Europe Will Not Accept US Verdict On 737 Max Safety (bbc.com) 115
Europe's aviation safety watchdog will not accept a U.S. verdict on whether Boeing's troubled 737 Max is safe. Instead, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) will run its own tests on the plane before approving a return to commercial flights. The BBC reports: The 737 Max has been grounded since March after two fatal crashes. But Easa told the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) there would be "no delegation" on safety approval in a letter sent on April 1. Patrick Ky, Easa's chief executive, revealed a list of four conditions given to the U.S. authorities in a presentation to the European Parliament's committee on transport and tourism on Monday.
Europe's tough stance is a blow to Boeing's hopes of a rapid return to service for the 737 Max, and is also a significant break with the established international practice of aviation regulators accepting each other's standards. A spokesperson for the FAA said it had "a transparent and collaborative relationship with other civil aviation authorities as we continue our review of changes to software on the Boeing 737 Max." "Our first priority is safety, and we have set no timeframe for when the work will be completed. Each government will make its own decision to return the aircraft to service, based on a thorough safety assessment."
Europe's tough stance is a blow to Boeing's hopes of a rapid return to service for the 737 Max, and is also a significant break with the established international practice of aviation regulators accepting each other's standards. A spokesperson for the FAA said it had "a transparent and collaborative relationship with other civil aviation authorities as we continue our review of changes to software on the Boeing 737 Max." "Our first priority is safety, and we have set no timeframe for when the work will be completed. Each government will make its own decision to return the aircraft to service, based on a thorough safety assessment."
Good. FAA has lost all authority. (Score:5, Insightful)
Or I should say the FAA and the companies they were supposed to certify pinkie swearing that the company did it correctly.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Good. FAA has lost all authority. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the point is the FAA isnâ(TM)t/wasnâ(TM)t doing anything but rather trusting the manufacturers
Re: (Score:1)
Mean time they'd give guys like me shit because there's a little surface rust on a screw.
My plane was down for two years over a bullshit issue. $6,000 later and it's all documented now.
If they didn't have bad regulatory practices they wouldn't have any regulatory practices at all.
Re:Good. FAA has lost all authority. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good. FAA has lost all authority. (Score:5, Insightful)
The result, all US regulatory authorities are no longer trusted and that means all tests for US companies must now be done in other countries as well, all those companies can now thank Boeing and the FAA for those additional costs, which will last for the foreseeable future, billions down a the corruption black hole, Boeings cheats and shortcut has now become every other major US corporation who require regulatory approval for their products cost. Think about it, due to corruption US regulatory authorities are no longer trusted in the rest of the world, except for corrupt countries, now how safe does it make you feel buying in the US, approved, oh yeah snark, the bribes were paid.
This is strictly third world shite, seriously the USA has third world grade regulatory authorities, well done US government, be proud of your corruption and it's costs.
Re:Good. FAA has lost all authority. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Bribes are **so** 20th Century. The new model is to offer generals, politicians, and regulators cushy monthly-dial-in board positions that pay in stock options after they leave "public service".
And part of *that* probem... (Score:2)
Not only is it responsible for air transport safety, it is also responsible for promoting the use of air transport .
It seems and in fact is preposterous that the Federal government would create an arrangement like this, because before the FAA lift a finger to do *anything*, they are immediately in a situation of self-conflict. If the Federal government want to ac
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
After the first crash. FAA continued to certify it as safe and no issue but pilot error
After the second crash. FAA continued to certify it as safe while other countries began grounding it
finally after pressure they finally acknowledge a major issue and ground them and we also find they had let Boeing self certify
And you ask why EASA might not have a lot of faith in FAA's rigorous vetting process?
Re: (Score:2)
This is the IEEE article that clarified what many of the issues were.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/aero... [ieee.org]
How the Boeing 737 Max Disaster Looks to a Software Developer
Design shortcuts meant to make a new plane seem like an old, familiar one are to blame
Re:Good. FAA has lost all authority. (Score:5, Interesting)
They could but what would the grounds be? The EASA are basically saying based on the shenanigans the the FAA and Boeing did with the 737 Max, they no longer trust the FAA to safely certify the plane.
What grounds does the USA/FAA have to say that they have lost trust in the EASA? That would be none at all, so they would look like a petulant toddler if they where to go down the route. That said Trump does behave like a petulant toddler a lot of the time.
My guess is that many third party countries are not going to trust the FAA on this one and will also wait till the EASA clears it too.
