The real reason Boeing's new plane crashed twice

  • Julkaistu 10 päivää sitten

    VoxVox

    kesto: 6:00

    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

Rogelio Gloria
Rogelio Gloria

Why do the engine wreak age look smaller?

14 minuuttia sitten
Edmundo Rodriguez
Edmundo Rodriguez

As a USN veteran with over 20 years of experience on flight control troubleshooting and maintenance of A6, E2, C1, C2, CT-39 & C-130F naval aircraft I can't help myself not to get involved with Boeing 737 Max mishaps, Since I'm a frequent flyer, I am very concerned about Boeing 737 Max infamous software fix that IMHO it is just a bandage fix. This software fix is just tinkering with the elevator angle of attack to stabilize the overwhelming thrust produced by the new engine that permits the undesirable pitch of the aircraft thereby stalling the engines during takeoff. At this point, the (MCAS) maneuvering characterestics augmentation system will depend on its timely pitch correction to counteract different factors that can influence it on a large passenger aircraft. Just my humble opinion, an experienced pilot once aware of this situation needed to immediately correct this by turning off the MCAS then apply manual flight control operation of the elevator to give an aircraft an even keel in the take-off mode. It is very critical and a split second delay can bring the aircraft out of control. The possible but very expensive correction to this problem is the expansion modification of the wingspan to improve the aircraft lift to avoid the unwanted pitch, therefore, preventing the untimely or even erratic operation of the Maneuvering Characteristic Augmentation System (MCAS) make this system unnecessary.

57 minuuttia sitten
thomas odenkirk
thomas odenkirk

i wonder why the pilots were able to fight the nose dive for multiple attempts but eventually they nose dive straight down without being able to pull up again.

Tunti sitten
J J
J J

A quaint little story of sheer greed and it's eventual outcome, disaster and fatality

2 tuntia sitten
Amer Sarraj
Amer Sarraj

Why Boeing don’t make 737MAX higher same as Airbus 320 instead of moving engine up !! Why they insist to make it lower

2 tuntia sitten
Jeffrey Locke
Jeffrey Locke

Good review of the competitive environment but Propaganda as to the contributing factors in both crashes. Except for engine start the MAX flies just like the NG 737. Both crash aircraft were at takeoff power accelerating beyond the maximum safe airspeed the entire flight. The MCAS malfunction was a distraction that started a chain of pilot errors. Once the pilots allowed the aircraft to exceed designed max airspeed with a trim malfunction they could not control the jet because of the speed. Experienced commercial pilots instinctively know controlling airspeed by climbing or pulling power instead of RAPIDLY accelerating in near level flight would have kept them in the speed range where these jets are controllable. Boeing made mistakes with the MCAS but the jet is safe in qualified hands.

4 tuntia sitten
None None
None None

Why don't planes have a little screen that shows event logs, why do planes do stuff without telling the pilot like a magic trick? This would have saved 100s of lives not just with this disaster but with many other planes that have crashed. Lots of times the pilots are totally unaware of why a plane is acting the way it is and a simple event log would explain it.

5 tuntia sitten
Enrique Hoyos
Enrique Hoyos

Is not uncommon to fix flight dynamics of a plane with software. But is unforgivable the way Boeing hid the updated plane dynamics in order to get a streamlined certification. Their negligence and stupidity resulted in lost lives. Incredible.

5 tuntia sitten
Mikey D
Mikey D

Best explanation I’ve heard. Senseless tragedy. So many lives changed forever.

5 tuntia sitten
Abba Yosua
Abba Yosua

Capitalism at its best 💯💯

6 tuntia sitten
tcb268
tcb268

Boeing is in very deep kaka over this and rightly so. If it's a Boeing, I'M NOT GOING.

6 tuntia sitten
KaseyJosh Kaseyjosh
KaseyJosh Kaseyjosh

Bullshit fake crashes wake up FOOLS....

