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

Boeing 737 Max Recertification Testing - Finally.

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

Boeing 737 Max Recertification Testing - Finally.

Old 1st Mar 2021, 08:12
  #701 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SA
Age: 60
Posts: 352
CASA (Australia)

CASA's suspension on Boeing 737 MAX aircraft lifted 26 February 2021Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has lifted the temporary suspension on Boeing 737 MAX aircraft operating to or from Australia.

While no Australian airlines currently operate the Boeing 737 MAX, two foreign airlines flew these aircraft types to Australia before the COVID-19 pandemic – Singapore-based SilkAir (now Singapore Airlines) and Fiji Airways.

Both the FAA and EASA recently issued return to service airworthiness directives for the Boeing 737 MAX.

CASA’s Acting CEO and Director of Aviation Safety, Graeme Crawford said the initial suspension had been in the best interests of aviation safety.

“CASA was one of the first civil aviation regulators in the world to suspend Boeing 737 MAX operations. We took early action based on the information we had to ensure our skies remained safe while the cause of the accidents was investigated,” Mr Crawford said.

“We have accepted the comprehensive return-to-service requirements specified by the FAA as State of Design for the 737 MAX and are confident that the aircraft are safe.

“Our airworthiness and engineering team has assessed there are no additional return to service requirements for operation in Australia.

“With COVID-19 continuing to disrupt international air travel, there is currently no indication when Singapore airlines and Fiji Airways will resume their operations to Australia.”
sunnySA is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2021, 13:33
  #702 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 1,007
Has China given any additional indication of when they expect to decide on the airworthiness of the Max?
etudiant is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2021, 14:06
  #703 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 54
Not yet, if this report is accurate:

https://abcnews.go.com/International...x-fly-76178897
Avionista is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2021, 15:44
  #704 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,806
If the report is correct, it implies that the Chinese are waiting for the ET302 final report before allowing the Max to fly again. That could take some time.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2021, 21:28
  #705 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,204
CAAC recertification of the MAX involves issues other than the aircraft. The South China Sea dispute, Huawei, trade tariffs, criticism of China’s human rights record etc come into play.

They can find enough still wrong with the MAX to justify grounding it if they want to.
krismiler is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2021, 08:47
  #706 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Southwest
Posts: 1
"They can find enough still wrong with the MAX to justify grounding it if they want to"

A serious question: is there an international agreement which obliges the Chinese to say if it's ok with the FAA / Europeans it's ok with us?
They have their own A320 lookalike coming along. Unlike the MAX they can't certify a basically1960s design as good enough in 2021.
osborne is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2021, 11:26
  #707 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: USVI
Posts: 148
No, there is not. Each CAA is responsible for certification, most were agreeing with the FAA cert. There are Bilateral agreements that recognize and reciprocate the other agencies certifications.

So we now have 2 variants of the MAX..the FAA cert and the EASA cert. (the EASA allows for the bus pull among other things with special covers to id)
Will there be a CAAC variant?
What happens if the CAAC requirements find something the FAA , EASA, or NavCanada missed? We gonna be back at square 1?
turbidus is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2021, 17:12
  #708 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 65
Posts: 3,199
Oh come on - do you really think the Chinese are going to come up with a legitimate problem that everyone else missed - or that they even need to? This is all politics - pure and simple.

OTOH, if the Chinese ever expect to be able to export their COMAC aircraft, they better watch their step...
tdracer is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2021, 15:29
  #709 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 68
Posts: 420
Insofar as the effectiveness of FAA's issuance of airworthiness certification again to the 737 MAX type, Article 33 of the Chicago Convention of 1944, and Annex 8 to the Convention, are relevant. (SLF/atty, plus trying to avoid the pedantic, so not much explanation follows.)

"Under Article 33, such certificates of airworthiness must be recognized by other States, provided that the requirements under which they were issued met or exceeded ICAO SARPs." (Dempsey, Public Int'l Air Law at 118 (2008)). The certificates referred to are those under Article 31, "which requires that every aircraft flown internationally must carry a certificate of airworthiness by the State in which it is registered."

