All of WNs MAXs are back up.

Opus99 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

The grounding problem keeps expanding.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-737 ... lista_pos2

quote: The same production changes also impacted the grounding path of the aircraft’s main instrument panel and the rack that houses the standby power unit, Boeing found during its recent assessments. Those areas must be inspected and modified as well, Boeing said.

And they FAA seems to be dragging it's feet, as it is traditional with problems regarding Boeing.

Boeing itself seems to learned its lesson, grounding frames is better than risking the next crash.

Seems the FAA does not believe it’s worth a grounding

After the last time that is not very reassuring.

jeffrey0032j wrote:

This affects the planes delivered post grounding. Planes delivered pre-grounding are not affected and are still flying. As some of the post grounding planes were built 2 years ago, ie next in line from the pre grounding planes, it seems less like an actual physical issue than something that was incorrectly checked off or left out from a checklist.

There is one Icelandair frame grounded. All the current Icelandair MAX are pre grounding builds and AFAIK pre grounding deliveries.

Bad grounding is actually a physical issue. It should even be possible to measure it. That depends of course on having a working quality control.

[quote="Patroni1"]All of WNs MAXs are back up.[/quote

Unfortunately not, they are still grounded.

I couldnt access the whole wsj article but a friend told me it affects 460 jets, 90 of which are delivered and Boeing does not know yet how long the fix will take and what impact it will have on airlines.

FluidFlow wrote:

I couldnt access the whole wsj article but a friend told me it affects 460 jets, 90 of which are delivered and Boeing does not know yet how long the fix will take and what impact it will have on airlines.

WSJ article says two days for fix

Opus99 wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

I couldnt access the whole wsj article but a friend told me it affects 460 jets, 90 of which are delivered and Boeing does not know yet how long the fix will take and what impact it will have on airlines.

WSJ article says two days for fix

Ok thats not too bad. Depending on how many they can fix at the same time it can range from minor to major problem.

I estimate about 5-10 aircraft getting sinultaneous fixes ranging anywhere from 90-180 days in total delays but at least the MAX are not really needed at the time.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/20/boeing- ... iring.html

CNBC confirms in a video at the bottom of the article that United CEO Scott Kirby says the grounded MAXes with electrical issues will be back at the end of the month

Opus99 wrote:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/20/boeing-ceo-retirement-age-cfo-smith-retiring.html

CNBC confirms in a video at the bottom of the article that United CEO Scott Kirby says the grounded MAXes with electrical issues will be back at the end of the month

https://twitter.com/lesliejosephs/statu ... 80293?s=21

Tweet here

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... x-cockpit/

quote: Aviation Week reported earlier that the flaws were traced to a manufacturing change made in early 2019 that involves fasteners and a coating.
In some instances, coating such as paint may affect the electrical grounding path, causing a unit that controls backup power for the aircraft to malfunction, the people said.

the interesting part of the quote: The manufacturing change that led to the original problem was considered so minor that it didn’t require an FAA approval or a review by Boeing employees deputized as agency representatives, the regulator said.

My question would be, is Boeing or the FAA able to learn from mistakes?
A change so minor that it didn’t require an FAA approval or a review by Boeing employees deputized as agency representatives, is the excuse.
A change that leads to instruments not being grounded is perhaps minor, but I would assume quite dangerous.
And I thought that nothing is allowed to change on an airplane without aproval.

mjoelnir wrote:

My question would be, is Boeing or the FAA able to learn from mistakes?
A change so minor that it didn’t require an FAA approval or a review by Boeing employees deputized as agency representatives, is the excuse.
A change that leads to instruments not being grounded is perhaps minor, but I would assume quite dangerous.
And I thought that nothing is allowed to change on an airplane without aproval.

OEMs/Vendors make small manufacturing changes all the time without running to regulatory authorities, it’s part of the process to streamline and increase output while reducing costs. Equipment breaks and gets repaired/replaced. New employees can be operating equipment. If they had to report and get approval for every change done the FAA/EASA would be swamped and nothing would ever get done. It could be down to something as simple as changing a brush or nozzle that was used to apply coating.

