FAA head on whether Boeing 737 Max 8 safety features should have been mandatory 

Boeing's new slogan, Safety is an Option.

"Senator, I'm glad you asked that question" always preceeds a lie.

Just give him two paddles with “YES” and “NO” and raise one of them to answer the question.

Is this a thing? Yes, *all* safety features are mandatory. Thank you senator. Don't let him wiggle out. Send that man to prison and fine the company.

As a frequent flyer on Southwest, my favorite saying was, "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going". Now, maybe it should be, "If it's Boeing, I ain't going".

I have lost all trust and respect for the FAA. First discovering that they let Boeing essentially self certify the plane and lie about the extent of the new features, then ignored known flaws in the design after the first crash, then continued to let the plane fly after the second crash until the president himself had to ground the plane following Boeing CEO's attempted lobbying over the phone. Now I hear the FAA is already trying to pressure other countries to lift the grounding so it can avoid the bad optics of doing it first, but vows to do so anyway. Why are they even discussing lifting the grounding before we know what happened in the latest crash and what inherent problems the plane may have?

The FAA should be just as responsible

The head of the FAA protecting aircraft manufacturers smh refusing to answer straightforward questions. SHAME!

Can this man stop explaining and answer the damn questions? He needs to resign. Shame on the FAA

Yes or No !? Impossible to ask a lawyer as they permanently play with words and try to ESCAPE. Insanely demonstrated by Mr Markey. Great job Sir !

He knows he's guilty he can't even answer even the questions

Thank you Senator Keep roasting them. You must go after the real culprits ‘Boeing’, they cut corners to make profit. Bottom line. People went to jail for much less crimes.

Arrest the FAA guy for manslaughter!!!

Boeing logic: 1. Lets reuse an aircraft design from 1967 to save cost, put 2 huge new engines that does not really fit and thereby make the whole aircraft unstable. 2. Then we create a secret software MCAS to stabilize the aircraft. 3. To save even more cost we make the extremely critical MCAS system only rely on a single sensor. (Industry standard is normally 2 or as Airbus does, 3). 4. To make even more money, lets sell the sensor malfunction warning system as an option, but still not tell about what MCAS does. 5. To save even more cost lets make sure MCAS is not described in the manual, nor include any mention about it in the 2hour Ipad training video to pilots. 6. Lets save even more cost by not having ANY indicator to the pilot that the MCAS system is active, and that the pilot is no longer in control of the aircraft. 7. To save even more cost, lets tell FAA that the aircraft is perfectly safe and approve it ourselves. 8. When the first aircraft crashed, lets blame it on pilot error. 9. When the second aircraft crashed, lets pretend it was minor glitch but hint that a very minor software upgrade might be needed. Try to minimize lawsuits but using very cryptic weasel language. 10. Finally lets pretend that this unstable aircraft, relying on a single sensor will become “the safest aircraft ever designed “ and force everyone to continue flying it.Lets pay FAA bribes to certify it. 11. Lets tell the world that Boeing cares about safety first..... This is total greed and deception. Boeing’s CEO and FAA’s chairman should be sent to prison. All Boeing 737 MAX 8 should be grounded permanently. Boeing! Do the right thing-Design a new safe, fuel efficient aircraft. Until then....I will avoid this model like the plague.

I will not fly with this plane no matter what FAA says. By the way.. what's the job discription of Nikki Haley's job in Boeing?

If it's MAX Boeing, I'm NOT going!

FAA guy should be behind the BAR QUICKLY.

Greed, Greed over People's Life's

FAA independence has been compromised by cozy gov-corporate relation..

Yes or no? Why is yes or no such a hard concept? It's not rocket science .. answer the question. 😎

"yes or no!" ... does not answer.

these people sincerely believe that 180 passengers will peacefully board a B-737 MAX 8 as soon a new software is installed

Wow! Just Wow. Senator Markey was straight on point and grilled the FAA entirely. This situation needs experienced people like him up there. Loved it.

FAA/US government need to be harsh on Boeing's product. This is actually helping Boeing as well as US products reputation. Boeing needs to get the act together. How can you let these design flaws to slip through and cause hundreds of human tragedies? May these souls eventually have peace wherever they are.

