Boeing 737 Max Recertification Testing - Finally.
It is not a matter that the legal system has people who fail to understand - by the time lawsuits and laws are being considered all the primary participants understand in great detail that there is an opportunity to twist the narrative to achieve unrelated goals. "You cannot make a man understand what his job depends on him not understanding."
If you look at an initiating event and feel that the path to a proposed solution makes no sense - you are right. The original problem and the final solution are never linked via any legal process. Someone was searching for a way to set a high entry cost to becoming a commercial pilot; the Colgan crash gave them that chance.
God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, Kurt Vonnegut.
Usually it's not worth doing too much, but a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity based on human suffering is nearly impossible for many to ignore.
If you look at an initiating event and feel that the path to a proposed solution makes no sense - you are right. The original problem and the final solution are never linked via any legal process. Someone was searching for a way to set a high entry cost to becoming a commercial pilot; the Colgan crash gave them that chance.
In every big transaction, there is a magic moment during which a man has surrendered a treasure, and during which the man who is due to receive it has not yet done so. An alert lawyer will make that moment his own, possessing the treasure for a magic microsecond, taking a little of it, passing it on. If the man who is to receive the treasure is unused to wealth, has an inferiority complex and shapeless feelings of guilt, as most people do, the lawyer can often take as much as half the bundle, and still receive the recipient’s blubbering thanks. – Leech
Usually it's not worth doing too much, but a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity based on human suffering is nearly impossible for many to ignore.
clarifying understanding
"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).
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.
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 .
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.
EU - EASA beware
.
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).
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.
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 .
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.
EU - EASA beware
.
Last edited by safetypee; 30th Dec 2022 at 14:13.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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).
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).
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 .....
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, 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.
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 .
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 839
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason the recently adjourned Congress extended the certification deadline for MAX 7 / 10 is that the 2020 legislation enacted into law in the aftermath of the two accidents imposed a deadline in the first place. In other words, the legislative deadline was highly atypical, and its inclusion in the legislation in 2020 was the only reason Congress had to act now, in order to allow the process to continue. (It could also have done so retroactively by action of the new Congress convening next week, but that option left lots of uncertainties.)
Relative to the deadline itself, FAA would not have any basis to challenge the extension in court. Can you imagine the oversight hearings? It would be stark political theater especially given GOP control of the House in the new Congress but, no.
As a practical matter, however, ..... well, when government agencies wish to extend their authority, they can (for example) slow their processes to a crawl. Of course in this instance (as previous posts and posters have observed) FAA on one hand wants to appear that it has lost its complacency - if that is the right characterization - but at the same time, the realities of its closeness with the airframer might just be harder to see. And yes, its dual mandate is a long-term issue.
Without the most recent legislative text in front of my SLF/legal counsel eyes, I can't say for certain whether the deadline extension included specific safety-related modifications in order for certification to be approved or what they require - news reports state that it did but tbh there hasn't been a reason to go get the actual legislative language.
Relative to the deadline itself, FAA would not have any basis to challenge the extension in court. Can you imagine the oversight hearings? It would be stark political theater especially given GOP control of the House in the new Congress but, no.
As a practical matter, however, ..... well, when government agencies wish to extend their authority, they can (for example) slow their processes to a crawl. Of course in this instance (as previous posts and posters have observed) FAA on one hand wants to appear that it has lost its complacency - if that is the right characterization - but at the same time, the realities of its closeness with the airframer might just be harder to see. And yes, its dual mandate is a long-term issue.
Without the most recent legislative text in front of my SLF/legal counsel eyes, I can't say for certain whether the deadline extension included specific safety-related modifications in order for certification to be approved or what they require - news reports state that it did but tbh there hasn't been a reason to go get the actual legislative language.
abbreviated quote
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."
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 .
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.
EU - EASA beware
.
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."
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 .
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.
EU - EASA beware
.
Thread Starter
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.
Always amusing to see comments from US about the undemocratic etc etc EU which of course is big enough to stand up to US agencies wheres individual European countries are not, that is not saying conflicts of interests do not ocur in the EU .
Aviation and politics are always intertwined and at the most visble level get a lot of public exposure.. It is the case in all 'open' / democratic socities that what was once industry/user cooperation crosses the boundary into industy /user coordination/collaboration and peopel lose site of the goal of regualtion and standards..
