kalvado
Posts: 2017
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 10:48 pm

Elementalism wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Elementalism wrote:

This is getting to be really silly. What you described is political showboating under the guise of safety.

Or this is trying to involve politics into purely technical matter. Is that glass half-empty or half-full?
Boeing did very little to convince me, Kalvado Q. Public, that MCAS was a strictly isolated problem.


You will have to expand on what other safety issues you have uncovered? Because the FAA and Boeing would like to know.

This is not criminal process, so "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply.
Plane is proven safe by the proper certification process. Since Boeing insists they did nothing wrong during certification, I conclude that the existing process doesn't guarantee the safety of the airplane, and MAX should be grounded until the new process is designed and implemented.
Alternatively, mistakes in design and certification flow can be examined, all similar situations in design and certification sequence are brought up and investigated by the third party.
Yet alternatively, I will be happy to fly MAX once it is proven statistically, by 10-20M flights without casualties. It is up to others if they want to be passengers on those flights.
 
airzona11
Posts: 1538
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:46 pm

zkojq wrote:

What are the airlines supposed to do? The precedent would be that every time an airliner is involved in an accident, the airline tells people when they book or board that plane?


Why does there have to be an accident to make it clear and easy to the public in the booking process what plane you will be flying on[/quote]


No not at all. I'm just advocating for airlines to transparently label what equipment is going to operate a flight on their websites. After one of the MAX crashes, somebody mentioned that a carrier had changed their website so that all MAX flights were operated by "B737".

I like what Lufthansa does whereby A320 flights are labelled as either "A320", "A320 Sharklets" or "A320 neo".

I'm not advocating this for safety reasons, just transparency. I want to know what plane is operating my flight.[/quote]

And you are saying if it said 737-800 you would take the flight, and day of it changed to a -8(Max) you wouldn't? I guess I don't see what that solves or value that adds. Plenty of free websites can tell you plane type based off of flight number. I have been on an LH A320 flight that became a Sharklets day of, a Southwest Max that became an -800. It just seems to me to be an endgame that I am not sure there is a point or value. But that is just me.
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 9620
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

AA: MAX May Not Fly Until European Regulators Approve It

Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:17 am

I think this makes a lot of sense. The FAA wants support before they stick their neck out.

American Airlines CEO Doug Parker told employees that "politics" may play a role in when the Boeing 737 Max returns to service, according to a report by CNBC.

"I think as much as anything now it may be politics as much as the true certification ... safety issue. I don’t think the FAA wants to be alone in doing this."

Parker could mean the Federal Aviation Administration wants to certify the Max to fly again in conjunction with European regulators, who plan do conduct their own due diligence on the plane's readiness.


https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news ... yptr=yahoo
 
Bricktop
Posts: 1379
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

Re: AA: MAX May Not Fly Until European Regulators Approve It

Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:19 am

Didn’t they just add it back into the schedule?
 
Elementalism
Posts: 466
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:28 am

kalvado wrote:
Elementalism wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Or this is trying to involve politics into purely technical matter. Is that glass half-empty or half-full?
Boeing did very little to convince me, Kalvado Q. Public, that MCAS was a strictly isolated problem.


You will have to expand on what other safety issues you have uncovered? Because the FAA and Boeing would like to know.

This is not criminal process, so "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply.
Plane is proven safe by the proper certification process. Since Boeing insists they did nothing wrong during certification, I conclude that the existing process doesn't guarantee the safety of the airplane, and MAX should be grounded until the new process is designed and implemented.
Alternatively, mistakes in design and certification flow can be examined, all similar situations in design and certification sequence are brought up and investigated by the third party.
Yet alternatively, I will be happy to fly MAX once it is proven statistically, by 10-20M flights without casualties. It is up to others if they want to be passengers on those flights.


I didnt say this was a criminal proceeding. I asked what safety issues have you uncovered? Because Boeing and the FAA would like to know along with other regulators.
Since you responded with a bunch of nothing. I will assume you havent uncovered anything that isnt already known. And instead are deciding to posture and demand a grounding of a plane because of unknown reasons.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2017
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:29 am

Elementalism wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Elementalism wrote:

You will have to expand on what other safety issues you have uncovered? Because the FAA and Boeing would like to know.

This is not criminal process, so "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply.
Plane is proven safe by the proper certification process. Since Boeing insists they did nothing wrong during certification, I conclude that the existing process doesn't guarantee the safety of the airplane, and MAX should be grounded until the new process is designed and implemented.
Alternatively, mistakes in design and certification flow can be examined, all similar situations in design and certification sequence are brought up and investigated by the third party.
Yet alternatively, I will be happy to fly MAX once it is proven statistically, by 10-20M flights without casualties. It is up to others if they want to be passengers on those flights.


I didnt say this was a criminal proceeding. I asked what safety issues have you uncovered? Because Boeing and the FAA would like to know along with other regulators.
Since you responded with a bunch of nothing. I will assume you havent uncovered anything that isnt already known. And instead are deciding to posture and demand a grounding of a plane because of unknown reasons.

It's the other way around. I don't see a reason to unground the plane until it is proven safe.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9055
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:32 am

kalvado wrote:
It's the other way around. I don't see a reason to unground the plane until it is proven safe.

Okay, so let's debate that option, how would you like that to happen, what would you like them to do to make the a/c safe?
 
