← Back to Squawk list

61

FAA chief not ready to re-approve Boeing 737 Max

送信時刻：3 ヶ月ほど前

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Chief Steve Dickson conducted a nearly two-hour evaluation flight at the controls of a Boeing 737 MAX on Wednesday (September 30), a milestone for the jet to win approval to resume flying after two fatal crashes. Dickson, a former military and commercial pilot, and other FAA and Boeing pilots landed shortly before 11 a.m. local time (1800 GMT) at King County International Airport - also known as Boeing Field - in the Seattle area. "I like what I saw on… (www.yahoo.com) さらに...

James Steiner

55 人のメンバーからのコメント

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Fazal Khan 3 ヶ月ほど前 6

It is good to see that there is a qualified hands on guy at the helm of the FAA vs a political appointee who knows nothing about airplanes ....

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Highflyer1950 3 ヶ月ほど前 8

Aircraft systems malfunctions have been around for years and through accident/incident investigation, good procedures were developed and shortcomings fixed at the factory or crew training level.. Boeing found out the hard way when you mess with thrust vector and aerodynamics and fail to develop a clear understanding of the “what if” scenario, things go bad in a hurry? I seriously doubt whether a majority of pilots could manage to decently fly a stretch DC-8-63 around in IFR conditions shooting an ADF approach while in Manual Reversion on three engines? and that was the F/O’s prof ride, the Captain lost two on rotation on the same side....that was fun!

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

airuphere 3 ヶ月ほど前 12

Feels like they’re now over reacting the other way. FAA did miss a lot in the cert, but they were not the only cause and seem to be over compensating.

Not looking to debate the crashes, or MCAS, but we all know there is a standard procedure for runaway trim since the 737-200adv and lack of understanding that played a huge roll.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Silent Bob 3 ヶ月ほど前 17

There was recently an "incident" where a 737-500 crew had problems with instrument flight and declared an emergency after their autopilot(s) failed. That's it, just the A/P, everything else was working fine. Yes Boeing and the FAA obviously made mistakes, but you can't idiot proof a commercial airplane, you still need a qualified and competent crew as a last line of defense.

https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/experienced-crew-struggled-with-instrument-flight-after-737-lost-autopilots/140072.article

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

jmilleratp 3 ヶ月ほど前 13

If you want to add new automation to a plane, you need to do it the right way. Boeing went cheap, and had an FAA that wasn't watching what they were doing.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

James Driskell 3 ヶ月ほど前 9

Reminds me of the Korean Air flight that landed short and slow at KSFO a few years ago. When in doubt, fly the airplane!

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

Jamar Jackson 3 ヶ月ほど前 10

Not Korean Air that was Asiana 777

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

James Driskell 3 ヶ月ほど前 4

Yep, you're right. The mind is a wonderful thing, if it works!

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

user3956 3 ヶ月ほど前 1

I was in the very back of the plane on that flight two weeks before the incident. It gave me a fear of flying that took a while to get past.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

patrick baker 3 ヶ月ほど前 3

are you thinking instead about the JAL dc-8-63 that did a water landing just short of the runway,that was plucked out of the bay by cranes, towed to United Airlines overhaul base, completely rebuilt, then returned to service? that one???? It was easily towed because the gear was down as the plane hit the water, and remained down. DIdn't sink down very far in San Francisco Bay....

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

Peter Carey 3 ヶ月ほど前 2

Just north of Coyote Point.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

william baker 3 ヶ月ほど前 1

Jal 2 Ja8032 was the tail number. It landed 2.5 miles short of the runway, was hoisted out of the water 55 hours later with only a sheared off right wheel towed to Uniteds Hanger who rebuilt it for $4,000,000 and giving to back to Jal and was in service with Jal and several airlines until it was scrapped in 2001.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

Glenn Roark 3 ヶ月ほど前 1

I agree with your post --- you just got the name of the airline wrong.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

A. Highsmith 3 ヶ月ほど前 1

Why declare an emergency. Is the autopilot really that essential? Seems like they could turn it off and manually fly it to destination, or do they teach manual flying anymore.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

jmilleratp 3 ヶ月ほど前 5

Two planeloads of dead bodies will do that.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

SkyAware123 3 ヶ月ほど前 2

I'd rather see an over reaction than under reaction.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

Michael Scallan 3 ヶ月ほど前 6

I see no comments about whether the Ethiopian and Indonesian airlines included the training for the feature that failed to cause their crashes. There is training for proper operation of that feature that includes procedures if that feature fails. Asking for a friend.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Tommy The Shibe 3 ヶ月ほど前 5

I agree, friend.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

Greg PARNELL 3 ヶ月ほど前 0

The specific MCAS training did not exist at the time. It has been developed as part of the accident response.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

user3956 3 ヶ月ほど前 3

Wasn't there some training around this that wasn't included as part of the cheaper package those airlines bought? Maybe that's what he was talking about...

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

Dave Weese 3 ヶ月ほど前 6

Click bait headline by Yahoo News.. Yes he isn't ready to approve it. Because.... He said the review process isn't complete yet...

