Back to Squawk list
  • 53

FAA in final stages of Boeing 737 MAX review; could approve as early as Nov. 18

提交时间:
 
The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration is in the final stages of reviewing proposed changes to Boeing Co’s 737 MAX and expects to complete the process in the “coming days,” the agency’s chief told Reuters on Monday. (www.reuters.com) 更多...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


isjps
Jose Serro 10
After almost 2 years on the ground to be "naked", Boeing 737 MAX probably will be the most secure aircraft in the world in the coming years.
myriamrevelard
Myriam Revelard 5
I hope you are right...
isjps
Jose Serro 5
I hope too that what I said is true, because one of my twin daughters is a Ryanair flight attendant, and that worries me.
But now i do believe they know what they are doing.
WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77 4
The big question is, did Boeing learn a lesson here or not?
Beermonster54
Phil Hall 2
Time will tell as to whether they are safe or not. Until then I will fly Airbus where ever possible.
myriamrevelard
Myriam Revelard 2
Ryanair va-t-il acheter ces avions ? Cela m'inquiète car je suis cliente.
Peterberner
Peter Berner 2
moi aussi
patpylot
patrick baker 2
like a cancer operation, the question is "did they get it all?" or is there something left unfinished that will result in a return of infection. Did boeing and the FAA accomplish a complete fix resulting in a safe aircraft? What trust level have these two entities earned from the rest of us? I don't know, and not very much.....
tamjam75
tam nelson 1
You are only 'cancer free' until the doc finds it again.
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 1
If the FAA is so incompetent, how and why could that incompetence only affect one particular make and model of airplane? Wouldn't everything they certified be suspect as well? And didn't the FAA's counterpart(s) all over the world give the newest 737 their stamp of approval as well? Why aren't any other certification authorities on your shit list as well? They approved the same airplane...
patpylot
patrick baker 1
THe other regulators fell into lock step with the FAA, to everybodie's chagrin. The other boeing aircraft have not had the crash/fatalities that were front and center with 737max, which had system deficiencies destinctly of its own. These other boeings have millions of passenger miles successfully, whereas the Max did not have the quality miles.
hoppemkf
Manfred Hoppe 1
It would be nice to get this aircraft back into the air, hoping for the best
Lawsci
Gary Baker 1
Too bad the article failed to recite the physical and process changes required.
beilstwh
beilstwh 0
There is not a chance in hell of my flying on a 737 Max. They have not completed the changes required by the Europeans, who I trust, and the FAA is a wholly owned subsidiary of the aircraft industry. In the past the FAA did an excellent job but it's staff and funding was stripped to the bone by congress so they are now only a rubber stamp for the aircraft manufactures.
rgraham11
Robert Graham -1
Too bad that the Boeing Executive Suite avoided any meaning punishment (e.g., fines and jail).

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 1
Is this a joke?

"Even though adding a 2nd MCAS unit with 2 more angle of attack sensors is the only way to make this 737MAX viable, I know that Boeing will vigorously fight this, because it would make this airplane more of a maintenance nightmare than it is now. Because this aircraft requires that the angle of attack sensors to be operational at all times, I predict this aircraft will be under repair at a rate of 400 times greater than any other aircraft."
punkrawk78
Silent Bob 2
It's worse than a joke, it's inaccurate and misleading. The author purports to be a commercial pilot but doesn't seem to understand aircraft certification, especially as it relates to the Max and MCAS.

And I don't know what their airline experience supposedly is, but AOA sensors don't just fail at the drop of a hat. In over 3 years of flying the 737, Classic NG and Max I don't ever recall having an AOA failure. And it's not like it's some obscure part that's impossible to find, so the notion that the Max will be 400 times more maintenance intensive is just laughable. If that was the case no airline in their right mind would operate them.

Just goes to show you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet!
vyfong
Van Fong 1
I stand by my estimation of the repair problems that the 737MAX will experience. During my career in the airline ( one of about 10000 pilots ) I never had to experience an in-flight engine failure. Perhaps 50 of my fellow pilots did during their career. This is a real testament to American engine manufacturing. I did, however, have 2-3 failures of the AOA system. These were basically non issues because the AOA is basically a secondary instrument for airline pilots and for all commercial airliners until the 737MAX. The AOA transmitters sit one the outside of the airplane and is easily susceptible to damage. I've seen them hit by catering trucks, jet bridges, etc. Since they look like "natural" hooks, line personnel often times hang their helmets and jackets and transmitter cords on them. In the short time that the 737MAX was operating, the failure of the AOA contributed to the 2 accidents. By wiring both AOA's to the MCAS now requires both to be operational at all times. The AOA's also go through the flight data computers, so that now a failure of a flight data computer, an AOA transmitter and/or indicator, either heating element on either AOA transmitter are all out of service items. I am not versed on the time frame it takes to make the repair, I am just commenting on the frequency of repairs needed. None of these issues would take any other airplane out of service. They are all deferable repairs. Not on the 737MAX.
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 1
In "36 years of commercial flying" you have experienced "2-3 failures of the AOA system". I'm no math wizard, but I believe that works out to one failure EVERY EIGHT TO SIXTEEN YEARS. When you combine this with what can only be called a nonsensical mishmash of bad assumptions, glaring omissions, and flat out nonsense you conclude "this aircraft will be under repair at a rate of 400 times greater than any other aircraft." You stand by this.