Ishrion
Posts: 1183
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:17 am

Re: AA: MAX May Not Fly Until European Regulators Approve It

Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:36 am

Bricktop wrote:
Didn’t they just add it back into the schedule?


Yep, they recently added a pretty large slew of routes from MIA to places like SXM, LGA, other Central American/Carribean, LAX-BNA, and a lot more.

Scheduled for September 4th.
 
BenflysDTW
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:39 am

Re: AA: MAX May Not Fly Until European Regulators Approve It

Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:37 am

They just added a bunch of routes to SA from MIA at the end off last week on the MAX from September. Subject to approval of course.
Last edited by BenflysDTW on Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
BenflysDTW
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:39 am

Re: AA: MAX May Not Fly Until European Regulators Approve It

Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:41 am

Whoops I meant Central America although a couple weeks before AA scheduled MIA-BOG with 2 out 3 flights on the MAX.
 
9Patch
Posts: 341
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:44 am

kalvado wrote:
Since Boeing insists they did nothing wrong during certification, I conclude that the existing process doesn't guarantee the safety of the airplane, and MAX should be grounded until the new process is designed and implemented.

You do realize, what you conclude doesn't matter a whit.
It's what the FAA, EASA, TCAA , CAAC, etc. conclude.
 
2175301
Posts: 1505
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: AA: MAX May Not Fly Until European Regulators Approve It

Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:54 am

It would be likely devastating to Airbus and the European aerospace industry if the EU holds this up more than a few days to validate paperwork, typical of past certification processes. EU doesn't want to timely approve the 737Max8. Then, why should the FAA timely approve any new Airbus aircraft or derivative... or not require Airbus to redo a whole bunch of work - after the EU approves its work.

Airbus has already spoken on the issue - as they know the risks... and the cost... of the regulators not working together.

Besides, it's my understanding that the FAA already included some extra items - like an independent design review group - that the EU requested months ago. If the FAA did what was asked (above and beyond normal FAA requirements) and then the EU balks and demands more.... Don't blame the FAA in the future for what does not happen fast (or at all) for Airbus and other EU aircraft products.

Have a great day,
 
planecane
Posts: 1150
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: AA: MAX May Not Fly Until European Regulators Approve It

Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:59 am

Did this really require another thread? This was posted by me in the MAX grounding thread many hours ago.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2017
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:02 am

par13del wrote:
kalvado wrote:
It's the other way around. I don't see a reason to unground the plane until it is proven safe.

Okay, so let's debate that option, how would you like that to happen, what would you like them to do to make the a/c safe?

To prove it safe.
and if you go up a few messages
kalvado wrote:
Alternatively, mistakes in design and certification flow can be examined, all similar situations in design and certification sequence are brought up and investigated by the third party.
Yet alternatively, I will be happy to fly MAX once it is proven statistically, by 10-20M flights without casualties. It is up to others if they want to be passengers on those flights.
 
User avatar
dennypayne
Posts: 242
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:38 am

Re: AA: MAX May Not Fly Until European Regulators Approve It

Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:04 am

planecane wrote:
Did this really require another thread? This was posted by me in the MAX grounding thread many hours ago.


Giant threads like that are useless for actual news since they are so polluted by bickering. I don't even bother reading them anymore when they get that big.
A300/310/319/320/321/332/333/343/380 AN24/28/38/148 AT7 B190
B717/722/732/3/4/5/7/8/9 742/744/752/753/762/763/764/772/773/788/789
CR2/7/9 D8S D93/4/5 DHC2/3/7/8 D28/38 EMB/EM2/ER3/D/4/E70/75/90
F50/100 J31 L10 L410 M11/80/90 RJ85 SF3 SU9 T134/154 Y42
 
kalvado
Posts: 2017
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:09 am

9Patch wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Since Boeing insists they did nothing wrong during certification, I conclude that the existing process doesn't guarantee the safety of the airplane, and MAX should be grounded until the new process is designed and implemented.

You do realize, what you conclude doesn't matter a whit.
It's what the FAA, EASA, TCAA , CAAC, etc. conclude.

sure. Again, look at the top of the page.
kalvado wrote:
I am really glad my opinion on MAX bothers exactly nobody with any sort of power on the matter, so that I am not held responsible either way.
 
planecane
Posts: 1150
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:11 am

kalvado wrote:
Elementalism wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Or this is trying to involve politics into purely technical matter. Is that glass half-empty or half-full?
Boeing did very little to convince me, Kalvado Q. Public, that MCAS was a strictly isolated problem.


You will have to expand on what other safety issues you have uncovered? Because the FAA and Boeing would like to know.

This is not criminal process, so "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply.
Plane is proven safe by the proper certification process. Since Boeing insists they did nothing wrong during certification, I conclude that the existing process doesn't guarantee the safety of the airplane, and MAX should be grounded until the new process is designed and implemented.
Alternatively, mistakes in design and certification flow can be examined, all similar situations in design and certification sequence are brought up and investigated by the third party.
Yet alternatively, I will be happy to fly MAX once it is proven statistically, by 10-20M flights without casualties. It is up to others if they want to be passengers on those flights.


10-20M flights is a little crazy. Will you fly on an A350 or 787? Neither of those are anywhere near that number of flights. Due to the number in service in guessing neither does the A380.

Besides, while Boeing made a gross miscalculation about how pilots would respond to an MCAS failure, the fact is that it was easy to recover from if it was recognized. Literally all that was required was trimming with the thumb switch and then flipping the cutoff switches. I'm not trying to argue about what the pilots should have done differently. I'm just making the point that recovery was definitely possible.

