Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

MAX’s Return Delayed by FAA Reevaluation of 737 Safety Procedures

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

MAX’s Return Delayed by FAA Reevaluation of 737 Safety Procedures

Old 12th Dec 2019, 13:18
  #4421 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
What's missing from both public accounts of the Seattle show: an explanation of the second, more dangerous stage of the MCAS development, when its authority was considerably increased. Why was that thought to be needed at the time? Why is it now OK for MCAS to be less tenacious?
LowObservable is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2019, 13:34
  #4422 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 552
Originally Posted by Maninthebar View Post
With respect, fulfilling your condition 2 would obviate the stated purpose of MCAS which is to increase apparent stick force required to 'pull up' in certain parts of the flight envelope. If PF can pull back on the stick and cause MCAS to cease operation then the purpose will not be achieved.

If 2 is required then another solution to the flight instability (which is not instability) will be needed
I think the biggest issue to be addressed that has been requested is the "software testing".

Boeing's recent past history - has been just trust us.

Many that seem to be experts say software changes are NOT simple and operating systems are at limits or above - possibility of leaked claims required.

So solid testing of the changes need verification before certification.

That takes a very lot of time & the testing has not been produced satisfactory to date. Certainly not submitted.


Too many secrets.

If this was simply political Boeing could bypass FAA and un-ground via another regulator. That is not an option as 15 more MAX's were predicted to crash and that would take another 2,595 lives over the projected life.
Bend alot is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2019, 13:36
  #4423 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Sudbury, Suffolk
Posts: 178
Originally Posted by LowObservable View Post
What's missing from both public accounts of the Seattle show: an explanation of the second, more dangerous stage of the MCAS development, when its authority was considerably increased. Why was that thought to be needed at the time? Why is it now OK for MCAS to be less tenacious?
Just a thought but....it is supposed to address an issue in wings level, low mach, high AoA conditions. Could this be a concern that Boeing raised internally in relation to Go Around (and GA-like) events where the existing pitch-up tendency of the airframe would be exacerbated by the aero of the new engines? You can imagine engineers looking at the FZ981 incident and imagining how it would have gone with a MAX
Maninthebar is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2019, 14:29
  #4424 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: leftcoast
Posts: 3
The Associated PressDALLAS — Southwest Airlines will share about $125 million from a Boeing settlement with its workers.

The Dallas carrier has been among the hardest hit by the grounding of Boeing’s 737 MAX airplanes in March after a pair of deadly crashes. Without the planes, Southwest has said that it will cancel about 175 flights each weekday. Southwest had 34 MAX planes when they were grounded and had expected more to be delivered this year

Earlier this month, the airline pushed back the return date for the troubled aircraft. The planes will not be included on flight schedules until at least March 6, a month longer than previously planned, citing continued uncertainty.

The airline said Thursday that the money given to employees will be funded as part of its annual 2019 profit-sharing distribution next year. Southwest workers will also find out next year more details on the percentage of money they will receive.

The settlement details with Boeing are confidential.

Southwest Airlines Co. is in ongoing talks with Boeing Co. about compensation for damages related to the Max groundings.
Hmmm- to save having to pay SW a million $$ per plane - Boeing now kicks in a down payment of 125 Million for the 34 planes (MAX ) it received

Thats about 4 times the initial savings by hiding MCAS just to SW.

Must be the new match - save a million - spend a Billion plus 340 lives



Grebe is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2019, 16:02
  #4425 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Washington state
Posts: 210
Note that the $125 million is just the amount that SW is sharing with their employees. You can imagine that is but a fraction of the payout, shareholders come first after all! I believe that Boeing has $5 billion or so in the compensation kitty.
Water pilot is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2019, 16:06
  #4426 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 70
Posts: 275
I find it amusing that even pilots qualified on type can’t comment usefully on the MCAS fix because Boeing still won’t come clean on the purpose(s) of MCAS and the native aerodynamics of the MAX.

Edmund
edmundronald is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2019, 16:29
  #4427 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,009
In addition to Bend alot #4409, see web page for Committee on Transport hearings with preprepared witness testimony - https://transportation.house.gov/com...-certification

FAA written views not very enlightening; but see video of questions and answers.

Other testimony more informative - confirming problems with safety culture and management pressure.

