Lion Air crash: Jakarta Boeing 737 'had prior instrument error'

[floobydust]

Dennis Muilenburg is a psychopath, evidenced in the congressional hearing. He showed zero emotions and it was so bad that the families of the dead were scolding him and instructing him on the emotions he is missing. Just terrible to watch.

His golden parachute is expected to total around $60M. It seems surreal the guy does billions of dollars damage, hundreds killed and he gets to walk and live a rich life. CEO is a preferred job for the psychopath.

[BravoV]

No one serves jail time, that is the main point of what the fuss all about. 

Imagining that Boeing is a Chinese company, and Dennis is a Chinese citizen working in China ...

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

https://www.space.com/boeing-ceo-muilenburg-resigns.html

So what is it, resigns or was fired?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Muilenburg
"He was CEO from July 2015 until December 23, 2019, when he was fired after the aftermath of the two crashes of the 737 MAX"

"Boeing Fires C.E.O. Dennis Muilenburg"
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/23/business/Boeing-ceo-muilenburg.html

[Ed.Kloonk]

https://www.space.com/boeing-ceo-muilenburg-resigns.html

So what is it, resigns or was fired?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Muilenburg
"He was CEO from July 2015 until December 23, 2019, when he was fired after the aftermath of the two crashes of the 737 MAX"

"Boeing Fires C.E.O. Dennis Muilenburg"
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/23/business/Boeing-ceo-muilenburg.html

Boeing's press release stated that, "The Board of Directors decided that a change in leadership was necessary to restore confidence in the Company moving forward as it works to repair relationships with regulators, customers, and all other stakeholders."

That sounds like a sacking to me. You can't fire me, I quit!

[Kleinstein]

It is common practice that the board want's to fire a manager, but instead of a formal dismissal they ask the manager to resign. So formally the manager resigns to avoid getting fired.

[iMo]

The CEOs of today's large corporations are selected and hired by the Boards in the same manner and for the same reason as the actors are selected and assigned for the John McClane role in the "Die Hard X" movie. The job of the Board is to communicate towards the Markets the new John McClane will save the World, thus all the Markets will react positively. Such a role costs and the CEO's contract reflects that.

[SilverSolder]

The CEOs of today's large corporations are selected and hired by the Boards in the same manner and for the same reason as the actors are selected and assigned for the John McClane role in the "Die Hard X" movie. The job of the Board is to communicate towards the Markets the new John McClane will save the World, thus all the Markets will react positively. Such a role costs and the CEO's contract reflects that.

The reason it took so long to let the CEO go, might have been that it takes time to find a good "actor" to take on a tough role with a complicated script.

[SiliconWizard]

The CEOs of today's large corporations are selected and hired by the Boards in the same manner and for the same reason as the actors are selected and assigned for the John McClane role in the "Die Hard X" movie. The job of the Board is to communicate towards the Markets the new John McClane will save the World, thus all the Markets will react positively. Such a role costs and the CEO's contract reflects that.

Exactly. They serve no other purpose really. They even have little (if any) operational role. They're mostly just a name and image. Sure they make craptons of money while it lasts (and also when they get fired, which is an integral part of the job), but they are mainly selling their name, not their work (as most other employees would). Changing CEOs when things go wrong is inevitable, but it obviously doesn't solve anything.

Sure there are a few exceptions but usually mostly CEOs that were also among the company's founders or close relatives.

And of course here "resign" or "fired" doesn't matter. CEOs are not common employees. It's just the same. It's just like for people with the higher political functions. The official take is alwats they "resigned", so as to keep both the person's professional image intact AND the image of the position (and that of the people above) as well!

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

[StillTrying]

This was mentioned in The Keiser Report, about 8 mins in, sounded a bit tongue in cheek, comparing with financial algorithms.

https://youtu.be/vfazTPircVw?t=617

[MT]

No one serves jail time, that is the main point of what the fuss all about. 

Imagining that Boeing is a Chinese company, and Dennis is a Chinese citizen working in China ...

So you suggesting he would been shoot, hanged then killed and chopped up in pieces then his organs been taken out for donation to top elites of the party while blamed for being a Falungong activist? No China isnt fascistic like psychopath Muillenburg and US justice system? No cant be.

The CEOs of today's large corporations are selected and hired by the Boards in the same manner and for the same reason as the actors are selected and assigned for the John McClane role in the "Die Hard X" movie. The job of the Board is to communicate towards the Markets the new John McClane will save the World, thus all the Markets will react positively. Such a role costs and the CEO's contract reflects that.

