The real reason Boeing's new plane crashed twice

रोजी प्रकाशित केले 15 एप्रिल, 2019
This isn’t just a computer bug. It’s a scandal.
Join the Video Lab! bit.ly/video-lab
Two Boeing airplanes have fallen out of the air and crashed in the past six months. On the surface, this is a technical failure. But the real story is about a company's desire to beat their rival.
Read about Boeing's efforts to get the 737 Max reinstated for flight here: www.vox.com/2019/4/5/18296646/boeing-737-max-mcas-software-update
Vox.com is a news website that helps you cut through the noise and understand what's really driving the events in the headlines. Check out www.vox.com.
Watch our full video catalog: goo.gl/IZONyE
Follow Vox on Facebook: goo.gl/U2g06o
Or Twitter: goo.gl/XFrZ5H

टिप्पण्या

  • Like this video? Help us make more like it by becoming a member of the Vox Video Lab here on MR-tv: bit.ly/vox-video-membership There are few things that we love more than blowing your mind with an obscure fact, or crafting a visually beautiful, reported explainer - but that work is expensive. Your membership will help fund more of that work, let us take on more ambitious series and stories, and keep our work free. So if you're interested in supporting our journalism and getting a peek into our process, please consider becoming a member of the Vox Video Lab today. bit.ly/video-lab

    • You blame the engine, then explain that the engine placement caused the increase in the angle of attach. If you know anything about geometry the placing the engine closer to the drag would lessen the pitch problem!! You then "theorize" that software and the MCAS system were a result of competitive pressures. This must have been written by lawyers.

    • korrdavl thank you! I hate these people spreading fear and making things worse then they are. Obviously it’s tragic and Boeing will do everything it can to fix the situation and make it right but spreading false information about a plane that is actually a really good plane, it just happened to have a small issue that created a big problem but the aircraft is a awesome/safe plane. It’s very similar to an NG which is the safest plane on the planet according to statistics.

    • 737 likes on this comment?

  • TRUMP + BOEING + REPUBLICANS. PEOPLE ARE BLIND TO SIMPLE MATH.

  • This is the result of a stupid way of reflexion from Boeing. For them, computer always has the last word, even if the pilot got thousands of hours of flight behind him. On the other hand, Airbus use the computer as an assistance for the pilot, he will always have the last word. Can't wait to see the consequences on self-driving cars

  • Lots of Boeing shills in here

  • well, how did the ethiopian plane crash????

  • The new “MCAS” Technology in Boeing 737 - Max 8 has turned it into a Flying Coffin...! ⚰️

  • Get out of my recommended vox

  • I believe loss of hundreds of human lives just doesn’t matter to BOEING...!

  • it's all about money at the end

  • Moving the engines' mass up and CLOSER to the aerodynamic centerline made this 737 variant LESS stable? I don't think so. Now, moving the engines' mass forward (which also happened) to create a tail heavy aircraft, that can make an aircraft less stable. Not excessively so, this is no F-117 Nighthawk, but enough to require augmentation to fly comfortably (again, not a new thing). It's been reported that in both crashes the aircraft involved had issues with the critical sensor feeding data to the augmentation system - Lion Air's was a longer term problem which made itself known on that aircraft's last successful flight, Ethiopian's may have been struck by something on takeoff which disabled it. Fur Boeing's part, each aircraft has two sensors but it's been reported that only one fed data to MCAS, which is a major oversight of an easy chance to engineer in redundancy. Still, it's reasonable to suspect that tha main issue might be sensors that are faulty or unusually damage prone, and sourced from a supplier to Boeing rather than designed in house. It's also been reported that Boeing made optional a couple gauges which could have alerted the flight crew to bad data from their sensors - cheap on Boeing's part, but more on airlines' fault when they don't spend the extra money to get that option - those airlines reportedly include Lion Air and Ethiopian. Vox needs better aerospace consultants.

  • Boeing and FAA they are responsible for the tragedy they need to pay both. What a SHAME!!!

  • It was greed that killed those poor people!

  • I'm sure the engineers behind the design are in vacation in bora bora

  • ALLOWING A COMPUTER to override a pilot is an IDIOT MOVE!

  • spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/how-the-boeing-737-max-disaster-looks-to-a-software-developer

  • "if it ain't boeing I ain't going" stupid yanks

  • Typical American company... doesn't care about anything except money and profit . I would choose a 40 years old Airbus over a brand new Boeing anyday. What a joke.

