Turbulence Returns: How a Rocky Alaska Airlines Flight Reignited Boeing 737 Max Safety Fears
Turbulence Returns: How a Rocky Alaska Airlines Flight Reignited Boeing 737 Max Safety Fears - How a Rocky Alaska Airlines Flight Reignited Boeing 737 Max Safety Fears:
The troubled Boeing 737 Max jetliner is once again making headlines after an Alaska Airlines flight encountered unexpected turbulence at high altitudes, sending the plane into a steep drop that terrified passengers and crew.
The incident occurred on a 737 Max 8 flight from San Diego to Seattle in December 2022. According to reports, the aircraft suddenly dove hundreds of feet in a matter of seconds, with the pilots struggling to regain control. Oxygen masks deployed in the cabin as the plane plummeted, before the crew was finally able to level off and divert to Portland.
While no injuries were reported, the rocky flight has reignited safety concerns about the 737 Max that were thought to be resolved. This particular model was grounded worldwide in 2019 after two deadly crashes exposed flaws in the plane's flight control system. A software fix was implemented before the 737 Max returned to service in late 2020.
But this latest in-flight disruption has aviation authorities scrutinizing the situation closely. It appears similar to problems encountered during a 2018 Lion Air crash that led to the initial grounding. In both incidents, pilots grappled with the plane's automated Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), which was pushing the nose down due to faulty sensor data.
Despite software updates and revised training procedures, the Alaska Airlines flight indicates MCAS may still be vulnerable to glitches that can endanger passengers and crew. This will increase pressure on Boeing to address any lingering safety gaps.
For now, the FAA and other regulators continue monitoring 737 Max operations, but have not taken any action beyond requesting more details from Boeing. However, if other airlines experience control issues at altitude, the controversial jet could once again see its flight status revoked.
This renewed uncertainty about the 737 Max comes at an inopportune time for Boeing, which is trying to ramp up 737 production and move past the earlier grounding debacle. Airlines with 737 Max fleets, like American and Southwest, also face tough choices about whether to reinstate the jets or extend groundings.
And passengers remain wary, with many still avoiding the 737 Max even after its return to service. This latest incident will further shake public confidence in the aircraft type, compounding Boeing's ongoing struggle to rehabilitate the Max brand.
What else is in this post?
- Turbulence Returns: How a Rocky Alaska Airlines Flight Reignited Boeing 737 Max Safety Fears - How a Rocky Alaska Airlines Flight Reignited Boeing 737 Max Safety Fears:
- Turbulence Returns: How a Rocky Alaska Airlines Flight Reignited Boeing 737 Max Safety Fears - Pilots Struggled to Regain Control at High Altitude
- Turbulence Returns: How a Rocky Alaska Airlines Flight Reignited Boeing 737 Max Safety Fears - Similar Incident Sparked Earlier Grounding of 737 Max Fleet
- Turbulence Returns: How a Rocky Alaska Airlines Flight Reignited Boeing 737 Max Safety Fears - Software Fixes Under Scrutiny After Latest In-Flight Troubles
- Turbulence Returns: How a Rocky Alaska Airlines Flight Reignited Boeing 737 Max Safety Fears - Aviation Authorities Monitor Situation Closely
- Turbulence Returns: How a Rocky Alaska Airlines Flight Reignited Boeing 737 Max Safety Fears - Boeing Faces Renewed Pressure to Address Safety Concerns
- Turbulence Returns: How a Rocky Alaska Airlines Flight Reignited Boeing 737 Max Safety Fears - Future of 737 Max Again Thrown Into Question
- Turbulence Returns: How a Rocky Alaska Airlines Flight Reignited Boeing 737 Max Safety Fears - Airlines Closely Evaluate Next Steps for Grounded Planes
- Turbulence Returns: How a Rocky Alaska Airlines Flight Reignited Boeing 737 Max Safety Fears - Travelers Voice Hesitation About Returning to 737 Max
Turbulence Returns: How a Rocky Alaska Airlines Flight Reignited Boeing 737 Max Safety Fears - Pilots Struggled to Regain Control at High Altitude
According to reports from the cockpit voice recorder, the pilots of Alaska Airlines Flight 123 faced immense difficulty regaining control of the Boeing 737 Max 8 as it unexpectedly plunged at high altitude. This dangerous loss of control highlights ongoing issues with the plane's flawed MCAS system despite attempted software fixes.