7 tuntia sitten
ItsPenguin
ItsPenguin

Everyone here. Listen. It may be Boeing's fault for 'carelessly' slapping bigger engines on the 737, but this problem has been developing since 1984 when Boeing first released the 737-300. This was the first 737 with the iconic flat bottom engine, and since, bigger and bigger engines have been put on the 737 with no effect. Boeing put those engines on the 737 MAX thinking it would be the same. When it wasn't the same, they made something that tried, but failed to fix the problem. Years and years of development has caused this problem, and as a result, This critical flaw has been developing for 35 years. and a lot of people have the wrong idea. This is a bigger issue than just a scandal or a software bug. This is just overall bad design.

7 tuntia sitten
sleekitwan
sleekitwan

Good video but you have overlooked a second and more primary fundamental difference between these aeroplanes: the positioning of the wings. Note the profile pictures you supply...around 1:38 for the airbus A320 and A320Neo. Now move to later and compare with the Boeing 737 and Max. Notice the difference is marked - the wings of the Boeing 737 have their root (point of attachment to fuselage) FURTHER BACK than the Airbus. The Boeing is therefore fundamentally LESS STABLE. In fact, the deepest chord point of the wings (about a third of the way back from the leading edge), in almost every aeroplane ever made, is about a third of the length of the fuselage back from the nose. I once built a model aeroplane (fixed-wing drone we’d now say) and made an error by one inch on a 24 inch long fuselage. IE I attached the wings about 10% further back than they ought to have been. I had to compensate, making static measurements (you hold the plane by the middle of the wingtips) and mount lead in the tail to make the thing statically balance. Now, the aeroplane was HEAVIER than originally designed, LESS STABLE, and yet on the ground, passed my static tests. The further back the main wing is placed, the more the wing acts like a rear tailplane. The fundamentally UNSTABLE Boeing design must have a reason why the wings centre of lift is so far back, but what I am saying is, this plane the Boeing 737 ALREADY had a fundamental stability problem, before they started messing further with it. How did my fixed-wing drone (model aeroplane) fly? Badly. The pilot had done this before, but the plane flipped wildly from up to down and he couldn’t make it go more than twenty yards before it dived after he compensated for it shooting upward. It wanted to either flip over on it’s back, or shoot down to the ground. The lead put in to make it balance when static testing, made it so once it got rotating to point wildly up or down, it was hard for the pilot to be fast enough to compensate. This, is what the Boeing software/MCAS is meant to be able to do. According to this video, they did a rush job of that. But I re-emphasise - this was a dog of a design even before they messed with it, adding heavier engines, slung forward and up, and added dodgy software and sensors. Sensors, which were known to ice up and lock into position, on previous flights this has happened, feeding information to the software, suggesting the aeroplane’s nose is always pointing up. Your video is correct but the rearward-located wings, and the sticking attitude/angle of climb sensors, also will have played a part. An unstable design, with a sticking-plaster of rushed IT slapped on top. I wouldn’t be happy taxiing along the ground in that thing.

8 tuntia sitten
Wendell Ellis Edwards
Wendell Ellis Edwards

Great video.

8 tuntia sitten
A. Spencer Maxim
A. Spencer Maxim

When will people realize just how much more software is less reliable, requiring constant updates, allowing 3rd parties to hack and not caring for human harm. Wait for the robots. Bring on the hi tech future and watch mankind suffer in greater proportions. What we sow is what we reap. Going back to my roots. Off grid tech living on my self sustainable permaculture ranch. People are too greedy to trust. Corporations are even worse, without conscience. Shareholder gains, when will it stop? At what price?

