Boeing put cost cutting over safety, says Boeing engineer

Boeing, the disgraced United States airline manufacturer, has provided a complaint from a senior engineer who said that a vital backup system that could have possibly prevented both crashes was rejected by Boeing, due to the higher cost.

Curtis Ewbank, one of the men responsible for the 737 MAX’s cockpit development said that managers were urged to study a backup system called Synthetic airspeed that could tell when the MCAS system was not working. The backup system would collect data from various sources around the aircraft to display the correct airspeed and also prevent other cockpit systems from using the false MCAS data if MCAS malfunctioned. MCAS was believed to have failed and caused both the 737 MAX crashes Ewbank was quoted saying “Boeing management was more concerned with cost and schedule than safety or quality.” Implementing the backup system was believed to make the aircraft harder to be approved by the FAA and various other regulatory bodies if the system was approved it also could require extra pilot training and the general cost of the backup system. Ewbank also said: “I was willing to stand up for safety and quality, but was unable actually to have an effect on those areas,”

According to others who worked on the MAX, a similar system is installed in the larger Boeing 787 Dreamliner however it was “too complicated” to invest in the mid-twentieth century designed 737, compared to the new design of the 787. Boeing said in a statement: “Safety, quality and integrity are at the core of Boeing’s values. Boeing offers its employees several channels for raising concerns and complaints and has rigorous processes in place, both to ensure that such complaints receive thorough consideration and to protect the confidentiality of employees who make them,”

The 737 MAX continues to be grounded as Boeing works on a software fix for the MCAS system. There is also a possibility that the aircraft may never fly commercially again.


Boeing’s now infamous 737 MAX in house colours full photo credit

12 Likes

Wow that’s kinda surprising kinda not as airlines would always put safety first but if it costs to much they may not use it

1 Like

i’m still waiting too see some comments who think it’s a “Media Propaganda” or sort of. ok, back to the topic, i haven’t heard for a while regarding the investigation going. As i also read in the news, there was a similar MCAS system that has been installed on Military aircraft.

I finally get to say this.

If it’s Boeing, I definitely ain’t going.

7 Likes

Can almost guarantee this statement is fallacious.

Similar, but still very much not the same.

3 Likes

Damn right you are!

Yes, this is definitely one of Boeing’s big downpoints, but I don’t see why you wouldn’t fly them, and that’s why it got grounded the aircraft in the first place.


Their other aircraft are still super safe, and again, safer than even driving to the airport, and driving in general. I find it sad how this Senior Engineer is just now speaking out about this. I find it foolish of Boeing to have people’s lives at risk, just to save some money.

2 Likes

They only grounded their aircraft after being forced too.

It’s irrelevant that you say that flying is safer than driving a car, because this has been the case for as long as I can remember.

But, good points though!

Listen, I would not call Boeing this. They have been a very successful aircraft company for more than a century. Just because one mishap on a airplane does not mean that they are “disgraced”. But again I am still very disappointed with them too.

4 Likes

Honestly, they literally are murdering passengers. They are putting money over lives. And the CEO still is trying to assure pilots and passengers that the B737 MAX 8 is “safe” to fly!

2 Likes

Yes and no. I wouldn’t go that far to say that they’re intentionally murdering passengers, but yes, it’s certainly Boeing’s fault for not taking action after the first crash, and not even paying for the backup system.

1 Like

Good points, but I defiently would not say that they are murdering there people. They have a ton of other very safe aircraft like the 787, 777, and more.

1 Like

Well, technically it is murder. They are not intentionally doing it but still are, if you know what I mean.

Ok, here’s an example. I’m a perfect student, with straight As on my report card. However, on one subject I have a F. The F won’t change, regardless how good I have been on the other subjects. If I have 10 subjects, my end result will be 90%: not perfect. That F represents the B737 MAX 8 and the rest of the successful planes are As.

So, its useless to pull in that other planes are safe and that’s why Boeing is ok…

1 Like

The 737 MAX was considered a ‘very safe aircraft’ until these incidents happened.

1 Like

@Scandanavian54super, @Niccckk

Do you agree?

1 Like

But that can go into consideration with every other aircraft manufacturer.

1 Like

The 787 is definitely safe, as they’ve installed this backup system on the 787. Definitely doesn’t mean it won’t ever crash somehow, but I do understand your point.

1 Like

Not to sure about “safe”. They’ve had a lot of incidents with the landing gears.

Yes I agree with that. They arent a bad airline, they are just 90%

Good point