Boeing did not include 'key safeguards' on 737 MAX: report

The entire 737 MAX fleet has been grounded, and it's unclear when the plane will fly again
The entire 737 MAX fleet has been grounded, and it's unclear when the plane will fly again

Boeing left off "key safeguards" from the 737 MAX's anti-stall system that were included on an earlier version of the system used on a military tanker aircraft, the Wall Street Journal reported Sunday.

The model's MCAS anti-stall system has been implicated in two that left a total of 346 people dead.

The earlier version of the system relied on multiple and had "limited ability to move the tanker's nose," while the MAX's version received input from just one sensor and was "tougher for pilots to override," the said.

The Journal cited a person familiar with the system as saying the earlier version was designed to guard against problems.

"You don't want the solution to be worse than the initial problem," the person said.

A Boeing spokesman told the newspaper that the systems were "not directly comparable."

In the MAX jets that crashed, pilots found themselves battling the system to keep the aircraft from diving into the ground.

Boeing is working on fixes to the MAX that will make the MCAS system more similar to the one used in the tanker, the newspaper said, citing people familiar with the matter.

More than six months after the grounding of the entire 737 MAX fleet, it is still unknown when the planes will return to the sky.

© 2019 AFP

Citation: Boeing did not include 'key safeguards' on 737 MAX: report (2019, September 29) retrieved 19 October 2019 from https://techxplore.com/news/2019-09-boeing-key-safeguards-max.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
29 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Sep 29, 2019
It sounds bad putting it this way, but they cheaped out and it backfired. You'd hope safety features are the last things to be cut, not the first. The earlier version was designed to guard against issues, and they removed those safeguards. In this situation the only reason to do that is to save money. I can't imagine the cost saving being that great as to take the risk, not that it should be taken even if it were.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more