If you look at the news, you will see that there is one aircraft being mentioned more than any other: the Boeing 737 MAX. The 737 MAX is the newest version of Boeing’s iconic 737. The new model promises increased range and improved fuel efficiency. However, the aircraft has been grounded for almost a year following two fatal crashes involving the MAX and an investigation has been launched into the design and Boeing’s relationship with the FAA, the government agency responsible for declaring the model airworthy. The plot thickens as we get more into this story, so sit down, buckle up, and expect some turbulence.
The commercial aviation market is dominated by two major companies, Boeing, based out of Washington state, and Airbus; a European conglomerate based out of Tolouse, France. Boeing and Airbus have been in fierce competition ever since Airbus entered the market. The Airbus A320 NEO was launched in 2010 as a more fuel efficient and profitable version of the popular A320 series of aircraft. Following the launch of the A320 NEO, Boeing announced the development of the 737MAX. Then move came as a swift response to the A320NEO and only furthered the competition with Boeing and Airbus.
The fast forward to 2018, and the first of two fatal accidents involving the 737MAX. Almost immediately investigators began questioning whether the rush to compete made Boeing cut corners when designing the MAX. A few months later a second accident involving the MAX raised even more questions about the aircraft’s design.
Although the investigation is still ongoing, one thing has been under scrutiny more than any other; the project management timeline for the MAX was cut dangerously short in an effort to compete with Airbus. As a result, Boeing is undergoing an in-depth investigation into whether it’s push to compete with Airbus came at a deadly cost.
The issue lies with a piece of software called the MCAS. This software component acts as a “third pilot” and helps prevent the aircraft from being put into operating situations that would put it in danger.(stall protection, angle of attack). With the autopilot engaged, the software has the power to control almost all maneuverability of the aircraft. In the case of the two crashes, the MCAS took control over the angle of attack and forced the nose of the aircraft down, without the pilots being able to recover control of the aircraft.
This piece of software went through the SDLC just as many pieces of software before it. The issue this time is the time constraint the project was put under. We have seen that short, intense sprints back to back for multiple weeks can have negative impacts on productivity. In their rush to get the aircraft off the ground, Boeing may have pushed the timeline more that it should have, with fatal results.
More information will become available as the investigation continues, but one thing is clear. Poor project management can come at a human cost.
0 Comments