WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Mon Sep 02, 2019 8:43 pm

tlecam wrote:
I saw this in there, buried about 2/3 of the way through.
“In recent weeks, Boeing and the FAA identified another potential flight-control computer risk requiring additional software changes and testing, according to two of the government and pilot officials.”


Are these actually real issues or just shoved in front to detract from the fact that the basic issues seem to get no fixing traction?
Murphy is an optimist
 
mysfit
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 7:16 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Tue Sep 03, 2019 12:52 am

Boeing probably doesn't like having folks looking over their shoulder and demanding specifics.

The ham handed way they rolled this out and responded has resulted in a lack of trust by their customers. Apparently it hasn't occurred to Boeing that they have to work to regain that trust.
 
Babyshark
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:48 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:07 am

mysfit wrote:
Boeing probably doesn't like having folks looking over their shoulder and demanding specifics.

The ham handed way they rolled this out and responded has resulted in a lack of trust by their customers. Apparently it hasn't occurred to Boeing that they have to work to regain that trust.


You’d think in the age of personality awareness you wouldn’t still have people acting like fat cats of yesteryear
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Tue Sep 03, 2019 11:45 am

mysfit wrote:
Boeing probably doesn't like having folks looking over their shoulder and demanding specifics.

The ham handed way they rolled this out and responded has resulted in a lack of trust by their customers. Apparently it hasn't occurred to Boeing that they have to work to regain that trust.

Speculation perhaps?

Obfuscation is the by word. I suspect that the Boeing strategy, for a long time now, is to avoid any scrutiny they can that could further delay RTS. The 'bitflip' problem was a fly in the ointment that has made it more difficult by delaying RTS for while.

Just about anything suspect identified by any of the reviews, or by congress for that matter, whilst the grounding continues, would make it more difficult to achieve RTS, whereas, a finding after RTS is actually unlikely to result in the grounding being re-instated.

I suspect we can see this strategy of obfuscation in providing data to congress (ostensibly due to IPR) and congress themselves agreeing to forestall Boeing attestation until post RTS. We have also seen it in the apparent delay in providing data to the Indonesian Authorities for completion of their final report. We have seen it before in relation to the JATR, where the excuse was initially IPR issues that has delayed submission (it seems until August having been established in April), and now we see the submission was not as required by the panel - further obfuscation.

So, it would seem that in all cases, no further findings will be available until October and probably post RTS.

It should be remembered that all these bodies are legally constituted and submission requirements are legally sound. That included the JATR that is constituted by the FAA to perform a review scoped by the FAA who are Boeings regulator and they are obliged to provide data so required.

Ray
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9199
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:01 pm

XRAYretired wrote:
We have also seen it in the apparent delay in providing data to the Indonesian Authorities for completion of their final report.
Ray

My read of the Indonesian presser was that they requested additional information from Boeing, not that it has taken almost a year for Boeing to provide data or for them to realize that they need additional data, that is one way your post can be read.
 
2175301
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:34 pm

XRAYretired wrote:
mysfit wrote:
Boeing probably doesn't like having folks looking over their shoulder and demanding specifics.

The ham handed way they rolled this out and responded has resulted in a lack of trust by their customers. Apparently it hasn't occurred to Boeing that they have to work to regain that trust.

Speculation perhaps?

Obfuscation is the by word. I suspect that the Boeing strategy, for a long time now, is to avoid any scrutiny they can that could further delay RTS. The 'bitflip' problem was a fly in the ointment that has made it more difficult by delaying RTS for while.

Just about anything suspect identified by any of the reviews, or by congress for that matter, whilst the grounding continues, would make it more difficult to achieve RTS, whereas, a finding after RTS is actually unlikely to result in the grounding being re-instated.

I suspect we can see this strategy of obfuscation in providing data to congress (ostensibly due to IPR) and congress themselves agreeing to forestall Boeing attestation until post RTS. We have also seen it in the apparent delay in providing data to the Indonesian Authorities for completion of their final report. We have seen it before in relation to the JATR, where the excuse was initially IPR issues that has delayed submission (it seems until August having been established in April), and now we see the submission was not as required by the panel - further obfuscation.

So, it would seem that in all cases, no further findings will be available until October and probably post RTS.

It should be remembered that all these bodies are legally constituted and submission requirements are legally sound. That included the JATR that is constituted by the FAA to perform a review scoped by the FAA who are Boeings regulator and they are obliged to provide data so required.

Ray


I think you are missing a key point - and this is unlikely to be obfuscation:

1st, while I understand that three different advisory or investigation committees have been set up; their legal basis and what they can request does not give them absolute authority to request everything.

As an example: No aircraft manufacturer is required to submit detailed blueprints or the exact software code to the FAA for certification. They are required to submit the function of different things and evidence that their design or software meets that function.

On the other hand; the NTSB (and equivalents in other countries) can request and get those detailed design documents, calculations, software code, etc. for specific items that are believed related to a crash or significant failure in order to provide independent analysis of adequacy and if they contributed to the crash or significant event. They cannot request that kind of information for other areas or features of an aircraft (vehicle, bridge, etc).

So, Boeing is not required to supply everything to these boards; and one of the things likely discussed and agreed upon up front is in fact just what kind of information needs to be supplied for the advisory or investigation board to do its work. If you look at the assigned task of each of those boards you should be able to innately see that they require different kinds of information in order to carry out their different tasks.

A second key factor is that such investigation boards often request more information later based on the initial submitted of information from the 1st request. I've been involved in some nuclear industry reviews and there were almost always 3 rounds of request and analysis of information, and sometimes 4. Root cause investigations typically have between 3 and 6 rounds of such request for the areas of interest (1st and 2nd submitted information are used primarily to rule out possibilities and things - so that you can do detailed focus on the areas where things did not go well during the event; and then you keep mining until you fully understand the impact of that area of "non-ideal" performance, and the significance of it to the event. For the root cause item, there is often sufficient information and analysis to explain exactly what and where the failure in that issue/item was.

Thus, it is not a surprise at all that the Indonesian Investigation Board has requested additional information from Boeing on something. In some cases such information is not readily available (just send them the file) and perhaps specific testing or obtaining information from other parties is involved.

Third: Certain countries like to get as much detailed technical information (design documents and software code) as possible. I have done work in China and I assure you that a key goal is to collect "know how" and "how is it done" for everything they can from other countries. They are not unique in this - just the most aggressive country I know of. So, I can easily see China requesting information that Boeing will never supply as its proprietary intellectual property that is not needed for the tasks of the advisory or investigation board.

Have a great day,
 
asdf
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:03 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:42 pm

par13del wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
We have also seen it in the apparent delay in providing data to the Indonesian Authorities for completion of their final report.
Ray

My read of the Indonesian presser was that they requested additional information from Boeing, not that it has taken almost a year for Boeing to provide data or for them to realize that they need additional data, that is one way your post can be read.


i guess we speak from the same press statement

you can not find out from that statement alone what of both was the case
as long as you do not have any more insider information

for me it looks like BA for any cost wants to unground the MAX before the final report of the crashes is relaesed
 
Babyshark
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:48 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:50 pm

Boeing stock down $12 this morning, the last I looked.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9199
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:59 pm

asdf wrote:
for me it looks like BA for any cost wants to unground the MAX before the final report of the crashes is relaesed

Boeing never wanted the a/c grounded in the first place, so...........
The only thing I can see them fearing from the crash reports is cockpit CRM and whether more training is required, on the technical side, the FAA and other committee's will be able to furnish Boeing with all the system items they require checked, adjusted or improved, see the bit flip for confirmation.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Tue Sep 03, 2019 2:03 pm

par13del wrote:
asdf wrote:
for me it looks like BA for any cost wants to unground the MAX before the final report of the crashes is relaesed

Boeing never wanted the a/c grounded in the first place, so...........
The only thing I can see them fearing from the crash reports is cockpit CRM and whether more training is required, on the technical side, the FAA and other committee's will be able to furnish Boeing with all the system items they require checked, adjusted or improved, see the bit flip for confirmation.