I never heard anyone answer with a yes or no lol

Boeing is FAA😧

He kept being asked for a YES or NO and refused to ever give one. He used a lot of stall tactics to avoid answering it directly, which is the clear sign of a lie.

The fact that various flavors of stall avoidance instrumentation is "optional or standard" has little or nothing to do with a sales price of a $100 million aircraft. It has everything to do with a particular carrier's preference that best suits the pilots' that fly in each carrier's fleet. AoA indicators/gauges/instrumentation would be useful to carriers who hire primarily from the pool of former/retired military pilots. This instrumentation has many benefits far beyond "safety" in the hands of pilots having hundreds/thousands of hours experience of hours flying AoA equipped planes. Southwest would be a good example. Conversely, this "optional" AoA instrumentation would be a huge distraction to a pool of pilots who were trained/hired from general aviation and flight academies. The issue goes far beyond Boeing saving 0.05% on the cost of a plane or the perceived ineptitude within the FAA. But try explaining that to a big-mouthed US Senator looking for political points with YES or NO answers to "gotcha" questions. Training to FAA standards already cost tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars per pilot. And the FAA alone doesn't set/determine training standards and hours for qualification exclusively anywhere in the world but the USA.

Daniel doesn't understand that asked questions were YES or NO! Love seeing him being grilled

This is what corruption, lobbying, and deregulation lead to. Thank your GOP representative.

AOA display to the cockpit is not a safety item any more than the attitude indicator is. The "AOA disagree" message on the screen could be useful in trying to diagnose a problem. We know that the Lion Air flight had a bunch of error indications; "airspeed disagree", Stick shaker, etc. Would the AOA information have helped save the planes crashing, or just made the situation more confusing? Who knows.

How can it be so hard to say "yes" or "no"? Guy got his balls twisted and roasted, leaving a bad smell

In One Word "Wonderful" To the Senator Boeing is indeed guilty, I pray for ALL the family's of lost loved ones on Lion Air & Ethiopian Airlines. R.I.P.

listened to this again - well done Senator Markey and your colleagues - ALL safety features should and must be mandatory - no OPTIONS on design spec - one standard only

Thank you very much Senator. You are the just man.

Do you want fries with your AoA vane sir? No, ala carte please. That will be 3.99 sir.

I don't understand some pilots' assertion that they didn't know about MCAS. With flaps retracted and autopilot off, did they never notice the trim wheels spinning without the button pushed? Pilots are generally pretty sharp. Hmmm ... AP is off - what is trimming the stab? I am a pilot, but not on the 737.

Somehow seatbelts are not optional, but automated lane departure assist is. There is "Safety Critical" and then there is safety affecting. AOA warning lights only alert pilots to something that pilots have had to deal with since 737s have been made. The fact that the MCAS subsystem is new does not mean the Stabilizer Trim System is new. These planes don't suddenly nosedive. They start to fight back progressively as the MCAS trims the plane down. The procedure for fixing this type of trim runaway is supposed to me a memory item. The media is being very misleading when they are saying that MCAS is a new system. While technically correct, the idea of automated trim and systems that prevent stalls are not new. These subsystems are not typically extremely detailed for pilots because parent system is known and the controls are clear. These pilots were just waiting to get their passengers killed. American pilots are required to have more experience. The FAA did nothing wrong allowing American pilots to fly these planes. The rest of the world takes the FAA type ratings then slashes their experience and maintenance requirements to save money.

MCAS is Band-Aid solution to fundamental aerodynamic design flaw. A well designed aircraft does not need MCAS. Since 1940 aircraft has been save WITHOUT MCAS. The only way the FAA should certify the Boeing 737 MAX is if Boeing can prove that this aircraft is safe WITHOUT the use of MCAS.

If you draw a square and name top left as A, top right B, bottom left C and bottom right D and draw a 737MAX take off at 45 degrees, with powerful engines and full throttle, wind will be flowing from B to D, where is the stall, wind cannot flow from BC to AD, so where is the turbulence above the wings? installing MCAS is just a gimmick, airbus 320 neo also take off at 45degrees without turbulence?

I am very frustrated with Boeing however in this clip it is clear that Mr Karkey does not understand the issue, it would be nice if he (and his staff) cared enough to ask relevant questions. In this case he seems to be more concerned about putting on a show and is wasting a good opportunity to address the issue.