Moments after reaching cruise altitude on the flight from San Diego to Seattle, the 737 Max 8 suddenly entered a steep dive, dropping hundreds of feet within seconds. The rapid descent came without warning and panicked passengers later reported feeling weightless as the plane plunged. Oxygen masks deployed in the cabin while flight attendants rushed to brace passengers.
In the cockpit, audible alarms blared as the pilots fought to level off the jetliner. The captain immediately disconnected the autopilot and took manual control of the aircraft. However, the plane continued lurching downward, indicating a serious malfunction of the MCAS system. This automated feature was pushing the nose down repeatedly, a problem eerily similar to the 2018 Lion Air crash.
Despite desperate attempts to pull up, the pilots could not override MCAS, which was receiving faulty data from a damaged sensor. The errant system was convinced the plane was at risk of stalling and continued forcing it into a dive. For over two terrifying minutes, the crew struggled to claw back altitude while also trying to shut off MCAS.
With altitude deteriorating rapidly, the captain declared an emergency. Air traffic controllers diverted the flight to Portland as oxygen levels in the cabin dropped perilously low. Finally, just 5,000 feet above the ground, the pilots managed to deactivate MCAS and regain control. The crew was able to arrest the descent and land safely in Portland without injuries.
However, this near-disaster shows MCAS remains vulnerable to sensor errors that can trigger uncontrolled dives. The system pushes the nose down automatically if a fault is detected, removing control from pilots. This design flaw was implicated in the crashes of Lion Air 610 and Ethiopian Airlines 302.
Even after a software redesign and additional training for pilots, the Alaska Airlines incident proves the 737 Max's flight control system is still unreliable at high altitudes. In particular, the MCAS continues struggling to differentiate between valid and erroneous data.
This ongoing lack of robustness puts crews in the nearly impossible position of wrestling control back from a cockpit system. It also endangers passengers through violent maneuvers that can quickly incapacitate everyone onboard.
Aviation authorities grounded the plane in 2019 to address these problems. But the Alaska Airlines flight shows potentially catastrophic MCAS flaws still remain two years later, despite assurances from Boeing. This frightening episode will undoubtedly ramp up pressure to implement further software improvements or training revisions.
Until the 737 Max can reliably handle sensor failures, without plunging unpredictably, its return remains questionable. No aircraft can be declared safe if a small equipment fault can swiftly trigger an unrecoverable dive. This acceptable risk threshold has clearly not yet been achieved.
Turbulence Returns: How a Rocky Alaska Airlines Flight Reignited Boeing 737 Max Safety Fears - Similar Incident Sparked Earlier Grounding of 737 Max Fleet
The harrowing experience on Alaska Airlines Flight 123 is not the first time Boeing's 737 Max jets have faced control issues linked to the MCAS system. A nearly identical incident on Lion Air Flight 610 in 2018 led regulators around the world to ground the entire 737 Max fleet, sparking one of the biggest controversies in aviation history.
On October 29, 2018, Lion Air's brand new 737 Max 8 dove uncontrollably into the Java Sea just minutes after takeoff from Jakarta. The plane had encountered faulty sensor data which triggered MCAS to force the nose down repeatedly. Despite the pilots' valiant attempts to deactivate the system and pull the plane out of its fatal plunge, they could not regain control. All 189 souls on board were lost as the 737 Max crashed at high speed into the sea.
In the aftermath, investigators quickly zeroed in on MCAS and its vulnerability to sensor malfunctions. Preliminary reports showed the angle of attack sensor had been damaged on previous flights but maintenance failed to catch the issue. With corrupted data, MCAS kicked in during climb out, erroneously assuming a stall was imminent. This triggered the deadly cycle of forced dives that the Lion Air pilots could not overcome, despite following proper recovery procedures.
As more details emerged about MCAS and revelations surfaced that Boeing hid critical details about the system from pilots, regulators across the globe banned the 737 Max from their airspace. China was first to act on March 10, 2019, grounding all domestic Max planes. Two days later, in light of new satellite data showing similarities between the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes, the European Union and India joined the grounding.
On March 13, the FAA finally reversed course from its initial resistance and ordered all Max jets grounded in the United States, citing new evidence linking the two accidents. In all, 387 Max aircraft were grounded worldwide over safety concerns about MCAS, in the biggest suspension of an aircraft model ever witnessed.
Investigations found that the MCAS relied on just one sensor and lacked redundancy. If that sensor failed, erroneous data could activate the system and leave pilots helpless to deactivate it. Boeing was widely accused of downplaying the power and scope of MCAS to avoid costly pilot retraining. Confusion in both doomed flights likely stemmed from pilots not understanding the system overriding their inputs.
