
'Passengers are afraid of this airplane': How Boeing is handling 737 Max problem - pseudolus
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/the-national-737-max-boeing-1.5107529
======
dingaling
"We'll do everything possible to earn and re-earn that trust and confidence"

Empty promises. Will they fly 10 empty aircraft 24/7 for a year on realistic
routes to demonstrate that they've resolved the problem? Will they integrate a
third AoA sensor and retrofit it for no charge? Of course not.

They'll model the scenario and conclude that it is fixed.

~~~
CydeWeys
That they didn't add a third AoA sensor does not fill me with confidence that
they've done all they can to fix this fatal issue that's already claimed over
300 lives. I'm skeptical that a software-only fix is good enough.

Airbus planes, by contrast, have three AoA sensors. How can Boeing justify
doing fewer given how critically important these sensors are for preventing
crashes?

~~~
Someone1234
Airbus aircraft require three AoA sensors because they're considered safety
critical. On the 737 Max they weren't safety critical right up until they
added MCAS, at which point that changed, and the regulators should have
required it but failed to (in part because Boeing mislead regulators about how
much MCAS could adjust the deflection in the horizontal stabilizer, doubling
it after regulators had already sign off on it[0]).

The fact that Boeing is able to skate by with two and a software off-switch if
they disagree, while Airbus continues to be required to have triple redundancy
says a lot about their respective regulators (EASA Vs FAA). I'm sure "cost"
was discussed given the 350+ aircraft already produced and how impractical it
is to add a third AoA sensor, but that's literally putting cost over safety.

[0] See "Inaccurate limit": [https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-
aerospace/faile...](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-
aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-
implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/)

~~~
carlmr
>The fact that Boeing is able to skate by with two and a software off-switch
if they disagree, while Airbus continues to be required to have triple
redundancy says a lot about their respective regulators (EASA Vs FAA). I'm
sure "cost" was discussed given the 350+ aircraft already produced and how
impractical it is to add a third AoA sensor, but that's literally putting cost
over safety.

Looking at this image here: [https://qz.com/1461400/pilots-werent-informed-of-
risks-of-bo...](https://qz.com/1461400/pilots-werent-informed-of-risks-of-
boeing-737-maxs-new-feature/)

My biggest doubt is regarding the symmetrical left-right placement of the AoA
vanes. Isn't it realistic that they may freeze in the same position, thus not
disagreeing, but still wrong?

I'm not in aviation, so I'm not sure about this, but without deeper knowledge
this seems like a realistic reason to ask for a 3rd sensor with a different
placement at least.

~~~
cryptonector
That Air France flight that crashed in the Atlantic had all its pitots freeze.
No amount of redundancy will help with that sort of situation -- the sensors
were not designed correctly, specifically they did not have heaters with
enough power to keep them not frozen.

While Boeing should have to add a third AoA sensor, it's important that the
system have some additional fail-safes, such as using gyroscopes to estimate
AoA relative to the ground -- a poor estimate of actual AoA, but a decent
sanity check.

Alarming and proper pilot training should be able to take care of the
remaining risk. Indeed, alarming and proper pilot training would have been
sufficient to avoid the two MAX crashes (I know, that's not a popular opinion
around here).

~~~
Someone1234
Just for background: the Air France flight referenced (AF447) did in fact have
the kind of software fail-safes you're describing, the aircraft entered
alternate law (ALT2) when the bad sensor input was detected and several
automated flight systems were disabled (including envelope protection). The
pilots were notified of this.

There's actually a lot of reasons why AF447 crashed[0], so I won't attempt to
[badly] summarize it here, but I will say it wasn't simply an equipment
malfunction or computer problem. That's just what started the entire chain of
events that ultimately lead to the crash.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Final_re...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Final_report)

~~~
cryptonector
IIRC the biggest problem was cascading alarms -- that and the system's
inability to either determine (I forget) or alert about the pilot stalling the
craft over the din of all the alarms.

------
notacoward
The only thing that would make this right is:

(1) Add a third AoA sensor, with voting among them.

(2) Add an easily visible "AoA disagree" warning for pilots.

(3) Reduce the maximum stabilizer deflection to its design levels, instead of
the 4x levels it shipped with.

(4) Add specific MCAS training for pilots.

(5) Have the whole thing re-certified - by FAA, not by Boeing itself.

