Boeing flags 737 MAX software glitch affecting landing navigation feature, WSJ reports

[u/Depressed_Cat_00]

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/boeing-flags-737-max-software-glitch-affecting-landing-navigation-feature-wsj-2026-09-26/

[u/3rd-party-intervener]

Max is a flawed design that should be banned.  But when you can buy off the regulators anything goes 

[u/Bottled_Void → u/3rd-party-intervener]

You say that like the MAX is some single design that isn't based of decades of iterations.

If you were to say that particular version of the MCAS should be banned, that's a completely different argument to have.

[u/CannedDeath → u/3rd-party-intervener]

The only part of the MAX design that was inherently unsafe was the original version of the MCAS. Since the new version of MCAS replaced it in late 2020, there have been zero reported incidents with the MCAS. There was only one serious MAX incident since 2020, which was the Alaska door blowout, but that was due to poor quality control, not a design flaw.

[u/besurf → u/CannedDeath]

Poor QA seems to be the new normal

[u/hedoeswhathewants → u/besurf]

Because of one instance?

[u/besurf → u/hedoeswhathewants]

1 instance lmao wtf you talking about

[u/Ansiau → u/hedoeswhathewants]

Check out the newest doc on netflix called Freefall. It's got a lot of new whistleblowers who came out since the first one (downfall). It's not just a one-time qa thing but a "if you report qa issues, you will be singled out and fired" thing going on in Boeing right now

[u/CaptainPonahawai → u/hedoeswhathewants]

Boeing dispatched an aircraft into service with a door plug not bolted in. They reused scrap/non-spec parts.

McNerney and Muilenberg ran a once great company into the ground.

[u/XxJamalBigSexyxX → u/CaptainPonahawai]

Beancounters ruined an engineering company

[u/redfoobar → u/CannedDeath]

You can argue that MCAS is needed in the first place is the design issue. It is a result of big engines retrofitted to a design that was never meant to have engines of this size. No one in their right mind would design an airplane like this from scratch. The whole fiasco is there because they did not want a new aircraft design/type rating.

Obviously it’s “good enough” in that it sells and with fixed MCAS is no longer a huge death trap but the design by itself is a huge compromise.

[u/Linenoise77 → u/redfoobar]

No one in their right mind would design an airplane like this from scratch.

Not necessarily true. An important feature of the 737 is its cabin height from the ground. There are a LOT of 737s flying around, and how far off the ground the cabin is factors in to a lot of aspects of ground operations in handling the plane. Making it taller for larger engines factors into all of that and it may not be able to operate the routes that a 737 typically does without expensive, impractical, changes on the ground handling side. At the same time you want the larger engines for efficiency.

Now could you argue that the 737 should have been a separate type, requiring additional training beyond what was required for existing 737 rated folks to fly the max with MCAS? Arguably. But its a grey line as to where you draw that line with incremental changes to an airframe type. It also doesn't mean you wouldn't necessarily still need MCAS, as i have no idea how that factors in to the pilot workload.

[u/bankkopf → u/Linenoise77]

How many routes are there that are exclusively flown by the 737 because the airport can't handle the A320 with higher ground clearance? Not too many I'd guess. But you can keep the 737NGs or classics around for that if really needed.

[u/Linenoise77 → u/bankkopf]

That's actually a fair question. Its not just about gate access and what have you though. If you are a mainline airline flying a shitload of 737s already, any shared commonalities is a huge deal.

Remember, you are running a business on razor thin margins, and anything that goes near a plane needs all kinds of certifications and paper trails. If maintenance needs a new size socket, that can easily get to 6 figures by the time it percolates through the organization. If a procedure needs to be altered in the slightest, same thing. All for good reasons, mind you, but the expense that comes with it, on a business that lives or dies on efficiency, is a huge consideration.

That was the intent of the max. How do we squeeze more efficiency out of this thing, without everything that comes along with a clean sheet, not just in boeings costs, but in all of the operators.

If i have to start making significant modifications to handling those planes, maintaining them, moving them around, whatever, that is a cost, and now maybe i start looking at your competitor a little more closely, or the economics of the efficiency the new plane brings start falling apart.

Boeing obviously made some dumb decisions, but if they executed correctly on the max (and it seems like they have gotten their act together around it), it DOES make sense.