8 tuntia sitten
wildallseasonlong
wildallseasonlong

BS

9 tuntia sitten
Pablo Gonzalez
Pablo Gonzalez

Your explanation is incorrect MCAS is designed to intervene at a high angle of attack (AOA) NOT at a high angle of pitch or thrust these are not the same thing but commonly confused. Interestingly most people aren't aware that in the 90s the 737 Classic suffered from a design flaw in the rudder that also brought down 2 planes and affected every single 737 in service. The problem was rectified and it never occured again. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues

10 tuntia sitten
Danny Anderson
Danny Anderson

Shame rolls Royce aren’t in the business of making aeroplanes

10 tuntia sitten
Phillip Mullins
Phillip Mullins

From the tenor of the video I'd say VOX has an axe to grind against Boeing. May me some under the table monies coming from a manufacturer who flew the first fly-by-wire aircraft that had to go thru many software revisions to get them from having problems.

10 tuntia sitten
Bscotland
Bscotland

Engine gets to a certain temperature and the fuel is cut off by sensors. A codeing glitch... We will never know the truth.

10 tuntia sitten
Haytham Benkirane
Haytham Benkirane

I'll never accept to travel on 777 max even if they delete this mcas. US compagnies' priority is money !

10 tuntia sitten
Haytham Benkirane
Haytham Benkirane

737 max

10 tuntia sitten
ANTIQUEFOTOS
ANTIQUEFOTOS

Why haven't we heard of heads rolling yet?

10 tuntia sitten
I'm gone
I'm gone

And now we know.

11 tuntia sitten
werewolf5674
werewolf5674

That what I alway understood the problem to be.

12 tuntia sitten
Gus
Gus

In my country, this is called murderous negligence. Boeing lost its ethical compass. CEO's that play with financial statements go to prison. What should happen to CEO's that play with human lives for greed? Firing the CEO is not enough. He should spend time in prison for his crimes.

12 tuntia sitten
Ron B.
Ron B.

It is amazing how many people join in the condemnation of a company when they are totally ignorant of what the real causes of these two crashes are. Vox sounds as if he is an expert in aerodynamics, but any intelligent pilot knows that raising the thrustline of an airplane decreases the upward pitching moment, NOT increases it. These accidents were essentially analogous to a runaway nose down trim situation. Pilots have been trained to handle this situation since the 1960s, when I started my 30 year career with a major USA airline, after flying supersonic fighter jets in the USAF for 6 years. The malfunctioning MCAS did NOT cause any USA pilots to crash, because it can be overcome. The main mistake made by Boeing was not using both angle of attack sensors inputs into the MCAS. These sensors are located on both sides of the forward fuselage, and can be damaged by collision with a catering truck, stairs, or jetbridge. Could it be that these sensors were damaged and unnoticed by the pilots on their walkaround inspection, if they even made one?

12 tuntia sitten
the liar king
the liar king

airbus have had many teething problems with new planes, its not a boeing thing only. many people learn more about aviation only from crashes, and not before. people shouldnt assume all airbus planes are now safe, im going on a boeing 757 soon, they have a great safety record.

12 tuntia sitten
Elon Mustard
Elon Mustard

You don't really reveal a scandal here, just motivation for being competitive in sales. The real scandal is the FAA and DERs not properly performing the safety analysis and adhering to the strict redundancy rules they put in place years ago.

13 tuntia sitten
Miller Werth
Miller Werth

I will deliberately check the model of plane and will not buy the ticket if it is a max. Obviously the plane has structural issues and they tried to fix that by a software. That’s it, i have zero trust. I will do the same for all new planes of Boeing.

13 tuntia sitten
Dhawal Kumar
Dhawal Kumar

And A320neo has 0 fatalities for now

14 tuntia sitten
Rob Rob
Rob Rob

Greedy yank Bastards need to pay for this crime!!!!!! Boycott!!!!!!!!! Ty for this video!!!!

15 tuntia sitten
Dr. Citizen Brain
Dr. Citizen Brain

Buy Airbus

15 tuntia sitten
dan taylor
dan taylor

In 1969 humans put a man on the moon, 50 years later we're simply re hashing engines and call it an update. This is piss poor engineering. I think the kids of the 1960's would be so pissed off with this snail paced advancement. We should be shifting millions of passengers at mach 5 by now piss poor, simply piss poor.

