FAA head on whether Boeing 737 Max 8 safety features should have been mandatory

At a Senate hearing on oversight and safety of the Boeing 737 Max 8 aircraft, Senator Ed Markey, D-Mass., asked FAA Acting Administrator Daniel Elwell what he thought about Boeing charging airlines extra for certain additional safety features, and whether they should be mandatory.

[@w2385-i2s]

Boeing's new slogan, Safety is an Option.

[@nihao844]

w23857980 underrated comment

[@jamesnichols5163]

There have always been options, different airlines have different procedures, the fact that it was optional has nothing to do with saving airlines money, and shouldn't reduce safety

[@mnguardianfan7128]

w23857990 - These planes are packed to the gills with safety features. It is far from obvious what 'safety' features are worth it and what aren't.

[@CrystalNicole13]

w23857980 lmao fr

[@LawFarrell]

Next time you book your tickets, you can add safety in your basket as an addition.

[@tokekkk]

Just give him two paddles with “YES” and “NO” and raise one of them to answer the question.

[@kbgirel6965]

tokekkk with mcas system in it

[@gaylebaker8419]

"Senator, I'm glad you asked that question" always preceeds a lie.

[@ranika3995]

It also is a lie

[@ja_dash_rad2681]

He isn’t lying. He isn’t just answering the question as “Yes” or “No” as the Senator would like.

[@LordoftheGrunts]

No he didn't. AOA indicators are not optional. This congressional inquiry is going to be ineffective. Because its members lack a basic understanding of aviation and have no clue what to look for. They need to let the NTSB do there jobs. Let them actually finish their investigations of the crash and go from there. Please stop letting clueless talking heads dictate federal policy.

[@maninthecab]

bouchie bouch Strange that according to Boeing , AOA indicators were optional until a few days ago.

[@lostn65]

That's a common phrase you would hear from politicians. It's in the Lie Detection 101 handbook as a very obvious sign of a lie. When they keep addressing you by name instead of answering the question. Using more words than is necessary is a sign of discomfort and stress, and needing more time to formulate an answer.

[@GregSr]

As a frequent flyer on Southwest, my favorite saying was, "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going". Now, maybe it should be, "If it's Boeing, I ain't going".

[@333anders6]

airbus? no fuss.

[@jamesgardner578]

I agree ain’t Boeing I ain’t goin

[@SuperDeni13]

If it's not an airbus,i would rather take a bus

[@roblouw3038]

Wow - exactly!! I also thought that Boeing was the "Bullet Proof" company and that it never compromised on quality of design and manufacture - and now I TRUST Airbus more than Boeing - amazing!!

[@MrCallingoccupants]

You're lucky you're not resing in pieces.

[@Anurania]

I have lost all trust and respect for the FAA. First discovering that they let Boeing essentially self certify the plane and lie about the extent of the new features, then ignored known flaws in the design after the first crash, then continued to let the plane fly after the second crash until the president himself had to ground the plane following Boeing CEO's attempted lobbying over the phone. Now I hear the FAA is already trying to pressure other countries to lift the grounding so it can avoid the bad optics of doing it first, but vows to do so anyway. Why are they even discussing lifting the grounding before we know what happened in the latest crash and what inherent problems the plane may have?

[@JackyThamGK]

Anurania as an malaysian, we will keep grounding boeing until the report come out, airplane safety is everything, i know US government threaten rest of the world to stop grounding boeing, but didn't success, we will keep pressure our government too, in this moment i trust EU more then i trust the America, US playing dirty is useless

[@joegunn7956]

@@JackyThamGK 🤣😅😂😅😂

[@Milkmans_Son]

The cert arrangement has been in place since the FAA was created.

[@CherubiJubell]

Is this a thing? Yes, *all* safety features are mandatory. Thank you senator. Don't let him wiggle out. Send that man to prison and fine the company.

[@andrewjin3533]

That's like saying something like On-star is mandatory in all cars. Or buying winter tires/ four wheel drive is important for Los Angeles car safety.

[@Milkmans_Son]

The useful number of indicators, gauges, and warning lights installed in an airplane is not unlimited, and it's not because of limited space or money. It's about cognitive load, and the data on AOA indicators is out there and available. You can continue spouting off incorrect nonsense, or you can look it up for yourself.

[@RICHIE_RICH89]

The FAA should be just as responsible

[@cefurab643]

Yes but it's Boeing that have the most responsibility.

[@RICHIE_RICH89]

@@cefurab643 yes sir I agree

[@XavierHex]

The head of the FAA protecting aircraft manufacturers smh refusing to answer straightforward questions. SHAME!

[@user-pf5xq3lq8i]

They still have the death penalty in indonesia or eithiopia yes? Look forward to seeing that greedy boeing ceo and the faa puppet face trial in both countries.

[@kbgirel6965]

Akin Khoo he did do a bad job so people may have sympathized if had said yes

[@ab.k9870]

Can this man stop explaining and answer the damn questions? He needs to resign. Shame on the FAA

[@jamesnichols5163]

@Ardent Fan well based on the fact the FAA isn't callous or arrogant, I would say it isn't surprising and the FAA is not incompetent, although that said they mustn't fall into complacency

[@bluehornet6752]

@Ardent Fan He's a political appointee, and likely doesn't have anything to do with the day-to-day operations of the FAA. He certainly wasn't around when the 737-MAX was going through its Supplemental Type Certification process. So he's sent there to make the FAA look like it knows what is going on, when that's debatable in many cases. But I place the blame for these accidents much more onto the shoulders of Boeing. They are the ones who decided what sort of logic to use in their MCAS override/control algorithms, and they are the ones who (reportedly) decided not to use all available data before overriding pilot input to "save the aircraft." Seems like a very bad decision on the part of the software design manager(s), if you ask me.

