c The real reason Boeing's new plane crashed twice - Bangla Viral
Home / Curious Mind / The real reason Boeing’s new plane crashed twice

The real reason Boeing’s new plane crashed twice

This isn’t just a computer bug. It’s a scandal.

Join the Video Lab!

Two Boeing airplanes have fallen out of the air and crashed in the past six months. On the surface, this is a technical failure. But the real story is about a company’s desire to beat their rival.

Read about Boeing’s efforts to get the 737 Max reinstated for flight here:

Vox.com is a news website that helps you cut through the noise and understand what’s really driving the events in the headlines. Check out

Watch our full video catalog:
Follow Vox on Facebook:
Or Twitter:

About Moin Uddin Ahmed Tipu

Moin Uddin Ahmed Tipu
My name is Moin Uddin Ahmed Tipu. I`m a Google AdSense Professional and a Google Certified AdSense Optimizer. I can do all the tasks associated with AdSense. I also have 6 years experience in Google Ads, WordPress, Social Network Marketing, PPC Marketing etc.

Check Also

The Main Secret of Roller Coaster Revealed

Human beings are probably the only creatures in the world that love to be scared. …

37 comments

  1. Avatar

    Greedy yank Bastards need to pay for this crime!!!!!! Boycott!!!!!!!!! Ty for this video!!!!

  2. Avatar

    And A320neo has 0 fatalities for now

  3. Avatar

    I will deliberately check the model of plane and will not buy the ticket if it is a max. Obviously the plane has structural issues and they tried to fix that by a software. That’s it, i have zero trust. I will do the same for all new planes of Boeing.

  4. Avatar

    You don't really reveal a scandal here, just motivation for being competitive in sales. The real scandal is the FAA and DERs not properly performing the safety analysis and adhering to the strict redundancy rules they put in place years ago.

  5. Avatar

    airbus have had many teething problems with new planes, its not a boeing thing only. many people learn more about aviation only from crashes, and not before. people shouldnt assume all airbus planes are now safe, im going on a boeing 757 soon, they have a great safety record.

  6. Avatar

    It is amazing how many people join in the condemnation of a company when they are totally ignorant of what the real causes of these two crashes are. Vox sounds as if he is an expert in aerodynamics, but any intelligent pilot knows that raising the thrustline of an airplane decreases the upward pitching moment, NOT increases it. These accidents were essentially analogous to a runaway nose down trim situation. Pilots have been trained to handle this situation since the 1960s, when I started my 30 year career with a major USA airline, after flying supersonic fighter jets in the USAF for 6 years. The malfunctioning MCAS did NOT cause any USA pilots to crash, because it can be overcome. The main mistake made by Boeing was not using both angle of attack sensors inputs into the MCAS. These sensors are located on both sides of the forward fuselage, and can be damaged by collision with a catering truck, stairs, or jetbridge. Could it be that these sensors were damaged and unnoticed by the pilots on their walkaround inspection, if they even made one?

  7. Avatar

    In my country, this is called murderous negligence. Boeing lost its ethical compass. CEO's that play with financial statements go to prison. What should happen to CEO's that play with human lives for greed? Firing the CEO is not enough. He should spend time in prison for his crimes.

  8. Avatar

    That what I alway understood the problem to be.

  9. Avatar

    Why haven't we heard of heads rolling yet?

  10. Avatar

    I'll never accept to travel on 777 max even if they delete this mcas. US compagnies' priority is money !

  11. Avatar

    Engine gets to a certain temperature and the fuel is cut off by sensors. A codeing glitch… We will never know the truth.

  12. Avatar

    From the tenor of the video I'd say VOX has an axe to grind against Boeing. May me some under the table monies coming from a manufacturer who flew the first fly-by-wire aircraft that had to go thru many software revisions to get them from having problems.

  13. Avatar

    Shame rolls Royce aren’t in the business of making aeroplanes

  14. Avatar

    Your explanation is incorrect MCAS is designed to intervene at a high angle of attack (AOA) NOT at a high angle of pitch or thrust these are not the same thing but commonly confused.