There was this "Air Berlin orders more 787" rumor floated 3 days ahead of the (Saturday released ) damning NTSB report on batteries.
Shares never budged a bit on the monday after. surprise!
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
smithbs
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 6:09 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Tue Sep 03, 2019 2:16 pm

2175301 wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
mysfit wrote:
Boeing probably doesn't like having folks looking over their shoulder and demanding specifics.

The ham handed way they rolled this out and responded has resulted in a lack of trust by their customers. Apparently it hasn't occurred to Boeing that they have to work to regain that trust.

Speculation perhaps?

Obfuscation is the by word. I suspect that the Boeing strategy, for a long time now, is to avoid any scrutiny they can that could further delay RTS. The 'bitflip' problem was a fly in the ointment that has made it more difficult by delaying RTS for while.

Just about anything suspect identified by any of the reviews, or by congress for that matter, whilst the grounding continues, would make it more difficult to achieve RTS, whereas, a finding after RTS is actually unlikely to result in the grounding being re-instated.

I suspect we can see this strategy of obfuscation in providing data to congress (ostensibly due to IPR) and congress themselves agreeing to forestall Boeing attestation until post RTS. We have also seen it in the apparent delay in providing data to the Indonesian Authorities for completion of their final report. We have seen it before in relation to the JATR, where the excuse was initially IPR issues that has delayed submission (it seems until August having been established in April), and now we see the submission was not as required by the panel - further obfuscation.

So, it would seem that in all cases, no further findings will be available until October and probably post RTS.

It should be remembered that all these bodies are legally constituted and submission requirements are legally sound. That included the JATR that is constituted by the FAA to perform a review scoped by the FAA who are Boeings regulator and they are obliged to provide data so required.

Ray


I think you are missing a key point - and this is unlikely to be obfuscation:

1st, while I understand that three different advisory or investigation committees have been set up; their legal basis and what they can request does not give them absolute authority to request everything.

As an example: No aircraft manufacturer is required to submit detailed blueprints or the exact software code to the FAA for certification. They are required to submit the function of different things and evidence that their design or software meets that function.

On the other hand; the NTSB (and equivalents in other countries) can request and get those detailed design documents, calculations, software code, etc. for specific items that are believed related to a crash or significant failure in order to provide independent analysis of adequacy and if they contributed to the crash or significant event. They cannot request that kind of information for other areas or features of an aircraft (vehicle, bridge, etc).

So, Boeing is not required to supply everything to these boards; and one of the things likely discussed and agreed upon up front is in fact just what kind of information needs to be supplied for the advisory or investigation board to do its work. If you look at the assigned task of each of those boards you should be able to innately see that they require different kinds of information in order to carry out their different tasks.

A second key factor is that such investigation boards often request more information later based on the initial submitted of information from the 1st request. I've been involved in some nuclear industry reviews and there were almost always 3 rounds of request and analysis of information, and sometimes 4. Root cause investigations typically have between 3 and 6 rounds of such request for the areas of interest (1st and 2nd submitted information are used primarily to rule out possibilities and things - so that you can do detailed focus on the areas where things did not go well during the event; and then you keep mining until you fully understand the impact of that area of "non-ideal" performance, and the significance of it to the event. For the root cause item, there is often sufficient information and analysis to explain exactly what and where the failure in that issue/item was.

Thus, it is not a surprise at all that the Indonesian Investigation Board has requested additional information from Boeing on something. In some cases such information is not readily available (just send them the file) and perhaps specific testing or obtaining information from other parties is involved.

Third: Certain countries like to get as much detailed technical information (design documents and software code) as possible. I have done work in China and I assure you that a key goal is to collect "know how" and "how is it done" for everything they can from other countries. They are not unique in this - just the most aggressive country I know of. So, I can easily see China requesting information that Boeing will never supply as its proprietary intellectual property that is not needed for the tasks of the advisory or investigation board.

Have a great day,


Agreed. In my safety-critical industry, it is much the same. We don't submit everything to the regulators - only the information about the legally required safety-related functions, and even then it's not the "blueprints", but rather analysis and description of the design function, from the perspective of certification. Basically they are documents saying "here is the safety function, here is how it works, and here is why we believe it meets the reliability criteria." Often the regulator will ask for some supporting analysis or details. Sometimes they get a few drawings, but those drawings would always be appended to a document describing the situation. More often then not they get a special drawing that focuses on the safety-related subject matter, because everything else not related is not necessary to the conversation and frankly not within the regulator's legal purview.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Tue Sep 03, 2019 4:16 pm

2175301 wrote:
As an example: No aircraft manufacturer is required to submit detailed blueprints or the exact software code to the FAA for certification. They are required to submit the function of different things and evidence that their design or software meets that function.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a fight over what should be shared and what shouldn't. If you will, Boeing crossed the line by not providing MCAS information to pilots - and I totally see a push for less secrecy.
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Tue Sep 03, 2019 6:11 pm

2175301 wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
mysfit wrote:
Boeing probably doesn't like having folks looking over their shoulder and demanding specifics.

The ham handed way they rolled this out and responded has resulted in a lack of trust by their customers. Apparently it hasn't occurred to Boeing that they have to work to regain that trust.

Speculation perhaps?

Obfuscation is the by word. I suspect that the Boeing strategy, for a long time now, is to avoid any scrutiny they can that could further delay RTS. The 'bitflip' problem was a fly in the ointment that has made it more difficult by delaying RTS for while.

Just about anything suspect identified by any of the reviews, or by congress for that matter, whilst the grounding continues, would make it more difficult to achieve RTS, whereas, a finding after RTS is actually unlikely to result in the grounding being re-instated.

I suspect we can see this strategy of obfuscation in providing data to congress (ostensibly due to IPR) and congress themselves agreeing to forestall Boeing attestation until post RTS. We have also seen it in the apparent delay in providing data to the Indonesian Authorities for completion of their final report. We have seen it before in relation to the JATR, where the excuse was initially IPR issues that has delayed submission (it seems until August having been established in April), and now we see the submission was not as required by the panel - further obfuscation.

So, it would seem that in all cases, no further findings will be available until October and probably post RTS.

It should be remembered that all these bodies are legally constituted and submission requirements are legally sound. That included the JATR that is constituted by the FAA to perform a review scoped by the FAA who are Boeings regulator and they are obliged to provide data so required.

Ray


I think you are missing a key point - and this is unlikely to be obfuscation:

1st, while I understand that three different advisory or investigation committees have been set up; their legal basis and what they can request does not give them absolute authority to request everything.

As an example: No aircraft manufacturer is required to submit detailed blueprints or the exact software code to the FAA for certification. They are required to submit the function of different things and evidence that their design or software meets that function.

On the other hand; the NTSB (and equivalents in other countries) can request and get those detailed design documents, calculations, software code, etc. for specific items that are believed related to a crash or significant failure in order to provide independent analysis of adequacy and if they contributed to the crash or significant event. They cannot request that kind of information for other areas or features of an aircraft (vehicle, bridge, etc).

So, Boeing is not required to supply everything to these boards; and one of the things likely discussed and agreed upon up front is in fact just what kind of information needs to be supplied for the advisory or investigation board to do its work. If you look at the assigned task of each of those boards you should be able to innately see that they require different kinds of information in order to carry out their different tasks.

A second key factor is that such investigation boards often request more information later based on the initial submitted of information from the 1st request. I've been involved in some nuclear industry reviews and there were almost always 3 rounds of request and analysis of information, and sometimes 4. Root cause investigations typically have between 3 and 6 rounds of such request for the areas of interest (1st and 2nd submitted information are used primarily to rule out possibilities and things - so that you can do detailed focus on the areas where things did not go well during the event; and then you keep mining until you fully understand the impact of that area of "non-ideal" performance, and the significance of it to the event. For the root cause item, there is often sufficient information and analysis to explain exactly what and where the failure in that issue/item was.

