Doomed Jets Lacked 2 Key Safety Features That Boeing Sold as Extras

[brooklynite]

Source: New York Times

As the pilots of the doomed Boeing jets in Ethiopia and Indonesia fought to control their planes, they lacked two notable safety features in their cockpits.

One reason: Boeing charged extra for them.

For Boeing and other aircraft manufacturers, the practice of charging to upgrade a standard plane can be lucrative. Top airlines around the world must pay handsomely to have the jets they order fitted with customized add-ons.

Sometimes these optional features involve aesthetics or comfort, like premium seating, fancy lighting or extra bathrooms. But other features involve communication, navigation or safety systems, and are more fundamental to the plane’s operations.

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/business/boeing-safety-features-charge.html

[Docreed2003]

1. You would think

ALL safety features would be standard!! How could you sell a safety feature as an upgrade??

[3Hotdogs]

3. Try to buy an automobile without paying to upgrade for available safety features.

Autonomous braking?

Nighttime windshield projection of objects in road?

These are available. Does your car have them?

[dem4decades]

5. Are you really trying to compare those features with one that would keep a plane from crashing

To the ground killing all on board?

[3Hotdogs]

6. Its a comparison of charging extra for any safety feature.

If a safety feature exists, it should be federally mandated.

Back-up cameras were not mandated until 2014. They were available for years. Same with safety belts in the 60's.

Carry on.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

52. Anti lock breaks were $1000 dollars back in the day

[exboyfil]

15. The sensor disagree light was not standard

On the angle of attack sensors, and the control systems fights with the pilots on a disagreeing signal without a non-standard disengagement of auto pilot. They are lucky this did not happen in the US.

[getagrip_already]

29. it did.... twice...

But quick thinking by the crews averted a crash. They immediately disengaged the autopilot. A lot of our pilots are ex military, and the have flown lots of planes with flaky autopilots.

The incidents were mentioned in an unofficial website pilots use to share safety information. It's not public, but it's not official either. Pilots have found that official reports can take a long time to result in findings, so they share information informally.

There was a report yesterday where an extra pilot was deadheading in the jet that crashed in lion the day before it crashed and saved it from crashing then. Again, by disengaging the ap.

So that's a 3 for 5 save ratio by the pilots.

[Docreed2003]

16. My car doesn't but my wife's does

All of those features and she didn't pay extra for them! Not every car has the features you listed. But we're talking about planes here, not cars. You'd be cool getting on a flight whose plane didn't have every safety feature available?? How would a consumer know whether their plane had all available safety features or not? That's the point!

[zipplewrath]

26. Cars kill way more

We are talking about planes not cars. Planes are WAY safer than cars so if there is a mode of transportation that can have an "optional" safety feature, one would think it could be planes, not cars.

[Bengus81]

32. So are lugnuts an "upgrade"??

Nope standard on all vehicles because the work and keeping your wheels from coming off at any speed instead of just some regular Home Depot nut that would back off and come loose in a couple of miles.

Maybe GM and Ford should charge a $1000 each for those.

[jgmiller]

56. I'm not defending Boeing but just about every instrument in a plane is a safety feature

So including the indicator or not as standard does not make the plane unsafe it provides more data to the pilots which hopefully improves the safety of the plane. A modern jet today has far more insturmentation than one did 30 years ago and yet those planes were safe too.

The article actually buries the lead in my opinion. The better question is why on earth would the MCAS only take data from one AOA sensor for a flight? If both sensors are standard on the plane and wired there is no logical reason to not read both of them and if there is a significant deviation alert the pilots and disengage. That's sloppy design and criminal.

[olegramps]

43. It appears that it will cost Boeing millions. Which executives heads are going roll?

How in the world are they going to be able to justify a safety feature as being an option? The suits are going to be colossal. I could imagine that it could even extend to the plane's owners and operators.

[MBS]

46. Added safety features should be equivalent to a recall, rather than an "option."n/t

[Docreed2003]

48. Agreed

[Glorfindel]

2. I have a feeling that Boeing is going to wish they had provided

those "2 key safety features" at no charge. Talk about penny-wise and pound-foolish!