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Ben Eige 3 ヶ月ほど前 4

Thought exactly the same as well! Opened the article wondering what the continued concern was, and instead read "things are moving forward, process isn't over yet." Sheesh.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

John Wareham 3 ヶ月ほど前 3

That was my exact same thought once I read the first paragraph...I should have known better than to expect a story with substance out of Yahoo News.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

JetMech24 3 ヶ月ほど前 1

The article is actually written by Reuters and re-posted by Yahoo. Yahoo writes little to none of their own articles.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

Larry Horton 3 ヶ月ほど前 5

It's not just the FAA and Boeing trying to get a plane in the air. It is now a matter of winning back worldwide trust. The two were the world bench mark for aircraft and aircraft safety. Their image took a beating and other countries and manufacturers have stepped up and taken their place in the minds of the customers. No country now wants to have to explain why they bought American Boeing after a future accident. They are going to have to over compensate in today's competitive market to win back trust.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Toufic Oraiji 3 ヶ月ほど前 2

Boeing 737 max

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Roger Duncan 3 ヶ月ほど前 2

From the first time I heard of this fiasco, I thought, Band-Aids do fall off. Cheaper isn't always cheap!

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Ralph Keeler 3 ヶ月ほど前 5

Lack of sufficient training for low profiency crew led to these events.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

wiregold 3 ヶ月ほど前 0

No, a 6 second window to respond to a single sensor error led to these events.
Boeing's design and obfuscation killed half again as many people as were killed in the Beirut blast.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

Harrell54 3 ヶ月ほど前 1

Seems like a 12 minute window to me. That is how long Lion Air pilot flew before the FO crashed it.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

Mike Lynn 3 ヶ月ほど前 2

This article below gives a bit more info than the video clip attached offered.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faa-chief-dickson-likes-what-he-found-piloting-a-737-max-test-flight/

I really do think the FAA wants all the issues resolved in this aircraft. And yes, we have mountains yet to climb to overcome the PR disaster that still exists due to Boeing management's failure to proceed with engineering and safety in mind and not just the all mighty dollar.

Now Boeing has a new crisis on their hands wanting to move the 787 line exclusively to South Carolina. Everyone in Everett and in the State capital (especially the Governor) are POed at Boeing management wanting to make this move.

And the management screw up keep on coming!

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

James Simms 3 ヶ月ほど前 3

The way the state of Washington & city of Seattle are in now, can’t say that I blame Boeing & other businesses for wanting to leave ASAP. My understanding the WA Governor is pro green, anti business & isn’t willing to compromise. Let them wither away along w/the rest of the Left Coast.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

שמואל ויטמן 3 ヶ月ほど前 1

נראה לי שאפשר לסמוך על הבדיקה שלו

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

WhiteKnight77 3 ヶ月ほど前 1

I found a Hebrew to English tranlator page and got this "It seems to me that his test can be trusted."

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

Ronald Pogatchnik 3 ヶ月ほど前 1

Well... As the new head of the FAA he followed in is forbearer's footsteps.. He essentially said nothing.

Good luck to Boeing ever getting that plane recertified with all the FAA Boyz playing guardass!!!

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

patrick baker 3 ヶ月ほど前 1

boeing has lucked out here, in a small sense, for given the backlog on 737MAX, no carrier wants to take delivery of the max off the construction line, because they don't need it, and they already have plenty max's in storage in various deserts. No cash is coming in off the 737 line- not a good thing.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Jaime Terrassa 3 ヶ月ほど前 1

who is going to fly them all the pilots have lost their jobs

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

mike doherty 3 ヶ月ほど前 1

So now the FAA is going to defer to the opinion of a Pilot that is not current on any of the A/C in the series just because he is a political appointee. What does that say to all the Professionals who work in the agency and managements confidence in them doing their job.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

patrick baker 3 ヶ月ほど前 -4

glad to see the FAA becoming less of a butt boy to boeing, in that boeing has been made to wait, perhaps annoyingly, for the FAA to approve and recertify the Boeing Bucking BRonco, 737 MAX. Because it is only passenger and crew safety at stake, and we have the reassurances of both Boeing and nearly have the FAA on board so to speak, give FAA the benefit of the doubt and let us all await approval, then the europeans get to play delay games too. I do not know what i have to hear from FAA or Boeing for me to have warm fuzzy thoughts about flying in the 737 Max, but i would feel ever so much better if on my flight i noticed several FAA and Boeing representatives, cheerful, not sweating, not dowing lots of cocktails..... Also the pilots not downing lots of cocktails.......

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

JMARTINSON 3 ヶ月ほど前 4

Why do you think the head of the FAA is flying the airplane? It's a symbolic gesture, and it's just for you.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

Like a friend of mine in the mid-eighties said: The safest time to fly is right after a crash, or series of crashes. I was lamenting about my fear of flying, and he told the story of landing in China, OVER a crash. He said they could see the flames, and people running around in the glare of the flames. Afterwards, rules, he said, were tightened in China, and even Chinese nationals commented that their government only reacted constructively after accidents and when industry luck eventually ran out.