Thus, it is not a surprise at all that the Indonesian Investigation Board has requested additional information from Boeing on something. In some cases such information is not readily available (just send them the file) and perhaps specific testing or obtaining information from other parties is involved.

Third: Certain countries like to get as much detailed technical information (design documents and software code) as possible. I have done work in China and I assure you that a key goal is to collect "know how" and "how is it done" for everything they can from other countries. They are not unique in this - just the most aggressive country I know of. So, I can easily see China requesting information that Boeing will never supply as its proprietary intellectual property that is not needed for the tasks of the advisory or investigation board.

Have a great day,

The only mention of 'blueprints' and 'code' is in your post and nobody has suggest they have requested everything as you put it - so Irrelevant. I would be extremely surprised if congress had requested any detailed design information. As far as JATR, the only information reported was that Boeing had not provided a description of one or more functions of the FCC as I interpret the report i.e. Not detailed design information.

I can make presumptions of what is required by the various bodies and it does not include detail design drawings and code. So why you think this is what has been requested is a mystery to me.

There is no iterative process that I see. Boeing did not provide information to Congress (if they have now is not reported) and did not provide information to the JATR (probably not before August) on the basis of IPR. Just waffle.

The Indonesians have specifically cited Boeing as delaying the report. It is not clear how long this has been for, but after nine months, it wont be something new in my view.

Your third item is entirely irrelevant.

Ray
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Tue Sep 03, 2019 6:21 pm

smithbs wrote:
2175301 wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
Speculation perhaps?

Obfuscation is the by word. I suspect that the Boeing strategy, for a long time now, is to avoid any scrutiny they can that could further delay RTS. The 'bitflip' problem was a fly in the ointment that has made it more difficult by delaying RTS for while.

Just about anything suspect identified by any of the reviews, or by congress for that matter, whilst the grounding continues, would make it more difficult to achieve RTS, whereas, a finding after RTS is actually unlikely to result in the grounding being re-instated.

I suspect we can see this strategy of obfuscation in providing data to congress (ostensibly due to IPR) and congress themselves agreeing to forestall Boeing attestation until post RTS. We have also seen it in the apparent delay in providing data to the Indonesian Authorities for completion of their final report. We have seen it before in relation to the JATR, where the excuse was initially IPR issues that has delayed submission (it seems until August having been established in April), and now we see the submission was not as required by the panel - further obfuscation.

So, it would seem that in all cases, no further findings will be available until October and probably post RTS.

It should be remembered that all these bodies are legally constituted and submission requirements are legally sound. That included the JATR that is constituted by the FAA to perform a review scoped by the FAA who are Boeings regulator and they are obliged to provide data so required.

Ray


I think you are missing a key point - and this is unlikely to be obfuscation:

1st, while I understand that three different advisory or investigation committees have been set up; their legal basis and what they can request does not give them absolute authority to request everything.

As an example: No aircraft manufacturer is required to submit detailed blueprints or the exact software code to the FAA for certification. They are required to submit the function of different things and evidence that their design or software meets that function.

On the other hand; the NTSB (and equivalents in other countries) can request and get those detailed design documents, calculations, software code, etc. for specific items that are believed related to a crash or significant failure in order to provide independent analysis of adequacy and if they contributed to the crash or significant event. They cannot request that kind of information for other areas or features of an aircraft (vehicle, bridge, etc).

So, Boeing is not required to supply everything to these boards; and one of the things likely discussed and agreed upon up front is in fact just what kind of information needs to be supplied for the advisory or investigation board to do its work. If you look at the assigned task of each of those boards you should be able to innately see that they require different kinds of information in order to carry out their different tasks.

A second key factor is that such investigation boards often request more information later based on the initial submitted of information from the 1st request. I've been involved in some nuclear industry reviews and there were almost always 3 rounds of request and analysis of information, and sometimes 4. Root cause investigations typically have between 3 and 6 rounds of such request for the areas of interest (1st and 2nd submitted information are used primarily to rule out possibilities and things - so that you can do detailed focus on the areas where things did not go well during the event; and then you keep mining until you fully understand the impact of that area of "non-ideal" performance, and the significance of it to the event. For the root cause item, there is often sufficient information and analysis to explain exactly what and where the failure in that issue/item was.

Thus, it is not a surprise at all that the Indonesian Investigation Board has requested additional information from Boeing on something. In some cases such information is not readily available (just send them the file) and perhaps specific testing or obtaining information from other parties is involved.

Third: Certain countries like to get as much detailed technical information (design documents and software code) as possible. I have done work in China and I assure you that a key goal is to collect "know how" and "how is it done" for everything they can from other countries. They are not unique in this - just the most aggressive country I know of. So, I can easily see China requesting information that Boeing will never supply as its proprietary intellectual property that is not needed for the tasks of the advisory or investigation board.

Have a great day,


Agreed. In my safety-critical industry, it is much the same. We don't submit everything to the regulators - only the information about the legally required safety-related functions, and even then it's not the "blueprints", but rather analysis and description of the design function, from the perspective of certification. Basically they are documents saying "here is the safety function, here is how it works, and here is why we believe it meets the reliability criteria." Often the regulator will ask for some supporting analysis or details. Sometimes they get a few drawings, but those drawings would always be appended to a document describing the situation. More often then not they get a special drawing that focuses on the safety-related subject matter, because everything else not related is not necessary to the conversation and frankly not within the regulator's legal purview.

It may come as a surprise but, Flight Control Systems are safety critical and the OEM is required to demonstrate the systems and compliance with the standards and regulatory requirements declared. All aircraft systems are subject to standards and regulatory requirements. Yes, including toilet waste disposal, although I don't think the test pilots are involved in that one.

Ray
 
2175301
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Tue Sep 03, 2019 7:10 pm

kalvado wrote:
2175301 wrote:
As an example: No aircraft manufacturer is required to submit detailed blueprints or the exact software code to the FAA for certification. They are required to submit the function of different things and evidence that their design or software meets that function.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a fight over what should be shared and what shouldn't. If you will, Boeing crossed the line by not providing MCAS information to pilots - and I totally see a push for less secrecy.


I do not know why this statement about what information was supplied to the Pilots keeps get being put on Boeing - when they do not decide what information the pilots get.

Boeing supplied information to both the FAA and the Airlines, with a recommendation that the pilots did not need to know (along with many hundreds - if not thousands - of other recommendations on other systems and features). The FAA, EASA, and most National Regulators in the world agreed. Brazil did not and required the pilots to be trained about MCAS (reference is in one of the crash threads). Key Point: The Regulator (National Authority) is legally responsible and decides what information and training the pilots must have.

The Airlines can provide supplemental training above and beyond the regulatory requirements. Buried somewhere in the crash threads was an identification that there was a North American Airline that decided that the pilots needed to know, and trained them on MCAS.

So please tell me again what line Boeing crossed. They provided the information the the National Regulators and to the Airlines, as legally required. Boeing is not legally responsible for deciding what information has to be provided to the Pilots.

Have a great day,
 
kalvado
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Tue Sep 03, 2019 7:27 pm

2175301 wrote:
kalvado wrote:
2175301 wrote:
As an example: No aircraft manufacturer is required to submit detailed blueprints or the exact software code to the FAA for certification. They are required to submit the function of different things and evidence that their design or software meets that function.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a fight over what should be shared and what shouldn't. If you will, Boeing crossed the line by not providing MCAS information to pilots - and I totally see a push for less secrecy.


I do not know why this statement about what information was supplied to the Pilots keeps get being put on Boeing - when they do not decide what information the pilots get.

Boeing supplied information to both the FAA and the Airlines, with a recommendation that the pilots did not need to know (along with many hundreds - if not thousands - of other recommendations on other systems and features). The FAA, EASA, and most National Regulators in the world agreed. Brazil did not and required the pilots to be trained about MCAS (reference is in one of the crash threads). Key Point: The Regulator (National Authority) is legally responsible and decides what information and training the pilots must have.

The Airlines can provide supplemental training above and beyond the regulatory requirements. Buried somewhere in the crash threads was an identification that there was a North American Airline that decided that the pilots needed to know, and trained them on MCAS.