Re: (Score:1)
Is it just me or has the US lost all credibility? A regulatory body cannot allow a commercial entity to self regulate itself ... PERIOD!
Siv
Re:Good. FAA has lost all authority. (Score:5, Interesting)
What's the EASA going to look at the FAA didn't?
Everyone is acting like the MCAS was the only problem with the Max but hat was only the flaw that brought two planes down. There were also issues involving the tail control cables that the FAA overruled their own engineers on to keep Boeing on schedule. Unfortunatly the FAA engineers both quit and now the FAA doesn't have any experienced engineers capable of properly understanding the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd be reluctant to believe any US agency as well. Our whole damn industry has taken accrediting agencies, such as IAS, as more valuable than an engineer with over 30 years of experience. I get annoyed with accreditation agencies when it's some 18 year old punk telling me how I'm supposed to do things. And I get annoyed with companies who like to flaunt it around like it's their biggest success for them, when all they're doing is paying a fee to have their stupid accreditation when their products and employ
Re: (Score:2)
It would be good and refreshing to do the same with products approved by the EASA as well. It's not as if they don't do the same thing. Double checking is a good thing---especially in the realm of pinky-swears.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that the EASA still have actual engineers on staff and still actually test hardware/software. The FAA, because of budget cuts designed to strangle regulatory agencies made them accept self-certification from the manufacturers themselves, just has to rely on Boeing's word.
Re: (Score:1)
You are still a gigantic arsehole who uses Slashdot to shill your anti-Musk agenda
Check the usernames. We are not the same people.
Re: (Score:2)
You would think nerds could read binary! Geez what is the world coming to?
according to ancient alien theorists ... (Score:2, Funny)
It's wise not to trust anything run by the U.S. government, because it is in the pockets of big corporations. It is corrupt and compromised.
Well, according to ancient alien theorists, ... oh, excuse me, I meant ... according to deep state conspiracy theorists. I get the two mixed up occasionally, apologies.
Re:according to ancient alien theorists ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, according to ancient alien theorists, ... oh, excuse me, I meant ... according to deep state conspiracy theorists. I get the two mixed up occasionally, apologies.
Since you mix up conspiracy theories, it is understandable that you would also mix up actual problems of government oversight with unrelated conspiracy theories. This problem is not aliens, and it is not the deep state. This is the actual issue of a government regulatory body allowing the companies that is suppose to oversee to self-certify their own safety compliance. This is a problem of important government departments being underfunded to the point where they can no longer adequately protect the public. This is a problem of employing industry lobbyists to run the organizations that are supposed to regulate their companies - and in some cases had actually publicly advocated for the abolition of the government body in question (no that wasn't the FAA).
Re: (Score:2)
Well, according to ancient alien theorists, ... oh, excuse me, I meant ... according to deep state conspiracy theorists. I get the two mixed up occasionally, apologies.
Since you mix up conspiracy theories, it is understandable that you would also mix up actual problems of government oversight with unrelated conspiracy theories.
Well if the GP had written of government oversight I would have agreed, but he didn't, he mentioned only big corporations. Which is a conspiracy theory / political spin / obfuscation of reality. The reality is many representatives are in the pockets of donors. Only some of which are big corporations. There are also labor unions, wealthy individuals, well funded issue groups, the twitter mob (going for votes not money in that case), etc. Someone who thinks only big corporations are the problem are in a consp
Re: (Score:2)
There are also labor unions, wealthy individuals, well funded issue groups, the twitter mob (going for votes not money in that case), etc.
None of those groups are applicable to this situation. This story is an example of the FAA allow companies like Boeing cut corners and do the government's job in maintaining public safety. The unions and twitter mobs never asked for this.
Someone who thinks only big corporations are the problem are in a conspiracy theory of omission.
There is no conspiracy theory of omission. The OP never used the word "only". Saying that smoking causes cancer doesn't imply that nothing else does. Saying that the grass is green does not mean that nothing else in the world is green. Saying that driving while drunk could
Re: (Score:2)
There are also labor unions, wealthy individuals, well funded issue groups, the twitter mob (going for votes not money in that case), etc.
None of those groups are applicable to this situation. This story is an example of the FAA allow companies like Boeing cut corners and do the government's job in maintaining public safety. The unions and twitter mobs never asked for this.
The unions and others want the manufacturing and assembly lines operating. Well, the US unions and other vested interests. The EU unions and vested interests want more testing to delay the competitors sales, to increase their sides sales, to enhance their side's manufacturing.
