Boeing 737! MAX is BACK! Re-certification and understanding MCAS! Explained by CAPTAIN JOE

...... real words........ 👍👍👍

Love your first name buddy ;)

@Stefan Haha awesome buddy! Yeah love some aviation content, watched Joe's stuff for many years! Hope you're loving the M2! Cheers

Another disaster thanks to Trump’s FAA. Hopefully now with Biden the aviation professionals will be back in charge.

Yeah I'm surprised to Joe here as well... small world indeed

Nice to hear they have concious pilots!

Nice fly

@Mr. E.W Good question. I honestly don't remember but he didn't make a big deal out of it. Still big enough that he had to cancel the flight.

the truth sometimes hurts bro

Only about making profit.

Nobody is resting.

@@North_West Check out Boeing's profit after those crashes.

@@AnimMouse They didn't inform the pilots after test Flying and they installing the System. That why its only about making profit dumbass.

It's scary to think that the future of corporate America will only be held accountable to the amount of fatalities it takes for them to reach their next milestone. Keep loading those congressional pockets.

Amazing video as always.. Captain Joe God bless you and keep you safe wherever you are...and thank you for the class again!!!

Go tell that to soldiers during war😂😂

Well played.

Yep.

Boeing : I like money
Everyone :what inspired you to create the 737 MAX
Boeing : M O N E Y

Superb

quite literally.. and it makes me SICK to think about haha

It was intentional because 737 already had automated stabilizer trim and the reasoning was that MCAS failure is no different from stabilizer trim failure. Both have similar endcome and both must be dealt with similar action. However, as far as I know, MCAS changes the trim faster which gives less time to pilots to figure out the problem. That was the part where Boeing was greedy and instead of requiring additional training for the pilots, the got FAA to believe that MCAS was similar enough to older system that it doesn't need any extra training.
The pilots should have been trained about MCAS failure handling as a memory item even if it has redundant sensors because once it fails, you don't have time to search for the correct procedure.

The reasons is to avoid pilot training. MCAS is actually uses both sensors (Left & Right) but not at the same time. It's switch sensors between each flight and only one at the time for that flight. This has been reveal from whistle blower that Boeing know if they are using both sensors at the same time. FAA will required them to do additional pilot training in the simulator. This because by using both sensors, it will indicated that system is safety critical and pilot needs to be train on how to react if the system fail. Boeing deliberately designed MCAS to use one sensor, so they could claim that Max plane could save Airline money because it doesn't required pilot training.

@@mukamuka0 Wow! I didn't know that pilot training is *required* if a feature is redundant. That explains the full MCAS failure!

Honestly it is still a bad design, its a software fixing a hardware bug. What is actually the solution for the mcas so the plane can be recertified?

@@MikkoRantalainen people keep saying "Boeing was greedy" but completely forget that it is the _airlines_ who have to pay to train pilots and who obviously coerced Boeing into cutting corners, and they had FAA help in that regard. Trying to blame Boeing but failing to see the big picture is tragic. It was the airlines who started this whole fiasco, by being too cheap to train their pilots - so they forced the manufacturer to issue an obviously different plane under the same type certificate, so said training could be avoided.

I see what you did there lol

The problem it has often been said goes back to the Boeing/McDonnell Douglas merger. An engineer lead company, Boeing, was reverse taken over by a suit lead culture MD. An expensive false economy ensued. .

I don't think people or management teams in general knowingly took shortcuts on safety, for the sake of saving a few bucks on each flight, but unfortunately they also didn't know/understand/realize what were the consequences on safety of some decisions they took. The intention behind the MCAS was good I believe, but did they (want to) realize the side effects ? Perfection doesn't exist. The only way is to test, test, test and test again, in all kind of apparently stupid and meaningless situations. This takes time, a lot of time. And Joe is 100% right: don't rush, take all the time needed.

@@adewouters and they choose not to take the time.

They'll lose another for technical reasons soon enough.

Oh my god, I have image in my head!

