Insight: Monday 29 July 2019 – Another Issue for MAX?
In a hard hitting story this weekend, the New York Times reported that F.A.A. delegation of decision authority to Boeing resulted in the 737 MAX “not meeting” agency guidelines “for protecting flight controls.” Should the international regulators undertaking an independent review of the MAX certification determine that a deficiency exists, the 737 MAX could be grounded for a substantial additional period while that issue is addressed.
After a change in regulatory processes in 2009, the F.A.A. delegated increased authority for approval of safety assessments to Boeing. Some of those assessments, such as for MCAS and, apparently, protection of flight controls, would likely not have been approved had F.A.A. engineers been in charge of the decision process. A flaw in the regulatory oversight process has led to the situation today, with an unsafe aircraft requiring retrofits and modifications.
In a hard hitting story this weekend, the New York Times reported that F.A.A. delegation of decision authority to Boeing resulted in the 737 MAX “not meeting” agency guidelines “for protecting flight controls.” Should the international regulators undertaking an independent review of the MAX certification determine that a deficiency exists, the 737 MAX could be grounded for a substantial additional period while that issue is addressed.
After a change in regulatory processes in 2009, the F.A.A. delegated increased authority for approval of safety assessments to Boeing. Some of those assessments, such as for MCAS and, apparently, protection of flight controls, would likely not have been approved had F.A.A. engineers been in charge of the decision process. A flaw in the regulatory oversight process has led to the situation today, with an unsafe aircraft requiring retrofits and modifications.
Analysis
The flight control protection issues results from the larger engines being closer to the fuselage of the aircraft than on the 737NG. The potential exists that an un-contained engine failure, like the one that happened April 17, 2018 on a Southwest 737-700, could occur on a MAX and sever the single control cable to the rudder. According to the New York Times, the F.A.A. suggested two potential solutions, a second set of cables or a computerized system (fly by wire) to control the rudder, but Boeing
didn’t want to make these changes, as it was concerned about cost and schedule. This, like MCAS, was another regulatory oversight that resulted in a compromise of safety.
In a hard-hitting story this weekend, the New York Times reported that F.A.A. delegation of decision authority to Boeing resulted in the 737 MAX “not meeting” agency guidelines “for protecting flight controls.”Should the international regulators undertaking an independent review of the MAX certification determine that a deficiency exists, the 737 MAX could be grounded for a substantial additional period while that issue is addressed.
After a change in regulatory processes in 2009, the F.A.A. delegated increased authority for approval of safety assessments to Boeing. Some of those assessments, such as for MCAS and, apparently, protection of flight controls, would likely not have been approved had F.A.A. engineers been in charge of the decision process.A flaw in the regulatory oversight process has led to the situation today, with an unsafe aircraft requiring retrofits and modifications.
We use cookies to optimize our website and our service.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