Polot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

My question would be, is Boeing or the FAA able to learn from mistakes?
A change so minor that it didn’t require an FAA approval or a review by Boeing employees deputized as agency representatives, is the excuse.
A change that leads to instruments not be
ing grounded is perhaps minor, but I would assume quite dangerous.
And I thought that nothing is allowed to change on an airplane without aproval.

OEMs/Vendors make small manufacturing changes all the time without running to regulatory authorities, it’s part of the process to streamline and increase output while reducing costs. Equipment breaks and gets repaired/replaced. New employees can be operating equipment. If they had to report and get approval for every change done the FAA/EASA would be swamped and nothing would ever get done. It could be down to something as simple as changing a brush or nozzle that was used to apply coating.

If the OEM/vendors could be trusted to realize what those small changes can do to the safety of the product, than that would be OK. Here it seems the results of those changes were completely misjudged.

Failure to ground instruments, several dozen planes effectively grounded, taking two weeks to resolve the problem, and posters in effect say, 'happens all the time'. It doesn't.

There's way too much back of the cereal box nonsense in here. Grounds that don't meet spec are probably not going to be detectable by measuring and don't have to mean immediate danger. A ground needs to be done so it will still be good decades from now trouble from improperly done ones don't have to be a case for shutting down the whole batch. There are a dozen reasons that someone might want to have a little resistance in a ground path, and current capacity in grounds or optimal resistance isn't always obvious.
Too many usual suspects are pretending to know things they really don't.

Nomadd wrote:

There's way too much back of the cereal box nonsense in here. Grounds that don't meet spec are probably not going to be detectable by measuring and don't have to mean immediate danger. A ground needs to be done so it will still be good decades from now trouble from improperly done ones don't have to be a case for shutting down the whole batch. There are a dozen reasons that someone might want to have a little resistance in a ground path, and current capacity in grounds or optimal resistance isn't always obvious.
Too many usual suspects are pretending to know things they really don't.

There is to much of the defense of the indefensible here. Having instruments not properly grounded is no danger? An electrical or electronical apprentice in his first year will learn that a painted (or in regards to aluminium perhaps anodised) ground terminal is not OK. A grounding terminal provides bare metal.
Improper grounding can have a serious influence on the working of controllers, computers and instruments and if that is a minor problem, the person who declares that, should not come near the service or operation of any airplane or even any other electrical or electronical equipment.
Any safety inspector taking his job seriously will insist on proper grounding in equipment where it is not as dangerous as in an airplane. Try to slide an improper grounded electrical cabinet passed an UL inspector.

If you can point me to an instance were someone might want a little resistance in a ground path, I like to here about it.

In the too many usual suspects are pretending to know things they really don't category, I can only fully agree with you.

Nomadd wrote:

There's way too much back of the cereal box nonsense in here. Grounds that don't meet spec are probably not going to be detectable by measuring and don't have to mean immediate danger. A ground needs to be done so it will still be good decades from now trouble from improperly done ones don't have to be a case for shutting down the whole batch. There are a dozen reasons that someone might want to have a little resistance in a ground path, and current capacity in grounds or optimal resistance isn't always obvious.
Too many usual suspects are pretending to know things they really don't.

None of what you say sounds like anything an electrical engineer would every imagine saying.

Improper grounding might be difficult to detect by measuring and that is a MASSIVE HUGE PROBLEM.

What might happen is that the marginal grounding causes intermittent problems. For example any vibration could cause grounding to flicker at the frequency of the vibration. If there is any device even in some backup rack that has marginal grounding if it is powered on and not just in cold standby the intermittent grounding might change amperage through the device which will then cause power rail voltages also to fluctuate at the frequency of the grounding problem and this power rail voltage fluctuation can cause whatever strange problems anywhere. Or the mechanism how the problem travels to another rack might be through a communication bus between equipments.

In the case of really bad luck that grounding might seem to work if the plane is sitting still at hangar making troubleshooting impossible. Only way to solve the issue is to tear everything apart so the speck of paint in wrong hidden place can be seen when it is not covered by whatever is normally on top of it. The place where there is some strange anomaly happening can be at completely different rack than where the marginal grounding problem is.

Or in case of exceptionally bad luck if there is inductance in the system an intermittent grounding problem can turn into overshoot of voltages which might fry delicate electronics permanently in strange ways which also might be impossible to detect why strange things are happening.

