Originally Posted by
safetypee
"My understanding is, the Dekker research results didn't make it into the original published Dutch AMS report, because it was considered to be too controversial towards Boeing. Please check"
The Dutch authority published their reaction to media reports on the investigation of flight TK1951 in Jan 2020, explaining the 'belated' publication of the Dekker report.
Their comments concluded; -
"The key-question whether lessons of the TK1951-crash were sufficiently learned by Boeing and the American authorities, should be part of the ongoing international investigation in the recent crashes of Boeing 737 Max."
https://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/pag...tigation-crash
The Dutch quote appears to be a 'safety-political' comment re continuing 737 Max issues - a reaction to the flawed certification (FAA - Boeing) and ineffective safety process (Congress - FAA).
Yep, only 10 years after the accident, and only when Dekker himself (?) initiated the publicity around his original research, based on the Boeing-MAX/FAA mishandling (I'd call that Fraud). When he did, it stirred the news and politics quite heavily, including heavy pressure on political figures to step down, etc. The (head of the) Onderzoeksraad is officially independent, though the guy in charge was a former high-profile cabinet member, under the same prime-minister (Mister compromise) as currently active after all these years.
The comment you quote is a non-answer (not blaming you), since the MAX issues weren't known at the time of the TK1951 investigations.
So, yeah, this is certainly a situation, where Boeing got saved by the Onderzoeksraad, quite likely because of its close relationship with KLM and the lobby work from Boeing. This refers to my earlier stating that lobbying IS visible in the results that become public. When these results aren't reflecting the reality, that's not because of technical limitations or mistakes in the investigation, but due to pressure from outside the investigation organization .....
Originally Posted by
safetypee
In part this is similar to some aspects of the NTSB's publication ('a shot across the bows' #870) which may have more to do with politics than technical fact. I suspect that the NTSB would privately agree with the Dutch comment. Thus by publishing the Ethiopian report the NTSB re-emphasises that they are still an independent investigator.
Yep, the really independent pillars, that did make aviation safe, in Western countries, as such my admiration of their work and putting their results above the Ethiopian ones. The current head of the NTSB is not only good-looking, though does also have a good portion of brains and capabilities.
Originally Posted by
safetypee
Q? Does the FAA have any rights enabling them to defy the Congressional ruling, e.g. a new or refreshed safety ruling for 737 Max .
Would be a good joke, when that happens ....
Originally Posted by
safetypee
Without FAA re-intervention to uphold the previous 737 Max 7/10 position, then their world-standing is further degraded, a puppet of political (manufacturing) will. Congress gives the FAA a mandate to administrate safety them constrains them.
The core problem is, that the FAA does have two missions: Aviation promotion (which is largely contrary to maximizing safety) and Regulatory instance (which should not bother with all kinds of short-term promo/economic advantages). So, yeah, conflicting, I am not the only one raising this. It's a long-standing item in the US aviation world.
Originally Posted by
safetypee
EU - EASA beware
Yep, EASA does have an A321XLR to certify, and Boeing will not like that (despite not having an alternative aircraft of their own, but who cares, make life for the competition difficult, anyway) and do everything possible to make the A321XLR certification an aviation Moskva.