Re: (Score:2)
And none of that means that the government isn't in the pocket of the corporations. On the othe hand, there is no evidence that unions have every tried to influence the FAA. To imply that they have would be... dare I say .. a conspiracy theory!
But as someone else posted here, the cozy relationship between the acting head of the FAA and his former colleagues at the airlines [propublica.org].
Re: (Score:2)
And none of that means that the government isn't in the pocket of the corporations.
No one said that. What was said is that big corporations are not the only pockets. That big corporations are merely one of various pockets. That to promote the notion of its only big corporations is extremely misleading and ill-informed.
Re: (Score:2)
That to promote the notion of its only big corporations is extremely misleading and ill-informed.
And no one said that. You are the person who added the word "only" to this conversation. The original statement was: It's wise not to trust anything run by the U.S. government, because it is in the pockets of big corporations.. You acknowledge this when you said:
big corporations are merely one of various pockets.
The OP did not say it was only corporations, but since it was the only influencer that was relevant to this conversation that was all that needed to be said. If I said that a house was made of bricks, would you assume this included the doors and win
Re: (Score:2)
you seem to be ignorant of mainstream news, of big aircraft corporations having friend in the FAA. Of the power of lobbying by those big aircraft corporations.
that's what I was talking about, it's mainstream news yet you are trying to make supermarket tabloid trash associations.
https://www.propublica.org/art... [propublica.org]
"Corporate fascism" has a very specific meaning, I suggest you look it up and educate your very ignorant self
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately the term has been ruined because 98% of the times you hear it, it's followed by insane, unsupported ranting of the time-cube quality.
Partnership between non-elected and non-gov't (Score:2)
The "deep state" is unfortunate because it's a term that could actually be useful, to describe the elements of the government that remain the same as politics swirl above it. Unfortunately the term has been ruined because 98% of the times you hear it, it's followed by insane, unsupported ranting of the time-cube quality.
The "deep state" is a synonym for the "establishment", the "man", the "military industrial complex", the "1%'ers", the "elite", etc. It not simply the non-elected part of government. It is a "partnership" between the non-elected part of government and non-government entities to exert control, often through policies and regulation rather than legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a bad idea to lump all these names together.
You're too negative about conspiracy thinking. Its main weakness is its incompetence, leading to wild extrapolations and speculations about hidden power and often totally preposterous theories.
But the fact that it distrusts power and focuses on hidden power is ok. In that respect it is is similar to journalism. For journalists it is even necessary. But a good journalist will try to get a clear idea of the machinations and their magnitude of hidden power, whi
Re: Partnership between non-elected and non-gov't (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I can live with that description
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a reasonable question at all.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a bad idea to lump all these names together.
Tell that to the historians and academics who formally study these things. It is their opinion, the academic opinion, that these are all just different names for the same behavior. Again, a partnership between non-elected government and non-government to influence policy. The "names" just change over time, come and go with respect to fashion. I think the "deep state" was originally used in the 1920/30s.
Good journalism should distinguish between deep state and MIC and the other names you mention.
No, good journalism should see beyond the current political usage and understand the actual history and co
Re: (Score:2)
Your good journalist is perfectly neutral and not inclined to pursue what matters. Therefore he will be perfectly harmless and will fit into the modern press.
I don't know if your scholars are describing how it is or how it should be but in the latter case I'm willing to educate them.
Re: (Score:2)
Your good journalist is perfectly neutral and not inclined to pursue what matters. Therefore he will be perfectly harmless and will fit into the modern press.
With respect to a partnership between non-elected government and non-government to influence policy, that is how it is now and how it has been. That's why the various names fashionable in the various decades are essentially synonymous. Just watched a four member panel with history professors from various prestigious universities on CSPAN discuss this. Sure, you can educate them, LOL.
Re: (Score:1)
All of this would hold a lot more water if you weren't posting anonymously and if I hadn't heard about a plan to socially engineer the cause of these two crashes way back in 2004.
Re: (Score:2)
why don't you follow current news?
https://www.propublica.org/art... [propublica.org]
Re: Very wise considering our corporate fascism (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What's the point of the FAA at that point?
Wait until the chinese want a piece of that action (Score:5, Insightful)
The HuaWei the CAAC will want to follow is to put the 737Max through a long and tourtuous safety validation check...
I predict said checks will last more or less the same time than the trade negotiations will.