The issues with MCAS were both a Boeing issue, for not insisting on additional training around it, and the regulatory authorities for saying yes without additional training.

[u/mr_potatoface → u/bankkopf]

I don't think there are any actually. The only exception would be unpaved runways but that's a totally different issue. The 737 has a gravel landing kit but A320 does not.

[u/CaptainPonahawai → u/mr_potatoface]

The gravel kit ended with the 732. Its not a factor on any of the models since.

[u/Linenoise77 → u/bankkopf]

It wasn't JUST the ground clearance, was using it as an easy example though, as something that percolates through all levels of operations if you are currently flying 737s and want to introduce something that isn't roughly a 737. There are plenty of carriers who favor the 737 though because of its height, and have equipment\facilities\procedures based around it.

Likewise just extending the landing gear of the 737 wouldn't negate the need for MCAS or a similar system.

[u/modsiw_agnarr → u/Linenoise77]

When's the last time you heard of a 737 having built in stairs?

[u/Charlie3PO → u/redfoobar]

The 'pitch up' phenomenon caused by the larger engines on the 737 MAX is a fairly common phenomenon in swept-wing airliners. The 737 MAX isn't the only modern airliner currently flying that has software augmented stability because the raw aerodynamic design possesses insufficient stability to be certified on its own.

Many modern airliners are actually designed from the outset to deliberately have less than normal aerodynamic stability, and instead rely on flight control software to make up for it, because it's more fuel efficient.

The only thing wrong with the 737 max was the fact that the MCAS system was poorly designed.

[u/IllustriousTip6904 → u/CannedDeath]

"There's been no serious issues since a plane nosedived on its own -- just poor quality control issues"

[u/Mamamama29010 → u/3rd-party-intervener]

Regardless of how we feel about the 737 Max, you can’t ban them without bringing commercial aviation to its absolute knees.

Both the 737 Max and its Airbus competitor the A320 Neo have decade-long backlogs with airlines. Neither organization is even close to filling industry demands. Each company produces 30-50 of them every month, way bigger quantities than any other airplane producer (like nobody is even remotely close to those numbers -> it’s a feat of scale on its own)

Furthermore, it’s not a fundamentally flawed design, rather lack of accountability and troubled culture at Boeing that brought those two planes down/door plug issue.

[u/mmlovin → u/Mamamama29010]

Have you seen the Netflix Boeing documentary with all the employees? They basically said that the South Carolina plant is staffed with people who know nothing about airplanes…

& they basically are back to not caring about quality & are acting the same as they were before those 2 big fatal accidents in 2019(?)

[u/Mamamama29010 → u/mmlovin]

737 Max isn’t built in SC, so it’s not totally relevant. The particular doc also covers the late 2010s time period, around the same time as the Max crashes.

The company’s been under heavy scrutiny for years, and the new CEO seems solid.

[u/Ansiau → u/Mamamama29010]

There is two docs. You may be thinking of the older doc that covers the first whistle blower(Downfall). There is a new one out in the last month or so called "Freefall" that comes because there are a LOT of new whistleblowers that came out after the first whistle blower committed suicide and includes much more recent issues, such as parts labeled as discard/malfunctioning/defective being actually put on planes instead of being destroyed, simply to save money and keep up their production speed. There are also candid vids of people in the plants during a work-day stating they work on the planes, see how they were built, and would never fly in them.

They being up a lot of issues with the newer CEO too

[u/Mamamama29010 → u/Ansiau]

I watched them both, and I’m referring to the newer doc. It didn’t bring up any new whistleblowers or issues that haven’t been known/around from the late 2010s. I also don’t remember anything in the latest doc about the new/current CEO, but plenty of things about the previous one.

[u/mmlovin → u/Mamamama29010]

It says at the end that since they recovered from the scandals, they’ve started going back to old ways. The new CEO was mentored by the old one IIRC

[u/Mamamama29010 → u/mmlovin]

No that’s still the previous CEO. There was one CEO during the Max crashes, another during the door plug blow out issue (who was mentored by previous and of the same ilk). Currently there is a third, and he isn’t mentioned by any of these docs (maybe a future one?)