Ertro wrote:

Nomadd wrote:

There's way too much back of the cereal box nonsense in here. Grounds that don't meet spec are probably not going to be detectable by measuring and don't have to mean immediate danger. A ground needs to be done so it will still be good decades from now trouble from improperly done ones don't have to be a case for shutting down the whole batch. There are a dozen reasons that someone might want to have a little resistance in a ground path, and current capacity in grounds or optimal resistance isn't always obvious.
Too many usual suspects are pretending to know things they really don't.

None of what you say sounds like anything an electrical engineer would every imagine saying.

Improper grounding might be difficult to detect by measuring and that is a MASSIVE HUGE PROBLEM.

What might happen is that the marginal grounding causes intermittent problems. For example any vibration could cause grounding to flicker at the frequency of the vibration. If there is any device even in some backup rack that has marginal grounding if it is powered on and not just in cold standby the intermittent grounding might change amperage through the device which will then cause power rail voltages also to fluctuate at the frequency of the grounding problem and this power rail voltage fluctuation can cause whatever strange problems anywhere. Or the mechanism how the problem travels to another rack might be through a communication bus between equipments.

In the case of really bad luck that grounding might seem to work if the plane is sitting still at hangar making troubleshooting impossible. Only way to solve the issue is to tear everything apart so the speck of paint in wrong hidden place can be seen when it is not covered by whatever is normally on top of it. The place where there is some strange anomaly happening can be at completely different rack than where the marginal grounding problem is.

The term I've always used for what you are describing is "ground bounce" and it isn't ever desirable. With electronic equipment you never want the possibility of a dynamic ground reference.

The affected airlines include Air Canada, Alaska, American, Belavia, Blue Air, Cayman, COPA, GOL, Icelandair, Neos, Shandong, SilkAir, Southwest, Spicejet, Sunwing, TUI, Turkish, United, WestJet, Xiamen

And the following lessors Ala Al-Khawaja (BBJ Owner), Minsheng Leasing (Lessor for Lion Air, 9 Air), Valla Jets (BBJ operator).

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/22/boeing- ... -says.html

iamlucky13 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

The statement of the media (This change was executed in such a way that it did not provide a complete electrical grounding path to the unit) seems to conflict with the statement of Boeing (inspections are needed to verify “that a sufficient ground path exists” for this control unit).

I'd read that as "may not" rather than "did not". As you noted, Boeing knows more about this than the media does.

Revelation wrote:

Either way, I would think AMEs are able to replace fasteners with rivets so the way back should not be difficult.

Threaded fasteners can be used for grounding, too, but if the rivets were accomplishing it by filling a hole drilled at installation, then bolts might instead need paint cleaned around the hole.

I find it weird (if it's actually the case, as we haven't seen the actual documentation from Boeing) that Boeing would use the fasteners as the only ground path between a piece of equipment and structure.

In my experience, I've always seen the ground path either being between the mounting face of the equipment and the structure (faying surface bonding) with both surfaces being appropriately prepared or via a ground strap where, once again, the actual ground path is to the surface of the structure and not the threads. Maybe, we were paranoid, but that's what I experienced.

Rivets work well enough (in sufficient number) between metallic structural members to ensure the entire fuselage is always "at ground".

Also, where I was, engineering has a requirement for the max resistance for every single ground that production/QA are supposed to measure and log. I had proof that it was the case as I treated several engineering changes to improve the grounding path for areas that they had issues meeting the resistance requirements.

Yes, install small ground straps between the equipment and the frame. Defined load paths are good.

ST's report on the quarterly results ( https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ore-losses ) says:

(Boeing CEO David Calhoun) said Boeing is “finalizing the plans and documentation with the FAA” for a relatively quick fix that will allow airlines to return their airplanes to service.

On CNBC, Calhoun said that work will take only 3 to 4 days per airplane once the FAA approves Boeing’s fix — which consists of changing some fasteners that mount electrical control units behind the pilot in the cockpit and ensuring the units are electrically grounded.

Calhoun said he expects FAA approval in “relatively short order,” so that Boeing can catch up on MAX deliveries in time for the summer recovery in air travel that U.S. airlines are focused on.