Relevant and striking views of HF and safety - https://transportation.house.gov/imo...0Testimony.pdf
safetypee is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2019, 17:26
  #4428 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 707
Originally Posted by safetypee View Post
Relevant and striking views of HF and safety - https://transportation.house.gov/imo...0Testimony.pdf
Yes, thanks. Highly-recommended reading

OldnGrounded is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2019, 18:02
  #4429 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Reuters news wire report:
DECEMBER 12, 2019 / 7:07 PM / UPDATED 10 HOURS AGO

China's aviation regulator raised concerns with Boeing on 737 MAX design changes



BEIJING (Reuters) - China’s aviation regulator raised “important concerns” with Boeing Co (BA.N) on the reliability and security of design changes to the grounded 737 MAX, it said on Thursday, but declined to comment on when the plane might fly again in China.

China is reviewing the airworthiness of the plane based on proposed changes to software and flight control systems according to a bilateral agreement with the United States, Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) spokesman Liu Lusong told reporters at a monthly briefing.

He reiterated that for the plane to resume flights in China, it needed to be re-certified, pilots needed comprehensive and effective training to restore confidence in the model and the causes of two crashes that killed 346 people needed to be investigated with effective measures put in place to prevent another one.

China was the first country to ground the 737 MAX after the second crash in Ethiopia in March and had set up a task force to review design changes to the aircraft that Boeing had submitted.

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will not allow the 737 MAX to resume flying before the end of 2019, its chief, Steve Dickson, said on Wednesday.

Once the FAA approves the reintroduction into service, the 737 MAX can operate in the United States, but individual regulators could keep the planes grounded in other countries until they complete their own reviews.

“Due to the trade war, the jury is still out on when China would reintroduce the aircraft,” said Rob Morris, Global Head of Consultancy at Ascend by Cirium.

Chinese airlines had 97 737 MAX jets in operation before the global grounding, the most of any country, according to Cirium Fleets Analyzer.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-b...-idUSKBN1YG0NL
CurtainTwitcher is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2019, 19:00
  #4430 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 707
"While some engineers assume that pilots need less information about what is happening when automation is involved . . .
Originally Posted by Takwis View Post
So yeah, lets just keep it all secret from the pilots.
I've worked with some of those "some engineers" and I think good engineers see that attitude as bad engineering, for any system that requires end-user interaction, and especially so for critical life-safety applications. It seems to me that such an approach amounts to reckless endangerment.

OldnGrounded is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2019, 19:01
  #4431 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Originally Posted by safetypee
Relevant and striking views of HF and safety - https://transportation.house.gov/imo...0Testimony.pdf
Excellent link safetypee, not finished yet, but the quote below is the most damning indictment of how bad the Boeing/FAA cabal had fallen into "not giving a f#ck" about the safety of passengers and crew.

Knowingly happy to allow another predicted 15+ accidents of the same type to occur over the lifetime of the airframe: US Regulators Allowed Boeing 737 Max to Keep Flying After First Crash Despite FAA Analysis Predicting More. Only an organisation with complete belief in their own omnipotence and immunity from meaningful consequence would contemplate such a repugnant and craven view of the world.

page 11
Support for Human Factors Assessments in Aircraft Certification

The FAA also has a significant role in the design and development process for aircraft technology due to
its responsibility as the certifying body. In that it is always possible for design teams to make errors in their
assumptions and processes, or for cost and schedule goals to subtly degrade safety decisions,
there is great
value in having an external certification body who can provide a second review and an independent
assessment of the safety of the system.

The JATR report indicates that: (1) the FAA certification team did not fully understand the overall impact
of the new MCAS system design, (2) the MCAS was not evaluated as a complete and integrated system on the
new aircraft, and (3) Boeing failed to inform the FAA of significant design changes over the design process
complicating their task.3 It appears that the FAA was unable to perform its important safety role due to the
use of delegated authority, or “self-certification,” in which Boeing was able to provide many of its own tests
and analyses without independent verification and validation. This process misses the point of the value
provided by an independent certification process.

