MAX’s Return Delayed by FAA Reevaluation of 737 Safety Procedures
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cambridge UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
# 2225
The fourth item could also be challenging;
It can be assumed that MCAS is now well protected from a single AoA failure, but the coincident effects on other systems - ADC, speed corrections, Stick Shake, EFIS low speed awareness, are unacceptable during takeoff given the likely failure rate of the AoA input (accident history / investigation).
Why did the AoA fail at or before takeoff in the two accidents and not later in the flights?
A failure in a dual AoA system can be detected by comparison, and the disagreement alerted, but a correct value cannot be identified, which other systems could switch to. Hence rumoured requirement for a triple AoA system - or a much higher reliability sensor.
Similarly for flight without MCAS, which could be acceptable for rare occurrences, but if the AoA reliability was low then this too could be unacceptable for certification.
The fourth item could also be challenging;
It can be assumed that MCAS is now well protected from a single AoA failure, but the coincident effects on other systems - ADC, speed corrections, Stick Shake, EFIS low speed awareness, are unacceptable during takeoff given the likely failure rate of the AoA input (accident history / investigation).
Why did the AoA fail at or before takeoff in the two accidents and not later in the flights?
A failure in a dual AoA system can be detected by comparison, and the disagreement alerted, but a correct value cannot be identified, which other systems could switch to. Hence rumoured requirement for a triple AoA system - or a much higher reliability sensor.
Similarly for flight without MCAS, which could be acceptable for rare occurrences, but if the AoA reliability was low then this too could be unacceptable for certification.
Which raises another question, how accurately can a failure in an AoA system be detected "at or before takeoff"?
I seem to remember reading that features like the AoA-differ warning [which B forgot to install] only become operational
when the plane is "comfortably" in the air and the AoA vanes have settled down.
I seem to remember reading that features like the AoA-differ warning [which B forgot to install] only become operational
when the plane is "comfortably" in the air and the AoA vanes have settled down.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Story just came to my attention. Link may be paywalled: https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...nt-protection/
Also from Chief Technical Pilot at Boeing to a FO at Southwest? Something doesn’t smell right here.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is also this:
anxious about the deadlines and pressures faced in the MAX program, going to some of his peers in the piloting world for help
They might, since that was in a public press report, have simply asked for details of all such communications, which could well incriminate him in all sorts of ways - not least that he may have discussed commercial or technical stuff outside of the company without permission.
Then of course there is the timing of the request and why the heck he was asking the FAA to hide something because it was "benign and rarely used" in the middle of a change to make it four times as powerful and much more frequently used, a change which they then apparently forgot to report to the FAA. Now, there might be really really good reasons for that, it might not actually be what it looks like, but do you really want to be trying to justify it in front of a jury who have just spent a few hours looking at pictures of smoking craters and floating wreckage? I suspect his lawyers have advised that STFU now and cooperate when they've given you immunity is a much better strategy.
The $$$$$$ question is of course: what has he got ?
Also from Chief Technical Pilot at Boeing to a FO at Southwest? Something doesn’t smell right here.
Last edited by infrequentflyer789; 7th Sep 2019 at 15:21. Reason: formatting burgered
Return to service - Easa Conditions
So the Boeing management knew at least since 1st of April that they will not get an easy re-certification in Europe (and probably other countries) with a software fix alone. And yet they are bragging once in a while: we are ready with the fix, we are ready, we are ready .......
The shareholders and analysts seem to believe this b.s. but for those involved such fake news do not build up a lot of confidence.
So the Boeing management knew at least since 1st of April that they will not get an easy re-certification in Europe (and probably other countries) with a software fix alone. And yet they are bragging once in a while: we are ready with the fix, we are ready, we are ready .......
The shareholders and analysts seem to believe this b.s. but for those involved such fake news do not build up a lot of confidence.
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: shiny side up
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you imagine being a SW Capt, and your FO was the Chief Technical Pilot for the Cert on the MAX?????? Would you let him take the controls???? hahahaha
From LinkedIn
737 First Officer for Southwest Airlines.
Proven leader and program manager with extensive experience executing technically complex, multi-million dollar projects.
Former Boeing Chief Technical Pilot of the 737, responsible for simultaneously leading the international certification of the operational and training programs for the 737MAX, Boeing’s newest aircraft, while managing the world’s largest fleet of commercial airplanes, consisting of over 500 737 customers operating more than 6,000 airplanes.