@@flywithcaptainjoe It was just as bad as you think ;-)

F

I did that the first time I got a mountain bike with a ridiculously low bottom gear. It must have looked ridiculous but happily there was nobody there to see it.

The bike should have been grounded

I think it was the merger with McDonnell- Douglas where business executives somehow know more than the engineers.

737 MAX and 787, the first planes built by business executives and not by airplane engineers. They should be held accountable. Safety cultures and excellence starts at the top. Chasing after short term profits clearly backfired.

Now the new slogan is Airbus or Bust.

Now: “if it’s Boeing, we ain’t going”

@@drgLACity Airbus or Bust

Thank you very much!

Agree!

I agree too, He spoke facts and was totally right about how greedy Boeing was for profit in this situation.

Like this vid Capt Joe, but that sounds very ‘MzeroA’ regardless of how true it is

@@flywithcaptainjoe as your subscribers and viewers, we thank you

Just like the CRIMINALS who run Washington DC!

@@websurfin9575 The world is corrupted and that’s probably never gonna change.

Should airbus go to prison for the air France crash?

@@LeolaGlamour Clearly, the company cannot go to prison. However, companies are run by people, and the people involved should be held liable, depending on the details of the case.
For example, if managerial decisions to save a buck result in loss of life, then why shouldn't the people who put money above customer safety be held liable?

@@code-dredd
So again should the managers of any plane company in the history of ever go to jail?

Don't want to say he isn't, but there are a few mistakes in this video.

I still think there should be three AoA vanes on a Max. The A320 has 3 AoA vanes so that if one is faulty and gives a bad reading, the computers on board can isolate it as faulty due to the readings of the other two.

@@cjmillsnun That's even better.

@@cjmillsnun and even so in an Airbus even if the AoA fails and it pitches down you just switch off 2 FACs and it reverts to alternate law or even down to direct law where pilot has control and alfa protections are disabled (it happent a few times allready).. considering how much pride Boeing marketing put in pointing out that the Boeings were all "pilot planes" where the pilot is who is in command and not "some computer" one would expect the MAX to be easily riden or any asistance on a switch or something...

@@stever4899 the programming was outsourced to people not familiar with the way of thinking in the aviation industry (low labor costs).

@@sparrowlt Bingo! You got it! Bigger question is why the FAA does not get it (ONE switch to disable ALL the automation).

If you have seen the full documentary its also stated there if pilots didnt act in 10 seconds there is no going back. This 10 second was not mentioned prior to the ethiopian accident, they were just told deactivating will able them to take control back, no time limit was mentioned. Plus boeing was against the need of pilots simulation training towards max, despite the fact that the max has major system upgrade which can lead to fatal accident if action is not taken in less than 10sec( which they are expected to do without enough understading of the system)... the shame is on boeing! making them fly blindfolded

I'll make a video about it then

@@flywithcaptainjoe YEEESS

While cruising, pilots need to monitor all systems, fuel burn etc.

When they get bored, they shake it a little.
" Ladies and Gentlemen, we're having some turbulence"

I have always wondered that actually!

Not just accountants. Shareholders. Quick money on the cheap! 😉 They all 🤞🤞

If you let engineers to run it, they wont make any money. You idiot

James McNerney was not an accountant (he was a Harvard MBA).

Bean counters strike again!!!

@Steven Strain what happened was that the CEO needs to keep board and shareholders happy and their only concern is what colour their next Mercedes Benz S class will be.

Thank you for appreciating that!

Most definitely. When Captain Joe does finally retire from flying, he'd make a great aviation consultant.

wouldn't call that an argument, I'd call that a fact.

I'm very happy to hear that! Enjoy your training!

@@flywithcaptainjoe Thank you Joe! 💙

Correct, and it's a very clever name, since Neo also mean New/Revised in Latin.

It would switch every flight to the other AOA so it would only crash every other flight unless both failed.

