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 9th Dec 2022, 05:16
  #841 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Weltschmerz-By-The-Sea Australia
Posts: 1,378
Received 101 Likes on 43 Posts
Well, by the time the new congress manages to elect a speaker it will be time for the “all Hunter, all the time” legislative agenda so I don’t see any actual governing on the horizon.
Australopithecus is online now  
Old 9th Dec 2022, 05:57
  #842 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,730
Likes: 0
Received 70 Likes on 34 Posts
One wonders, even if passed by the US legislation, what view EASA (and elsewhere) would have and whether they will tag along and certify it as well. Professionally, how can they ? And then, if it can't be used in Europe, the insurers (particularly the worldwide ones based in Europe) will start to have cold feet about it (particularly having been burned by two Max claims), and then the lessors and financiers will start feeling if it can only be leased in part of the world, what second user value is it going to have ? I know we have had aircraft only partially certified in the past, like the Trident, which was never even offered to the FAA, but that was from times when aircraft were just bought outright and had limited markets.
WHBM is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2022, 06:45
  #843 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: USA
Posts: 986
Received 357 Likes on 193 Posts
All that is in question is the extension, not the press for a particular compliance mechanism. So, it won't matter to the EASA until the FAA t approves the compliance mechanism results or approves the plane without them and EASA doesn't like the solution It's only a possible problem if the FAA allows Boeing to build one version with and one version without in order to satisfy the US market as to what the EASA would do. I believe Southwest pilots essentially voted "without."
MechEngr is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2022, 13:18
  #844 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 72
Posts: 910
Received 39 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by Australopithecus
Well, by the time the new congress manages to elect a speaker it will be time for the “all Hunter, all the time” legislative agenda so I don’t see any actual governing on the horizon.
Granted, one must first believe that cooler heads in fact exist in the majority conference and its leadership, in order then to believe that down the calendar a bit, we'll be able to say "cooler heads prevailed."

Much of the factual content which could be produced by those investigations likely already is known, although not on the record in the way that House panels proceed on the record. But what is the ultimate revelation, that ..... some politicians and their immediate family members give in to temptations of corruption? I dunno, being from Chicago, I think this outcome wouldn't have a ready answer to the question in response, "So what?"

Reminds me of a sign behind the bar in one of my favorite watering holes:
​​​​​"WINE
Because your friends just aren't that interesting"

Last edited by WillowRun 6-3; 9th Dec 2022 at 14:24.
WillowRun 6-3 is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2022, 19:54
  #845 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Washington.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,105
Received 167 Likes on 62 Posts
Originally Posted by MechEngr
All that is in question is the extension, not the press for a particular compliance mechanism. So, it won't matter to the EASA until the FAA t approves the compliance mechanism results or approves the plane without them and EASA doesn't like the solution It's only a possible problem if the FAA allows Boeing to build one version with and one version without in order to satisfy the US market as to what the EASA would do. I believe Southwest pilots essentially voted "without."
Doesn't the extension concern the approved certification basis, which defines the amendment levels of the rules in play? It's not a small issue. Updating the cert basis would almost certainly lead to new negotiations over provisions of 21.101, and in this regulatory climate, far less lenient than when the original certification basis was agreed. EASA, of course, was reluctant to agree to the original certification basis and less likely to re-approve the same. As others have suggested, this probably nixes the airplane because redesign to comply with an updated certification basis is cost prohibitive.
GlobalNav is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2022, 20:55
  #846 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Canada
Age: 63
Posts: 5,280
Received 159 Likes on 74 Posts
Originally Posted by WillowRun 6-3
According to multiple press reports, the Congress has not included an extension of the timeline for the certification of the 737 MAX 7 and 10 in the annual "defense policy bill", actually the NDAA, National Defense Authorization Act. Since the NDAA is annually a must-pass legislative measure, often times "riders" are attached to it, to ease their passage.

Options for getting an extension done in this Congress are narrowing (insert details of legislative process here).
The lame duck Congress has a huge shopping list of must pass legislation so I think missing a rider attached to the NDAA means that the chance of getting a further extension is greatly diminished.