Subject Matter Expert in government regulatory compliance with respect to both airplane and airport certification and compatibility requirements.
Combat-tested veteran with more than two dozen wartime missions as a USAF C-17 Instructor Pilot, in support of multiple US war campaigns.
This is a lot of experience to only be an FO... almost 6 years at Alaska????? and still an FO?
He claims to have managed all of Boeings 737 clients????
On the C-17 experience...how do you have combat experience as an instructor?
No wonder he is pleading the 5th....
oh I am gonna be asking some serious questions to the drivers at Alaska.........
From LinkedIn
737 First Officer for Southwest Airlines.
Proven leader and program manager with extensive experience executing technically complex, multi-million dollar projects.
Former Boeing Chief Technical Pilot of the 737, responsible for simultaneously leading the international certification of the operational and training programs for the 737MAX, Boeing’s newest aircraft, while managing the world’s largest fleet of commercial airplanes, consisting of over 500 737 customers operating more than 6,000 airplanes.
Subject Matter Expert in government regulatory compliance with respect to both airplane and airport certification and compatibility requirements.
Combat-tested veteran with more than two dozen wartime missions as a USAF C-17 Instructor Pilot, in support of multiple US war campaigns.
- First Officer
Southwest Airlines
Jul 2018 – Present 1 year 3 months
Dallas/Fort Worth Area
737 First Officer for Southwest Airlines.737 First Officer for Southwest Airlines. - 737 Chief Technical Pilot
Boeing
Oct 2011 – Jul 2018 6 years 10 months
Seattle, WA - Lead Planner, NAS Planning & Integration Team, Air Traffic Organization
Federal Aviation Adminstration
Sep 2008 – Sep 2011 3 years 1 month
Seattle, WA - MD80/B-737 First Officer
Alaska Airlines
Dec 2002 – Sep 2008 5 years 10 months
Seattle, WA - Chief of Ground/Flying Training/ C-17A Instructor Pilot
United States Air Force
Dec 1994 – Nov 2002 8 years
McChord AFB, WA; Charleston AFB, SC
This is a lot of experience to only be an FO... almost 6 years at Alaska????? and still an FO?
He claims to have managed all of Boeings 737 clients????
On the C-17 experience...how do you have combat experience as an instructor?
No wonder he is pleading the 5th....
oh I am gonna be asking some serious questions to the drivers at Alaska.........
Last edited by Smythe; 7th Sep 2019 at 21:19.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: North by Northwest
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't say chief 'test' pilot - so what is a Chief Technical Pilot? I can well see why they want to ask him questions given what he writes in his profile - which is usually exaggerated IMHO since the profile is often used to get the next job. Regarding your comment on combat ops, instructor pilots do fly into hostile territory. Compare the following from another C-17 instuctor pilot's resume:
"Train and prepare more than 100 personnel in conducting airlift and aerial delivery under hostile threat. Unit subject matter expert on weapon system employment and primary project officer for joint and multilateral exercises. Pilot in command of C-17 aircraft and 5-person crew on worldwide cargo and passengers airlift missions. Conduct ground and flight instruction in Crew Resource Management, International Civil Aviation Organization procedures, aeromedical evacuation, aerial refueling, combat tactics, standard and emergency procedures."
"Train and prepare more than 100 personnel in conducting airlift and aerial delivery under hostile threat. Unit subject matter expert on weapon system employment and primary project officer for joint and multilateral exercises. Pilot in command of C-17 aircraft and 5-person crew on worldwide cargo and passengers airlift missions. Conduct ground and flight instruction in Crew Resource Management, International Civil Aviation Organization procedures, aeromedical evacuation, aerial refueling, combat tactics, standard and emergency procedures."