So please tell me again what line Boeing crossed. They provided the information the the National Regulators and to the Airlines, as legally required. Boeing is not legally responsible for deciding what information has to be provided to the Pilots.

Have a great day,

As far as I remember, it was Boeings recommendation not to inform pilots about MCAS. They did cross a line, when they did not disclose full extent of MCAS authority (remember, 2.5 vs 0.6 deg?) along with the recommendation not to provide information to pilots. So no, Boeing can no longer be trusted in defining proprietary vs safety critical.
 
StTim
Posts: 3471
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Tue Sep 03, 2019 7:42 pm

What line did Boeing cross? They allowed a system to be designed tested and certified that went rogue on the failure of a single sensor. To compound this they argued successfully to most certification bodies that the system was such that the pilots did not need to be informed.

If the MCAS had been correctly designed and failed safe then the argument has merits. MCAS should very rarely ever actuate in normal circumstances.
 
sgrow787
Posts: 312
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 8:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Tue Sep 03, 2019 7:59 pm

Why would anyone think theres something special in Boeings 1980s technology? And why would anyone think Boeing would delay their own RTS over that?

The more likely scenario is Boeing doesnt yet have a solution for MCAS 2.0.
Last edited by sgrow787 on Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Just one sensor,
Oh just one se-en-sor,
Just one sensor,
Ooh ooh oo-ooh
Oo-oo-ooh.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:05 pm

StTim wrote:
What line did Boeing cross? They allowed a system to be designed tested and certified that went rogue on the failure of a single sensor. To compound this they argued successfully to most certification bodies that the system was such that the pilots did not need to be informed.

If the MCAS had been correctly designed and failed safe then the argument has merits. MCAS should very rarely ever actuate in normal circumstances.


How long are you all going to sing the same song? At this point it is quite apparent what your agenda is.
 
IADCA
Posts: 1894
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:17 pm

2175301 wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
mysfit wrote:
Boeing probably doesn't like having folks looking over their shoulder and demanding specifics.

The ham handed way they rolled this out and responded has resulted in a lack of trust by their customers. Apparently it hasn't occurred to Boeing that they have to work to regain that trust.

Speculation perhaps?

Obfuscation is the by word. I suspect that the Boeing strategy, for a long time now, is to avoid any scrutiny they can that could further delay RTS. The 'bitflip' problem was a fly in the ointment that has made it more difficult by delaying RTS for while.

Just about anything suspect identified by any of the reviews, or by congress for that matter, whilst the grounding continues, would make it more difficult to achieve RTS, whereas, a finding after RTS is actually unlikely to result in the grounding being re-instated.

I suspect we can see this strategy of obfuscation in providing data to congress (ostensibly due to IPR) and congress themselves agreeing to forestall Boeing attestation until post RTS. We have also seen it in the apparent delay in providing data to the Indonesian Authorities for completion of their final report. We have seen it before in relation to the JATR, where the excuse was initially IPR issues that has delayed submission (it seems until August having been established in April), and now we see the submission was not as required by the panel - further obfuscation.

So, it would seem that in all cases, no further findings will be available until October and probably post RTS.

It should be remembered that all these bodies are legally constituted and submission requirements are legally sound. That included the JATR that is constituted by the FAA to perform a review scoped by the FAA who are Boeings regulator and they are obliged to provide data so required.

Ray


I think you are missing a key point - and this is unlikely to be obfuscation:

1st, while I understand that three different advisory or investigation committees have been set up; their legal basis and what they can request does not give them absolute authority to request everything.

As an example: No aircraft manufacturer is required to submit detailed blueprints or the exact software code to the FAA for certification. They are required to submit the function of different things and evidence that their design or software meets that function.

On the other hand; the NTSB (and equivalents in other countries) can request and get those detailed design documents, calculations, software code, etc. for specific items that are believed related to a crash or significant failure in order to provide independent analysis of adequacy and if they contributed to the crash or significant event. They cannot request that kind of information for other areas or features of an aircraft (vehicle, bridge, etc).

So, Boeing is not required to supply everything to these boards; and one of the things likely discussed and agreed upon up front is in fact just what kind of information needs to be supplied for the advisory or investigation board to do its work. If you look at the assigned task of each of those boards you should be able to innately see that they require different kinds of information in order to carry out their different tasks.

A second key factor is that such investigation boards often request more information later based on the initial submitted of information from the 1st request. I've been involved in some nuclear industry reviews and there were almost always 3 rounds of request and analysis of information, and sometimes 4. Root cause investigations typically have between 3 and 6 rounds of such request for the areas of interest (1st and 2nd submitted information are used primarily to rule out possibilities and things - so that you can do detailed focus on the areas where things did not go well during the event; and then you keep mining until you fully understand the impact of that area of "non-ideal" performance, and the significance of it to the event. For the root cause item, there is often sufficient information and analysis to explain exactly what and where the failure in that issue/item was.

Thus, it is not a surprise at all that the Indonesian Investigation Board has requested additional information from Boeing on something. In some cases such information is not readily available (just send them the file) and perhaps specific testing or obtaining information from other parties is involved.

Third: Certain countries like to get as much detailed technical information (design documents and software code) as possible. I have done work in China and I assure you that a key goal is to collect "know how" and "how is it done" for everything they can from other countries. They are not unique in this - just the most aggressive country I know of. So, I can easily see China requesting information that Boeing will never supply as its proprietary intellectual property that is not needed for the tasks of the advisory or investigation board.

Have a great day,


While much of what you say (especially the last part) is absolutely true in normal commercial circumstances, the strategic calculation often changes when you have something like the entire fleet of a flagship product grounded. If I tried to count on my hands the number of times I've seen companies suddenly willing to provide extremely sensitive information that a regulator can't compel them to produce when that same regulator has them over a barrel on a time- and mission-critical product or project, I'd need a lot more hands.

TTailedTiger wrote:
StTim wrote:
What line did Boeing cross? They allowed a system to be designed tested and certified that went rogue on the failure of a single sensor. To compound this they argued successfully to most certification bodies that the system was such that the pilots did not need to be informed.

If the MCAS had been correctly designed and failed safe then the argument has merits. MCAS should very rarely ever actuate in normal circumstances.


How long are you all going to sing the same song? At this point it is quite apparent what your agenda is.


The pot calling the kettle black. Yeesh.
 
sgrow787
Posts: 312
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 8:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:39 pm

2175301 wrote:

So please tell me again what line Boeing crossed. They provided the information the the National Regulators and to the Airlines, as legally required. Boeing is not legally responsible for deciding what information has to be provided to the Pilots.


From a Seattle Times source, it was reported Boeing asked the FAA to remove MCAS from the FCOM. So thats a little different from what you describe.. an innocent bystander trusting the regulators decisions and authority.
Just one sensor,
Oh just one se-en-sor,
Just one sensor,
Ooh ooh oo-ooh
Oo-oo-ooh.
 
User avatar
smithbs
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 6:09 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:45 pm

XRAYretired wrote:
smithbs wrote:
2175301 wrote:

I think you are missing a key point - and this is unlikely to be obfuscation:

1st, while I understand that three different advisory or investigation committees have been set up; their legal basis and what they can request does not give them absolute authority to request everything.

As an example: No aircraft manufacturer is required to submit detailed blueprints or the exact software code to the FAA for certification. They are required to submit the function of different things and evidence that their design or software meets that function.

On the other hand; the NTSB (and equivalents in other countries) can request and get those detailed design documents, calculations, software code, etc. for specific items that are believed related to a crash or significant failure in order to provide independent analysis of adequacy and if they contributed to the crash or significant event. They cannot request that kind of information for other areas or features of an aircraft (vehicle, bridge, etc).

So, Boeing is not required to supply everything to these boards; and one of the things likely discussed and agreed upon up front is in fact just what kind of information needs to be supplied for the advisory or investigation board to do its work. If you look at the assigned task of each of those boards you should be able to innately see that they require different kinds of information in order to carry out their different tasks.

