User avatar
Erebus
Posts: 1034
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:40 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 1:16 am

2175301 wrote:
My personal interpretation of their statement: "design errors with safety related systems are not even possible with the EASA review process".


Yeah, in your interpretation, you're way over-blowing this out of proportion. Nobody in the world is expecting a 100% error free review. It isn't about the EASA going over and above what they are supposed to be doing. This is more about the EASA following their own approach to certifying things where they suspect (with good reason) that the FAA has fallen behind on the integrity of their processes. It won't catch all errors, but it is better than taking the FAA's word at this point. Sorry to be blunt about it!
 
kalvado
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 1:40 am

2175301 wrote:
Ertro wrote:
Regulator has culpability only if regulator has done something wrong into the direction that makes the plane more unsafe. Even if EASA ungrounds the plane before FAA and even if the plane crashes that is not yet enough to show that EASA has done anything wrong. It might have been but the wrongdoing still needs to be shown. If there is no wrongdoing shown it is a case of shit happens, such is life and nobody could blame EASA for it.

FAA on the other hand has already been shown to botch the regulator duty. If the plane crashes there is some egg on FAAs face no matter how it happens.

It is pure fantasy to imagine a situation where EASA ungrounds the plane before FAA. Not going to happen. So EASA is not a gatekeeper or kingmaker into that direction that could make EASA to be at fault at anything. On the other hand if EASA causes both FAA and EASA together unground the plane at some later date than FAA alone would have done that is also situation where EASA can not be seen to be at fault.

Lastly any respectable regulator agency should not be afraid to make decisions and be a gatekeeper or kingmaker. If any regulator agency is afraid of that then that by itself causes it to lose any respect immediately. Nobody who is afraid of responsibility deserves any respect.


I think you are missing the key issue here: For decades the most of the major aircraft producing nations have had "bilateral" agreements that essentially said "we trust your national certification agency to certify as generally safe any aircraft developed and manufactured in your country."

Now such bilateral agreements may also include language that "our country" can impose certain other "modest" additional requirements prior to certification in "our country"; which clearly has existed both ways in such bilateral agreements.

Due to the consolidation of Europe that bilateral is now between EASA and the other nations (in this case the FAA); and not individual nations within the EU.

It has long been standard that certification of a EASA aircraft in the USA took a bit longer for other modest requirements specific to the FAA, and certification of FAA approved aircraft by the EASA again took a bit longer due to requirements specific the EASA. The aircraft manufactures knew what additional information and the process up front - and it was a relatively smooth process.

No one is expecting EASA or anyone else to lift the restriction until after the FAA approves it.

However, the current appearance is that EASA is now saying that they no longer trust the FAA to certify as generally safe any aircraft. They they "have to" impose their own requirements to be sure the aircraft is generally safe. The other day the IATA General Director discussed this appearance as well: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1426007&p=21637581&hilit=2175301#p21637581

Of course, no regulator can actually ensure perfect safety, no design errors, etc. That is fantasy land thinking. Yet, it appears that EASA is saying that they definitively would have caught the design error. My personal interpretation of their statement: "design errors with safety related systems are not even possible with the EASA review process".

To me personally, that sounds like a delusional or ignorant person - yet its from the head of the EASA. In actuality, what is possible is to reduce the number of critical errors below a certain threshold. The regulators have done a stunning job in improving that threshold in the last 60 years as evidenced by the crash statistics. Yet, events will still happen as nothing is perfect. That does not mean that the regulator failed in their job.

The other explanation is that the statement is "Political" in nature to satisfy their constituents... (and the truth does not matter)

If their statements are true in application (they actually act that way - and treat the FAA as an untrustworthy national agency)... then it essentially kills the bilateral between the USA and EU. That is the apparent issue - and it will be very costly for everyone. Not just moving forward. But, does it potentially kill the certifications already in place?

Personally, I wish the EASA had said just that it appears that the FAA is struggling at the moment and we are offering our services to help, and will also ensure that the system involved here is adequately safe to our standards. Of course, as I said before: There is a cultural difference between how Europe and the USA approach and do things.

I've also said before that I believe that Congress and the President passing a law that took the direct report of the key reviewers and certifiers from Boeing (etc) to the FAA was a mistake. It will take an act of the US Congress and President to reverse that. However, within the legally defined process that the FAA had. Both Boeing and the FAA followed the current US Law legal process; but a mistake was made in not identifying failure modes and/or significance at the FMEA level (which is the process step where the mistake was made at). I'm not sure if that mistake would have been caught under the previous direct report system either; nor am I sure that EASA would clearly catch a mistake in a FMEA at their level either.

Also, I guess we will not know how the EASA actually acts until after the FAA certifies the changes and approves the 737Max to fly again in the USA.

Have a great day,

One may argue, that FAA breached 1.6.1.1 of bilateral, so EASA exercise rights outlined in 1.13.70.
 
ArgentoSystems
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:05 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 3:01 am

2175301 wrote:

I believe if you research it - that you will find that all the most recent court rulings protect passwords for general data/File review under the 5th Amendment if you are withing the USA (Border protection for someone entering the USA and not yet in it has had mixed legal results to date). It is true that certain state courts previously ruled that it did not (and you are correct that Florida ruled it did). There have been several more recent Federal Appeals Court rulings that side squarely on passwords generally being protected by the 5th Amendment.


Good to know. Personally I think it is wrong to compell person to reveal a password. So I'm glad USA is moving towards making more sense.
 
Ertro
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:28 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:13 am

2175301 wrote:
Yet, it appears that EASA is saying that they definitively would have caught the design error. My personal interpretation of their statement: "design errors with safety related systems are not even possible with the EASA review process".
To me personally, that sounds like a delusional or ignorant person - yet its from the head of the EASA.


It appears ... My personal interpretation ...

Until there is a direct quote that you can quote verbatim instead of just your interpretations putting your words into the mouth of other people it is pretty outlandish to call respected persons delusional or ignorant. And even then it would be very bad form to insult people like that. Much more bad form than anything else I have seen in a long time. Your words in your interpretation do not come from: " - yet its from the head of the EASA".
 
2175301
Posts: 1472
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:40 am

kalvado wrote:
2175301 wrote:
Deleted for readability - see above for full section

One may argue, that FAA breached 1.6.1.1 of bilateral, so EASA exercise rights outlined in 1.13.70.


If you are reading the Technical Implementation Procedures (which is where those section numbers come from); then you should know its a lot more complicated than that; and I believe your referencing 1.13.70 is in the wrong context.

For people who are interested in the details (all 101 pages of them)

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... nd%202.pdf

1.3 Principles
1.3.1: The TIP is based on continuous communication and mutual confidence in the FAA’s and EASA’s technical competence and ability to perform regulatory functions within the scope of the TIP. The FAA and EASA, when acting as the Authority for the importing State, shall give the same validity to the certification made by the other, as the Authority for the exporting State, as if they were made in accordance with its own applicable laws, regulations, and requirements. When a finding is made by one Authority in accordance with the laws and regulations of the other Authority and the TIP, that finding is
given the same validity as if it were made by the other Authority. Therefore, the fundamental principle of the TIP is to maximize the use of the exporting Authority’s aircraft certification system to ensure that the airworthiness and environmental requirements of the validating Authority are satisfied.



You are correct that a key section is 1.6.1.1:
"To avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts, the FAA and EASA need to establish and maintain confidence in each Authority’s technical ability to make findings on behalf of the other Authority. At the same
time consistent application by the FAA, EASA and the EU member state Aviation Authorities (AA) of the Agreement in all areas covered by Annex 1 of the Agreement has to be ensured as part of the COB
mandate."

It does not take too much further reading to understand that this is done through audits and samples, and that there is a resolution process to be followed in the event of an differences of interpretation or unsuitable resolutions of findings (Section 1.9).

Should the issue be significant enough that it affects multiple nations it can be elevated to a joint national board representing Brazil, Canada, European Union, and United States of America to ensure that key parties are in harmony and agreement on the resolution per 1.9.4

1.9.4: Issues that are worked through the resolution of conflicts process between the FAA and EASA should be evaluated to determine if coordination to the CMT is appropriate. The CMT consists of the FAA, EASA, Transport Canada Civil Aviation and the Brazilian Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil and is chaired by the Directors of each Authority’s certification group. Coordination to the CMT should be considered if resolution of the issue would help to harmonize how all four Authorities address the issue in a consistent manner on future projects. Where harmonization is not possible, the differences should be clearly identified. The CMT strives to work certification issues common to all four Authorities in a collaborative manner to provide harmonized solutions that work for each Authority. Therefore, when a certification issue requires resolution at the policy level to standardize or harmonize among all four Authorities, it is recommended that the issue be elevated through the CMT structure.

The Lion Air Crash was October 28, 2018: It is now known that the Pilot In Command was successfully controlling the aircraft with a malfunctioning MCAS system for a number of minutes (approximately 10 minutes if I recall correctly) It is now known that the PIC manually performing numerous trim up commands to counteract the MCAS trim down commands; before he decided to hand the controls over to the Co-Pilot so that the Pilot could consult books and charts for troubleshooting. The Co-Pilot quickly lost control as he did not manually input trim up commands at the same rate as the pilot did, and crashed.

As such, since the aircraft flew for many minutes within essential control (could be seen by ground radar before the data recorders were found) questions could be asked about other factors and other potential causes of the crash. Recovery of the data recorders took time as they were underwater and in muck.

The Ethiopian Crash occurred March 10, and within a few days it was known that MCAS was likely involved due to the jack screw position and there was no sustained period of level and essentially in control flight (flight appeared to be out of control since the end of take off climb). As with all crashes questions have been raised about other factors; but, MCAS issues appear prominent and likely significant.

In neither case has the investigation report been issued at this time which would discuss the other factors involved in the crashes and provide key findings.

On March 12 EASA grounds the 737max when provided the information that MCAS was involved at least a factor in another crash.

On March 13 FAA grounds the 737max.

EASA clearly has the authority to ground the 737max given the situation within the Technical Implementation Procedures (several possible sections could be cited).

The March 13 FAA grounding by my reading essentially triggers section 1.13.29 of a "Finding"; and also involves Section IV: Continuing Airworthiness (see below)

1.13.29: “Finding” means a determination of compliance or non-compliance to the applicable airworthiness or environmental standards as the result of the FAA’s review, investigation, inspection, test, and/or analysis. Refer to paragraph 1.13.70, "Verification of Compliance", for EASA.

That then triggers section 1.13.70 (it is not by my reading triggered by 1.6.1.1 - that could only trigger a section 1.9 process if the various audit processes identified an issue)

However, 1.13.70 only specifies verification of what the FAA is doing to address the situation:

1.13.70:“Verification of Compliance” means the involvement done by EASA when reviewing compliance to the applicable airworthiness standards. This verification can be a desk review (certification documents review), an inspection, participation in flight or ground tests, and participation in audits. Refer to paragraph 1.13.29, "Finding", for the FAA.

As it relates to certification, EASA is allowed to add items for USA built aircraft that the FAA regulations do not address that are in the EU regulations; and likewise the FAA adds some things in the US regulations that are not in the EU regulations for aircraft built in the EU. That is clearly identified in the Technical Implementation Procedures and why both regulators take some time after the other to normally certify an aircraft.


For Continued Airworthiness (the specific issue for the 737max) the United States is the State of Design (SoD) and the FAA is the authority. The relevant sections are below:

4.1 General
4.1.1: In accordance with Annex 8 to the Chicago Convention, the Authority for the SoD is responsible for resolving in-service safety issues related to design or production. The CA, as the Authority for the SoD, will provide applicable information that it has found to be necessary for mandatory modifications, required limitations and/or inspections to the other Authority to ensure continued operational safety of the product or article. Each Authority will review and normally accept the corrective actions taken by the CA, as Authority for the SoD, in the issuance of its own mandatory corrective actions.

4.1.2: At the request of either Authority, the Authority for the SoD will assist in determining what action is considered necessary for the continued operational safety of the product or article. The Authority for the SoR retains sole authority for decisions on final actions to be taken for products or articles under their jurisdiction. The FAA and EASA will strive to resolve differences.

On April 1 EASA then sends a letter to the FAA stating:

4 conditions:
1.Design changes proposed by Boeing are EASA approved (no delegation to FAA)
2.Additional and broader independent design review has been satisfactorily completed by EASA
3.Accidents of JT610 and ET302 are deemed sufficiently understood
4.B737 MAX flight crews have been adequately trained

I see no real evidence that the various procedures defined within for issues within the Technical Implementation Procedures for issues other than the other nations identified in Section 1.9.4 are involved.

By my reading and understanding Conditions 1 and 2 appear to clearly violate of the Technical Implementation Procedures and is way beyond Section 1.13.70 verification procedures (does anyone not think that the FAA is going to be triple cautious on ensuring that things are done right - and EASA (Brazil and Canada have the same rights) have the right to be in direct involvement in the verification process. The FAA represents the SoD, and is granted sole authority to decide the final actions taken.

Condition 3 seems to be ambiguous on if its adequately covered by the Technical Implementation Procedures, and Item 4 is clearly within the purview of EASA for operations by EASA operators.

Now reports early on in the process (months ago) indicated that the FAA was including input on process improvements for the review of the Boeing corrections to the MCAS issue; which is what the Technical Implementation Procedures set up to happen.

So, yes; it appears to me that EASA seems to be at least publicly setting themselves up as saying they don't trust the FAA and will no longer consider their certifications as actually valid; a violation of Section 1.3.1, which is the purpose of the Bilateral; is not going to honor Section IV in regards to continued airworthiness (the direct grounding issue) for the clearly stated responsibilities and rights of the FAA; and setting themselves up as Kingmaker - my rules, not the Bilateral rules for continued airworthiness and verification rights for a case like this.

If they actually act that way and implement their actions and approvals that way; then I think the Bilateral with the EU may die. Certainly, the EU cannot complain if the FAA then insist on things not in it for any further reviews of modifications or new aircraft from EU countries; or even suspending all approvals for EU aircraft without full US licensing review. I wonder what Brazil and Canada are thinking about how valid their bilateral actually is with the EU.

Can you show me any sections where the EASA has the right to alter the terms of the Technical Implementation Process on their own? They may of course withdraw with a 60 day notice.

Have a great day,
 
2175301
Posts: 1472
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:54 am

Ertro wrote:
2175301 wrote:
Yet, it appears that EASA is saying that they definitively would have caught the design error. My personal interpretation of their statement: "design errors with safety related systems are not even possible with the EASA review process".
To me personally, that sounds like a delusional or ignorant person - yet its from the head of the EASA.


It appears ... My personal interpretation ...

Until there is a direct quote that you can quote verbatim instead of just your interpretations putting your words into the mouth of other people it is pretty outlandish to call respected persons delusional or ignorant. And even then it would be very bad form to insult people like that. Much more bad form than anything else I have seen in a long time. Your words in your interpretation do not come from: " - yet its from the head of the EASA".



Then I will let you provide your interpretation of what "This is simply Impossible" means... because everything safety related is reviewed and validated by them.

Also, what kind of person would say that... for something that is certainly possible.


Here is the quote:

“[A similar situation] would not happen in our system. We have a very structured way of delegating and an agreed methodology,” Ky insisted, though he admitted that with a staff of 800 his agency does not have enough personnel to dissect each software analysis OEM’s like Airbus, Safran, or Rolls-Royce produce. “That is simply impossible,” he stated. “But everything that is safety-critical has to be seen and validated by us.”

Here is the article:

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... lationship


I note that I believe that it strongly hints that the Bilateral is in trouble.

Have a great day,

ps: As a suggestion, you might wish to read at least the previous couple of pages on this thread of comments and links before commenting.
 
car4041
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2019 5:12 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 5:24 am

2175301 wrote:
Then I will let you provide your interpretation of what "This is simply Impossible" means... because everything safety related is reviewed and validated by them.

Also, what kind of person would say that... for something that is certainly possible.


Here is the quote:

“[A similar situation] would not happen in our system. We have a very structured way of delegating and an agreed methodology,” Ky insisted, though he admitted that with a staff of 800 his agency does not have enough personnel to dissect each software analysis OEM’s like Airbus, Safran, or Rolls-Royce produce. “That is simply impossible,” he stated. “But everything that is safety-critical has to be seen and validated by us.”


You have completely and utterly misunderstood that sentence. Maybe you should read the relevant part more closely:

"...he admitted that with a staff of 800 his agency does not have enough personnel to dissect each software analysis OEM’s like Airbus, Safran, or Rolls-Royce produce. “That is simply impossible,” he stated."

What's he's saying is that it's impossible for EASA to dissect every single software analysis. Not that it's impossible for there to be a design error under the EASA's watch. I don't know how you managed to come up with that interpretation. The sentence "That is simply impossible" very clearly refers to the preceding sentence ("his agency does not have enough personnel to dissect each software analysis").

(I've been an a.net lurker for almost 15 years, and this is what finally got me to sign up for an account. As a linguistics professor, I don't usually have much relevant to add to the discussions here, but I'm pretty confident in my ability to interpret an English sentence!)
 
Ertro
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:28 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 5:50 am

He was talking about methodology. the "A similar situation" means the mess regarding the process and is not about any technical design error. He says it is "simply impossible" that certification work would be delegated to a company trying to sell the product being certified.

This is my interpretation and to me that sounds perfectly sensible position to have. If that is wrong or if my interpretation makes no sense it is the fault of me and my ignorance and not his fault as a first guess.

Even if he is talking about design errors it could mean that there are possibly other kinds of design errors but not this one kind. This is also perfectly sensible position to have as nobody has been understanding how this very peculiar kind ot design error could have happened at all. It is extremely low probability that exactly similar design error could happen in other places.

Go ask the CEO of Boeing in a public setting if it is possible that there are still similar design errors in 10 other components in MAX and listen him quite probably tell you "No, That is simply impossible". Would that make him [insert bad words]?
 
WIederling
Posts: 8744
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 7:19 am

2175301 wrote:
...............
Also, I guess we will not know how the EASA actually acts until after the FAA certifies the changes and approves the 737Max to fly again in the USA.

Thanks for presenting the (tentative) US view.

For everyone involved beyond the US it looks like the certification system in the US was subverted to advantage Boeing.
Boeing and the FAA ( wearing its second hat : boosting aerospace industry ) acted in collusion to
allow Boeing an easier path to certification and thus an advantage internationally.

Fallout from MCAS is not seen as an "unfortunate oversight". ( and it isn't )
The 787 precedent providing a case with similar "oversight"
turned this into a systemic problem from the get go.
( no idea if there were further insufficiencies detected by EASA in the past
but not made too public to keep some checks on escalation via retaliation.)


to note: EASA in the past had everything ready when the FAA stamped a plane certified
while FAA invariably introduced delays from their side in the reverse.
Murphy is an optimist
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 560
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 7:22 am

car4041 wrote:
2175301 wrote:
Then I will let you provide your interpretation of what "This is simply Impossible" means... because everything safety related is reviewed and validated by them.

Also, what kind of person would say that... for something that is certainly possible.


Here is the quote:

“[A similar situation] would not happen in our system. We have a very structured way of delegating and an agreed methodology,” Ky insisted, though he admitted that with a staff of 800 his agency does not have enough personnel to dissect each software analysis OEM’s like Airbus, Safran, or Rolls-Royce produce. “That is simply impossible,” he stated. “But everything that is safety-critical has to be seen and validated by us.”


You have completely and utterly misunderstood that sentence. Maybe you should read the relevant part more closely:

"...he admitted that with a staff of 800 his agency does not have enough personnel to dissect each software analysis OEM’s like Airbus, Safran, or Rolls-Royce produce. “That is simply impossible,” he stated."

What's he's saying is that it's impossible for EASA to dissect every single software analysis. Not that it's impossible for there to be a design error under the EASA's watch. I don't know how you managed to come up with that interpretation. The sentence "That is simply impossible" very clearly refers to the preceding sentence ("his agency does not have enough personnel to dissect each software analysis").

(I've been an a.net lurker for almost 15 years, and this is what finally got me to sign up for an account. As a linguistics professor, I don't usually have much relevant to add to the discussions here, but I'm pretty confident in my ability to interpret an English sentence!)

:checkmark: thank you.
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2461
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 7:27 am

2175301 wrote:
Ertro wrote:
For decades the most of the major aircraft producing nations have had "bilateral" agreements that essentially said "we trust your national certification agency to certify as generally safe any aircraft developed and manufactured in your country."


You'd be right if by 'for decades' you mean 'since 2011' and by 'major producing nations' you mean Canada, Brazil, EU and the US.

Here's the snip directly from EASA:

A Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA) is signed between the EU (and its Member States) and a non-EU country. It is used when the cooperation between the two sides aims at the mutual acceptance of certificates. EASA supports the European Commission during the negotiation and implementation of such agreements. So far, the EU has concluded a BASA with the US, Canada and Brazil.

It was only 2016 that TC, FAA, ENAC and EASA signed a charter establishing a CMT (Certification Management Team).

So all this is actually very recent.
Signature. You just read one.
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 560
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 7:56 am

2175301 wrote:
kalvado wrote:
2175301 wrote:
Deleted for readability - see above for full section

One may argue, that FAA breached 1.6.1.1 of bilateral, so EASA exercise rights outlined in 1.13.70.


If you are reading the Technical Implementation Procedures (which is where those section numbers come from); then you should know its a lot more complicated than that; and I believe your referencing 1.13.70 is in the wrong context.

For people who are interested in the details (all 101 pages of them)

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... nd%202.pdf

1.3 Principles
1.3.1: The TIP is based on continuous communication and mutual confidence in the FAA’s and EASA’s technical competence and ability to perform regulatory functions within the scope of the TIP. The FAA and EASA, when acting as the Authority for the importing State, shall give the same validity to the certification made by the other, as the Authority for the exporting State, as if they were made in accordance with its own applicable laws, regulations, and requirements. When a finding is made by one Authority in accordance with the laws and regulations of the other Authority and the TIP, that finding is
given the same validity as if it were made by the other Authority. Therefore, the fundamental principle of the TIP is to maximize the use of the exporting Authority’s aircraft certification system to ensure that the airworthiness and environmental requirements of the validating Authority are satisfied.



You are correct that a key section is 1.6.1.1:
"To avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts, the FAA and EASA need to establish and maintain confidence in each Authority’s technical ability to make findings on behalf of the other Authority. At the same
time consistent application by the FAA, EASA and the EU member state Aviation Authorities (AA) of the Agreement in all areas covered by Annex 1 of the Agreement has to be ensured as part of the COB
mandate."

It does not take too much further reading to understand that this is done through audits and samples, and that there is a resolution process to be followed in the event of an differences of interpretation or unsuitable resolutions of findings (Section 1.9).

Should the issue be significant enough that it affects multiple nations it can be elevated to a joint national board representing Brazil, Canada, European Union, and United States of America to ensure that key parties are in harmony and agreement on the resolution per 1.9.4

1.9.4: Issues that are worked through the resolution of conflicts process between the FAA and EASA should be evaluated to determine if coordination to the CMT is appropriate. The CMT consists of the FAA, EASA, Transport Canada Civil Aviation and the Brazilian Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil and is chaired by the Directors of each Authority’s certification group. Coordination to the CMT should be considered if resolution of the issue would help to harmonize how all four Authorities address the issue in a consistent manner on future projects. Where harmonization is not possible, the differences should be clearly identified. The CMT strives to work certification issues common to all four Authorities in a collaborative manner to provide harmonized solutions that work for each Authority. Therefore, when a certification issue requires resolution at the policy level to standardize or harmonize among all four Authorities, it is recommended that the issue be elevated through the CMT structure.

The Lion Air Crash was October 28, 2018: It is now known that the Pilot In Command was successfully controlling the aircraft with a malfunctioning MCAS system for a number of minutes (approximately 10 minutes if I recall correctly) It is now known that the PIC manually performing numerous trim up commands to counteract the MCAS trim down commands; before he decided to hand the controls over to the Co-Pilot so that the Pilot could consult books and charts for troubleshooting. The Co-Pilot quickly lost control as he did not manually input trim up commands at the same rate as the pilot did, and crashed.

As such, since the aircraft flew for many minutes within essential control (could be seen by ground radar before the data recorders were found) questions could be asked about other factors and other potential causes of the crash. Recovery of the data recorders took time as they were underwater and in muck.

The Ethiopian Crash occurred March 10, and within a few days it was known that MCAS was likely involved due to the jack screw position and there was no sustained period of level and essentially in control flight (flight appeared to be out of control since the end of take off climb). As with all crashes questions have been raised about other factors; but, MCAS issues appear prominent and likely significant.

In neither case has the investigation report been issued at this time which would discuss the other factors involved in the crashes and provide key findings.

On March 12 EASA grounds the 737max when provided the information that MCAS was involved at least a factor in another crash.

On March 13 FAA grounds the 737max.

EASA clearly has the authority to ground the 737max given the situation within the Technical Implementation Procedures (several possible sections could be cited).

The March 13 FAA grounding by my reading essentially triggers section 1.13.29 of a "Finding"; and also involves Section IV: Continuing Airworthiness (see below)

1.13.29: “Finding” means a determination of compliance or non-compliance to the applicable airworthiness or environmental standards as the result of the FAA’s review, investigation, inspection, test, and/or analysis. Refer to paragraph 1.13.70, "Verification of Compliance", for EASA.

That then triggers section 1.13.70 (it is not by my reading triggered by 1.6.1.1 - that could only trigger a section 1.9 process if the various audit processes identified an issue)

However, 1.13.70 only specifies verification of what the FAA is doing to address the situation:

1.13.70:“Verification of Compliance” means the involvement done by EASA when reviewing compliance to the applicable airworthiness standards. This verification can be a desk review (certification documents review), an inspection, participation in flight or ground tests, and participation in audits. Refer to paragraph 1.13.29, "Finding", for the FAA.

As it relates to certification, EASA is allowed to add items for USA built aircraft that the FAA regulations do not address that are in the EU regulations; and likewise the FAA adds some things in the US regulations that are not in the EU regulations for aircraft built in the EU. That is clearly identified in the Technical Implementation Procedures and why both regulators take some time after the other to normally certify an aircraft.


For Continued Airworthiness (the specific issue for the 737max) the United States is the State of Design (SoD) and the FAA is the authority. The relevant sections are below:

4.1 General
4.1.1: In accordance with Annex 8 to the Chicago Convention, the Authority for the SoD is responsible for resolving in-service safety issues related to design or production. The CA, as the Authority for the SoD, will provide applicable information that it has found to be necessary for mandatory modifications, required limitations and/or inspections to the other Authority to ensure continued operational safety of the product or article. Each Authority will review and normally accept the corrective actions taken by the CA, as Authority for the SoD, in the issuance of its own mandatory corrective actions.

4.1.2: At the request of either Authority, the Authority for the SoD will assist in determining what action is considered necessary for the continued operational safety of the product or article. The Authority for the SoR retains sole authority for decisions on final actions to be taken for products or articles under their jurisdiction. The FAA and EASA will strive to resolve differences.

On April 1 EASA then sends a letter to the FAA stating:

4 conditions:
1.Design changes proposed by Boeing are EASA approved (no delegation to FAA)
2.Additional and broader independent design review has been satisfactorily completed by EASA
3.Accidents of JT610 and ET302 are deemed sufficiently understood
4.B737 MAX flight crews have been adequately trained

I see no real evidence that the various procedures defined within for issues within the Technical Implementation Procedures for issues other than the other nations identified in Section 1.9.4 are involved.

By my reading and understanding Conditions 1 and 2 appear to clearly violate of the Technical Implementation Procedures and is way beyond Section 1.13.70 verification procedures (does anyone not think that the FAA is going to be triple cautious on ensuring that things are done right - and EASA (Brazil and Canada have the same rights) have the right to be in direct involvement in the verification process. The FAA represents the SoD, and is granted sole authority to decide the final actions taken.

Condition 3 seems to be ambiguous on if its adequately covered by the Technical Implementation Procedures, and Item 4 is clearly within the purview of EASA for operations by EASA operators.

Now reports early on in the process (months ago) indicated that the FAA was including input on process improvements for the review of the Boeing corrections to the MCAS issue; which is what the Technical Implementation Procedures set up to happen.

So, yes; it appears to me that EASA seems to be at least publicly setting themselves up as saying they don't trust the FAA and will no longer consider their certifications as actually valid; a violation of Section 1.3.1, which is the purpose of the Bilateral; is not going to honor Section IV in regards to continued airworthiness (the direct grounding issue) for the clearly stated responsibilities and rights of the FAA; and setting themselves up as Kingmaker - my rules, not the Bilateral rules for continued airworthiness and verification rights for a case like this.

If they actually act that way and implement their actions and approvals that way; then I think the Bilateral with the EU may die. Certainly, the EU cannot complain if the FAA then insist on things not in it for any further reviews of modifications or new aircraft from EU countries; or even suspending all approvals for EU aircraft without full US licensing review. I wonder what Brazil and Canada are thinking about how valid their bilateral actually is with the EU.

Can you show me any sections where the EASA has the right to alter the terms of the Technical Implementation Process on their own? They may of course withdraw with a 60 day notice.

Have a great day,

What a ridiculous carry on. everyone knows that FAA/Boeing has lost credibility and the reciprocal agreement is at risk, without your rigmarole. As it says in the first sentence, the basis of the agreement is mutual confidence - it was lost. EASA have stepped up to assure that the Max is compliant and will contribute to restoring credibility and confidence in the FAA. Trumpian biligerent attitudes and threats of retaliation are so much guff and piffle.

Incidentally, Transport Canada stated back in March that they will be performing their own certification of Max fix, just as EASA. Brazil are panel members of the JATR who were forced to walk out of the August submission from Boeing. It is the FAA suffering loss of credibility, not EASA.

Ray
 
oschkosch
Posts: 230
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:00 am

I actually see China and CAAC as the real "king makers" in the room. Their current silence is maybe just the calm before the storm?
 
WIederling
Posts: 8744
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:17 am

B777LRF wrote:
It was only 2016 that TC, FAA, ENAC and EASA signed a charter establishing a CMT (Certification Management Team).

So all this is actually very recent.


No it is not. ( and I wrote to that effect further up.)

Before the the EASA <> FAA bilateral there existed a EU <> US one.
Before that the FAA had individual bilaterals with the relevant individual EU nations.
( just to have an eye on the EU || US past.)
This goes back to the 90ies at least ( I suppose before the 777 and NG
were introduced but after the A320 which got the full nicely adapted book
from the FAA thrown afaics. )
Murphy is an optimist
 
asdf
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:03 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:03 am

ArgentoSystems wrote:
2175301 wrote:

I believe if you research it - that you will find that all the most recent court rulings protect passwords for general data/File review under the 5th Amendment if you are withing the USA (Border protection for someone entering the USA and not yet in it has had mixed legal results to date). It is true that certain state courts previously ruled that it did not (and you are correct that Florida ruled it did). There have been several more recent Federal Appeals Court rulings that side squarely on passwords generally being protected by the 5th Amendment.


Good to know. Personally I think it is wrong to compell person to reveal a password. So I'm glad USA is moving towards making more sense.



well
than you should never go to the USA as a visitor
if immigration officer tells you so you have to hand out your social media passwords and login password of your devices

sorry for the off topic
 
StTim
Posts: 3425
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:19 am

asdf wrote:
ArgentoSystems wrote:
2175301 wrote:

I believe if you research it - that you will find that all the most recent court rulings protect passwords for general data/File review under the 5th Amendment if you are withing the USA (Border protection for someone entering the USA and not yet in it has had mixed legal results to date). It is true that certain state courts previously ruled that it did not (and you are correct that Florida ruled it did). There have been several more recent Federal Appeals Court rulings that side squarely on passwords generally being protected by the 5th Amendment.


Good to know. Personally I think it is wrong to compell person to reveal a password. So I'm glad USA is moving towards making more sense.



well
than you should never go to the USA as a visitor
if immigration officer tells you so you have to hand out your social media passwords and login password of your devices

sorry for the off topic


Nothing to hide - but one reason why I now refuse to go to the US.

On Topic. I do wonder how some of the posters on here would be arguing if it was the A320neo with the grounding and EASA the one losing reputation. It seems to me there are far too many nationalistic comments (from both sides) and this is not good for imroving the safety culture required in the industry.
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 560
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:39 am

StTim wrote:
asdf wrote:
ArgentoSystems wrote:

Good to know. Personally I think it is wrong to compell person to reveal a password. So I'm glad USA is moving towards making more sense.



well
than you should never go to the USA as a visitor
if immigration officer tells you so you have to hand out your social media passwords and login password of your devices

sorry for the off topic


Nothing to hide - but one reason why I now refuse to go to the US.

On Topic. I do wonder how some of the posters on here would be arguing if it was the A320neo with the grounding and EASA the one losing reputation. It seems to me there are far too many nationalistic comments (from both sides) and this is not good for imroving the safety culture required in the industry.

It isn't, they haven't = off topic.

Ray
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 996
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:45 am

WIederling wrote:
2175301 wrote:
...............
Also, I guess we will not know how the EASA actually acts until after the FAA certifies the changes and approves the 737Max to fly again in the USA.

Thanks for presenting the (tentative) US view.

For everyone involved beyond the US it looks like the certification system in the US was subverted to advantage Boeing.
Boeing and the FAA ( wearing its second hat : boosting aerospace industry ) acted in collusion to
allow Boeing an easier path to certification and thus an advantage internationally.

Fallout from MCAS is not seen as an "unfortunate oversight". ( and it isn't )
The 787 precedent providing a case with similar "oversight"
turned this into a systemic problem from the get go.
( no idea if there were further insufficiencies detected by EASA in the past
but not made too public to keep some checks on escalation via retaliation.)


to note: EASA in the past had everything ready when the FAA stamped a plane certified
while FAA invariably introduced delays from their side in the reverse.


I don't think the FAA intended to subvert anything. They trusted Boeing as they have for decades and Boeing blew it. BA told everyone all was fine and during certification it seemed that way.

Easy to take Boeings word since it appeared a proven legacy design. However, Boeing wanted no added simulator time nor (and still stupifying, no required sensor redundancy or practical manual override on an automated flight safety control function) making standard options they were charging for. These were business decisions IMHO tied to marketability, not maintaining type approval for regulatory purposes.

In hindsight, where the FAA screwed up the most was not grounding the fleet after Lion Air the way the 787 fleet was grounded after the B787 battery issues. I guess Lion Air shared some of that blame, the knew they had substantial flight control hardware issues. However, FAA was not alone there, several agencies grounded the 787 independently during the battery fixes, but no one choose a similar path with the 787 Max after Lion Air. I think everyone, EASA, FAA, etc. thought Boeing had this as they were working on the fixes already and being certed now.

Then came Ethiopian, (who operated everything normally) revealing the full extent of the flaw.
 
asdf
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:03 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:59 am

StTim wrote:
. I do wonder how some of the posters on here would be arguing if it was the A320neo with the grounding and EASA the one losing reputation. It seems to me there are far too many nationalistic comments (from both sides) and this is not good for imroving the safety culture required in the industry.


not at all

i live in europe
but i dont like airbus as a company at all

from this MAX debacle i learned that the a320 is a better product as the 737
i didnt knew that before
i thought the are kinda same level

if all that drama would be about a grandfathered 1960 technologie non-FBW airbus and a possible cover up of a problematic flight attitude i would act in exactly the same way as now
 
MartijnNL
Posts: 712
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:44 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 10:11 am

asdf wrote:
well
than you should never go to the USA as a visitor
if immigration officer tells you so you have to hand out your social media passwords and login password of your device.

Would they be interested in my airliners.net password?
I don't use social media and usually leave my iPad at home while travelling. Would that be suspicious?
 
MartijnNL
Posts: 712
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:44 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 10:30 am

asdf wrote:
i live in europe
but i dont like airbus as a company at all

What is your problem with Airbus?

I live in Europe too.
I love Airbus and I think we should all be proud of the company and what it has achieved so far.

I love Boeing also. Two years ago I finally visited their factory in Everett. Impressive to see what was being done there. Unfortunately the reputation of Boeing has taken a big hit with the Max debacle. I don't wear the Boeing cap I bought at the factory shop as often as I did earlier. I am not so proud anymore of Boeing.

I am looking forward to my visit of the Airbus factory in Toulouse, France, next month. I must be great to see the A350 and A380 assembly line.
 
asdf
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:03 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 11:09 am

MartijnNL wrote:
asdf wrote:
i live in europe
but i dont like airbus as a company at all

What is your problem with Airbus?


this is so incredible off topic that i cant answer
has a lot to do with politics too
the really wrong place here to discuss it

but i would really enjoy to mock the a320 here and there
but what i learned about the 737 in the last year ... well .... no need to mock
the bus seems to be the superior product if it comes to avionics and safety ....

but that is off topic too
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21217
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 1:34 pm

Ertro wrote:
Lastly any respectable regulator agency should not be afraid to make decisions and be a gatekeeper or kingmaker. If any regulator agency is afraid of that then that by itself causes it to lose any respect immediately. Nobody who is afraid of responsibility deserves any respect.

Indeed, which is why I thought the posts that FAA should be afraid to unground the plane before EASA did were weird. Yes, FAA has suffered reputational damage and in an ideal world it will unground at the same time as EASA and others to show unity, but if after all this scrutiny they think the aircraft passes its regulations there's a limit to how long they should wait for others to act, lest they be viewed as having no confidence in their own 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
 
ArgentoSystems
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:05 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 3:10 pm

so it is September, when Boeing was supposed to finish the update and submit "the certification package" to FAA. How is that coming along? Why there is still no communication at all? They keep feeding media the getting old BS about "early 4Q RTS" but no word on the status of the actual fix. I just can't wrap my head around this.

By now their message should be along the lines of "we have completed all of the update work and all of the tests a month ago, spend the last 4 weeks doing double and triple checking everything, and now organizing files and documentation for FAA. It will take another week and on Sep 16th we are submitting the package to FAA, EASA and other regulators.".

And what do they say instead? Some vague non-specific meaningless BS or nothing at all. Unbelievable.
 
bob75013
Posts: 867
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:05 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 3:31 pm

ArgentoSystems wrote:
so it is September, when Boeing was supposed to finish the update and submit "the certification package" to FAA. How is that coming along? Why there is still no communication at all? They keep feeding media the getting old BS about "early 4Q RTS" but no word on the status of the actual fix. I just can't wrap my head around this.

By now their message should be along the lines of "we have completed all of the update work and all of the tests a month ago, spend the last 4 weeks doing double and triple checking everything, and now organizing files and documentation for FAA. It will take another week and on Sep 16th we are submitting the package to FAA, EASA and other regulators.".

And what do they say instead? Some vague non-specific meaningless BS or nothing at all. Unbelievable.


Boeing owes you nothing. Boeing owes a-net nothing. Boeing is (probably) talking with great detail with regulators and airlines - probably accompanied by NDAs.
 
ArgentoSystems
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:05 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 3:39 pm

bob75013 wrote:
Boeing owes you nothing. Boeing owes a-net nothing. Boeing is (probably) talking with great detail with regulators and airlines - probably accompanied by NDAs.

It does owe to shareholders. They have to be kept informed.

I just have to keep adding people to ignore list to keep noise to the acceptable level.
 
bob75013
Posts: 867
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:05 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 3:47 pm

ArgentoSystems wrote:
bob75013 wrote:
Boeing owes you nothing. Boeing owes a-net nothing. Boeing is (probably) talking with great detail with regulators and airlines - probably accompanied by NDAs.

It does owe to shareholders. They have to be kept informed.

.


It is talking to shareholdes when it says "We believe MAXs will be flying by 4Q19." Why do you think Boeing stock price has gone up around $33/share in the last 2 weeks?

Stockholders don't care about a detailed technical explanation that they don't understand anyway.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8744
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:30 pm

bob75013 wrote:
... - probably accompanied by NDAs.


You think further goofs can be kept under wraps from now on? :-))))))
Murphy is an optimist
 
WIederling
Posts: 8744
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:48 pm

bob75013 wrote:
Stockholders don't care about a detailed technical explanation that they don't understand anyway.


Stockholders are afaics fully occupied/limited to trying to out think other shareholders.
Reality does not really touch them. A game of mirages.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 561
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 5:05 pm

2175301 wrote:
4.1.2: At the request of either Authority, the Authority for the SoD will assist in determining what action is considered necessary for the continued operational safety of the product or article. The Authority for the SoR retains sole authority for decisions on final actions to be taken for products or articles under their jurisdiction. The FAA and EASA will strive to resolve differences.

On April 1 EASA then sends a letter to the FAA stating:

4 conditions:
1.Design changes proposed by Boeing are EASA approved (no delegation to FAA)
2.Additional and broader independent design review has been satisfactorily completed by EASA
3.Accidents of JT610 and ET302 are deemed sufficiently understood
4.B737 MAX flight crews have been adequately trained

I see no real evidence that the various procedures defined within for issues within the Technical Implementation Procedures for issues other than the other nations identified in Section 1.9.4 are involved.

By my reading and understanding Conditions 1 and 2 appear to clearly violate of the Technical Implementation Procedures and is way beyond Section 1.13.70 verification procedures (does anyone not think that the FAA is going to be triple cautious on ensuring that things are done right - and EASA (Brazil and Canada have the same rights) have the right to be in direct involvement in the verification process. The FAA represents the SoD, and is granted sole authority to decide the final actions taken.

Condition 3 seems to be ambiguous on if its adequately covered by the Technical Implementation Procedures, and Item 4 is clearly within the purview of EASA for operations by EASA operators.

Now reports early on in the process (months ago) indicated that the FAA was including input on process improvements for the review of the Boeing corrections to the MCAS issue; which is what the Technical Implementation Procedures set up to happen.

So, yes; it appears to me that EASA seems to be at least publicly setting themselves up as saying they don't trust the FAA and will no longer consider their certifications as actually valid; a violation of Section 1.3.1, which is the purpose of the Bilateral; is not going to honor Section IV in regards to continued airworthiness (the direct grounding issue) for the clearly stated responsibilities and rights of the FAA; and setting themselves up as Kingmaker - my rules, not the Bilateral rules for continued airworthiness and verification rights for a case like this.

If they actually act that way and implement their actions and approvals that way; then I think the Bilateral with the EU may die. Certainly, the EU cannot complain if the FAA then insist on things not in it for any further reviews of modifications or new aircraft from EU countries; or even suspending all approvals for EU aircraft without full US licensing review. I wonder what Brazil and Canada are thinking about how valid their bilateral actually is with the EU.

Can you show me any sections where the EASA has the right to alter the terms of the Technical Implementation Process on their own? They may of course withdraw with a 60 day notice.

Have a great day,


1) The FAA failed on the 737-8/9 MAX, certainly breaking the spirit of the agreement, if not some of the Technical Implementation Procedures items.
2) EASA did communicate to not have enough information about JT610 and ET302, possibly because of a breaking of the "continuous communication and mutual confidence" (1.3.1).
3) My understanding of 4.1.2 SoR is that EASA have the right to issue the 4 conditions that there require for the aircraft operating in EU.
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3343
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 5:42 pm

XRAYretired wrote:
What a ridiculous carry on. everyone knows that FAA/Boeing has lost credibility and the reciprocal agreement is at risk, without your rigmarole. As it says in the first sentence, the basis of the agreement is mutual confidence - it was lost. EASA have stepped up to assure that the Max is compliant and will contribute to restoring credibility and confidence in the FAA. Trumpian biligerent attitudes and threats of retaliation are so much guff and piffle.


The EASA cannot restore credibility to the FAA. If the EASA ungrounds the MAX, do you think people will see that and feel good about the FAA? No way. The hubris by the belief that the EASA is now the world's gatekeeper is part of the problem. It's not the like the EASA hasn't messed up royally in the past. The FAA kept the faith. Maybe they shouldn't have if the EASA goes down this road. The EASA credibility is also on the line now depending on how they handle the future of the MAX, and that risk was unnecessary.
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 560
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 5:57 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
What a ridiculous carry on. everyone knows that FAA/Boeing has lost credibility and the reciprocal agreement is at risk, without your rigmarole. As it says in the first sentence, the basis of the agreement is mutual confidence - it was lost. EASA have stepped up to assure that the Max is compliant and will contribute to restoring credibility and confidence in the FAA. Trumpian biligerent attitudes and threats of retaliation are so much guff and piffle.


The EASA cannot restore credibility to the FAA. If the EASA ungrounds the MAX, do you think people will see that and feel good about the FAA? No way. The hubris by the belief that the EASA is now the world's gatekeeper is part of the problem. It's not the like the EASA hasn't messed up royally in the past. The FAA kept the faith. Maybe they shouldn't have if the EASA goes down this road. The EASA credibility is also on the line now depending on how they handle the future of the MAX, and that risk was unnecessary.

FAA are the lead authority. They will always be the first to unground the max its in their regulatory area. EASA following on after a known and reported thorough review supports the rehabilitation of FAA in the eyes of the world. EASA have stood up without fear or favour which is exactly what a regulator should do.

Ray
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3343
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 6:12 pm

XRAYretired wrote:
FAA are the lead authority. They will always be the first to unground the max its in their regulatory area. EASA following on after a known and reported thorough review supports the rehabilitation of FAA in the eyes of the world. EASA have stood up without fear or favour which is exactly what a regulator should do.


That is illogical thinking. I can't give someone credibility if I'm requiring different parameters. No, I'm instantly calling into question the credibility of the other party, and I'm going to gain/lose credibility for myself depending on the outcome. For the EASA to give the FAA credibility, they would have to be reviewing and accepting identical requirements. They would be supporting the FAA, not publicly diverging from them. Since the FAA appears to be standing up without fear or favor by returning the MAX to service once their requirements are met, it's good to see that you are supporting the FAA in that.

Now, this is not the say the EASA is right/wrong on having different requirements. They may be right, but we do know is that it won't give the FAA credibility. That's nonsense.
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 560
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 6:54 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
FAA are the lead authority. They will always be the first to unground the max its in their regulatory area. EASA following on after a known and reported thorough review supports the rehabilitation of FAA in the eyes of the world. EASA have stood up without fear or favour which is exactly what a regulator should do.


That is illogical thinking. I can't give someone credibility if I'm requiring different parameters. No, I'm instantly calling into question the credibility of the other party, and I'm going to gain/lose credibility for myself depending on the outcome. For the EASA to give the FAA credibility, they would have to be reviewing and accepting identical requirements. They would be supporting the FAA, not publicly diverging from them. Since the FAA appears to be standing up without fear or favor by returning the MAX to service once their requirements are met, it's good to see that you are supporting the FAA in that.

Now, this is not the say the EASA is right/wrong on having different requirements. They may be right, but we do know is that it won't give the FAA credibility. That's nonsense.

Only illogical to those who can only countenance conflict in everything. EASA have not set any new requirement that I can see, if there is any divergence it is only in the means by which compliance is demonstrated. It is clear that EASA/FAA/Boeing and other regulators are working diligently to resolve any remaining issues. With a good countenance between the parties they will be.

If not, chaos will ensue and everyone is a loser, including FAA/Boeing whom are already damaged.
 
packsonflight
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:20 pm

Is there any indication that there is consensus between EASA and the other certification authorities in the world?

At the moment it looks like EASA in the only agency making any noise about the matter.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 11738
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 11:20 pm

oschkosch wrote:
I actually see China and CAAC as the real "king makers" in the room. Their current silence is maybe just the calm before the storm?


China has zero credibility on these matters.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
kayik
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sun Sep 08, 2019 11:31 pm

CAAC: Three Principles for Resuming the Operation of Boeing 737 Max 8
14/05/2019

http://www.caac.gov.cn/en/XWZX/201905/t ... 96154.html

To resume the operation of the aircraft type, three principles should be held on to, namely the aircraft airworthiness be reexamined, the necessary aircraft modification and pilot training be carried out, and the safety problem detected in the accident investigation be solved, so as to ensure absolute flight safety.
 
oschkosch
Posts: 230
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Mon Sep 09, 2019 5:07 am

Aesma wrote:
oschkosch wrote:
I actually see China and CAAC as the real "king makers" in the room. Their current silence is maybe just the calm before the storm?


China has zero credibility on these matters.



Remind us all how many orders Chinese airlines / companies hold for the max? More than 25% of max in service were Chinese prior to grounding...

Chinese airlines operated 97 of the 371 737 MAX jets in service before the grounding, the most of any country, according to Flightglobal data.
 
User avatar
flyingphil
Posts: 230
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 2:56 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Mon Sep 09, 2019 7:55 am

From Leeham News: Pontifications: Next few weeks critical to aerospace industry


https://leehamnews.com/2019/09/09/ponti ... -industry/

So A.Netters .. how far are we away from the tipping point where Boeing has to call a halt to production and airlines start cancelling orders?

Everytime the saga seems to be coming to a conclusion a new issue pops up?

That's even before thinking about the practicalities of updating and returning the grounded birds..

Then Boeing will need a PR offensive to get the public to get onboard the Max which is being labelled as a 'deathtrap' and the 'killer Boeing'

Meanwhile Boeing bleeds cashflow and is still borrowing on the markets..

One day it will be a Hollywood film.. who will play Muilenburg ??
 
asdf
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:03 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Mon Sep 09, 2019 8:44 am

no idea what they could have found now


maybe "only" a IF-THEN situation?

IF you dont provide us the MCAS-free test flight to check for the flight behavior of the MAX without augmentation systems
THEN we need to believe that there is a serious problem with the airflow and we need to calculate that whole MAX aerodynamics by our technical teams and make wind tunnel test with patterns and all that stuff

or

IF you dont provide us a chart of the manual rotational force needed to trim that wheel on all situations (speed, AoA, turns, acend/decent) inside and 10% outside of the flight envelope
THEN we need to believe that there is a serious problem with the trim-wheel force and we need to calculate that whole trim wheel forces by our technical teams and make wind tunnel test with patterns and all that stuff

and this need months

but even that is pretty far-fetched, isnt it ...
Last edited by asdf on Mon Sep 09, 2019 9:09 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 560
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Mon Sep 09, 2019 9:08 am

asdf wrote:
no idea what they could have found now


maybe "only" a IF-THEN situation?

IF you dont provide us the MCAS-free test flight to check for the flight behavior of the MAX without augmentation systems
THEN we need to believe that there is a serious problem with the airflow and we need to calculate that whole MAX aerodynamics by our technical teams and make wind tunnel test with patterns and all that stuff
and this need months

but even that is pretty far-fetched, isnt it ...

The EASA referenced test flight programme was probably laid out and agreed in the May timeframe in anticipation of a ~June/July submission. It will be Boeing who documented the flight test plans and they will have been given the nod FAA as well.

Ray
 
WIederling
Posts: 8744
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Mon Sep 09, 2019 9:09 am

flyingphil wrote:
One day it will be a Hollywood film.. who will play Muilenburg ??


The Good American against the feckless abroad :-)

Muilenburger -> Bruce Willis, never dies..
Murphy is an optimist
 
asdf
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:03 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Mon Sep 09, 2019 9:24 am

XRAYretired wrote:
asdf wrote:
no idea what they could have found now


maybe "only" a IF-THEN situation?

IF you dont provide us the MCAS-free test flight to check for the flight behavior of the MAX without augmentation systems
THEN we need to believe that there is a serious problem with the airflow and we need to calculate that whole MAX aerodynamics by our technical teams and make wind tunnel test with patterns and all that stuff
and this need months

but even that is pretty far-fetched, isnt it ...

The EASA referenced test flight programme was probably laid out and agreed in the May timeframe in anticipation of a ~June/July submission. It will be Boeing who documented the flight test plans and they will have been given the nod FAA as well.
Ray


what would happen if EASA wished to see the flight behavior of the MAX without augmentation systems but boeing didnt carried out that part of the test and ( because of) FAA did not think it was necessary or formally, EASA had no right to ask for this test
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13121
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Mon Sep 09, 2019 9:27 am

Aesma wrote:
oschkosch wrote:
I actually see China and CAAC as the real "king makers" in the room. Their current silence is maybe just the calm before the storm?


China has zero credibility on these matters.


China has not seen a single hull loss since 2012. In a crowded, fast growing market.

https://www.mro-network.com/airlines/ch ... amatically

We should be able to give cridit where credit's due.

Perceptions & reality seem to quickly drift apart these days.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 560
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Mon Sep 09, 2019 9:41 am

asdf wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
asdf wrote:
no idea what they could have found now


maybe "only" a IF-THEN situation?

IF you dont provide us the MCAS-free test flight to check for the flight behavior of the MAX without augmentation systems
THEN we need to believe that there is a serious problem with the airflow and we need to calculate that whole MAX aerodynamics by our technical teams and make wind tunnel test with patterns and all that stuff
and this need months

but even that is pretty far-fetched, isnt it ...

The EASA referenced test flight programme was probably laid out and agreed in the May timeframe in anticipation of a ~June/July submission. It will be Boeing who documented the flight test plans and they will have been given the nod FAA as well.
Ray


what would happen if EASA wished to see the flight behavior of the MAX without augmentation systems but boeing didnt carried out that part of the test and ( because of) FAA did not think it was necessary or formally, EASA had no right to ask for this test

EASA can request any test programme they wish to as can any other regulator and the airline customers come to that.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13121
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Mon Sep 09, 2019 10:19 am

XRAYretired wrote:
asdf wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
The EASA referenced test flight programme was probably laid out and agreed in the May timeframe in anticipation of a ~June/July submission. It will be Boeing who documented the flight test plans and they will have been given the nod FAA as well.
Ray


what would happen if EASA wished to see the flight behavior of the MAX without augmentation systems but boeing didnt carried out that part of the test and ( because of) FAA did not think it was necessary or formally, EASA had no right to ask for this test

EASA can request any test programme they wish to as can any other regulator and the airline customers come to that.


Correct, on top of that EASA can ban aircraft from their airspace.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
uta999
Posts: 724
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:10 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Mon Sep 09, 2019 10:22 am

keesje wrote:
Aesma wrote:
oschkosch wrote:
I actually see China and CAAC as the real "king makers" in the room. Their current silence is maybe just the calm before the storm?


China has zero credibility on these matters.


China has not seen a single hull loss since 2012. In a crowded, fast growing market.

https://www.mro-network.com/airlines/ch ... amatically

We should be able to give cridit where credit's due.

Perceptions & reality seem to quickly drift apart these days.


Wasn't China one of the first to ground the MAX as well?
Your computer just got better
 
planecane
Posts: 1085
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Mon Sep 09, 2019 11:20 am

uta999 wrote:
keesje wrote:
Aesma wrote:

China has zero credibility on these matters.


China has not seen a single hull loss since 2012. In a crowded, fast growing market.

https://www.mro-network.com/airlines/ch ... amatically

We should be able to give cridit where credit's due.

Perceptions & reality seem to quickly drift apart these days.


Wasn't China one of the first to ground the MAX as well?


Yes. Due to the ongoing trade dispute with the US, we can't be sure it was purely due to safety concerns. If the FAA approves the MAX in October, I'd bet the October trade talks have a lot to do with how quicky China follows.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8910
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Mon Sep 09, 2019 11:24 am

So the new issue being raised now is the speculation of what would happen if EASA and others do not unground the a/c in a short time frame after the FAA, and the effect it would have on Boeing, its suppliers, Boeing jobs and possibly the effect on the aviation industry?
 
kalvado
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Mon Sep 09, 2019 11:50 am

par13del wrote:
So the new issue being raised now is the speculation of what would happen if EASA and others do not unground the a/c in a short time frame after the FAA, and the effect it would have on Boeing, its suppliers, Boeing jobs and possibly the effect on the aviation industry?

It was a concern from the very beginning, and this will be political - even if the other regulator acts (tries to act, pretends to act - pick the one you like) on purely technical/safety grounds.

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