Back to Squawk list
  • 38

Boeing never tested scenarios for AOA sensor malfunctions, sources claim

Enviado há
On April 29, during the annual meeting of the company, Boeing chief executive Dennis Muilenburg told that there was nothing wrong with the design of the 737 MAX anti-stall software and blamed the pilots of the crashed MAX jets for not following the procedures as it was stated in the Boeing's training manuals. But an investigation by CNN revealed the Boeing 737 MAX anti-stall system that was linked to both Lion Air and Ethiopian crashes was never tested by Boeing for malfunctions, although… ( Mais...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

MSU Sparty 14
This appears to be a scenario where no one wants to tell the boss the bad news. Boeing has incredible Engineers but the certification procedures from Boeing to FAA are flawed. The FAA doesn't have the manpower or resources to judge and approve every system. Communication failures are the root of many crashes.
Bryant Mook 2
Boeing bureaucracy is among the worst. That coupled with the "bottom line" en-peril flyers.
Po Lau 11
1) "The angle-of-attack (AOA) sensor... was flagged in 216 incident reports to the FAA...About one-fifth of these cases involved Boeing planes."
2) ""Peter Goelz, a former managing director of the NTSB...that the sensor is "a fairly simple external device that can get damaged on a regular basis...That's important because Boeing made the decision to rely on them as single sources for streams of data""
3) ""Peter Lemme, a former Boeing flight-controls engineer...that the plane should have had "a fail-safe design" that "relied on two inputs to make sure that you weren't sensitive to one failure.""
Allan Bowman 10
Failure modes and effects analysis is an essential part of aerospace engineering and design analysis. That Boeing short circuited this means they ought not be allowed to build aircraft at all. The senior executives of Boeing need to be all fired and given nothing, no bonuses, no golden parachutes, tell them they are luck to have escaped jail time.
Edward Bardes 11
They either need to restart production of the 757, or get started on making the 797.
Erik Davis 8
What has happened to Boeing? This company was the gold standard in aviation, now its gold sheen is appallingly tainted.
The FAA used to our every airplane through a grueling certification process, the MAX was rubber stamped through. This airplane, which was a panic-button answer to the A320 NEO was a design of a washed up airframe, stretched well beyond its original design; to serve on small market flights less than two hours origin-destination. It is cramped too short, and now stretched to a point it has undesirable flight characteristics hidden beneath a software designed to mitigate these faults.
Boeing missed a great opportunity to come up with a clean sheet design that would rule the skies for generations. Now they have an airplane that may put them out of business.
Emily Leighton 15
What happened to Boeing? Boeing happened to Boeing. "Small government" republicans slash funding to the FAA, the FAA is unable to perform its duties of regulating airplanes and leaves it up to the airlines. Boeing PROMISES with a wink and a nod (scouts honor) that our plane is totally safe. Meanwhile, capitalism does what it does best when no one is there to oversee it and Boeing cuts corners left and right. These failures aren't surprising, they're not anything new, and they'll keep happening as long as we value "pro-business" deregulation and penny pinching over human lives.
LW P 0
Boeing is too big to fail. They (and the upper mgmt) aren't going anywhere. If public outcry demands a head, they'll find some low level manager who got pressured into signing off on it to fall on their sword.
djames225 3
No company or organization, in this world, are too big to fail. Look at what Boeing has had to do, in past while, by selling bonds to raise capitol. And if the shareholders start getting antsy, upper management will be the first to get the boot.
This, and the KC-46 fiasco, are getting some angry gleers from shareholders.
Emily Leighton 1
Look what "too big to fail" got us in 2008, not falling for that again
matt jensen 8
I heard yesterday there were 200 anomalies reported to the FAA and that Boeing did nothing until the two crashes.
matt jensen 6
patrick baker 10
this is textbook case study of brain-dead, incompetent, arrogogant corporate executuve suite. How does the lack of oversight/critical thinking make its way through upper management and the board of directors, into a passenter aircraft that crashes twice, kills about 380 people, committing indefensible trangressions between the builder of aircraft and the companies that fly them....?????
djames225 9
Of course they never tested it. If they had, 1 single erronious sensor would not gave activated the MCAS. What kind of brain dead company would allow an aircraft to fly without multiple redundancies built into the flight operations system?
matt jensen 2
Greed and pressure from the carriers
djames225 9
It still should not have fallen through the cracks...I think it was more greed, and pressure, from Boeing HQ to combat any Airbus movement.
matt jensen 1
Especially after they lost BBA to AB
Cansojr 1
Shenghao Han 0
You see under time and budget pressure, those managers start to pretend they know better than the engineers, happened to NASA twice...with the two space shuttle crash...needless to say Boeing was under tremendous pressure to roll out the 737 MAXs ASAP, especially when Airbus is eating them alive with the A320neo and A350 as knife and fork...
Cansojr 11
That is gross negligence by the the Boeing aircraft company. What flaws are effecting current models like the 787s. I am completely aware that there will be a huge drop in passenger traffic this summer. I am afraid this situation may be unrecoverable since Boeing took much to long to announce this problem instead they swept it under the carpet instead of informing the airlines, Boeing did it's best to cover-up this deadly problem. It is possible that this was done intentionally because no one in their right mind would do this because a lack of moral fibre.
matt jensen 1
Maybe a good time to restore the 747s eh?
Greg77FA 2
Well if that's true, Boeing may as well open the checkbook and move on.
Edward Bardes 2
How many close calls were there?
RayMacMillan 1
I’ve got to say that I will be afraid of flying in any of the newer models that Boeing has produced, especially the Max line. If I do have a choice to fly with a company that does not use these aircraft I will go that route, if I can delay or change to avoid I will. The biggest reason is that it appears to me that Boeing has put profitability ahead of safety and the bigger problem is that no one will be personally held liable because thay all get to hide behind the corporate shield, that is such a shame. If the actual people who make the final decisions are held liable this would not be as big of a problem for the public but these corporate heads still make tens of millions per year even after their product kills hundreds of people in separate events, shame on the governments who allow this. They use only one sensor to decide whether or not this aircraft will dive or continue straight and level. This is putting profit over safety and they knew it!
Bryant Mook 1
When accounts run the company and not engineers "accidents" can and will continue happen at Boeing and any other builder.
Randy Marco 0
WRONG... the CEO Dennis Muilenburg IS an engineer.

