow and layout as the aforementioned aircraft. The only Airbus aircraft to not follow their general cockpit layout is the A220 and that aircraft was designed by a different manufacturer so…
@@darinseansablan8977 Well good on Airbus for having that forethought. They should have redone the A220 when they bought it along with Bombardier.
Boeing lacked that forethought and just has to pay the price. Instead, they tried to shoehorn it in when it just wouldn't fit, all because American dangled a carrot in front of them. They took it only to choke on it
Shutting down the 757 was a very bad move indeed. Now Boeing will have to sit by and watch Airbus steal an entire market segment using their A321XLR.
How can it cost more then selling ~750 planes to update the cockpit? They won't just walk away from that kind of money. It doesn't make sense.
Their goal is to avoid a proper certification process, because they know they don't have the internal quality control to detect shoddy products.
When boeing kills people, the trust is permanently broken. You can't make a profit after that. The share holders need to realize this
The Max crash has shown the limits of an unfettered , unregulated (self regulation is essentially that) neo-liberal market economy. Amazingly, in 2011 the financial 2008 crash was still fresh in mind. Yet, no lessons were learned. This bodes not well for the future. Boeing now wants yet another extension for it's MAX10 to install Eicas. This means no Eicas. In 5 or 10 years we may have the very same discussion on the MAX 11, 12....crazy.
So it’s not a Boeing issue, it’s a government regulator bureaucracy issue. Typical.
Should have just brought back the 757 if you’re going to stretch them that large!
If it's Boeing, I'm not going!
why
@@nickolliver3021 Obviously you haven't heard of the old saying "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going". Wang's response is a twist on the old saying
@@nickolliver3021 because Boeing sucks
Airbus has EICAS...
So does Embraer and I assume the CRJ too.
Every Boeing plane designed after the 737 has it too. The problem is that it’s still on the 60 year old type certificate and can’t add EICAS without being completely recertified as a new type, meaning totally different training.
@@kurtbitner6675 Even 747 have EICAS starting from -400, despite -100 not having one.
ECAM
@@tomstravels520 Some differences, but otherwise functionally similar. Though Airbus's implementation is more presentable.
Is it me or does the cockpit looked so archaic?. Boeings really let go of moving forward. It’s the cost cutting that’s killing the company