Standard Gold
It was once the case that FAA was considered the "gold standard" insofar as certification was concerned (and if I've been misled by everything I've read or heard about the good old days, I'm sure someone here will straighten it out).
Now where we're at is that the MAX crew alerting system is at a technology level of something like "your father's Oldsmobile". (That is, if I've understood the discussions of this factor here.) Leave to the side the current question of whether the Congressionally imposed deadline will be retained in place or extended.
The point I'm interested in is, with Transport Canada and EASA stepping up their game, so to speak, and possibly having leveraged previous certification practices into higher fidelity with current levels of technology, will FAA return the courtesy, and begin to see the work of those CAAs as now constituting the gold standard? I mean, this isn't to disrespect or disparage the FAA whatsoever . . . but just as elections have consequences, so also do certification debacles, especially ones involving 346 fatalities.
And on the engineering and/or technology isn't it widely accepted by people who do understand the aerodynamics (I'm not among them) that the MAX still has questionable, or at least subpar, stability in some parts of its flight regime? It seems unlikely either TC or EASA would have allowed this.
Also, if TC and EASA gain higher levels of recognition for setting the standard, will China's CAAC follow suit?
Last edited by WillowRun 6-3; 6th Oct 2022 at 20:25.