    Interestingly most people aren't aware that in the 90s the 737 Classic suffered from a design flaw in the rudder that also brought down 2 planes and affected every single 737 in service. The problem was rectified and it never occured again.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues

  15. Avatar

    When will people realize just how much more software is less reliable, requiring constant updates, allowing 3rd parties to hack and not caring for human harm. Wait for the robots. Bring on the hi tech future and watch mankind suffer in greater proportions. What we sow is what we reap. Going back to my roots. Off grid tech living on my self sustainable permaculture ranch. People are too greedy to trust. Corporations are even worse, without conscience. Shareholder gains, when will it stop? At what price?

  16. Avatar

    Good video but you have overlooked a second and more primary fundamental difference between these aeroplanes: the positioning of the wings. Note the profile pictures you supply…around 1:38 for the airbus A320 and A320Neo. Now move to later and compare with the Boeing 737 and Max. Notice the difference is marked – the wings of the Boeing 737 have their root (point of attachment to fuselage) FURTHER BACK than the Airbus. The Boeing is therefore fundamentally LESS STABLE. In fact, the deepest chord point of the wings (about a third of the way back from the leading edge), in almost every aeroplane ever made, is about a third of the length of the fuselage back from the nose.

    I once built a model aeroplane (fixed-wing drone we’d now say) and made an error by one inch on a 24 inch long fuselage. IE I attached the wings about 10% further back than they ought to have been. I had to compensate, making static measurements (you hold the plane by the middle of the wingtips) and mount lead in the tail to make the thing statically balance. Now, the aeroplane was HEAVIER than originally designed, LESS STABLE, and yet on the ground, passed my static tests.

    The further back the main wing is placed, the more the wing acts like a rear tailplane. The fundamentally UNSTABLE Boeing design must have a reason why the wings centre of lift is so far back, but what I am saying is, this plane the Boeing 737 ALREADY had a fundamental stability problem, before they started messing further with it.

    How did my fixed-wing drone (model aeroplane) fly? Badly. The pilot had done this before, but the plane flipped wildly from up to down and he couldn’t make it go more than twenty yards before it dived after he compensated for it shooting upward. It wanted to either flip over on it’s back, or shoot down to the ground. The lead put in to make it balance when static testing, made it so once it got rotating to point wildly up or down, it was hard for the pilot to be fast enough to compensate.

    This, is what the Boeing software/MCAS is meant to be able to do. According to this video, they did a rush job of that. But I re-emphasise – this was a dog of a design even before they messed with it, adding heavier engines, slung forward and up, and added dodgy software and sensors. Sensors, which were known to ice up and lock into position, on previous flights this has happened, feeding information to the software, suggesting the aeroplane’s nose is always pointing up.

    Your video is correct but the rearward-located wings, and the sticking attitude/angle of climb sensors, also will have played a part. An unstable design, with a sticking-plaster of rushed IT slapped on top. I wouldn’t be happy taxiing along the ground in that thing.

  17. Avatar

    Everyone here. Listen. It may be Boeing's fault for 'carelessly' slapping bigger engines on the 737, but this problem has been developing since 1984 when Boeing first released the 737-300. This was the first 737 with the iconic flat bottom engine, and since, bigger and bigger engines have been put on the 737 with no effect. Boeing put those engines on the 737 MAX thinking it would be the same. When it wasn't the same, they made something that tried, but failed to fix the problem. Years and years of development has caused this problem, and as a result, This critical flaw has been developing for 35 years. and a lot of people have the wrong idea. This is a bigger issue than just a scandal or a software bug. This is just overall bad design.

  18. Avatar

    Bullshit fake crashes wake up FOOLS….

  19. Avatar

    Boeing is in very deep kaka over this and rightly so. If it's a Boeing, I'M NOT GOING.