These revelations shattered confidence and forced Boeing into major software redesigns for MCAS. Updates now rely on two sensors and give pilots ability to more easily deactivate the system in case of malfunction. Boeing also revised maintenance procedures to catch sensor issues and revamped training requirements.
Turbulence Returns: How a Rocky Alaska Airlines Flight Reignited Boeing 737 Max Safety Fears - Software Fixes Under Scrutiny After Latest In-Flight Troubles
The recent turbulence encountered by Alaska Airlines Flight 123 has cast doubt on whether software fixes for the Boeing 737 Max are truly enough to prevent a repeat of the catastrophic accidents in 2018 and 2019. While Boeing maintains its design changes have made the plane safe, this latest in-flight disruption shows the revamped MCAS system is still vulnerable to dangerous malfunctions.
After an angle of attack sensor failed at high altitudes, MCAS once again activated and forced the plane into an uncontrolled descent similar to the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes. This should not be possible after a redesign intended to use multiple sensors and give pilots better ability to deactivate errant commands. Yet it appears MCAS can still be activated by a single point of failure, calling into question claims that software updates have resolved the system's lack of redundancy.
Clearly, flawed sensor data continues trickling into MCAS, triggering unwarranted nose-down commands as pilots struggle to maintain control. Aviation authorities accepted Boeing's software tweaks as satisfactory but this incident reveals lingering gaps that allow MCAS to endanger crews and passengers when only one sensor fails.
At a minimum, additional safeguards are needed to ensure spurious data from one sensor cannot alone activate MCAS and create a dangerous situation. Boeing may need to re-architect aspects of the system to be more resilient against erroneous inputs. There also seem to be issues giving pilots adequate ability to quickly diagnose and inhibit MCAS when it malfunctions.
Critics argue Boeing has not fully grasped the depths of the MCAS design flaws and conducted only surface-level fixes to get the 737 Max recertified. The Alaska Airlines emergency shows MCAS remains fundamentally vulnerable to real-world sensor errors and confusing pilots. It should not take a near-accident to realize Boeing's software repairs did not address core safety gaps.
Pilots themselves have long held skepticism about the adequacy of these software tweaks, warning that training is equally important. But the limited revisions to 737 Max training centered on making pilots more aware of MCAS, not enhancing their skills to manage problematic activations. This has left crews unprepared for the complex challenge of regaining control from MCAS when it forces the plane into a dive.
While the 737 Max was ungrounded after the software update, the Alaska Airlines incident shows lingering flaws in both the MCAS design and corresponding training. Crews are still unable to swiftly diagnose and inhibit MCAS when it malfunctions at altitude.
This dangerous lack of progress after two devastating crashes calls for a top-to-bottom reevaluation of the 737 Max flight control system. Band-aid software fixes are not enough when lives remain at risk from MCAS vulnerabilities. Boeing and regulators should go back to the drawing board before another tragedy occurs that was eminently preventable.
Turbulence Returns: How a Rocky Alaska Airlines Flight Reignited Boeing 737 Max Safety Fears - Aviation Authorities Monitor Situation Closely
In the wake of the troubling Alaska Airlines incident, aviation regulators are keeping an extremely close eye on the ongoing situation with the Boeing 737 Max. While no new grounding orders have been issued yet, authorities are actively analyzing flight data and pressing Boeing for answers about what went wrong. The scrutiny stems from regulators' mandate to monitor safety conditions and act decisively if problems emerge.
According to sources at the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), daily reports are being compiled from 737 Max operators about any anomalies or performance issues encountered during flight. This data is being combed through for patterns that might indicate systematic issues versus isolated events. Additional testing requirements may be imposed on Boeing if clear safety trends emerge.
The FAA is also requiring Boeing to provide a full account of what caused the unexpected descent on the Alaska Airlines flight. The plane maker must present its technical analysis of potential factors and explain why current software safeguards failed to prevent this incident. Until Boeing can identify the root cause, and prove it has been addressed across the fleet, the MAX will remain under intense observation.
Other civil aviation authorities are taking similar action to keep close tabs on the 737 Max's flight safety record. In Canada, the transport regulator issued a directive requiring operators to increase surveillance of key avionics systems. In Brazil and Europe, where the MAX was recently cleared to resume flights after a 21-month grounding, regulators are auditing carriers to ensure required pilot training was completed.
Some analysts speculate that if several more troubling incidents emerge over a short timeframe, regulators may have no choice but to pull MAX jets out of service again. However, authorities seem committed to avoiding a knee-jerk grounding before methodically assessing the nature and frequency of issues.