[@bluehornet6752]

@Ardent Fan Well, you're forgetting something that happened in that time span: Trump-induced government shut down. You know, that old chestnut. I never said the FAA was blameless, only that for aircraft "certified" under the STC process, the manufacturer is driving the bus just as much as the FAA is...if not more. Boeing was the one who was directing software development. Boeing was the one making the decisions to NOT use both AoA sensors in their MCAS control logic. And Boeing was the one who made the conscious decision to not offer AoA disagreement lights as standard equipment. But when the aircraft flew in testing for the FAA and Boeing's pilots made it fly as the manual said it should, the FAA fell into line. It's not like the FAA guys actually took the thing for a spin. How do you think the FAA knows whether or not such a complicated aircraft is "OK to fly"? You think they have experts on staff to go test each and every aircraft from themselves? You think they have the budget for that? Do you think manufacturers would turn over a $100+ million aircraft to the FAA? LMAO!

[@aviationismylife6814]

@Ardent Fan so ain't the protocols for mcas is the very same for runaway stabilizer?

[@DeanoTheSaxman]

The FAA needs to take a good hard look at it's self, Career minded individuals who hide the truth and deny all knowledge of the truth, the way the FAA has treated whistle-blowers has been appalling, the 737 parts scandal was in existence well before 1996, yet it was conveniently swept under the table by the FAA & Boeing, and whistle-blowers paid the price !

[@mchabi18]

Yes or No !? Impossible to ask a lawyer as they permanently play with words and try to ESCAPE. Insanely demonstrated by Mr Markey. Great job Sir !

[@dpie4859]

Boeing logic: 1. Lets reuse an aircraft design from 1967 to save cost, put 2 huge new engines that does not really fit and thereby make the whole aircraft unstable. 2. Then we create a secret software MCAS to stabilize the aircraft. 3. To save even more cost we make the extremely critical MCAS system only rely on a single sensor. (Industry standard is normally 2 or as Airbus does, 3). 4. To make even more money, lets sell the sensor malfunction warning system as an option, but still not tell about what MCAS does. 5. To save even more cost lets make sure MCAS is not described in the manual, nor include any mention about it in the 2hour Ipad training video to pilots. 6. Lets save even more cost by not having ANY indicator to the pilot that the MCAS system is active, and that the pilot is no longer in control of the aircraft. 7. To save even more cost, lets tell FAA that the aircraft is perfectly safe and approve it ourselves. 8. When the first aircraft crashed, lets blame it on pilot error. 9. When the second aircraft crashed, lets pretend it was minor glitch but hint that a very minor software upgrade might be needed. Try to minimize lawsuits but using very cryptic weasel language. 10. Finally lets pretend that this unstable aircraft, relying on a single sensor will become “the safest aircraft ever designed “ and force everyone to continue flying it.Lets pay FAA bribes to certify it. 11. Lets tell the world that Boeing cares about safety first..... This is total greed and deception. Boeing’s CEO and FAA’s chairman should be sent to prison. All Boeing 737 MAX 8 should be grounded permanently. Boeing! Do the right thing-Design a new safe, fuel efficient aircraft. Until then....I will avoid this model like the plague.

[@user-pf5xq3lq8i]

12. Lets not put mcas in the simulators, because people will find out about it.

[@tylerfb1]

Your whole description is a total mischaracterization of the facts at best, or a total lie at worst. 1. the aircraft is NOT unstable. 2. MCAS was created to make this jet feel the same as others to the pilot, NOT to create stability. 3. It does rely on one sensor, but as it is not autopilot or a primary flight control system, I'm not sure that the industry standard is to rely on two. It is for primary systems, but not for secondary systems. 4. The malfunction warning is more complex than that, and not necessarily beneficial. In these cases, it is more likely a warning would have made things worse than better, but most likely it wouldn't have changed anything. 5. Yeah, it probably should have been mentioned. But, the warnings that it is malfunctioning, and the procedures for fixing it are exactly the same as a supposed to have been well-known malfunction, trim-runaway. 6. MCAS does have indications its working, primarily a trim wheel spinning inches away from both pilots' knees, which makes loud noises when it does so. And, it doesn't make "the pilot no longer in control of the aircraft". Literally all the pilot has to do is push a switch on the control yoke to retrim how he'd like. Or if its a problem, turn off the electric trim system, or physically grab the trim wheel to keep it from spinning, or just manipulate the control column with more force, albeit lots more force. 7-11. are just your false narrative based on the previous false statements. Except 10. The Boeing 737, EVEN WITH the latest accidents, and including the MAX models, is BY FAR, the safest, most successful aircraft ever designed, let alone built. There have been more 737's built than ALL (not any) other fixed wing aircraft combined. It has an incredibly low accident/incident occurrence, but when that is put against it's flying hours to get an accident rate, nothing comes close. Do your homework, and stop letting your hatred for large companies and their CEO's let you buy into the crap people tell you.

[@cigmorfil4101]

You missed in 3: 3...and reduce the cost to customers as the plane is a standard 737 type and needs no pilot training (which we achieved by using a single-sensor FAA loophole).

[@dpie4859]

@@cigmorfil4101 wow...is that why? Had no idea.

