[conspire] That costs extra: er, $80,000, in fact

[Rick Moen]

I wrote:

> This is as good an opportunity as any for me to correct a small error I
> made in the prior post.  I said Boeing 'generously allowed as how
> they'll do that _plus_ they'll throw in the $2.50-cost, probably
> $5,000-priced 'disagree light' as free retrofits'.  That is incorrect.
> They did not offer retrofits at all.  They said the 'disagree light'
> would be thrown in for free on _future_ 737 MAX airframes.

[News sources are giving inconsistent information on the
future-shipments vs. free-retrofit detail.  See footnote 2.]

As it turns out, my cynicism was insufficient to the situation.
_Not_ $5,000, but rather $80,000.  Good grief!  Or, as Marvel's Luke
Cage puts it, 'Sweet Christmas!'


   A U.S. airline source said that feature [the 'disagree light'[1]] would
   cost roughly $80,000 extra on a plane with a list price of about $120
   million.

   On Friday, Boeing issued a new statement, saying:  "All Boeing
   airplanes are certified and delivered to the highest levels of safety
   consistent with industry standards.  Airplanes are delivered with a
   baseline configuration, which includes a standard set of flight deck
   displays and alerts, crew procedures and training materials that meet
   industry safety norms and most customer requirements.  Customers may
   choose additional options, such as alerts and indications, to customize
   their airplanes to support their individual operations or requirements."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-737-max-plane-crash-company-to-make-standard-light-warning-pilots-of-sensor-malfunction/

You'll notice that the 'U.S. airline source' was obliged to speak
_anonymously_, because all details about what gear is treated as
premium-priced optional extras, and how high the the option price tag
is, are required by Boeing contractual restrictions to be treated as
highly confidential trade secrets.

Now, I really wonder what the _other_ relevant safety option, the
cockpit angle of attack ('AoA') indicator (which gives pilots a visual
representation of the airflow angle as measured by the two sensors)
costs airlines.  $100,000?  $200,000?[2]


   "Our entire team stands behind the quality and safety of the aircraft
   we design, produce and support," Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg said in a
   video released Monday.

Great job, Mr. Muilenburg!


DoJ's Fraud Unit has subpoenaed records and is investigating.

Meanwhile, the software update to make the MCAS subsystem of the Flight
Control Computer monitor the data from both AoA sensors sent by their
respective ADIRU (Air Data Inertial Reference Unit) electronics on each
side of the plane, rather than just one, and apply far less downwards
force, and not repeatedly re-engage following pilot input to adjust
trim, may be approved in about a week.

More specifically:

1.  MCAS will now avoid activating if the AoA sensors disagree by more
than 5.5 degrees with the flaps retracted.  In this case, MCAS will be
disabled for the duration of the flight, and 'AOA DISAGREE' will be
shown in amber on the primary flight display..

2.  If MCAS activates, it will do so only once for each elevated AoA
event (where angle of attack is measured to have risen dangerously 
close to stall condition, relative to airspeed).

3.  MCAS will never apply more downward input than can be counteracted
by pilots pulling back on the yoke.


In a related matter, I meant to mention earlier that the same Lion Air
aircraft encountered the exact same problem on the prior inbound flight
the previous day, prior to the fatal one.  Luckily in that case, a third
pilot was in the cockpit who was able to solve the 'stabiliser runaway'
problem MCAS was causing before the plane hit the ground, by hitting the
two required cutoff switches on the 737 MAX's centre console and turning
off MCAS for the remainder of the flight.  It's pretty damning against
Lion Air that it nonchalantly turned the plane around for the
subsequent outbound segment (flight 610) where everyone died, 
_without bothering to investigate_ and ensure aircraft safety.


Also of note, Lion Air pressured most of the grieving families of dead
Lion Air flight 610 passengers to sign a skeevy and probably illegal 
lowball ($91,600) compensation agreement and release of liability
indemnifying an eight-page list of hundreds of companies including
Lion Air, its financiaal backers, its insurers, Boeing, and many of
Boeing's subcontractors against litigation -- a legal move said to be
specifically barred by Indonesia's 2011 aviation act guaranteeing
survivors the right to sue carriers or other entities even if they sign
any payment agreement:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/world/asia/lion-air-crash-families-lawsuits.html

It was not only lowball, but the amount is said to be roughly the
minimum required to be paid to surviving families by Indonesian law
anyway, i.e., this was a naked theft of legal rights in exchange for
nothing.

Families were prohibited from taking home copies of the release form to
study it before signing, and some say they were prohibited from bringing
their lawyers into the room to stody it.  Families were videotaped by a
Lion Air official while doing the signing.  Very typically for
settlement agreements, the agreement also probibits parties from
disclosing the document's terms, which were nonetheless reviewed by the
_New York Times_.


[1] CBS News's article at the URL cited has an accompanying video clip 
providing details about the 'disagree light':  It's a detail alert area 
on the left-side Captain Outboard Display Unit, a variety of 'heads-up
display' (HUD) that constitutes the primary flight display, among quite
a bit of extra monitoring information:  If the left and right AoA
sensors disagree by more than 10 degrees for more than 10 seconds, the
warning 'AOA DISAGREE' pops up in amber.  The 'disagree light' option
was first available in the prior 737 NG series.  The AoA _indicator_
likewise became an option with 737 NG.  Details mostly from:
https://leehamnews.com/2019/03/27/boeing-presents-mcas-fix-to-pilots-regulators-and-media/


[2] A _Seattle Times_ article from a few days ago
(https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-begins-new-737-max-pilot-training-and-defends-the-jets-cockpit-displays/)
says that Boeing will now retrofit the 'disagree' light at no charge to 
_existing_ airframes for airlines that request it, and will no longer
charge extra for the AoA indicator.  

The _Times_ article makes the valid point that presence of either or
both of these diplay options on the Lion Air flight 610 crash probably
would not have helped for the simple reason that the pilots hadn't been
warned about even the existence of MCAS in their plane.  Damningly,
neither had the pilots of Ethopian Airlines flight 302, five months
later.  The failure to warn and train pilots -- as part of Boeing's
sales pitch about the 737 MAX being a compatible replacement for the
earlier 737 with no cost-adding changes required -- was the real
problem.  Or, as Boeing's sales material for airlines on its Web site
put it, 'as you build your 737 MAX fleet, millions of dollars will be
saved because of its commonality with the Next-Generation 737.'