  • That's capitalism. Adapt or go out of business. This should result in a nice fat lawsuit for Boeing

  • Corporatocracy = less regulation driven by the need for increasing quarterly earnings. In this case, the FAA allowing Boeing to self regulate. Good job U.S., buffoon led Kleptocracy.

  • Good explanation. I wouldn't like to flight on any Boieng aircraft. As many Americans corporations, it's just another terrorist company. Boycott American products!

  • If you are not watching Blancolirio YT channel you are not hearing enough details to understand this crash. You have leftist reporters telling leftist fairytales and leaving out enough details so their audiences "reaches" a leftist conclusion.

  • Great video Vox. Well thought through and brilliantly executed.

  • well, it is a big problem that a company can jepordize its resposibility on the lives of millions in order not to fall back in a commercial race. it is to me sadly a result of american commercial industrial culture. I do not trust americans in food industries, drugs industry, in anything that they have big share of profit.... when it comes to business they look like they do anything for money...

  • Remember all those idiots that would preach “if it ain’t Boeing I ain’t going”? lol

  • Well structured storyline, easy to understand.

  • Airbus should show to mercy to Boeing. They better get all those market shares....

  • The sketch att 1:54 is very informative. Why did not Boeing riase the plane above ground ? Too costly?

  • Are they trying to be like Air Bus?

  • It is just tragic.

  • Not only did they mess up trying to compete with the A320neo, but they gave them a hug advantage with all the bad press they’re getting.

  • This is so sad

  • I'm from Ethiopia, I've a question. First let me illustrate something in you're mind here. When you have done something terribly wrong and you don't want others to know but bugs you're mind then you unconsciously do something that seems to prove you haven't done anything wrong. So why is that MAX 8 in the commercial climbing at 90 degrees to the sky While that triggers the MCAS? To show their is no design flaw and no such thing as MCAS that triggers the nose down?

  • im not an expert on these things but it sounds like some people at boeing need a long prison sentence plus lots of cash going to relitives of the dead even tho that wont bring them back.does it not worry anyone else that theyre training pilots to turn there upgrade off like whats the point in having it if it needs to be turned off

  • I'd like to speculate that a design flaw in the mounting of the sensors was the main contributor to the crashes rather than the MCAS software. The MCAS software alone cannot explain the crashes, unless there was a major bug. The beginning of the video states that the MCAS sftware only works if the pilot pulls too steeply to the vertical. That means, once the sensors detect that the plane is not too close to the vertical, the software should stop pushing the nose down. I would like to offer a scenario which can explain why the software kept pushing the nose down. In this scenario, the sensor is mounted on a solid, INFLEXIBLE, stand, so that the sensor is raised above the 'floor'. A good analogy would be a human being standing upright, with his/her feet nailed to the floor - the sensor would be the person's head. When the plane starts to go too close to the vertical, the sensor(the person's head) sends warning information, and the MCAS software kicks in. If, unfortunately due to mechanical failure, the solid, inflexible, frame holding the sensor cracks (the person falls onto his/her back), since the sensor is designed to be at a right angle to the 'floor', not parallel, it will always keep pushing the 'nose' into an indefinite circle, part of which was the observation of pushing the nose 'down'. To fix the problem, a) use at least two materials to make the frame holding the sensor: one of high yield strength (minimum force at which there is a permanent deformation - i.e. force before cracks appear) and one of high tensile strength (the ability to bend without cracking) b)Part of the post-flight maintenance procedures should be to check for cracks/bending on the frame holding the sensors and replace the frame if necessary before the next flight.

  • They can stick their software update! I’ll walk before I get on a Max!

    • I just said that to my wife 10 min ago

  • So they got blood in their hands just for the sake of competition. Humans disgust me.

  • What is so sordid in Boeing’s behaviour is that no-one will carry any real blame. The whole situation comes across for what it is....profit over passengers’ safety. I hope every single deceased dependent sues them utterly rigid. With exemplary damages, Boeing won’t be paying much tax in the next few years.

  • Even if they will fix the mcas issue, nobody will really want to take a plane with a major design problem fixed by software.

  • The last two pictures are truly haunting and devastating

  • I'm no expert but it seems cutting corners to cut costs is becoming a theme at Boeing. It's certainly not encouraging 🤨

    • its called lean manufacturing

  • 5:40 commentary makes no sense in this context. Because as you state the reason for a crash was probably false data fed to the computer by sensors. So plane would act the same with correct data.

  • Well going into this I would say their was too much weight on the plane but its Ethiopian so...