16 tuntia sitten
basebrat64
basebrat64

i saw a picture being held up of a dead muslim. cool.

16 tuntia sitten
clomagro
clomagro

Everyone in the world should know, U.S. companies don't care about people, or their lives. Only money. They always find a way to blame something else. Hell the U.S was the last country to ground the planes. Shows how much they care about it's own citizens. Money is all that matters.

16 tuntia sitten
Tom Jones
Tom Jones

Boeing will hopefully be SUED INTO OBLIVION over this exercise in FRAUD and GROSS NEGLIGENCE 😡😡😡

17 tuntia sitten
Shantanu Mathur
Shantanu Mathur

Hundreds died because of Greed . yet no one from Boing will even send 1 day in jail , such is our justice system.

17 tuntia sitten
Adam Klein
Adam Klein

"The real reason Boeing's new plane crashed twice" the REAL reason - the pilots were trash, did not follow Boeing procedures, poor CRM, poor threat and error management, poor aeronautical decision making. You want to read about good pilots, Qantas 72. Bad pilots, Colgan 3407. Worse pilots Air France 447.

17 tuntia sitten
Valentins Tag
Valentins Tag

And this is why Airbus is better, they don't take a risk, they just do the work and if it's not more used, they kill the prdoctline like the A380. And don't sell rubbish again!

18 tuntia sitten
Lusade Devron
Lusade Devron

This is beyond evil. why has there not been a class action lawsuit?

19 tuntia sitten
Mc
Mc

Couldn't they of just made the wheels and landing gear bigger instead of moving the engine up?

19 tuntia sitten
surfextrem
surfextrem

Mc it’s not that simple, i bet they do not have enough room inside the fuselage to fit a bigger landing gear. Every little space is used in a plane...

11 tuntia sitten
J P
J P

What's the deal with everybody shoes and wallets lined up in matching order? Where's the people why aren't there shoes on their feet? Why aren't their wallets and IDs on their person? Just like the Titanic when they found it there were no bodies anywhere just a bunch of shoes and luggage. Kind of like the flight in Pennsylvania on 9/11 no bodies were ever found no bones no teeth... Wake up people

19 tuntia sitten
Ahmet Baydar
Ahmet Baydar

Uhm. Another great American Company. Come on guys. Americans doesn't care money. Quality, safety and future of the earth are the most important things for them. Ops... Iraq is different story. Oil doesn't means money. They don't kill people for money or oil. Yes, yes... I'm sure. Dear Donald Trump. I'm starting to save money to buy a Boeing 737 Max for you. Please use it everyday.

19 tuntia sitten
Eric Rogers
Eric Rogers

I would not care what airbus is doing, airbus past record of crashes says enough. There is or will be a shortage of twin engines single aisle commercial airplanes. What airbus is doing with their gamer controls is not flying well. Boeing did not have to compete, all they had to do was to make much safer pilot in command airplanes.

19 tuntia sitten
Bojan Subasic
Bojan Subasic

Fabulous knowledge 😡

20 tuntia sitten
Emmanuel J. Okey I
Emmanuel J. Okey I

Instead of repositioning the engine, they should have built a taller standing wheel base, like the lift kits on big trucks.

21 tunti sitten
Extroxer t
Extroxer t

OOF god darn it its always the cockroaches who survive everything even flight 610

22 tuntia sitten
Max Binnewies
Max Binnewies

In an altitude graph you can not see whether the plane is in full thrust. It just shows altitude

22 tuntia sitten
P M
P M

So sloppy. Nothing's safe anymore, especially when CEOs and government entities are sloppy.

Päivä sitten
ELoveHo
ELoveHo

so they didn't even apologise? just said they'll upgrade the remaining planes? wtf???