Psychophysiological entity
I can see why SW would want him on board. Lack of seniority would bar a command but time in a classroom, or SIM would perhaps be shared with flying time. Or maybe, it's just a way of establishing a pay scale while making use of his expertise. However, my concern would be this guy's burdens while operating to P121. That's a huge slew of different worries to carry with you on a daily basis.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Leeds, UK
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh and he worked for the FAA before going straight to Boeing.. that well worn carpet that links Renton and DC...
also Air Force Academy. Odd to see a grad doing bump and goes with the bucket and spade brigade as an FO in the lower 48
G
also Air Force Academy. Odd to see a grad doing bump and goes with the bucket and spade brigade as an FO in the lower 48
G
Last edited by groundbum; 8th Sep 2019 at 09:28.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 74
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This guy coulda have stopped the train with a quick word over lunch to his counterpart at the FAA: That he had to make the request to the FAA in the company name doesn’t mean they needed to grant it. Or maybe it does in which case the US has really relocated to the third world.
It’ll be interesting to see whether SW keeps him on.
Edmund
It’ll be interesting to see whether SW keeps him on.
Edmund
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Washington state
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt it is a coincidence that he moved to the main US customer for the MAX, there is probably some tricky legal or political reason that we don't understand. I really don't think that he is actually announcing that the seatbelt light has been turned off.
I don't understand why this individual is debated about here? What he did ask for the FAA during his Boeing days (likely by higher request) got approved by the FAA. So it's some FAA topic.
With his career it's no surprise that he is well connected with big MAX customers and works for one of them now. So what? No reason to put him in the crosshairs.
With his career it's no surprise that he is well connected with big MAX customers and works for one of them now. So what? No reason to put him in the crosshairs.
Only half a speed-brake
Seconded! And names in the public can be very dangerous.
Despite the buoyant social site profile, the individual worked inside a QA'd system.
Despite the buoyant social site profile, the individual worked inside a QA'd system.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: shiny side up
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't understand why this individual is debated about here? What he did ask for the FAA during his Boeing days (likely by higher request) got approved by the FAA. So it's some FAA topic.
With his career it's no surprise that he is well connected with big MAX customers and works for one of them now. So what? No reason to put him in the crosshairs.
With his career it's no surprise that he is well connected with big MAX customers and works for one of them now. So what? No reason to put him in the crosshairs.
It is up to the DOJ to ascertain how much Boeing knew, and how much they hid, and who hid it.
It is a criminal investigation. The DOJ is fact finding. That is why it matters.
Claiming the 5th on document production????? Boeing has already given the DOJ the documents, and this guy refused under self-incrimination rules??? Won the documents be the same?
As far as technical pilots, that is not an issue, Boeing hires grads out of UND and calls them tech pilots...We can see from the quals, that Boeing wanted a person with certification and documentation experience, not flight experience. You can make your own judgment on the validity of that coupled with Boeing perception of the cert of the MAX program
For me personally, it is an issue when someone was an instructor, and claims to have combat experience.
We really dont have to debate it here, the press is on this...
Last edited by Smythe; 8th Sep 2019 at 19:13.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That works, sometimes. See the "act of production doctrine."
If "Boeing already has" provided the same documents, the government doesn't need to subpoena them from Forkner, at least not to have access to the documents themselves. If that is the case, his attorneys will likely have a better chance of quashing the subpoena.
Just give them the documents...Boeing already has.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Leeds, UK
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we're debating a single pilot here as capitalism has a reputation for pushing dodgy stuff out the door to get a quick $$$. Especially in a safety related industry such as Aerospace there is only one safeguard that really really works when the system is putting out unsafe product - a low level employee that sees the danger and is willing to speak out. To my mind that is a lot of responsibility to put on one persons shoulder, a person who has a pension, mortgage, career, car loans, young family etc. And especially in a regulated system such as Aerospace it is negligent to operate in this way, Factory production lines have big red stop buttons that stop the whole line, why not something upstairs in the design and engineering offices when there is truly a unsafe situation developing. There must be loads of engineers and safety people at B that knew MCAS was a disaster in the making, I'm interested in why there wasn't some whistle-blowing hotline where these concerns could be brought up to an independent safety person.
G
G
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a thread on whistle blowers within this hallowed website which is easily found using the search function. If its correct then I for one can see why there is a shortage of dedicated whistle blowers. It seems from that, blowing the whistle achieves nothing but loss of career.
However maybe that thread was inaccurate??
Wunwing
However maybe that thread was inaccurate??
Wunwing
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every employer has the right to pick and choose who works for them but surely in whistleblowing cases, an employer should have to prove beyond doubt to the Dept. of Justice that the person concern was sacked for something other than because they had blown the whistle on the company’s shadier practices.