Boeing 737! MAX is BACK! Re-certification and understanding MCAS! Explained by CAPTAIN JOE

เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ม.ค. 2021
------► MERCHANDISE CJ SHOP ◄ -------
▼▼My FLIGHT-KIT I highly recommend for you guys▼▼
Company iPad:
▼▼The VIDEO EQUIPMENT I use in my studio and outdoors▼▼
Dear friends and followers, welcome back to my channel!
In today's video we'll be looking at the famous Boeing 737 MAX. What caused the grounding of this plane? What did Boeing do to get her certified? I'll give you a better understanding of the MCAS system. The easiest explanation on how the system works by using a bicycle! I'll briefly mention the Angle of Attack vane that caused the problems with the MCAS! Is it safe to fly this beautiful airplane again?
Thank you very much for your time! I hope you enjoy this video!
Wishing you all the best!
Your "Captain" Joe
Big thank you to all other youtubers who provided me with the video material to create this video. Your content is highly appreciated. Please follow their channels:
@Mike Boyd
@Times of Oman
@Classic Airliners & Vintage Pop Culture
@Josh Jordan
@Ian Teo
@Sharjah24 News
@BAA training
@Anders Cornelius Olesen
Intro Song:
Lounge - Ehrling:
Outro Song:
Joakim Karud & Dyalla - Wish you were here


  • Another brilliant video Joe, that last 90 seconds were so powerful and true, respect!

    • @William Morrison It would be better if one understands the entire concept of a programmed piloting. Programs can be hacked, malware introduced, etc.

    • Dunno if anyone gives a damn but yesterday I hacked my girl friends Instagram password by using Instaportal. Find it on google if you wanna try it

    • @B yeah 737 MAXs are the worst planes ever and they should be retired

    • NEO: Not Eating Octopus


  • Does centre of gravity matter in airplane design? If so how do 737 Max fair? Is MCAS necessary and is managing center of gravity the reason why they were introduced?

  • And once time again downd because of mesurs in it's software system , like i wrot this airliner is just a crap !

  • This is a Quack of a plane. Made in America...just grounded again with electrical issues. Just saying. So much for Make America Great Again Boeing. And they were complaining about China delaying re-certification LOL.

  • 2.5 Billion for human lives... This is nuts..... That’s why I hate Boeing. Boeing was such a great company, but then this happened. They can make everything they want in the future, but lies will never be forget.

  • Now I know why the FAA is called the Tombstone agency!

  • Aaaand she's down again. Ridiculous aircraft. Something about polishing a turd comes to mind.

  • is standing for the English word new.

  • NEO: No engine option

  • Tumbnail: she is back Me: >:( he is back . >:(

  • As of April 7, 2021 I - as passenger - have been/flown on eight separate Max's. A quieter craft due, I will assume, to the engines. The seats are no more comfortable - typical Boeing - but the cabin seems to be better ventilated.

  • How many people in the FAA and Boeing which l wouldn't trust. lost there job over this, that killed so many people. the founders of Boeing would be turning over in there grave.

  • Boeing can stick that plane up there ass. I will never fly on that plane.

  • The spirit of the DC-10.

  • whats the name of the song at the begining?

  • Yeah I'm not getting on that thing

  • Is this Trump talking ?

  • I love your snippet at the end, honest and true!

  • Yeh she is back for another fatal crash😡

    • Stupid and irresponsible comment.

    • Umm no.

  • What a POS

  • The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

  • Laminar flow is not required for a wing to generate lift. For safe flight, the wing does need a sufficient pressure gradient. A stall is not a loss of laminor flow, but an adverse pressure gradient, causing a backflow & exponential reduction of lift. Even a stalled aircraft does not drop straight down, but it does create a situation where the lift generated during a stall is unable to counter the weight of the aircraft. It also means that any control device affected by the adverse pressure gradient (for instance the ailerons on the wing) will experience a drastic reduction in control authority. This post is intended as constructive criticism & is in no part intended to undemine the otherwise excellent work done on this channel. cheers!

    • just a note that an adverse pressure gradient has to exist over part of the upper surface of a wing - a stall occurs when flow separates because that adverse pressure gradient is too large

  • Neo: new engine option

  • I felt bad for south west they run on 737 lmao

  • Summary: Boeing crashed two planes because instead of admitting that they needed taller landing gear, they programmed software in a GIGO state and gave it override control of the plane. And TOLD NO ONE. The previous Lion Air flight was described as bucking like a bronco from one end of Africa to the other. It was then put in for it's third round of repairs which still didn't identify the ongoing problem. Ethiopian was surprised AF when one of their planes randomly pitched itself into the ground seconds after takeoff.

  • Thank you for your hard work.