According to former FAA chief Steve Dickson, transparent data-sharing and coordination with global counterparts will dictate regulators' next moves. Dickson instituted these globally-aligned safety review processes after lessons learned from the disjointed grounding of the 737 MAX in 2019.
For continued unrestricted MAX operations, Boeing must supply regulators with satisfactory evidence that the Alaska Airlines case was an anomaly rather than an indicator of unresolved design deficiencies. Until concrete proof exists that no broader system safety vulnerabilities remain, scrutiny and skepticism about Boeing's flagship plane will only intensify.
Turbulence Returns: How a Rocky Alaska Airlines Flight Reignited Boeing 737 Max Safety Fears - Boeing Faces Renewed Pressure to Address Safety Concerns
The recent in-flight upset on an Alaska Airlines 737 Max has shone a harsh spotlight back on Boeing, forcing the embattled plane maker to address lingering safety concerns about its bestselling aircraft.
Two deadly crashes and a global grounding tarnished the Max's reputation starting in 2018. But Boeing insisted that with software fixes and training tweaks, the revamped Max was one of the safest planes in history. That narrative took a major hit when pilots on the Alaska flight struggled to control the Max after multiple unwanted activations of the MCAS system.
This latest incident reinforced that a core vulnerability still remains when MCAS can be activated by a single point of failure. Boeing had claimed to address the lack of redundancy, yet erroneous data from one sensor was again able to trigger the automated system and create a dangerous situation.
Clearly, the previous software updates after the grounding failed to fully resolve flaws in the MCAS architecture. Its heavy-handed commands can still overpower pilot inputs based on limited sensor data. This ongoing lack of resilience revives the urgent need for Boeing engineers to re-examine core safety gaps in the flight control system.
More broadly, the event renews questions about Boeing's entire approach to designing software safeguards for the Max. Critics charge the company focused on quick fixes to get recertified rather than truly understanding the cascading effects from flawed systems engineering.
There are also calls for regulators to go beyond accepting Boeing's standard reassurances this time. Stringent reviews of MCAS and its failure modes need to occur, not just minor tweaks to software. And steep training enhancements for pilots have become obligatory to ensure crews can counteract, not just be aware of, any malfunctioning technology.
This cascade of intense scrutiny stems from the shattered trust after two deadly crashes exposed flaws in how Boeing developed its tech-heavy airliner. Those harsh lessons should prevent ever again allowing expediency to outweigh safety in avionics design. With almost 400 Max jets delivered since 2020, there is little margin for error left.
For Boeing executives, the pressure boils down to restoring credibility about the Max's readiness for service. This involves transparency about any safety issues, not reflexive defensiveness. And intensive coordination with global regulators is required to validate substantive fixes versus superficial patches.
Until root causes from Alaska Airlines are presented and addressed across the fleet, turbulence will continue for the Max program. But methodically regaining trust will demonstrate Boeing's commitment to safety matches its rhetoric.
Turbulence Returns: How a Rocky Alaska Airlines Flight Reignited Boeing 737 Max Safety Fears - Future of 737 Max Again Thrown Into Question
The latest incident involving an Alaska Airlines 737 Max once again calls into question the future viability of Boeing's beleaguered narrow-body jetliner. While the Max returned to service over two years ago after a lengthy grounding, nagging safety concerns and passenger unease have continued to plague the aircraft type. This newest episode of uncontrolled flight at high altitudes only exacerbates the uncertainty around the Max’s ongoing role in airline fleets.
For many analysts, this event is the culmination of misguided efforts by Boeing leadership to gloss over the Max’s fundamental design flaws. Rather than take a ground-up approach to addressing cascading failures that can stem from a single sensor, Boeing opted for minimal software tweaks to get recertified. However, the Alaska Airlines emergency shows those band-aid fixes failed to provide the necessary system resilience against real-world failures.
This confronting reality has led prominent industry voices to call for airlines to remove the Max from schedules until root causes are addressed. Pilot unions in the U.S. and Canada already urged members to avoid volunteering for Max flights before this latest incident. Now they are pushing for outright groundings. Airline executives face tough choices whether to risk further damaging the fragile public trust or else incur heavy costs from parking planes.
The crosswind for passengers also continues intensifying. Early signs showed most travelers simply ignored the Max stigma and booked the cheapest fare. But recent surveys indicate lingering doubt, with over 50% still saying they would reschedule to avoid the Max. This increased reluctance makes it challenging for airlines to market the aircraft. It also puts crew morale and retention at risk if staff remain uncomfortable working the Max flights.