A second key factor is that such investigation boards often request more information later based on the initial submitted of information from the 1st request. I've been involved in some nuclear industry reviews and there were almost always 3 rounds of request and analysis of information, and sometimes 4. Root cause investigations typically have between 3 and 6 rounds of such request for the areas of interest (1st and 2nd submitted information are used primarily to rule out possibilities and things - so that you can do detailed focus on the areas where things did not go well during the event; and then you keep mining until you fully understand the impact of that area of "non-ideal" performance, and the significance of it to the event. For the root cause item, there is often sufficient information and analysis to explain exactly what and where the failure in that issue/item was.

Thus, it is not a surprise at all that the Indonesian Investigation Board has requested additional information from Boeing on something. In some cases such information is not readily available (just send them the file) and perhaps specific testing or obtaining information from other parties is involved.

Third: Certain countries like to get as much detailed technical information (design documents and software code) as possible. I have done work in China and I assure you that a key goal is to collect "know how" and "how is it done" for everything they can from other countries. They are not unique in this - just the most aggressive country I know of. So, I can easily see China requesting information that Boeing will never supply as its proprietary intellectual property that is not needed for the tasks of the advisory or investigation board.

Have a great day,


Agreed. In my safety-critical industry, it is much the same. We don't submit everything to the regulators - only the information about the legally required safety-related functions, and even then it's not the "blueprints", but rather analysis and description of the design function, from the perspective of certification. Basically they are documents saying "here is the safety function, here is how it works, and here is why we believe it meets the reliability criteria." Often the regulator will ask for some supporting analysis or details. Sometimes they get a few drawings, but those drawings would always be appended to a document describing the situation. More often then not they get a special drawing that focuses on the safety-related subject matter, because everything else not related is not necessary to the conversation and frankly not within the regulator's legal purview.

It may come as a surprise but, Flight Control Systems are safety critical and the OEM is required to demonstrate the systems and compliance with the standards and regulatory requirements declared. All aircraft systems are subject to standards and regulatory requirements. Yes, including toilet waste disposal, although I don't think the test pilots are involved in that one.

Ray


No surprise here and not sure what you're driving at. Did you not just parrot what I said? :?

An extreme example would be this: If a regulator asked me if streaming Youtube on the product will not be glitchy. My response would be "what does this have to do with any safety related function?" Streaming Youtube would be an accessory function unrelated to any safety function, and so frankly the regulator has no legal requirement to know anything about it. However, they could work it around to a question like "does accessory traffic on the machine network have the potential to impact any safety-related function?" That would be a valid question, but the answer would be in terms of the accessory's impact on safety-related infrastructure, and the supporting argument would be written in that perspective.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9199
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:54 pm

sgrow787 wrote:
Why would anyone think theres something special in Boeings 1980s technology? And why would anyone think Boeing would delay their own RTS over that?

The more likely scenario is Boeing doesnt yet have a solution for MCAS 2.0.

So when Boeing submitted MCAS 2.0 in June and the FAA sprung the bit flip on them with the other 5 items from EASA that was.....what?
I thought the bit flip and other items is what they are due to submit this month, not MCAS > 2.
 
sgrow787
Posts: 312
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 8:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Tue Sep 03, 2019 9:27 pm

par13del wrote:
sgrow787 wrote:
Why would anyone think theres something special in Boeings 1980s technology? And why would anyone think Boeing would delay their own RTS over that?

The more likely scenario is Boeing doesnt yet have a solution for MCAS 2.0.

So when Boeing submitted MCAS 2.0 in June and the FAA sprung the bit flip on them with the other 5 items from EASA that was.....what?
I thought the bit flip and other items is what they are due to submit this month, not MCAS > 2.


I forget the source, but the latest MCAS 2.0 solution is a Dual-Channel Active/Standby Fail/Safe solution, where each channel (ie pilot or copilot side of aircraft) has only the onside sensors available to it. So AOA sensor redundancy isnt being performed as it would be in FBW aircraft. Instead, they are likely forwarding the onside AOA sensor data to their (FCC) outputs and getting the redundancy at the same time they are doing the FCC output compare (ie the Active/Standby solution).

Of course, without access to the actual FCC architecture, I cant be sure about any of this. But I cant at present see any way they would be able to compare FCC outputs than through the cross-channel bus, which could be the root problem that started everything, design decisions, safety assessment manipilation, etc etc.
Just one sensor,
Oh just one se-en-sor,
Just one sensor,
Ooh ooh oo-ooh
Oo-oo-ooh.
 
oschkosch
Posts: 335
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Tue Sep 03, 2019 10:00 pm

News! EASA will not automatically allow the max back into the skys.

http://m.aviationweek.com/commercial-av ... be-changed

EASA: FAA ‘Methodologies Need To Be Changed’
EASA executive director Patrick Ky said there is “still a lot of work to be performed” before Europe’s aviation safety authority will allow the Boeing 737 MAX to return to flight and criticized the way the FAA has allowed Boeing to “auto-certify” the aircraft. Ky told the European Parliament’s transport committee Sept. 3 that EASA has decided to recertify parts of the MAX’s flight control systems itself....




And additional news in German language:

https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/ ... -1.4585990


Quick translation thereof:

EASA cannot give Boeing or airlines any hope of a quick RTS of the max. Impossibly to state a timeline. Boeing gave initial answers to certain questions, some answers were fine, others led to EASA asking more questions, some areas have lots of work i.e. questions remain unanswered. EASA will check the entire new software and not rely on FAA approval. All safety relevant parts of the flight control will be checked. EASA will define new rules for max pilots and their training, which must be done before allowing pilots to fly a max. Insiders believe EASA will only allow RTS in 2020.

Ky machte Boeing und den Fluggesellschaften wenig Hoffnung auf eine schnelle Rückkehr der Max. Es sei "unmöglich, einen Zeitplan zu nennen". Boeing habe zwar erste Antworten auf die vielen Fragen geliefert, die die EASA gestellt habe, er sei mit einigen auch glücklich, bei anderen würden sich nun neue Fragen stellen und in weiteren Bereichen warte noch "viel Arbeit". Die europäische Behörde will die neue Boeing-Software nun selbst komplett prüfen und sich nicht mehr auf die FAA verlassen, zudem sollen alle sicherheitskritischen Teile der Flugsteuerung genau untersucht werden. Und die EASA will ihre eigenen Richtlinien aufstellen, nach denen die Piloten geschult werden, bevor sie sich wieder hinter das Steuerhorn einer 737 Max setzen dürfen. Branchenkreise in Europa gehen davon aus, dass die EASA das Flugzeug erst Anfang 2020 wieder zulässt.





Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk
 
StTim
Posts: 3471
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Tue Sep 03, 2019 10:14 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
StTim wrote:
What line did Boeing cross? They allowed a system to be designed tested and certified that went rogue on the failure of a single sensor. To compound this they argued successfully to most certification bodies that the system was such that the pilots did not need to be informed.

If the MCAS had been correctly designed and failed safe then the argument has merits. MCAS should very rarely ever actuate in normal circumstances.


How long are you all going to sing the same song? At this point it is quite apparent what your agenda is.

I have no agenda. I don’t bash the MAX. I don’t bash the intent on MCAS. I don’t make wild claims I would never fly on it.

I do, as someone with a degree in Mechanical engineering do know the implementation of MCAS was screwed up.

I have never said there was malice or undue pressure from corporate to cut corners. I have no facts to back that up. BUT somewhere along the line there was a screw up which none of the normal safety reviews picked up on. That has to be a worry for the industry.

Oh and perhaps some pilots out there could have saved the planes, themselves and their passengers BUT it is again clear the average Joe pilot didn’t.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21755
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Tue Sep 03, 2019 10:33 pm

sgrow787 wrote:
par13del wrote:
So when Boeing submitted MCAS 2.0 in June and the FAA sprung the bit flip on them with the other 5 items from EASA that was.....what?
I thought the bit flip and other items is what they are due to submit this month, not MCAS > 2.