Re: (Score:2)
On a similar note, there will be high tariffs on German beer and Belgian chocolate until they let the airplane fly.
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of meh since only Tuifly uses the 737max.
Re: (Score:3)
Do we have tariffs on your hallucinogens, though, because they seem to work much better than ours.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually China spends more on R&D than any other country in the world now, and generates more patents as well. Go back to 1985 and try to catch up.
I don't blame them. (Score:2)
But we have the finest Sharpie checklists! (Score:5, Funny)
Trust us, these official documents scribbled on with Sharpies show that the 737 Max is as safe as the underwater state of Alabama.
What?
Of course we didn't fake the tests!
More informative link (Score:5, Interesting)
An article that has some of the details is: https://simpleflying.com/easa-... [simpleflying.com]
Some of the details are quite ... interesting ...:
[EASA requires] Training for crew: The agency demands all Boeing 737 MAX flight crews are adequately trained
As well as this, EASA wants Boeing to demonstrate the stability of the MAX during unusual and extreme maneuvers
So does that mean that FAA did not require this?
Re: (Score:3)
One other: https://www.ainonline.com/avia... [ainonline.com]
which has this interesting tidbit: [...] international panel of safety technicians scrutinizing how the FAA allowed the airframer to oversee parts of its own certification.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
[EASA requires] Training for crew: The agency demands all Boeing 737 MAX flight crews are adequately trained As well as this, EASA wants Boeing to demonstrate the stability of the MAX during unusual and extreme maneuvers So does that mean that FAA did not require this?
Given some of the Airbus crashes I don't think the EASA used to require these either.
Re:More informative link (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
On the airbus you simply turn off 2 of the 3 ADRs.
I'm referring to other Airbus crashes where crews were too dependent on the autopilot and not really trained/practiced to cope with the hardware malfunction they were confronted with. Flight originating in South America, crew failed to manually control plane after sensor inputs gave autopilot bad data? Something like that.
Re:More informative link (Score:5, Informative)
In that case the most junior pilot of the 3 pilot flight crew completely misjudged the situation, started trying to fly the plane on his own without following the basic captain-first officer cooperation procedures all pilots are taught and just flew the plane into the sea. Eventually the third and most experienced pilot, who had been resting when the issue arose, come into the cockpit, immediately realize the first officer was flying the plane into the sea, order him to get out of his seat pronto and tried to recover the plane. Unfortunately for everyone on board and their loved ones the moron first officer had put the nose too far down and picked up too much speed for the experienced pilot to be able to recover.
Really, the issue was a really bad misjudgment made by basically a trainee pilot who acted in complete disregard for airmanship and was able to do that because he completely failed to communicate with the captain who, had he known, obviously would have stopped him. Verbally informing your captain/first officer that you're taking manual control or something equally drastic is considered one of the most basic things in standard piloting procedures and he didn't do anything of the sort. Instead he left his captain to figure out why the autopilot had just thrown it's hands up (it got data so wildly inconsistent that it had no choice but to give up) and still seemed to be flying the plane (which was actually the co-pilot).
As awful as this may seem, the reality is that every time there is an accident where the autopilot is a factor they study if heavy handed automation makes flying safer or more dangerous. Every single time they come to the conclusion that when you sum it all up, heavy handed automation is a very clear net positive as it prevents a lot more accidents than the number of accidents it contributes to.
AF447 was both a helmet fire and some design flaws (Score:3)
Yes, the junior pilot did the exact wrong thing by constantly yanking back on the stick (the aircraft was actually 35+ degrees nose-up, falling out of the sky at a 45-degree slope), which was 100% the primary cause of the incident, but there were definitely some design flaws that allowed the situation to continue without either senior pilot realizing what was actually happening:
- The particular model of pitot tube on 447 was known to have icing problems and was recommended to be replaced, but not directed
-
Re:More informative link (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Boeing didn't even tell the airlines about the issues affecting the MCAS, nor include in their pilot training materials what to do in the case of bad sensor data (turn the MCAS off). In one of the crashes the pilots turned the MCAS off on their own, recovered the aircraft, and when they turned it back on again it dove them into the ground.
Of course (Score:3)
If you're at all rational and facts-based, you can't trust our federal government, especially if the conclusion could be in the interest of their egos or their corporate donors.
Lying (Score:5, Insightful)
This is rather the expected result when nearly everything coming out of the US Government these days is clouded by lies, deceit and misinformation.