Boeing transformed from a technically/industry specific run company that recognised that it had a special level of responsibility because of its products, to a corrupt regime that couldnt differentiate a 737 from a tractor . Consequently they put too much reliance on a cosy regulatory regime. Eventually, as is always the case, something went seriously wrong and the wheels came off . Whether that results in a higher degree of emphasis put on integrity in business and politics is open to debate
Aviation and politics are always intertwined and at the most visble level get a lot of public exposure.. It is the case in all 'open' / democratic socities that what was once industry/user cooperation crosses the boundary into industy /user coordination/collaboration and peopel lose site of the goal of regualtion and standards..
Boeing transformed from a technically/industry specific run company that recognised that it had a special level of responsibility because of its products, to a corrupt regime that couldnt differentiate a 737 from a tractor . Consequently they put too much reliance on a cosy regulatory regime. Eventually, as is always the case, something went seriously wrong and the wheels came off . Whether that results in a higher degree of emphasis put on integrity in business and politics is open to debate
A line in the sand
Thanks BFS
With that explanation, then my "is a puppet of political will,” would be better worded as might be seen 'as a puppet … ", by a worldly view of US process.
This may have a serious effect on world safety initiatives; will FAA rulings be seen as more politics than good safety intent. Can their views ever be accepted as bias free and thus the weight of their contribution in world issues will be diminished.
For these issues, the next move by those other authorities requiring 737 Max 7/10 modification could have a very significant effect. Even more so if the full alerting system modification is dropped - only specific, i.e. like Max 8.
If the other authorities hold the line (changed alerting system) then future safety activity should benefit. This is not so much about the 737 Max in particular, but as the principle of drawing a line, identifying the point in time, the need to change activity to improve safety. i.e. this grandfather (737 variant) is dead.
Alternatively, if the authorities 'harmonise' with the FAA, then it may be more difficult to achieve the much required change in aviation safety viewpoint: Safety-I and Safety-II, Resilience.
The dominant, controlling, legal backed rule making (FAA and EASA) will be able to avoid acceptance of the uncertainties associated with human activity (design, regulation, operation) in a modern and safe industry.
Next move; divide the opposition, diminish the strength of opposing views (US - world politics)
A safety 'line in the sand', is best drawn above the high-tide line of politics.
With that explanation, then my "is a puppet of political will,” would be better worded as might be seen 'as a puppet … ", by a worldly view of US process.
This may have a serious effect on world safety initiatives; will FAA rulings be seen as more politics than good safety intent. Can their views ever be accepted as bias free and thus the weight of their contribution in world issues will be diminished.
For these issues, the next move by those other authorities requiring 737 Max 7/10 modification could have a very significant effect. Even more so if the full alerting system modification is dropped - only specific, i.e. like Max 8.
If the other authorities hold the line (changed alerting system) then future safety activity should benefit. This is not so much about the 737 Max in particular, but as the principle of drawing a line, identifying the point in time, the need to change activity to improve safety. i.e. this grandfather (737 variant) is dead.
Alternatively, if the authorities 'harmonise' with the FAA, then it may be more difficult to achieve the much required change in aviation safety viewpoint: Safety-I and Safety-II, Resilience.
The dominant, controlling, legal backed rule making (FAA and EASA) will be able to avoid acceptance of the uncertainties associated with human activity (design, regulation, operation) in a modern and safe industry.
Next move; divide the opposition, diminish the strength of opposing views (US - world politics)
A safety 'line in the sand', is best drawn above the high-tide line of politics.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you have more information around this subject ? Did the promotion part just “watered down”, or got the whole subject “split off” from the FAA 1.0 ?
Looking at the FAA website, it still shows a lot of major subjects that are a very broad interpretation of the presumed “regulatory” FAA target. What have the organization and nationwide running of the ATC, and the commercial space adventures (“Promote” according to the FAA website) to do with regulatory duties ? Running the ATC and being the regulator for this business does look like the butcher certifying its own meat, or Boeing certifying its own aircraft.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very interesting discussion , learning quite a lot. Thanks especially to WideScreen and Safetypee. On the subject of FAA promoting aviation , ( or more accurately promoting US aviation) , it might have been taken out of its original charter but they stil do it. I was attending an ICAO meeting very recently where the FAA put a Working paper on promoting Supersoninc and hypersoninc commercial operations , and requesting a waver to allow sonic booms over EU continental airspace, This was because one US company is currently building an SST aircraft and planning to cross the Atlantic.
This is in fact promoting a US private company plans.
I found this a bit ironic being unfortunately old enough to remember the FAA strong opposition to Concorde at the time , which by pure coincidence started as soon as Boeing and Lockheed shelved their own SST plans.. But I do not blame them , everybody is doing the same , either openly , like the FAA, or covertly.
This is in fact promoting a US private company plans.
I found this a bit ironic being unfortunately old enough to remember the FAA strong opposition to Concorde at the time , which by pure coincidence started as soon as Boeing and Lockheed shelved their own SST plans.. But I do not blame them , everybody is doing the same , either openly , like the FAA, or covertly.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 839
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About FAA... If the previous "dual mandate" was formally rescinded or discontinued, it fooled me. Even a cursory browse through the FAA Authorization legislation reveals a large volume of projects Congress statutorily authorizes the agency to conduct, and which have a lot more to do with building up, or advancing, the overall NAS (National Airspace System) than with either certification of aircraft or other subjects essentially concerned with safety. The ICAO working paper is a spot-on illustration.
Privatizing the ATC function has been controversial, despite success of this move in other countries. Probably a big reason it hasn't happened in the U.S. is the need for Congressional appropriators to deliver, or at least to be seen as delivering, to their backers and donors. Call me cynical....
One other thing to be noted, IMHO. Faulting "politics" is a blind alley. Policy, and politics, and law, all go together to form the context. Sorry if it seems pedantic, but the existence and workings of civil aviation sectors, and nearly everything else, occur within a context built from all three of those central factors.
Privatizing the ATC function has been controversial, despite success of this move in other countries. Probably a big reason it hasn't happened in the U.S. is the need for Congressional appropriators to deliver, or at least to be seen as delivering, to their backers and donors. Call me cynical....
One other thing to be noted, IMHO. Faulting "politics" is a blind alley. Policy, and politics, and law, all go together to form the context. Sorry if it seems pedantic, but the existence and workings of civil aviation sectors, and nearly everything else, occur within a context built from all three of those central factors.
Privatizing the ATC function has been controversial, despite success of this move in other countries. Probably a big reason it hasn't happened in the U.S. is the need for Congressional appropriators to deliver, or at least to be seen as delivering, to their backers and donors. Call me cynical....
.
.
A perfect example of this is NavCanada the privatized ANS provider in Canada. When COVID hit the fee for service model stopped getting paid for services that were no longer needed because no one was flying. As a result all the trainees in the system were laid off as well as a substantial number of qualified IFR and VFR controllers. Now that traffic has come back the system is melting down due to lack of staff. My home airport is an international airport with 8 airlines serving it, plus lots of GA movements and is usually ranked around 7 or 8th busiest in Canada. It now sometimes will have only one controller working clearance, ground, inner tower and outer tower during the day. They used to have all positions manned by individual controllers.
The UK NATS is another example of what happens when governments get out of running national infrastructure. Yes a government run ANS won't be as "efficient" as a privately operated ANS system but it will have the entire resources of the government behind it and ultimately be responsive to the people not a faceless board of directors.
Sorry for the thread drift, although I would argue that the de facto privatization of aircraft certification was the root cause of the MAX fiasco.
100% no one at the FAA would have spotted the original MCAS problem and they certainly didn't see the potential for an immediate crash following Lion Air; neither did anyone else, per what I have seen posted. Dekker had the chance in Jan 2019 - somehow still didn't see the problem until long after the second crash.
The original problem remained - the SMYD concept was defective going back to the start of the NG and the FAA did nothing about it. The "runaway" concept was a lie as well - clearly that predates the NG and still it isn't a top concern for pilot training. Both fall under the FAA and predate self-certification.
The original problem remained - the SMYD concept was defective going back to the start of the NG and the FAA did nothing about it. The "runaway" concept was a lie as well - clearly that predates the NG and still it isn't a top concern for pilot training. Both fall under the FAA and predate self-certification.
Those who flew the 707 will know well the runaway stabilser drill. In the early years, there were a number of 'near misses' and, while it may have been adequate for the 1960s, it is most certainly not adequate for today's environment. Perhaps it was wrong, today, to rely on the pilots knowing how to deal with it, and it was even more wrong for airlines to downplay its importance.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The simple fact US ATC as a service should be separated from the organization, responsible for its rule-setting, does not imply, the ATC needs to be privatized !
It's far better to have these public serving tasks under the direct government responsibility, than having a commercial organization run a monopoly on something that in base belongs to the state (or its people, depending on how far you want to trace down ownership). Government run public services might be financially less efficient from its nature, though they don't go on strike, don't capitalize on the monopoly position and can be hold accountable through political responsibility (and at least replace the head of the bureau). For consumers/customers, there are no options to "vote with your feet", when an ATC is abusing its monopoly position.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Government run public services might be financially less efficient from its nature, though they don't go on strike, don't capitalize on the monopoly position and can be hold accountable through political responsibility (and at least replace the head of the bureau). For consumers/customers, there are no options to "vote with your feet", when an ATC is abusing its monopoly position.
Big advantage of a "privatised " ANSP" is being able to raise money rapidly and buy best stuff there is on the market immediately , and doing so free of political interference, raise salaries of staff according to te marked as opposed to the public service fixed scales , recruit and promote the best elements faster, etc,, and the cherry on the cake : separate the regulator from the service provider. , so improving safety in the process. A totally different story in the US/FAA.
Last remark ; when you mention public servants do not go on strike. No. Again experience shows that ATC strilkes are happening in both systems , but with a huge tendency to be harder and last must longer when ATC is a public service. There has been very few strikes in privatised ANSPs since 1990 ( when it started ) ) and they did not last very long. Different story in countries where they are still public servants ( take France as an example ) or ,back to the US/FAA , between 1975 and 1981, PATCO did call for stikes despite not being allowed to. It ended very badly, and its effects on the ATC sytem in the US lasted decades..
Until recently NATCA was in bed with he FAA , and supporting "privatisation" NavCanada style. Covid has thrown some ice on the bed sheets , but I am curious to see what will happen when the sheets will be dry , meaning traffic going fast back up with a mounting ATC staff shortage ..
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 839
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mea culpa.... post I wrote about "privatizing" ATC was too hasty and not well-informed - the recent problems in Canada for example were news to me. I should be sorry for drifting the thread, although posts that followed are interesting, so anyway, a maximally happy new year!
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 839
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Day in Court
Federal District Court Judge in Texas, in the criminal case against the company, has ruled that the families of the crash victims will be allowed to present their views on the settlement agreement previously reached between the Department of Justice and the company. This follows a ruling some months ago in which the court stated that the families met the legal (statutory) definition of crime victims, and thus should have had opportunities to present their views on the settlement agreement of the criminal charges prior to its conclusion.
So, the company now will have to be arraigned on the charges and, presumably, enter a plea, insofar as the arraignment phase of the proceeding is when crime victims or their representatives (here, the families) present their views.
According to the WSJ news article, the DOJ had some discussions with the families as recently as November, inasmuch as the settlement was a product of the Department under the prior presidential administration's direction.
The court did not rule on aspects of the families' motion seeking to change certain terms of the settlement (technically, iirc, a Deferred Prosecution Agreement).
SLF/attorney guest on this forum will read court's order and see if anything further seems reasonably possibly interesting to the aviators and other real people. Things could get interesting: next court date, January 26.
(I was perhaps outspoken on this forum in decrying the prosecution of Forkner; there's some saying about what payback is, and maybe this is yet to be visited upon the Defendant in this matter.)
So, the company now will have to be arraigned on the charges and, presumably, enter a plea, insofar as the arraignment phase of the proceeding is when crime victims or their representatives (here, the families) present their views.
According to the WSJ news article, the DOJ had some discussions with the families as recently as November, inasmuch as the settlement was a product of the Department under the prior presidential administration's direction.
The court did not rule on aspects of the families' motion seeking to change certain terms of the settlement (technically, iirc, a Deferred Prosecution Agreement).
SLF/attorney guest on this forum will read court's order and see if anything further seems reasonably possibly interesting to the aviators and other real people. Things could get interesting: next court date, January 26.
(I was perhaps outspoken on this forum in decrying the prosecution of Forkner; there's some saying about what payback is, and maybe this is yet to be visited upon the Defendant in this matter.)