  • Hey, capitalism is the best! Just things that happen in competition

  • This was actually informative video, I thought you will say its because of Russia

  • Well if it was the positioning of the engine that was the root of the problem, then Boeing should go back to the drawing board to redesign the plane to eliminate the engine position, not to just to apply a band-aid solution to update its anti-stall software because now what if the anti-stall software doesn't correct the thrust enough and the plane actually crashes because it stalled? Stalling is actually the no. 1 cause of airplane crashes in the past this is why this MCAS was put in. And in fact, the real reason why the MCAS was triggered in the first place is due to the faulty sensor that is supposed to detect stalling that sent the faulty signal to the MCAS system. So if Boeing doesn't want to redesign the position of the engine, it should at least redesign the sensor instead of applying the band-aid solutions of updating the software and retraining the pilots to turn MCAS off. If a system has to be turned off in order for a plane to fly safely then it shouldn't be there in the first place. Why is a system there if it doesn't do s*** and f*** things up and has to be turned off? Just so the ego of whoever that idiot who designed it wouldn't be bruised? This is f***ing ridiculous. They are not designing a yo-yo; they are designing a plane here. People DIE, massive amount of people die when they f*** up. And they still think applying potentially more dangerous band-aid solutions is the way to go just to save a few bucks? Boeing is criminal. They should go to jail for criminal negligence for causing the death of these 300+ people from the two crashes with their faulty planes! Really surprised that no one has sued them yet. Personally I would NEVER EVER NEVER EVER step on another Boeing 737 Max 8 plane if software updates and retraining pilots are the only two things that they are planning to do. My life and my family's life is more important than corporate greed. Kudos to Vox for exposing the truth and make us more aware.

    • that will take years to do and very costly by the time boeing finished a redesign airbus will have built all orders boeing has right now

  • yep yer right about lifting the newly designed bigger engine up higher to clear faa required proper engine ground clearance during takeoff and landing. But also you forget to mention that the engine was relocated and installed further forward of the pylon where it hang thereby compromising the balance of the aircraft center of gravity location again due to engine to wing clearance requirement. Now flying at high speed the nose pitches up due to the engine powerful thrust due to its out of center of gravity on level flight.As a result the MCAS was designed and developed to remedy the nose pitch up problem which is to control the tail end stabilizer wing at certain angle and deflect aerodynamic airflow thus maintaining balance during level flight

  • So sad that many people died just becouse of the MCAS and Airbus pushing for the win.

  • if the design of the plane has a significant flaw....YOU SHOULD CORRECT THE DESIGN!!! Not put a bandaid on it with some software!!! WTF!! Absolute Gross Negligence!! Hey Boeing, Delta, American Airlines, United Airlines, read my lips....I WILL NEVER STEP FOOT IN THE 737 MAX.

    • american pilots are way smarter than mcas

  • This video sucks

  • Also, the second crash the pilots came very close to recovering. ( flipping two switches ). At one point they did the procedure but during their panic, they reengaged it mistakingly. It isn't a coincidence that no max jets have crashed in the US, Germany, Canada, etc... where pilot training and airline control are strictly enforced and watched. This isn't a bad plane design covered up like your video is trying to imply. If Lion air and Ethiopian air trained their pilots correctly, we wouldn't even be talking about it.

  • The too-high engines on the Boeing 737 MAX remind me of the too-small horizontal stabilizer on the McDonnell Douglas MD-11: both were kludges intended to improve fuel efficiency but which had dangerous effects on the handling.

  • The only problem with this video is it isn't accurate. You have taken facts and stretched them into something that isn't accurate anymore. The difference in flight caractoristics was slight at best. That was said by all 737 pilots who flew both the max and previous 737 jets. The reason mcas was designed the way it was for the max was to make them identical so there wasn't a requirement for pilots to have to get extra certification for the max. The max is as safe or safer than all 737 previous to it. The problem is mcas was reading from only one AOA sensor, not both. So if the one sensor it was using gave bad info, it didn't know the difference and engaged when it shouldn't. The new update is to have it read from both AOA sensors so if one is giving bad info, it cancels out mcas and it won't engage. The way it should have been. Also, they are limiting the abilities of mcas as well. Lets not forget the two crashes were 100% recoverable. Insuficient piloting caused both crashes.

  • Funny how they put competition and profit before so many peoples lives. Criminal negligence.

  • Cost savings before safety. Boeing need a brand new design to replace the 737 - you can only add so many upgrades. If you ever hear an airline manufacturer say they put ‘safety before money’ .... they are lying.