I would agree with your reluctance if the failure being corrected was something that was unrecoverable like structural failures. For me, as long as the pilot's unions feel the fix and training is adequate, I'll have no reluctance to fly the max. Pilots won't agree to take an unacceptable risk with their lives.
 
9Patch
Posts: 341
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:12 am

kalvado wrote:
9Patch wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Since Boeing insists they did nothing wrong during certification, I conclude that the existing process doesn't guarantee the safety of the airplane, and MAX should be grounded until the new process is designed and implemented.

You do realize, what you conclude doesn't matter a whit.
It's what the FAA, EASA, TCAA , CAAC, etc. conclude.

sure. Again, look at the top of the page.
kalvado wrote:
I am really glad my opinion on MAX bothers exactly nobody with any sort of power on the matter, so that I am not held responsible either way.

I'm glad we're in agreement.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9055
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:21 am

kalvado wrote:
To prove it safe.
and if you go up a few messages
kalvado wrote:
Alternatively, mistakes in design and certification flow can be examined, all similar situations in design and certification sequence are brought up and investigated by the third party.
Yet alternatively, I will be happy to fly MAX once it is proven statistically, by 10-20M flights without casualties. It is up to others if they want to be passengers on those flights.

Who is going to define mistakes in design and certification flow, Boeing, the FAA? Whistle blowers are all over so details should be easy to find.
Then all similar situation will also require specifics, so far we have no specifics and or details.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2017
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:24 am

planecane wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Elementalism wrote:

You will have to expand on what other safety issues you have uncovered? Because the FAA and Boeing would like to know.

This is not criminal process, so "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply.
Plane is proven safe by the proper certification process. Since Boeing insists they did nothing wrong during certification, I conclude that the existing process doesn't guarantee the safety of the airplane, and MAX should be grounded until the new process is designed and implemented.
Alternatively, mistakes in design and certification flow can be examined, all similar situations in design and certification sequence are brought up and investigated by the third party.
Yet alternatively, I will be happy to fly MAX once it is proven statistically, by 10-20M flights without casualties. It is up to others if they want to be passengers on those flights.


10-20M flights is a little crazy. Will you fly on an A350 or 787? Neither of those are anywhere near that number of flights. Due to the number in service in guessing neither does the A380.

Besides, while Boeing made a gross miscalculation about how pilots would respond to an MCAS failure, the fact is that it was easy to recover from if it was recognized. Literally all that was required was trimming with the thumb switch and then flipping the cutoff switches. I'm not trying to argue about what the pilots should have done differently. I'm just making the point that recovery was definitely possible.

I would agree with your reluctance if the failure being corrected was something that was unrecoverable like structural failures. For me, as long as the pilot's unions feel the fix and training is adequate, I'll have no reluctance to fly the max. Pilots won't agree to take an unacceptable risk with their lives.

Try extending your attention span.
This is just a bit up the thread
kalvado wrote:
Plane is proven safe by the proper certification process. Since Boeing insists they did nothing wrong during certification, I conclude that the existing process doesn't guarantee the safety of the airplane, and MAX should be grounded until the new process is designed and implemented.
Alternatively, mistakes in design and certification flow can be examined, all similar situations in design and certification sequence are brought up and investigated by the third party.
Yet alternatively, I will be happy to fly MAX once it is proven statistically, by 10-20M flights without casualties. It is up to others if they want to be passengers on those flights.

10-20 M flights is the worst case scenario; basically, if Boeing cannot (or doesn't want) to get their shit together. I really hope they would make an effort.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2017
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:27 am

par13del wrote:
kalvado wrote:
To prove it safe.
and if you go up a few messages
kalvado wrote:
Alternatively, mistakes in design and certification flow can be examined, all similar situations in design and certification sequence are brought up and investigated by the third party.
Yet alternatively, I will be happy to fly MAX once it is proven statistically, by 10-20M flights without casualties. It is up to others if they want to be passengers on those flights.

Who is going to define mistakes in design and certification flow, Boeing, the FAA? Whistle blowers are all over so details should be easy to find.
Then all similar situation will also require specifics, so far we have no specifics and or details.

Non-disclosure, trade secrets and what not. So far, Boeing remains the company which edited out the list of hot-and-high airports in US from the public document. Tells you something about their attitude towards information.
 
Etheereal
Posts: 343
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 11:44 am

Re: AA: MAX May Not Fly Until European Regulators Approve It

Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:09 am

BenflysDTW wrote:
Whoops I meant Central America although a couple weeks before AA scheduled MIA-BOG with 2 out 3 flights on the MAX.

Aerocivil (Colombia) doesnt have it grounded as AV doesnt use it, so as long as the FAA is okay, it'll work
JetBuddy wrote:
"737 slides off the runway" is the new "Florida man"..

:lol:
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3141
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:43 am

I imagine the FAA, along with other national agencies, is doing an administrative review of the MAX certification as well as a more detailed study of the MCAS.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
max999
Posts: 1132
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:05 am

Re: AA: MAX May Not Fly Until European Regulators Approve It

Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:39 am

enilria wrote:
I think this makes a lot of sense. The FAA wants support before they stick their neck out.

American Airlines CEO Doug Parker told employees that "politics" may play a role in when the Boeing 737 Max returns to service, according to a report by CNBC.

