Connect with us

Business

Boeing Knew About Max 8 Problems Before Crashes

Published

on

  • Boeing admitted that it knew of a safety issue with its 737 Max 8s, the model involved in both the Ethiopian Airlines and Lion Air crashes, and did not report it until after the Lion Air accident.
  • Boeing discovered that many of its Max 8s did not have a key safety feature that determined when the plane was receiving conflicting data from its sensors, because the company had made that feature an optional premium add-on.
  • The company claims this feature is not essential, but others argue that it could have prevented the crashes because conflicting sensor data caused both planes to repeatedly nosedive after an automated system was triggered.

Boeing’s Statement

Boeing released a statement Sunday saying that the company was aware of a problem with a safety feature in its 737 Max 8s in 2017, but did not disclose the issue to regulators or airlines until after a Max 8 operated by Lion Air crashed in October 2018, killing 189.

The announcement also comes nearly two months after another Max 8, operated by Ethiopian Airlines, crashed just outside of Addis Ababa. That crash killed all 157 people on board.

According to the statement, within a few months of delivering the Max 8 planes to buyers, Boeing’s engineers found a problem with an essential warning light. The feature, which is called an Angle of Attack (AOA) Disagree alert, tells pilots if the sensors on either side of the plane are giving contradictory information about the direction of the plane’s nose.

Boeing intended for this feature to be on all the Max 8 models as it had been a feature on the previous generations of 737s. However, after months of delivering the planes, their engineers found that the sensors only worked on Max 8’s where buyers had also purchased a separate, optional safety feature.

This basically means that a key safety feature that the company thought was standard was actually optional– sort of like a premium add-on.

Following the discovery, a review was launched after the engineers discovered the problem. “That review, which involved multiple company subject matter experts, determined that the absence of the AOA Disagree alert did not adversely impact airplane safety or operation,” according to company’s statement.

Boeing said it reported the problem to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) a year after they knew about it. The FAA determined that the problem was “low-risk,” but still told Boeing they should have informed them earlier.

Boeing also reported the problem to the airlines that operated the planes. However, only 20 percent of buyers had purchased the optional indicator, according to the New York Times, which meant that an important warning light did not work on most of the 737s.

Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines

Unsurprisingly, neither of the two flights that crashed had that indicator.

Immediately, after the Ethiopian Airline crash, people began drawing lines between the Lion Air crash off the coast of Indonesia just four months earlier. In addition to the fact that both planes were Max 8, the pilots of both planes reported issues and requested to return to the airports they took off from but did not make it back.

Following the incident, tons of countries grounded their Max 8 planes until Boeing investigated the situation. Numerous pilots also came forward to say that they had not been fully informed about software changes to the MAX 8’s autopilot and that they had not been trained to use the new software

The pilots specifically referenced a new feature that causes the plane to automatically correct the planes level if it’s sensor’s think it is flying at an angle that puts it at risk of stalling. Investigations from both the Lion Air and the Ethiopian Airlines crashes found that this software was engaged, and that it caused the noses of both the planes to be pushed down repeatedly.

Boeing initially responded to the pilots by arguing that there should not be a problem as long as pilots followed procedures. Boeing’s CEO, Dennis Muilenburg, later said that the company would update the Max 8’s software and provide training.

However, throughout the whole process, Boeing executives have denied that there is anything wrong with the planes.

The Debate Goes On

Boeing still maintains that this feature is not essential.

“Neither the angle of attack indicator nor the AOA Disagree alert are necessary for the safe operation of the airplane,” the company said in Sunday’s statement. “They provide supplemental information only, and have never been considered safety features on commercial jet transport airplanes.”

Others disagree. If AOA sensors on the Max 8 think that the nose of the plane is too high, the automated control system forces the nose of the plane down automatically. That is exactly what happened to both the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines planes.

In fact, investigators of both crashes found that a faulty sensor gave the system incorrect data, which then forced the nose of the plane down repeatedly. Logically, experts say, it seems like if those two flights had this safety feature that Boeing itself said tells pilots when sensors are giving contradictory information, this would likely not have happened.

Boeing is still refusing to draw that line. The combination of the lack of knowledge that their planes did not have key safety feature and the fact that they didn’t disclose their knowledge of this issue for a year just add to Boeing’s problems.

Ongoing Investigations

In their statement Sunday, Boeing also pushed back on the criticism that the aircraft certification system Boeing and the FAA have in place is flawed, which is the subject of congressional inquiries, a Department of Transportation panel, and a criminal investigation.

