The Daily - Two Crashes, a Single Jet: The Story of Boeing’s 737 Max

Episode Date: March 19, 2019

As Boeing developed a new line of passenger jets, it was determined to avoid costly training for pilots. Then, two of those jets crashed. Guest: Natalie Kitroeff, a business reporter for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. Today. As Boeing developed a new line of passenger jets, it was determined to avoid costly training for pilots. Then, two of those jets crashed. It's Tuesday, March 19th. The global aerospace business is essentially a duopoly.

There are two big companies. There's Boeing, which is American-owned, and there's Airbus, a European rival. Natalie Kitchreuth is a business reporter at The Times. These two are always competing with each other. They are competing on every single aspect of an airplane. And they're often competing for the same customers. So in late 2010... We're not redesigning the A320.

It's pretty damn good just the way it is. What we're doing is offering new, more fuel-efficient engines on today's airplane. Airbus announces that it is offering a new fuel-efficient version of its best-selling A320 plane. Well, an A320neo... It's going to be the A320neo. It's a new engine option offered on today's A320 plane. Well, an A320neo. It's going to be the A320neo. It's a new engine option offered on today's A320 family of aircraft, and now they're being offered with new,

more fuel-efficient engines. We're putting our money on re-engineering the world's best-selling single-aisle aircraft. This amounts to essentially a frontal assault for Boeing. Fuel savings mean that airlines are saving on costs. And if Airbus is going to offer an option that is going to save airlines money, Boeing better well come up with its own alternative in order to compete in this cutthroat environment where they have one main rival. So what does Boeing do in response to its biggest and most important rival coming up

with this fuel-efficient jetliner? Boeing scrambles to respond quickly. We are making a decision to invest in the 737 family. And within months, the company comes up with an upgrade of its own. It's going to be a fuel-efficient version of their 737 workhorse. It is going to have bigger engines, and it's going to save airlines money on this fuel. The best single-aisle airplane in the world. And they're going to call it the 737 MAX. And one of the main goals of this engineering process is to keep this new plane as similar to its predecessor as possible.

Part of the reason is that Boeing is competing with Airbus, and they're competing with them on every single cost item. And a plane is not just metal and technology. It's also what it costs to operate the aircraft and to train pilots to fly it. If the 737 MAX turned out to be so different from its predecessor that it required training on a flight simulator, one of these giant machines where you have a cockpit and it mimics the experience of flying the plane. It would cost airlines tens of millions of dollars over the life of an aircraft.

It's incredibly expensive. So if Boeing were to say, we have this beautiful new jet, but it's going to require twice the amount of training that the Airbus model requires, the executives might pause on that. So as the company is manufacturing this plane, it wants to find ways to make it fly exactly the way that its predecessors did. So that there is not a need for training. Exactly. And there's a little bit of a problem. There is something that is fundamentally different about this plane. Its engines are bigger and those engines need to be mounted farther forward on the wings. And that changes the

aerodynamics of the plane. So the placement of those engines makes the nose of the plane push upward in certain circumstances, and that can lead to a stall, which is a dangerous situation. So Boeing has to come up with a solution to make the plane act the way its predecessor did and to counteract that force. So what it does is it comes up with this system, this software. And what does the new system do? The new system automatically corrects for that upward motion of the nose, and it pushes the nose down automatically.

And it's supposed to be working in the background in a way that pilots don't even notice, correcting for an issue that was not in the prior model of this plane. And it's supposed to be something that is just keeping the pilot in a position where he or she feels as though the plane is flying in the same exact way under the same conditions that the prior model did. So Boeing thinks even though the engines are different, that they have developed a system that makes the engines operate essentially the same way the old 737 did. And from a pilot's point of view, therefore, there would be no need for new training.

Yes, Boeing believed there was no need for extra training for pilots who had flown the previous model. And the Federal Aviation Administration agreed. In March 2017, the FAA certified the plane. It did not require flight simulator training for pilots who had flown the prior model, and regulators around the world followed suit. Two months later, Boeing shipped out its first 737 MAX out of Seattle. And the company decided that it does not need to fully inform pilots that this new software even exists. Hmm. So they don't even tell the pilots. They think it is so unimportant to the operation of the plane from the experience of a pilot that they don't even need to know.

Yes. from the experience of a pilot that they don't even need to know. Yes. So what happens next? This plane is certified on the market. What happens? Well, it's wheels up for Boeing's new 737 MAX. Orders come pouring in from across the globe. Boeing says the MAX 8 is the company's fastest-selling plane in its history,

with nearly 4,700 orders from more than 100 customers across the world. And carriers make this the best selling Boeing jet ever. 100 737 MAXs expected to be sold to AirCap. That's a lessor from the Netherlands. Also, Korean Airlines expected to order 30 of those. Pilots love it. It flew beautifully. Engines were extremely quiet. It is a hit.