"I think as much as anything now it may be politics as much as the true certification ... safety issue. I don’t think the FAA wants to be alone in doing this."

Parker could mean the Federal Aviation Administration wants to certify the Max to fly again in conjunction with European regulators, who plan do conduct their own due diligence on the plane's readiness.


https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news ... yptr=yahoo


If non-US regulators wanting to conduct further safety reviews is called politics...Then I guess Boeing hiding critical safety features like MCAS should be called negligence, or worse yet, corruption. Dougie should really watch his mouth.
All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening.
 
Yossarian22
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:25 am

Re: AA: MAX May Not Fly Until European Regulators Approve It

Tue Jun 25, 2019 8:21 am

2175301 wrote:
It would be likely devastating to Airbus and the European aerospace industry if the EU holds this up more than a few days to validate paperwork, typical of past certification processes. EU doesn't want to timely approve the 737Max8. Then, why should the FAA timely approve any new Airbus aircraft or derivative... or not require Airbus to redo a whole bunch of work - after the EU approves its work.

Airbus has already spoken on the issue - as they know the risks... and the cost... of the regulators not working together.

Besides, it's my understanding that the FAA already included some extra items - like an independent design review group - that the EU requested months ago. If the FAA did what was asked (above and beyond normal FAA requirements) and then the EU balks and demands more.... Don't blame the FAA in the future for what does not happen fast (or at all) for Airbus and other EU aircraft products.

Have a great day,


Airbuses haven’t committed suicide like the 737Max. Boeing and the FAA violated the public trust which compromises their integrity. The FAA is going to have to work hard to rebuild global public trust. Why should the EU take the FAA”s word at this point? Clearly the FAA failed the traveling public.
 
Olddog
Posts: 1237
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: AA: MAX May Not Fly Until European Regulators Approve It

Tue Jun 25, 2019 8:27 am

Well the FAA needed 6 full weeks for A350 paperwork......
When UK was in it wanted a lot of opt-outs, now it is out it wants opt-ins
 
BrianDromey
Posts: 2450
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:23 am

Re: AA: MAX May Not Fly Until European Regulators Approve It

Tue Jun 25, 2019 8:46 am

2175301 wrote:
It would be likely devastating to Airbus and the European aerospace industry if the EU holds this up more than a few days to validate paperwork, typical of past certification processes. EU doesn't want to timely approve the 737Max8. Then, why should the FAA timely approve any new Airbus aircraft or derivative... or not require Airbus to redo a whole bunch of work - after the EU approves its work.


EASA is larger than the EU members, EFTA member countries, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland, and Iceland are full members. In addition Armenia, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and Turkey are all working members. Remember that EASA members still have their own national aviators regulators too. It is not within the power of "the EU" to hold up the re-entry to service.

I completely disagree with you that any such delay would be "devastating". The FAA, firstly, and other international, pan-national and national certification bodies should take every opportunity to forensically examine each and every engineering change, each system that Boeing has even modified a single line of code in before the MAX flies again. Grandfathering can only be allowed on systems that have not been altered in any way and not had their functioning affected by new systems. If another MAX series crashes due to the figure of certifying authorities to detect poor design and flawed systems the "political" backlash will be enormous. The decision to certify an aircraft safe for operation in EASA countries is one purely for EASA, not Donald Trump.
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 3887
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: AA: MAX May Not Fly Until European Regulators Approve It

Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:32 am

Duplicate, delete please
Last edited by zkojq on Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
First to fly the 787-9
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 3887
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: AA: MAX May Not Fly Until European Regulators Approve It

Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:32 am

2175301 wrote:
. EU doesn't want to timely approve the 737Max8. Then, why should the FAA timely approve any new Airbus aircraft or derivative...

Well I would hope that would depend on whether or not the Airbus is airworthy...
First to fly the 787-9
 
User avatar
TurboJet707
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed May 10, 2017 11:30 am

Re: AA: MAX May Not Fly Until European Regulators Approve It

Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:58 am

With the 737MAX debacle, the FAA's reputation has taken a big hit. In the perception of the flying public, the FAA is fully in the pocket of Boeing and has signed off the MAX without much investigation. Therefore, it would only be beneficial for Boeing and the airlines flying the MAX if the EASA takes a long, hard look at the plane too, instead of just following the FAA. An endorsement by the EASA will do a lot to restore trust in the 737MAX. Probably much more than an FAA approval.

This is not a political EU vs. US thing. Far from it. A thorough EASA investigation is in the interest of all parties, including Boeing, the FAA, MAX customers like AA and last but not least the flying public. I trust that all parties at both sides of the Atlantic will see that.

And no, Airbus doesn't have any influence here, and neither do they have any interest in MAX certification being delayed. Their competing A320NEO series is sold out for many years and they know the duopoly works well for them.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: AA: MAX May Not Fly Until European Regulators Approve It

Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:04 am

2175301 wrote:
It would be likely devastating to Airbus and the European aerospace industry if the EU holds this up more than a few days to validate paperwork, typical of past certification processes. EU doesn't want to timely approve the 737Max8. Then, why should the FAA timely approve any new Airbus aircraft or derivative... or not require Airbus to redo a whole bunch of work - after the EU approves its work.



My understanding was that the FAA and EASA would previously accept each others work on certification. It seemed to work like this for the 787.

Boeing 787 Dreamliner Receives FAA, EASA Certification

But then for some reason it didn't work out this way on the A359.