All of this should be at Boeing's expense, of course. I'm still trying to make
up my mind on how big a fine they should pay on top of that, and whether
specific individuals should be barred from the industry. There _should_ be
serious consequences for this level of malfeasance.

~~~
duxup
It's interesting to add a disagree warning.

I wonder how many of those there are currently. When I read crash reports
(granted this is a very specific group of reports that don't apply to every
day flight) it is interesting how often there are "too many / confusing
alarms" and at the same time the fundamental instrument "disagreement" is
sometimes not one of those alarms. Often in those reports a pilot(s) simply
didn't recognize the instrument "disagreement" and / or didn't know what to do
when that type of situation occurs (granted some in the reports were proven to
be poor pilots and so I'm not generalizing about all).

I don't know if it would really help to have those types of alarms too as a
misbehaving instrument often has it's own alarm due too, sometimes even the
"right" one goes off too ... granted considering the situation with this
aircraft it might be a different situation and worth adding even as a one off.

Lots of complicated decisions.

~~~
salawat
The thing I find interesting is that even in the military, people who fly
planes frequently are selected for their ability to fly the plane over
understanding the plane.

Which generally works fine up until your design becomes so complex the pilot
can't reliably map control/environmental inputs to plane behavior/outputs.

Given this natural limitation, I find it interesting we keep escalating
avionics complexity beyond the point a pilot can reasonably model the plane
mentally. In fact, I'm surprised we've gone the route of doing away with
flight engineers entirely in day-to-day operations. I get the attractiveness
in cost savings, but you're just running into too much information to parse
while simultaneously having to fly the plane. It's two completely different
mental regimes that eventually will start to interfere with each other.

But hey that's the market for ya. Local optimization or bust right?

------
ilamont
_But after the second crash of the revamped Max model, a poll conducted by
Business Insider suggested 53 per cent of American adults never want to fly on
a 737 Max, even once it 's deemed safe to do so_

It's Business Insider using the results of a Survey Monkey poll to make wild
claims about the views of more than 100 million American adults.

~~~
sametmax
Most people don't even know the name of the plane, those who know rarely
remember to check for it, and the rest that do will have forgotten in a few
months.

~~~
armitron
I've decided never to fly Boeing ever again (not just the 737 max). I'm pretty
sure I'll remember just fine and stick to my decision. Everyone I have had
discussions with about this issue is also not willing to fly 737 max and for
some this extends to Boeing as a whole.

~~~
linuxftw
I will book Airbus whenever possible in the future, and already did so just a
week or so ago. I am unlikely to book on a MAX in the future, even if I think
they're safe, more as a boycott because Boeing needs to suffer.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
This seems excessively limiting. The standard 737 has an impeccable safety
record and I much prefer it as a passenger to the A320 (the Airbus is noisier
IMO). I wouldn't think twice about stepping on board any modern aircraft no
matter who the manufacturer, but I have to admit that that attitude doesn't
currently extend to the MAX.

~~~
NikkiA
> The standard 737 has an impeccable safety record

This is simply not true, Boeing has had safety problems with every generation
of 737

Original: thrust reverser problems early in life, engine crack causing fires
late in life,

Classic: changes to the instrument UI caused problems early in life (eg, the
vibration gauges being reversed causing the kegworth disaster), rudder and
empenage failures late in life,

NG: the wings randomly catching fire caused a grounding that required
preventative maintenence policies to be required on the leading slats, early
metal fatigue appearing a couple of years ago (on <10 yo aircraft)

MAX: see current post.

------
erentz
On twitter I would get non-stop ads from Boeing pitching their military
hardware. I don't understand this, I'm not exactly in the market for buying $1
billion military airplanes and missiles. I've never seen a single ad pitching
the quality of their civilian aircraft.

The economics of the situation do mean most passengers won't have a choice in
this. Unless airlines cancel their 737MAX orders and continue to run their
older 737 NGs for longer while they wait for a new Boeing aircraft or to get
A320s at the back of a very looong queue of Airbus orders.

