Global Safety Agencies Ground MAX, FAA Holds Firm

News The FAA has not followed safety agencies around the world and has not grounded the Boeing 737MAX. With Transport Canada joining the ban today, that leaves the US as the only jurisdiction in which the 737MAX is still operating. But in examining why other countries grounded the MAX, the answer is quite simple -- they believe that a flaw that was discovered in the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) on the aircraft, which relies on sensors input to the system. Designed to push the nose down should the angle of attack of the aircraft indicate a risk of stalling, the system can apparently surprise pilots by overriding their commands, and even the autopilot. Compounding the problem, according to the New York Times, Boeing and the FAA decided that pilots did not need to be informed about changes to the flight control system when transitioning from the 737-800 to the 737MAX8. Canada cited additional data from satellite tracking that shows altitude indicating similar patterns in the Lion Air and Ethiopian crashes, influencing its decision to ground the aircraft. In addition, Boeing has been developing a “software fix” that impacts the MCAS system, which it expects to be ready in April. Logic would indicate that if there is a “fix” being developed, a problem likely exists that needs to be addressed. The FAAs own pilot reporting system, operated by NASA, included 11 comments about the safety of the 737MAX, which apparently have not been factored into the FAA decision process. As a result, virtually every international regulatory agencies, except the FAA, has decided to ground the aircraft as a precautionary measure until the cause of the Ethiopian crash can be determined. Analysis Apparently in the Lion Air crash, the angle of attack sensor that feeds the MCAS may have been faulty and a Lion Air maintenance issue. But with today’s technology, shouldn’t there be an odd number of multiple sensors on board feeding a system, with the computer comparing different readings to eliminate one in the event of a failure before deploying? If one faulty sensor can bring down an airplane, a problem exists that needs to be addressed with multiple redundancies or via improved decision logic in the software. Compounding the problem is the fact that Boeing and the FAA determined that informing pilots about the system was “too technical” for pilots and might be confusing, as the system would rarely be deployed. That decision logic did not anticipate sensor failures and the need for emergency procedures should that occur again. The FAA has been waiting for additional data to determine that a problem exists with the 737MAX. That could take some time, as the “black boxes” are being sent to Europe for download and analysis. Yesterday, politics entered the situation, with Boeing’s CEO calling President Trump and discussing the situation. A number of politicians have urged the FAA to ground the aircraft, which remains flying in the United States, as a precaution until more is known. Our view is that politics should never enter decisions about aviation safety, and that regulators be left to do their jobs, period. Unfortunately, reality may not reflect that philosophy. Insight The FAA is caught between a rock and a hard place. It has an obligation to protect safety, but cannot point to a specific flaw that caused the Ethiopian crash until further information is received from the “black boxes.” The risk is whether a safety of flight problem exists, and if precautionary grounding, which would damage the reputation of the aircraft, is appropriate despite a lack of evidence. Internationally, virtually every agency has now chosen to protect safety through a precautionary grounding, which could easily be reversed with the installation of the forthcoming software update if a safety flaw is not found. Their logic is compelling. To some degree, the US posture appears to denigrate the two operators involved in the crashes, as both would be considered “third world” operations. While Lion Air does not have an outstanding reputation for safety, Ethiopian does, and has been set-up and run as a world class international operation in training and maintenance. While located in the third world, Ethiopian is not a typical third world airline. Is a sense of arrogance that is also influencing the FAA decision-making process, implying lower standards for airline safety overseas? The worst possible outcome would be a crash of a 737MAX while other nations have grounded the aircraft. While the likelihood of another 737MAX crash is extremely unlikely, this risk is not zero. We fully understand the logic of each position - the international agencies that feel that a potential problem may exist due to similarity of flight patters, and the US position that suggest until the cause of the second accident is clear, it is premature to ground the aircraft. The presumption of safety until evidence is found that the aircraft is not safe is illogical given what we already know about the aircraft, transition training, and the MCAS system. The preponderance of caution that safety regulators worldwide have imposed is the right decision, in our opinion.

No results