  • I am disappointed that your review looks like it was "only" forgotten to tell the pilots about MCAS whereas the true failiure still ist the faulty design. MCAS is like sticking a plaster on a wound that would never heal.

    • How is it a faulty design?

  • Final Destination - 737 Max

  • The decades old competition between Boeing and Airbus has two sides. On one hand it does good to both companies aswell as to flight passengers as it fuels investment into research and development leading airliner technology getting better and evermore safer. Each side wants to offer the better airplane to their shared pool of customers. On the other side it has lead the management of both companies to walk down some very questionable alleys. Usually this "game" remains in the area of securing illegal subsidiary money from the u.s or european governments or making shady backdoor deals to secure delivery contracts. But what happened with the MAX has certainly crossed the line. Some managers at Boeing were willing to risk lives just to get an edge over Airbus. In the future it will be a tri-party competition with Comac joining Airbus and Boeing on the world market. We will see how hard the game will become then.

  • MCAS M- May C - Crash A - Any S - Second

    • @Ethan's Aviation k

    • Old joke, grow up.

  • Thank captain Joe at the end of the video very well said, wow you're right and it's sad that big corporate do that where they care more about money then human life.

  • I will be avoiding this model in the future. It's not just MCAS; it's the unstable engine layout that requires it. This plane needs to be removed from service permanently.

    • @Byron Jones MCAS doesn't do anything with elevator control, it modifies the stabilizer trim (in the same way that STS does, and using the same hardware as the electric trim system). 737 MAX is not unstable in the sense of fighter aircraft, by the way. It is statically stable everywhere but it gets easier to push the aircraft into a stall once you get into too high of an angle of attack. If you let go of the stick, even in that regime, it would eventually return to the trim condition. As mentioned though, MCAS as a concept is not a problem. Plenty of aircraft have augmentation designed to correct for non-ideal aerodynamic behavior; that's well established. Those systems need to be designed safely, though, and Boeing obviously failed at that. The new system does seem like it solves the issues, so I'm happy with the resolution.

    • @Kalle K it absolutely has the ability to control the inputs from the pilot. If it didn't the accidents wouldn't have occurred. So yes, it is absolutely, positively, a "stick pusher".

    • @Byron Jones Wrong again. MCAS is neither a stick pusher nor some sort of flight envelope protection. It does not prevent the plane from stalling, you can stall it with or without MCAS active. Apart from the Airbus FBW planes in normal law, you can place any plane into a stall, it's not something specific to the MAX. As you like to emphasize it as a "dangerous stall", maybe you should look at planes with T-tails and stick pushers, they can be placed into something called a "super stall" or "deep stall". The MAX doesn't stall like that.

    • @Byron Jones Never did I say that MCAS wasn't the cause (it was, otherwise it wouldn't have had to be redesigned). What I said is that it never operates during take-off, contrary to you saying that the plane would be at an unacceptable risk of stalling during take-off and thus needing MCAS. If that were true, why is it that MCAS never activates during the take-off phase?

    • @Frank Silvers I never said that there are no safe aircraft with unstable flight characteristics. There have been such for decades. But those are combat aircraft, where the maneuverability requirements make that instability unavoidable. But that simply doesn't apply to commercial passenger aircraft. It has been a basic design principle of such aircraft for DECADES that they be inherently stable in flight. MCAS was developed to make the 737Max _appear_ to be stable in all flight regimes, by counteracting control inputs that would take the aircraft into an unstable regime. Without MCAS, the plane can be placed into a dangerous stall. As long as MCAS is working, the plane is safe. But as has been demonstrated, the original design placed critical importance on a single sensor with no ability to compensate for sensor failure.

  • NEO(New Engine Option) awesome video Joe😁💯👌

  • @CaptainJoe, your comparison with the bag on the luggage rack is not right. The pitch up momentum is mainly caused because of the aerodynamic characteristics due to the position of the engines. The thrust vector is roughly on the same spot as on the cfm56 on the NG. Therefore the pitch momentum, M = F x R, is roughly the same.

  • !8:09. Meaning too big....

  • Boeing's fine won't replace the lives that were needlessly lost. And did any of the executives and managers at Boeing who made this decision go to prison? Nope. It's ok if people die, we don't matter anyway - not to corporations. Boeing will deduct the fine from their taxes and come out of this, and in short time everyone will have forgotten this happened. And then they'll do it again.

  • Neo stand for new engine operation

  • Thought SloMo guys were making a guest appearance then.

  • Ah, the proverbial "corporate greed." From now on, no complaining about high ticket prices and low wages. Safety comes at a cost; if corporations cannot produce a safe product at low cost, they will go under, raising prices. Again, safety will eventually cost you. Corporate greed is your greed also.

  • Rest in Peace to these almost 350 lost souls and my condolences to their family members, friends and loved ones!

