ET crash ADD NBO

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Sure did!
After which incident, and the same thing happening to the pair who landed 5 minutes later, the RAF decided that Tornados would not do pairs landings on runways with standing water. And indeed would do runway inspections for standing water at civilian airfield used for deployments.
The Saab Viggen was the other fighter equipped with T/R, for the same reason of being able to operate from shorter strips with less backup required.

[ian16th]

A trailer article to get you to subscribe!

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Well, I won't be subscribing. This is written by a Boeing shill.

The FAA had a new Administrator sworn in Monday. Anyone think there's the slightest chance of him signing off for the MAX return to service in a month, like Boeing are currently claiming?

[llondel]

That may depend on whether he's been put there by Trump with the sole purpose of assisting Boeing to get it back in the air. Could be hamstrung by all the other regulators around the world wanting to do their own safety audits and not just accepting the FAA's word. Use the US as a test bed, see how many they break in the first six months while conducting an "in depth" audit (as in leave it deep in the filing cabinet for a bit).

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Agreed. We will find out soon enough, as they say.

[Rwy in Sight]

Could be hamstrung by all the other regulators around the world wanting to do their own safety audits and not just accepting the FAA's word.

I am fairly sure there is an agreement between EASA and FAA to mutually accept the certification of each other. However I have not read the full document to know if there are any clauses allowing an Authority not to accept a certificate.

[Boac]

There is also an 'agreement' with the FAA that Boeing would self-regulate in the interests of safety?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

My understanding of the current situation is that other regulatory agencies still have the standing agreement to accept each other's certifications. However, the MAX is grounded under exceptional rules, and that stays in force even if the FAA recertify it. It is not automatically cancelled when/if FAA recertification happens, it has to be separately lifted. At least 9 countries are investigating the initial FAA MAX certification process, and Canada has formally stated the MAX will not be cleared into Canadian airspace until its own agency has reviewed any recertification.
I would expect that keeping the automatic certification is very important to the FAA, and the USA as a whole, which would stop them rushing through the recertification of one jet and possibly losing automatic recognition. On the other hand, the delays may force Boeing into major losses and possibly even bankruptcy. Furthermore, a major analyst yesterday named Boeing as one of four stocks where a massive drop in price could trigger a more general financial crisis. So there will doubtless be massive pressures on the FAA not to delay.
I have no idea which way this will go. Given the double checking doubtless necessary after the initial worldwide grounding, and lack of suitable expertise within the FAA that caused the original transfers of responsibility to Boeing, I can't see the MAX getting back into service this year. American Airlines, the biggest MAX user, has pushed MAX schedules back to Nov 2 at the earliest.

As for the transfer of certification responsibility to Boeing, the lack of experience in the FAA Boeing flight controls office means a transfer to Boeing for "safety reasons" has a prima facie validity. It has been reported from FAA sources that the problem is that Government salaries are too low to get the necessary expertise. However, there are reports that the inexperience occurred because all the experienced guys left because their safety arguments were being ignored by FAA management. I'm inclined to believe the latter.

[Boac]

Not just in the US/FAA, though. The UK CAA allow airlines like BA to 'self-regulate'. A big mistake.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

It certainly means the UK won't have grounds to attack the principle of self-certification.

It's a tricky business though. I remember chatting to a Phantom QFI who had just accepted a posting to be the ETPS QFI. Quite an odd position, as the guy being checked could just grab the keys to anything, as it were, and the Phantom mate didn't have a lot of time in Hercules or Sea Kings, i.e. zero, and of course the TPs were all rated Above Average to have got their job in the first place. Everyone agreed it was sensible to have someone from outside the test pilot bubble doing the checking, but equally it was then difficult to make valid assessments. It was all based on mutual respect.

[Boac]

"It certainly means the UK won't have grounds to attack the principle of self-certification." - but not where that 'self-regulation' has been shown to be inadequate?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Indeed. One wonders if, as we speak, agencies like the CAA are running around hiding skeletons in their own closets.
One recalls the 2008 financial crisis, where it became quite obvious there wasn't a single government doing their financial regulating job properly, so they all mutually decided to pretend that that wasn't the main cause.

[barkingmad]

I refer the honourable gentlemen to the response I gave some time ago.

This thread posting # 652.

Will anything change for the better 'twixt maker and regulator(s) in the wake of the Max disasters?

[Boac]

Boeing now 'anticipating' proving flight/flights in 'September' with re-certification to follow fourth quarter.

[llondel]

Boeing now 'anticipating' proving flight/flights in 'September' with re-certification to follow fourth quarter.

Of which year?

[Slasher]

Boeing now 'anticipating' proving flight/flights in 'September' with re-certification to follow fourth quarter.

Heard the same from 737-800 destructors at work Boac but they reckon it'll be closer to November before any proving flights are done. Still too many bugs to be sorted out. They didn't elaborate as it was during a short coffee break at the canteen in between sim seshes.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Half of the FAA's Inspectors setting crew training standards weren't qualified for the job.

Acting FAA Administrator: "none of them worked on the MAX"

Whistleblower "Oh yes they did!"

In letters to U.S. President Donald Trump and key lawmakers, Kerner added that the FAA's answers to Congress about the matter "appear to have been misleading."

"The FAA's failure to ensure safety inspector competency for these aircraft puts the flying public at risk," Kerner said.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/boeing ... -1.5296021

[Boac]

It gets worse: https://www.reuters.com/article/ethiopi ... SL3N21G2D8

[Undried Plum]

spotted the runaway stabiliser problem

But it was not a "runaway" as that is defined as being a continuous uncommanded movement. This thing was intermittent, not continuous.

[Boac]

Yes, we all know that and it is just a journalistic simplification for the public.

"Reuters this month reported that an off-duty pilot in the cockpit on the night before the Lion Air crash spotted the runaway stabiliser problem, according to two sources familiar with the matter. "

We should focus on the fact that the potential for a crash was well-known, and indeed apparently

"An American Airlines Group Inc flight manual for 737 MAX pilots dated October 2017 said the thumb switches had less ability to move the nose than the manual wheel."

That is a shocker! From all my days on the 737-200 to 737-7/800 I do not recall any suggestion of

"The undated EASA certification document, available online, was issued in February 2016, an agency spokesman said.

It specifically noted that at speeds greater than 230 knots (265mph, 425kph) with flaps retracted, pilots might have to use the wheel in the cockpit’s centre console rather than an electric thumb switch on the control yoke."

...and, of course,

"Boeing declined to comment on the EASA document or its advice to Lion Air, citing the ongoing investigation into the crash".