Critical to this situation is that the FAA may have inadequate numbers of Human Factors engineers
involved in aircraft certification in addition to the pilots who are often serve in this role. Further, the JATR
found that the FAA “sometimes didn’t follow their own rules, used out-of-date procedures and lacked the
resources and expertise to fully vet the design changes implicated in two fatal crashes
.” 3 The JATR
recommends that:

the FAA integrate and emphasize human systems integration throughout its certification process.
Human factors relevant policies and guidance should be expanded and clarified and compliance with
regulatory requirements as 14 CFR 25.1302 (Installed systems and equipment for use by aircrew), 25.1309
(Equipment, Systems, and Installations), and 25.1322 (Flight crew Alerting) should be thoroughly verified and
documented. To enable the thorough analysis and verification of compliance, the FAA should expand its
aircraft certification resources in human factors and in human systems integration
.” 3

The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society strongly agrees with this conclusion and recommendation.
CurtainTwitcher is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2019, 19:58
  #4432 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 448
https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...-max-schedule/

FAA boss tells Boeing CEO to back off on 737 MAX schedule predictions
Dec. 12, 2019 at 12:17 pm Updated Dec. 12, 2019 at 12:30 pm
By Dominic Gates
Seattle Times aerospace reporter

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) chief Steve Dickson met with Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg at FAA headquarters in Washington, D.C., Thursday to tell him to pull back on public statements about an imminent return to service for the 737 MAX.

Boeing has repeatedly said it expects FAA clearance for the MAX to fly commercially again by year end. Dickson on Wednesday said publicly that the schedule for approving a return to service had slipped into 2020.

Dickson called for the meeting, also attended by new Boeing Commercial Airplanes boss Stan Deal, in part because Boeing’s public statements seemed designed to press for the FAA to provide clearance soon. An email the FAA sent Thursday to the House and Senate aviation oversight committees makes clear Dickson wants that to stop.

“The Administrator is concerned that Boeing continues to pursue a return-to-service schedule that is not realistic due to delays that have accumulated for a variety of reasons,” the email states. “More concerning, the Administrator wants to directly address the perception that some of Boeing’s public statements have been designed to force FAA into taking quicker action.”

“The Administrator wants to make clear that both FAA and Boeing must take the time to get this process right. Safety is our top priority and the Administrator believes public statements must reflect this priority,” the email states. “The purpose of the meeting is to ensure Boeing is clear on FAA’s expectations.”

“Safety is our top priority and the Administrator believes public statements must reflect this priority,” the FAA email adds.

Though the wording of the email amounts to a public rap on the knuckles for Muilenburg, Boeing issued a bland statement afterwards saying that Muilenburg and Deal had “a productive meeting” with Dickson and his deputy Dan Elwell.

“We committed to addressing all of the FAA’s questions as they assess MAX certification and training requirements,” Boeing said in a statement. “We will work with the FAA to support their requirements and their timeline as we work to safely return the Max to service in 2020.”

That’s the first tacit acknowledgment from the company that indeed the FAA will not be clearing the MAX to fly again this year.


Dominic Gates: 206-464-2963 or [email protected]; on Twitter: @dominicgates.
Zeffy is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2019, 20:06
  #4433 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 707
Now they have to hope that SEC investigators are too busy with holiday preparations to read the news.
OldnGrounded is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2019, 20:07
  #4434 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 448
https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeings...ry-11576181915
Boeing’s Fixes to 737 MAX Not Likely to Get FAA Approval Until February
FAA says the agency and the company ‘must take the time to get this process right’

By Andrew Tangel and Andy Pasztor
Dec. 12, 2019 3:18 pm ET

The global grounding of Boeing Co. BA -1.00% ’s 737 MAX is set to stretch to nearly a year as regulators expressed concern that the U.S. plane maker set unrealistic expectations for the jetliner’s return to passenger service.

The Federal Aviation Administration is expected to approve fixes to a MAX flight-control system and related pilot training in February, about two months beyond what Boeing recently envisioned, according to people familiar with the matter. That means the troubled airliner might not carry passengers in the U.S. until much later in the spring.

The protracted grounding of the MAX following a second crash of the plane in Ethiopia last March is costing Boeing and its airline customers billions of dollars and disrupting airline passengers’ travel plans. The latest delay is likely to ratchet up pressure on Boeing executives as they consider whether to further cut or even halt MAX production at the company’s 737 factory in Renton, Wash.