Otherwise that queue of 5,000 or so 737 MAXs is going somewhere. If there's
real fear of flying on them then 737 MAX flights will be cheaper and
A320/757/etc. flights will be more expensive. Price sensitive flyers will have
to choose between flying and not flying.

~~~
close04
> If there's real fear of flying on them then 737 MAX flights will be cheaper
> and A320/757/etc. flights will be more expensive

Have you noticed how when you buy the ticket there's no mention of the plane
you'll actually fly in and no guarantee that it won't be swapped 45 minutes
before takeoff?

I'm saying that looking from a different perspective. As a tall person I would
rather fly in planes I know to have better leg room or where I can pick an
emergency exit seat. So many times the plane was changed just before boarding
and my "emergency exit seat" turned into a regular cramped one because of the
different seating arrangement.

So I'll be skeptic of the fact that the market can actually support tickets
prices based on the plane model. Unless an airline guarantees the plane model
you book your flight on or exclusively uses a specific model then pricing
based on the plane used is about as achievable as pricing based on the
revision of circuit breakers used in the cockpit.

~~~
sokoloff
> Have you noticed how when you buy the ticket there's no mention of the plane

I haven't noticed that.

I can't recall _ever_ booking a ticket on a carrier where the [scheduled]
plane type wasn't readily available to me before purchasing. Typically looking
at the seat map or details of the flight will show you the type (and sub-
type). I wouldn't buy a ticket on a site that didn't preview that information.

I just checked the major legacy US carriers and Delta and United show it in
either the Details or Seats fold-outs. American shows it directly on the
schedule. For non-legacy carriers, Southwest only flies 737s [and doesn't
assign seats], but shows the specific revision in a fold-out when you click
the flight number. JetBlue shows it without the need for a click (as American
above). If you care about the in-flight experience at all, you surely
shouldn't fly Spirit, but they show it as well in the seat map.

For aggregators/OTAs, Expedia shows it in the details fold-out, Kayak in the
flight fold-out, Google Flights in the results fold-out, ITA Matrix same.

I tried and couldn't find a way to book a flight where I couldn't readily see
the scheduled aircraft. There's no guarantee that your aircraft won't be
switched out for operational necessity, but in that event I'm sure you could
decline the switch and book on another flight if you had an operational,
safety, convenience, or other concern with the switch.

How do you book tickets where you don't and can't see the aircraft model
before booking?

~~~
CaptainZapp
Any airline reserves the right to swap the plane model and reassign your seat
with no notice at all.

That also goes for Asian and European carriers, which usually have a much
higher service level than US carriers.

Source: My own experience being assigned a seat on a Bombardier C100 (Airbus
220 now), which was swapped for an Airbus A320 with Swiss. This happened about
three times and the moment you learn about it is at the gate.

~~~
saiya-jin
Exactly happened to me over this Easter - normal jet airbus swapped for some
slower turboprop one (the one with long blades sticking out).

Normally I wouldn't care so much, engines weren't that noisy, but the effin'
plane was much much slower, meaning huge delay, missed train and forced
sleepover in a place I really didn't want to spend any time.

No warning or announcement whatsoever. Not even apology from crew for massive
delay (Austrian airlines)

------
AlexandrB
> Ali Bahrami is now the FAA's Association Administrator for Aviation Safety.
> But six years ago Bahrami worked for the aircraft manufacturers lobby, and
> he argued before Congress to fight foreign competition by delegating more
> regulatory authority to the plane-makers to help them get new products to
> market faster.

It’s endlessly puzzling to me how lobbyists that spend their lives advocating
for an industry are expected to be able do an about-face and advocate for the
public once on the FCC/FAA/whatever. Even stranger is that it sometimes works,
like with former FCC chairman Tom Wheeler.

~~~
tzs
It wasn't really strange with Wheeler. When he was the head of the main cable
trade association (over 30 years before the FCC appointment) it was at a time
when cable was the scrappy upstart fighting against the big, entrenched
broadcast networks to bring more options to consumers.

Later, when he was head of the main wireless trade association it was when
wireless was the upstart, bringing an alternative to the big, entrenched wired
services.

In short, he worked for the cable and the wireless industry groups at a time
when being pro-cable and pro-wireless, respectively, was pro-consumer.

------
perlgeek
> "We'll do everything possible to earn and re-earn that trust and confidence
> from our airline customers and the flying public in the weeks and months
> ahead."

So re-certify it as if it were a new airplane, which it actually seems to be.

~~~
username223
And pay to re-certify the pilots. That was the underlying reason for this
disaster.

But I think this is just the beginning for Boeing. The recent complaints about
sloppy 787 manufacturing seem to point to deeper cultural problems.

------
apo
> He predicts a multimillion-dollar campaign through both traditional and
> social media.