I forget the source, but the latest MCAS 2.0 solution is a Dual-Channel Active/Standby Fail/Safe solution, where each channel (ie pilot or copilot side of aircraft) has only the onside sensors available to it.

Most sources do not describe the dual-channel fix as a part of the MCAS solution, rather as a solution to issues found when doing the cosmic ray / bit flip test of the MCAS candidate software.

These two issues, along with some other issues encountered along the way, all need to be addressed before RTS.

oschkosch wrote:
News! EASA will not automatically allow the max back into the skys.

It might be news, but it is not a surprise to almost everyone watching this saga unfold.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
sgrow787
Posts: 312
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 8:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Tue Sep 03, 2019 10:52 pm

Revelation wrote:
Most sources do not describe the dual-channel fix as a part of the MCAS solution, rather as a solution to issues found when doing the cosmic ray / bit flip test of the MCAS candidate software.


And the term "MCAS 2.0" used on a.net has always referred to the eventual software package to address MCAS plus other issues. They would not be submitting sw updates for other issues at a later date like they do in the smart phone world.
Just one sensor,
Oh just one se-en-sor,
Just one sensor,
Ooh ooh oo-ooh
Oo-oo-ooh.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21755
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Tue Sep 03, 2019 10:52 pm

More info on EASA executive director Patrick Ky's comments at AIN: Ky Warns Max Crisis Could Alter FAA-EASA Relationship

European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) executive director Patrick Ky signaled that the Boeing 737 Max grounding and the privileged relationship Boeing allegedly enjoyed with the FAA during the certification of the model could trigger a “very strong change” in the hierarchy of the relationship between the certification authorities, affirming a concern of a “de-alignment” of the FAA and EASA, expressed on several occasions by Airbus CEO Guillaume Faury. Speaking during an exchange of views with the European Parliament’s transport committee on Tuesday, Ky said that the FAA finds itself in a “very difficult situation.”

“It is very likely that international authorities will want a second opinion, or a further opinion [once the U.S. FAA clears the Max to fly],” he noted. “It was not like this a year ago.”

Ky said EASA did not audit the FAA and how it certified the Max and the problematic maneuvering characteristics augmentation system (MCAS), which safety authorities consider a major cause of the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines Max 8 crashes

And:

EASA banned the Max from flying to and in European airspace on March 12. It set four conditions before the Max can return to service in the continent, including the certification by EASA itself—without delegating to the FAA—for all design changes proposed by Boeing. In addition, in a demand Ky called “not very popular with our American colleagues,” EASA has asked for a “broader review of the design of safety-critical systems” of the Max—domains that the EU-U.S. bilateral safety agreement delegated to the FAA. EASA also wants a “complete understanding” of the two accidents from both a technical and operational point of view and for adequate training of flight crew.

I'm not sure why all the tentative language is being used, he's flat out saying EASA will do its own post-FAA certification work.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21755
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Tue Sep 03, 2019 11:08 pm

sgrow787 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Most sources do not describe the dual-channel fix as a part of the MCAS solution, rather as a solution to issues found when doing the cosmic ray / bit flip test of the MCAS candidate software.

And the term "MCAS 2.0" used on a.net has always referred to the eventual software package to address MCAS plus other issues.

I disagree. For instance we referred to "MCAS 2.0" long before anyone knew there was a "bit flip" issue.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
sgrow787
Posts: 312
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 8:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Tue Sep 03, 2019 11:12 pm

Revelation wrote:
sgrow787 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Most sources do not describe the dual-channel fix as a part of the MCAS solution, rather as a solution to issues found when doing the cosmic ray / bit flip test of the MCAS candidate software.

And the term "MCAS 2.0" used on a.net has always referred to the eventual software package to address MCAS plus other issues.

I disagree. For instance we referred to "MCAS 2.0" long before anyone knew there was a "bit flip" issue.


No comment :)
Just one sensor,
Oh just one se-en-sor,
Just one sensor,
Ooh ooh oo-ooh
Oo-oo-ooh.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21755
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Tue Sep 03, 2019 11:17 pm

AvWeek's report on Ky's statements ( https://aviationweek.com/commercial-avi ... be-changed ) is a lot more direct:

Ky told the European Parliament’s transport committee Sept. 3 that EASA has decided to recertify parts of the MAX’s flight control systems itself, oversight of which had been transferred to the FAA previously. “A lot of work is being done,” Ky said. EASA has been in close coordination with Boeing and the FAA for months. At this point the European agency is “happy” with some aspects of Boeing’s answers to its requests while there are others that “we need to discuss some more” and some issues still require more work.

In particular, EASA wants to perform an in-depth human factor evaluation of the MAX systems, the updated maneuvering characteristics augmentation system (MCAS), cockpit alarms and functionality before it allows to the aircraft to fly in European airspace again.

Once those checks are completed, EASA pilots will also test-fly the MAX to validate the MCAS changes. EASA pilots have participated in simulator sessions but the flight tests still need to me made.

And:

The agency has come up with four conditions that have to be met before the MAX can fly again in Europe. Primarily, all modifications must be approved by EASA itself. Additionally, EASA demanded a “broader review of the design of safety critical systems” of the MAX which had previously been performed by the FAA. “That was not very popular with our American colleagues,” Ky hinted. EASA also wants a “complete understanding” of the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines accidents both from a technical and operational point-of-view. Finally, the agency wants to ensure that flight crews are adequately trained.

No more tentative language.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 746
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Tue Sep 03, 2019 11:24 pm

Revelation wrote:
More info on EASA executive director Patrick Ky's comments at AIN: Ky Warns Max Crisis Could Alter FAA-EASA Relationship

European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) executive director Patrick Ky signaled that the Boeing 737 Max grounding and the privileged relationship Boeing allegedly enjoyed with the FAA during the certification of the model could trigger a “very strong change” in the hierarchy of the relationship between the certification authorities, affirming a concern of a “de-alignment” of the FAA and EASA, expressed on several occasions by Airbus CEO Guillaume Faury. Speaking during an exchange of views with the European Parliament’s transport committee on Tuesday, Ky said that the FAA finds itself in a “very difficult situation.”

“It is very likely that international authorities will want a second opinion, or a further opinion [once the U.S. FAA clears the Max to fly],” he noted. “It was not like this a year ago.”

Ky said EASA did not audit the FAA and how it certified the Max and the problematic maneuvering characteristics augmentation system (MCAS), which safety authorities consider a major cause of the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines Max 8 crashes

And:

EASA banned the Max from flying to and in European airspace on March 12. It set four conditions before the Max can return to service in the continent, including the certification by EASA itself—without delegating to the FAA—for all design changes proposed by Boeing. In addition, in a demand Ky called “not very popular with our American colleagues,” EASA has asked for a “broader review of the design of safety-critical systems” of the Max—domains that the EU-U.S. bilateral safety agreement delegated to the FAA. EASA also wants a “complete understanding” of the two accidents from both a technical and operational point of view and for adequate training of flight crew.

I'm not sure why all the tentative language is being used, he's flat out saying EASA will do its own post-FAA certification work.
Thanks for the link.

EASA also wants a “complete understanding” of the two accidents from both a technical and operational point of view and for adequate training of flight crew.
Good move. It's very clear that a lot of peoples wants exactly that understanding too.

While the article bound the FAA delegation issue the MCAS only, the question of what could have bee certified with an inappropriate safety assessment will require a proper response that can potentially span outside of the 737-8/9 MAX.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Tue Sep 03, 2019 11:33 pm

Tangential question: what would happen with Boeing deliveries if a split return to flight would indeed occur?
Would Boeing try to force-feed airlines with planes if they are not approved by airline's home regulator? Or a more delicate question - what if home regulator approves FAA return, but major destinations are in a country which would hold off approval (asian countries and China, possibly)?
Of course, things should be covered by purchasing contracts; but given split certification is rare, it is quite possible such situations are not spelled out...
 
