3 ms·

Do we know or is a reason to believe that FAA checked anything else then the MCAS and the systems related in the crashes? The MAX has probably many differences

Do we know or is a reason to believe that FAA checked anything else then the MCAS and the systems related in the crashes? The MAX has probably many differences because is larger so all the new stuff should be put under the microscope since you can't trust the previous tests, measurements or decisions, Boeing guys were proud on how they mind tricked the FAA guys so FAA should now re=review everything then you can be 100% this airplane was scrutinized. If this already happen and I missed it please link me to it.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
> Do we know or is a reason to believe that FAA checked anything else then the MCAS and the systems related in the crashes? Yes. The FAA's proposal also involves physically re-routing some cables, which is (as far as I can tell) completely non-MCAS-related.
- simion314 6y ago
  That seems to be related to a rule that FAA added after some other incident but the MAX was not forced to follow this new rule, it is not an issue that was discovered when scrutinizing the MAX.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    What I have read indicated that it was a violation that was missed: > During the original design and certification of Boeing’s 737 MAX, company engineers didn’t notice that the electrical wiring doesn’t meet federal aviation regulations for safe wire separation. And the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) failed to detect Boeing’s miss. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faa-faces-dilemma-over-737-max-wiring-flaw-that-boeing-missed/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faa-f... Boeing did try making the argument that since their 737-NG planes were produced prior to that rule, and they're safe, that the MAX shouldn't either. But it was part of the regulations when the MAX was designed.
phire 6y ago
The European equivalent of the FAA, the EASA are double checking all of the FAAs working here. The FAA are highly motivated to get everything correct this time in order to repair their reputation (which was tarnished by their original MAX approval). It would be highly embarrassing for if the EASA find anything the FAA missed.
- manquer 6y ago
  I think FAA's reputation was more tarnished during in the grounding than the original approval, and their failure to investigate thoroughly after the first crash, the delayed the grounding for two days and doing it only after many other regulators did and put pressure on them was really damaging. Similarly Boeing actively blaming pilot error after the first crash and ignoring reports from the field is the real issue to me rather than poor design itself. Every new version of any commercial aircraft is long line of decisions cutting corners, 737's airframe were designed in 1960's for smaller older engines requiring the newer larger engines to placed in the more complex higher position- maintaining the airframe was cheaper than building a brand new model. Keeping the same performance made training/ type certification cheaper etc for airlines. For the most part such decisions do work, developing brand new airplane models is extremely risky financially. It is plausible that risks were not understood well during design and developement, but their failure to act after the first crash is criminal negligence to me and they deserve all they are getting .
- tankenmate 6y ago
  The EASA made some noises about requiring 3 AoA sensors (which all Airbus aircraft have) as opposed the the MAX's current 2 (most newer Boeing aircraft also have 3). There was also some talk about replacing the 3rd hardware AoA sensor with a virtual sensor (maybe an infrared horizon sensor based AoA indicator which would be much easier to add to the aircraft).
  - tankenmate 6y ago
    I found the article I read about the 3rd AoA sensor. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/european-regulator-plans-its-own-test-flights-of-boeing-737-max-in-sign-of-differences-with-faa/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/europ...

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

> Do we know or is a reason to believe that FAA checked anything else then the MCAS and the systems related in the crashes? Yes. The FAA's proposal also involves physically re-routing some cables, which is (as far as I can tell) completely non-MCAS-related.

simion314 6y ago
That seems to be related to a rule that FAA added after some other incident but the MAX was not forced to follow this new rule, it is not an issue that was discovered when scrutinizing the MAX.
- kube-system 6y ago
  What I have read indicated that it was a violation that was missed: > During the original design and certification of Boeing’s 737 MAX, company engineers didn’t notice that the electrical wiring doesn’t meet federal aviation regulations for safe wire separation. And the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) failed to detect Boeing’s miss. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faa-faces-dilemma-over-737-max-wiring-flaw-that-boeing-missed/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faa-f... Boeing did try making the argument that since their 737-NG planes were produced prior to that rule, and they're safe, that the MAX shouldn't either. But it was part of the regulations when the MAX was designed.

phire 6y ago

The European equivalent of the FAA, the EASA are double checking all of the FAAs working here. The FAA are highly motivated to get everything correct this time in order to repair their reputation (which was tarnished by their original MAX approval). It would be highly embarrassing for if the EASA find anything the FAA missed.

manquer 6y ago
I think FAA's reputation was more tarnished during in the grounding than the original approval, and their failure to investigate thoroughly after the first crash, the delayed the grounding for two days and doing it only after many other regulators did and put pressure on them was really damaging. Similarly Boeing actively blaming pilot error after the first crash and ignoring reports from the field is the real issue to me rather than poor design itself. Every new version of any commercial aircraft is long line of decisions cutting corners, 737's airframe were designed in 1960's for smaller older engines requiring the newer larger engines to placed in the more complex higher position- maintaining the airframe was cheaper than building a brand new model. Keeping the same performance made training/ type certification cheaper etc for airlines. For the most part such decisions do work, developing brand new airplane models is extremely risky financially. It is plausible that risks were not understood well during design and developement, but their failure to act after the first crash is criminal negligence to me and they deserve all they are getting .
tankenmate 6y ago
The EASA made some noises about requiring 3 AoA sensors (which all Airbus aircraft have) as opposed the the MAX's current 2 (most newer Boeing aircraft also have 3). There was also some talk about replacing the 3rd hardware AoA sensor with a virtual sensor (maybe an infrared horizon sensor based AoA indicator which would be much easier to add to the aircraft).
- tankenmate 6y ago
  I found the article I read about the 3rd AoA sensor. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/european-regulator-plans-its-own-test-flights-of-boeing-737-max-in-sign-of-differences-with-faa/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/europ...