That's the conclusion of Ethiopian aviation authorities Thursday, as they discussed a highly anticipated preliminary report on the crash investigation, which has yet to be publicly released.
Last month's disaster -- along with another crash of the same type of jet in October killing 189 -- was enough to ground the world's entire service fleet of 737 Maxes and call the aircraft's safety into question.
Here's what we learned from Thursday's news conference:
Software may have played a role in the crash
The automated anti-stall software called the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) is under suspicion.
Its function is to keep the 737 Max's nose from pointing up at too much of an angle -- the so-called "angle of attack," referred to in the aviation industry. A dangerously high angle of attack (AOA) would cause a plane to stall and possibly crash.
The Max models are the only planes in the 737 series to use MCAS, and the system is suspected of contributing to the October crash in Indonesia of Lion Air Flight 610.
On Thursday, Ethiopian Transportation Minister Dagmawit Moge said Flight 302 experienced "repetitive uncommanded aircraft nose-down conditions" before it crashed.
The description is similar to what has been reported about the Lion Air crash, although the minister did not refer specifically to that disaster. She also didn't specify what caused the plane to veer downward.
Without mentioning the word "MCAS," Moges said investigators are recommending that Boeing review the "the aircraft flight control system related to the flight controllability," and that regulators ensure fixes are "adequately addressed" before returning the 737 Max fleet to service.
Boeing says it is currently developing a new version of MCAS. It's expected to be weeks away from approval by US aviation regulators.
Was there a problem with the sensor?
Regarding the possibility of a faulty sensor feeding bad data to MCAS, a top Ethiopian accident investigator said Thursday they haven't found any damage to the aircraft's sensors that could have contributed to the crash.
"We can confirm that we haven't found any foreign object damage," Amdeye Ayalew, Ethiopian Accident Information Bureau investigation chairman, told reporters, speaking through a translator. The AOA sensor during take off was functioning normally, he said. But after take off it was feeding erroneous data.
Back in October on the day before the Lion Air crash, a faulty AOA sensor was replaced on the same jet that went down, Indonesian authorities said. The plane then made another flight to Jakarta that same day, and the pilots reported further problems.
The improved MCAS system will be fed by data from two AOA sensors on the jet's exterior -- instead of one, Boeing says. The MCAS systems aboard both crashed Max 8s were fed by only one AOA sensor. The idea is to provide an additional layer of redundancy. MCAS improvements will also include a cockpit indicator to alert pilots when something may be wrong with the sensors.
MCAS training didn't appear to help prevent the crash
Ethiopian Airlines said Thursday in a statement that the pilots "followed the Boeing recommended and FAA approved emergency procedures to handle the most difficult emergency situation created on the airplane. ... it was very unfortunate that they could not recover the airplane from the persistence of nose diving." The airline statement also failed to specifically mention MCAS by name.
This goes to questions about the amount of training needed to fly the jet safely.
The airline's CEO told CNN's Richard Quest last month that the pilots of Flight 302 used a flight simulator to learn how to fly the Boeing 737 Max. But that simulator didn't replicate MCAS.
CEO Tewolde GebreMariam said pilots transitioning to the Boeing 737 Max 8 aircraft from older 737 models were required only to undertake a short computer-based training program prescribed by Boeing and approved by the FAA.
Max 8 pilots for Southwest Airlines and American Airlines took courses lasting between 56 minutes and three hours.
Following the Lion Air crash, the FAA issued an emergency directive offering guidance on how pilots should disengage autopilot systems when the plane experiences "uncommanded nose down stabilizer trim."
Overall, Ethiopian aviation authorities are making it clear that pilot error does not appear to be an issue in the crash and the pressure is now on Boeing to ensure the 737 Max is safe.
CNN's Richard Quest and Helen Regan contributed to this report.
Polling for a project on party membership - led by Prof Tim Bale of Queen Mary University - was published at the turn of the year.
It suggested more than 70% of Labour's members backed a second referendum.
And if it were held, nearly nine out of 10 would vote to remain in the EU.
But this wasn't a poll of shadow cabinet members.
Nine of Jeremy Corbyn's top team are very, very sceptical of - or opposed to - another referendum.
And most of these are his political allies.
Public vote, private fears
The man he installed as Labour Party chairman - Ian Lavery - is reported to have offered his resignation twice because he broke the party whip and failed to back a referendum in the recent indicative votes. Twice Mr Corbyn refused to accept it.
From a Leave-supporting area in north east England, Mr Lavery is convinced Labour would pay a high political price if it is seen to be disrespecting the result of the 2016 referendum.
It's interesting that the elections co-ordinator, Andrew Gwynne, who is not as close to Mr Corbyn, takes a similar view.
So far, a formulation around the question of a second referendum has just about maintained a show of unity from senior figures in public - though this is now fraying.