Here's what I stand by: You are either lying about your background/experience or lying about the 737. There is no other explanation. Your comments both here and on your hack-job of a website are so full of holes, there just aren't enough hours in the day to address them all--and leaving something out might imply it's somehow more legit, which it most certainly would not be.

We are living in an age that requires a minuscule amount of accuracy, truth, and common sense to achieve your goals. It would appear that even this would be too much to ask... and right when I thought the bar couldn't get any lower.

P.S. I suppose there might be one more explanation: you're completely off your stump.
vyfong
Van Fong 1
You really don't understand the ramifications of what I am saying. I feel that my career was fairly normal so I feel my experience mirrors my fellow pilots. The vast majority of us did not have to deal with inflight emergencies (which is a good thing). The AOA malfunctions, which are non issues on all other airplanes, was probably something ALL of us experienced during our careers. Therefore, ALL 100000 of us (if we were flying a 737MAX) would have had to deal with what could be an in flight incidence at some point in our career. If you know anything about the cost of an inflight interruption cost, then you would realize that this is not a desirable situation. If you think that AOA failures are rare, just note that in the short service life of the 737MAX, it has already had two incidents (that we know of) that contributed to fatal accidents. By connecting both AOA's to the MCAS, they have actually doubled the chances of the MCAS being rendered inoperative.
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 1
AOA sensor problems are non issues on all other airplanes. If that were true, Airbus wouldn't use three of them now would they?

"By connecting both AOA's to the MCAS, they have actually doubled the chances of the MCAS being rendered inoperative"

Redundancy does not increase risk and inoperative MCAS did not cause the crashes (it's the other way around).
vyfong
Van Fong 1
No, sadly it is not. The weak point in this design is that the MCAS is a required item and it is tied to the angle of attack transmitters and or indicators. On every other airplane in the world, the loss of an angle of attack transmitter/indicator is an item which can be placarded with a 3-7 day repair requirement. On the 737MAX, this is an out of service item. On the 737MAX, losing an angle of attack has the same repair requirements as the loss of a major item like an engine.
punkrawk78
Silent Bob 3
That's a pretty bad analogy for two reasons: first, AOA systems are not high failure rate items, so while what you say may be true if they don't fail then it's not much of an issue.

Second, even if they do fail repairing and/or replacing them is a fairly quick and easy process, not like changing an engine which is a long and involved process.
vyfong
Van Fong 1
Of course the loss of an AOA does not have the same repair impact as the loss of an engine, I was trying to point out that what is a minor item on all other airliners in operation is a major out of service issue for the 737MAX. All of us that have flown the line know that there is never a "quick and easy" aircraft part replacement. First you need to obtain the replacement part, then mechanics need to replace the part, then quality assurance need to sign off on the repair. This makes this minor item, which on other airplanes, can be deferred, into one which NEEDS to be repaired. Southwest Airlines, who is a model of aircraft utilization, often turns around their airplanes in an hour or less. The difference between deferring a maintenance item until downtime verses having to take an hour out of the day to repair/replace is huge. If they follow their plan to replace their entire fleet with the 737MAX, I think that the impact to their fleet efficiency will be very apparent.
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 1
MCAS was required in order to certify under the old 737 type certificate. MCAS is not required for the airplane to fly safely. MCAS dormant while inside the normal flight envelope. As a matter of fact it's even dormant while outside the normal flight envelope if the flaps are anywhere but up.

Every other airplane in the world, like the A320? You know, the one with it's three AOA sensors, that A320.

What was it that brought down XL Airways Flight 888 again? I forget...
vyfong
Van Fong 1
You are really missing the point. Whether MCAS is required to safely fly the airplane is debatable. In Boeings own words, it is REQUIRED to certify this aircraft for flight. So in both those accidents, if the pilots did everything right, they would have had to land immediately and thus have an air interrupt. Only in the 737MAX is a CRITICAL/REQUIRED system tied to the operation of a minor instrument. The same failure on the B707, B727, B737, B757, B767, B777, B787, DC9, DC10,MD11, would be a minor instrument inconvenience and the flight would have continued on its journey. On the 737MAX you would be legally required to land as soon as possible. Whether you would encounter the safety issue the MCAS was built to counter is still unknown. I am not familiar with the A320, so I cannot comment on whether their 3 AOAs are tied to a safety issue. You need to research further into the development of the MCAS system. It is not merely a "feel" system. It is in operation always when the flaps are up. It is an independent control to a major control surface which the pilots cannot turn on or off. If it malfunctions, the pilots can disable the electric control that MCAS uses, thus creating 2 failures. Now there are even less resources to deal with whatever flight problems the MCAS was created to counteract.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/the-inside-story-of-mcas-how-boeings-737-max-system-gained-power-and-lost-safeguards/

登录

还没有帐户吗? 现在就注册(免费),设置诸多自定义功能、航班提醒等等!
本网站使用cookie。您使用并继续浏览本网站,即表示您接受这一点。
退出
您知道FlightAware航班跟踪是由广告支持吗?
通过允许展示来自FlightAware.com的广告,您可以帮助我们使FlightAware保持免费。我们努力使我们的广告保持相关性,同时不显突兀,以创造一流的体验。在FlightAware上将广告加入白名单快捷而简单,或者请您考虑选择我们的高级帐户.
退出