PROSPERITY
BONANZA
HONESTY

Truly terrible systems engineering. Lack of redundancy, automatic system which continually overrides pilot input, and an airplane with challenging handling characteristics in the first place. Boeing should've started with a clean-sheet instead of forcing engines that don't fit.

@@benjaminschwartz7616 Making the AoA sensor disagree warning an extra option the airlines could order was a big red flag for me.

@@benjaminschwartz7616 I heard Boeing didn't want MCAS to use >1 sensor's data at a time as that would be legally considered a 'major' change, which mandates additional recertification, which result in additional cost & duration needed for development

I respect his decision, but I do not fully understand the argument behind it. Respect to what/whom? Or does he mean to speculate on crashes before the official (NTSB or other bureau) reports?

I've seen people make the very strange claim that discussion boards discussing an air accident might somehow "distract" the official investigation. Utter nonsense of course. In the case of the 737 Max discussions, one forum appeared to include an employee of Boeing or a subcontractor (speculation alert) that was an active party to the discussions and they were making outlandish excuses for Boeing, and were actively concocting reasons for blaming the pilots. His claims were strongly refuted.
It's fair game that a prominent KRplus channel (1.4M subscribers here) might wish to avoid controversy, and avoid getting ahead of the official investigation. That's fair and perfectly reasonable.

Did

If you use them too late it is too late and you won't be able to trim back.
737 should be flown with a crew of 3 people as this AC definitely needs a flight engineer on board to handle all the nasty little engineering oopsies.

i'm more scared of stepping in a 40 year old jumbo that's been flyin ever since.

@@steffiesing5449 and still hasn’t crashed....

it should

I travel the globe abit and honestly am still terrified of flying (unless drunk/drugged). Here's how I look at it. The A320 didn't have a great start either (Air France Flight 296). It literally "landed" itself in a wooded forest at the Paris airshow. Airbus blamed the pilot and did everything to stop people looking into their design flaw. The 737 Max is a somewhat similar story. Moving forward to 2021, the 737 Max is the most scrutinised aircraft in the history of aviation. MCAS was only the first issue (other issue arose and then many more for each alteration). I would have to say that if the head of the FAA is happy to stick his kids on it, then the problem is no longer with the plane. Keep in mind the flight before the Lion Air crash, MCAS did kick in and they took the appropriate steps and continued with the flight. The crew of the crashed plane failed to comprehend the power of MCAS on trim and it was until the aircraft was handed to the first office (who didn't put enough input to overpower the system) that the plane crashed. All planes have issues and like planes, airlines also have issue (training etc). I would rather travel on a 737 Max over any other plane (short-haul), minus 737NG (which are just amazing planes. Just keep in mind the amount of time spent to make sure this would never happen again. Happy flying

@@steffiesing5449 Amen. My last flight was a Fokker 100 where I was in the emergency exit row. I didn't know the slides (blinds) do not go down in that row. Anyways we ended mid flight with the entire plastic panel on-top of me. The flight attendant said it happens all the time. Let's just say no more Fokkers for me

Your profilepicture says it all

New engine option

@@chensich7519 Really?

Werde ich mir anschauen

Danke dir!

@Steven Strain I wish more English native speakers would say that 👍🏼

@Steven Strain I'm a native English speaker who has learned German. I recommend it. Wenn man Deutsch kann, dann wird man viele interessante Sachen lesen koennen. Deutsch ist ja eine wichtige Sprache. Sie klingt mir auch angenehm.🙂.

You should also check James Asquith KRplus video as he gave his honest review regarding the 737 max :) if it is really safe haha

Joe who
Joe mama

For anyone wondering it’s new engine option but no engineering oopsies makes more sense to annoy Boeing

Yes I love it
N: New
E: Engine
O: Option
But
N: No
E: Engineering
O: Oopsies
Sounds more reasonable

No engine Option lol, im just joking. I love Airbus

NEO stands for new engine opción

If you don't know, NEO also had some engineering oopsies

That's right. In fact, the Ethiopian Airlines crew followed the correct procedures but couldn't overcome the extreme forces already on the stabilizer.

