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

Having developed software for nearly fifteen years, I remember the dark days before testing was all the rage and the large number of bugs that had to be arduously found and fixed manually. The next step was nervously releasing the code without the safety net of a test bed and having no idea if one ...
Please note: This article was adapted from a blog posting in Karen N. Johnson’s blog on July 24, 2007. Introduction The password field is one data entry field that needs special attention when testing an application. The password field can be important (since accessing someone’s account can start a security leak), testers should spend more ...
Internet-based per-use service models are turning things upside down in the software development industry, prompting rapid expansion in the development of some products and measurable reduction in others. (Gartner, August 2008) This global transition toward computing “in the Cloud” introduces a whole new level of challenge when it comes to software testing.
D. Richard Kuhn – Computer Scientist, National Institute of Standards & Technology LogiGear: How did you get into software testing? What did you find interesting about it? Mr. Kuhn: About 10 years ago Dolores Wallace and I were investigating the causes of software failures in medical devices, using 15 years of data from the FDA. ...
In software testing, we need to devise an approach that features a gradual progression from the simplest criteria of testing to more sophisticated criteria. We do this via many planned and structured steps, each of which brings incremental benefits to the project as a whole. By this means, as a tester masters each skill or area ...
I’ve been intending to write a book review of How We Test Software At Microsoft, by Alan Page, Ken Johnston, and Bj Rollison, but for whatever reason I just never found the time, until now. In general, I like this book a lot. It’s a nice blend of the tactical and the strategic, of the ...
There are many ways to approach test design. These approaches range from checklists to very precise algorithms in which test conditions are combined to achieve the most efficiency in testing. There are situations, such as in testing mobile applications, complex systems and cyber security, where tests need to be creative, cover a lot of functionality, ...
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 ...
LogiGear Magazine March Testing Essentials Issue 2017
When it is out of the question to delay delivery, the solution is a prioritization strategy in order to do the best possible job within the time constraints. The scenario is as follows: You are the test manager. You made a plan and a budget for testing. Your plans were, as far as you know, ...
This article was developed from concepts in the book Global Software Test Automation: Discussion of Software Testing for Executives. Introduction Many look upon Software Testing as a cost. While it is true that Software Testing does cost money, in many cases significant amounts of money, it is also an activity that helps an organization to ...
This article was originally featured in the May/June 2009 issue of Better Software magazine. Read the entire issue or become a subscriber. In my travels, I’ve worked with a number of companies that have attempted to assess the quality of their testing — or worse, their testers — using poorly considered metrics. Sometimes the measurement ...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Stay in the loop with the lastest
software testing news

Subscribe