During a Congressional hearing in March, Daniel Ewell, the acting head of the FAA, stated that the agency’s certification procedures “are extensive, well-established and have consistently produced safe aircraft designs for decades,” also adding that the FAA was “fully involved” in certifying the 737 Max.

However, this was contradicted by Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, who said the FAA has allowed plane manufacturers to help certify that their own aircraft meets safety standards.

Boeing’s management of the Max 8’s design has continually come under fire, which in turn has resulted in strained relations with airlines and customers, several federal investigations, and huge financial losses.

Still, time and time again, Boeing has continued to essentially skirt responsibility, even as the Max 8, which was the fastest-selling plane in the company’s history, remains grounded world-wide.

See what others are saying: (NPR) (New York Times) (Washington Post)

Business

Kings of Leon Will Become One of the First Bands To Offer an Album as NFT

Published

on

  • The band Kings of Leon will release its new album Friday as a non-fungible token (NFT), making it among the first bands ever to release a full album in such a format. 
  • The album will also be released on Spotify and Apple Music on the same day in a more traditional format.
  • In recent days, celebrities such as Grimes and Logan Paul have made headlines for multi-million dollar earnings from sales of digital art and video NFTs, which are increasingly becoming viewed as a new form of collectors’ items.

Kings of Leon to Release NFT Album 

Kings of Leon will soon become one of the first bands in history to release an album as a non-fungible token (NFT).

While controversial, NFTs are gradually gaining prominence as a new form of collectors’ items, and the band’s new album, “When You See Yourself,” is no exception to that. 

Once it launches on Friday, it will be available for purchase in NFT form for two weeks. After that, no more NFTs of the album will ever be made. 

The exact same album will also be released on Spotify and Apple Music the same day. Unlike the NFTs, these versions of the album will still remain available to stream and purchase even after two weeks’ time.

So What Is an NFT?

There’s been a lot of confusion around NFTs in recent days, especially as more and more headlines tie major celebrities to them. 

For example, Grimes recently sold $6 million worth of NFTs as digital art. Meanwhile, YouTuber Logan Paul first sold $5 million worth of NFTs last month before then raking in another $880,000 from NFT sales.

Think of it this way: Money is fungible, meaning if you trade $1 with a friend, both of you still have a dollar at the end of the day. Millions of other people across the country also own similar dollars that carry the exact same value (some even have millions of dollars each, and I’m very jealous).

However, something is non-fungible when it has a unique identity and can’t be replaced in a trade. For example, you buy a handmade ceramic bowl that your friend made in her art class. No one else in the world will have that exact same piece of art as long as you retain ownership.

NFTs work in a similar way, except they deal strictly with digital files. For example, Logan Paul’s NFT sales page is filled with clips of Pokemon card pulls. Despite those clips being readily available on YouTube to anyone with internet access, some of them have nonetheless sold for up to $20,000.

“Total mint of 3 NFTs for this moment,” the description for his NFTs reads. “This product represents digital ownership of the NFT video of this moment only. This does not represent ownership in a card, a physical asset or of the YouTube video.”

That’s where this gets tricky. Consumers are buying a “moment” but not actually the copyright of the video or even the card featured in it. As mentioned earlier, despite owning the digital file of that moment, pretty much anyone can find a way to access or view it, depending on what it is.

In that sense, NFTs aren’t quite like platforms such as OnlyFans where users pay to view hidden content. 

To put it in terms of physical art collecting: anyone can buy a Monet print. But only one person can own the original,” The Verge noted.

See what others are saying: (CNBC) (Rolling Stone) (The Guardian)

Continue Reading

Business

Epic Games Acquires “Fall Guys” Maker Tonic Games Group

Published

on

  • Epic Games said Tuesday that it acquired Tonic Games Group, the parent company behind “Fall Guys: Ultimate Knockout.” 
  • Under this deal, “Fall Guys” will have the backing to improve and potentially add cross-play features that exist in other games Epic owns, like “Fortnite” and “Rocket League.” 
  • For now, nothing in the game has changed, though the companies said they plan to bring it to Nintendo Switch and Xbox in the future.

Epic Games Buys “Fall Guys” Maker

Epic Games announced Tuesday that it acquired the parent company behind the popular game “Fall Guys: Ultimate Knockout.”

That company is Tonic Games Group, which owns Mediatonic Games.

Epic Games did not release information about how much it paid for the deal when confirming it on its website.

As many online have noted, the family-friendly game seems like a good match for Epic, which has already had massive success with “Fortnite.”