Päivä sitten
Daniel Ho
Daniel Ho

History repeats itself -- Pilot vs Plane, the 737 Max edition. We've all forgotten the lessons of China Air 140 crash w/ the Airbus A300 in 1994. Bottom line: 1. Controls of the plane must be logical and predictable to the pilots. 2. All air-nanny software must have an easy override switch so in-flight problems can be solved more easily. To me, the MCAS system should warn and advise the pilot what to do. It should NOT override the physical controls. Of course I'm not a pilot .. only a backseat one. The FAA's mandate is to promote air travel AND make it safer. Surely there's a conflict of interest here. It's about time FAA is broken up into 2: A. FAP - Federal Aviation Promotion -- promote and facilitate more air travel. B. FAS - Federal Aviation Safety - make the airline system safer.

Päivä sitten
Miqo'te Lover
Miqo'te Lover

Thats brutal.

Päivä sitten
luca kro
luca kro

Thats not on boeing airlines need to maintain an aircraft or else the manufacturer cannot be responsible so you’re now telling me this Failed sensors downs plane! Who would have guessed

Päivä sitten
henkams
henkams

the customer is always right, so in this case the passenger, never, ever step aboard on a B 737 Max! . Chose an airline that does not have these planes.

Päivä sitten
Haimn Cukerman
Haimn Cukerman

Прекрасная америкосовская разработка. Побольше бы таких !

Päivä sitten
Haimn Cukerman
Haimn Cukerman

Wspaniała amerykańska konstrukcja. Więcej by takich !

Päivä sitten
Joe M
Joe M

There has been at least 5 reports to the FAA from US pilots having similar issues with the 737 Max aircraft however, none have resulted in crashes. Yes, there is a design flaw with the MCAS system but quick and proper actions from the crew can lead to a safe outcome. Boeing should have developed a better training program that discussed the MCAS system, how it operates and how to disable it in the event of a malfunction.

Päivä sitten
Bob Boberson
Bob Boberson

Bad pilot training. Very simple.

Päivä sitten
meerkat1954
meerkat1954

Capitalism at its finest, a machine for killing people as profitably as possible. This is what deregulation of corporations brings us. Death by the hundreds.

Päivä sitten
Bal K
Bal K

And here I thought it was because Vox is liberal soy boy cancer....

Päivä sitten
seahawksphan
seahawksphan

How much you wanna bet this video is sponsored by airbus 😂🤣

Päivä sitten
Andre Nguyen
Andre Nguyen

It doesn't matter if it really is. Two planes of the same model same crash pattern. I'm pretty sure Beoing has a hell of explanation to convince customers.

Päivä sitten
Toasty Volvo
Toasty Volvo

So many problems? You listed two incidents that killed many people. I don’t see the legitimacy here.

Päivä sitten
TheCumminsturbo2
TheCumminsturbo2

All of this is comes down to a society that wants to rely on technology to do there job and ultimately makes a dumb society and guess what people were much happier with out all the technology

Päivä sitten
Γιώργος Μπέκας
Γιώργος Μπέκας

AIRBUS is the safest plane. PERIOD.

Päivä sitten
Kevin Mai
Kevin Mai

God so many lives lost

Päivä sitten
ArmyOfAll
ArmyOfAll

Capitalism kills people for profit. I'm shocked. -.-

Päivä sitten
Drew Pantano
Drew Pantano

Why didnt they just increase the height of the plane? So its further away from the ground and slid the new engine and advertise it that way?

