13 ms·
EASA demands additional changes for the 737 Max
- ape4 7y agoSeems like a problem with the EASA and FAA (too) that the issue was only found now.
- thesimon 7y agoMostly with the FAA self-certification process.
- Swenrekcah 7y agoAgreed. This may become more common since as far as I understand aviation authorities around the world used to trust the FAA. Now they don’t and are doing their own due diligence.
- SiempreViernes 7y agoMy understanding is that the certification work by FAA was simply trusted by EASA, and it was just carried over. The FAA in turn had been systematically delegating parts of the certification back to the manufacturers themselves, and obviously have not provided enough oversight. After the crashes the EASA have obviously determined they need to redo the verification work themselves.
- djsumdog 7y agoDoes the FAA trust other countries agencies when certifying aircraft? Does the EASA do their own extensive testing and certification on Airbus planes, or Canada for Bombardaria, along with the FAA? Or has the US turned into some type of de-facto authority over all airplane certification (in they way the US FCC has for space satellite launches and tracking?)
- kejaed 7y agoThere are generally agreements between the various countries’ aviation certification authorities so that a system or aircraft is certified in the country of its design/manufacture and it is accepted in other countries. The harmonization of the rules between countries is always fun. For example, I worked on a program where we certified the glass cockpit upgrade for the US Navy trainer, T-6A to T-6B with Transport Canada, the aircraft with the new avionics was certified by the FAA, and the whole system was then accepted by the US Navy. Satisfying all 3 stakeholders at the same time often proved difficult.
- ulfw 7y agoIT will change certification for a long time. EASA trusted the FAA to do their job and actually check the plane before certifying it. The FAA instead gladly outsourced the certification to... ... Boeing. Which ultimately leads to the loss of reputation for the FAA, which is why EASA is now checking the plane themselves and finding numerous faults with it. It's like University A would tomorrow get rid of all teaching assistants because it's cheaper that way and just have students self-grade their exams. Everyone will hence have only A+ and everyone is happy. Until finally a lot of really bad University A students will leave the job market unimpressed and thus hurting the reputation of University (FA)A.
- woogiewonka 7y agoThis all feels like smokescreen for the real issue - engines being too large for the airframe. Am I the only one who sees this as a grand fuck up that only has one outcome? And it's certainly not what they are trying to sell the public on.
- djsumdog 7y agoIt seems like the sane thing to do is to scrape all these 737-MAX planes currently grounded. They should have all their parts recycled/reused into a completely new airplane and the 737 should be retired. Of course that's not going to happen. There is simply way too much money involved and way too many interests to allow Boeing to take that kind of hit. It seems like the airline industry is surviving without this substantial number of planes in their fleet. Have prices surged for the old 737-MAX routes? Have companies taken out more debt to put in orders for Airbus and Bombardier replacements, or are they confident the existing stock will return this year? The 737 did survive their rudder issue several decades ago. Maybe this new generation of 737 will survive this? I'm sure there are a number of people who will avoid booking flights on these jets if they can though, at least for several months or a year.
- selectodude 7y agoThe airline industry wanted another 737 far more than Boeing wanted to make one. Retiring the 737 puts Southwest and Ryanair’s business model at risk. It’s far more than Boeing at fault here, and airlines are keeping their mouths shut because they’re more than happy to let Boeing take the heat for this.
- tempguy9999 7y ago> It’s far more than Boeing at fault here, at the risk of being obtuse, why, and who?
- ethbro 7y agoParent just said. Why do you think this was a best-selling plane for Boeing? Who's buying it, and why? The answers to that question and yours are the same: airlines want to decrease operational costs, of which pilot training and specialization is a huge component.
- everybodyknows 7y agoOther coverage: http://newsinflight.com/2019/07/06/easa-has-outlined-five-requirements-to-be-addressed-before-allowing-max-to-return-to-service/ http://newsinflight.com/2019/07/06/easa-has-outlined-five-re...
- Gustomaximus 7y agoFor requirement; 1. Will an average pilot have enough physical strength to turn the manual trim wheel in the cockpit Given half of pilots will be below average... that doesn't sound great. Shouldn't it be all pilots have strength enough.
- marcosdumay 7y agoAverage is a pretty meaningless word.
- libria 7y agoThey mean `typical`: "Will a typical pilot have enough physical strength...". But like you, I'd still like margin for error (pilot with a cold, fatigued, under other stress, etc.)
- mochomocha 7y ago>Given half of pilots will be below average Average is different than median.
- gruez 7y agoTrue, although in this case it's an non-issue because most attributes for humans follow a normal distribution.