[@tylerfb1]

Nehemiah Scudder there are lots of accidents, maybe most, where all the pilot had to do was not fly into a mountain, or look at their gauges to see the problem, or flip a switch (the flight that crashed into the Potomac river in Washington DC in the 80’s comes to mind), but for whatever reason, they didn’t do it. There’s a lot going on in an emergency, and that’s why training is paramount. Shoot, in the Potomac crash, it was a checklist item they just breezed over maybe because that was what they always did, but this time it killed them. So...yes. All they had to do was re-trim or stop the trim and it did not occur to them. As far as the statistic, this is KZbin so I wasn’t scientific and just repeated what I’d seen. You’re right, it’s wrong. Grossly wrong. I think the statistic is for air-carrier type aircraft. I couldn’t find international statistics, but there have been more total 737s delivered than there are air carrier airplanes operating in the US fleet right now.

[@vincentcollins1017]

He knows he's guilty he can't even answer even the questions

[@ricsosa7107]

Greed, Greed over People's Life's

[@MrCallingoccupants]

What's wrong with greed? Money makes the world go around.

[@wchane71]

FAA independence has been compromised by cozy gov-corporate relation..

[@twohorse123]

Arrest the FAA guy for manslaughter!!!

[@333anders6]

MASS MANSLAUGHTER!

[@user-pf5xq3lq8i]

Send them to an ethiopian or indonesian hangman.

[@jimz508]

Yes or no? Why is yes or no such a hard concept? It's not rocket science .. answer the question. 😎

[@fungames24]

If the world was made from yes or no, then why was "maybe" invented then?

[@teytreet7358]

What he answered was pretty much: yes, safety features are mandatory. No, the Aoa is not a critical safety feature.

[@teytreet7358]

@ are you a pilot? Pilot don't fly with AOA, unless your in the military. You will notice the symtoms before you will notice any warning lights.

[@Milkmans_Son]

@MEGONE Productions Lyric Videos Question for you. Have you quit beating your wife? Yes or no.

[@unlike150]

FAA guy should be behind the BAR QUICKLY.

[@cefurab643]

Boeing should behind the bar quickly. They build the damn planes.

[@luxuryva]

The FAA needs to get rid of him he can't even answer a simple yes or no question

[@Blaze49AzSd]

Thank you Senator Keep roasting them. You must go after the real culprits ‘Boeing’, they cut corners to make profit. Bottom line. People went to jail for much less crimes.

[@alexanderakenzie3711]

Good job by the senator, gave the scumbag a hard time

[@user-pf5xq3lq8i]

Its false attack. "should they have had a warning light telling them they are going to crash and have no control of the aircraft?" Well done senator, we will fit a light telling them they are about to crash and have no control of the aircraft. You showed them and sounded tough senator. Next time the mcas crashes we can all be glad the pilots had a light to stare at telling them the controls are jammed hard down by the computer and there is nothing they can do about it.

[@tabaks]

If it's MAX Boeing, I'm NOT going!

[@adamyoussef2257]

I will not fly with this plane no matter what FAA says. By the way.. what's the job discription of Nikki Haley's job in Boeing?

[@rv555ba]

Wow! Just Wow. Senator Markey was straight on point and grilled the FAA entirely. This situation needs experienced people like him up there. Loved it.

[@therb0rn247]

"yes or no!" ... does not answer.

[@lenny108]

these people sincerely believe that 180 passengers will peacefully board a B-737 MAX 8 as soon a new software is installed

[@leulgeorgis3216]

Yes they do. They have no clue

[@arno222444]

Fix the unstable design not the software.

[@roblouw3038]

Yes - all around the world paying passengers must NOT allow themselves to get onto a 737 800 MAX

[@alexanderakenzie3711]

What other shortcuts did Boeing take on the 737 Max would be my next question. Will the plane continue to fall from the skies of other reasons?

[@tylerfb1]

@@arno222444 its not unstable.

[@darkspectro2948]

I never heard anyone answer with a yes or no lol

[@kutie216]

Yazdany Light because there is much more nuance than a simple yes or no answer can provide.

[@compulsiverambler1352]

Of all people, Michael Cohen did throughout, it's only time I've ever seen it happen.

[@deesmith5600]

Can you repeat the Question.

[@darkspectro2948]

@@kutie216 That's right, no one with a brain will just answer with a simply yes or no. Under oath in congress a wrong answer means prison time.

[@kutie216]

Yazdany Light exactly & even while that is true perjurers rarely get prosecuted unless it is politically convenient.

[@donbrassco301]

Boeing is FAA😧

[@donbrassco301]

FAA can not Ans the Ques😄

[@sherrysnyder6410]

You couldn't be more wrong. FAA certification is the MINIMUM standard. Boeing standards are much higher. The loss is devastating to everyone involved.

[@donbrassco301]

@@sherrysnyder6410 Boeing spy

[@sherrysnyder6410]

@@donbrassco301 Har! Am I a spy for or against Boeing? Not a very bright spy using my real name.

[@donbrassco301]

@@sherrysnyder6410 A spy for Boeing/FAA😧maxgate

[@ppeterzhong]

FAA/US government need to be harsh on Boeing's product. This is actually helping Boeing as well as US products reputation. Boeing needs to get the act together. How can you let these design flaws to slip through and cause hundreds of human tragedies? May these souls eventually have peace wherever they are.

[@luxuryva]

Sure the FAA and Boeing are best friends they are litterly sitting on each other knees. As far as I've heard

[@reconx86]

Because it's all about money, that is the real US mentality and reputation. Lobbying (eg: bribing) is so ingrained in the corporate and government culture nobody bats a eye when peoples lives are gambled. This is is unlikely to change as this happened before and will happen again. It will take a complete reform of the US law and government mentality, before people are actually held accountable for even insinuating to gamble peoples lives. As long as money-addicted people are put in charge, these things will continue to happen.

[@tylerfb1]

What design flaw are you talking about?