The issue is unbridled capitalism, thanks to the non-stop mantra of the Repugnant's wanting.... SELF REGULATION! 

Boeing lobbied for and received self regulation from the FAA, Boeing determines what's best and the FAA rubber stamps it. 

It's a wonderful system, isn't it...

Oh you don't like it.... maybe you should vote for a party that believes IN regulation or then again just keep your head in the sand & keep watching trumpf TV (faux news) because it's obviuosly working so well!
Bryant Mook 1
He is a CEO first and wants to keep Boeing stock up. He has not been a working engineer for many rears. Again Boeing is not alone in this thinking or the dollar coming first. I have seen the change over the past 50 years. This is also why Douglas left his company. Maybe THAT is unbridled capitalism. When attorneys and accountants run things.
Shenghao Han 0
737 is dead, just like the DC-10, it’s reputation won’t improve no matter what Boeing does, even if there will be 0 crashes involving 737 MAX from now on...
Shenghao Han 1
Funny enough 737NG also had accidents related to flight control software only using captain’s instruments... like the one crashed into sea when the system was Fede with faulty ground approximation radar...
matt jensen 1
Right now I don't think the flying public would object to being in a DC10 or L1011 right about now. I know I wouldn't.
Randy Marco 2
L1011 had NO issues, it's a great aircraft.

The DC10 was a MUCH cheapened "copy" of the L1011 built with LESS redundancies and hydraulic lines placed that would be severed if an engine was lost from its pylon.

In AAL191 the engine did EXACTLY as it was designed to do, flip up & over the top of the wing... and in doing so it cut the hydraulic lines, that were fatally placed for cost issues, which retracted the slats ONLY on the left wing causing the roll to the left.

IF the stupid pilots (major sarcasm intended due to MD design team) just had retracted the slats & applied full power the plane NEVER would have crashed! That is a sad fact that is absolutely true.... but it's easier to apply some blame to the pilots, than say... NO we built a plane that is inherently more dangerous than it needed to be!

The L1011 died ONLY because the DC10 was CHEAPER to build, just another example of profits over safety and quality!

Also, cargo doors never blew open on L1011's buckling the floor where the control lines were placed... and caused several crashes of DC10's.
Brad Littlejohn 1
I don't know.. depends on how the airlines maintain them. I mean, 4 of the biggest operators performed the same maintenance that AAL did that caused AAL191 at KORD.

Last airline I remember seeing that used the DC10 was OAI, and they subsequently dropped them. ATA was the last operator I saw of the L1011, and they dropped their entire fleet (L1011, DC10, B727, B753) to go B737 all the way.
Call it the 837 Max. No one will know the difference.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

djames225 8
Richard..think about it..even if CNN did not disclose what is known, why are u so interested in their sorce?...of course they never tested foe AoA anomalies..if they had, they would have realized that sensor error can lead to consequences, and programmed the flight computer accordingly.
Timothy Sknar 0
Were these bench tested with full documentation of final results of the tests. AOA requires full documentation .
Randy Marco 3
The problem IS no redundancy AND a fatal software design, not testing of a part.

You are way behind on the WHOLE issue.
skylab72 -1
The source for the CNN article was... [wait for it], {you should have seen this comming}, >Yes really<, multiple publications in the Aviation Trade press. Journalism just is not what it used to be.
Bryant Mook -1
Isn't CNN about to go out of business?
skylab72 1
Nope, the Turner Foundation is still giving away million$.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

djames225 6 because it happens that CNN blew the whistle, it's fake???
Shenghao Han 2
I blame Trump propaganda for it...
Bryant Mook -1
I blame global warming and AOC
Bryant Mook -1
Let's face it CNN is truth challenged and that is why their viewership is about the same as Looney Tunes.
Randy Marco 1
Said like a true synapse challenged dolt.
The last crash was caused by a stall in a 30 degree bank when turning
Back to the takeoff point The MCAS had nothing to do with the crash the most it did was to go level flight when it was activated

djames225 2
May I ask where you obtained you results?


Não tem uma conta? Registre-se agora (gratuito) para funcionalidades personalizáveis, alertas de vôo e mais!
Esse site utiliza cookies. Ao usá-lo e continuar a navegar, você concorda com isso.
Você sabia que o rastreamento de voos da FlightAware é patrocinado por anúncios?
Você pode nos ajudar a manter o FlightAware gratuito, permitindo anúncios de Trabalhamos muito para manter nossa publicidade relevante e discreta para criar uma ótima experiência. É rápido e fácil permitir anúncios no FlightAware ou, caso prefira, considere nossas contas premium.