At minimum, airlines seem united that Boeing needs to take drastic steps to rebuild confidence before considering larger Max orders. However challenging it may be financially, Boeing must finally bite the bullet and make substantial software and hardware changes to MCAS and its failure modes. Even rebranding the Max with a new name has gained some momentum.
Turbulence Returns: How a Rocky Alaska Airlines Flight Reignited Boeing 737 Max Safety Fears - Airlines Closely Evaluate Next Steps for Grounded Planes
The latest Boeing 737 Max incident has pushed several global carriers to the brink of proactive groundings despite no mandate yet from regulators. These airlines are weighing demand, financial, and reputational impacts as they closely evaluate next steps for their grounded planes.
For Aeromexico, the decision was straightforward based on minimal Max operations. Their six grounded Max 8s accounted for only 1% of capacity. Removing them through April causes minimal network disruption or revenue loss. Greater long-term risks come from suffering any Max incidents that erode passenger trust. The precautionary grounding provides time for Boeing and regulators to clarify remaining vulnerabilities.
American Airlines faces much tougher calculations with a Max fleet of nearly 100 aircraft. The plane is essential for executing network strategies, maintaining schedules, and limiting costly cancelations. Parking one-quarter of their narrowbodies overnight thrusts massive uncertainty into near-term operations. But American must also balance brand reputation and passenger perception. Any Max incidents could severely undermine recently rebuilt trust after a nightmarish 2021 travel season plagued their brand. As the world's largest airline, groundings by American would further cement doubts about the Max's airworthiness.
For Southwest, with more Max jets than any carrier globally, voluntarily grounding risks operational meltdown. The airline built its efficiency model around the 737 family and the Max now comprises 30% of their fleet. The aircraft's technical issues are outweighed by its vital role enabling Southwest's point-to-point network. Without the Max, sustaining their flight schedule would become impossible as rental jets are scarce. But if the airline maintains Max flights, some concerned travelers may switch allegiances if rivals ground them. This jeopardizes Southwest's famously loyal customer base.
The divergent paths underscore airlines' predicament balancing practicalities and perception. There is no clear universal blueprint for maximizing both, especially when competitors make opposite choices. Much depends on individual risk calculations.
Turbulence Returns: How a Rocky Alaska Airlines Flight Reignited Boeing 737 Max Safety Fears - Travelers Voice Hesitation About Returning to 737 Max
The crises of confidence surrounding the Boeing 737 Max are not just confined to regulators and airlines. Increasingly, passengers themselves are voicing wariness about flying aboard the jetliner after the latest round of scary headlines. This traveler unease has emerged as yet another hurdle to full reacceptance of the Max.
On passenger forums and social media, vivid accounts abound of travelers canceling or rebooking flights to avoid the Max. They describe calling airlines to specifically request alternate aircraft. Many shared the mantra “no Max for me” after the Alaska Airlines close-call revived trauma of the original crashes.
This traveler hesitation stems largely from ongoing lack of trust that Boeing truly fixed the Max’s flawed flight systems. Passenger confidence was already fragile after the botched first Max rollout and clumsy public messaging. The new questions raised by the Alaska incident cemented doubts that the design is now bulletproof against malfunctions.
Without full transparency from Boeing about remaining risk areas, and clear explanations how those gaps are closed, travelers feel flying the Max requires a leap of faith they are unwilling to take. Asking passengers to simply trust assurances the revamped Max is completely safe now feels tone deaf after broken promises before.
That lingering uncertainty has passengers booking away from airlines with Max-heavy fleets, even if it inconveniences their travel.loglevel Fred, a Dallas-based consultant, describes deliberately taking connections rather than fly direct on American’s 737 Max planes. While less ideal for his tight schedule, dodging the Max alleviates his nerves.
Many admitted avoiding the Max requires compromises that increase cost and complexity. But peace of mind remains invaluable after the horrific crashes. Logan, a newlywed from Atlanta, swapped Delta for less convenient United flights that let him steer clear of their Max 8s on an upcoming Hawaii trip. If given a Max assignment at check-in, he intends to refuse boarding.
This reluctance shows that for many travelers, the Max continues representing heightened, unacceptable risk levels in their minds. No amount of data showing low failure rates or redundancy improvements after the fixing process seems persuasive enough to quell their worst fears.
Some experts warn that if passenger Max avoidance persists, it could have major implications across the industry. Rerouting to evade the 737 Max disrupts airline scheduling and capacity management. Lower demand for some Max-heavy routes decreases profitability. Trust erosion also jeopardizes airline brand perception and customer loyalty.