Airbus A350-900 is EASA certified - 30 September 2014

Airbus A350-900 receives FAA Type Certification - 13 November 2014

So I guess we will be in for a tit for tat for a while, what's next for certification? The 779?
 
planecane
Posts: 1150
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:17 am

kalvado wrote:
par13del wrote:
kalvado wrote:
To prove it safe.
and if you go up a few messages

Who is going to define mistakes in design and certification flow, Boeing, the FAA? Whistle blowers are all over so details should be easy to find.
Then all similar situation will also require specifics, so far we have no specifics and or details.

Non-disclosure, trade secrets and what not. So far, Boeing remains the company which edited out the list of hot-and-high airports in US from the public document. Tells you something about their attitude towards information.

Redactions from public documents does not mean a company is hiding things from regulators. The public doesn't have a right to know proprietary information. Even in a criminal case such information can be sealed by a judge to protect proprietary information.

What on Earth does which airports Boeing considers to be "hot and high" with respect to 737 performance have to do with safety?

Some posters in this thread have lost all sense of logic. Boeing made a gross miscalculation in how pilots would respond to an MCAS failure. They used this miscalculation as the basis for other poor decisions. However, even if the FAA was fully staffed with expert pilots and engineers and had done all of the certification testing and analysis, I suspect that MCAS 1.0 would have still made it through.

I say this because expert pilots would assume that any pilot would easily recognize a runaway stabilizer and the expert engineers would listen to those pilots.

As evidenced by the investigative reporting there wasn't a disregard for safety. They thought it was safe. Even the goal of no simulator training didn't preclude a 2 sensor solution. The original incarnation with the AoA and g force sensor had the remote possibility of not activating when needed and there wasn't going to be simulator training for that.

It seems the primary reason to go with a single AoA sensor was dispatch reliability. Not the $1 million per aircraft to WN if simulator training was required.

With MCAS 2.0, do we really want pilots wasting valuable simulator time practicing some very unlikely case where MCAS is disabled and they end up doing an extreme maneuver that reduces stick force a little bit and makes it slightly easier to end up in a stall attitude? Especially since a stall should be easily recoverable anyway.
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 5094
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

Re: AA: MAX May Not Fly Until European Regulators Approve It

Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:17 am

2175301 wrote:
It would be likely devastating to Airbus and the European aerospace industry if the EU holds this up more than a few days to validate paperwork, typical of past certification processes. EU doesn't want to timely approve the 737Max8. Then, why should the FAA timely approve any new Airbus aircraft or derivative... or not require Airbus to redo a whole bunch of work - after the EU approves its work.


Oh, come on. These are mature professionals we're talking about. You make them sound like petulant teenagers.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 5472
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: AA: MAX May Not Fly Until European Regulators Approve It

Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:26 am

Stop making this a Euro/US certification thing

This plane was approved to fly with a faulty system by the FAA

Our own government is holding hearings into how this happened

Everyone should do their due diligence this time. Everyone

If Airbus has a plane that becomes a lawn dart...they also should be subject to the same scrutiny

This isnt an A vs B thing or a US vs Euro thing

It is ensuring this plane is safe going forward before certifying it!
 
Interested
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:38 am

planecane wrote:
kalvado wrote:
par13del wrote:
Who is going to define mistakes in design and certification flow, Boeing, the FAA? Whistle blowers are all over so details should be easy to find.
Then all similar situation will also require specifics, so far we have no specifics and or details.

Non-disclosure, trade secrets and what not. So far, Boeing remains the company which edited out the list of hot-and-high airports in US from the public document. Tells you something about their attitude towards information.

Redactions from public documents does not mean a company is hiding things from regulators. The public doesn't have a right to know proprietary information. Even in a criminal case such information can be sealed by a judge to protect proprietary information.

What on Earth does which airports Boeing considers to be "hot and high" with respect to 737 performance have to do with safety?

Some posters in this thread have lost all sense of logic. Boeing made a gross miscalculation in how pilots would respond to an MCAS failure. They used this miscalculation as the basis for other poor decisions. However, even if the FAA was fully staffed with expert pilots and engineers and had done all of the certification testing and analysis, I suspect that MCAS 1.0 would have still made it through.

I say this because expert pilots would assume that any pilot would easily recognize a runaway stabilizer and the expert engineers would listen to those pilots.

As evidenced by the investigative reporting there wasn't a disregard for safety. They thought it was safe. Even the goal of no simulator training didn't preclude a 2 sensor solution. The original incarnation with the AoA and g force sensor had the remote possibility of not activating when needed and there wasn't going to be simulator training for that.

It seems the primary reason to go with a single AoA sensor was dispatch reliability. Not the $1 million per aircraft to WN if simulator training was required.

With MCAS 2.0, do we really want pilots wasting valuable simulator time practicing some very unlikely case where MCAS is disabled and they end up doing an extreme maneuver that reduces stick force a little bit and makes it slightly easier to end up in a stall attitude? Especially since a stall should be easily recoverable anyway.


You are describing sheer incompetence of Boeing decision makers above and a series of decisions that fitted the end result Boeing wanted to achieve and nothing else

You may want to excuse it and or divert it onto pilots. But there aren't many eyes you will pull the wool over.