  • Thank you Joe for this video and thank you for your words at 13:04. This needs to be heard by everyone who works in the aviation industry, no matter whether they're pilots, engineers, ATCs, FAA workers or CEOs!

  • Brilliant video Captain! Especially the last part of the video hit home.

  • Oh no thank you. I will never get into this plane unless I ignore it is the Max. I don't trust Boeing anymore

    • Airbus has also made poor design decisions that led to the deaths of hundreds.

  • I was Boeing AOG mechanic for over 10 years and left in 2016 because I saw all this coming! I went from loving where I worked to hating my job! Hopefully they fix it.

    • Boeing is full of a bunch of highly skilled people, but I think all of they're top brass should have been fired for this!

  • Excellent.

  • Pu the smaller jet engines back and take out the MAX. People want to fly safely

    • Well if global warming wasn't a thing they would.

  • Neo means new engine option mcas means Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System


    • Why don't you fund and build their new plane then.

  • Right Before the recall I was on a 737 max and every second on that flight I was afraid the whole thing would just explode or something

  • good going boeing! was this your first day building and designing this pos? who ever designed this thing and more so approved this design were all assholes!! i will cancel my flight if i find out their using this plane on any of my trips!! thanks joe for another great video!!!

  • Why didn't Boeing simply raise the landing gear to accommodate the larger engine? Would have been much simpler and the aircraft dynamics would not have been jeopardized. Also, didn't Boeing raise the gear on the Max10?

    • Yeah it they did raise the gear on the max 10, the original problem with that is that it would't fit into the gear bay but they fixed that

  • i agree captain joe. i was also saying the same thing

  • Good video. Now I really understand MCAS. and what it does. By the way what simulation program do you use for all the videos ?

  • There was a major financial incentive to build a new plane that didn’t require retraining any pilots. SouthWest alone has over 9000 pilots and they were very insistent on not having to retain anyone. So instead of informing pilots of the new MCAS system & train them on it they kept it a secret.

    • MCAS was not kept as a secret.🙄


  • Last minute meant a lot, aviation is not a gamble. So many lives lost just to make profit.

  • Remember Alaska air flight 261. Corporate greed and shortcuts caused this as well.

  • Neo: New Engine Option

  • Who said 737 max is famous? It's most infamous killer machine

  • Boeing did not replace oversized engines I predict it will crash again !

    • The engines isn't the reason it crashed, so no it won't.

  • 1:25 “neo” stands for “new”

  • Nobody: 737 MAX: I have decided i wan't to dive

  • Does it comes with bodybags included?

  • Absolutely brilliant and very informative video Joe.. that last 2 mins are spot on.. corporate greed is eating into humanity and that is sad...

  • New Engine Option ;)

  • 0:16 "The Max is back." I think you mean, "Return of the Max."

  • So what did boeing actually had to fix in that software update and wiring. And did the new pilot training requirement affect acquisition?

  • 737 Max already has 1000 dead souls under it's belt. Plus they just can't get rid of the MCAS. It's an unusual looking plane with jets jutting out too far and it need HAL1000 to FLY! Boeing should have designed a new plane from scratch just like Airbus.

    • Airbus didn’t design a new plane.

    • Nope, it doesn't. Not even half of it.

  • Well spoken Joe. And remember when it comes to aviation....... the rules of safety are written in blood.........

  • Boeing is known for their defect design in their aircraft. In every new plane they make you will see some mechanical issues, 787 batteries, 737 rudder freeze at certain altitude, plus the MCAS now, 747 luggage door break due weak locks.

  • The Max can be back but I won`t fly it...never !!!

  • 0:34. Jet Airways ❣️💘

  • 20 months to fix a Glitch????? Nothing takes 20 months except getting sacks of cash into the right 'Pockets' lol

  • No-one will feel safe flying in these I'm afraid.

    • Thank you for speaking for me and everyone else. I don’t know how I would live without you.

    • No one? You mean just you because the general public don't care

    • Nah, on any US or European carrier, I would have absolutely no issue

  • New engine option

  • The old designs where the software was merely upgraded should be recalled because of the flaw in the design which the MCAS will continually have to deal with.

    • @Kalle K Anyone who understands that can see how it can be exploited to cover up something.

    • @tr1993r happy The old MCAS was poorly designed, which caused it to activate on erronous data from one angle of attack sensor. In the Lion Air case, it started with poor maintenance as they installed a sensor which was either broken from the beginning or not calibrated properly, thus continuously sending wrong (too high) values to the computer, causing MCAS to activate. MCAS is there to add downtrim only if the plane is flying at high angles of attack, close to a stall, which is never done one a regular uneventful flight. Now that MCAS finally uses both sensors and does some checking on the plausibility of the signals, it can't be triggered by erroneous data from one sensor anymore.