  20. Avatar

    Capitalism at its best 💯💯

  21. Avatar

    Best explanation I’ve heard. Senseless tragedy. So many lives changed forever.

  22. Avatar

    Is not uncommon to fix flight dynamics of a plane with software. But is unforgivable the way Boeing hid the updated plane dynamics in order to get a streamlined certification. Their negligence and stupidity resulted in lost lives. Incredible.

  23. Avatar

    Why don't planes have a little screen that shows event logs, why do planes do stuff without telling the pilot like a magic trick? This would have saved 100s of lives not just with this disaster but with many other planes that have crashed. Lots of times the pilots are totally unaware of why a plane is acting the way it is and a simple event log would explain it.

  24. Avatar

    Good review of the competitive environment but Propaganda as to the contributing factors in both crashes. Except for engine start the MAX flies just like the NG 737. Both crash aircraft were at takeoff power accelerating beyond the maximum safe airspeed the entire flight. The MCAS malfunction was a distraction that started a chain of pilot errors. Once the pilots allowed the aircraft to exceed designed max airspeed with a trim malfunction they could not control the jet because of the speed. Experienced commercial pilots instinctively know controlling airspeed by climbing or pulling power instead of RAPIDLY accelerating in near level flight would have kept them in the speed range where these jets are controllable. Boeing made mistakes with the MCAS but the jet is safe in qualified hands.

  25. Avatar

    Why Boeing don’t make 737MAX higher same as Airbus 320 instead of moving engine up !! Why they insist to make it lower

  26. Avatar

    A quaint little story of sheer greed and it's eventual outcome, disaster and fatality

  27. Avatar

    i wonder why the pilots were able to fight the nose dive for multiple attempts but eventually they nose dive straight down without being able to pull up again.

  28. Avatar

    As a USN veteran with over 20 years of experience on flight control troubleshooting and maintenance of A6, E2, C1, C2, CT-39 & C-130F naval aircraft I can't help myself not to get involved with Boeing 737 Max mishaps, Since I'm a frequent flyer, I am very concerned about Boeing 737 Max infamous software fix that IMHO it is just a bandage fix. This software fix is just tinkering with the elevator angle of attack to stabilize the overwhelming thrust produced by the new engine that permits the undesirable pitch of the aircraft thereby stalling the engines during takeoff. At this point, the (MCAS) maneuvering characterestics augmentation system will depend on its timely pitch correction to counteract different factors that can influence it on a large passenger aircraft. Just my humble opinion, an experienced pilot once aware of this situation needed to immediately correct this by turning off the MCAS then apply manual flight control operation of the elevator to give an aircraft an even keel in the take-off mode. It is very critical and a split second delay can bring the aircraft out of control. The possible but very expensive correction to this problem is the expansion modification of the wingspan to improve the aircraft lift to avoid the unwanted pitch, therefore, preventing the untimely or even erratic operation of the Maneuvering Characteristic Augmentation System (MCAS) make this system unnecessary.

  29. Avatar

    Why do the engine wreak age look smaller?

  30. Avatar

    The bosses at Boeing should be on trial for mass murder.

  31. Avatar

    Boeing: whens our plane getting operational? CEO: we've about got all the bugs worked out sir! Boeing: let's get a move on it! You know we already payed you your "Bonus" for pushing the maiden flight and we're behind schedule CEO: what about the "sensor" issues and the MCAS issues? Boeing: get that aircraft airborne and making money!!! CEO: but sir what about safety issues? Boeing: let us worry about that and any litigation we got billions did you forget were all wealthy fat cats?

  32. Avatar

    this video is somewhat inconclusive..is it to be concluded that sensor malfunction or effect crashed the planes….Boeing's sensor could have been a reason…it could not have been a reason as well….after all SuperMax planes must have made thousands of flights during the period…also an international pilot would certainly be able to understand the effect of the sensor if not maybe fully navigate it …why was there no contact to the ATC or even an attempt for emergency landing ?

  33. Avatar

    Its just like Microsoft 10 updates

Leave a Reply