My understanding is when the drop dead date passes the dash 7 and 10 are done as they will have missed the grandfather window. Is there anyway the next Congress could retroactively reinstate the grandfathering ?
Big Pistons Forever is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2022, 23:36
  #847 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: USA
Posts: 986
Received 357 Likes on 193 Posts
Originally Posted by GlobalNav
Doesn't the extension concern the approved certification basis, which defines the amendment levels of the rules in play? It's not a small issue. Updating the cert basis would almost certainly lead to new negotiations over provisions of 21.101, and in this regulatory climate, far less lenient than when the original certification basis was agreed. EASA, of course, was reluctant to agree to the original certification basis and less likely to re-approve the same. As others have suggested, this probably nixes the airplane because redesign to comply with an updated certification basis is cost prohibitive.
More than the cost, it adds an incompatible aircraft to what would have been a uniform fleet. It should not matter to EASA when the plane is approved - it could be 10 years from now if it met the EASA demands for upgrades. I'd argue the new requirements aren't less lenient, at least in terms of enhancing safe operations - they are far more expensive. Much more sophisticated planes have crashed with all the bells and whistles screaming at the crew. PIA 8303 comes to mind and that plane had only a human factors software development failure to take it down, a plane EASA approved.
MechEngr is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2022, 08:45
  #848 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,154
Received 89 Likes on 52 Posts
The No.1 stopper now is Congress possibly not deciding during the old term anymore and having removed MAX extension votes on several occasions. Stopper No. 2 is the FAA needing and taking all its time and moving forward only step by step after each requirement has been demonstrated to have been implemented. Stopper No. 3 is EASA that had own firm requirements for modifications needed like the third sensor that were linked to the promised old deadline.
It looks like this might take a little longer? Didn't Boeing mention mid 2024?
Less Hair is online now  
Old 10th Dec 2022, 10:50
  #849 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,730
Likes: 0
Received 70 Likes on 34 Posts
One would like to hope, particularly being aviation, that there would be a straightforward plan for everything that was done, and needed to be done, and progress seen as it was worked through. Yet with apparently just 20 days to go there has been no sign of this at all, just speculation and opposing views, no credible statements from those involved, etc. It just looks like Boeing are sleepwalking into it. Possibly their board have been hoping that the Ukraine situation will lead to substantial military aircraft losses and the need to re-equip same at full list price.

And regarding incompatible aircraft, carriers have long had a range of incompatible aircraft in their fleets. Sure, at the margins of cost it can make a (bit of a) difference, but nothing like the hoopla that seems to have gripped some commentators. Plus I suspect the 737 would be very difficult to re-engineer at this stage for such an operational difference; I wonder how much design effort, if any, Boeing has put into evaluating how to do it. Better spend the money on stock buy-backs would be their board's view. Regarding the Southwest pilots voting "without" for the new versions, I suspect they have only thought about their own standing, promotions and seniority in a divided fleet rather than anything to do with developing safety standards.
WHBM is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2022, 10:54
  #850 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,154
Received 89 Likes on 52 Posts
I guess we can bet Boeing started to work on some 737-follow on family however the CEO said no new programs are to surface within this decade.
Less Hair is online now  
Old 10th Dec 2022, 17:06
  #851 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 34 Likes on 24 Posts
Originally Posted by Big Pistons Forever
My understanding is when the drop dead date passes the dash 7 and 10 are done as they will have missed the grandfather window. Is there anyway the next Congress could retroactively reinstate the grandfathering ?
Of course there is. It's just federal legislation.
At one time the U.S. had a federal law for a balanced budget. You might wonder how that's working out.
BFSGrad is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2022, 17:30
  #852 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 473
Received 10 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by MechEngr
....... Much more sophisticated planes have crashed with all the bells and whistles screaming at the crew. PIA 8303 comes to mind and that plane had only a human factors software development failure to take it down, a plane EASA approved.
Not sure, whether a touch&go on the engine pods, after a mis-communicated intentional dive&drive attempt, can be considered a plane-development issue.
WideScreen is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2022, 18:33
  #853 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 69
Posts: 4,550
Received 316 Likes on 154 Posts
Originally Posted by Big Pistons Forever
The lame duck Congress has a huge shopping list of must pass legislation so I think missing a rider attached to the NDAA means that the chance of getting a further extension is greatly diminished.
Not to worry, Congress is busy sweating the really important stuff facing the country:
House Considering Removal of Gendered Pronouns From US Code in the National Archives (theepochtimes.com)