Which suggests not only are the board who selects CEO's and the Market who reacts to their decisions a bunch of psychopaths.

[BBBbbb]

There's simply no end to this...

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/boeing-fought-lion-air-proposed-max-simulator-training-requirement

[raptor1956]

He probably left with a big fat package on top of his 30mil a year salary.

but the emotional pain...

Don't forget that CEO's have much higher rates of psychopathy than general public. Whether this is the case here is unknown, but it's fairly likely they are just fine despite being a part of killing people by negligence. If this wasn't the case, he would have likely left ages ago, or not taken the task at all.

It's not just the board that pushes for sociopath types, the investor community (Wall Street, the Banking industry and the wealthy), the folks with the real clout, want a CEO that will have no problems closing a factory in one country in order to move production to cheaper places and a sociopath/psychopath is just more amenable to laying-off thousands of workers to do so.  This is the era we live in and it's an era that the charts show began to have the desired effect around about 1973. 

https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/7vsicm/the_most_important_graph_income_vs_productivity/

For thousands of years before the industrial revolution the average workers income barely moved and remained at near poverty levels, then, as the industrial revolution kicked in the standard of living for the middle class increased and did so quite dramatically.  You can slice it many different ways, but what the industrial revolution really was was the application of science and technology to decrease unit cost and improve unit quality.  And, as productivity increased so did workers wages and standard of living.  However, when the investor class realized they could make far more money by cutting the workers out of there share of profits and the rules changed to permit it, then we had that inflection point about 1973 and workers incomes have flat-lined or trended down every since.  If workers had been cut out of a share of profits that productivity gains provided since the beginning of the industrial revolution there would never have been an industrial revolution because the buying power of the middle class would not have risen and the volume of production would never have increased.  I'm approaching my mid 60's and every day of my working life, now closing in on 45 years, has been in this era -- I've never known anything else.

Younger workers can point at 'boomers' as the root cause but that like blaming all white people for the sins of the few in power.  Most boomers of my age will not be able to retire with the same comfort level, or at all, as older boomers who timed there exit a bit better so it's not just younger workers that have been shit on. 

When politics is driven by money and the wealthy are permitted outsized influence then it should come as no surprise that, over time, we'd get to where we are.  We've been in a de-regulation phase since right about the inflection point and no where is the consequence of this more apparent than the Boeing/FAA situation of the 737MAX.

What Boeing became is what most others companies have become.


Brian

[KL27x]

If workers had been cut out of a share of profits that productivity gains provided since the beginning of the industrial revolution there would never have been an industrial revolution because the buying power of the middle class would not have risen and the volume of production would never have increased.

An example is Brit colonization of India. For some 60 years under British colonialism, India traded at a surplus but ended with a financial deficit. India benefited from law and order and culture and technology. But most of their profits were enjoyed by Britain. Not that certain individuals in India didn't profit, massively. (Not all that different from how Saudi Arabia enriches certain individuals in America in order for this club to massively profit at the expense of America's economy. The average Saudi citizen is a baller, but without this arrangement, Iran would come and take their lunch box).

There is actually nothing wrong with this system. It's how society advances. Slavery and/or disaparity in income is necessary. We don't have a better way. It doesn't exist. Communism is the same thing, only the ruling class will inevitably need to use excessive force and restrictions of freedom to maintain this order. In communism, you are born to the ruling class like nobility, and you sit in a room deciding what your peasants do and how to punish them. In capitalism, whoever has the money has the responsibility to protect their own and their peasants interests (and these people have the ability to lose all this money, too).

If your country shares better and is happy, it's not for long. Cuz the country that does not will have a bigger club and will take that tribute that your country was not collecting from its people to use for such things. The idea is for the wealthy to have its best interests aligned better with the peasants. Like a big protection racquet.

I think US is far from the worst to its peasants, and is one of the the least racist first world countries, IMO. Not that it's great, but there's lots worse.

People might look at Switzerland and say it's a peaceful country. The history behind that is that Swiss have strong geographical defenses and were historically very successful mercenaries. The regional European powers mutually agreed to leave Switzerland alone, otherwise if Switzerland takes a side, the other power would have to get their merc from somewhere else.

Sorry to get so far off topic.

[TerryHiggins]

If workers had been cut out of a share of profits that productivity gains provided since the beginning of the industrial revolution there would never have been an industrial revolution because the buying power of the middle class would not have risen and the volume of production would never have increased.