Seems these fasteners aren't easy to access if it is taking 3-4 days per plane to change them out.

I wonder if we'll ever see the details on the fix or not.

Revelation wrote:

ST's report on the quarterly results ( https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ore-losses ) says:

(Boeing CEO David Calhoun) said Boeing is “finalizing the plans and documentation with the FAA” for a relatively quick fix that will allow airlines to return their airplanes to service.

On CNBC, Calhoun said that work will take only 3 to 4 days per airplane once the FAA approves Boeing’s fix — which consists of changing some fasteners that mount electrical control units behind the pilot in the cockpit and ensuring the units are electrically grounded.

Calhoun said he expects FAA approval in “relatively short order,” so that Boeing can catch up on MAX deliveries in time for the summer recovery in air travel that U.S. airlines are focused on.

Seems these fasteners aren't easy to access if it is taking 3-4 days per plane to change them out.

I wonder if we'll ever see the details on the fix or not.

If the FAA issues an Airworthiness Directive, then we'll at least get some detail in that document. Since Boeing launched into this fix without waiting for an FAA determination whether a grounding was even necessary, I don't know if it would be normal for there to be an AD about an issue that is already being fixed.

Revelation wrote:

ST's report on the quarterly results ( https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ore-losses ) says:

(Boeing CEO David Calhoun) said Boeing is “finalizing the plans and documentation with the FAA” for a relatively quick fix that will allow airlines to return their airplanes to service.

On CNBC, Calhoun said that work will take only 3 to 4 days per airplane once the FAA approves Boeing’s fix — which consists of changing some fasteners that mount electrical control units behind the pilot in the cockpit and ensuring the units are electrically grounded.

Calhoun said he expects FAA approval in “relatively short order,” so that Boeing can catch up on MAX deliveries in time for the summer recovery in air travel that U.S. airlines are focused on.

Seems these fasteners aren't easy to access if it is taking 3-4 days per plane to change them out.

I wonder if we'll ever see the details on the fix or not.

Jon Ostrower has an article on the exact details of the fix in his latest article

iamlucky13 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

ST's report on the quarterly results ( https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ore-losses ) says:

(Boeing CEO David Calhoun) said Boeing is “finalizing the plans and documentation with the FAA” for a relatively quick fix that will allow airlines to return their airplanes to service.

On CNBC, Calhoun said that work will take only 3 to 4 days per airplane once the FAA approves Boeing’s fix — which consists of changing some fasteners that mount electrical control units behind the pilot in the cockpit and ensuring the units are electrically grounded.

Calhoun said he expects FAA approval in “relatively short order,” so that Boeing can catch up on MAX deliveries in time for the summer recovery in air travel that U.S. airlines are focused on.

Seems these fasteners aren't easy to access if it is taking 3-4 days per plane to change them out.

I wonder if we'll ever see the details on the fix or not.

If the FAA issues an Airworthiness Directive, then we'll at least get some detail in that document. Since Boeing launched into this fix without waiting for an FAA determination whether a grounding was even necessary, I don't know if it would be normal for there to be an AD about an issue that is already being fixed.

Everything is done in coordination with the FAA. There still needs to be a formal approval.

iamlucky13 wrote:

If the FAA issues an Airworthiness Directive, then we'll at least get some detail in that document. Since Boeing launched into this fix without waiting for an FAA determination whether a grounding was even necessary, I don't know if it would be normal for there to be an AD about an issue that is already being fixed.

All true, but in the past I've seen ADs that have all the high level stuff then say something like "refer to service bulletin XYZ for the details" and we never get to see that service bulletin unless someone leaks it.

"The Air Current" had an article about this situation so they may have leaked the details or at least a characterization of them, but I'm not a subscriber.

Opus99 wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

I couldnt access the whole wsj article but a friend told me it affects 460 jets, 90 of which are delivered and Boeing does not know yet how long the fix will take and what impact it will have on airlines.

WSJ article says two days for fix

What fix? Currently Boeing does not have an FAA approved fix. Hence why the entire Alaska fleet is still grounded and all new deliveries have been halted.

seahawks7757 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

I couldnt access the whole wsj article but a friend told me it affects 460 jets, 90 of which are delivered and Boeing does not know yet how long the fix will take and what impact it will have on airlines.