The form of words deployed is that Labour would support a "public vote" in order to avoid "a hard Tory Brexit" or "no deal".
But these caveats now worry supporters of a referendum in the party - including some who sit at Mr Corbyn's top table.
The fears are fuelled by the current cross-party talks.
Because if Mr Corbyn was to reach a deal with Theresa May which avoids "a hard Tory Brexit", would the referendum commitment melt away?
Shadow boxing
Shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry was so concerned she wrote to shadow cabinet colleagues last night to argue that ditching a public vote on any deal - including one hammered out with the prime minister - would breach party policy and would require a vote of the whole shadow cabinet.
At last night's special meeting of shadow ministers, I am told Ms Thornberry's possible leadership ambitions were aired. (She couldn't be there for family reasons).
Key figures in Mr Corbyn's office were furious at her intervention.
But the party's deputy leader Tom Watson - who doesn't always see eye to eye with the shadow foreign secretary - took to the airwaves to insist: "Our position is we want a confirmatory ballot.
"It's very difficult for us to move off that because I don't think our party would forgive us if we signed off on Tory Brexit without that kind of concession."
Even more uncomfortably for the Labour leader, left-wing allies have written to him to push for a referendum commitment in talks with the prime minister.
The eleven signatories include shadow ministers Clive Lewis and Rachael Maskell.
They wrote: "We - your supporters - urge you to make a confirmatory public vote your bottom line in negotiations with Theresa May and to fight to bring this government down."
Mr Corbyn has said he did raise the "option" of a public vote with Mrs May yesterday and shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer said today that a "confirmatory vote" would be discussed at what are being billed as technical discussions between Labour and Conservative frontbenchers.
Meaningful policy?
Behind the scenes there is what to outsiders will look like a "dance on the head of a pin" argument going on as to what Labour's policy actually is on a public vote - but the interpretation could determine how hard, or otherwise, the referendum is pushed in talks.
The motion agreed last autumn at Labour's conference says "should Parliament vote down a Tory Brexit deal, or the talks end in no deal" then there should be a general election.
If that doesn't happen, then "Labour must support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote".
Supporters of a referendum say that Mrs May's "Tory Brexit deal" - as represented by two meaningful votes - has been voted down.
So Labour should now be calling unequivocally for a "public vote" on any deal.
Sceptics and opponents stress, on the other hand, that it should still be a last resort to prevent no deal, or another attempt to get Mrs May's unrevised deal over the line.
Divided we stand
So a group of 25 Labour MPs from Leave areas has written to Mr Corbyn urging him to "compromise" in talks with Mrs May.
The group includes the shadow minister Gloria De Piero, and former shadow minister Melanie Onn, who resigned because she voted against the referendum option rather than abstain on an indicative vote.
More familiar supporters of Mrs May's current deal - such as Caroline Flint and Sir Kevin Barron - have added their names too - as has Lisa Nandy, the former frontbencher who has so far held out against the prime minister's deal, but who could be persuaded if it were combined with a customs union.
The signatories say: "Our policy… seeks a deal that protects jobs and rights at work. It does not require a confirmatory ballot on any deal that meets those conditions."
The political hook
But sources close to the Labour leader think the fuss over a referendum is over-blown, as government and opposition are unlikely to agree a joint motion on Brexit in any case.
It's far more likely there will be a series of votes on a range of options - including a referendum - next week.
Peter Kyle, who drafted a motion on the option of a referendum during the phase of indicative votes, is hopeful of success.
His formulation garnered more votes - though not a majority - from MPs than any other option.
But some close to the Labour leadership believe it will, once again, be rejected.
That outcome would get both the prime minister and the opposition leader off a potentially painful political hook.
"TV talking heads love trying to goad Trump into going to war w/ Russia. Here’s just one example: Fareed Zakaria is trying to get Trump to prove he's not guilty of appeasement by going to war with Russia over Venezuela," Gabbard wrote Wednesday in an Instagram post.
ADVERTISEMENT
Gabbard shared a video of Zakaria saying a "real puzzle remains" while asking why Trump has not been willing to "confront" Russian President Vladimir Putin.
“Why has Trump been unwilling to confront Putin in any way on any issue? And will Venezuela finally be the moment when Trump ends his appeasement?" Zakaria asks in the clip.
Russia and the Trump administration are at odds in Venezuela, where Russia has backed embattled President Nicolás Maduro. Russia has also introduced a military presence in Venezuela, inflaming tensions when it sent about 100 troops to the country last month.
The U.S., meanwhile, is among a number of western countries that have recognized Venezuela opposition leader Juan Guaidó as the country's legitimate leader.
ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia — Ethiopian investigators said on Thursday that the pilots of a doomed Ethiopian Airlines Boeing Max jet repeatedly followed procedures recommended by Boeing but were still unable to recover before the plane dove into the ground last month.
The crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 on March 10 followed the unrecoverable nose-dive almost five months earlier of another jet of the same model, a Boeing 737 Max 8, in Indonesia. Indonesian investigators have implicated a malfunctioning automated anti-stall program in that disaster, in which the plane’s computer system appeared to override pilot directions based on faulty data.
Ethiopia’s minister of transportation, Dagmawit Moges, explained investigators’ initial findings, based on analysis from 18 Ethiopian and international investigators and information from the jet’s flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder, in a news conference in Addis Ababa.
Ms. Moges said that the flight crew repeatedly followed procedures recommended by the plane’s manufacturer “but was not able to control the aircraft.”
Ms. Moges recommended that the plane’s flight control system be reviewed by the manufacturer. And she suggested that the aviation authority ensure that a review of the aircraft flight control system be adequately addressed by the manufacturer before the aircraft is released for operations.
During the news conference, Ms. Moges did not specify who the manufacturer was or to which aviation authority she was referring. Nor did she mention the anti-stall system, known as MCAS, by name in the news conference.
After the conference, however, Ms. Moges told The New York Times that MCAS had been active during Flight 302’s brief journey. “The pilots have turned the MCAS on and off, but I can’t say how many times because we will find that out when we have the final report,” she said.
The initial findings are likely to heighten scrutiny of the Max, Boeing’s newest and top-selling generation of jets. Since the Ethiopian Airlines crash, airlines worldwide have grounded their Max fleets, amid concerns over the stall-prevention system’s apparent propensity to malfunction when fed erroneous data.
The crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, which killed all 157 people on board, came less than five months after Lion Air Flight 610 plunged into the sea off the island of Java, killing all 189 passengers and crew members.
Both 737 Max 8 jets crashed at high speed minutes after takeoff in clear weather, following roller-coaster trajectories that hinted at desperate struggles by pilots to control planes seemingly immune to their interventions.
Investigations into both crashes are continuing. A final report on the Lion Air accident is expected in August, at the earliest. Ethiopian officials said on Thursday that their final findings may take a year to be released.
Image
An Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 Max 8. The plane’s automated anti-stall system has come under scrutiny.CreditEPA, via Shutterstock
Indonesian investigators have focused on whether the anti-stall system was triggered by incorrect data on the plane’s angle of attack, essentially a measure of an aircraft’s likelihood of stalling.
MCAS, the stall-prevention software, was introduced in all Boeing 737 Max jets, and it pushes a plane’s nose downward if data indicates that the aircraft could stall because it is angled upward too steeply.
After the Lion Air crash last October, pilots and airlines complained that they had not been adequately briefed on MCAS by Boeing. The Max manual had no specific mention of how to correct a malfunctioning MCAS. Some pilots reported that they hadn’t even known of the software’s existence.
In creating the Max jet, Boeing added bigger engines to the 737, which gave the airplane the fuel efficiency it needed to compete with a new model from its rival, Airbus. But the change also altered the jet’s aerodynamics: The larger engines had a tendency to push the airplane’s nose up in certain flight conditions.
To compensate, Boeing engineers created MCAS, which was meant to make the Max behave more like older versions of the 737. In order to receive certification to fly the Max, some pilots with prior 737 experience only had to complete a couple hours of online training.
Although Boeing has said that existing procedures were sufficient to address an MCAS malfunction, early data suggests that pilots may not have known how to disengage the system, or may have done so too late to save their flights.
While most airplane systems are built with backup redundancies to prevent a single data malfunction from altering a plane’s course, MCAS is triggered by data from just one angle of attack sensor, not two.
After the news conference, the United States Federal Aviation Administration released a statement saying it was still working with Ethiopian officials to investigate the crash. “We continue to work towards a full understanding of all aspects of this accident. As we learn more about the accident and findings become available, we will take appropriate action,” the F.A.A. said.
In the days leading up to the crash of Lion Air Flight 610, the Max plane experienced airspeed data problems that led a maintenance crew to replace an angle of attack sensor. That sensor was later deemed to be defective, according to Indonesian investigators who traveled to Minnesota to meet with employees of Rosemount Aerospace, the Boeing subcontractor that made the device.
Now, Indonesian investigators are looking at whether the replacement sensor, which was described last year as “serviceable” by the head of Indonesia’s National Transportation Safety Committee, may also have malfunctioned.
Indonesian officials have asked for their American counterparts to check in with XTRA Aerospace, the Florida-based company that serviced the replacement sensor, according to Nurcahyo Utomo, the head of the safety group’s air-accident subcommittee.
After the defective sensor was replaced, the plane recorded a 20 degree differential between the two angle of attack measurements — enough, in theory, to have triggered MCAS.