  • I wish this video would come out later then it did. There is new updated information about exactly what happened in flight. This video is not wrong but is not fully correct. Upon further investigation: 1. It was found there was a bird strike (something hit the airplane on takeoff) on the AOA sensor on the Ethiopian flight. This caused false readings on the sensor which had an effect on the crash.2. Yes the MCAS took over and forced the airplane down.3. The new report shows the pilots followed the check list and turned the system off. However, after regaining some type of control they turned the system back on. Which later unfortunately the plane crashed. Unlike Lion Air, there was multiple factors that brought this plane down. I study and work on many aircraft. I'm a fan of your videos but I believe this video should have been released after a full report has been done.

  • Boeing surely must be facing corporate manslaughter charges?! To install MCAS but not inform Pilots is criminally negligent!!

  • We can say Good Bye Boeing.........

  • This sounds like the title of a creepypasta, it kinda is, actually.....

  • It is a clear design flaw and Boeing should recall these planes. The software update won't magically balance the plane.

  • again, it's about a bussiness, damn you capitalist

  • American govt wont strike on boeing . Who else is gonna provide them advance defence material www.boeing.com/defense/

  • just buy airbus and you dont have this issue LOL

  • A human at the controls always must have the upper hand on no matter what system is put in service to help facilitate flying!

  • Good ol' healthy Capitalism and Competition at work here. Nothing to see...move along.

  • Well, our fathers and grandfathers had the McDonnell Douglas DC-10. Our generation has Boeing 737 MAX-8. Also, the 'software' issues remind me of the ADIRU 1 failures on various Airbus A330s in the mid-late 2000s especially Qantas 72.

  • 🤕🤕

  • This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. How does moving the engines up cause the nose to pitch up? Shouldn't it cause the nose to pitch down? You've moving the center of thrust higher up relative to the center of mass. That should cause the nose to pitch *down*, not up.

  • 4.6k Boeing Bots..

  • It's all about money.

  • As an Indonesian, when the first Max 8 crashed, the whole country shocked, we all shocked how come a brand new plane would crash..?? At that time we heard that Boeing denied the plane had an issue. Boeing blamed the pilot and blamed the airline's maintenance....Now what? This video is crystal clear. Thanks Vox!

  • Some pictures (like the belongings pointed out in several comments) are very graphic, unnecessarily so, IMHO. I was quite disturbed and didn't expect to see this in a Vox video. For the rest, great video.

  • It's like not being able to shut down the cruise control in your car! How stupid is that? Yet that happened to the Boeing 737 Max. Even my car has several fail-safe mechanisms when I use the cruise control. It de-activates when I use my brake, when I change gear or when I press the cruise control Pause button. Moronic Boeing.

  • offering a workaround instead of a real solution for the problem, nice job boeing.

  • Mitchell Kirkwood: This is not an issue of how pilots reacted to a poor design that appears to be the opposite of fail-safe in my opinion. Nor is it a software issue. This is a fundamental aerodynamics issue. But lets suppose this is a pilot training issue for argument's sake: Do you want to fly on an aircraft where missing a switch (in reality its a series of actions) right after takeoff and at low altitude, during one of the most critical stages of flight where there is little margin for error, causes everyone onboard to die? And do you want to trust a manufacturer that would approve a design like this? I've been a life-long Boeing fan up to this point by the way.

  • You nailed this with a short, impressive video. GREAT JOB!

  • Man, seeing all the shoes and the belongings, really hit home...

  • Its all about MONEY, Boeing dont care about peoples lives

  • Amazing info....great job. No real solution can come besides "a software fix." More of the same. This is a big deal.

  • 4.6K people work for Boeing, loves Trump and believe on flat earth.

  • This "MISTAKE" killed 200+ people... It's sad how people just lose their loved ones just like that. RIP

  • Jaw dropping and straight to the point. This is what we need effective clear and short explanations. We didn't need to watch a 45 minutes documentary to understand greed... O.o

  • Ryan Aegis: This is not a simple "under-the-wing" engine design behavior as you have stated. There is likely a more complicated set of aerodynamic problems including a canard effect that were introduced with the re-engine on the Max, and that are causing the abnormal level of pitch up on takeoff and stall recovery. I think the effects are explained well here: www.quora.com/What-is-wrong-with-Boeing-737-Max-Aircraft

  • All they care about is their business. I mean its okay, everyone does but we have lives at stake here for god sake. I wonder what would happen if there were only one company that made air crafts. But yes, that is not feasible.