The latest delay arises as FAA Administrator Steve Dickson pushed back against what the agency described as Boeing’s overly optimistic projections for when the MAX would win approval to re-enter passenger service, according to an email sent to lawmakers by the FAA’s legislative office and reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

“The administrator is concerned that Boeing continues to pursue a return-to-service schedule that is not realistic due to delays that have accumulated for a variety of reasons,” the email said. “More concerning, the administrator wants to directly address the perception that some of Boeing’s public statements have been designed to force FAA into taking quicker action.”

Mr. Dickson met with Boeing Chief Executive Dennis Muilenburg in Washington, D.C., on Thursday. The administrator’s message, according to the email, was to convey that the agency and manufacturer “must take the time to get this process right.”

One of the people familiar with the FAA’s plans said the approval could slip into March, in part because of the regulator’s aim to brief their international counterparts before ungrounding the U.S. MAX fleet.

“We will work with the FAA to support their requirements and their timeline as we work to safely return the Max to service in 2020,” Boeing said Thursday.

In early November, Boeing said it expected the FAA to lift its flight ban in mid-December and approve related pilot training in January, leading U.S. airlines to plan on resuming flights on the MAX in March. Southwest Airlines Co. is likely to remove the MAX from passenger schedules through at least early April, a spokeswoman for the Dallas carrier’s pilot union said.

Southwest and Boeing said Thursday that they have reached an agreement to compensate the airline for some of the damage from the grounding. American Airlines Group Inc. and United Airlines Holdings Inc. have said they want to wait until the MAX is back in service to conclude negotiations with Boeing.

Earlier on Thursday, China’s aviation regulator, the first to ground the MAX after the crash in Ethiopia, said it has concerns about the reliability and security of Boeing’s proposed changes to the aircraft. The Civil Aviation Administration of China has set its own requirements for the aircraft to be recertified for flight in the country, including a training program for pilots and a clear plan to avoid future incidents on the MAX.

—Alison Sider contributed to this article.

Write to Andrew Tangel at [email protected] and Andy Pasztor at [email protected]
Zeffy is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2019, 20:19
  #4435 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 707
The Federal Aviation Administration is expected to approve fixes to a MAX flight-control system and related pilot training in February . . .
Expected by whom? Ah, I see: "people familiar with the matter."
OldnGrounded is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2019, 20:26
  #4436 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SW UK
Posts: 181
Haha "people familiar with the matter" don't have a great track record at predicting the date of the return to service so far. But I suppose they'll be correct once. Or not if it never returns to service.
switch_on_lofty is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2019, 20:55
  #4437 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Washington state
Posts: 210
It would take a lot of PR judo for a domestic airline to sell the concept of flying passengers on an aircraft that was deemed unsafe to fly in other countries.
Water pilot is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2019, 20:56
  #4438 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 666
Originally Posted by switch_on_lofty View Post
Haha "people familiar with the matter" don't have a great track record at predicting the date of the return to service so far. But I suppose they'll be correct once. Or not if it never returns to service.
Actually, this seems a good best case prediction.
We learned earlier that the TAB (technical advisory board) tasked with reviewing the issue was still working the problem as of Dec 10 and that there is a 30 day window between their report issuance and FAA decision.
With Christmas around the corner, one would expect the report sometime in early January,so February is the earliest plausible date for FAA approval. Of course, the other regulators may have additional requirements, leading to further delay.
etudiant is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2019, 20:59
  #4439 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 481

American Airlines takes Boeing 737 Max off schedule until April


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/12/amer...til-april.html
Longtimer is online now  
Old 12th Dec 2019, 22:01
  #4440 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The Dirty South
Posts: 413
Originally Posted by OldnGrounded View Post
I've worked with some of those "some engineers" and I think good engineers see that attitude as bad engineering, for any system that requires end-user interaction, and especially so for critical life-safety applications. It seems to me that such an approach amounts to reckless endangerment.
Since we’re on the subject of engineering; Boeing removed the analog flight number display from the yoke. It was replaced by a digital display. That flight number then disappears immediately after landing. Seriously ? The one time I don’t need to be faffing around looking for the flight number, is when we’re taxiing around in the dark at La Guardia. It really does make you wonder.

I understand this example is a minor problem given the severity of the current issues. However; it’s also another example of regression, in the race for production speed and cost saving.

Guess I’ll continue writing the flight number down on the not-illuminated yoke clip.
JPJP is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.