How come the AOA is standard equipment on the Airbus ... ????? Both Boeing and the FAA are totally BROKEN ... !!!! To put profit above public safety is totally inexcusable ... !!!

Do we need safety features for our safety features?

This acting FAA director has no credibility. He should have been thrown out by now.

BS. Safety is not sold for profit and an Aircraft cannot be released back into service without the fire extinguishers, life vest, rafts, masks and first aid kits on board. Quality Assurance will not allow it. There are constantly mandatory Service Bulletins released and upgrades that are paid for by the manufacturers like Rolls Royce, Pratt and Whitney, Rockwell Collins and Honeywell. Only basic Avionics displays and general communications are optional upgrades.

Let's not get ridiculous. A BMW SE has fewer safety features compared to an M sport BMW. HUDs, for example, is designed to improve safety, only the top spec car typically has HUDs, should BMW get blamed for not putting HUDs in every car? NOt defending Boeing, obviously, they have issues with the 737 but this line of questioning is rubbish, and not helpful to getting to the real issue as far as the 737 safety is concerned.

Airbags are expensive to install on passenger seats. This is why only first class seats have airbags installed on them. Maybe the rules will change where every seat needs an airbag, but that would be a huge blow to the airlines, and we will see in the coming years who survives, and will fade away like Pan Am.

Why are we still relying on antiquated radio communication systems when we now have the technology to have complete telemetry, including the raw data the black box records, sent to control towers -- or just about anywhere -- as the plane flies? When it comes to the lives of our loved ones, it’s our business more than the airline’s to know what’s going on with the plane as it flies.

If the investigation is not completed yet even for the lion air crash how come they make software update for the Mcas system.

Safety for profit and that's where Boeing is wrong it should've been a standard. And this dude is back pedalling!! Answer the damn question Yes or No!!! Safety features should not be optional!!!!!

Two sensors are still not enough, there should be atleast three or more, positioned in different parts of the plane to lower the risk of knocking them out with the same thing...if one fails, you still have two that can compare their readings, if you only have two and one fails, the computer will not know which one failed, only that there is a discrepancy between them, what if both fail in similar positions and no discrepancy will be detected ?( maybe if they stopped moving and that could be noticed by comparison to different instruments)? In addition to this mcas failed light, there should also be a separate button to disable it, so that you won't be forced to disable your electric trim or put down flaps or pull breakers...

Markey, you are right, just like Merc they do not charge airbags as optional, safety features should be priced in and normally a customer will accept, period

Daniel Elwell shows very clearly here why other civil aviation regulatory organisations in other countries are no longer going to accept FAA approval as a pass-though approval, but undertake their own evaluation of Boeing's aircraft in future. I wouldn't hire Elwell as my chauffeur!

But - the line IS fuzzy - or is it? Should optional side airbags for cars that can drive the price way up be mandatory? Would this legislation make planes safer, or simply eliminate such options from being available to ANY airlines? There is almost no limit to what COULD be included in the name of safety, e.g. stronger seats to better survive crashes, etc. BTW, I was part of the original 737 design team as my first full-time job a LONG time ago.

Fired the FAA and Boeing management!

"Yes or No?" "Well... Blah, blah, blah.." "Yes or No?" "Well... Blah, blah, blah.." Gosh, he would be a good politician... LoL They never answer a damn question...

He shut him completely down.

Does this guy not understand the difference between an open-ended question vs. a close-ended question? Story of my life. Hello, McFly! Anybody home?

“Senator Market, I can never give a simple yes or no answer.”

Why its hard to answe between Yes or No? Playing safe...