- raverbashing 7y ago"Average" is obviously not the mathematical average here, and pilots still have some required manual dexterity and health requirements It's about: is the required strength on par with the required dexterity and strength needed for other tasks the pilots need to do?
- meddlepal 7y agoPart of me feels Boeing gets what they deserve but there's also some possibility for nasty competitive foul play if Europeans really decide to turn the screws on Boeing to help bolster Airbus.
- simion314 7y ago>but there's also some possibility for nasty competitive foul play if Europeans really decide to turn the screws on Boeing to help bolster Airbus. reply Then FAA would fight back and everyone loses, for now there is no reason to doubt the issues raised so let's wait until say Europeans raise some bogus reason and then accuse them. though so far FAA and Boeing are the ones with less credibility (since were trying not to ground the MAX even with 2 planes crashed)
- pinkfoot 7y agoIt will be even more fun if the CAAC decides the MAX needs full certification as a new type. :)
- peteretep 7y ago> Both the FAA and EASA along with Canada and Brazil That’s two interesting other countries, presumably chosen because the presence of Bombardier and Embraer mean Canada and Brazil have some experience in certifying planes? Notably missing are Russia and China who also make planes
- duguxu 7y agoRussia and China have few influence in the global commercial jet market, although they are much more competitive in military aircraft.
- joyjoyjoy 7y agoExpect this to change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRAIC_CR929 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRAIC_CR929
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- duguxu 7y agoMaybe. Notice at the same time, not only the manufacturer, but also the authority CAAC, the China counterpart of FAA, is behaving more and more independently, as the first regulatory agency to ground 737MAX.
- burlesona 7y agoIs there a point at which it makes more sense for Boeing to cancel the MAX and start over with a new airframe? Personally I don’t love the idea of flying on one of these at this point, no matter how many tweaks they make. I’m sure many others will feel the same. At what point is a new airframe the better PR move for all involved?
- cmurf 7y agoNo it doesn't. No reason backed by facts available to the public for decertifying the airplane have arisen. The worst case scenario (for Boeing), at this point, is the FAA and/or other aviation regulators, decide that the differences require different type certification for the aircraft and therefore mandate a unique type rating by pilots to fly the plane. That would require they be trained about those differences.
- chvid 7y agoWould that not have all the companies that bought the MAX asuming that they would not have to retrain their pilots asking for some $$$ or even cancelling?
- cmurf 7y agoI'm not sure I'm parsing this question correctly, but it sounds like a contracts question, and I'm not at all privy to the contract between any airline and Boeing, whether they have any contingency for this. The actual risk is complex, an airline with more capacity depending on the new model has more risk as they take on new planes and retire old ones, but does the contract reflect that complexity? I have no idea. For all I know, there's generic terms for handling all certification problems that crop up, including airworthiness directives from the FAA that affect A&P's rather than pilots. It might be the two sides split the cost 50/50 for all I know, or maybe they use binding arbitration to keep the airing of dirty laundry as much out of the public view as possible.
- salawat 7y agoIf I may direct your attention to FAR 25.173... And https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/the-inside-story-of-mcas-how-boeings-737-max-system-gained-power-and-lost-safeguards/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/the... There are more than enough reasons to reasonably decertify the aircraft. When you start doing things that "fly-in-the-face" of industry best practice, and begin requiring the most liberal interpretation possible of regulations as written, it's time to start dialing back what you're willing to let slide. Even with these "minor tweaks" to every fuselage, the airframe can reasonably be assumed to have further problems. As a for instance, what happens if a dual flameout in flight occurs? Does the Ram Air Turbine make enough power to run the Flight Control Computer and all it's dependencies to ensure the MCAS functionality stays intact until the plane can be safely touched down? If not, will there be simulator training so pilots are prepared? There is more than enough publicly available information to be cause for concern.
- boiengprocedure 7y agoI'd rather EATA diq than fly Boeing. Hope everyone else does also. Fuck Boeing, make our skies safe again. Fuck Boeing. Heartless cocksuckers.
- boiengprocedure 7y agoI'd rather eat hard cock than fly with Boeing. Glad that all their planes are grounded. Hope they go into bankruptcy.