[Iliyah]

7. Profits before safety and lives . . .

[Texin]

41. ...And millions and millions in insurance settlements to pay the victims' families after disaster.

[3Hotdogs]

54. Ford Pinto gas tanks, anyone?

[MBS]

50. Exactly. n/t

[Scoopster]

4. So they DELIBERATELY left off certain safety features?

Just so they could make more fucking money?

Ya know what? I'm done with whatever this bastardized form of capitalism is we operate under.

[EX500rider]

65. Actually that is the airline who left off ordering those features to save money

Boeing does not make more the less you add on but the opposite of that.

[lostnfound]

66. Not necessarily to save money. Sometimes, it's judgments about human factors / pilot overload

I don’t know any specifics. But usually, pilots and engineering would spec what they want in the cockpit.
More is not always better. A simplified, consistent interface can improve safety.
But if Boeing never emphasized the system, the pilots might have assumed “we didn’t need one of those on the 737NG, so why now?”

[Afromania]

8. Any safety system they can devise should be part of the standard package.

[dreamland]

9. Pure greed.

Lives sacrificed for bottom line profits.

[Javaman]

10. Boeings new slogan...

"Safety at a price"

[UpInArms]

11. Say "bye bye", Boeing

Because that’s what they call doing it all wrong ... greed before safety? Let those people die?

Boeing is going to go down on this one.

[Baitball Blogger]

13. What I would like to see this time around is an investigation to find the

top executive that approved that decision. And he or she should spend time behind bars.

[RobinA]

59. The Hell With That

That doesn't change anything. I would like to see companies rethink their money over what's right strategies and, even more than that, I'd like to see regulatory agencies regulate. No matter what the outcome of these investigations turns out to be. If things went as is being described (maybe a big if, but maybe not) I pin this on the regulators whose job it is to flag this nonsense.

[Baitball Blogger]

12. Unthinkable at one time.

This scenario was once the fodder of Mad magazines. It has now turned into our capitalistic nightmare.

[Maxheader]

14. I don't subscribe to the nyt...what are the 2 items?

A left hand kahooten valve...A threaded finagen pin?

What?...

[UpInArms]

20. From the article:

Boeing’s optional safety features, in part, could have helped the pilots detect any erroneous readings. One of the optional upgrades, the angle of attack indicator, displays the readings of the two sensors. The other, called a disagree light, is activated if those sensors are at odds with one another.

[Maxheader]

24. Thanks...

[Maxheader]

28. Received the article..Thanks again..

The apparatus that sticks out of the fuselage is kinda crude..

As it rotates to the air flow around it the computers sense it and......?
Seems to be where the problem starts...

[uncle ray]

68. you can usually right click and open a private tab to get past the paywall.

[Maxheader]

69. Thanks uncle ray!...

Finally figured out where to right click in windows 8.1...upr right hand menu..

"Private Browsing"...

[bullwinkle428]

17. So crash avoidance is now being sold as an "option package"???

Like the rich Corinthian leather seats and the undercoating?

[jberryhill]

30. You're gonna be glad you got that Tru-Coat

[gilligan]

18. Aircraft

Should not have options like automobiles.

[AllyCat]

19. Profits before people. This is what happens without regulations

[UpInArms]

21. Corporations do not self regulate, they have one mandate

Profits above all else.

Remember the melamine in the dog Food? That was 1 penny cheaper per 100 pounds of food than the cost of actual protein.

[AllyCat]

22. Chinese made crap...but American companies bought it.

Every time lead paint is found in kids’ toys they say “Oh, we used the wrong paint!” Meaning they have vats of lead paint sitting around for the “right” job.

[avebury]

23. Safety feature should never be an upgrade for an additional cost

If this proves to be true, the families of the victims of the two crashes should file a class action lawsuit against Boeing. One crash might be an oops, two crashes shows the crass greediness of Boeing. The fact that Boeing did nothing after the first crash shows a craven disregard for the safety of the passengers flying on their plans. The fact most US airlines using that plane did not immediately volunteer to ground those planes and insisted on charging passengers who wanted to change their tickets to avoid flying on the model of plane would indicate that they also place profits over safety.