I predict that the campaign will spook the bejesus out of the consumer.
Nothing says "beware" like a big corporation insisting, repeatedly and loudly,
that all is well.

Given that this will be Boeing's first foray into direct-to-consumer
marketing, they're going to make big mistakes.

------
alkonaut
They'll do anything in their power* to restore customer confidence.

* Anything that doesn't hurt the bottom line dramatically, such as doing any kind of large scale recalls and updates or simply changing the classification of the plane as "not a 737".

I suspect they'll add some software fixes and do isolated testing. This
doesn't restore my confidence. I'll still fly in the damn thing though.

~~~
dunefox
> I'll still fly in the damn thing though. Why?

~~~
alkonaut
Because I’m economical and it’s typically quite expensive to be picky about
which planes to fly. I’m also not panicking at the odds - even a plane with
10x the average risk of crashing has a low risk of accidents. The problem here
is the rather small sample size given how young this plane is. A 100x risk
would be hard to swallow.

------
nakedrobot2
It all comes back to that Reddit comment [1] which pretty much sums it up:
Boeing is internally a dumpster fire, and they have zero regard for actual
safe engineering.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19671611](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19671611)

------
smity7
Listen carefully to this interview, might be interesting as well regarding the
problems at Boeing. Problems with the dreamliner as well, told by a whistle-
blower, former quality manager, at Boeing.

[https://overcast.fm/+LHycFpjoo](https://overcast.fm/+LHycFpjoo)

------
dandare
The only way they can re-earn my trust is if they address the managerial
problem, not the technical problem. The dirty ugly solution was not a result
of stupid engineering, it was a result of profit over safety mentality in the
highest layers of management.

------
hamdshah
What happened to the criminal investigation ? More then 300 hundred lives are
lost just because they wanted to compete with another company.

------
coinerone
As a Person with slight fear of flying, i will not set a foot into a Boeing
for some time.

~~~
Phenomenit
I don't a have a slight fear of flying. My refusal to set foot on a Boeing
airplane is just common sense. Especially after that former Boeing employee
posted how their corporate culture basically does nothing to promote
airsafety.

Never boeing again. I'll rather take the train.

------
exabrial
I think we need to execute and verify the engineering process. If there are
problems, let's discover them. We'll improve safety across the board. Fear
mongering is useless for advancement and is to the point where people are
getting superstitious.

~~~
idoubtit
The beginning of your sentence send a shiver through my spine. I thought you
were advocating for a radical solution, like the Saudi Kingdom just did with
37 protesters.

In both cases, Saudi Justice and Plane engineering, the main problem is that
the regulatory body is not independent, and its focus is not the public
interest.

------
ok_coo
Listen to this NY Times podcast and tell me you're comfortable flying in these
planes.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/podcasts/the-
daily/boeing...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/podcasts/the-daily/boeing-
dreamliner-charleston.html)

------
arnon
Passengers were also afraid of the DC-10.

People will forget

~~~
dgritsko
I don't know, has there been anything of this sort in the age of Twitter and
social media outrage? Seems like the unprecedented ability that we have for
information to quickly disseminate could allow the 737 Max issue to live on a
lot longer in the public consciousness.

~~~
arnon
Trust humans' short-term memory loss

~~~
vibrio
First the humans will respond to "$49 tickets from NYC to SF!!", then they
will forget.

------
lawlessone
They should just scrap it. Start over like they should have done.

------
gpvos
How many people check which type of plane they'll be on when making a booking?
I've never done that. Then again, even when, say, 10% of people do that, it'll
be a devastating dent in revenue for most airlines.

~~~
PunchTornado
I only check when I'm travelling with a no name company in Asia.

------
anbop
I doubt I’ll ever fly on a 737 Max again. I already cancelled one work trip
because of it. Told my boss, “two have crashed, FAA isn’t doing anything, not
risking orphaning my kids for this meeting.” He agreed with my logic.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
I hope you mentioned your reason for cancelling to the airline.

------
reacweb
I think Boeing should fire (or demote) some high managers.

~~~
baby
Witch hunting or randomly attributing blame is never a good idea.

~~~
i386
Highly disagree. Strategic firings can help with culture issues.

~~~
baby
You are right but this shouldn’t be triggered by bad events.

------
nkkollaw
I think a wise move would be to rename the thing?

"737 Ultimate", "737 Safejack", or whatever?