Good on you Europe. We earned your lack of trust. Well deserved.
The FAA is NOT to be trusted (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The toxic cabin air problem seems to be fairly international. I just watched a piece on it on Australian 60 Minutes. And it's a problem with all manufacturers, since they all get air into the cabin in the same way.
I don't understand how it can be cheaper to add that complexity to the engines as opposed to just having some kind of louvered scoop, but whatever.
Re: (Score:1)
The issue is heating the air. Generally speaking air at 30,000ft is rather too cold to just scoop into the cabin.
Re: (Score:2)
Turbine engines can easily be designed to be generators. That doesn't seem like a hard problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Or are you talking about the main engines of the aircraft, which already incorporate significant generators for the existing airline systems. To which you've just added a substantial power load.
No surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that it was found out that the FAA was allowing Boeing to self certify, then it was the FAA that created the breach of trust. It may have been okay had it not been for the accident, delayed response and ignorance about an important change.
The FAA is going to have work hard to show their certification process is reliable and to earn the trust back.
If the European equivalent of the FAA had allowed Airbus to self certify, then the FAA would likely be doing the same thing, especially if it allowed an accident to happen.
Re:No surprise (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The FAA is allowing self-certification as part of the Safety Management System (SMS) initiative. It's because there aren't enough FAA personnel with the proper expertise to oversee the manufacturers. Instead, they want the manufacturer to set up a certification process then the FAA audits the certification process, not the certification itself. It's a force multiplier. The problem is that many FAA employees are typical government workers - career bureaucrats that you would not ordinarily hire in industry because they don't have sufficient education or skills. Take a look at the credentials of the FAA employee in charge of the 737Max's MCAS system.
I had not considered that and makes sense. Given this scenario and also the limitations of the self-certification, do you have nay suggestion on how FAA could ensure a better process here?
Re: (Score:2)
The FAA **USED TO** have personnel on staff that were competent to test these systems, both the hardware and software. Four decades of Republican budget strangulation and interference has ensured that most of the talented people have left because of layoffs, salary freezes, and demoralization. You'll find that in most of the regulatory and fiscal agencies much of the staff left are older paper-shufflers who are just trying to hang on until they can retire. This is the result of deliberate actions by the
Re: (Score:2)
Self certification i am sure was no secret, everyone knew including Europe
Re: No surprise (Score:2)
You mean, like Volkswagen and other EU companies have been self certifying (well, self testing allegedly according to carefully-conformed testing parameters with little to do with real-world performances) emissions for decades.
I certainly agree that too much critical testing data has been left to the supervised parties to provide...but you might want to exit that glass house before chucking those moralistic stones.
Isn’t this normal procedure? (Score:2)
While there are certain levels of reciprocity, isn’t it normal for each agency to be responsible for their own certification of an aircraft? Slightly more rigor now, but not totally unprecedented.
As long as the planes are certified to common standards I have no issue... but it can get slippery quickly.
Can they fly to Europe? (Score:2)
From the fine article:
FAA approval would allow US airlines to fly the aircraft, but European operators - including Norwegian Air - would need Easa clearance before returning it to commercial service.
It certainly seems logical that an airline based in the USA could fly within the USA by meeting FAA requirements. What this bit from the article implies is that the airlines would be permitted to fly to European destinations even before the aircraft met European safety standards. Is that right?
It looks like a 737 MAX jet is capable of transatlantic flight but how often is this type used for that kind of service?
Re: Can they fly to Europe? (Score:2)
Just a small point. Airlines around the world fly Boeing planes
Re: (Score:2)
Just a small point. Airlines around the world fly Boeing planes
Of course. That was pointed out in the article.
They stated that in the past an FAA certification for being airworthy was good enough to fly in Europe. Now they say in this case of the 737 MAX that Boeing getting this airframe certified for being airworthy by the FAA was not good enough any more, this means this airframe cannot fly when operated by the Norwegian airlines. So, if a 737 MAX is considered airworthy by the FAA but not by the European authorities, is operated by an airline based in the USA, wo
Re: (Score:3)
Want to fly it in European Airspace then it needs to be certified by the EASA. I think Norwegian is specifically mentioned because they are not in the EU but as they are in the EEA they are covered under the same rules.
The UK is currently covered by the EASA, come 31st of October it is anyone's guess. Might be the EASA might be the CAA though the later has not done certification in decades and is likely trusted by nobody.