[@robertanderson4248]

The fact that various flavors of stall avoidance instrumentation is "optional or standard" has little or nothing to do with a sales price of a $100 million aircraft. It has everything to do with a particular carrier's preference that best suits the pilots' that fly in each carrier's fleet. AoA indicators/gauges/instrumentation would be useful to carriers who hire primarily from the pool of former/retired military pilots. This instrumentation has many benefits far beyond "safety" in the hands of pilots having hundreds/thousands of hours experience of hours flying AoA equipped planes. Southwest would be a good example. Conversely, this "optional" AoA instrumentation would be a huge distraction to a pool of pilots who were trained/hired from general aviation and flight academies. The issue goes far beyond Boeing saving 0.05% on the cost of a plane or the perceived ineptitude within the FAA. But try explaining that to a big-mouthed US Senator looking for political points with YES or NO answers to "gotcha" questions. Training to FAA standards already cost tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars per pilot. And the FAA alone doesn't set/determine training standards and hours for qualification exclusively anywhere in the world but the USA.

[@lostn65]

He kept being asked for a YES or NO and refused to ever give one. He used a lot of stall tactics to avoid answering it directly, which is the clear sign of a lie.

[@cigmorfil4101]

It's a clear sign that the questioner is right but the politics of the answerer is the opposite of public opinion. It is clear, sensible, public opinion that safety critical equipment should be mandatory. YES is the proper answer. Stalling around not answering YES or NO is a clear indication that his answer is most likely NO. But then again if he answered YES the next question is likely to be (something like) Why have you not done so?; and if he answered NO the next question is likely to be (something like) Why does the FAA not really care about safety? Either answer leaves him cornered, but skirting around the answer leaves the public feeling the answer is NO and that the FAA is anti safety and pro making profits.

[@robertgregic8338]

Daniel doesn't understand that asked questions were YES or NO! Love seeing him being grilled

[@jcl410]

AOA display to the cockpit is not a safety item any more than the attitude indicator is. The "AOA disagree" message on the screen could be useful in trying to diagnose a problem. We know that the Lion Air flight had a bunch of error indications; "airspeed disagree", Stick shaker, etc. Would the AOA information have helped save the planes crashing, or just made the situation more confusing? Who knows.

[@pilot4321]

jcl410 When you trim wheel continues to turn as you fight for control isn’t a big enough warning, what is? It’s not silent... The Lion Air crew didn’t have the benefit of knowing MCAS, but they should have been prepared for a stab trim runaway...

[@tylerfb1]

So right! Which is why a conversation needs to be had about adding "safety" equipment.

[@tylerfb1]

@@pilot4321 I agree, and that's why I think crew training will be the deciding factor in these crashes. This type of crash is more common than you think, it's called loss of control, here is video about it. kzbin.info/www/bejne/n5rKm6KaeM5-Zsk Basically, the crew gets swamped or distracted (depending on how serious the condition is) by a problem, and their attention shifts from flying the aircraft to the problem, they lose control, and can't recover in time. Automation systems in large aircraft, and crew resource management programs are supposed to prevent these crashes, but the crews must be trained in their use, and trained to actually use them when the time comes. MCAS only using one AoA sensor and crews not knowing about its existence are probably contributing factors, but training is the reason.

[@unggrabb]

How can it be so hard to say "yes" or "no"? Guy got his balls twisted and roasted, leaving a bad smell

[@tylerfb1]

because his question is a crap question, designed to entrap him. He's in a no win situation, though I do wish he had the balls to answer no.

[@unggrabb]

@@tylerfb1 then speak the truth

[@tylerfb1]

@@unggrabb Not sure what you mean, but in these situations, the panel isn't there to gather information, the politicians are there to grandstand and try to entrap the administrator, not matter what side of the aisle they come from. It's usually best to answer how he did, thought useless. Like I said, I wish he would have stood up and said no, not all safety equipment should be mandatory.

[@julie198]

Do we need safety features for our safety features?

[@miguelsalami6831]

In One Word "Wonderful" To the Senator Boeing is indeed guilty, I pray for ALL the family's of lost loved ones on Lion Air & Ethiopian Airlines. R.I.P.

[@AzzrudinJamil]

Do you want fries with your AoA vane sir? No, ala carte please. That will be 3.99 sir.

[@Milkmans_Son]

Do you want fries with your AoA vane sir? Is it totally free? No, cost is 80k, which would add an additional 0.0006667% to the price of the airplane. Forget that! There, I fixed it.

[@syedahmed1729]

MCAS is Band-Aid solution to fundamental aerodynamic design flaw. A well designed aircraft does not need MCAS. Since 1940 aircraft has been save WITHOUT MCAS. The only way the FAA should certify the Boeing 737 MAX is if Boeing can prove that this aircraft is safe WITHOUT the use of MCAS.

[@petertran5476]

Thank you very much Senator. You are the just man.

[@roblouw3038]

listened to this again - well done Senator Markey and your colleagues - ALL safety features should and must be mandatory - no OPTIONS on design spec - one standard only

[@bradleat]

Somehow seatbelts are not optional, but automated lane departure assist is. There is "Safety Critical" and then there is safety affecting. AOA warning lights only alert pilots to something that pilots have had to deal with since 737s have been made. The fact that the MCAS subsystem is new does not mean the Stabilizer Trim System is new. These planes don't suddenly nosedive. They start to fight back progressively as the MCAS trims the plane down. The procedure for fixing this type of trim runaway is supposed to me a memory item. The media is being very misleading when they are saying that MCAS is a new system. While technically correct, the idea of automated trim and systems that prevent stalls are not new. These subsystems are not typically extremely detailed for pilots because parent system is known and the controls are clear. These pilots were just waiting to get their passengers killed. American pilots are required to have more experience. The FAA did nothing wrong allowing American pilots to fly these planes. The rest of the world takes the FAA type ratings then slashes their experience and maintenance requirements to save money.