The deal also adds to Epic’s growing portfolio of content. It already has its game-making software– the Unreal Engine as well as its own storefront– the Epic Games Store. It also has previous acquisitions including the video chatting app, House Party, and Psyonix, the game developer behind “Rocket League.”

What This Means for “Fall Guys”

Mediatonic, for its part, expressed excitement about having the backing to improve “Fall Guys” and bring it to more players. 

“Your gameplay isn’t changing and neither is our mission to bring Fall Guys to as many players as possible,” Mediatonic explained in a statement about the deal.

It also noted that the companies still plan to bring the game to Nintendo Switch and Xbox in the future.

For now, there’s been no word about whether “Fall Guys” will become free to play in the future, which Epic did with “Rocket League.”

Still, both companies have expressed interest in introducing cross-play and other features that “Fortnite” and “Rocket League” already have.

“Epic essentially becomes the equivalent of a digital theme park,” video game investor and start-up advisor Joost van Dreunen said in an interview with The Washington Post.

“It is developing a content portfolio that has an aesthetic consistency of bright, colorful, and fun online game play,” he added. “It stands to reason that large IP holders like Disney and others will want to explore releasing special events and activities.”

See what others are saying: (The Verge) (The Washington Post) (Variety)


Continue Reading

Business

6 Dr. Seuss Books Won’t Be Published Anymore Because of Racist Imagery

Published

on

  • Six Dr. Seuss books will no longer be published because they “portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong,” Dr. Seuss Enterprises announced Tuesday.
  • The late author’s company said the decision was made last year after months of feedback from audiences, teachers, and other specialists in the academic field. 
  • However, many school districts and groups have moved away from Dr. Seuss for years because of racist stereotypes and insensitive imagery in some of his work.

Production of Six Offensive Books To End

Six Dr. Seuss books will stop being published because of racist and insensitive imagery, the business that preserves and protects the author’s legacy said Tuesday.

The list of books blocked from production are:

  • “And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street”
  • “If I Ran the Zoo”
  • “McElligot’s Pool”
  • “On Beyond Zebra!”
  • “Scrambled Eggs Super!”
  • “The Cat’s Quizzer”

“These books portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong,” Dr. Seuss Enterprises wrote in its announcement letter. “Ceasing sales of these books is only part of our commitment and our broader plan to ensure Dr. Seuss Enterprises’s catalog represents and supports all communities and families.”

Examples of Offending Content

A 2019 study published in the journal “Research on Diversity in Youth Literature,” looked at 50 books by Dr. Seuss and found 43 out of the 45 characters of color have “characteristics aligning with the definition of Orientalism,” or the stereotypical, offensive portrayal of Asia. It added that the two “African” characters both have anti-Black characteristics.

The study even pointed to specific examples. “In (“The Cat’s Quizzer”), the Japanese character is referred to as ‘a Japanese,’ has a bright yellow face, and is standing on what appears to be Mt. Fuji,” the authors wrote.

It also pointed to “If I Ran the Zoo” as an example of Orientalism and White supremacy.

“The three (and only three) Asian characters who are not wearing conical hats are carrying a White male on their heads in ‘If I Ran the Zoo.’ The White male is not only on top of, and being carried by, these Asian characters, but he is also holding a gun, illustrating dominance,” the study authors wrote. “The text beneath the Asian characters describes them as ‘helpers who all wear their eyes at a slant’ from ‘countries no one can spell.'”

The study also argues that since the majority of human characters in Dr. Seuss’ books are White, his works center Whiteness and thus perpetuate White supremacy.

Academic Groups Move Away From Seuss

The company told the Associated Press that the decision was made last year after months of feedback from audiences, teachers, and other specialists in the academic field.

Still, it’s worth noting that it also comes a week after a school district in Virginia made headlines for allegedly banning books written by Dr. Seuss, whose real name is Theodor Seuss Geisel.

The district eventually clarified that it was not banning his books. Instead, it said it was discouraging the connection between Dr. Seuss and “Read Across America Day,” which falls on the author’s birthday: March 2.

The decision to move away from Dr. Seuss books is not actually an uncommon move. School districts across the country have been doing the same.

The National Education Association, which founded “Read Across America Day” and deliberately aligned it with Dr. Seuss’ birthday, is included in that shift.

According to AP News, it’s been deemphasizing Seuss for years now and encouraging a more diverse reading list for kids.

While many have applauded Dr. Seuss Enterprises’ decision, others noted that it will continue to publish more popular books that have received criticism, including “The Cat in the Hat.”

For now, the company said it’s “committed to listening and learning and will continue to review our entire portfolio.”

See what others are saying: (CNN) (Deadline) (AP News)

Continue Reading