WSJ article says two days for fix

What fix? Currently Boeing does not have an FAA approved fix. Hence why the entire Alaska fleet is still grounded and all new deliveries have been halted.

That was what the WSJ article said...he couldn’t access the whole article but now we are hearing 3-4 days

Opus99 wrote:

seahawks7757 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

WSJ article says two days for fix

What fix? Currently Boeing does not have an FAA approved fix. Hence why the entire Alaska fleet is still grounded and all new deliveries have been halted.

That was what the WSJ article said...he couldn’t access the whole article but now we are hearing 3-4 days

Still not FAA approved yet though. Hopefully they will get approval soon so they can actually fix this issue.

seahawks7757 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

seahawks7757 wrote:

What fix? Currently Boeing does not have an FAA approved fix. Hence why the entire Alaska fleet is still grounded and all new deliveries have been halted.

That was what the WSJ article said...he couldn’t access the whole article but now we are hearing 3-4 days

Still not FAA approved yet though. Hopefully they will get approval soon so they can actually fix this issue.

Oh of course. At the time we didn’t even know the fix or if there was one, I was just using that as a reference point for how long it could take

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ical-parts

UPDATE

Some more snippets of information from the earnings call transcript.
https://investors.boeing.com/investors/ ... fault.aspx

• Approximately 100 in-service aircraft affected.
• Finalizing plans and documentation with the FAA for the fix.
• "a few days per airplane"
• Undelivered aircraft (~400) are also affected and deliveries have been paused. April deliveries will be "light."
• Expecting to reduce undelivered inventory by half this year compared to the end of the grounding (was 450)

There also was a brief mention of the 737 pickle fork issues. If I understood right, they were still dealing with that 1st quarter last year, but not anymore.

Also the fix takes 24 hours

Opus99 wrote:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-28/faa-issues-repair-order-for-boeing-737-max-jet-electrical-parts

The AD says the fix is still in work ("The manufacturer is currently developing service information"). The Airworthiness Directive mandates the problem be resolved, but states they intend (future tense) for the fix to be approved as a method of compliance with the AD.

The AD is not linked from the FAA site yet, but is in the Federal Register:
https://public-inspection.federalregist ... -09221.pdf

I don't have a subscription to Bloomberg, so some of the following may also be in the above-linked article.

• Discovered during a standard production test. So it was an observed problem, not a theoretical one raised during review, but was not discovered due to an in-flight issue.
• All in-service aircraft passed the test, but they are concerned about potentially degraded performance.
• It affects "certain" systems. The only one specifically listed is engine ice protection.
• 71 delivered aircraft in the US are affected (non-US number is not stated)
• 68 aircraft require modification of multiple electrical panels (24 hours estimated work)
• 3 aircraft require modification of one electrical panel (9 hours estimated work)

I was scheduled on a MAX-9 with United Friday from ORD-DEN. That aircraft has been changed to a 737-900 series aircraft. Wonder how long this all will last? I had some apprehension about flying on the Max but not enough to rebook my flight at a different time.

100 customer aircraft grounded and deliveries halted turned out to be a big issue finally. Four workdays per aircraft is more than a little rework.
It will be okay but this is not the news they need now. Luckily for them the travelling public will not notice anything this time.

Noshow wrote:

100 customer aircraft grounded and deliveries halted turned out to be a big issue finally. Four workdays per aircraft is more than a little rework.
It will be okay but this is not the news they need now. Luckily for them the travelling public will not notice anything this time.

FAA says 24 hours. 4 days was from an article

24 work hours and 4 workdays could also be exactly the same thing with just differences in how to count like if the other is theoretical net work on the very core of problem and other is gross work including many kinds of overheads including sleep time for the mechanics. How much is actually spent might depend on how many parallel workgroups are available allowing all 100 planes to be processed in something between 24 hours or 400 days.

Opus99 wrote:

Noshow wrote:

100 customer aircraft grounded and deliveries halted turned out to be a big issue finally. Four workdays per aircraft is more than a little rework.
It will be okay but this is not the news they need now. Luckily for them the travelling public will not notice anything this time.