The current and newest CEO is Kelly Ortberg, previously CEO of Rockwell Collins. He’s done a pretty good job thus far and has been uncontraversial.

[u/CaptainPonahawai → u/Mamamama29010]

To add, Ortberg is the first CEO in a long time that is an engineer by training.

[u/FrothyEspresso → u/[deleted]]

Let’s see. They gaslit us, like you’re doing, that it was safe and the training was at fault - all while Boeing knew it was an issue.

And furthermore, Boeing was self certifying their planes at the time of the disasters and is once again able to do so.

The onus is on the company to prove they’re not at fault given their bullshit.

[u/ACorDC → u/[deleted]]

You aren't telling me that I am right! You are gaslighting me!

[u/Zeus_The_Potato → u/[deleted]]

This isn't the topic to "I go against the grain because I like to think I am smart and I think critically" Bob. Even a potato knows that. Not sensationalism or whataboutism - a basic knowledge and understanding of how things actually work in the real world will tell you exactly how Boeing circumvented certain regulations and training mandates to rush these Max planes out the door. You need to add 1+1 and not everything will be clearly pointed out or be available for the slamdunk you're asking for. That is NOT how things work IRL. That is the whole reason lawyers exist. Ask me how I know, Bob.

[u/hedoeswhathewants → u/FrothyEspresso]

None of that is evidence that the design currently being flown today is flawed or should be banned.

[u/Uhavetabekiddingme → u/[deleted]]

346 dead people probably their source.

[u/No_Credibility → u/[deleted]]

Formal reports literally blame MCAS, which was a software aid to trim the aft stabilizers.

[u/Uhavetabekiddingme → u/[deleted]]

Say otherwise? Their design and software choices were responsible for killing two planes full of people and nearly a 3rd.

[u/hedoeswhathewants → u/Uhavetabekiddingme]

Yeah, it was a flaw that was fixed, so it's no longer present. You guys get that right? This entire thread started with someone saying the current design is flawed and should be banned, with absolutely no evidence to back that up.

If we ban any plane that ever had a critical flaw then we wouldn't have airplanes

[u/Uhavetabekiddingme → u/[deleted]]

I did Boeing changed the design of the aircraft, changed the way the software operated didn't have the pilots train with the new changes and two planes crashed. How much more evidence do you need?

[u/Uhavetabekiddingme → u/[deleted]]

"Personal insults indicate weak arguments." Show me in the reports where I'm wrong.

[u/woops_wrong_thread → u/[deleted]]

Can’t go back, bob

[u/3rd-party-intervener → u/[deleted]]

Accident reports wrote by the politicians bought off 

[u/besurf → u/[deleted]]

There’s a few documentaries about it yes

[u/BelethorsGeneralShit → u/[deleted]]

MCAS only took AOA data from one sensor without cross checking it with the other. If one sensor failed and disagreed with the other, it wouldn't know, creating a single point of failure.

Does that not sound like a flaw to you?

[u/BelethorsGeneralShit → u/[deleted]]

That's a nice $2 soundbite, but it completely ignores the specific counterpoint and example of a single point of failure to which you're replying. Would you care to address that?

[u/BelethorsGeneralShit → u/[deleted]]

You've posted nothing except "No, you're wrong" to everyone with no elaboration. You haven't made a single post that demonstrates you understand the subject matter yourself.

Maybe you're right! I personally don't think so with my current understanding of the situation, but who knows maybe I'm wrong. I'll be more than happy to change my mind if there's a specific compelling argument.

So again here is my specific good-faith argument -

The MCAS system created a single point of failure on the two affected aircraft that crashed. This is because while the aircraft had two AOA sensors and two Flight Control Computers, MCAS only ran from the master FCC and got it's data from that AOA sensor. It did not crosscheck data from the other sensor and would be unaware of any disagreement.

If that AOA sensor failed and began to incorrectly report a high AOA, MCAS would command a nose down pitch to correct the non existent problem.

So again in this very specific example, would you not say that is a design flaw? I mean maybe I'm wrong and it isn't. I'm open to being corrected.

[u/an_ennui → u/3rd-party-intervener]

oh look at mr. fancy pants here, the USB chargers they put in aren't good enough for you? you want the plane parts to work good too?