So, the FAA saying they aren't 'gung-ho' to blanket certify the MAX is on many levels. They were caught trusting the industry that they are charged with regulating. That alone should have cost the FAA dearly, but it hasn't, by and large. The leadership at both the FAA and Congress should have been called to report for their malfeasance, and, well, that really didn't happen, but the FAA has a lot to answer for, irregardless of Congress. They have a far too close relationship to the corporations and carriers they are supposed to be regulating. That cozy relationship still exists, I'd wager.

The troubling aspect of this 'Cozy Regulation' relationship should give every American heartburn. How many other agencies are 'in bed' with their regulated industries. The FAA was caught with lipstick on their collar, and flowers on their pillow, and Boeing exploited that relationship to the limits. There are accusations of the same kind of cozy regulation happening at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The guys who are supposed to regulate the nuclear power industry, and the many research labs, and producers. So, do we wait until we have a Fukishima, or Cernobyl before we demand that Congress stick their hand in between the lips of the industry and regulator passionate kisses?

Regulator capture is common in many administrations, but seem to happen with regularity in GOP administrations. They being so hungry for money they shirk their duty to protect US and work to protect THEMSELVES from voters.

VOTE!!! Vote like your life depends on it, because it really does.

WhiteKnight77 3 ヶ月ほど前 3

The NRC still takes its job seriously. I know first hand. I worked for a company that built sub-modules for 2 nuclear plant expansion projects, that were going in the containment vessel. They had to pay the fines that the original company brought upon the project due to production not taking quality seriously and creating a chilling effect on those who were supposed to do inspections. At least when I was there, quality was paramount

The company I was working for had to pay the fines due to buying the original company's manufacturing site for the sub-modules.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

JMARTINSON 3 ヶ月ほど前 3

So what you're saying is decision makers at the FAA take bribes?

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

Ricky Scott 3 ヶ月ほど前 11

The original approval was in 2016. Gee which party was in control then. Your rant was pretty ok till the last 2 lines that were a total lie.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

Bob Kamman 3 ヶ月ほど前 0

RENTON, Wash., March 9, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- Boeing (NYSE: BA) announced today that the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has certified the 737 MAX 8 airplane for commercial service. Boeing is now in the final stages of preparing for the first 737 MAX 8 delivery to customers in the coming months.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

dav555 3 ヶ月ほど前 9

Seriously? If you and others insist on making this a political issue, then consider that the vast majority of 737 Max testing and evaluation went on during the Obama administration, which had been in charge of the FAA for the previous 8 years. In March 2017, the Trump administration had literally been in power for less than 2 months.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

Ricky Scott 3 ヶ月ほど前 2

exactly, the paperwork for the March Approval went in either October or November of 2016 for the FAA to review prior to Approval.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

dav555 3 ヶ月ほど前 7

I was with you up until the last 2 lines, where you once again try to blame everything bad that happens on the Republicans. Do you really believe that Democrats are any less corrupt than Republicans? Are you really that naive? For the record, I don't really like either Presidential candidate, but you should do a Google search for "Biden brother Iraq housing contract", "Biden son China deal", and "Biden son Ukraine Burisma". I'm not picking on him, but he is the Democrat candidate for President so we must put the spotlight on him right now. In fact, most politicians are selfish, opportunistic leeches who use their positions to benefit themselves and their friends and family.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

user3956 3 ヶ月ほど前 2

And if they're not kissing babies, they're stealing their lollipops!

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

Jim Ward 3 ヶ月ほど前 3

Great movie. Crazy Ivan.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

user3956 3 ヶ月ほど前 2

Yes!!! Let them sing!

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

Jim Ward 3 ヶ月ほど前 3

One ping Vasili
One ping only.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

James Simms 3 ヶ月ほど前 -1

Blah Blah Blah Yawn. Generating any air currents?

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

brent young 3 ヶ月ほど前 -5

I agree that the faa is over reacting. This is just a publicity stunt on part of the FAA. If you’ve had any dealings with these guys, it’s more about paperwork than functionality. They are professional bureaucrats.
As far as the crashes go, they happened with poorly trained airlines. One of the crashes had already discovered problems with the trim, but dispatched it anyway with a new crew.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

שמואל ויטמן 3 ヶ月ほど前 -1

נשמע מצוין חג שמח

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

ログイン

当ウェブサイトはクッキーを使用します。当ウェブサイトを使用し、サイト内を移動することで、あなたはこれに同意したこととみなされます。

閉じる

FlightAwareのフライト追跡は広告によりサポートされていることをご存知ですか？

広告表示を許可してくださることでFlightAware.comを無料で提供することができます。表示される広告は関連性の高い控えめなものを選んでいます。FlightAwareをホワイトリストに追加する方法はかんたんに設定していただくことができます。または、プレミアムアカウントのご利用をご検討ください.

閉じる