An example is Brit colonization of India. For some 60 years under British colonialism, India traded at a surplus but ended with a financial deficit. India benefited from law and order and culture and technology. But most of their profits were enjoyed by Britain. Not that certain individuals in India didn't profit, massively. (Not all that different from how Saudi Arabia enriches certain individuals in America in order for this club to massively profit at the expense of America's economy. The average Saudi citizen is a baller, but without this arrangement, Iran would come and take their lunch box).

There is actually nothing wrong with this system. It's how society advances. Slavery and/or disaparity in income is necessary. We don't have a better way. It doesn't exist. Communism is the same thing, only the ruling class will inevitably need to use excessive force and restrictions of freedom to maintain this order. In communism, you are born to the ruling class like nobility, and you sit in a room deciding what your peasants do and how to punish them. In capitalism, whoever has the money has the responsibility to protect their own and their peasants interests (and these people have the ability to lose all this money, too).

If your country shares better and is happy, it's not for long. Cuz the country that does not will have a bigger club and will take that tribute that your country was not collecting from its people to use for such things. The idea is for the wealthy to have its best interests aligned better with the peasants. Like a big protection racquet.

I think US is far from the worst to its peasants, and is one of the the least racist first world countries, IMO. Not that it's great, but there's lots worse.

People might look at Switzerland and say it's a peaceful country. The history behind that is that Swiss have strong geographical defenses and were historically very successful mercenaries. The regional European powers mutually agreed to leave Switzerland alone, otherwise if Switzerland takes a side, the other power would have to get their merc from somewhere else.

Sorry to get so far off topic.

Yes systems are still quite compact but the society is not advancing and that is the real reason of today's worst condition of most of the countries.

[ocset]

Hi,
This is a great thread....i read it, and all on google, but can anyone answer three questions...

1.... Why didnt the pilots put the plane into manual mode and land it at the nearest airport after they started having significant problems?
2...What exactly was the fault with the angle of attack sensor?
3...Regarding software failure systems in passenger aircraft...how many other ones are unknown to pilots other than EMACs used in 737 MAX?...ie, is this the first time in aviation history that a software system instigated a fault that caused death and the pilots never even knew about the particular software system and it characteristics? (ie like they never knew about EMACs in the 737 MAX)

[jmelson]

1.... Why didnt the pilots put the plane into manual mode and land it at the nearest airport after they started having significant problems?

Well, there's no "manual mode".  The instructions for runaway elevator trim is to turn off the computer-controlled elevator trim, but that also
shuts off the trim buttons on the control column.  Then, you have to trim the trim wheel by hand.  If you are already fighting extreme control forces due to mis-trimming of the elevator/stabilizer, you may not be able to take your hands off the column -- you need all 4 arms to counteract the control forces.

The problem is that the old software (not revealed to the pilots in the flight manual) wound continue to apply more nose-down trim every nine seconds, leading to ever increasing control forces, unless the pilot immediately applies a LONG countering nose-up trim.  The crash pilots didn't counter the nose-down trim with a long-enough nose-up trim.  So, the control forces became heavier and heavier with each repeat of the sequence.

2...What exactly was the fault with the angle of attack sensor?

These are easily damaged when moving air bridges and trucks around the aircraft.  Apparently, the replacement sensor was improperly installed at the wrong angle, even though the bolt holes are designed to prevent this.  One sensor apparently indictaed something like 40 degrees nose-up as soon as the aircraft started moving.  Due to the airlines not wanting to permit ANY additional training for pilots moving to the Max, the flight control computers were set up to use ONLY ONE sensor at a time, depending on which FCC was the master.  So, even though the aircraft had two sensors, it only looked at one or the other.  There was no "alpha disagree" warning, even though the info was available to the computers.  The reason was "that would require a change to the flight manual" which the airlines did not want.

3...Regarding software failure systems in passenger aircraft...how many other ones are unknown to pilots other than EMACs used in 737 MAX?...ie, is this the first time in aviation history that a software system instigated a fault that caused death and the pilots never even knew about the particular software system and it characteristics? (ie like they never knew about EMACs in the 737 MAX)

Nope, not even close to the first time.  The Airbus A400M military aircraft took off with no calibration data loaded into the engine computers.  This caused all 4 engines to shut off in the air, causing a crash.  It seems the engine computers should have been programmed to do something rational, such as not even start, or not allow the engines to be advanced beyond ground idle.

I doubt these are the only cases.

Jon

[jmelson]

Oh, another one I've heard of, not passenger plane, though.  A flight of F-16 jets crossed through the international date line.  All the aircraft immediately flipped upside down.  There was a bug in the inertial reference software that dealt with which side of the earth you were on.  This was quite some time ago.

