The Globe and Mail - 02.11.2019

O2 OTHEGLOBEANDMAIL | SATURDAY,NOVEMBER2,2019

T

he whole is more complex than the sum of

the parts.

That’s the lesson that we can take from

the crashes of Lion Air Flight 610 in 2018

and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 in 2019, two 737

Max airplanes that are the subject of hearings in

U.S. Congress this week. The hearings focused on

three issues: a feature of the 737 Max called the Ma-

neuvering Characteristics Augmentation System

(MCAS); the question of why Boeing built an air-

craft that turned out to have deadly flaws; and the

role of regulators in allowing a fundamentally un-

safe plane to fly.

Boeing designed MCAS to make the Max fly more

like earlier generations of the 737, by masking dif-

ferences caused by the Max’s larger and more fuel-

efficient engines. But when MCAS became confused

by erroneous input from a malfunctioning sensor,

as happened on both Lion Air 610 and Ethiopian

Airlines 302, MCAS repeatedly countermanded pi-

lots and pitched the nose of the airplane down.

In his testimony, Boeing chief executive Dennis

Muilenburg laid out the technical solutions that

would fix MCAS. Going forward, the system will

compare data from the two sensors, it won’t repeat-

edly activate if pilots resist it and it won’t create

more force than a pilot can override by pulling on

the airplane’s control yoke.

It seems like Engineering 101: Don’t make an ag-

gressive flight-control system – one that can over-

power pilots – reliant on one sensor. How did Boe-

ing, with its tens of thousands of experienced engi-

neers and strong incentives to build safe airplanes,

get this wrong? Or, as one senator asked, when did

Boeing know that there was a problem, and did the

company hide it from

regulators to meet an

aggressive certification

time frame?

These are important

questions, but they

don’t tell the whole sto-

ry. That’s because the

MCAS problems stem

from the underlying

challenge of complexity.

Boeing followed the cer-

tification practices and

the rules that the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) required. The problem, as aviation-safety ex-

pert Chris Hart testified, is that following the rules

doesn’t guarantee safety. The failures of complex

systems, such as modern, automation-reliant air-

planes, are driven by interactions between parts,

rather than the failures of individual components –

and that’s not what the FAA’s piecewise certifica-

tion process is designed to uncover.

MCAS was among nearly a hundred changes that

Boeing needed to prove were safe. Early in the

Max’s design, engineers added MCAS as a niche sys-

tem that would almost never turn on. But as Boeing

expanded its role, engineers crafted an increasingly

powerful system without accounting for the knock-

on effects. The design had changed massively, but

they didn’t think about it any differently, reasoning

that capable pilots could manage any issues.

Indeed, Boeing engineers ran tests that showed

that pilots could overcome an MCAS malfunction:

Once pilots recognized the issue, they merely had

to flip two easy-to-reach switches to disable the sys-

tem – something that crews were already trained to

do in several other situations.

But those tests were unrealistic; they happened

in the simulator under idealized conditions. When

the problem occurred in the real world – that is,

when a failed sensor provided erroneous input and

caused MCAS to incorrectly engage – the cockpit

became awash with conflicting warnings: altitude

disagreement, airspeed disagreement and a shak-

ing control stick that indicated that an aerodynam-

ic stall was imminent. Amidst all this, it was pos-

sible for a crew to identify and disable the malfunc-

tioning system, but that would have required pilots

to overcome their surprise and recognize a com-

mon factor in a cacophony of seemingly unrelated

warnings. The illusion of effective testing made

Boeing engineers overconfident in their under-

standing of how crews would handle MCAS failure.

That overconfidence prevented them from seeing

the new, more powerful system as more dangerous.

Boeing’s approach to testing points to another

lesson in managing complexity: the need to consult

with outsiders. As complexity increases in any busi-

ness, so does the cost of missing things. And out-

siders – especially when they point out uncomfort-

able flaws in our thinking – become more and more

valuable. Boeing’s MCAS tests were done by test pi-

lots who knew the airplane and its systems inside

out rather than by crews flying in the real world. By

relying on insiders, Boeing made an unintentional

bet that every 737 Max crew, even on their worst

day, would be roughly as good as their test pilots.

While it might seem like these kinds of challeng-

es are unique to aviation, that couldn’t be further

from the truth. The same kind of complexity that

Boeing struggled with affects all sorts of companies.

Target’s expansion into Canada, for example, was

challenged by a complex supply chain, a bet on

software that managers didn’t understand and a

lack of outsiders giving critical input. Nor are pub-

lic-sector programs immune, as the fraught rollout

of the Phoenix pay system demonstrates.

Amidst these challenges lies a solution. We need

to realize that the success of a complex undertaking

is about more than getting isolated parts correct.

We need to test our systems realistically so that we

uncover problems rather than confirm our opti-

mism. And we need to incorporate outsiders who

can cause us to rethink our simplifying assump-

tions. That’s the only way we can learn how to man-

age the whole system, rather than being stuck in its

parts.

Boeing’sfailures

reflectaninability

tomanage

complexity

CHRISCLEARFIELD

OPINION

Chief eïecutive of SystemLogic and the co-author of

Meltdown:WhatPlaneCrashes,OilSpills,andDumb

BusinessDecisionsCanTeachUsAboutHowto

SucceedatWorkandatHome

:e need to realize

that the success

of a compleï

undertaking is about

more than getting

isolated parts

correct.

‘I

think I may be in jail for my 82nd birthday,”

Jane Fonda said recently, and it sounded al-

most like a wish.