~~~
chapium
The could put a sticker on the door stating, "this plane has not crashed".

~~~
nkkollaw
"xxxx days since last serious crash"

------
dnate
The way I see any future problem in the Boeing 737 max problem go is this:

\- Pilot notices plane going down

\- Pilot radios Tower: "We are having the Boeing 737 max problem. How do I
solve that again?"

\- Operator looks at post-it note on his monitor: "Well, you do <step 1>,
<step 2> and <step 3> to disable the faulty MCAS

\- Pilot: Thanks

Joking aside, I think almost every pilot has by now at least heard about the
problem, and will at least read up on it when they find themselves in a
cockpit of a 737 max. If I understood correctly the biggest issue was that
pilots simply didn't understand what was going on with their plane and why it
was dipping it's nose. Now the MCAS is probably the first thing they will
check.

I am not saying that the way Boeing is handling this is ok, just that
realistically this issue is probably not going to cause another crash.

~~~
idoubtit
> If I understood correctly the biggest issue was that pilots simply didn't
> understand what was going on with their plane

No. This is not what happened.

The Ethiopian pilots followed the new procedure that Boeing published after
the Indonesian crash, where the MCAS was already suspected. The Boeing
procedure was not sufficient to save them. The detailed facts about this have
been supplied by the flying data that was recovered from the crash, then sent
to a French specialized investigating team, then announced by Ethiopian
authorities. There are numerous reports about this from reliable sources,
including most newspapers.

The simple fact that some people still believe in a proven-wrong scenario is
worrying. I suspect the cause is often a mix of the contempt for Southern
countries, and idealization of the big firms and their technology. Of course,
the American authorities and the initial Boeing claims have also helped
biasing the public view. And the modern alternative sources of information
probably contributed. Though I remember that, long before social networks
replaced newspapers, 75% of Americans believed the absurd theory that Saddam
Hussein was behind 9/11.

------
anbop
I’m not just afraid of this airplane, I’m now afraid of all Boeings. I can’t
avoid them entirely (I fly a lot), but definitely find myself preferentially
booking travel on flights listed as Airbus.

------
StreamBright
At this stage I will not board any Boeing 737MAX or Dreamliner (see the
stories posted on Reddit)

~~~
beamatronic
Flying Delta exclusively, then? Considering the same here.

~~~
amyjess
Unfortunately, Delta is expensive enough that flying them would mean flying
less.

A large part of why I was able to start flying again last year was when I
discovered Southwest. I loved flying with them, but once the MAX goes into
service again, I'll be very hesitant to do so.

Are there any low-cost carriers in the US who use Airbus exclusively?

~~~
StreamBright
Not exclusively but they have some Airbus:

[https://www.alaskaair.com/content/travel-info/our-
aircraft](https://www.alaskaair.com/content/travel-info/our-aircraft)

------
foobarbazetc
Hard pass.

------
Grue3
These passengers are still driving cars, even though they're much less safe.

The solution is simple: subsidize ticket prices. The cheapest ticket always
wins. People would literally fly standing up if they could get a ticket for $1
less. Just ask Ryanair.

------
kuzehanka
When it comes back online, the 737 MAX 8 will probably be the safest passenger
plane in the world.

A second wave of issues would present an existential threat to Boeing, they
are aware of this and you can be sure that every design element is being
triple checked to make sure nothing at all is missed from the MCAS issue or
anything else.

Even the greediest capitalist executives imaginable would not take a gamble on
there being a second wave of problems with that plane.

Downvotes? HN is using downvotes as a silent disagree button? We are reddit
now? At least come out and post a reply explaining why you think this warrants
a downvote.

~~~
Zenbit_UX
> A second wave of issues would present an existential threat to Boeing, they
> are aware of this and you can be sure that every design element is being
> triple checked to make sure nothing at all is missed from the MCAS issue or
> anything else.

Sort of like how Samsung recalled the note 7 when it started catching fire?
They did "extensive testing", claimed to have fixed the issue and then re-
released it with a green battery icon in the header only to have them catch
fire again?

No, I call bullshit. Companies aren't always as smart or as cautious as you
give them credit for. Especially when they're bleeding money because of a
recall. The pressures internally to patch and release are huge. If it's safer
when it comes back it will be solely due to the FAA's work.

~~~
notahacker
Aviation in general and the new commercial aircraft market in particular is
just a little bit more safety conscious than the cheap end of the consumer
electronics market...