FAA says 24 hours. 4 days was from an article

To be clear, the FAA states as estimate:
Modify multiple flight deck panels = 24 work hours per plane (68 planes, US fleet only)
Modify one flight deck panel = 9 work hours per plane (3 planes, US fleet only)

That may or may not take one or more days per plane, depending on how many people can work in the same space at the same time, shift model etc.

Whichever way it´s twisted: this occurence wasn´t needed by Boeing, certainly not at this point of time.

oschkosch wrote:

Obviously this is the worst publicity immediately after grounding for Boeing ever imaginable....



And the timeline for the fix sounds rather fuzzy. Hours or days is a big difference!
https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers ... 39.article

Boeing says it is “premature” to estimate how long repairs to the jets might take, but adds that the maintenance work could take “a matter of hours or days”.

Actually, the worst publicity would be another crash of another 737 MAX.

Noshow wrote:

100 customer aircraft grounded and deliveries halted turned out to be a big issue finally. Four workdays per aircraft is more than a little rework.
It will be okay but this is not the news they need now. Luckily for them the travelling public will not notice anything this time.

The halting of deliveries is concerning. Have they started up again?

kiowa wrote:

Have they started up again?

Since FAA has not signed off on a fix, I think 'no' is a safe answer.

Revelation wrote:

kiowa wrote:

Have they started up again?

Since FAA has not signed off on a fix, I think 'no' is a safe answer.

To put my two cents on your point, they just reported that the matter will take a little longer than expected, since the FAA asked Boeing to provide additional analysis and documentation to see if the MAX's subsystems would not be affected by the electrical grounding issue.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-05-05/

REDHL wrote:

Revelation wrote:

kiowa wrote:

Have they started up again?

Since FAA has not signed off on a fix, I think 'no' is a safe answer.

To put my two cents on your point, they just reported that the matter will take a little longer than expected, since the FAA asked Boeing to provide additional analysis and documentation to see if the MAX's subsystems would not be affected by the electrical grounding issue.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-05-05/

Boeing sent a service bulletin last week and FAA approved then FAA turned back and asked for more documentation on this. Wondering why they did not just ask for this initially

REDHL wrote:

Revelation wrote:

kiowa wrote:

Have they started up again?

Since FAA has not signed off on a fix, I think 'no' is a safe answer.

To put my two cents on your point, they just reported that the matter will take a little longer than expected, since the FAA asked Boeing to provide additional analysis and documentation to see if the MAX's subsystems would not be affected by the electrical grounding issue.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-05-05/

I'm confused. That sounds like the kind of information they should want if Boeing was arguing it doesn't need fixing, or if there was a disagreement over whether or not to allow flights to continue prior to fixing the issue.

iamlucky13 wrote:

REDHL wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Since FAA has not signed off on a fix, I think 'no' is a safe answer.

To put my two cents on your point, they just reported that the matter will take a little longer than expected, since the FAA asked Boeing to provide additional analysis and documentation to see if the MAX's subsystems would not be affected by the electrical grounding issue.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-05-05/

I'm confused. That sounds like the kind of information they should want if Boeing was arguing it doesn't need fixing, or if there was a disagreement over whether or not to allow flights to continue prior to fixing the issue.

I don’t think the FAA is acting normally in this or other situations. They’ve given lower level employees greater authority to ask questions and request information which is leading to a cumbersome, confusing, and erratic process for nearly any decision. The normal folks will say we have what we need and then some other person will pop in and ask for new analysis, restarting the entire process. This is being seen to varying degrees with everything the FAA is doing.

sxf24 wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

REDHL wrote:

To put my two cents on your point, they just reported that the matter will take a little longer than expected, since the FAA asked Boeing to provide additional analysis and documentation to see if the MAX's subsystems would not be affected by the electrical grounding issue.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-05-05/

I'm confused. That sounds like the kind of information they should want if Boeing was arguing it doesn't need fixing, or if there was a disagreement over whether or not to allow flights to continue prior to fixing the issue.

I don’t think the FAA is acting normally in this or other situations. They’ve given lower level employees greater authority to ask questions and request information which is leading to a cumbersome, confusing, and erratic process for nearly any decision. The normal folks will say we have what we need and then some other person will pop in and ask for new analysis, restarting the entire process. This is being seen to varying degrees with everything the FAA is doing.

