... by their regulatory peers, driving future changes. Potentially the start of an overdue, healthy process. The future of the MAX appears to be in peril still:A panel of international air-safety regulators is finishing a report expected to criticize the initial U.S. approval process for Boeing Co. BA 1.41% ’s 737 MAX jets, according to people briefed on the conclusions, while urging a wide-ranging reassessment of how complex automated systems should be certified on future airliners.As part of roughly a dozen findings, these government and industry officials said, the task force is poised to call out the Federal Aviation Administration for what it describes as a lack of clarity and transparency in the way the FAA delegated authority to the plane maker to assess the safety of certain flight-control features. The upshot, according to some of these people, is that essential design changes didn’t receive adequate FAA attention. ...The multiagency panel, created by the FAA in April and called the Joint Authorities Technical Review, is headed by Christopher Hart, former chairman of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board. Tasked with examining procedures used to approve MAX flight-control systems, the participants also were asked for high-level recommendations to address systemic deficiencies. ...https://www.wsj.com/articles/international-panel-set-to-crit...
Members include air-safety regulators from Canada, China, Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates, the European Union, Brazil and the U.S.Excellent, that should be enough buying power to get the attention of even the very arrogant people at Boeing and the FAA? It wasn't until Canada (and others) banned the Frankenstein from their airspace that the whole story started to be taken really seriously?Now the choice is to fix them or scrap them? I have a feeling this is not just a software fix? How about new engines that actually fit under the wings rather than pushed out front? Tim
I have a feeling this is not just a software fix? How about new engines that actually fit under the wings rather than pushed out front?Then it wouldn't be a 73. It would be a 75. That violates the two objectives of the Max: no big R&D expense and no big training expense, because expenses take money away from the "job creator class".The obvious thing to have done was to build a clean sheet design to replace the 73, that leveraged the technologies developed for the 78, but nooo, can't do that because it would cost more. (The 787 program was already underway when McNerney came on board as CEO/President/Chairman, otherwise he probably would have spiked it)Too late now. BA doesn't have the $30B for a redo. They'll probably go bankrupt, so they can roger the workers, then get a government bailout.Steve
Then it wouldn't be a 73. It would be a 75. That violates the two objectives of the Max: no big R&D expense and no big training expense, because expenses take money away from the "job creator class".And a third one: short time to market as senior management hadn't woken up in time to the competition by Airbus.
Thank you for recommending this post to our Best of feature....And a third one: short time to market as senior management hadn't woken up in time to the competition by Airbus.Boeing should have bought the C-series instead of using paid politicians to try to kill it? Their great fear was the CS500. https://airinsight.com/limits-bombardier-cs500/Tim
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |