• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Boeing 737 MAX family

DWG

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
353
Reaction score
61
Apparently Ryanair are now citing the Max grounding and the resulting delayed deliveries as the reason behind threatened pilot redundancies from UK bases and are calling for pilots to volunteer to take a year's unpaid sabbatical (not sure they've actually thought that through as anyone taking up the sabbatical offer will still need to keep their licenses current).

 

MihoshiK

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
106
Reaction score
13
Looking at way larger problem that you can embrass through the pinhole of your xenophobia (?) (oh yes, I have to be a francophobic monkey, think about it!).
I am fed-up of those constant insults.

Tariffs won't come easy for the US. France being one of their leading market (Aerospace) . Did you know?
And you'll certainly appreciate the Airbus declaration only stating that they will go through that easily with a complete disregard toward the impacted French industries that will took a hard hit being devoid of state subsedies.
So, why don't you keep such comments for your heros, the marvels behind the yoke upthere.
Would you kindly stop bringing up Airbus in a thread about Boeing and it's lawndarts?
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,007
Reaction score
198

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
908
Reaction score
48
From the FAA:
"When automation systems do not work as intended or do not work well in the operational situation, pilots without sufficient manual flight control experience and proper training may be reluctant or may not be adequately skilled to take control of the aircraft," says the paper, available from ICAO.

"As the use of automation increases in aircraft design, it is important to consider how ICAO standards and guidance should evolve to ensure that pilot training programmes align with technological advancements," it adds.
 

Fluff

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
95
Reaction score
23

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,343
Reaction score
88
WASHINGTON/SINGAPORE (Reuters) - An international panel of air safety regulators on Friday harshly criticized the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) review of a safety system on Boeing Co’s (BA.N) 737 MAX jet that was later tied to two crashes that killed 346 people.
The Joint Authorities Technical Review (JATR) was commissioned by the FAA in April to look into the agency’s oversight and approval of the so-called MCAS anti-stall system before the fatal crashes.
“The JATR team found that the MCAS was not evaluated as a complete and integrated function in the certification documents that were submitted to the FAA,” the 69-page series of findings and recommendations said.
“The lack of a unified top-down development and evaluation of the system function and its safety analyses, combined with the extensive and fragmented documentation, made it difficult to assess whether compliance was fully demonstrated.”
[...]
The JATR draft recommendations, obtained by Reuters ahead of its release on Friday, also said the FAA’s long-standing practice of delegating “a high level” of certification tasks to manufacturers like Boeing needs significant reform to ensure adequate safety oversight.
“With adequate FAA engagement and oversight, the extent of delegation does not in itself compromise safety,” the report said. “However, in the B737 MAX program, the FAA had inadequate awareness of the MCAS function which, coupled with limited involvement, resulted in an inability of the FAA to provide an independent assessment of the adequacy of the Boeing-proposed certification activities associated with MCAS.”
The report also questioned FAA’s limited staffing to oversee certification tasks it designated to Boeing and said there were an “inadequate number of FAA specialists” involved in the 737 MAX certification.
It added there were signs that Boeing employees conducting FAA work faced “undue pressure. ..which may be attributed to conflicting priorities and an environment that does not support FAA requirements.”
FAA Administrator Steve Dickson said in a statement he would look at the panel’s recommendations and take appropriate action following the “unvarnished and independent review of the certification of the Boeing 737 MAX.”
More at the link.
 
Last edited:

steelpillow

So many projects, so little time...
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
611
Reaction score
88
Website
www.steelpillow.com
I guess Boeing's and the FAA's insurers will need to fight it out in court, as to whether the FAA should have known better or were misled by Boeing (either intentionally or unintentionally) into a false understanding of the situation. No doubt Boeing will say there was never any misleading on their part and the FAA will say there was and that they had no way of knowing they were being misled. The question then is, will both sides privately recognise all their cock-ups straight away and get on with fixing them, given that such visible changes will help to point an expensive legal finger at themselves?

Meanwhile, if I were a foreign authority I would not accept a revised design and operating regime until I was confident that the process for the whole aircraft had been properly reviewed and fixed, and that that had flowed through into the whole of the revised design and regime, and not just into the changes. I would not wait up, and I would advise my airlines not to either.

Call me an old cynic, but I continue to expect a lot of gung-ho "We're onto it and we'll have it fixed real soon now" rhetoric from Boeing, to try and keep customers from drifting off to the competition.
 
Last edited:

Fluff

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
95
Reaction score
23
I guess Boeing's and the FAA's insurers will need to fight it out in court, as to whether the FAA should have known better or were misled by Boeing (either intentionally or unintentionally) into a false understanding of the situation.

Meanwhile, if I were a foreign authority I would not accept a revised design and operating regime until I was confident that the process for the whole aircraft had been properly reviewed and fixed, and that that had flowed through into the whole of the revised design and regime, and not just into the changes. I would not wait up, and I would advise my airlines not to either.

Call me an old cynic, but I continue to expect a lot of gung-ho "We're onto it and we'll have it fixed real soon now" rhetoric from Boeing, to try and keep customers from drifting off to the competition.
Boeing v FAA - complex, as if I understand it, there were some FAA staff, then there were some boeing staff working on certification - so who exactly got it wrong.....

Field day for the lawyers.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
899
Reaction score
72
Lawyers win every which way. Passengers will lose until this is sorted but watch for a retraction in the market courtessy of increased environmental awareness. Boeing will rue the choices it made with this aircraft.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,234
Reaction score
139
I guess Boeing's and the FAA's insurers will need to fight it out in court,
The FAA's "insurers" are otherwise known as the US taxpayers. It's a government agency, after all, and the US government self-insures.

But the government also enjoys a significant degree of sovereign immunity, so it is very unlikely to be found financially liable at all.
 

DWG

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
353
Reaction score
61
And in Max-related news, Boeing have taken the Chairman role off CEO Dennis Muilenberg, a change they rejected as recently as April.

 

steelpillow

So many projects, so little time...
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
611
Reaction score
88
Website
www.steelpillow.com
I guess Boeing's and the FAA's insurers will need to fight it out in court,
The FAA's "insurers" are otherwise known as the US taxpayers. It's a government agency, after all, and the US government self-insures.

But the government also enjoys a significant degree of sovereign immunity, so it is very unlikely to be found financially liable at all.
Fair enough. On the other hand, Boeing's lawyers will want to offload any and all blame onto the FAA, but the government/FAA will not want their name to be smeared, while the individual FAA staffers will not want to be fingered for criminal investgation or career assassination.
 

steelpillow

So many projects, so little time...
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
611
Reaction score
88
Website
www.steelpillow.com
And in Max-related news, Boeing have taken the Chairman role off CEO Dennis Muilenberg, a change they rejected as recently as April.
Not sacked, just demoted to plain CEO. I'll bet he hasn't taken a pay cut though. Bundling chairman and CEO (in the UK the managing director) in the same job has long been a contentious thing to do. One camp says that a single person is more efficient and the company's policy and operations more tightly integrated. The other camp says that this can cause a conflict of interest between wider policy objectives and short-term financial gain, moreover combining the roles leads to overwork and loss of family time. I have never seen stats on how the two alternatives actually stack up historically - is a joint role genuinely likely to lead to MAX type blowouts? Like so many "social" sciences, management science is often not really science at all, just untested or even untestable theorising. For me, this move comes under "Let's remove one possible line of criticism, at least it shows we are doing something." The earlier revisions to the engineering reporting lines were far more important and necessary.
 
Last edited:

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
899
Reaction score
72
Flicked through that JATR report and it looks like a bit of a fudge apart from suggesting that undue pressure was applied by Boeing senior management to those certifying the aircraft to get it through. Whether Boeing will face any kind of censure remains to be seen but this cannot possibly continue.
 
Top