Don't you wonder how many of those planes purchased by US airline include those safety feature upgrades?

[FakeNoose]

25. This is the final straw of America's leadership in airline safety

The US will never be considered leaders again after this. What country would want to buy US-manufactured planes now that this has come out? Boeing has just destroyed the industry with their greed and lack of foresight.

[RobinA]

60. It's A Shame

because it was one of the few areas that we could still claim as our own and it was sacrificed at the altar of profits, which I guess in a way is ironic...

[Moostache]

27. OK...so the "features" were extra....what about the pilot training?

Were the pilots ever made aware of the fact that these safety features existed yet were NOT on the plane they were flying? If "NO", then that is akin to negligent homicide and the executives AND Board members of Boeing should ALL stand trial and do time...

Unregulated capitalism, operating outside or above the law is an inherent evil.

[getagrip_already]

31. Of course the flip side is why were the buyers too cheap to buy the safety features?

Sure, boeing could make them standard and charge $5M more for the plane, losing sales to companies that don't offer them. Or they could choose not to offer them at all, to be competitive with other builders and sell planes.

In the end, I could see that as a downward pressure on safety features. Why bother if it means we don't sell planes. It becomes a race to the bottom. Innovation would die.

In the end, it's up to the buyers. What risks are they willing to take versus what rewards for saving money.

[jberryhill]

33. Wait until all the new stick-frame apartment buildings start catching fire

Take a look at the new apartment buildings going up in every city.

Five wood apartment stories over one concrete retail/office street-level.

They are death traps, as we will all find out in a few years and wonder why.

[getagrip_already]

34. What does that have to do with planes?

Surely those buildings are using integrated sprinkler and alarm systems (dictated by code in densely built areas). Why is wood frame any less safe then steel and concrete? Those buildings burn also.

They may in fact be safe.

But they have zero to do with airlines safety choices. If the feature isn't mandated by the faa (and other state agencies), then it's up to the airlines to buy the safest planes they can afford.

This isn't necessarily boeings fault (offering upgrades). It is boeings fault they didn't fix this when it was first discovered.

[mr_lebowski]

39. I think I can answer that question ...

"Why is wood frame any less safe then steel and concrete? Those buildings burn also"

Because, umm ... steel and concrete aren't fire fuels, whereas dry wood ... most definitely is?

There are differences in 'degrees' of safety, so just because a steel or concrete framed building might 'burn also' doesn't mean they're not inherently more safe overall. Esp. concrete ... way less likely a fire spreads to a floor above vs. a building made of all wood, basically.

When I bought a condo in an old 3 story building 15 years ago I made sure the frame of the building was concrete for exactly this reason. And guess what? There was a fire in the building while I lived there. Bad one, killed the resident. Didn't spread beyond the one apartment though. And it was 2nd floor.

[RobinA]

57. We Had This

in Conshohocken, PA several years back. Biiig complexes of stick buildings. Build along the river. Hey, plenty of water! A little deficient in the firewall department in addition to the matchbook construction. Water pressure a known problem, but what the hey! One day they were working on one of the new sections and poof! some construction tool sets off a fire. Complex under construction burns, jumps to two inhabited structures, burning both to the ground. Something like 170 apartments turned to ash. Happened during the day, so no injuries except two fried fire trucks and countless possessions of people who lived there. Some talk at the time about water pressure and firewalls, but no shortage of houses and apartments made out of kindling.

[jberryhill]

58. Same deal with that nursing home over in West Chester

[RobinA]

61. Right!

I'm watching that thinking, "That shouldn't burn like that, it has to have sprinklers!" Well, it did have sprinklers. Maybe the water was an option?

[safeinOhio]

35. Reminds me of the Pinto.

The cost of recalling the Pinto would have been $121 million, whereas paying off the victims would only have cost Ford $50 million. The Pinto went into production in 1970 without the safety modifications.

Basic math vs human life

[Firestorm49]

36. Really? A safety feature is an option? An added money maker? Absurd!

[dlk]

37. Boeing's Greed and Avarice Is Directly Responsible for Hundreds of Deaths

Lock them up!