[@ArunArun-rv5bn]

There has never been such a system with no redundancy. This system depends on one sensor. So it should have a warning to alert a sensor failure. It is a critical safety feature. If MCAS doesn't exist, it's not critical. But it is critical with the presence of MCAS which reads only one sensor. The plane can fly without MCAS. It's just an assist to the pilots. In a way you're right. The AoA disagree light is not critical if MCAS was designed correctly. But since MCAS doesn't turn off even if pilots resist it and the fact that it doesn't consider anything else other than just one sensor is stupid. The real problem is not the optional disagree light, it is the poorly thought-out MCAS software. They are going to correct it now through a software update.

[@DeanoTheSaxman]

How come the AOA is standard equipment on the Airbus ... ????? Both Boeing and the FAA are totally BROKEN ... !!!! To put profit above public safety is totally inexcusable ... !!!

[@andrewcunnison6975]

AOA is standard on all planes....smh. No plane can fly with AOA so its not an option. Airbus planes also have optional safety features

[@alexfaylona4007]

All airplanes have AOA.

[@DeanoTheSaxman]

Boeing's is an optional safety extra ... ? The AOA on the N G comes with the MCAS system ...

[@andrewcunnison6975]

@@DeanoTheSaxman ALL PLANES HAVE AOA!!!!! Planes cannot fly without it. And the 737 NG doesnt have MCAS...smh

[@andrewcunnison6975]

@@DeanoTheSaxman The optional safety features arent necessary cause plane will still be "safe" without them. Airbus planes also have optional safety features.

[@christopherbuilder5354]

This is what corruption, lobbying, and deregulation lead to. Thank your GOP representative.

[@chrisscott1547]

I don't understand some pilots' assertion that they didn't know about MCAS. With flaps retracted and autopilot off, did they never notice the trim wheels spinning without the button pushed? Pilots are generally pretty sharp. Hmmm ... AP is off - what is trimming the stab? I am a pilot, but not on the 737.

[@towerrunner496]

The Senators question is wrong. The AOA discrepancy warning light was just that, and the pilots had no procedures if it came on. Had the pilots had the AOA discrepancy warning light on the doomed aircraft made a difference, at this point we will never know......The problem with MCAS on "all" MAX 8 or 9 aircraft is that the MCAS program only uses one AOA sensor, (of the two) and it switches from one sensor to the other, each time a flight is completed. Hence, why Lion Air Maintenance checked out the MCAS system (per Boeing's instructions in their manual) the day before the crash. When Lion Air had the problem the day before, with MCAS reading from an inoperative AOA sensor, when it landed it switched to the good AOA sensor, maintenance ran their test, came out good, could not duplicate. The computer considered that test has a flight, and switched the MCAS system back to the inoperative AOA sensor. If only there had been a procedure from Boeing to test the system twice! More information needs to come out with procedures in place at the time about how the system was to be checked and tested. Keep in mind there were probably other test performed by their maintenace, and MCAS was just one of the systems checked. We are all looking at MCAS system in hindsight, at the time, there was very little if next to nothing that pilots or maintenance personal knew about the system. . What the fix is, is to now used both AOA sensors, and if there is a disagreement between the data from the sensors, give a warning light, and disable the stabilizer trim auto drive......What Boeing should have done in the first place! . The problem is not the warning light, wrong question. The problem is why did Boeing rely on one sensor to control the MCAS system, and had nothing in place should that one AOA sensor malfunction? Although, run away trim procedures (something every airline transport pilot memories) should have stopped the emergency aboard the two aircraft (with what we know so far). Everything with commercial aircraft is system redundancy! That is what Boeing and the FAA need to explain their way out of..........and make sure that never happens again!

[@flyitrightbaby]

BS. Safety is not sold for profit and an Aircraft cannot be released back into service without the fire extinguishers, life vest, rafts, masks and first aid kits on board. Quality Assurance will not allow it. There are constantly mandatory Service Bulletins released and upgrades that are paid for by the manufacturers like Rolls Royce, Pratt and Whitney, Rockwell Collins and Honeywell. Only basic Avionics displays and general communications are optional upgrades.

[@pauldunn5978]

Back-up cargo hold fire-supression sytems are an optional extra. Aircraft are built with redundancy features as standard . A back-up extinguisher is surely a redundancy feature so should be a standard fit, not an option. The lack of redundancy in the anti-stall features on the MAX aircraft is a big mistake it would appear.

[@allenyeong3443]

If you draw a square and name top left as A, top right B, bottom left C and bottom right D and draw a 737MAX take off at 45 degrees, with powerful engines and full throttle, wind will be flowing from B to D, where is the stall, wind cannot flow from BC to AD, so where is the turbulence above the wings? installing MCAS is just a gimmick, airbus 320 neo also take off at 45degrees without turbulence?

[@jeebus6263]

I am very frustrated with Boeing however in this clip it is clear that Mr Karkey does not understand the issue, it would be nice if he (and his staff) cared enough to ask relevant questions. In this case he seems to be more concerned about putting on a show and is wasting a good opportunity to address the issue.

[@w2385-i2s]

Fired the FAA and Boeing management!

[@user-pf5xq3lq8i]

@Ardent Fan A court in china would be good. That lying boeing ceo was calling the president begging him to keep the max flying even after the second plane went down. What a disgusting swamp creature. Just look at his lying face.

[@GH-oi2jf]

This acting FAA director has no credibility. He should have been thrown out by now.

[@GeorgeKafantaris]

Why are we still relying on antiquated radio communication systems when we now have the technology to have complete telemetry, including the raw data the black box records, sent to control towers -- or just about anywhere -- as the plane flies? When it comes to the lives of our loved ones, it’s our business more than the airline’s to know what’s going on with the plane as it flies.

[@thegreatawakening3601]

George Kafantaris this.. this soo much.

[@tylerfb1]

Are you saying through satellite link? Cause I know there are areas in the US where there is no radar coverage even up into the flight levels.

[@JamKick]

Let's not get ridiculous. A BMW SE has fewer safety features compared to an M sport BMW. HUDs, for example, is designed to improve safety, only the top spec car typically has HUDs, should BMW get blamed for not putting HUDs in every car? NOt defending Boeing, obviously, they have issues with the 737 but this line of questioning is rubbish, and not helpful to getting to the real issue as far as the 737 safety is concerned.

[@biomanization]

“Senator Market, I can never give a simple yes or no answer.”

[@GNegasi]

If the investigation is not completed yet even for the lion air crash how come they make software update for the Mcas system.

[@Iwantmilk0]

They're desperate for money because China just bought 290 a320 and 10 a350 worth $35billion from airbus

[@jamesnichols5163]

The investigation for jt610 is nearly complete, the preliminary report came out some months ago

[@elaineblackhurst1509]

James Nichols that was hushed up mm

[@TrainerAQ]

Airbags are expensive to install on passenger seats. This is why only first class seats have airbags installed on them. Maybe the rules will change where every seat needs an airbag, but that would be a huge blow to the airlines, and we will see in the coming years who survives, and will fade away like Pan Am.

[@twany442]

He shut him completely down.

[@trcy1977]

Does this guy not understand the difference between an open-ended question vs. a close-ended question? Story of my life. Hello, McFly! Anybody home?

[@johnnyllooddte3415]

no court in the world makes you answer yes or no..only congress think they can usurp your rights

[@MrJeepster129]

Safety "features" are not an option. as the director tried to state between the senators yelling. The AOA vane is not an optional part, it feeds information to the auto pilot and stall warning computers of the attitude of the aircraft. This allows the computers to warn the cockpit of a potential stall. The "optional equipment" that this Senator keeps mentioning is a software option to show this information on the pilots primary flight display. MOST airlines don't take this option, because pilots don't need this information to fly the aircraft. The computers still work the same way regardless of the software. And every aircraft used for civilian transport has to have all the required safety equipment onboard ie: fire extinguishers, oxygen masks ect. If the airline wants to fly the aircraft on extended ops over the water, they have to install extra fire extinguishers in the cargo, and larger oxygen cylinders for the crew. This is an option. if you're not flying extended ops over the water, then you don't need to install it. people complain about crap they don't even understand

[@vedymin1]

Two sensors are still not enough, there should be atleast three or more, positioned in different parts of the plane to lower the risk of knocking them out with the same thing...if one fails, you still have two that can compare their readings, if you only have two and one fails, the computer will not know which one failed, only that there is a discrepancy between them, what if both fail in similar positions and no discrepancy will be detected ?( maybe if they stopped moving and that could be noticed by comparison to different instruments)? In addition to this mcas failed light, there should also be a separate button to disable it, so that you won't be forced to disable your electric trim or put down flaps or pull breakers...

[@heberje]

Public Companies will always lie to the public especially if profits are involved

[@anatolesokol]

It's shocking that they sell "ON SCREEN WARNING" for money - it's software add-on, not a real thing!

[@SteveRichfield]

But - the line IS fuzzy - or is it? Should optional side airbags for cars that can drive the price way up be mandatory? Would this legislation make planes safer, or simply eliminate such options from being available to ANY airlines? There is almost no limit to what COULD be included in the name of safety, e.g. stronger seats to better survive crashes, etc. BTW, I was part of the original 737 design team as my first full-time job a LONG time ago.

[@user-pf5xq3lq8i]

When did the rot set in at Boeing, was it this new greedy ceo?

[@gf31415]

MCAS is NOT a safety feature. It is a band-aid on an unstable design. Use 4 sensors from now on. Two different types, or don't let it fly.

[@youngsouljag08]

Safety for profit and that's where Boeing is wrong it should've been a standard. And this dude is back pedalling!! Answer the damn question Yes or No!!! Safety features should not be optional!!!!!

[@allenyeong4771]

Markey, you are right, just like Merc they do not charge airbags as optional, safety features should be priced in and normally a customer will accept, period

[@joselnegrongonzalez3344]

AWESOME MR. MARKEY

[@yeoweehuathuat8926]

He must go

[@djh1947]

Daniel Elwell shows very clearly here why other civil aviation regulatory organisations in other countries are no longer going to accept FAA approval as a pass-though approval, but undertake their own evaluation of Boeing's aircraft in future. I wouldn't hire Elwell as my chauffeur!

[@w2385-i2s]

Fired the FAA!

[@tubewacha]

FAA fired itself. Boeing was allowed to certify itself

[@thomasreedy4751]

But do all airplane manufacturers have the feature? Is there a minimum set of requirements set forth in Legislation? As soon as one airplane manufacturer makes an improvement in safety features, do all airplane manufacturers have to retrofit their planes to include the feature? Should have the reaction from all regulators (not just usa) been different after the Lion accident - maybe. However, spouting about safety features outside of the context of current regulations - pointless show boating.

[@dsknutson85]

No, not all. This "safety feature" is specifically for the 737 Max 8 because of the physical design of the aircraft (to my understanding after about 3 hrs of scouring the internet on articles relating to the subject). The problem here is that the pilots had no idea about the MCAS software even being on the plane. Why aren't the pilots trained on what has been added on new aircraft? That's the root of the problem. For clarification, the "safety feature" that the senator is trying to talk about is the Angle of Attack (AoA) disagree sensors, not the MCAS software. The MCAS software is mandatory on all Max 8 airplanes. Bottom line is that if the pilots knew about having the MCAS on the plane, they wouldn't need to rely on the AoA disagree sensors. This is what makes the AoA disagree sensors technically not a "critical safety feature".