Jon

[boffin]

Nope, not even close to the first time.  The Airbus A400M military aircraft took off with no calibration data loaded into the engine computers.  This caused all 4 engines to shut off in the air, causing a crash.  It seems the engine computers should have been programmed to do something rational, such as not even start, or not allow the engines to be advanced beyond ground idle.

I doubt these are the only cases.

Deciding on the 'sensible' action to take with no data is not an easy question to answer. When a Qantas A380 (Qantas flight 32) had an uncontained engine failure in the number 2 engine (left side, inboard), it severed communications to the #1 engine (outboard).  The engine's default was to "continue to do what you were last told", which at the time was initial climb power (likely 80-90ish %).  When they landed the aircraft, they had to do so with one engine at close to takeoff power, and it required all 4000m of WSSS/SIN's runway to stop the aircraft.  The fire department had to foam the engine for a considerable period of time to shut it down, and there was a conversation something like "Can you please shut down #1" from the FD and "It isn't?" from the pilots
 

[boffin]

These are easily damaged when moving air bridges and trucks around the aircraft.  Apparently, the replacement sensor was improperly installed at the wrong angle, even though the bolt holes are designed to prevent this.  One sensor apparently indictaed something like 40 degrees nose-up as soon as the aircraft started moving.  Due to the airlines not wanting to permit ANY additional training for pilots moving to the Max, the flight control computers were set up to use ONLY ONE sensor at a time, depending on which FCC was the master.  So, even though the aircraft had two sensors, it only looked at one or the other.  There was no "alpha disagree" warning, even though the info was available to the computers.  The reason was "that would require a change to the flight manual" which the airlines did not want.

IIRC the 2nd AOE sensor is actually an option, that not all airlines had opted for.

[Lord of nothing]

I just wonder why the not build some safty stuff into the System. Like when the lost the Link between the Cockpit and the Engine the Automatically power down (and get into a Idle Mode).
I would put some RF "emergency communication System in the hole Aircraft if a Wire connection fail (or all) the switch to an encrypt System who can control the Major Systems.

[jmelson]

IIRC the 2nd AOE sensor is actually an option, that not all airlines had opted for.

No, they all have 2 sensors.  One is normally being read by each flight computer, and the plane switches which computer is primary each takeoff.  But, apparently, both sensors' data is available on the data bus to both computers.  So, they COULD have compared the two sensors' readings.
The optional feature ($80,000) was a light and audible alarm for "AOA disagree".  Few airlines ordered that option.

Jon

[KL27x]

^Yeah, this seems like a bad thing.

Swapping flight computers/sensors every other flight seems sorta like using a plane with 200 live onboard as a computer/sensor tester. This only increases the chance of having a failure, and it reduces the MTF for the computer and the sensor.

Imagine if there are 1000 flight computers and sensors on there, and the plane rotates through them on each successive flight. Now your chances are way greater that you will have a fault on one of them. MTF for one computer/sensor might be 10 years, but now the MT for at least one or more to fail is like a matter of weeks.

"Darn. That computer/sensor worked perfectly fine, and everyone got back to the ground in one piece. Well, let's try the next one! All aboard!" 

If the other set is a "backup" then there has to be some way to switch to it. In this case, there apparently isn't. AOA sensor malfunctioning? Just turn everything off, okey dokey, and use that wheel that doesn't turn.

Having two would be great, if they were both running in parallel, all the time. And the pilots could switch back and forth, instantly, anytime they wanted. Anything weird happening? Flip the switch and see if it doesn't go away.

[jmelson]

^Yeah, this seems like a bad thing.

Swapping flight computers/sensors every other flight seems sorta like using a plane with 200 live onboard as a computer/sensor tester. This only increases the chance of having a failure, and it reduces the MTF for the computer and the sensor.

Yes, how the HELL this contraption got approved by the civil authorities in a bunch of countries is pretty hard to imagine.  Boeing did conceal a bunch of stuff from the FAA, and they now have lots of egg on their face.  The designated certification scheme really blew up on the Max.

Jon

[james_s]

I'm not an aviation engineer but it does leave me scratching my head as to why they'd decide to have two separate sensors but then not make some method of indicating a disagreement between the two as a standard feature. What's the point of redundancy if you're not going to detect a fault and alert the crew so they can act accordingly? It also strikes me as a very serious oversight that someone thought it was ok to make this MCAS system have so much authority that it could just keep pushing the nose down over and over beyond the ability of the flight controls to override. Surely there is some threshold where it should have been trivial for the software to determine "Ok we've pushed the nose down well beyond what we ever expect to need, something is probably wrong!"