Her birthday is on Dec. 21, so we’ll find out

soon enough.

As I write this, she’s been arrested three times in

the past three weeks for unlawfully protesting in-

action on climate change on Capitol Hill in Wash-

ington. She’ll probably have been arrested again by

the time you read this.

It’s been almost 50 years since she was arrested

for the first time, at a protest by Native Americans

hoping to turn an old fort into a cul-

tural centre in Washington State. Now

that’s she started her own climate

protest, called Fire Drill Fridays, she

will probably continue to reap scorn

for her activism. I’m pretty sure it will

roll right off her magnificent blond

head. I mean, if anyone is used to crit-

icism, it’s someone with a closetful of

ex-husbands.

Her own father, Henry Fonda,

threatened to turn her in to the au-

thorities if he thought she were turn-

ing into a Communist. One of her ter-

rible ex-husbands, the film director

Roger Vadim, called her “Jane of Arc,”

and not in a complimentary way.

She’s been accused of treason, in-

vestigated by the FBI and pilloried for

posing with an anti-aircraft gun in Ha-

noi in 1972 (a misguided decision she has repeated-

ly apologized for). A Vietnam vet once told her that

he would go into video stores and turn her famous

exercise tape backward so it faced the wall. That

must have hurt.

And yet, here she still is, lifting her plastic-cuffed

wrists in triumph as the police lead her away, stick-

ing out her tongue in defiance. These are grandma

goals. You can have your grandma goals, and I will

happily defend your right to celebrate your well-

earned retirement in any way you choose. Take a

cruise. Learn to samba. Spoil your grandchildren as

vengeance upon your own children.

But the elders who are out there right now, pro-

testing and advocating and being arrested, are earn-

ing a special kind of reward. They’re trying to re-

build a bridge between generations, one that’s in

terrible disrepair.

The kids who are marching right now are resent-

ful, as they have every right to be. They’re angry at a

generation that has wiped its feet on the Earth and

then shrugged at the mess. They’ve responded by

taking to the street, and with the casual savagery of

the phrase “OK boomer,” which The New York

Times describes as “Generation Z’s endlessly re-

peated retort to the problem of older people who

just don’t get it, a rallying cry for millions of fed up

kids.”

What possible comeback is there for such de-

served criticism? Apologies for the flights we took,

and the idiots we voted for and the months-long

retirement in sunny condos that we’re currently en-

joying at their expense? Sorry, kids. Better luck next

planet!

Then there’s Ms. Fonda’s path, which is one of

humility and partnership. She says she’s been in-

spired by teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg,

and by Naomi Klein’s new bookOn Fire: The (Burn-

ing) Case for a Green New Deal. Ms. Fonda talks about

seeing the climate crisis as an interrelated series of

problems to be addressed, including racism and mi-

sogyny, colonialism and corporate greed. She’s

brought her famous older friends to be arrested

alongside her: Ted Danson, 71, was there last week,

zip-tied in solidarity. We can only hope for Lily Tom-

lin to show up with a martini glass, and complete a

Grace and Frankiebingo.

Of course, older citizens have long been a central

part of any social-justice movement.

They single-handedly keep the nucle-

ar-disarmament movement afloat. In-

digenous elders are at the centre of en-

vironmental-protection movements

in Canada and the U.S. and around the

world. The Raging Grannies, born in

Canada, rampage for justice wherever

there is injustice. One of them was re-

cently arrested at a protest in Virginia,

after chaining herself to piece of con-

struction equipment next to a banner

that said, “Pipelines blow.”

What’s changed lately is that there

seems to be a new urgency, and a

sense of a debt owed, an obligation

unfulfilled, a deadline pending. The

Extinction Rebellion movement – the

people British Prime Minister Boris

Johnson likes to call “crusties” – teems

with retirees with time on their hands and no boss

to call if they have to spend a night in a jail cell. They

carry signs that say, “I am a rebel so I can look my

grandchildren in the eye.”

One of the Extinction Rebellion protesters, 91-

year-old John Lymes, sat down (on a folding chair)

in the middle of a road in Dover as an act of civil

disobedience.

“It’s great that the younger ones are protesting,”

he told a reporter from the British broadcaster ITN,

“but it’s my generation that’s caused all this trouble,

so here I am.” He was interrupted in mid-interview

by a polite police officer who’d come to arrest him.

Ms. Fonda actually accepted a lifetime achieve-

ment honour from BAFTA on behalf of the British

film industry while being arrested. “I’m sorry I’m

not there!” she called, as she was led away. “I’m very

honoured!” Maybe you have to be arrested a certain

number of times before you learn to multitask on

your way to the hoosegow.

In her 2005 memoir,My Life So Far, Ms. Fonda

talks about the need to think of a life as a series of

acts, as in a play, and to plan meaningful achieve-

ments for each one. The last act can be as vital as the

first. She writes about wanting “to practice con-

scious living, be there as fully as I can for my chil-

dren and my grandchildren, contribute in whatever

ways I can to healing the planet.”

Maybe, without knowing, she’s also helping

build a bridge.

ILLUSTRATIONB<HANNABARC?<K

JaneFondais

theraginggranny

theworldneeds

Asyoungpeopleprotestclimatechange,thegeneration

that’senragedthemofferssolidaritybyprotestingalongside

The elders who are

out there right now,

protesting and

advocating and

being arrested, are

earning a special

kind of reward.

TheyÌre trying to

rebuild a bridge

between

generations, one

thatÌs in terrible

disrepair.

ELIZABETH

RENZETTI

OPINION

| OPINION