[@thomasreedy4751]

@@dsknutson85 If the issue is training, then the root cause is operator error. One solution is better training, for example, ensuring the pilots know enough to turn off auto-pilot. Another, more effective solution would be engineering controls. Signaling, which is what this guy is bantering about is pointless without training. Obviously, nobody expected the plane to fall out of the sky with this feature, it is supposed to prevent planes from stalling. So while one can certainly argue the reaction to the Lion crash was inappropriate, I don't think they can say that the airline purposely made safety critical systems an optional upgrade. They could say an extensive training program should have been implemented so all pilots were aware of the issue before they released the software update.

[@thomasreedy4751]

No one wants to say operator error because they think that exonerates Boeing. However if they can acknowledge that the crash could have been prevented if the pilot disabled autopilot, and they acknowledge that the pilots, at least in the Lion crash were looking for instructions on how to do that ... then they could have put immediate actions in place to ensure all pilots had the training and knowledge to handle this error while they were fixing the software bug.

[@kingdavewoody]

@@thomasreedy4751 you've just done root cause analysis backwards. Operator Error is never the root cause..... Operator Error can be caused by fatigue, unsatisfactory training, distraction etc. Operator Error is a scapegoat

[@mikecowen6507]

@@dsknutson85 Actually if you listen carefully, the senator is talking about AOA *position* indicators, *not* AOA disagree indicators. The senator does *not* know of what he speaks, and it isn't a yes or no question.

[@newperi5521]

Boeing sent this dork from FAA as a scapegoat.

[@nikolaytitov2704]

"Yes or No?" "Well... Blah, blah, blah.." "Yes or No?" "Well... Blah, blah, blah.." Gosh, he would be a good politician... LoL They never answer a damn question...

[@vexxum_rl]

This senator just won MVP

[@victoriavic2569]

SHAME ON FAA .....BLOOD IS ON THEIR HANDS !!!!!!!

[@paha881]

I have no idea what is happening with Boeing, the FAA and the NTSB. How this plane was allowed to fly is CRIMINAL. The fact of the matter is that with only ~370 or so 737 Max 8s with barely any flight hours in the air 2 are fiery rubble. There were many reports by pilots regarding this problem. This is what happens when MBAs (masters in business administration) push PEs (professional engineers). I don't even want to fly on any Boeing aircraft for fear of them changing what was working.

[@Shodori]

I would have said NO. When the senator would then ask me to explain myself I would say again that you did not want a detailed explintation you wanted a yes or no answer and that is what you received. Because when you ask a yes or no question you are making an absolute argument. The correct answer to an absolute is usually no.

[@dsknutson85]

Exactly!

[@jonreyes166]

Why is it so hard to get a straight answer from these hearings

[@chie2021]

I just can't believe that an airplane's security feature becoming it as mandatory is even a question. And the big question is why the FAA can't answer it straightforward.

[@barryjatkinson]

Did he ask - "Should an airliner that is a flawed design, giving it a tendency to stall, be certified? Are there any other airliners like this?

[@fethilakhdari1078]

I wanted to share my thoughts with everyone in this youtube video, Senator Markey was Great in every respect. He was fair to all and yet championed the public cause so well that I have nothing but praise for him.Fethi Lakhdari

[@ronnierawat4711]

Bravo Senator, God you and God bless AMERICA

[@Gelic_kit390]

Why its hard to answe between Yes or No? Playing safe...

[@28piscesguy]

He should answer yes or no and not explaining too much.

[@In0vat0r]

Senator Markey clearly does not understand that there were and are already standard features on the 737 MAX 8 which annunciated the faulty AoA to the flight crew. His question is a red herring.

[@mrrolandlawrence]

wow did i just hear optional extra is oxygen masks for the crew?

[@roblouw3038]

Yes - can you imagine - are these guys for real? That there are OPTIONAL EXTRA'S for safety features when you order your Boeing - like when you are speccing your new BMW or Merc or Audi - WTF - and when an Airline orders a lower spec Boeing without ALL the safety features do they let the flying public know that the aircraft they are operating are NOT the safest options - this is UNBELIEVABLE!!

[@tylerfb1]

@@roblouw3038 your characterization is ridiculous. It's not like seat belts, or even airbags are optional. Its like Pirelli tires, or carbon ceramic brakes, or the automatic emergency braking systems are optional, which makes sense. Oxygen masks for the crew could mean a separate oxygen cylinder with a breathing apparatus that the cabin cabin crew can carry around with them, or it could mean pressurized oxygen coming from high pressure tanks to sealing pressurized masks like the flight crew gets for the cabin crew, or it could mean some super special fancy new-fangled mask for the flight crew instead of the regular ones. This senator thinks AoA indicators are optional equipment, so who knows what "oxygen masks for the crew" means? It certainly does NOT mean that the ability of the flight crew to do their job, or the ability of the cabin crew to maintain consciousness during a depressurization event is optional.

[@tylerfb1]

Yes, yes you did. But what does that mean? Cause what it does NOT mean is that safety of flight is optional. Cause it isn't.

[@Shaun81000]

The A350 has a feature where it automatically descends to 10,000 ft and notifies ATC in case pilots do not respond to an alert, which can be caused due to depressurization or hijacking, communications error etc. Oh and they don't charge a few thousand bucks extra for this like Boeing.....