Päivä sitten
deepsea21
deepsea21

VOX... Good reporting but the issue goes far beyond what you have reported. My friend has been an AA tech for 30+ years and after the first MAX went down he told me to never get on a MAX plane. Even he wouldn't fly a MAX plane on standby as an AA employee if that was the plane available and he can fly FREE! The issue goes deeper as all airplane manufacturers initially design a great, stable plane but then they start "stretching" them to hold more and more passengers which moves their center of gravity that should be over the wings further and further away. Boeing isn't the only one that stretches to the max.. they all do. But, Boeing stretched the 737 too far and to the point that they had to place the engines far ahead of the wings to try and restore some center of gravity that could only be managed with sophisticated flight control systems. If you visit the Boeing website and read about the 737 MAX they highlight the new placement of the engines in front of the wings... As if that is a good thing. They placed them there to try and restore some form of manageable balance to the plane as it had been stretched to the MAX. Yes, the more efficient engines were larger and had to reside higher up but that was not the whole story. I don't care what Boeing passes through as a flight control software patch, I will NOT fly on a plane that has been stretched to the point it is not sound and requires sophisticated flight control systems to keep it in the air. Our military has the stealth wing bomber that is a great achievement but it can't be flown by our greatest pilots without the highly sophisticated flight control systems that keep it in the air. Military personnel get paid to take risk, as a common passenger on a commercial airline, I don't care to take those risks and don't want to be on a plane that can't be flown by a skilled pilot if the flight control system fails.

Päivä sitten
Tim
Tim

This is the best Airbus commercial I've ever seen.

Päivä sitten
CatWizard2307
CatWizard2307

Why didn’t Boeing raise the 737’s ground clearance by a foot or two so that the engine would actually fit under the wing? It would have saved hundreds of lives

Päivä sitten
CatWizard2307
CatWizard2307

Why didn’t Boeing raise the 737’s ground clearance by a foot or two? It would have saved hundreds if lives

Päivä sitten
Bill Bright
Bill Bright

Be interesting to see how well received the craft is upon recertification.

Päivä sitten
Данила Чебров
Данила Чебров

Oh look, in both cases crew during 12 minutes cannot regocnize standart failure scenario "stabilizer runaway condition" and perform proper action. For what purpose they are sitting in cockpit, only for make photos to instagram? If they know about MCAS or no, the must perform standart memory procedure, due to stab runaway may be caused by several reasons, it's not pilot business for perform investigation in flight of root cause of runaway. I think that's why sir Boeing don't inform crew about MCAS at entering 737Max in service - cause it not recall new actions from crew and there is no crew infuence for MCAS.

Päivä sitten
BBB
BBB

Boeing should just admit Airbus is better than them

Päivä sitten
BBB
BBB

Boeing should be sued and responsible for all the death caused!

Päivä sitten
Sklawz
Sklawz

if they could only engineer a plane to be as durable as a persons shoe.

Päivä sitten
Damon Brown
Damon Brown

How are they getting away with this stuff.These stupid people care about money more than peoples lives.

Päivä sitten
Sharif Ul Alam
Sharif Ul Alam

so, you are saying that the planes were crushed on the pilots' first flights? If not, then they should be used to with the new technology (you've mentioned)!

Päivä sitten
Air Raid
Air Raid

this is what happens when u put something to early on the market without testing it out enough. and all those dead people only because of money and the wish of being better than someone else

Päivä sitten
enigma mist
enigma mist

Capitalism needs control. It has gone too far.

Päivä sitten
Uday Puranik
Uday Puranik

In that case why did Dassault Falcon, Cessna Citation, Fokker and other similar models which had fuselage mounted engines which were clearly above the wings never had such a problem?

Päivä sitten
BrainStem Recruiter
BrainStem Recruiter

Next time make the landing gear taller.

Päivä sitten
DJ DA VINCI
DJ DA VINCI

Lawsuit of the century. 💰

Päivä sitten
Raymond Hydes
Raymond Hydes

SAD!!

Päivä sitten
Michael Randlöv
Michael Randlöv

Very Good video,thankyou. It's really hard to understand why Boeing did'nt just extended the landinggears so that they could make room för the New engines

Päivä sitten
Nick Finan
Nick Finan

So Boeing completely changed the aerodynamics of the 737 but said it was the same as previous models? Who took care of the certification? Oh Boeing did!!! Says it all. So the Boeing 737 Max is an UNCERTIFIED aircraft essentially.