[Blue_Tires]

38. This isn't new...

Optional upgrades could have prevented AA 191 and a few other disasters...

[Me.]

40. Why Would You Charge More For Safety Features?

Did no one there question this and how counterproductive to sell planes without safety features?

[DirtEdonE]

42. Another stunning example of capitalism at its finest

Where the almighty dollar rules over companies who risk passengers' and crew's lives for profit while they gladly accept socialist government contracts, tax incentives, etc., and pay zero in taxes.

I wonder how much more in bonuses Boeing's top brass made from their added death profits?

[Texin]

44. Isn't the larger question here why didn't the AIRLINES pay for those enhanced features?

It's easy to blame Boeing because the features are considered enhancements or "upgrades", but the airlines that bought those jets and declined the enhanced safety features bear an equal - and in my opinion - GREATER blame for not paying the (relative) few bucks above the "standard" model. They are the ones that put the few dollars more per rotation of the planes they'd get above the greater safety of their passengers and crew. The automobile companies also have made similar decisions based on what the average consumer will omit to save a few dollars. The flaws inherent in the overall design of the vehicles were left to the consumers buying those products, including commercial carriage clients. This is a shared problem, but it seems it's always the manufacturer of the products that get the greater burden for any issues rather than end buyers, whether they are individuals or corporations. It's a problem of most capitalist countries with goods to sell and the overall bottom line approach to decision making that favors the shareholders rather than the end consumer.

[MontanaMama]

45. I will take this one step further Texin...

A good friend of my husband, just retired from Boeing at the age of 57. He was an engineer there for 35 years and the 777 and the Max 8 were both under his purview. After a 777 went missing, was presumed crashed, and as we all know, was never found I asked this guy why there wasn’t satellite location and equipment on the jet? Why couldnt the exact location of the plane be pinged where it went down? He told me that that type of equipment is offered and many airlines don’t choose to purchase it when they buy a plane. Shocking. He also has hair raising stories of how inept the current FAA is under an acting chief who has close ties to Elaine Chao and how badly the government shutdown jeopardized airline safety from top to bottom and they’ve still not caught up from that fiasco. Don’t get me wrong, he’ll defend the quality and safety of Boeing jets all day long because he’s got that bias but he also has inside information regarding which airlines buy the best safety equipment and which ones don’t. IMHO, every plane ought to be decked out with anything and everything to keep us safe and if not, we ought to be able to find out which airlines bought bare bones jets.

[AnnieBW]

49. Thanks!

Very informative.

[DirtEdonE]

64. I realize this comparison is nowhere near as critical

But I believe it goes to the culture of American business re: labor and customers.

I worked for a major corporation with over a hundred tractor-trailer drivers at our location alone. They bought Mack trucks that rode like they had cement suspensions. But along with that, they didn't bother to add little features like air conditioning or even a RADIO - so drivers who were in trucks for 15 hours a day didn't even have anything to listen to but that stinking Mack diesel engine.

I know air conditioning can be expensive but with the number of trucks our corporation bought from Mack - even the maintenance department head told me - Mack would have thrown in radios for free.

The company just did it to be dickheads.

His quote. The head of maintenance for our division. Not mine.

[AnnieBW]

47. So, what was the price

For about 400 dead people on two plane crashes?

[Codifer]

51. "The Last Nine Minutes" Moire Johnston

I read this in the late seventies and recommend it highly.

Once the bean counters call the shots, it's downhill from there.

Remember the exploding Ford Pintos? The bean counters found it slightly cheaper to pay off for the deaths rather than recall the Pintos and fix the gas tank.

Remember Ford and GM doing great business with Hitler until the government forced them to stop? GM persisted even after war was declared.

profits uber alles

[democratisphere]

53. Who wants to travel on a jet plane with half-assed safety features.

Up charges versus safety is the typical American corporate way.

[underpants]

55. Just saw this headline WOW!

Just 😳

[Hugin]

62. Hmm... So, possibly the avionics equivalent of insulin gouging then.

Corruption... Corruption, everywhere. And not a drop of empathy or ethics to drink.

Such is the age of Trump.

[MicaelS]

63. We need to put Boeing's entire upper management in prison. n/t