I guess nothing happened in the past that made it come this far?

viewtopic.php?t=1459349&start=700

The last post from Jay gives some sort of insight. Apparently FAA and Boeing being extra careful and don’t want to look like they’re rushing things.

This review is interesting. If they want more analysis that it doesn’t affect other parts, won’t the fix still fix it anyway or is it more complicated than that? It must be

Opus99 wrote:

viewtopic.php?t=1459349&start=700

The last post from Jay gives some sort of insight. Apparently FAA and Boeing being extra careful and don’t want to look like they’re rushing things.

It would not surprise me if this one caused some sort of reaction within the FAA. Recall one thing they did after the tragedy was remove Boeing's ability to sign off on the planes it manufactured. Now, FAA itself signs off on each airplane. In other words, this all happened on FAA's watch. They must feel pretty burned and wonder how they let this happen. It seems to be turning into a tutorial on electrical grounding for everyone involved.

Opus99 wrote:

This review is interesting. If they want more analysis that it doesn’t affect other parts, won’t the fix still fix it anyway or is it more complicated than that? It must be

We have no way of knowing if the analysis is directly related to the manufacturing change, or if it is FAA just double-checking that other subsystems have sufficient electrical grounding.

Revelation wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

viewtopic.php?t=1459349&start=700

The last post from Jay gives some sort of insight. Apparently FAA and Boeing being extra careful and don’t want to look like they’re rushing things.

It would not surprise me if this one caused some sort of reaction within the FAA. Recall one thing they did after the tragedy was remove Boeing's ability to sign off on the planes it manufactured. Now, FAA itself signs off on each airplane. In other words, this all happened on FAA's watch. They must feel pretty burned and wonder how they let this happen. It seems to be turning into a tutorial on electrical grounding for everyone involved.

Opus99 wrote:

This review is interesting. If they want more analysis that it doesn’t affect other parts, won’t the fix still fix it anyway or is it more complicated than that? It must be

We have no way of knowing if the analysis is directly related to the manufacturing change, or if it is FAA just double-checking that other subsystems have sufficient electrical grounding.

No doubt there is lots of "CYA" going on at the FAA. The 737 crashes happened on their watch. I am glad that they are being more diligent in their signing off on this aircraft.

hooverman wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

I'm confused. That sounds like the kind of information they should want if Boeing was arguing it doesn't need fixing, or if there was a disagreement over whether or not to allow flights to continue prior to fixing the issue.

I don’t think the FAA is acting normally in this or other situations. They’ve given lower level employees greater authority to ask questions and request information which is leading to a cumbersome, confusing, and erratic process for nearly any decision. The normal folks will say we have what we need and then some other person will pop in and ask for new analysis, restarting the entire process. This is being seen to varying degrees with everything the FAA is doing.

I guess nothing happened in the past that made it come this far?

We all recognize Boeing is facing extra scrutiny for everything, which they brought upon themselves, and are being very conservative about resolving problems and apparently even about grounding aircraft if there is any significant doubt. The FAA, likewise, is regularly questioning decisions Boeing makes.

The information given so far, however, indicates a specific issue, and a specific fix. The latest objection raised has not been reported as an insufficiency in the fix or a question whether the same concern exists elsewhere (already answered affirmative, and included in the AD), but as concern over what would happen if not fixed (Reuters: "The FAA has ...asked for additional analysis over whether other jet subsystems would be affected by the grounding issue").

Opus99 wrote:

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1459349&start=700

The last post from Jay gives some sort of insight. Apparently FAA and Boeing being extra careful and don’t want to look like they’re rushing things.

This review is interesting. If they want more analysis that it doesn’t affect other parts, won’t the fix still fix it anyway or is it more complicated than that? It must be

Direct link to the post (I know this site makes it peculiarly difficult to do get this link on a mobile device):
viewtopic.php?t=1459349&start=700#p22773639

I appreciate Jayunited sharing what he was told, but it doesn't seem to offer any extra insight. Of course they're both being meticulous, but meticulous about what? Again, what was reported indicates they are being meticulous about a situation that has already been ruled out (aircraft flying with the issue not fixed).

So either what has been reported is wrong, and there is new uncertainty about whether the fix is sufficient, or the review has gone from being meticulous to being capricious.