  • Video talking about the 737 MAX. *Thumbnail shows 737-300 (Turbofan)*

  • *YOU FAIL TO MENTION THAT THE AIRLINES WANTED TO CRAM MORE PASSENGERS INTO A PLANE THAT WAS NOT DESIGNED TO DO SO AND BOEING HAD TO MAKE THIS LARGER TO COMPETE BUT THE WINGS DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH SURFACE TO PROVIDE FOR COMFORTABLE T/O AND INFLIGHT PROFILE WITHOUT LARGER ENGINES WHICH, AS YOU DID SAY, HAD TO BE DESIGNED TO FIT THE LEADING EDGE*

  • Corporate compete just to earn money

  • Nicely made however it puts boeing at the total reason for the crash which is not the case the M Cas system Indeed Got misinformation from the left sensor outside of the aircraft which made it thank it was going in and up position while the left sensor or Wind vane showed the proper angle of Attack. When M Cass kept Making the elevator go up in position at so many degrees for 10 secondsIt it made it act just like the original 737 run away trim so the procedure to fix both were the same in turning off the cut out switches.The 2nd Max 8 Crash indeed had this problem but the pilots made two errors.. The 1st one was they failed to watch their air speed Which climbed just below the speed of sound and way past The aircraft tolerance and NEVER reduced power keeping it in takeoff position. When they correctly switched off the M Cas system (cutoff switches, The aircraft was going so fast when they tried to trim the elevator from the top position to the middle position The forces on the elevator were so great that they could not turn the wheel by hand Except very slowly so the pilot used the electric trim but after a few seconds stopped and then again try to by hand then they did not follow checklist procedure which said do not turn the M cas system AKA cut off switches back on for any reason, for this would re introduce an instant downward Characteristic which the pilot did they were close to bringing the plane backup when they turned it on and this nose dived it into the ground.

  • New physics law:Boeing + FAA = money +power > human lives 😮

  • How much training do you need to turn off a switch???

  • Look I'm know expert. But it's clear that it know software issue but rather more of a design flaw. You can clearly see that those engines above the wing cause way to much drag for the plane to fly correctly. Meaning to much drag with minimal pilot training can and will result in a bad outcome. All those souls just to push product out into the market is murder, plain and simple and Boeing should be held accountable for there foolish actions.

  • Really Helpful video. Thx :)

  • All under-the-wing engines force the nose up during acceleration, just like over-the-wing engines force the nose down during acceleration. And this is something pilots are trained for. And, actually, moving the engines up higher put the engines closer to the centerline, which would make them push the nose up less than the same engine slung lower below the wing a la Airbus. The difference, besides size, mass, thrust, and efficiency, is that the new engines had to be moved further forward to be raised higher, which makes the fulcrum different, and thus, the plane handles differently. Is Boeing to blame for this design? No. It is not a bad design at all. Are they to blame for the lack of pilot training? No, that is on the airlines for not providing the training or on the pilots for not reading it. Especially after the Lion Air flight went down. Are engine failures to blame on Boeing? No, the engine is made by a third party and fixed to a Boeing aircraft, and maintained by the airline. MCAS is not new, just a name people are now learning. Anti-stall software has been around, and pilots have been trained how to handle a malfunctioning system. If anything, I blame the pilots for not reporting the problems more aggressively, their higher-up's for not fixing the issue sooner, and the pilots who do not know how to fly a plane without computer assistance. And even a novice pilot should know that, when the computer is flying the plane wrong, turn the computer off.

  • An engineer's mistake will have bigger consequences.

  • Cheers to you guys for the sheer amount of data you got your hands on. Solid research done.

  • How could Boeing be so irresponsible? The greed of this company, at the expense of people's lives, is sickening.

  • Yet another example of group think, non disclosure and a forced outcome. Beside the point but those ruined Ethiopian engines look altogether different than those engines that hit the Pentagon over 17 years ago.

  • "The real reason why boeing got away with it"

  • Of course nothing going to happen to Boeing there part of the military industrial complex.

  • What started out as a relatively good informational film ended being an anti-Boeing film. :(

    • I don't think so. To the contrary, this is probably one of the most objective presentations on this issue that I have seen.. and I've been a Boeing fan my whole life.

  • Boeing should take full responsibility!..no money in this world could bring the deads back..but surely prevent in happening again by putting preassure to Boeing and FAA..both should be punished severly..