After the DC-10 accident in 1979 in Chicago, and the FAA Administrator acted to ground the type, soon after certain foreign airlines instituted litigation challenging the refusal of the U.S. to honor the airworthiness certificates their States had reinstated. The federal appellate court ruled in their favor (the British Caledonian case). My contention here isn't that the other CAAs, in the case of the 737 MAX return to service, are inconsistent with either the Convention or Annex 8 - but any suggestion there isn't "law" on the point is, well, just plain incorrect.

Of course, an argument can be made - personally I think it's a winning one - that the court didn't see the forest for the trees, because at the time of the decision by the other countries' airlines to reinstate DC-10 flight operations, the factors involved in that tragic accident were far from fully known. (The echoes of the DC-10 accident in Chicago in 1979 have reverberated throughout the 737 MAX debacle, in this SLF/atty anyway, although pedantic perhaps even to note that.)
WillowRun 6-3 is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2021, 21:37
  #710 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,204
Europe banned the Antonov AN12 on safety grounds. China could use a similar argument, insisting that the MAX meet modern safety standards rather than those it was certified under back in the 1960s. This would be impractical as major redesign work would be needed.

The COMAC C919 is a modern design with considerable western content, unless significant safety issues come to light after it enters service, it would be difficult to find a legitimate reason to ban the type. Even if it was banned from US airspace, most of its customers wouldn’t be flying it there anyway. Having the long haul C929 banned would be a different matter.
krismiler is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2021, 22:50
  #711 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 65
Posts: 3,199
That would mean retroactively abandoning Change Product Rule - something they had previously agreed to. That could have far reaching implications - including the A320 NEO and A330 NEO.
Besides, all the US would need to do to effectively destroy COMAC would be to deny export of all that western content using an ITAR ruling.
As soon as aircraft cert because a political pawn, it leads down a very steep, very slippery slope.

tdracer is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2021, 08:19
  #712 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Beyond the M25
Posts: 5
We shouldn't forget that ITAR/EAR are US Nationally mandated regulations, and hence can't control 'western' content unless there is a specific US connection.

If ITAR/EAR becomes overtly used for commercial reasons, beyond its laudable aim of controlling military technology usage, there will be more push back against it, as many folks already suspect it is being used as disguised protective measures to commercially favour US products.
Chewing the crud is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2021, 15:25
  #713 (permalink)  
nyt
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: France
Posts: 30
I missed the "autothrottle not responding" part of the story. Interesting read.
https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...eings-737-max/
nyt is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2021, 18:42
  #714 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 27
Also the first time I've heard from an engineer I trust that the stick forces just get lighter in certain situations. That was the main question I had from the start.

Even if they removed MCAS like he suggested, I still won't fly on a MAX ever. Not due to MCAS, but the design culture. No idea what else got buried and ignored.
DieselOx is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2021, 21:54
  #715 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 68
Posts: 420
The final report on ET 302 now will be even more scrutinized for what it states with regard to the autothrottle role in the sequence of events.

If the interaction of the failed AOA sensor and the autothrottle was noted in some of the several prior reports, it has not been emphasized in this manner, ... has it?

WillowRun 6-3 is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2021, 06:53
  #716 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,806
WillowRun 6-3

"If the interaction of the failed AOA sensor and the autothrottle was noted in some of the several prior reports, it has not been emphasized in this manner, ... has it?"

What sort of interaction do you mean ?
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2021, 12:33
  #717 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 19
He's talking about a failed AOA sensor potentially causing the autothrottle to fail silently, as it apparently happened on the ET 302 accident flight.
MikeSnow is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2021, 12:53
  #718 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: EDSP
Posts: 342
Having followed most of the threads ... no, I don't think it was discussed at any time that the ATs would neither react to a speed intervention nor disconnect but instead continue full power due to the AOA failure.
BDAttitude is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2021, 20:38
  #719 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 3,059
He's talking about a failed AOA sensor potentially causing the autothrottle to fail silently, as it apparently happened on the ET 302 accident flight.
Did it really?
Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2021, 21:44
  #720 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 68
Posts: 420
My post re: autothrottle interaction was directly in context and solely in reference to the article in the Seattle Times as reported by D. Gates and reporting on very recent statements by a retiring FAA engineer (and former Boeing employee). That's the entirety of the reference. (And, as SLF/attorney I didn't make any statement at all about what that specific interaction was, could have been, or otherwise - just noting the reliable reporter's news article . . . although this context seems to have been not stated specifically....)
WillowRun 6-3 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 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.