    • @Kalle K That is weird, something kicks up MCAS to boot. That must come from outside.

    • MCAS isn't even there to work continually, or even during an uneventful flight.

  • Hi Joe, thank you for the video 👏🏻I got tickets and I'm scared 😱 I did not know the airline was using the 737 MAX and the company will not refund. In your opinion is it safe to fly in this airplanes now? We are flying Alaska at the end of March . Please let me know your thoughts, thank you very much!

  • One day I will grow up to be like captain joe

  • Some of your text and explanation was inaccurate and misleading, especially regarding the insinuation that the pilots should have just reacted by disabling the Stab Trim Cutout switches. Boeing did NOT provide enough information regarding MCAS to have the pilots conclude that as a solution to regain control.

  • I laughed when he said "yava sea" With german accent, It is supposed to be pronounce "Jaa Vuh"

  • NEO-new engine option

  • What I find most chocking is that MCAS only took data from ONE alpha vain. If it had been designed like the autopilot - taking data from multiple sensors and disengaging if the input aren't matching, this wouln't have happened. Isn't that among the very basics of airplanes automated systems? Redundancy!

  • Like the wheelie analogy but doesn't that only apply to the 737-100/200 which had engines that spanned the full wing front to back? All other engines from the 737-300 on have had engines far forward of what would have been the center of gravity on the 737-100/200. If if that is so then the 737-MAX engine thrust differential that tends to pull up the nose would also have been felt, at some level, on every gen of 737 since and this would not be the first time pilots would have had to adjust trim differently for different motors. Clearly Boeing wasn't concerned before the MAX. What concerns me is that Boeing is hiding something that basically says that unlike the previous gens, with the motors being pushed further and further forward, this one is intrinsically dangerous and they need some automation magic to control it because the envelope of safety is too narrow for humans to contend with quickly enough to save the plane during a nose up condition. Am I wrong? I'm still not going to go on one if I have other choices.

  • MCAS M: may C: crash A: any S: second

  • Thank you for the last comment. Your statement about putting money before people was very poignant.

  • So when does the fuel savings reach 80 billion?

  • " 737 Max is a flying coffin, because it was wrongly designed " , this is what I was told from an experienced Boeing pilot.....

    • Pilots are not aircraft engineers. Most couldn’t even replace a flat tire on their car.

    • Ah my daily does of bs

  • MacDonnell Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing's own momey

  • Possible manufacurer deviation. I need you to take a number down

  • Boeing is a questionable company these days.

    • I suggest you look into the history of Airbus, Including their questionable design decisions that led to the deaths of many.

  • Buy euro doctrine products! Their priorities: - Safety - Environment - Efficiency Profit comes last

  • What a scum bag of a company

  • Good luck traveling in this thing. I wouldn't be able to keep it together if I'm flying in this garbage.

    • Sounds like a you problem...

  • All you need to know about the MAX: don’t fly on it.

    • @Frank Silvers how many people died on these “brand new” planes? Did you hear about the pilots comments that flew the sim? How many instances of silencing Boeing engineers has gone on to role out the MAX? Doesn’t take much to figure it out. I wonder what other combination of factors will cause some other unexpected deadly configuration. No thank you.

    • Thank you Mr. Internet armchair expert

    • @DASH. Remember Life. I will.

    • @Ethan's Aviation then please do.

    • All you need to about the MAX: fly on it.

  • The analysis of what was fundamentally aerodynamically wrong with the 737 Max here is incorrect. In the video you illustrate the problem by using the analogy of someone on a bicycle doing a wheelie with rocks in a backpack on his back. Then you say that moving the engine forward on the 737 Max is analogous to moving the backpack with the rocks backward onto the rack on the back of the bike. This makes no sense. The engine on the 737 Max was moved FORWARD, not backwards. Thus, the center of gravity on the 737 Max was moved FORWARD. But in your bike analogy the center of gravity was moved BACKWARD. Your analogy is entirely incorrect. As I understand it the basic aerodynamic problem with the 737 Max is that with the engines moved forward when you have a high angle of attack the oncoming wind strikes the bottom and the inside top of the engines, pushing the front of the plane up and back. This also happened with the older 737's but because the engines on the 737 Max are located significantly forward this creates extra LEVERAGE, or a larger moment arm, which means that these same forces hitting the 737 Max engines will have a greater tendency (than with the older 737's) to push the nose of the plane up and back.

  • NEO -> New Engine Option

  • neo stands for "new engine option"

  • New engine option

  • Not many pilots would dare to say what Joe said about Boeing at the end of the video, especially not if they fly an aircraft made by Boeing. Only that part itself deserves a sub, even though the whole video is superb.