And yet many media outlets report that Dickson is going to wait for the global approval and no one is calling him out for it. Boeing isn't exactly in a position where they can make demands.
Do you honestly expect the media to call out the FAA - a government entity - like they do big corporations?
All the major outlets (ST, NYT, WaPo, Bloomberg, Reuters) covering this story have called out the FAA in the past. None have raised this global approval standard as a problem.
Boeing (and the public) can and should make demands if the regulator is not acting according to their authority and mission. Requiring the world to sign off first and relinquishing their sole authority to worldwide regulators would be one of those reasons.
These days the public is more concerned about safety and less concerned about FAA's mission and authority. Feel free to review the Congressional Hearings to get a sense of what is on the mind of the people's representatives in government.
Boeing's strategy was to use power (some say bullying) to drive a quick RTS. I think its very likely that Boeing is stepping back from that strategy.
Rev, I respect your posts, but you're using the same assumption that many are in this thread. And that assumption is that all of the sudden the FAA is infallible and is doing everything right. Subsequently any problem/setback/missed deadline lies at the feet of Boeing alone. Not only is that an assumption presented as fact, it's not logical since the only "evidence" that could support it is the appearance that they are now "acting tough" on Boeing, which isn't real evidence at all. What happened to the FAA checklist that Boeing had to meet? What happened to telling us where the MAX is falling short? What happened to this being just about MCAS that the FAA said was fixed months ago?
Thanks for the compliment. I think you're doing a great job of explaining your point of view.
It's my understanding that FAA managers delegated responsibility for MCAS to Boeing due to pressure from Boeing, over the objections of its own staff. FAA had its role in the tragedy, but the bulk of the tragedy is due to Boeing's actions. They asked for responsibility for the MCAS design be delegated to them then they did a terrible job on the design itself and on determining its impact on the safety of the aircraft as a whole. Their initial response to the fact that they did not provide details of MCAS to FAA was to say they did not have to explain the details of MCAS to the FAA because they were the designated authority, and it's true. With the authority comes the responsibility.
When you take the totality of the evidence so far, I believe we should be looking at the FAA as the primary reason for the degradation of the situation. It appears their demands are not set in the objective words of regulations and instead may reside in the nebulous minds of a largely unaccountable government agency. In the end it comes down to who you trust more (or distrust less). Am I hanging my hat on the entity that has become less transparent as this drags along? Do I stand behind the entity that appears to be moving the goalposts? Do I trust the entity that is admittedly ceding its authority? Do I trust the entity that is largely unaccountable to the public? Do I believe the entity's leader that has an obvious potential for bias against the other entity? I feel like it takes a fair amount of blind trust to say 'yes' to any of those questions.
Looking at the degradation of the situation is not the same as looking at the totality of the situation. If you look at the totality of the situation, IMO the situation was caused far more by Boeing's actions rather than FAA's lack of actions.
We really don't know what was going on with the Boeing-FAA relationship before Dickson because Ewell did not give us the insights Dickson has. The main news since Dickson taking over is Boeing firing its CEO because of his shortcomings with regard to communication, followed by news of Boeing turning over more documents and texts to DoJ and FAA. It's problematic to suggest it is FAA that is lacking transparency when Boeing keeps having to admit they have not turned over important information to FAA.
I'm not sure the situation has degraded or the time lines have shifted. We have been given a lot of info around the time line and the process from Boeing itself, and it's natural that such info would be presented in an optimistic way. For all we know FAA was never in agreement on the timeline and never agreed to things such as a US-first RTS. The NYT piece on Muilenberg's resignation makes it clear that Boeing was floating a lot of trial balloons via the press such as being able to deliver planes without official ungrounding by end of year, and these ideas did not have FAA approval.
I understand the request for transparency from FAA but it's hard to expect them to lay down a time line without them having all the info they've requested and without them knowing what is in such documents. I suspect if they did come up with such a time line for public release they would have to pad it out for the worst case scenario and they would be spending most of their time arguing about the time line and not on addressing the info submitted by Boeing.
In the end there is no Federal Aviation Regulation written by Congress saying Boeing must review document X in Y days because no one knows what they will find in document X till they read it.
What does the EASA have to do with determining if Boeing meets the criteria the FAA has given them? Why not just dissolve the FAA and cede US aviation authority to the EASA if Dickson is too afraid to do anything without their blessing?
It seems obvious to me from recent events ( production line halting, CEO "resigned", corporate legal adviser retiring ) that the power politics approach of the last 9 months or so didn't work and a new direction is being taken. FAA has no legal mandate to evaluate Boeing submissions in a given time period for reasons I think should be obvious. If Dickson just took Boeing documents at face value we could just as easily say Dickson is too afraid of Boeing to evaluate them properly, so I think I'd drop the fear angle.