KingOrGod wrote:patrickjp93 wrote:TObound wrote:
That would be a solution. But it would mean recurring training cost. And this what Boeing and their customers don't want. Remember the MAX was sold as easily trainable for NG crews. An afternoon with an iPad. If they have to actually do SIM training or flying, even if it's a few days, this changes the cost of inducting that fleet.
I agree that this is what Boeing should be compelled to do, if they don't want to pay for and engineer an aero fix.
Pay more attention. Boeing isn't resisting that idea at all and would rather the fleet get off the ground ASAP. The problem is the FAA will not actually commit to a path forward, which everyone here should have guessed the moment the EASA wanted dual certification for the 777X. The problem with the RTS isn't Boeing. That's plainly obvious based on who IS communicating openly with the public and who isn't.
And Boeing isn't exactly the epitome of open and honest - we wouldn't be talking here about this if it wasn't the case. I don't blame EASA wanting dual certification based on what BCA and FAA have achieved thus far crater-wise. Got nothing to do with arrogance, it has more to do with combined plain incompetence of those two instutions.
Yep. "I know we killed a few hundred people the first time. But you should trust us again. We got it right this time. Pinky swear!"
I get that bilateral agreements for certification are a thing. But this whole incident has really shown the value of regulatory authorities doing independent certifications on major civilian programs. It's getting to be challenging trusting the FAA with Boeing, EASA with Airbus and TC with Bombardier. Too much of that dual mission of regulating the OEMs and promoting their industry at the same time. I