Re: (Score:1)
I do believe the reason Norwegian is singled out is that it's the european company with the highest rate of 737 MAX 8s. Accordign to https://www.norwegian.com/uk/a... [norwegian.com] it's 18 of 172 aircrafts.
FAA Salaries (Score:4, Interesting)
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0... [nytimes.com]
In a nutshell, the FAA offloaded a lot of the certifications to Boeing, because the FAA lacked the resources to do it themselves. The FAA can't afford to pay the salaries that aeronautical engineers command, so they don't have the staff to properly certify the planes.
Re: (Score:2)
All sorts of regulatory agencies are getting budgets cut. It makes sense that the FAA would offload as much oversight as they can. And the "pro business" politicians who have infiltrated both parties think that "self regulation" is great -- of course, they probably KNOW it will be abused, as it has in the past.
The IRS has a smaller budget and fewer agents and are not able to afford the expert accountants they need for complex auditing. The result; there's a big shift to auditing people making less than $50,
Re: (Score:2)
In the case of the IRS this was Newter Gingrich's pet project. He learned that even while it might be impossible to eliminate popular agencies like the FAA and EPA if he could reduce their enforcement budget to essentially zero it would still have the desired effect. Much of the money the IRS brought in through its enforcement arm went back into the agency to be spent largely on further audits, Gingrich and Co. changed that so now it all goes into the General Fund and Congress has full authority over the
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing has run out of room to store them in the Seattle area, they're parking them at fields all over the country now.
trust is earnt (Score:5, Informative)
The problem being up until you finally grounded them (after everyone else had already done so) it was blatantly obvious this was NOT their first priority, why should other governments trust them now?
Re: (Score:2)
This is what deregulation gets (Score:2)
Good (Score:2)
Perhaps a second opinion is always needed in the case of new aircraft.
Murican Safety (Score:1)
Re:What if it was an Airbus? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This would also put the aircraft into a dive. A really smart German pilot turned off 2/3rds of the system to regain control, and that is now our procedure
That is terrifying.
Re: What if it was an Airbus? (Score:1)
Re:What if it was an Airbus? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, given that European safety organizations refused to certify the A340 when it failed its Rejected Take Off (RTO) test, and also required Airbus to prove the A380 wing fixes were correct after it failed the ultimate load test.
The EASA also accepted the FAAs guidance for return to service after the Boeing 787 was grounded for several months at the start of this decade.
Lets not make this a nationalistic thing, Boeing failed badly with the 737MAX and now the spotlight is on them - they don't get to say "my bad, lets move on", they need to convince the individual agencies that their proposed solution is correct. Boeing have had major safety problems in their last two flagship new products, so its no wonder agencies are looking at them with more scrutiny these days.
Re: (Score:1)
It depends. When Airbus were still trying to get fly-by-wire working in the 320 (basically a flying deathtrap for the first 10 years) the European regulators turned a blind eye to any problems they had - including several crashes.
They're a lot stricter these days but all organisations are made up of people who come and go and it may swing back again. Always be careful about giving your trust to any group, governmental or otherwise.
Re: What if it was an Airbus? (Score:2)
âThrough 2015, the Airbus A320 family has experienced 0.12 fatal hull-loss accidents for every million takeoffs, and 0.26 total hull-loss accidents for every million takeoffs; one of the lowest fatality rates of any airliner.â - Wikipedia
Re: (Score:1)
Data "through 2015" is irrelevant for a claim about "the first 10 years", since almost two thirds of that data it outside the window. And I'm sure insurance companies care about whether an accident is a hull-loss or not, I doubt the passengers do though.
I have no idea about the original claim, there are fewer accidents in the first ten years than in the second ten years but I would assume there are also far more miles flown and takeoffs made in that second ten year period. However, that wikipedia quote is m
Re: (Score:3)
The origins, ops claim is a load of bullshit - there were no ignored crashes of the A320, every crash has been thoroughly investigated by the relevant authorities, and the required Airworthiness Directives applied.
It’s just more anti-Airbus bullshit with no evidence to back it up.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Devi's advocate... (Score:5, Interesting)
Must just be because everyone hates the USA and wants to promote their own airplanes.
Re:Devi's advocate... (Score:5, Insightful)
Except Airbus are worried about this de-alignment between the FAA and EASA.
https://www.ainonline.com/avia... [ainonline.com]
Consequently the idea that it is anything other than a screw up by the USA in the way it does things is a fantasy of Americans unwilling to accept that perhaps they are not the greatest at everything.