This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.
Dismiss
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss
Back to Squawk list
  • 21

Global Regulators Aren’t Aligned in Boeing 737 Max Recertification

Submitted
Global aviation regulators have yet to formulate a unified approach to getting the grounded Boeing Co. 737 Max airliner back into service after two fatal crashes, a division that risks undermining public trust in the industry’s safety record, according to Alexandre de Juniac, the head of the IATA association of global airlines. “The point on which we have to pay attention is for the regulators to be aligned,” de Juniac said in an interview with Bloomberg TV in Berlin. “Otherwise the… (skift.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


rdgc
robin cooper 4
doubt if the European regulators will be in any hurry as Boeing brought suit against Airbus in the WTO and caused tariffs to be applied. what comes around goes around...........
SueLockwood
Sue Lockwood 3
Who do you trust when corporate greed exceeds common sense. Certification was rushed through the first time with tragic consequences. Boeing and the FAA own the responsibility for that. Despite delay costs, as a member of the travelling public, I appreciate the fact Transport Canada will do its own evaluation of this airplane.
zulu1953
K R 5
No. This is when there is a shortage of common sense at the coal face with the engineers designing and checking the software and discussing with the humans that operate the aircraft. The push to "self-driving" aircraft is huge from the public (lower costs). Just like the self-driving software for motor vehicles (Tesla?) - it is not ready for prime time. This is what happens when you push for cheaper airfares and try and remove the humans - its not corporate greed but rather consumer greed.
zulu1953
K R 4
You have the wrong impression of TransportCanada's expertise. My dealings with Transport Canada (as an engineer) show that it is unlikely that they have any engineers capable of making a judgement on the MCAS system. They will need to defer to the FAA's judgement.
SueLockwood
Sue Lockwood 1
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-official-737max-software-working-level-view-1.5370540
ccpmlpts
If the MAX had been submitted for certification without MCAS, but with, say, "additional pilot training required," would it have passed? If not, what would the remedy have been?
lecompte2
lecompte2 0
Simple answer is if the aircraft gets into a nose high stall condition, it cannot recover without the MCAS. This situation is unlikely to occur but it could happen.
hlandreth1
What ???? Surely you don't believe that ! The pilot can still drive the stabalizer himself. One major issue that has to be fixed is that when the pilot overrides the MCAS position with the column switches, when he releases the up or down manual electrical witches, the system goes back to MCAS control. Since the MCAS caused the runaway actions of the stab trim, why are they giving control back to the malfunctioning system ? If the pilot overrides MCAS, MCAS should be disengaged period ! If the pilot wants it back, (why would he) he can turn it back on himself.
lecompte2
lecompte2 0
There is something wrong with a design that requires the pilot to use trim to recover from a critical situation like a stall. Even then MCAS moves the stabilizer much faster than the pilot trim switches can, and will win in the end as it did in the second crash.
hornet135
hornet135 1
It’s unproven that it would require trim to recover in such situations, unless you can offer some reference for that.
lecompte2
lecompte2 0
Them why is MCAS in this airplane ?
hornet135
hornet135 1
To keep stick forces up to the point of stall as required for certification. Also to make it fly like an NG.
lecompte2
lecompte2 1
Only works in level flight, try it in nose high attitude then try to recover without MCAS
bentwing60
bentwing60 2
It seems that you reveal less with your avatar/bio. than you seem intent to reveal in your posts. If your working knowledge is the result of employment as a current 737 MAX pilot or sim. instructor, you may reveal the fact with the same anonymity as h135 has revealed an obvious and oft down voted understanding of the original, or published intent of MCAS. I personally believe the MCAS system was sullied by lead engineer/code writer changes during the development process, and the lack of a comparator reference for dual AOA input as a design fundamental, as an egregious error on the design/certification teams part. Among others. The ATP who has inadverently stalled a transport category jet and has no need for pitch trim corrections in the recovery process has yet to be invented.

And, by the by, throttles 94% at impact, twice. An unheralded unforced error no doubt covered in the QRH stab trim runaway procedures. RED BOX items.
lecompte2
lecompte2 1
Yes with the control column at full rear position, anyway enough. By the way the beginning of this discussion is about if the max could be certified without MCAS !
bentwing60
bentwing60 1
Well aware of that and Yes it could have been but not grandfathered on the original type certificate, thus a new type rating, and the source of the whole kerfuffle. I get it and am equally done!
hornet135
hornet135 0
That’s not true, as MCAS is not a stall recovery system. It wouldn’t be able to be certified on a single type certificate with 737NG without MCAS though.
lecompte2
lecompte2 0
Try it in the simulator, power will push the nose up and the elevator will be unable to counteract without the stabiliser added authority and without MCAS only the trim can move it electric or manually.
zulu1953
K R 1
Mistakes happen. Learn from them an move on. This was an error in engineering not oversight. Hire better engineers and do more checking and balancing. Regulators alignment does not factor into the risk management decision to allow the MAX back into service. De Juniac does not know what he is talking about.
airuphere
airuphere -1
Global regulators are Rarely aligned in anything. It’ll work it self out as everything else does
bentwing60
bentwing60 8
The hit to FAA credibility in the global aeronautical community will not "work it self out" in the short term and Boeing upper management and board duplicity to exploit the Cozy relationship for profit will not be soon forgotten. Especially when, as usual, none of the high heads roll!
zulu1953
K R 1
This was an error in implementation i.e. the consequences of an MCAS failure were not fully explored. No duplicity involved. More time checking the problem would not have helped. It comes down to the competence of the engineers involved (that GenX generation - sigh)and why they made this mistake. Any conspiracy theory s belong in the garbage can.
zulu1953
K R 1
Very true. Regulation just documents risk management practices already in existence and proven in a society. Different regulators (and the society they represent) have different risk management profiles. They NEVER align unless they are part of a United Nations or World Bank regulation. The FAA, the same as any regulator cannot check every action by the industry they regulate - they can only insist on proven due process of check and balance by the vendor (Boeing in this case). As you say it will work itself out - the due process will be examined and 'improved' to try and avoid future mistakes.
ADXbear
ADXbear -9
They want the pilots and other unions to endorse the Max before they waist any time on this dead horse..

People her in the states will rally around these people as well.. who the Hell is going to fly your recertified max... maybe some cessna 172 pilots...

Face it Boeing, you screwed the pooch.. and committed the unforgivable lies.. hour getting what hou deserve
joelwiley
joel wiley 3
Your autocorrect appears to be malfunctioning or corrupted.
hlandreth1
All Cessna 172 pilots know that when you increase power the nose will rise so they push the nose where they want it and trim off the elevator force. See Wolfgang Langewiesche "Stick and Rudder" (1944), it is still in print.
KobeHunte
Kobe Hunte 1
I have to commend you and your spelling. Also, that isn't true.

Login

Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!