Thankfully way more important people than you and I are focussed on this now

But honestly from an outsider looking in (which I am) it's the exact opposite of what I would have expected from any large organisation in the aviation industry

And I had Boeing as the leaders of this industry

You are trying to excuse something that is unacceptable from a company of their stature and importance IMO

And to divert to pilots is very poor. Every time I see Boeing or a supporter of Boeing like yourself try and shift blame to pilots it really makes me trust Boeing less and less

Can you understand how you create that feeling in outsiders like me?

You make Boeing look like the bad guys and make people not trust what they might try and do next?

In my honest opinion
 
kalvado
Posts: 2017
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:02 am

planecane wrote:
kalvado wrote:
par13del wrote:
Who is going to define mistakes in design and certification flow, Boeing, the FAA? Whistle blowers are all over so details should be easy to find.
Then all similar situation will also require specifics, so far we have no specifics and or details.

Non-disclosure, trade secrets and what not. So far, Boeing remains the company which edited out the list of hot-and-high airports in US from the public document. Tells you something about their attitude towards information.

Redactions from public documents does not mean a company is hiding things from regulators. The public doesn't have a right to know proprietary information. Even in a criminal case such information can be sealed by a judge to protect proprietary information.

What on Earth does which airports Boeing considers to be "hot and high" with respect to 737 performance have to do with safety?

Some posters in this thread have lost all sense of logic. Boeing made a gross miscalculation in how pilots would respond to an MCAS failure. They used this miscalculation as the basis for other poor decisions. However, even if the FAA was fully staffed with expert pilots and engineers and had done all of the certification testing and analysis, I suspect that MCAS 1.0 would have still made it through.

I say this because expert pilots would assume that any pilot would easily recognize a runaway stabilizer and the expert engineers would listen to those pilots.

As evidenced by the investigative reporting there wasn't a disregard for safety. They thought it was safe. Even the goal of no simulator training didn't preclude a 2 sensor solution. The original incarnation with the AoA and g force sensor had the remote possibility of not activating when needed and there wasn't going to be simulator training for that.

It seems the primary reason to go with a single AoA sensor was dispatch reliability. Not the $1 million per aircraft to WN if simulator training was required.

With MCAS 2.0, do we really want pilots wasting valuable simulator time practicing some very unlikely case where MCAS is disabled and they end up doing an extreme maneuver that reduces stick force a little bit and makes it slightly easier to end up in a stall attitude? Especially since a stall should be easily recoverable anyway.

I thought we're well past whitewashing Boeing. They screwed up the process, the right hand didn't know what left hand was doing while the head was preoccupied with business considerations.
Yes, they thought MCAS was safe. They still think the rest of the plane is safe. Are you taking such thoughts at face value?
Many people (including yours truly) would take such statements at face value 12 months ago, especially if endorsed (aka certified) by FAA; but no more.
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 632
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:30 am

planecane wrote:
kalvado wrote:
par13del wrote:
Who is going to define mistakes in design and certification flow, Boeing, the FAA? Whistle blowers are all over so details should be easy to find.
Then all similar situation will also require specifics, so far we have no specifics and or details.

Non-disclosure, trade secrets and what not. So far, Boeing remains the company which edited out the list of hot-and-high airports in US from the public document. Tells you something about their attitude towards information.

Redactions from public documents does not mean a company is hiding things from regulators. The public doesn't have a right to know proprietary information. Even in a criminal case such information can be sealed by a judge to protect proprietary information.

What on Earth does which airports Boeing considers to be "hot and high" with respect to 737 performance have to do with safety?

Some posters in this thread have lost all sense of logic. Boeing made a gross miscalculation in how pilots would respond to an MCAS failure. They used this miscalculation as the basis for other poor decisions. However, even if the FAA was fully staffed with expert pilots and engineers and had done all of the certification testing and analysis, I suspect that MCAS 1.0 would have still made it through.

I say this because expert pilots would assume that any pilot would easily recognize a runaway stabilizer and the expert engineers would listen to those pilots.

As evidenced by the investigative reporting there wasn't a disregard for safety. They thought it was safe. Even the goal of no simulator training didn't preclude a 2 sensor solution. The original incarnation with the AoA and g force sensor had the remote possibility of not activating when needed and there wasn't going to be simulator training for that.

It seems the primary reason to go with a single AoA sensor was dispatch reliability. Not the $1 million per aircraft to WN if simulator training was required.

With MCAS 2.0, do we really want pilots wasting valuable simulator time practicing some very unlikely case where MCAS is disabled and they end up doing an extreme maneuver that reduces stick force a little bit and makes it slightly easier to end up in a stall attitude? Especially since a stall should be easily recoverable anyway.


Restrictions on configurations etc. for 'Hot & Airports' is all about safety, nothing else. The poster was pointing out aspects of Boeing actions that do not engender trust.

Several 'expert' pilots are on record as posted in these threads that disagree with your runaway stabilizer easily recognisable remark, especially in already trying circumstances.

In my opinion, assuming this quote is genuine etc, it is a good example of what could be considered a disregard for safety:
"It wasn't like it was there to cover some safety or certification requirement," the person said. "The trigger isn't a safeguard. It tells (the system) when to operate."
https://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/t ... RIBpG5Fzct
Personally, I wouldn't buy a lawnmower with that persons name on it.

As I pointed out yesterday the MAX MMEL does not include AOA Sensor and therefore one sensor down is a 'no despatch'. (Single AOA sensor despatch was in the NG MMEL). - Despatch Reliability does not then seem to hold water as the latest concocted 'reason' for incompetent design.
fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/mmel/b-737_max_rev_1.pdf

I suspect there was never going to be any simulator training, no matter what, because the commercial imperatives set would appear to be Cert under the existing Technical Certificate and no simulator training.

At least Runaway Stabiliser NNC is now on the training syllabus. If the pilots want additional time on the simulator, I say give it to them.

Ray
 
kalvado
Posts: 2017
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:43 am

XRAYretired wrote:
Restrictions on configurations etc. for 'Hot & Airports' is all about safety, nothing else. The poster was pointing out aspects of Boeing actions that do not engender trust.

I am pointing at the list of hot-and-high airports redaction as a prime example of paranoid attitude. I bet most people on this board can compile such a list: DEN, PHX...
I expect pigs routinely taking off from runways before Boeing embracing a more open approach to their problems.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9481
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:44 am

XRAYretired wrote:
planecane wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Non-disclosure, trade secrets and what not. So far, Boeing remains the company which edited out the list of hot-and-high airports in US from the public document. Tells you something about their attitude towards information.

Redactions from public documents does not mean a company is hiding things from regulators. The public doesn't have a right to know proprietary information. Even in a criminal case such information can be sealed by a judge to protect proprietary information.

What on Earth does which airports Boeing considers to be "hot and high" with respect to 737 performance have to do with safety?

Some posters in this thread have lost all sense of logic. Boeing made a gross miscalculation in how pilots would respond to an MCAS failure. They used this miscalculation as the basis for other poor decisions. However, even if the FAA was fully staffed with expert pilots and engineers and had done all of the certification testing and analysis, I suspect that MCAS 1.0 would have still made it through.

I say this because expert pilots would assume that any pilot would easily recognize a runaway stabilizer and the expert engineers would listen to those pilots.

As evidenced by the investigative reporting there wasn't a disregard for safety. They thought it was safe. Even the goal of no simulator training didn't preclude a 2 sensor solution. The original incarnation with the AoA and g force sensor had the remote possibility of not activating when needed and there wasn't going to be simulator training for that.

It seems the primary reason to go with a single AoA sensor was dispatch reliability. Not the $1 million per aircraft to WN if simulator training was required.

With MCAS 2.0, do we really want pilots wasting valuable simulator time practicing some very unlikely case where MCAS is disabled and they end up doing an extreme maneuver that reduces stick force a little bit and makes it slightly easier to end up in a stall attitude? Especially since a stall should be easily recoverable anyway.


Restrictions on configurations etc. for 'Hot & Airports' is all about safety, nothing else. The poster was pointing out aspects of Boeing actions that do not engender trust.

I suspect the retraction was so uninformed media who don’t understand hot and high restrictions, why they exist, and that they are present for every aircraft don’t see it and freak out to avoid “OMG Boeing 737s are unsafe in Denver!!!” headlines.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3141
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: AA: MAX May Not Fly Until European Regulators Approve It

Tue Jun 25, 2019 12:54 pm

enzo011 wrote:
2175301 wrote:
It would be likely devastating to Airbus and the European aerospace industry if the EU holds this up more than a few days to validate paperwork, typical of past certification processes. EU doesn't want to timely approve the 737Max8. Then, why should the FAA timely approve any new Airbus aircraft or derivative... or not require Airbus to redo a whole bunch of work - after the EU approves its work.



My understanding was that the FAA and EASA would previously accept each others work on certification. It seemed to work like this for the 787.

Boeing 787 Dreamliner Receives FAA, EASA Certification

But then for some reason it didn't work out this way on the A359.

Airbus A350-900 is EASA certified - 30 September 2014

Airbus A350-900 receives FAA Type Certification - 13 November 2014

So I guess we will be in for a tit for tat for a while, what's next for certification? The 779?


There needs to be an appropriate tit for tat. It is a good part of what keeps aviation safe. Suppose that politics should get a little dicey in one countries certifying agency. So guy speaking X language raises eyebrow to gal speaking Y language in another countries certifying agency. Check out that MCAS would you?

Some of us think good cross checking across the world is a good thing. So what, that the FAA took 6 weeks to complete the 350 certification. This would simply imply at this point that EASA has spent about 6 weeks doing a complete paperwork check of the MAX as well as also looking at MCAS. Does that bother anyone?
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 9620
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

Re: AA: MAX May Not Fly Until European Regulators Approve It

Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:35 pm

max999 wrote:
enilria wrote:
I think this makes a lot of sense. The FAA wants support before they stick their neck out.

American Airlines CEO Doug Parker told employees that "politics" may play a role in when the Boeing 737 Max returns to service, according to a report by CNBC.

"I think as much as anything now it may be politics as much as the true certification ... safety issue. I don’t think the FAA wants to be alone in doing this."

Parker could mean the Federal Aviation Administration wants to certify the Max to fly again in conjunction with European regulators, who plan do conduct their own due diligence on the plane's readiness.


https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news ... yptr=yahoo


If non-US regulators wanting to conduct further safety reviews is called politics...Then I guess Boeing hiding critical safety features like MCAS should be called negligence, or worse yet, corruption. Dougie should really watch his mouth.

The FAA deferring to Europe because they are afraid to approve on their own is politics. It's not "MORE", it's "WHO". That's why.
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3437
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:44 pm

kalvado wrote:
They still think the rest of the plane is safe. Are you taking such thoughts at face value?