[@ellawhite5167]

Umm yes thay do

[@airplane800]

This guy doesn't want to admit that the FAA is cozy with Boeing. He is trying to protect his friends because maybe one day him or someone he knows may try to get a job with Boeing. He doesn't want to answer because he will be self incriminating the FAA. It irritates me this hearing. They should have a safety specialist saying in front of everyone what this guy don't want to say. The FAA actions should be judged by an independent group of safety specialists that are not attached to Boeing in any way.

[@Walterwaltraud]

I was to comment here about the condescending questioning style of the senator and how it does not serve a great purpose to have a meaningful discussion about real responsibility and oversights by Boeing and the FAA: Cutting corners in the certification process. And as a commercial pilot I will tell you, it is squarely on Boeing, those 300 horrible deaths are unexcusable, the most nightmarish death I can think of in aviation is being at the helm in good viz with a loss of flight control in this exact scenario. However, by "lawyering" (my career before aviation) he does not get the right content. It might make the head of the FAA look so weasly and accountable, such a blame game culprit, but the Senate might again take the wrong measures with good intentions, like after the Colgan Buffalo crash. Instead of combating crew fatigue by exploited commuting flight deck lower bottom part of the food chain crews, they mandated the 1500 hr limit to airline pilots. More simulator sessions and better sleep (or pay) would have helped tremendously. (just in comparison, how many hours does military fight training entail before they fly front line figher jets? Let's say 300? It's about personnel selection early on and great training, experience can come later. Example in airlines: All airlines outside the US, all of Europe and most of Asia, for instance). Now in this case, I am looking forward to jail terms for heads of programmes for involuntary manslaughter and a huge payout for victims. BUT: On a democracy and civics scale, the senator does his cause a huge disfavour. Safety is always in numbers and compromise, but whilst triple AOA sensors with fail safe or indicated logic OR better training would have prevented both horrible crashes, the mere indicator of the AOA in the cockpit as a add on feature is rather in the category of "nice to have, but not really needed" - like a head up display. Would never buy a fighter aircraft without one, but for normal airline ops, it is not needed. Nice perhaps, but not needed. More sim sessions or upset recovery training to prevent loss of control due to overautomation and automation reliance by aircrews would be a way better investment. Thus: Safety as a concept is not absolute. The senator should fry the head of the FAA. But be better informed and focus on what's needed, not just try to score cheap points with the electorate, that leave the experts roll their eyes. What I find sad, however, is how many folks below take his point and that this kinda questioning seems to work. A huge disservice to democratic procedures which will lead to crappy legislation. Over time, that's quite detrimental. By your comments, you make his points valid. But it will cost you, over time, to point fingers only, and aim for the wrong solutions. That's not how you get constructive and honest answers.

[@WashburnD10]

It's a good time to make a change. For example how legislation was brought in to make some kind of TPMS compulsory in a car, such systemic changes should be brought to the airline industry as well from time to time. As technology improves there is a higher probability in averting disaster and that responsibility lies in the hands of administrators.

[@stevenbradford1662]

A new FAA head should be appointed. Safety is not an option.

[@akbarrahmatullah6701]

Well done Senator. The head of FAA should have been more forthcoming on the yes/no questions without being politically correct in his responses. Very frustrating.

[@andrewcunnison6975]

Both Boeing and Airbus has optional features for their planes, not only Boeing

[@Asoka-great]

But...

[@billyrayband]

The senator is just ignorant. Safety capabilities can be optional in planes and has been forever. Look at the Cirrus SR22 with its parachute. It is installed for improved safety by Cirrus, but was not mandated by FAA for certification, as no other small, similar aircraft do not have parachutes. In the 737 MAX, the engine change created a new flight hazard, the MCAS was supposed to compensate, but it was very flawed.

[@rafaelcarvalho6222]

That is not correct my friend. Cirrus SR22 has deep stalls characteristics and has a tendency of not get out of spinning stalls and wouldn't not be certified without the parachute. Is unbelievable and unacceptable that safety optional are optional. The flight TAM3054 would be saved and 199 lives spared if a safety feature was installed. Unfortunately if the safe devices does not become standard by law more accidents like those will keep happening.

[@billyrayband]

@@rafaelcarvalho6222I agree that was not such a good example, as it was part of its cert. So I will try another to make my point. GPS based Terrain awareness is a great safety improvement, but it is not required on most GA aircraft or military aircraft. But it can be installed on any aircraft. So an available safety capability is not always required.

[@michaelallen1396]

All the disagree indicator does is tell the crew a primary instrument doesn't match the other side, they still have to determine which one is bad, it's like a check engine light in a car you still have to diagnose the problem. They knew they had a problem with trim what caused it wouldn't matter at that point, reacting to the problem was all that mattered.

[@user-pf5xq3lq8i]

It does help, but it should also disengage the mcas completely immediately.

[@rochditidjani]

Incredible how this guy can never answer with a Yes or No.

[@charlesdarwin5185]

Guilty!

[@freddysantin1822]

Just answer Yes or No.. simple

[@buckshot6481]

How Do you know when an agency head is lying? When he's talking😎

[@mahmoudwashington2285]

Well said MR. Markey.

[@darkspectro2948]

No wonder Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman is winning all the contracts

[@elaineblackhurst1509]

Or perhaps even Airbus who have 8year waiting list

[@tonydecastro6340]

straight answers are hard to come by with Elwell; the company is covering its tracks, afraid that they could be criminally liable in class action suits!!!

[@joacysantos2073]

Senator Ed Markey......My hero!

[@rogerfroud300]

What a sickening evasive and dishonest reply. If the truly shoddy implementation got through certification, then heaven knows what else it out there! Never mind whether the warning lights should have been mandatory, redundancy in this safety critical system is surely mandatory, yet wasn't implemented. Shame on you Boeing.