Still take a look at shares of Boeing, which are up today. They're enjoying a ton of success in the stock market. Logged orders are commitments for almost 400 aircraft, with a total sticker price of more than $37 billion. Investors love them. Customers love them. Until October 29, 2018, when Lion Air Flight 610, a 737 MAX, carrying 189 people,

takes off and 12 minutes later crashes into the Java Sea. Three days after Lion Air flight JT610 mysteriously disappeared before plummeting into the sea, there may be hope for answers. What did we learn about what went wrong on that flight? Military personnel have found one of the black boxes. So a picture begins to emerge of this flight that suggests that the pilot may be fighting with that system. Flight data shows the onboard computers were pushing the plane's nose down, then the pilots aimed the nose higher. That happened 26 times, with the crew never following procedures to correct the problem. So while the software is pushing the nose down, the pilot is trying to push it back up

over and over and over again, multiple times. That is the picture that begins to emerge. But we do not have full conclusive evidence yet. So it seems like the pilots on this flight are fighting a flight control system, a self-correcting one that's supposed to keep the nose from going up, that they don't even know exist, right? That's exactly right. And what experts believe was happening was that this system was taking in a faulty sensor reading. So it was responding to bad data. And that is why it kept triggering over and over

and over again, despite the pilot's best efforts to get the plane back on course. And eventually those pilots lose their battle against the system. Eventually the plane plunges into the sea, killing all 189 people on board. We'll be right back. What, Natalie, is the reaction among the airlines that have bought this line of planes to this emerging realization that Boeing hadn't revealed what turned out to be this important piece of information, the existence of this system that may likely have contributed to this crash. Pilots are furious, livid, in fact, that they have not been informed that this thing even exists. So they have these meetings in which they told Boeing officials that this was a breach of trust and

that it was disrespectful. So I have to assume that these angry pilots, in addition to just wanting to be sure everyone knows about the system, are demanding training so that they can properly respond to the system. No, they're not. The FAA, Boeing, nobody is recommending more training on this system. The American pilots that I've talked to, they believe that because they've been informed about the system, now that they know how it works, they are able to safely fly this plane. They know how to deal with this software if it becomes an issue on their flights, and they feel confident about flying the plane. This is a confidence that's in part based on statistics and experience. There has been only one fatality on U.S. airlines in the last decade. Boeing has an enviable safety record. In many ways, they had good reason to be confident. And they are also promised a fix to the software that pushes the nose down. That's going to come within the next several weeks. They will be informed of it,, the only thing that changes is that Boeing vows to fix this system, but no additional training is ordered for any pilot anywhere. And the 737 MAX planes are free to keep flying. Yes.

A jet has crashed and the tragedy is being felt around the world. U.S. aviation investigators and a technical team from Boeing are headed to Ethiopia tonight. That's where a new 737 MAX 8 jetliner crashed today, minutes after taking off from Addis Ababa. Killing everyone on board. Flight 302 was en route to Nairobi, Kenya, when it crashed in the town of Bishoftu just six minutes after takeoff, the plane was carrying 149 passengers and eight crew members.

Immediately, it becomes apparent that there are some similarities between this flight and the Lion Air crash. Preliminary data shows a, quote, clear similarity to the Lion Air MAX 8 crash off Indonesia in October. Both planes were Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircrafts. What we now understand is what people had suspected, that there are certain similarities between the Lion Air crash and the Ethiopian crash earlier this month. What are those similarities?

So the pilot of the Ethiopian Airlines flight reported flight control problems. So that was a first clue. The plane is also moving in the same way that the Lion Air plane was, up and down. The speeds are changing rapidly, suggesting that the pilot may have been fighting with this system. Again, with a pilot trying to pull the nose up and the system pushing it down. Then there's physical evidence recovered at the site of the crash that seems to suggest that the nose was being pitched down. We don't know why, but again, it all points to this system being involved, potentially contributing to another tragedy. And so what is the reaction this time, after the second crash of a 737 MAX?

Boeing stands firm behind the plane, and American carriers are right there with them. But China has grounded its entire Boeing 737 MAX fleet. Regulators around the world seem a little less confident. The Chinese and Indonesians quickly ground the 737 MAX fleet. Regulators around the world seem a little less confident. The Chinese and Indonesians quickly ground the 737 MAX. More countries following China's lead in grounding the Boeing 737 MAX 8 jet. Once the Europeans follow. European Aviation Safety Agency, they have banned flights of the 737 MAX series, adding to similar groundings by China, Indonesia,

Australia, Malaysia, UK, Singapore, New Zealand, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Netherlands, Turkey. I could go on. American regulators are all of a sudden under immense pressure for the FAA to ground these planes. Boeing is an incredible company. They are working very, very hard right now. And hopefully they'll very quickly come up pilots, even though a very crucial part of the plane was different. That's right.