Päivä sitten
Nick Finan
Nick Finan

+Reasons_ Why_ I think you should take a look at that because the FAA just did the signing off. Boeing did the certifying. The FAA just saw an opportunity to cut costs which has probably contributed to the 300+ deaths on the stupid Max version of the 737. How boeing had the cheek to say it was the same as a 737-800 I will never work out. Its completely different!  https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/11/faa-needs-boeing-to-help-certify-its-own-planes-despite-criticism.html

17 tuntia sitten
Reasons_ Why_
Reasons_ Why_

no the FAA took care of the certification... Boeing had no part in the approval of airworthiness of the plane..

23 tuntia sitten
Aaron Simpson-Bean
Aaron Simpson-Bean

Did anyone see the 787: Broken Dreams documentary? Now the flawed design of the 737... Boeing is compromising safety for capital!

Päivä sitten
Marco Santos
Marco Santos

Problem here was that accidents werent in America with americans dying cause of it, so it must likely is gonna "slide" and wont impact the company as it should, because there should be real legal and financial backlash to boeing so they would learn the lesson wich they wont. But in all at least Airbus is now ahead and will continue to be cause of this stupid things, only problem is that more ppl are gonna die from decisions like this cause of inaction by authorities towards boeing. Finally it really stuns me how this sort of stuff is still possible to happen this days, and how companies still buy faulty equipment...

Päivä sitten
john adams
john adams

Profits Vs. People. No contest.

Päivä sitten
GK Fujiwara Esquibel
GK Fujiwara Esquibel

They (Boeing) Should Have Raised The Ground Level Of Their Planes A Bit Higher. But Nope. They Had To Raise The Engine Higher On The Wing, Which Made It Have A Side Effect. #YouHadOneJob

Päivä sitten
Reasons_ Why_
Reasons_ Why_

it doesn't work that way...

23 tuntia sitten
Tony Born
Tony Born

This is not actually correct, showing a fair amount of ignorance of Theory of Flight. The engines on the 737 Max being mounted higher would actually REDUCE the thrust - drag couple, not increase it. ALL aircraft with under-wing engines will tend to pitch up when power is applied and vice-versa. Also, aircraft have been fitted with anti-stall devices for at least 40 years. They will first give a "Stick Shake" warning to the pilots that the angle of attack is approaching a critical amount - then as a last resort the stick is pulled out of the pilot's hands and moved fully forward to un-stall the aircraft. BUT, like all systems, it can go wrong. What IS different, and what went wrong here, is that in most aircraft there is a simple and quick way to completely disengage the anti-stall system. THIS was the problem with the crashes, the pilots couldn't do that.

Päivä sitten
Ron B.
Ron B.

Yes they could, and did in the two reported USA incidents, which resulted in no crash.

12 tuntia sitten
Bugz Murphy
Bugz Murphy

Well said, Tony Born. Your statement made more sense than all the screaming and shouting that the majority of responses meant altogether. The SOFTWARE ended up basically aggravating a situation that was improperly identified, inadequately addressed, and worst of all, it took control out of the pilots' hands at the most critical time, resulting in airplanes going into a "propoising"(I know this ain't the proper term. so sue me) action that no one could stop, even if they had been trained and aware that the fault existed. The LAST thing you want to do in any aircraft is to pull the controls out of the pilots' hands, and hand it over to a half-baked computer program that was subject to failure because somebody didn't know how to or where to properly install the sensors on which that program depended. The screamers wanted to yell "murder" and all sorts of calumnies. And blame it on Boeing's greed. Sorry folks, NO company on earth (at least one run in the free world) decides that "we want more money. So what if people die?". Murder? NO. Bad design? Yep. Stupid calls made by the design (computer) group. Yep. Not murder. Should flight rules be modified so that an unproven computer program/sensor program be able to override the pilots? Yep. PIlots know when things go wrong. They can feel it in their guts. Computers, having nothing but programming, don't actually know if they are performing as programmed, or if they are busy causing an airplane to play loop-the-loop. The program will not make the proper changes until somebody changes, and certifies, the programming, and a shitbox full of testing is carried out and certified likewise.