tdracer is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2022, 14:24
  #854 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Washington.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,105
Received 167 Likes on 62 Posts
Originally Posted by tdracer
According to what I've read, the proposal is that a third AOA source (probably synthetic rather than another physical sensor) be a mandatory retrofit to the entire MAX fleet. As it currently stands, EASA would require the 3rd AOA source, but other authorities haven't mandated it.
DR - I think the MAX 7 is appealing to current MAX operators that want something a little smaller, but don't want to add another type (e.g. the A220) to their fleet. I keep hearing that Southwest really wants them for their lighter routes. Southwest currently has a huge fleet of 737-700s.
f that market is large enough to justify the expense of development/cert is a different question. Certainly it wouldn't justify a multi-Billion dollar effort to update the flight deck (especially since it would adversely affect the common type rating).
Congress did it, part of the continuing resolution bill, how ironic. Next accident, families can address their grievances to Sen Cantwell.
GlobalNav is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2022, 18:24
  #855 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 604
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by GlobalNav
Congress did it, part of the continuing resolution bill, how ironic. Next accident, families can address their grievances to Sen Cantwell.
U.S. lawmakers back key Boeing 737 MAX certification deadline waiver (msn.com)
Longtimer is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2022, 18:45
  #856 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: In one of the two main circles
Age: 65
Posts: 118
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just as anticipted ...

https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...-10-unchanged/
llagonne66 is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2022, 19:49
  #857 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,730
Likes: 0
Received 70 Likes on 34 Posts
Let's see what EASA say on January 1 when it's not certified.
WHBM is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2022, 21:37
  #858 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 72
Posts: 910
Received 39 Likes on 15 Posts
Just as a point of information - WHBM, your reference to January 1 is based on the fact that the 2020 legislation deadline (regardless of Congressional action now) in the U.S. will have passed, and the January 1 date is just the next logical calendar date of reference? There's not an EASA formal January 1 2023 requirement or deadline, is there? (if there is, I've not found it....).
WillowRun 6-3 is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2022, 00:17
  #859 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Canada
Age: 63
Posts: 5,280
Received 159 Likes on 74 Posts
I think there are 3 significant points to the extension

1) Being will now be required to retrofit the synthetic 3rd AOA and stick shaker inhibit switches to all MAX's. Shocking to me is the fact that Boeing pushed very hard for an unconditional extension. I have to ask what alternate reality does the Boeing C suite inhabit ? Instead of getting in front of the perception of a lack of safety culture at Boeing and be proactive they fought a logical safety upgrade to all MAX's only because it was going to cost some money. It took the politicians in Congress to tell them to do their job.....Really ?

2) The deadline for the retrofit is 3 years AFTER the Max 10 is certified which is now realistically early 2024 so that means passengers could be flying in a non updated MAX in the beginning of 2027. Can you imagine the Shyte storm for Boeing if one of the unmodified MAX's crashes and there was any nexus to the AOA ?

3) Both EASA and Transport Canada have not announced what they will require in order for an operator to register a Dash 7 or Dash 10 MAX in their jurisdiction. After being so badly burned by Boeing in the past it will be interesting to see if they are OK with the current time table.
Big Pistons Forever is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2022, 09:09
  #860 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,730
Likes: 0
Received 70 Likes on 34 Posts
So what is the actual cost of the additional AOA requirements ? Are they readily available from manufacturers/software designers ? Are they certified already ?

I'm aware that the dates extension is a US legislation issue, and also that the other administrations have tended to follow along. But not always. They may have been accepting the 31 Dec 22 date as about the last thing they would go along with, and now that's been sidelined as well.

WHBM is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.