This motivation to keep this plane as similar as possible to its predecessor permeated the entire engineering process. Remember, this is how Boeing needs to compete with Airbus. It's also raising questions about the entire process for certifying aircraft in the United States. There is renewed scrutiny on the closeness between the FAA and Boeing. The FAA and Boeing work together to certify planes. The FAA actually relies heavily on Boeing employees to help certify its aircraft. And is that basically industry practice? Companies that make these planes

work with the Federal Aviation Administration on the approval process? That's exactly right. I mean, folks were talking about this, right? But nobody was kind of raising red flags. I mean, it wasn't like people were up in arms about the way that this certification system works. But now there's been two crashes of the same model in less than five months. And we're hearing more and more from regulators and former regulators about how this close relationship may be too cozy. Nellie, what do we know about the role that Boeing's employees played specifically in the certification of the Boeing 737 MAX? We know that Boeing plays a critical role in helping to certify its aircraft. And we are learning more and more about the role that it played in the case of the 737 MAX.

The Seattle Times recently reported that not only was the FAA relying heavily on Boeing in this case, but that Boeing itself was turning out an analysis that was downplaying the potential risks of a software system that is now at issue after these two crashes. The FAA, like any federal agency, has a limited budget. And there's a reason why it would want to rely on the people who are most informed about the inner workings of increasingly complex aircraft in order to determine whether that plane is airworthy. You can see why you would need a relationship and one where there is a lot of information sharing, right? Because the one side can't employ as many people as Boeing does,

and the other side has a ton of expertise. But is that relationship too close? Right. And there seems to be a lot of trust at the center of this system you're describing that allows Boeing to basically be like a co-regulator of itself. And the most important trust involved here seems to be that a business will always put safety above profits. And I guess the question here is whether in a system with that much trust, that balance could get out of whack and safety might lose out to profits. And the only way we would know that is when there's a tragedy or two tragedies. Boeing doesn't want planes to crash. So their motivations are in many ways exactly aligned with their customers. But what's emerged after these two crashes, I mean, you heard the pilots.

They said this was a breach of trust. I think a lot of people are feeling that right now, that feeling of questioning of this process. And this isn't to say anything about Boeing's motivations. We are at the very beginning of investigating these two flights, and we do not want to rush to conclusions. But you're asking the questions that the people at the front line of this industry, the pilots, the crew, they're asking that right now. How do we regain trust in Boeing? And how do we know for sure that we are being told everything we need to know in order to fly these planes? We've been talking about trust, the trust that the FAA had in Boeing, that the airlines, their pilots and crews had or didn't have in this plane. But I'm wondering now about the trust that we as the flying public have in these planes.

And it's kind of hard to imagine wanting to fly on a 737 MAX anytime soon. Let's say that the software gets fixed and Boeing and the FAA, through their certification process, they all sign off on everything being safe. Why should we trust them after that? Why should we trust them kind of ever. I think that coming up with the software fix is manageable for Boeing, an industrial juggernaut that has dealt with these issues before. And you'll remember the 787 Dreamliner was grounded for three months in 2013 when it had battery fire problems. And that was a Boeing plane. Right, a Boeing plane. And we all fly on it. It's possible that people will be wary right now, but Boeing has the capacity to fix this thing

and probably will. The bigger question is whether these two tragedies lead to a more wholesale transformation in the process for regulating the aircraft manufacturers in this country, what, if anything, is going to change in the process by which we determine in the United States that planes are safe to fly? Nellie, thank you very much. Thank you, Michael. Thank you, Michael. Here's what else you need to know today.

On Monday, new details emerged about the 28-year-old Australian suspected of attacking two mosques in New Zealand. The Times reports that he was a gun enthusiast who had joined a local rifle club and participated in shooting competitions. A few weeks after receiving his gun license in late 2017, he purchased four firearms and two weeks before the attack, his apartment was listed for rent. There will be an

inquiry to look at the specific circumstances leading up to the Christchurch mosque's terror attack on March 15. At a news conference on Monday, New Zealand's Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said she had ordered an investigation into whether government agencies could have prevented the shooter from carrying out the attack, which left 50 dead. The purpose of this inquiry is to look at what all relevant agencies knew or could or should have known about the individual and his activities, including his access to weapons and whether they could have been in a position to prevent the attack.

And historic flooding in the Midwest has killed at least three people and left vast areas of Nebraska, Iowa, and Wisconsin underwater. The flooding was caused by a major storm last week, which dumped several inches of rain on the region, melted snow already on the ground, and unleashed waves of water across residential neighborhoods and highways. In northern Nebraska, rising waters destroyed the 90-year-old Spencer Dam, triggering devastating floods across nearby towns.

Apparently, this water has really started to come up quickly. From talking to one of the city officials, you can see that truck there. They said about a half hour ago, there was barely any water on this road. Now, as you can see, it is pretty deep. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.