Boeing 737 MAX Design, FAA Blamed for Lion Air Crash


Indonesian investigators blamed

Boeing Co.

BA -1.37%

’s design and insufficient U.S. security oversight, mixed with lax upkeep and poor piloting expertise, for a Lion Air 737 MAX’s deadly nosedive into the Java Sea practically a yr in the past.

The last accident report, launched by Indonesian authorities on Friday, concluded a litany of security lapses spanning the jet’s manufacture and operation had been behind the crash, with out pointing to any as a very powerful issue.

Most of the issues—together with a distracted and seemingly ill-prepared cockpit crew and knowledge Boeing withheld from pilots world-wide a few defective flight-control system—had been disclosed for the reason that jet crashed shortly after takeoff from Jakarta final October. All 189 folks on board had been killed.

Still, the report’s greater than 320 pages of findings, draft conclusions of which had been beforehand reported by The Wall Street Journal, might stoke consideration surrounding the crash and the same MAX crash in Ethiopia 5 months later. Boeing is dealing with a administration shake-up, a multibillion-dollar hit from its MAX disaster and investigations by federal prosecutors and congressional committees.

In addition, the doc presents recent insights into Boeing’s design and procedural lapses. Among the brand new findings: the producer acknowledged potential issues and thought of a doable option to improve the security of a particular flight-control characteristic—however finally opted towards implementing it.

Indonesian investigators concluded that Boeing’s design of a flight-control system known as MCAS, about which the aircraft maker withheld info from pilot manuals, performed a big function within the crash. “Drawbacks in the design of MCAS were not fully corrected,” in line with the report, which additionally mentioned the severity of the system’s issues weren’t correctly thought-about underneath the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration program that gave firm officers authority to approve programs on behalf of the company.

As Airbus is about to overhaul Boeing to develop into the world’s largest aircraft maker by deliveries, WSJ explains how two jetliners—the 737 MAX and the A320neo—ended up on the heart of the largest rivalry within the aviation world. Photo illustration: Jaden Urbi

National Transportation Safety Committee investigator Nurcahyo Utomo, heart, holds a mannequin of an airplane and Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Committee Soerjanto Tjahjono, proper, pay attention throughout a press convention in Jakarta, Indonesia, Friday.


Tatan Syuflana/Associated Press

The report added to different official findings that blame Boeing’s design of the automated flight-control characteristic, which repeatedly pushed down the noses of the plane and led to each the Lion Air crash and the deadly crash 5 months later of an Ethiopian Airlines 737 MAX. The report describes different missteps by U.S. aviation regulators who licensed the best-selling jet as secure, and it particulars issues with Lion Air’s upkeep efforts and pilot coaching.


Does the ultimate report within the Lion Air 737 MAX accident adequately handle the causes and contributing elements of the crash? And do you suppose Boeing, the airline and regulators will enhance air security primarily based on its findings? Why or why not? Join the dialog beneath.

Regarding certification of the jet in 2017, the report decided “Boeing did not submit the required documentation and the FAA did not sufficiently oversee” Boeing staff appearing on behalf of the federal government to vet the security of designated programs. The upshot, in line with investigators, was that “FAA flight-control systems specialists may not have been aware of the design change” that made MCAS extra highly effective in flight operations.

Responding to the findings, Boeing CEO

Dennis Muilenburg

mentioned the corporate is addressing Indonesia’s security suggestions and enhancing the security of the 737 MAX to forestall the identical flight-control issues from taking place once more. The firm additionally mentioned that for the reason that Lion Air crash, the aircraft and its software program have been subjected to “an unprecedented level of global regulatory oversight, testing and analysis.”

A Federal Aviation Administration spokesman mentioned the company will rigorously think about investigators’ suggestions because it critiques proposed fixes to the aircraft’s software program.

Overall, Indonesian crash specialists recognized 9 contributing elements to the crash. “The nine factors are the root problem; they cannot be separated,” mentioned investigator Nurcahyo Utomo on Friday. “Not one is contributing more than the other.”

Within days of the Lion Air crash, a debate emerged throughout the world aviation trade about what was primarily in charge for the catastrophe: the producer’s design of the airplane or issues created by the airline that operated it, together with upkeep lapses and pilot errors. The debate continued as U.S. regulators allowed the aircraft to maintain flying.

Then, in March, one other 737 MAX crashed in Ethiopia, killing all 157 folks on board. Investigators quickly implicated Boeing’s MCAS system. The second crash led to a worldwide grounding of the jet that hasn’t been lifted, setting off the gravest disaster in Boeing’s trendy historical past and costing Mr. Muilenburg, his board chairmanship and its commercial-airplane boss Kevin McAllister his job.

Mr. Muilenburg, who’s slated to testify earlier than two congressional panels subsequent week, has beforehand defended Boeing’s design of MCAS, saying in April that there had been no technical mistake within the aircraft maker’s engineering or certification of the plane.

The last report delving into the Indonesia crash, nonetheless, concluded that MCAS design performed a central function. Investigators concluded that the system’s reliance on one of many aircraft’s two sensors that measure the angle of the plane’s nostril, quite than each, led to the pilots’ lack of ability to regain management as soon as the system pushed them right into a nosedive.

The report mentioned a earlier crew had didn’t correctly write up a upkeep downside that might have prompted mechanics to restore a malfunctioning “angle-of-attack” sensor that investigators subsequently discovered hadn’t been correctly calibrated. Faulty information from the one sensor tricked MCAS into misfiring and forcing the aircraft right into a nosedive, a situation the findings conclude Boeing didn’t adequately think about or shield towards.

Lion Air’s chief government couldn’t be reached for remark.

The last report notes an earlier missed alternative to make MCAS extra strong. During the system’s growth, Boeing engineers and take a look at pilots mentioned redesigning the system as a result of MCAS might presumably misfire repeatedly attributable to faulty angle-of-attack information, in line with the report.

Boeing specialists mentioned a mixture of different cockpit alarms—together with the stall warning often called a stick-shaker that strongly vibrates the controls—however finally opted towards an MCAS redesign. A key purpose, in line with the report, was their assumption that pilots would instantly acknowledge every MCAS misfire and reply appropriately.

Other essential findings associated to a string of pilot missteps, together with the Lion Air crew’s failure to regain management with an present emergency process often called a runaway stabilizer. In addition, Indonesian crash specialists decided the pilots had been preoccupied with particular person duties and failed to speak adequately with one another.

The report additionally criticized Boeing’s exclusion from pilot manuals any description of the MCAS system or its hazards. The omission fueled fierce criticism from pilot unions at some Boeing clients, together with

American Airlines Group Inc.


Southwest Airlines Co.

Investigators decided that the flight crew “should have been made aware of MCAS, which would have provided them with awareness of the system and increased their chances of being able to mitigate the consequences of multiple” nose-down instructions.

Indonesian investigators additionally cited Boeing’s failure to activate malfunctioning alerts that might have instructed pilots and upkeep crews that the airplane’s angle-of-attack sensors had been sending divergent information to cockpit computer systems. Boeing knew the MAX’s angle-of-attack alerts hadn’t been working correctly for greater than a yr on many of the world fleet, however the firm meant to attend till 2020 to remove the defect and didn’t alert high-ranking FAA officers about the issue.

Also on Friday, Boeing mentioned that the previous navy head of the U.S. Navy, Retired Navy Adm. John Richardson, has been elected to its board as a part of the broader effort to enhance its aircraft maker’s security tradition.

Write to Andy Pasztor at, Ben Otto at and Andrew Tangel at

Copyright ©2019 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here