@@benjaminschwartz7616 if they were higher I think it woudve been better, but they just didn't have enough time

@@benjaminschwartz7616
So they switch on the power to the jack screw motors to assist them and MCAS takes over again...

@@benjaminschwartz7616 true, but they left the power settings at takeoff power and when the nose dropped, they oversped the airplane sealing their fate.

So I'm confused. If turning stab trim off is the way to resolve it but the load is to much on the stabilizer then what is the resolution?

They were murdered.

@@ericbanner7630 manwomanslaughter

@@ericbanner7630 by 737 max

Blue sky's and happy landings, glad you have your wings! 😁

Well Boeing is not a person but gets rights of a person. But executives working for Boeing and owning lots of stock of Boeing deserve convictions for all the crimes they committed including mass murder. Boeing as a corporation has executives that are very rich in money but poor in character and back bone and not very smart even . These people live off the charity of a massive corporation they have control over. They use this control to steal from everyone the corporation touches from workers to customers to government agents that are suppose to regulate the product they produce. They get to act as there own dictatorship and then sit back and claim they are just being good businessmen(businesswoman). BULL SHIT.

No the FAA was dumb

Lion Air had shocking training. It was 95% their fault.

Not enough apparently. They continue their behaviors.

@@richardpluim4426 737 max is the goat plane

Your comment keeps me working hard on future videos ;)

@@flywithcaptainjoe joe mama

wot u talk`n`bout willis?

That makes sense if you understand the aerodynamics (in the case of a plane). It’s basic physics. But it seems like pilots weren’t trained in the physics of this particular change. Did they not know about the change in engine placement - or more importantly what that would do to the center of gravity? And even worse, some pilots didn’t even know there WAS an MCAS - so why would the suspect something would be different with the cog?. My daughter is applying for university aviation programs and they spend quite a bit of time on physics and aerodynamics. College level classes. But what if you don’t obtain your commercial training at a university? Do those pilots receive the same training in physics and aerodynamics? I honestly don’t know. The pilots in those smaller, less wealthy countries may not have had the same training. It’s an interesting question I’d never considered before. Thanks for the insight!

@@jahbern Boeing did not tell the pilots about the new MCAS. It was Boeing's job to inform about new software or procedures.

Absolutely! !! Best example! I will never fly that thing. I prefer to try a Red Bull just for respecting people who died because a financial decision. The 737-max licence should be revocated but again they will take a wrong financial decision.

It was just a chalkboard example.

When (if) I get to 80 y.o. I’ll fly on a kite with a broken string. Who gives a fuck

death penalty!

@@pavelfernandezdotnet Exactly. When can a regular human kill 300 people and not get the death penalty?

@@benghazi4216 ask Cuomo

On the contrary He was given very high severance package by Boeing when he resigned. Until the last moment he was insisting that max is a safe plane. He was the guy who was behind many wrong doings in Boeing.

@@allgrainbrewer10 Yes his capitalist tendencies has destroyed the health care system in New York, and thus more died.
But have you asked Trump btw?

I've seen a suggestion that working MCAS off two vanes would somehow have highlighted it as a safety-critical system which would then have invoked heavier certification & training requirements. By just driving it off one vane they could pretend it was just an unimportant adjustment that nobody needed to worry about. (But I agree, just driving a system that had the potential to cause a crash, off a single sensor - and these things have a known failure rate - is just bananas).

Yes, if it had 2 inputs, it would have required recertification of the pilots to fly it. To save money and encourage the airlines to buy the Boeing plane over the Airbus it was competing with.

Thanks Ammar! Means a lot!

@@flywithcaptainjoe The pleasure is mine.

You can find detailed information of the MAX recertification on the websites of both the FAA & EASA.

@RadhaKrishnan Nair your comment is incorrect, and you should introduce much reading of freely available information on the website of the FAA & EASA.