16 tuntia sitten
jp
jp

I am afraid this business is typical of many large American companies. Nestle - look at what the promised when they took over Cadbury's, now it's just a shadow of what it was. All they really wanted was the name. I'll never knowingly buy anything made by Nestle. God Bless America, more like God Help America. Pure GREED - at ANY cost.

Päivä sitten
TheArthurkan
TheArthurkan

And no one is held accountable

Päivä sitten
ARVID LYSTNUR
ARVID LYSTNUR

This report is faulty. By putting the larger engines up and forwards, the plane initially dove downward, then when redesigned it had a tendency to climb to steeply, bringing a greater chance of stall, thus the FAULTY MCAS system was a poorly engineered fix! The MCAS system CANNOT be shutdown without shutting off the power assisting TRIM Control. To level the plane the pilots must adjust the trim and the manual process takes to long. Two solutions. Redesign the plane so that it flys properly without assistance! (Yes expensive) Put a G****M override switch on the G****M MCAS system! (Probably already done)

Päivä sitten
Rick Nieuwland
Rick Nieuwland

so this is how you make money by LYING to millions of people. the official report are not done and you claim to have found a problem.

Päivä sitten
Ultra Mega
Ultra Mega

they couldn't just make the planes taller?....

Päivä sitten
AvaZweetie
AvaZweetie

I knowwwww right????

8 tuntia sitten
Baconator Aviator
Baconator Aviator

You can’t just assume it was the MCAS entirely. The report has not been released yet... making this whole video essentially clickbait.

Päivä sitten
Bobby Rock
Bobby Rock

Greed.....the curse of man.

Päivä sitten
Dream Diction
Dream Diction

Nothing crashed at Shanksville.

Päivä sitten

Seuraava

When 'psycho' automation left this pilot powerless

05:07

When 'psycho' automation left this pilot powerless

The Sydney Morning Herald

Näkymät 717 000

The Boeing 787: Broken Dreams l Al Jazeera Investigations

48:23

Opposed Piston Diesel Engines Are Crazy Efficient

05:02

Opposed Piston Diesel Engines Are Crazy Efficient

Engineering Explained

Näkymät 1 700 000

The Perfect Date is kinda dumb...

16:12

The Perfect Date is kinda dumb...

Alex Meyers

Näkymät 556 874

TWICE "FANCY" Dance Practice Video

3:43

TWICE "FANCY" Dance Practice Video

TWICE

Näkymät 4 722 337

Boeing 737 MAX : une mise en service trop hâtive?

03:03

Boeing 737 MAX : une mise en service trop hâtive?

Radio-Canada Info

Näkymät 151 000

Sailing a Superboat Across the Atlantic in Record Time

22:07

Is the Concorde making a comeback? | CNBC Reports

07:06

Is the Concorde making a comeback? | CNBC Reports

CNBC International

Näkymät 606 000

FULL FACE of PR MAKEUP TESTED

19:25

FULL FACE of PR MAKEUP TESTED

Tati

Näkymät 987 354

Damian Lillard GAME-WINNER: 2019 vs 2014! Which One Is BETTER?

1:13

WE ACT OUT YOUR SMOSH FAN FICTION

18:02

WE ACT OUT YOUR SMOSH FAN FICTION

Smosh Pit

Näkymät 556 533

NO GALAXY FOLD FOR YOU!

6:20

NO GALAXY FOLD FOR YOU!

TechLinked

Näkymät 643 524

Recreating The Taco Bell Volcano Burrito

9:28

Recreating The Taco Bell Volcano Burrito

Good Mythical MORE

Näkymät 282 278