Image
A memorial service in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, last month for the crew of Flight 302.CreditSamuel Habtab/Associated Press
Indonesian investigators are also examining whether the computer unit that processes air data from various probes and sensors, including the angle of attack vane, may have had either a hardware or software malfunction. The Lion Air plane experienced days of data problems before the Oct. 29 crash.
Boeing created safety features to help pilots detect any erroneous readings from the angle of attack sensors — an angle of attack indicator that displays readings from both of the sensors that poke out from the plane’s nose, and a disagree light that activates if the two sensors are at odds with one another — but both were optional upgrades.
Lion Air did not purchase these optional features for its Max planes. Nor, it appears, did Ethiopian Airlines.
“When Boeing delivered the plane, it delivered everything that could help the plane fly safely,” said Tewolde GebreMariam, the chief executive of Ethiopian Airlines, in a news conference last month.
“Then it offered a lot of options for convenience,” he added, describing the angle of attack features as among these options.
Soon after the Ethiopian Airlines accident, as regulators around the world grounded the Max, the United States transportation secretary called for an investigation into the model’s approval process.
Image
Mourning in Addis Ababa last month for victims of the Ethiopian Airlines crash. All 157 people on the plane were killed.CreditTiksa Negeri/Reuters
Questions have been raised about whether the F.A.A. allowed Boeing officials to aid in the certification of the Max.
Boeing says it is working on a software update to MCAS, new training guidelines for 737 Max pilots and a retrofitting of existing planes to provide them with the angle of attack features that had previously been optional.
The MCAS update was supposed to have been rolled out earlier this year, but it was delayed. Polana Pramesti, the head of Indonesia’s civil aviation authority, said on Thursday that she was told by the F.A.A. in a teleconference that the new software would be introduced “in a few weeks.”
But it will take airlines some time to test the new software and restore the trust of customers leery about the Max, given two fatal crashes within half a year.
In a statement released on Twitter after the news conference on Thursday, Ethiopian Airlines said pilots on the doomed flight had followed emergency procedures recommended by Boeing and approved by the F.A.A.
“It was very unfortunate that they could not recover the airplane from the persistence of nose diving,” the airline said.
In the news conference, however, Ms. Moges, the transport minister, cautioned against holding any party responsible for the plane’s fatal plunge.
“The major objective of this investigation is to make sure that there is safety in the aviation sector,” she said. “It is not to blame someone.”
Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 repeatedly nosedived despite the pilots following proper procedures, Ethiopia’s minister of transport said in the initial news briefing for the crash investigation Thursday, according to reports.
The Boeing 737 Max 8 jet crashed March 10 just after takeoff en route from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, to Nairobi, Kenya, killing all 157 passengers and crew aboard.
“The crew performed all the procedures repeatedly provided by the manufacturer but was not able to control the aircraft,” Dagmawit Moges said at the news conference in Addis Ababa.
The investigation has also found the plane was in good condition and airworthy before the doomed flight.
Based on flight data and cockpit voice recordings, Moges said they cannot yet determine if there is a structural problem with the Max 8.
She said they are recommending that U.S.-based Boeing review the jet’s air flight control system for controllability issues.
“Despite their hard work and full compliance with the emergency procedures,” Ethiopian Airlines said in a statement Thursday, “it was very unfortunate that they could not recover the airplane from the persistence of nose diving.”
The similarities between the crash and the previous crash of a Lion Air Max 8 plane led to the U.S. joining several other countries in grounding the planes pending further investigation.
An international team of 18 agencies is helping with the investigation. American participants include the National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Aviation Administration, according to Reuters.
Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 repeatedly nosedived despite the pilots following proper procedures, Ethiopia’s minister of transport said in the initial news briefing for the crash investigation Thursday, according to reports.
The Boeing 737 Max 8 jet crashed March 10 just after takeoff en route from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, to Nairobi, Kenya, killing all 157 passengers and crew aboard.
“The crew performed all the procedures repeatedly provided by the manufacturer but was not able to control the aircraft,” Dagmawit Moges said at the news conference in Addis Ababa.
The investigation has also found the plane was in good condition and airworthy before the doomed flight.
Based on flight data and cockpit voice recordings, Moges said they cannot yet determine if there is a structural problem with the Max 8.
She said they are recommending that U.S.-based Boeing review the jet’s air flight control system for controllability issues.
“Despite their hard work and full compliance with the emergency procedures,” Ethiopian Airlines said in a statement Thursday, “it was very unfortunate that they could not recover the airplane from the persistence of nose diving.”
The similarities between the crash and the previous crash of a Lion Air Max 8 plane led to the U.S. joining several other countries in grounding the planes pending further investigation.
An international team of 18 agencies is helping with the investigation. American participants include the National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Aviation Administration, according to Reuters.