AngMoh
Posts: 979
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:03 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Tue Sep 03, 2019 11:36 pm

smithbs wrote:
2175301 wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
Speculation perhaps?

Obfuscation is the by word. I suspect that the Boeing strategy, for a long time now, is to avoid any scrutiny they can that could further delay RTS. The 'bitflip' problem was a fly in the ointment that has made it more difficult by delaying RTS for while.

Just about anything suspect identified by any of the reviews, or by congress for that matter, whilst the grounding continues, would make it more difficult to achieve RTS, whereas, a finding after RTS is actually unlikely to result in the grounding being re-instated.

I suspect we can see this strategy of obfuscation in providing data to congress (ostensibly due to IPR) and congress themselves agreeing to forestall Boeing attestation until post RTS. We have also seen it in the apparent delay in providing data to the Indonesian Authorities for completion of their final report. We have seen it before in relation to the JATR, where the excuse was initially IPR issues that has delayed submission (it seems until August having been established in April), and now we see the submission was not as required by the panel - further obfuscation.

So, it would seem that in all cases, no further findings will be available until October and probably post RTS.

It should be remembered that all these bodies are legally constituted and submission requirements are legally sound. That included the JATR that is constituted by the FAA to perform a review scoped by the FAA who are Boeings regulator and they are obliged to provide data so required.

Ray


I think you are missing a key point - and this is unlikely to be obfuscation:

1st, while I understand that three different advisory or investigation committees have been set up; their legal basis and what they can request does not give them absolute authority to request everything.

As an example: No aircraft manufacturer is required to submit detailed blueprints or the exact software code to the FAA for certification. They are required to submit the function of different things and evidence that their design or software meets that function.

On the other hand; the NTSB (and equivalents in other countries) can request and get those detailed design documents, calculations, software code, etc. for specific items that are believed related to a crash or significant failure in order to provide independent analysis of adequacy and if they contributed to the crash or significant event. They cannot request that kind of information for other areas or features of an aircraft (vehicle, bridge, etc).

So, Boeing is not required to supply everything to these boards; and one of the things likely discussed and agreed upon up front is in fact just what kind of information needs to be supplied for the advisory or investigation board to do its work. If you look at the assigned task of each of those boards you should be able to innately see that they require different kinds of information in order to carry out their different tasks.

A second key factor is that such investigation boards often request more information later based on the initial submitted of information from the 1st request. I've been involved in some nuclear industry reviews and there were almost always 3 rounds of request and analysis of information, and sometimes 4. Root cause investigations typically have between 3 and 6 rounds of such request for the areas of interest (1st and 2nd submitted information are used primarily to rule out possibilities and things - so that you can do detailed focus on the areas where things did not go well during the event; and then you keep mining until you fully understand the impact of that area of "non-ideal" performance, and the significance of it to the event. For the root cause item, there is often sufficient information and analysis to explain exactly what and where the failure in that issue/item was.

Thus, it is not a surprise at all that the Indonesian Investigation Board has requested additional information from Boeing on something. In some cases such information is not readily available (just send them the file) and perhaps specific testing or obtaining information from other parties is involved.

Third: Certain countries like to get as much detailed technical information (design documents and software code) as possible. I have done work in China and I assure you that a key goal is to collect "know how" and "how is it done" for everything they can from other countries. They are not unique in this - just the most aggressive country I know of. So, I can easily see China requesting information that Boeing will never supply as its proprietary intellectual property that is not needed for the tasks of the advisory or investigation board.

Have a great day,


Agreed. In my safety-critical industry, it is much the same. We don't submit everything to the regulators - only the information about the legally required safety-related functions, and even then it's not the "blueprints", but rather analysis and description of the design function, from the perspective of certification. Basically they are documents saying "here is the safety function, here is how it works, and here is why we believe it meets the reliability criteria." Often the regulator will ask for some supporting analysis or details. Sometimes they get a few drawings, but those drawings would always be appended to a document describing the situation. More often then not they get a special drawing that focuses on the safety-related subject matter, because everything else not related is not necessary to the conversation and frankly not within the regulator's legal purview.


It might not be required to submit everything, but once you get caught for issues, the rules change. In Germany, there were similar requirements and only limited data was shared. Now VW and other manufacturers have been caught for cheating with their diesel engines, the rules have changed. The German regulator is now reviewing every single line of source code for every single diesel engine. The stick the German regulator has is simple, if they don't get all the diesel engine issues resolved, no new car models will be certified full stop. Audi want a certification on their next model, you better give the required info on the existing diesel engines. Nothing Audi can do. The regulator can just argue that they don't have ability to certify new car models as they are too busy with Dieselgate. Boeing has the same dilemma.
They can withhold info, claim confidentiality on IPR and other nonsense, the regulator can just claim that they do not have enough info to be confident that issues are resolved and grounding can be lifted. Maybe legally the info does not have to be shared, but there are enough excuses for regulators to not lift the grounding. Boeing has their back against the wall and better cooperate.

I do technical assessments on behalf of a regulator, and many times we get a refusal to share info on IP grounds. All it does is delay everything. In the end, unless the info is shared, no approval is issued. It might take a lot of hassle, secure rooms, limited access in terms of personnel, very specific scoping of what info is required, but in the end the info always has to be shared otherwise the approval process comes to a halt.
727 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 739ER 742 743 744 752 753 762 772 77E 773 77W 788 A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A345 A346 A359 A35K A388 DC-9 DC-10 MD11 MD81 MD82 MD87 F70 ERJ145 E170 E175 E190 E195 ATR72 Q400 CRJ200 CRJ700 CRJ900 BAE146 RJ85
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9199
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Wed Sep 04, 2019 3:11 am

So the FAA will clear the MAX to fly in the USA, EASA will clear it to fly in Europe when they are ready and the rest of the world get's to decide which side they want to join.
Simple enough...
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Wed Sep 04, 2019 3:16 am

So the EASA will keep a perfectly functioning airplane grounded. Just because. Fair enough. The EASA has made its bed. But you can be very sure they will cry foul when they must lie in it one day. :smile:
 
planecane
Posts: 1235
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Wed Sep 04, 2019 3:19 am

I can certainly understand the EASA's position and distrust of the FAA. However, they need to be careful to evaluate the submission in a timely manner and not apply higher standards than they would for any other aircraft. It would be bad for Airbus if the EASA looks like they are doing anything just to be difficult. They could instigate a tit-for-tat where the FAA makes certification difficult on Airbus without a valid reason as a retaliatory action.

I'm all for the EASA doing an independent review to have a redundant review. Frankly, I'll feel safer boarding a MAX knowing there were two, independent, reviews of what ended up being a major software update. I'm not for them doing anything in a punitive manner.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Wed Sep 04, 2019 3:26 am

planecane wrote:
I can certainly understand the EASA's position and distrust of the FAA. However, they need to be careful to evaluate the submission in a timely manner and not apply higher standards than they would for any other aircraft. It would be bad for Airbus if the EASA looks like they are doing anything just to be difficult. They could instigate a tit-for-tat where the FAA makes certification difficult on Airbus without a valid reason as a retaliatory action.

I'm all for the EASA doing an independent review to have a redundant review. Frankly, I'll feel safer boarding a MAX knowing there were two, independent, reviews of what ended up being a major software update. I'm not for them doing anything in a punitive manner.


Yes, I think it will get very ugly. European regulators have always turned a blind eye to their own aircraft issues. They did nothing when the aileron reversal issue was found on the ATR. Aerospatiale did nothing to fix it and the regulators didn't force them to. If the EASA gets political with the Max then you can be sure the consequences will be felt by both Boeing and Airbus.
 
marcelh
Posts: 683
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Wed Sep 04, 2019 3:51 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
planecane wrote:
I can certainly understand the EASA's position and distrust of the FAA. However, they need to be careful to evaluate the submission in a timely manner and not apply higher standards than they would for any other aircraft. It would be bad for Airbus if the EASA looks like they are doing anything just to be difficult. They could instigate a tit-for-tat where the FAA makes certification difficult on Airbus without a valid reason as a retaliatory action.