Absolutely, as we have a certification process and thousands of flights as evidence that the rest of the plane is safe. The FAA can't make you feel the same way. I suspect they shouldn't even try.

enilria wrote:
The FAA deferring to Europe because they are afraid to approve on their own is politics. It's not "MORE", it's "WHO". That's why.


Precisely.
 
ArgentoSystems
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:05 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:48 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
Absolutely, as we have a certification process and thousands of flights as evidence that the rest of the plane is safe. The FAA can't make you feel the same way. I suspect they shouldn't even try.

We also have a certification process and 1000s of flights as evidence that MCAS 1.0 is solid. How is that working out so far?
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3819
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:38 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
kalvado wrote:
They still think the rest of the plane is safe. Are you taking such thoughts at face value?


Absolutely, as we have a certification process and thousands of flights as evidence that the rest of the plane is safe.


That certification system and those (mere) thousands of flights are the very reason the thing is grounded. Doesn't bode well to use that as evidence that the rest of the plane is (proven) safe . . .
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3437
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:57 pm

PW100 wrote:
That certification system and those (mere) thousands of flights are the very reason the thing is grounded. Doesn't bode well to use that as evidence that the rest of the plane is (proven) safe . . .


No, it's grounded because of a second crash that exposed a software issue.

It's not grounded because of thousands of uneventful flights and a lack of other issues being found in certification. Ironically your standard for "safe" would mean no new airplane would ever take to the skies.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2017
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:08 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
PW100 wrote:
That certification system and those (mere) thousands of flights are the very reason the thing is grounded. Doesn't bode well to use that as evidence that the rest of the plane is (proven) safe . . .


No, it's grounded because of a second crash that exposed a software issue.

It's not grounded because of thousands of uneventful flights and a lack of other issues being found in certification. Ironically your standard for "safe" would mean no new airplane would ever take to the skies.

There were much less than a million of uneventful flights - with 1 crash in 10-20 million being current statistics on modern jets and 1 billion being certification goal. So MAX really didn't fly enough to brag about any sort of in-service history. Not even toddler level experience.
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3437
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:13 pm

kalvado wrote:
There were much less than a million of uneventful flights - with 1 crash in 10-20 million being current statistics on modern jets and 1 billion being certification goal. So MAX really didn't fly enough to brag about any sort of in-service history. Not even toddler level experience.


It's simple fact, not any sort of bragging. If you those facts aren't acceptable to you, then I can't help you with that issue.

If we take your logic further, I would expect you wouldn't set foot on any aircraft early in their life cycle. In other words, certification alone isn't enough. Certification and thousands of flights with no serious issues isn't enough either. Quite ironic actually.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2017
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:20 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
kalvado wrote:
There were much less than a million of uneventful flights - with 1 crash in 10-20 million being current statistics on modern jets and 1 billion being certification goal. So MAX really didn't fly enough to brag about any sort of in-service history. Not even toddler level experience.


It's simple fact, not any sort of bragging. If you those facts aren't acceptable to you, then I can't help you with that issue.

If we take your logic further, I would expect you wouldn't set foot on any aircraft early in their life cycle. In other words, certification alone isn't enough. Certification and thousands of flights with no serious issues isn't enough either. Quite ironic actually.

That is why proper design, safety analysis and certification - intended to catch issues early in lifecycle - regardless of possible EIS delays or contract penalties - should exist.
Getting on a plane before that many cycles are accumulated is a statement of trust to those who performed those task with due diligence. Trust - something Boeing earned for decades and lost in mere months.
ANd you may be missing the point - there were less than a million of flights with two crashes. You mean the rest of those flight are OK?
Fine.. Lets think about it in other way. Would you trust a taxi driver who is sober during 99% of the rides? Meaning working drunk only once every 2 months..
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3437
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:39 pm

kalvado wrote:
That is why proper design, safety analysis and certification - intended to catch issues early in lifecycle - regardless of possible EIS delays or contract penalties - should exist.
Getting on a plane before that many cycles are accumulated is a statement of trust to those who performed those task with due diligence. Trust - something Boeing earned for decades and lost in mere months.
ANd you may be missing the point - there were less than a million of flights with two crashes. You mean the rest of those flight are OK?
Fine.. Lets think about it in other way. Would you trust a taxi driver who is sober during 99% of the rides? Meaning working drunk only once every 2 months..


But you just inferred that apparently proper certification isn't enough. What is it? Now all it takes is nebulous "trust"? If you had no knowledge there was a drunk driver and the driver had never been caught, does that "trust" prove proper certification? The trail you're leading down is the antithesis of safety.

That's not an accurate analogy. The question should be do you trust a former drunk driver who can't physically get drunk again? That's where the MAX is at today.
Last edited by MSPNWA on Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
packsonflight
Posts: 383
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:41 pm

What is the status of the MAX reentry into service? What are the issues that need to be worked on before it happens? apart from how this all came about.

I find it interesting that all of a sudden everything on the news front is quiet on what is really going on, apart from some entry date dropping here and there.

Can we try to identify the issues that needs to be rectified before service entry please

1. MCAS software obviously

2. Training requirements, Ipad or sim and what needs to be disclosed.

3. Manual trim system. Lately there have bin some news about shortcomings of this system. Is it under review?

4. Flap or slat system. Some issues have bin reported, as I recall. Not sure if it is really a problem

5. Stall characteristics without MCAS. Looks like stall behaviour is out of limits. possibly seen as a problem by regulators.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos