All the delays to me seem to make the Prospect of them just ditching MCAS and specifying more stall training (Which allows the FAA to somewhat save face as they had already mandated this for US pilots anyways - if this had been the Worldwide standard they could have possibly waived MCAS in the first place) as a much more probable outcome.
I am not saying this is what will happen - but something is going on and it might not be as dire as some are speculating.
Essentially what that leaked email from the Transport Canada certified was suggesting no?
A lot of the delay can basically come down to one thing: avoiding additional training. They are all chasing their tails trying to avoid this outcome. I wish Boeing would eat the cost, get the MAX back to service and immediately launch FSA.
Yet if other Jurisdictions adopt the FAA stall training requirements from 2015 that must be completed by I think sometime next year it's not additional training. It's just taking Worldwide standards up to US levels (if they have not already done so). Assuming that the MAX stalls somewhat normally - remove MCAS and have any Pilot who flies the MAX complete the training before flying it with paying passengers.
The document outlines doing it in SIMS or also actual airplanes (of course without Passengers). I'm sure there are a few MAX's around that Boeing could dedicate to this.
This reg seems to have resulted from the findings of most of the fatal accidents in the past 10 years.
From the Document: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/med ... 0-109A.pdf
1-1. GENERAL. Based on accident review, a concern exists within the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and industry regarding loss of control in-flight (LOC-I) accidents and
incidents. A recurring causal factor in LOC-I accidents and incidents is the pilot’s inappropriate
reaction to impending stalls and full stalls. Evidence exists that some pilots are failing to avoid
conditions that may lead to a stall, or are failing to recognize the insidious onset of an impending
stall during routine operations in both manual and automatic flight. Evidence also exists that
some pilots may not have the required skills or training to respond appropriately to an
unexpected stall. Stall training should always emphasize reduction of angle of attack (AOA) as
the most important response when confronted with an impending or full stall. This advisory
circular (AC) provides best practices on training, testing, and checking of impending stalls and
training of full stalls, including recommended recovery procedures.
c. Envelope-Protected Airplanes. Envelope-protected airplanes have, in general,
demonstrated a lower rate of stall accidents and incidents; however, the rate is not zero. Stall
accidents and incidents in envelope-protected airplanes typically occur when the protections
have failed, requiring the pilot to return the aircraft to safe flight using a degraded flight control
mode. As such, it is important to carefully develop the stall prevention and recovery training for
envelope-protected aircraft so that (1) the failure path(s) to reach the degraded modes are
understood, (2) pilots learn to identify the rarely occurring impending or full stalls, and (3) pilots
demonstrate they have the skill to return the aircraft to safe flight with the degraded flight control
laws. Although the potential failures that lead to degraded modes must be understood by pilots,
handling multiple failures should not be a component of maneuver-based stall training. The
simulator should be placed in a degraded mode by the instructor, clearing all warnings and
cautions associated with the failures before the stall training begins. Training providers should
seek manufacture guidance for preferred methods of placing the simulator in degraded modes.
If all pilots had the training outlined in the document and assuming that the MAX is somewhat benign - would that not be a reasonable solution? Just remove MCAS and do more training?