Boeing Software Scandal Highlights Need for Full Lifecycle Testing

It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s a software defect of epic proportions.

On March 10, 2019, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crashed just minutes after takeoff. All 157 people on board the flight died. Similarly, in October of 2018, Lion Air Flight 610 also crashed minutes after taking off. Both flights involved Boeing’s 737 MAX jet.

The MAX jet, aimed to be more fuel-efficient than rival aircrafts, featured slight design changes than that of a regular 737 including upgraded engines and design. The changes, however, led to a problem with the nose of the plane: it would push it upwards. In order to counteract this issue, Boeing implemented the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), a software that would automatically bring the nose of the plane down. Black box data from both flights suggest multiple similarities in the accidents, primarily revolving around the automated MCAS system.

Due to design, the 737 MAX jet featured engines more forward on the plane than other models; this caused the nose of the plane to lift to a higher degree than what is deemed safe. In order to amend this, a sensor towards the front of the plane, called the angle of attack indicator, was used to prevent stalling. This sensor along with the MCAS was designed to bring the nose of the plane back down to a safe level.

The problem? Well, there are two: (1) the software overpowered all other flight functions trying to mediate the nose lift and (2) many pilots did not know this system existed. The pilots in the Lion Air incident had as little as 40 seconds to identify the problem and correct it. Boeing had originally claimed that the MAX jet was similar enough to the original 737 that pilots would not need to go through extensive retraining, and, thus, pilots were trained via an iPad. Investigators on the Ethiopian crash case stated that the pilots on Flight 302 were using procedures highlighted by Boeing in the training that should have disengaged the MCAS system, but the plane was in an unrecoverable nosedive. All 737 MAX jet planes are now grounded worldwide following these two similar crashes that occurred just months apart.

What is worse is the fact that Boeing admitted to knowing about the software defect one year before the Lion Air crash in 2018. Engineers reportedly discovered the issue in 2017, but determined it was not an immediate issue. Originally, senior company leadership claimed to be unaware of the defect, but recent coverage has found those claims to be false. Furthermore, airlines were alerted to problem at drastically different times; Southwest told reporters they were informed of the problem in November of 2018 while United said they were not made aware of the issue until March of 2019. Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg explained to Business Insider why they did not inform pilots of this issue. “It’s fundamentally embedded in the handling qualities of the airplane. So when you train on the airplane, you are being trained on MCAS. It’s not a separate system to be trained on,” said Muilenburg.

Moving forward, Boeing has since apologized for both incidents and disclosed their plans for remedying the situation. They will be releasing a software update that will allow pilots to exert more control over the MCAS system as well as scaling back the software itself in order to prevent it from overpowering other cockpit commands. The system, if needed, will only activate once for a short duration and a warning light-which was previously an extra cost-0will now come standard to inform pilots of the software enabling. More importantly, Boeing additionally stated that pilots of the 737 MAX jet will undergo more extensive training programs in order to properly educate pilots on the MCAS system.

For now, Boeing is still working with regulators and is awaiting the Federal Aviation Administration’s approval for both the software and training updates. Nonetheless, Muilenburg vowed that the 737 MAX jet will be “one of the safest planes to ever fly” once the plane returns to the sky.

Note: This is a developing story. New information may come out following the publication of this article.

LogiGear Staff
LogiGear Corporation provides global solutions for software testing, and offers public and corporate software testing training programs worldwide through LogiGear University. LogiGear is a leader in the integration of test automation, offshore resources and US project management for fast, cost-effective results. Since 1994, LogiGear has worked with Fortune 500 companies to early-stage start-ups in, creating unique solutions to meet their clients’ needs. With facilities in the US and Viet Nam, LogiGear helps companies double their test coverage and improve software quality while reducing testing time and cutting costs.

The Related Post

People who follow me on twitter or via my blog might be aware that I have a wide range of interests in areas outside my normal testing job. I like to research and learn different things, especially psychology and see if it may benefit and improve my skills and approaches during my normal testing job. ...
The V-Model for Software Development specifies 4 kinds of testing: Unit Testing Integration Testing System Testing Acceptance Testing You can find more information here (Wikipedia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-Model_%28software_development%29#Validation_Phases What I’m finding is that of those only the Unit Testing is clear to me. The other kinds maybe good phases in a project, but for test design it ...
This article was developed from concepts in the book Global Software Test Automation: Discussion of Software Testing for Executives. Introduction When thinking of the types of Software Testing, many mistakenly equate the mechanism by which the testing is performed with types of Software Testing. The mechanism simply refers to whether you are using Manual or ...
Test organizations continue to undergo rapid transformation as demands grow for testing efficiencies. Functional test automation is often seen as a way to increase the overall efficiency of functional and system tests. How can a test organization stage itself for functional test automation before an investment in test automation has even been made? Further, how ...
David S. Janzen – Associate Professor of Computer Science Department California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo – homepage LogiGear: How did you get into software testing and what do you find interesting about it? Professor Janzen: The thing I enjoy most about computing is creating something that helps people. Since my first real job ...
One of the most dreaded kinds of bugs are the ones caused by fixes of other bugs or by code changes due to feature requests. I like to call these the ‘bonus bugs,’ since they come on top on the bug load you already have to deal with. Bonus bugs are the major rationale for ...
Reducing the pester of duplications in bug reporting. Both software Developers and Testers need to be able to clearly identify any ‘Bug’, via the ‘Title’ used for the ‘Bug Report’.
Test plans have a bad reputation, and perhaps, they deserve it! There’s no beating around the bush. But times have changed. Systems are no longer “black boxes” where QA Teams are separated from design, input, and architecture. Test teams are much more technically savvy and knowledgeable about their systems, beyond domain knowledge. This was an old ...
As I write this article I am sitting at a table at StarEast, one of the major testing conferences. As you can expect from a testing conference, a lot of talk and discussion is about bugs and how to find them. What I have noticed in some of these discussions, however, is a lack of ...
The 12 Do’s and Don’ts of Test Automation When I started my career as a Software Tester a decade ago, Test Automation was viewed with some skepticism.
From cross-device testing, to regression testing, to load testing, to data-driven testing, check out the types of testing that are suitable for Test Automation. Scene: Interior QA Department. Engineering is preparing for a final product launch with a deadline that is 12 weeks away. In 6 weeks, there will be a 1 week quality gate, ...
This article was developed from concepts in the book Global Software Test Automation: Discussion of Software Testing for Executives. Article Synopsis There are many misconceptions about Software Testing. This article deals with the 5 most common misconceptions about how Software Testing differs from other testing. Five Common Misconceptions Some of the most common misconceptions about ...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Stay in the loop with the lastest
software testing news

Subscribe