I'm all for the EASA doing an independent review to have a redundant review. Frankly, I'll feel safer boarding a MAX knowing there were two, independent, reviews of what ended up being a major software update. I'm not for them doing anything in a punitive manner.


Yes, I think it will get very ugly. European regulators have always turned a blind eye to their own aircraft issues. They did nothing when the aileron reversal issue was found on the ATR. Aerospatiale did nothing to fix it and the regulators didn't force them to. If the EASA gets political with the Max then you can be sure the consequences will be felt by both Boeing and Airbus.

There is nothing political. EASA has the opinion FAA screwed up the certification of the MAX, so they want to do some double checks.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Wed Sep 04, 2019 4:35 am

marcelh wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
planecane wrote:
I can certainly understand the EASA's position and distrust of the FAA. However, they need to be careful to evaluate the submission in a timely manner and not apply higher standards than they would for any other aircraft. It would be bad for Airbus if the EASA looks like they are doing anything just to be difficult. They could instigate a tit-for-tat where the FAA makes certification difficult on Airbus without a valid reason as a retaliatory action.

I'm all for the EASA doing an independent review to have a redundant review. Frankly, I'll feel safer boarding a MAX knowing there were two, independent, reviews of what ended up being a major software update. I'm not for them doing anything in a punitive manner.


Yes, I think it will get very ugly. European regulators have always turned a blind eye to their own aircraft issues. They did nothing when the aileron reversal issue was found on the ATR. Aerospatiale did nothing to fix it and the regulators didn't force them to. If the EASA gets political with the Max then you can be sure the consequences will be felt by both Boeing and Airbus.

There is nothing political. EASA has the opinion FAA screwed up the certification of the MAX, so they want to do some double checks.


We will see. The EASA has nothing to lose by keeping it grounded.

If the EASA keeps the Max grounded for more than six months after the FAA clears it then I think we will know that it is political. That would force IAG's hand to cancel the LOI and give the order to Airbus. Then it will just be the question of who Ryanair and Norwegian sue. I imagine Boeing will give them some nice compensation and point their finger at the EASA.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1791
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Wed Sep 04, 2019 4:40 am

Revelation wrote:
I'm not sure why all the tentative language is being used, he's flat out saying EASA will do its own post-FAA certification work.

The term "post-FAA" implies something about the timing of the work, which is not accurate. In fact, the information we have points to all agencies doing the certification work in parallel. The EASA in principle will simply do the same as the FAA a second time, independently and parallelly. Only if their review is more in-depth, it will take longer.

The impression, that the EASA is looking more thoroughly at the MAX design than the FAA, is something the FAA should avoid at all cost, because for most people (besides the die hard Boeing fans) it would amplify the negative impression they got from the FAA in the last year. Delicate e.g. would be an FAA rubber stamped flight clearance and some weeks later EASA would find another real flaw. With which agency would the US flying public side?
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
marcelh
Posts: 683
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Wed Sep 04, 2019 5:00 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
marcelh wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:

Yes, I think it will get very ugly. European regulators have always turned a blind eye to their own aircraft issues. They did nothing when the aileron reversal issue was found on the ATR. Aerospatiale did nothing to fix it and the regulators didn't force them to. If the EASA gets political with the Max then you can be sure the consequences will be felt by both Boeing and Airbus.

There is nothing political. EASA has the opinion FAA screwed up the certification of the MAX, so they want to do some double checks.


We will see. The EASA has nothing to lose by keeping it grounded.

The EASA has a lot to lose, their credibillity.

If the EASA keeps the Max grounded for more than six months after the FAA clears it then I think we will know that it is political

It could also mean Boeing hasn’t answer all the questions, or that the pilots need additional training.

That would force IAG's hand to cancel the LOI and give the order to Airbus.

IIRC those planes won’t be delivered before 2021, so no problem here
Them it will just be the question of who Ryanair and Norwegian sue. I imagine Boeing will give them some nice compensation and point their finger at the EASA.

If the “additional certification” of EASA takes more t than 6 months, I think we can ask Boeing why they aren’t able to meet the requirements EASA has asked.
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1667
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Wed Sep 04, 2019 5:41 am

oschkosch wrote:
http://m.aviationweek.com/commercial-av ... be-changed

... Ky told the European Parliament’s transport committee Sept. 3 that EASA has decided to recertify parts of the MAX’s flight control systems itself....



Finally, someone doing their job as intended.
 
bennett123
Posts: 8985
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Wed Sep 04, 2019 6:39 am

A lot of people talking about the possibility of the FAA ungrounding before EASA and the consequences.

IIRC, they grounded it somewhat later than others. Furthermore, it took an Executive Order from the White House.

Wonder when/if they would have done so otherwise.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Wed Sep 04, 2019 6:48 am

sgrow787 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Most sources do not describe the dual-channel fix as a part of the MCAS solution, rather as a solution to issues found when doing the cosmic ray / bit flip test of the MCAS candidate software.


And the term "MCAS 2.0" used on a.net has always referred to the eventual software package to address MCAS plus other issues. They would not be submitting sw updates for other issues at a later date like they do in the smart phone world.


Well, afair the term "MCAS 2.0" came up here long before "other" issues entered the melee.
It mostly covered sanitation of the initial MCAS layout.

Repartitioning the full software suite to handle existing computing power being overwhelmed
and those "cosmic ray" bitflips ( which I think is a misrepresentation of an error introducing technique
to check for error recovery issues. Compare to testing fail save structures by damaging random parts
to check against total failure.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13281
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Wed Sep 04, 2019 7:18 am

bennett123 wrote:
A lot of people talking about the possibility of the FAA ungrounding before EASA and the consequences.

IIRC, they grounded it somewhat later than others. Furthermore, it took an Executive Order from the White House.

Wonder when/if they would have done so otherwise.


I think that is the topic of a seperate investigation. It seemed safety was not #1.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Wed Sep 04, 2019 7:24 am

keesje wrote:
bennett123 wrote:
A lot of people talking about the possibility of the FAA ungrounding before EASA and the consequences.

IIRC, they grounded it somewhat later than others. Furthermore, it took an Executive Order from the White House.

Wonder when/if they would have done so otherwise.


I think that is the topic of a seperate investigation. It seemed safety was not #1.


A crash or just a major fault event without crash in the direct domain of the FAA
and on/over US soil. ( going by the run up to the 787 grounding.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
JonesNL
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Wed Sep 04, 2019 7:32 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
...
You can be sure that Boeing has gone beyond the minimum requirements to fix the issues.
...


Minimum standards only apply for business as usual, when you fail badly, maximum standards will be applied. This is the case in all business, see the cosmic ray issue that even the FAA pointed out. You fail, you get extra scrutiny. Like Revelation mentioned, everybody was expecting this from the EASA.

TTailedTiger wrote:
And Germany lost a lot of money on the A380 loans. The royalties from a bunch of new A320 orders from IAG, Ryanair, Norwegian, etc would offset that loss. It would ensure no more Boeing narrowbody orders for EU airlines and anyone flying shorthaul into an EU country. That doesn't seem far fetched with their impossible demand of the manual trim wheel. The odds of ever needing it are insanely improbable.


It is incredibly far fetched, even not financially possible. The output of Airbus narrowbodies is extremely limited, so they cannot process more orders than that they are currently doing. To be honest this will be hurting the EU economy more than help it as airliners will have a lot less revenue and higher costs due to fuel costs. So this grounding is a net negative for almost all parties.
 
ei146
Posts: 268
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 9:54 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Wed Sep 04, 2019 7:59 am

Why is this thread still open and on page 61 already?
We have a small number of very active people repeating again and again their very simplistic view of things:
Boeing and the FAA are not to blame at all or only very, very, very little. Basically it is everyone elses fault, that the MAXes crashed. The whole world conspired and use every possible tool to damage Boeing, the FAA and the USA in general.
Nothing can shake their point of view, no good argument, fact or common sense.
But this was established on page 2 or 3 already. So why keep the discussion going?

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