- boiengprocedure 7y agoBoeing is fucking worse than Donald Trump. Make our skies safe again. Fuck Boeing Cheney and Donald trump
- boiengprocedure 7y agoTrump supporters are queueing up to downvote. Who supports Trump
- testfoobar 7y agoThe 737Max's design decisions seem to have been driven by their desire to maintain their 737NG type-rating. So even though it is aerodynamically a different aircraft (with the engines further out), it mimics the 737NG with an effective emulator. For pilots certified on the 737NG, apparently minimal retraining is required to fly the 737Max. Using this analogy, the MCAS system was seemingly put in place to behind-the-scenes manage a flight-envelope condition on the Max that would not happen on the NG. So what happens when the 737Max hardware has a failure? How is the failure condition reported and managed by the flight crew? Are all failures on the 737Max passed through like they were 737NG failures? Does the flight crew respond as if they were flying a 737NG or a 737Max? Correctly mimicing a 737NG during proper flight and under failure conditions seems like a tall order.
- msbarnett 7y agoThis is somewhat of a misunderstanding of the situation. The 737Max was built to provide a more fuel efficient model compatible with all of the 737-sized gates and etc stuff airlines owned. They did this by slapping bigger engines on, but to make them fit they pushed them forward of the wing (can’t make the plane taller or it doesn’t fit all the etc it’s supposed to be compatible with). Big, front positioned engines messed up the aerodynamics. Now, at speed, as a plane got closer to (but not at) the stall angle, forces suddenly inverted, and it became much easier to pitch up into a stall than push down away from it. This violated FAA rules that say for a commercial plane to be certified, at any point short of a stall it must always be harder to pull into it than push out. Boeing decided to add some software to automatically push the nose down when you get to the force inversion point. This uses the stabilizers to add force to the stick, so the pilot always has that extra force making it easier to push out of a stall than pull into it, meeting the FAA requirement. This is MCAS. Thus MCAS is in no way a “737NG emulator”. You could call the plane a 797 and you’d still need it to meet fundamental certification requirements about stick forces. Ie) it’s not so much mimicking an older 737 as it is just pretending to be a sanely designed commercial airframe at all. The type certification stuff only enters into it when Boeing didn’t want to tell people about MCAS because it might have caused them to think harder about the need for more training, the lack of which was a selling point for them.
- boiengprocedure 7y agoHey fuck Donald Trump and Boeing. Heartless cynical cocksuckers.
- salawat 7y agoAs I've mentioned at in other parts of the thread, a very thorough design review is at a minimum warranted. As I've sat down and worked on reverse engineering, and reverse engineering things as best I can from pieces of technical info strewn hither and yon, I'm developing serious concerns over how far Boeing has actually gone in their FMEA. Given their complete omission or misclassification of the Angle of Attack sensor, I can't really give them the benefit of a doubt that they actually thought through the consequences of more severe, but less likely occurrences like double flameout, or alternator failure. Both of which would represent another critical threat to the MCAS software; which must be active in order for the airframe to be asserted as airworthy. I'm just not buying it.
- cmurf 7y agoWell we have such quandaries with yaw dampeners too. But yaw dampeners are not computer controlled. I think it's a substantial betrayal of FAR 25 if computers are being allowed to paper over aerodynamic defects or non-compliance with applicable FARs. Using computers to aid safety, to reduce pilot workload, that's all fine. But to use them to certify an airplane as having certain aerodynamic behaviors when they do not really have those behaviors? Perverse. And further, the software routine under discussion can in effect be neutralized, easily, in-flight, by flipping two switches. Is it really acceptable, by Boeing and the FAA, to render an airplane legally unairworthy by flipping two switches? And even more damning, to me as a pilot, is they apparently found it acceptable to require no training for the true behavior of the airplane minus this augmentation that is easy to disable inflight and is in fact recommended to be disabled as a memory checklist item for certain kinds of emergencies? Seriously what the fuck? If true it is wrongdoing. It's wrong for Boeing to go down that road, it's wrong for the FAA to permit it - until the FARs are changed. There should be public hearings and all kinds of regulatory requirements for expected computer and software standards, failure rates, redundancies, and other guarantees. We have such guarantees in writing for the physical aerodynamics of the airplane! There absolutely should be equivalents for computers and software if they are somehow going to take up the slack for otherwise inadequate aircraft design. You don't just get to silently wordsmith everything and say oh this computer thingy here will satisfy the aerodynamic requirement. Fucking hell. It makes me angry. And that's why I really hope there is a misunderstanding, that really the airplane is certifiable as airworthy without any computer augmentation, and that the problem is merely that the pilots were kept out of the loop to avoid type rating required difference training. That's bad enough. But I think it's worse to paper over aerodynamic short-comings, waiving it off with computer augmentation when not a single allowance for that is made in the FARs.
- cadence- 7y agoI know it’s not what we are supposed to be commenting here, but the photo in that article is awesome!
- m3kw9 7y agoBy this time I have a feeling this plane is never gonna fly again