The Senators question is wrong. The AOA discrepancy warning light was just that, and the pilots had no procedures if it came on. Had the pilots had the AOA discrepancy warning light on the doomed aircraft made a difference, at this point we will never know......The problem with MCAS on "all" MAX 8 or 9 aircraft is that the MCAS program only uses one AOA sensor, (of the two) and it switches from one sensor to the other, each time a flight is completed. Hence, why Lion Air Maintenance checked out the MCAS system (per Boeing's instructions in their manual) the day before the crash. When Lion Air had the problem the day before, with MCAS reading from an inoperative AOA sensor, when it landed it switched to the good AOA sensor, maintenance ran their test, came out good, could not duplicate. The computer considered that test has a flight, and switched the MCAS system back to the inoperative AOA sensor. If only there had been a procedure from Boeing to test the system twice! More information needs to come out with procedures in place at the time about how the system was to be checked and tested. Keep in mind there were probably other test performed by their maintenace, and MCAS was just one of the systems checked. We are all looking at MCAS system in hindsight, at the time, there was very little if next to nothing that pilots or maintenance personal knew about the system. . What the fix is, is to now used both AOA sensors, and if there is a disagreement between the data from the sensors, give a warning light, and disable the stabilizer trim auto drive......What Boeing should have done in the first place! . The problem is not the warning light, wrong question. The problem is why did Boeing rely on one sensor to control the MCAS system, and had nothing in place should that one AOA sensor malfunction? Although, run away trim procedures (something every airline transport pilot memories) should have stopped the emergency aboard the two aircraft (with what we know so far). Everything with commercial aircraft is system redundancy! That is what Boeing and the FAA need to explain their way out of..........and make sure that never happens again!

Well done Senator. The head of FAA should have been more forthcoming on the yes/no questions without being politically correct in his responses. Very frustrating.

SHAME ON FAA .....BLOOD IS ON THEIR HANDS !!!!!!!

Safety "features" are not an option. as the director tried to state between the senators yelling. The AOA vane is not an optional part, it feeds information to the auto pilot and stall warning computers of the attitude of the aircraft. This allows the computers to warn the cockpit of a potential stall. The "optional equipment" that this Senator keeps mentioning is a software option to show this information on the pilots primary flight display. MOST airlines don't take this option, because pilots don't need this information to fly the aircraft. The computers still work the same way regardless of the software. And every aircraft used for civilian transport has to have all the required safety equipment onboard ie: fire extinguishers, oxygen masks ect. If the airline wants to fly the aircraft on extended ops over the water, they have to install extra fire extinguishers in the cargo, and larger oxygen cylinders for the crew. This is an option. if you're not flying extended ops over the water, then you don't need to install it. people complain about crap they don't even understand

Boeing sent this dork from FAA as a scapegoat.

I would have said NO. When the senator would then ask me to explain myself I would say again that you did not want a detailed explintation you wanted a yes or no answer and that is what you received. Because when you ask a yes or no question you are making an absolute argument. The correct answer to an absolute is usually no.

Public Companies will always lie to the public especially if profits are involved

It's shocking that they sell "ON SCREEN WARNING" for money - it's software add-on, not a real thing!

This senator just won MVP

Did he ask - "Should an airliner that is a flawed design, giving it a tendency to stall, be certified? Are there any other airliners like this?

wow did i just hear optional extra is oxygen masks for the crew?

He must go

I have no idea what is happening with Boeing, the FAA and the NTSB. How this plane was allowed to fly is CRIMINAL. The fact of the matter is that with only ~370 or so 737 Max 8s with barely any flight hours in the air 2 are fiery rubble. There were many reports by pilots regarding this problem. This is what happens when MBAs (masters in business administration) push PEs (professional engineers). I don't even want to fly on any Boeing aircraft for fear of them changing what was working.

MCAS is NOT a safety feature. It is a band-aid on an unstable design. Use 4 sensors from now on. Two different types, or don't let it fly.

It's a good time to make a change. For example how legislation was brought in to make some kind of TPMS compulsory in a car, such systemic changes should be brought to the airline industry as well from time to time. As technology improves there is a higher probability in averting disaster and that responsibility lies in the hands of administrators.

He should resign.

AWESOME MR. MARKEY

This guy doesn't want to admit that the FAA is cozy with Boeing. He is trying to protect his friends because maybe one day him or someone he knows may try to get a job with Boeing. He doesn't want to answer because he will be self incriminating the FAA. It irritates me this hearing. They should have a safety specialist saying in front of everyone what this guy don't want to say. The FAA actions should be judged by an independent group of safety specialists that are not attached to Boeing in any way.

