--- title: "Crashed Boeing 737 Jets Lacked Safety Features That Cost Extra" description: "The New York Times reports that both Boeing planes that crashed lacked two optional safety features that Boeing charges extra for." date: "2019-03-22" modified: "2019-03-22" authors: - name: "Victor Tangermann" job_title: "Senior Editor" link: "https://futurism.com/authors/victor" url: "https://futurism.com/boeing-737-max-two-safety-features" categories: - "Advanced Transport" - "Boeing" - "Space" tags: - "boeing" - "lion air" - "plane crash" --- # Crashed Boeing 737 Jets Lacked Safety Features That Cost Extra ![The New York Times reports that both Boeing planes that crashed lacked two optional safety features that Boeing charges extra for.]() *\Image: Acefitt/Victor Tangermann\* ## Vital For Safety The [*New York Times* reports]() that both Boeing 737 MAX commercial airliner jets that crashed in October and earlier this month lacked two optional safety features that Boeing charges extra for. "They’re critical, and cost almost nothing for the airlines to install,” Bjorn Fehrm, an analyst at the aviation consultancy Leeham, told the *Times*. "Boeing charges for them because it can. But they’re vital for safety." ## Angle of Attack The two features in question relate to Boeing's [Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System]() (MCAS), which automatically corrects any angle of attack — essentially the horizontal pitch of the plane relative to the oncoming wind — that is too high to protect the plane from stalling. Lion Air Flight 610 crashed in October 2018, killing all 189 people on board. A second Boeing MAX plane, operated by Ethiopian Airlines, crashed on March 10, killing 157. Reports about the October crash suggest that even with the pilots giving altitude correction commands, the nose of the jet [kept dipping]() before it crashed into the water while the pilots were [frantically leafing through the handbook](). ## Other Data It's not clear if the absence of those two features had anything to do with the cause of either crash, but sources familiar with the matter told the *Times* that two optional safety features "could have helped the pilots detect any erroneous readings." One of the features, an angle of attack indicator, could've notified pilots of the data picked up by the MCAS' two sensors. The other, a disagree light, would have activated if those sensors were "at odds with one another." Some U.S. airlines decided to order 737 MAX planes without either feature, according to the *Times,* "because its pilots use other data to fly the plane." **READ MORE:** [Doomed Boeing Jets Lacked 2 Safety Features That Company Sold Only as Extras]() \[*The New York Times*\] **More on Boeing:** *[Confused Pilots Were Reading Boeing 737 Handbook as Plane Crashed]()* ## Author I've been at Futurism since 2017, where my role has evolved to encompass design, writing, and increasingly editing. I've always been fascinated by space exploration and advanced transportation, which I've leaned into by interviewing luminaries in those fields while closely following the dimensions of policy and regulation that allow next-generation projects to succeed -- or, sometimes, to fail. I'm also keenly interested in the effects of generative AI on society, policies, and democratic institutions, as well as clean energy, physics and biology, and the vagaries of tech leadership. My work for Futurism has been cited by publications including Ars Technica, Gizmodo, PC Magazine, Jalopnik, Fox News, and the New York Post. I spent my childhood living in locations including Manila, the Philippines, and Geneva, Switzerland, attended McGill University, and now live in Toronto, Canada. Before Futurism I worked at AskMen and a small photography studio. In my free time, I'm an avid gardener, foodie, and craft beer lover, as well as a maker of artisanal hot pepper sauces. I have a magnificent dog named Freida. ### Author social links [Bluesky]()