I was to comment here about the condescending questioning style of the senator and how it does not serve a great purpose to have a meaningful discussion about real responsibility and oversights by Boeing and the FAA: Cutting corners in the certification process. And as a commercial pilot I will tell you, it is squarely on Boeing, those 300 horrible deaths are unexcusable, the most nightmarish death I can think of in aviation is being at the helm in good viz with a loss of flight control in this exact scenario. However, by "lawyering" (my career before aviation) he does not get the right content. It might make the head of the FAA look so weasly and accountable, such a blame game culprit, but the Senate might again take the wrong measures with good intentions, like after the Colgan Buffalo crash. Instead of combating crew fatigue by exploited commuting flight deck lower bottom part of the food chain crews, they mandated the 1500 hr limit to airline pilots. More simulator sessions and better sleep (or pay) would have helped tremendously. (just in comparison, how many hours does military fight training entail before they fly front line figher jets? Let's say 300? It's about personnel selection early on and great training, experience can come later. Example in airlines: All airlines outside the US, all of Europe and most of Asia, for instance). Now in this case, I am looking forward to jail terms for heads of programmes for involuntary manslaughter and a huge payout for victims. BUT: On a democracy and civics scale, the senator does his cause a huge disfavour. Safety is always in numbers and compromise, but whilst triple AOA sensors with fail safe or indicated logic OR better training would have prevented both horrible crashes, the mere indicator of the AOA in the cockpit as a add on feature is rather in the category of "nice to have, but not really needed" - like a head up display. Would never buy a fighter aircraft without one, but for normal airline ops, it is not needed. Nice perhaps, but not needed. More sim sessions or upset recovery training to prevent loss of control due to overautomation and automation reliance by aircrews would be a way better investment. Thus: Safety as a concept is not absolute. The senator should fry the head of the FAA. But be better informed and focus on what's needed, not just try to score cheap points with the electorate, that leave the experts roll their eyes. What I find sad, however, is how many folks below take his point and that this kinda questioning seems to work. A huge disservice to democratic procedures which will lead to crappy legislation. Over time, that's quite detrimental. By your comments, you make his points valid. But it will cost you, over time, to point fingers only, and aim for the wrong solutions. That's not how you get constructive and honest answers.

I just can't believe that an airplane's security feature becoming it as mandatory is even a question. And the big question is why the FAA can't answer it straightforward.

The A350 has a feature where it automatically descends to 10,000 ft and notifies ATC in case pilots do not respond to an alert, which can be caused due to depressurization or hijacking, communications error etc. Oh and they don't charge a few thousand bucks extra for this like Boeing.....

Both Boeing and Airbus has optional features for their planes, not only Boeing

straight answers are hard to come by with Elwell; the company is covering its tracks, afraid that they could be criminally liable in class action suits!!!

Incredible how this guy can never answer with a Yes or No.

Senator Markey clearly does not understand that there were and are already standard features on the 737 MAX 8 which annunciated the faulty AoA to the flight crew. His question is a red herring.

Guilty!

He should answer yes or no and not explaining too much.

Boeing: "You want it to be safer? How much money you got?" Flying customer: "I'm flying my grand kids to Florida to see Disneyworld. Will it be safe to fly on the 737 Max?" Boeing: "Maybe maybe not. What have you done for us lately?"

So options should only apply to comfort features. Moving forward no more development of additional safety beyond mandates since we can’t sell it... = less safety equipment overall... great job mr emotional...

These politicians asking these questions is a joke. I was waiting for one of them to ask. Now that I have you here could you explain to me. What those things are that stick out from the main body of the plane? For people who don't know much about aircraft let's do it this way. Do you think this car accident would have taken place if the heated rear seats where not sold as an option?

Why is it so hard to get a straight answer from these hearings

How Do you know when an agency head is lying? When he's talking😎

No wonder Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman is winning all the contracts

😂Safety features « A la carte » Fantastic.

Fired the FAA!

Answer yes, or No!! He tried to cover up! oh god

Going, going, gone--boing, boing, boing. A fundamentally unstable hardware design cannot be fixed with a software patch that can make the plane ignore the pilots. Those were not accidents, they were programmed crashes. Instead of trying to knock off the Airbus A320 with re-jigged 737, boing-boing should have designed a new plane. Aircraft-makers must keep their eyes glued on defeating gravity not defeating the competition.

A new FAA head should be appointed. Safety is not an option.

Was it a slip of the tongue at 2:02 when he called the airlines a "safety company", or is he trying to paint the operators as the responsible parties?

FAA following the American dream, profits before safety. How dam hard is it to say yes that it should be mandatory.