Boeing Wants FAA To Exempt MAX 7 From Safety Rules To Get It in the Air (seattletimes.com) 83
Little noticed, days before the holiday break, Boeing petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration for an exemption from key safety standards for the 737 MAX 7 -- the still-uncertified smallest member of its newest jet family. Seattle Times: Since August, earlier models of the MAX currently flying passengers in the U.S. have had to limit use of the jet's engine anti-ice system after Boeing discovered a defect in the system with potentially catastrophic consequences. The flaw could cause the inlet at the front end of the pod surrounding the engine -- known as a nacelle -- to break and fall off.
In an August Airworthiness Directive, the FAA stated that debris from such a breakup could penetrate the fuselage, putting passengers seated at windows behind the wings in danger, and could damage the wing or tail of the plane, "which could result in loss of control of the airplane." Dennis Tajer, a spokesperson for the Allied Pilots Association, the union representing 15,000 American Airlines pilots, said the flaw in the engine anti-ice system has "given us great concern." He said the pilot procedure the FAA approved as an interim solution -- urging pilots to make sure to turn off the system when icing conditions dissipate to avoid overheating that within five minutes could seriously damage the structure of the nacelle -- is inadequate given the serious potential danger.
"You get our attention when you say people might get killed," Tajer said. "We're not interested in seeing exemptions and accommodations that depend on human memory. ... There's just got to be a better way." In its petition to the FAA, Boeing argues the breakup of the engine nacelle is "extremely improbable" and that an exemption will not reduce safety. "The 737 MAX has been in service since 2017 and has accumulated over 6.5 million flight hours. In that time, there have been no reported cases of parts departing aircraft due to overheating of the engine nacelle inlet structure," the filing states.
In an August Airworthiness Directive, the FAA stated that debris from such a breakup could penetrate the fuselage, putting passengers seated at windows behind the wings in danger, and could damage the wing or tail of the plane, "which could result in loss of control of the airplane." Dennis Tajer, a spokesperson for the Allied Pilots Association, the union representing 15,000 American Airlines pilots, said the flaw in the engine anti-ice system has "given us great concern." He said the pilot procedure the FAA approved as an interim solution -- urging pilots to make sure to turn off the system when icing conditions dissipate to avoid overheating that within five minutes could seriously damage the structure of the nacelle -- is inadequate given the serious potential danger.
"You get our attention when you say people might get killed," Tajer said. "We're not interested in seeing exemptions and accommodations that depend on human memory. ... There's just got to be a better way." In its petition to the FAA, Boeing argues the breakup of the engine nacelle is "extremely improbable" and that an exemption will not reduce safety. "The 737 MAX has been in service since 2017 and has accumulated over 6.5 million flight hours. In that time, there have been no reported cases of parts departing aircraft due to overheating of the engine nacelle inlet structure," the filing states.
Because? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Do this, because, like, the other ones of these have been *so* trouble free"
[shudder]
Re: (Score:2)
Guessing because then Boeing would (try to) have a legal argument against any liability if anything went wrong with a MAX 7 plane. "Can't sue us 'cause the Government said it was okay. Also, can't sue the Government, 'cause you can't." /cynical
Re: (Score:2)
Much as I enjoy a good Boeing crash, I don't enjoy the loss of life, so FAA should politely advise them to so off and quit whining.
Re: (Score:2)
In that time, there have been no reported cases of parts departing aircraft due to overheating of the engine nacelle inlet structure,"
So the MCAS system crashes the plane into the ground before it can overheat and fall apart.
Re: (Score:2)
>here have been no reported cases of parts departing aircraft due to
to be fair, only one 737-Max has had a part of it's body blowoff in midair in the last 24 hours . . .
Worrying (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that they even want an exemption is worrying. The first thought in their mind should be, "How can we make our planes safe?"
That can't be the only thought in their mind, though. To quote Thomas Aquinas: "If the highest aim of a captain were to preserve his ship, he would keep it in port forever." They are asking for the MAX7 to be retrofitted at a later date, just like the MAX8 and MAX9 currently flying.
On the other hand, relying on people to remember to do things has a bad track record.
Re: Worrying (Score:3)
Also, Boeing has a bad track record, especially since the merger with McD-D. Trusting them is the opposite of a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
The plane made it safely back to its departure airport and apparently no one was injured or killed, which is an amazing thing. Yeah, I'm not much of a fan of 737s.
Re: (Score:2)
CEO: The public hates us, we realize that. This is why we've employed the services of the cheapest PR firm we could find!
Re: (Score:1)
The fact that they even want an exemption is worrying.
Kinda like when people ask for pardons preemptively ...
Re: (Score:1)
There are countless things in a plane that are catastrophic if pilots don't follow instructions and remember what they need to do. Type rating courses are long, intensive and required to be able to fly, and they contain a very long list of things that need to be memorized to operate each aircraft safely. This would just be another such a point.
Story claims that no one is contesting the point that planes are safe, as long as pilots do their jobs correctly. The fact that pilot association rep had the balls to
Re: (Score:3)
There are countless things in a plane that are catastrophic if pilots don't follow instructions and remember what they need to do.
Human memory is shit.
Type rating courses are long, intensive and required to be able to fly, and they contain a very long list of things that need to be memorized to operate each aircraft safely. This would just be another such a point.
Piling on easily avoidable risk needlessly decreases flight safety.
Story claims that no one is contesting the point that planes are safe, as long as pilots do their jobs correctly. The fact that pilot association rep had the balls to state that "We're not interested in seeing exemptions and accommodations that depend on human memory."
By the same token no need for checklists and config warnings either because if pilots did their jobs correctly none of that shit would ever be necessary. Unfortunately repeated disasters have definitively proven otherwise.
when pilots are mandated to get a type rating for each aircraft they fly, which requires... memorizing a huge list of things about the aircraft is far more alarming. If pilots can no longer be required to memorize things, how do we get them type ratings?
Just because you know what landing gear is and how to work the gear handle doesn't ensure you will never forget to lower it. It simply doesn't matter how good or practiced you are, shit happens.
Commer
Re: (Score:2)
You make an excellent case for removing pilots entirely because all of the problems you mention relate to pilots being in control.
You make an awful argument for piloted aircraft, that already feature all those awful things you mention in droves, and in much more catastrophic scenarios.
Re: (Score:2)
Allright, now that you got that off your chest, go read the second paragraph of my initial post. You can apologise after you do.
Re: (Score:2)
You make an excellent case for removing pilots entirely because all of the problems you mention relate to pilots being in control.
You make an awful argument for piloted aircraft, that already feature all those awful things you mention in droves, and in much more catastrophic scenarios.
The issue of whether or not flights should be piloted by humans is an irrelevant sidecar having absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the forest for the trees.
Re: (Score:1)
Isn't that the entire point though? Boeing doesn't want to do the training by pretending that nothing's changed. That's the whole reason for the planes crashing and being grounded in the first place.
The procedure has changed but we don't want to fix the hardware or retrain the pilots. Lets send them a quick email and "hopefully" they remember the new procedure.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe they have enough stuff to remember and don't want another whole checklist more stuff that could be fixed instead of a checklist item or situational action? If the exemption or accommodation has to be called out then it is definitely not normal, so I would tend to side with the pilot rep - such stuff *shouldn't* be dumped on the pilot.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, as you yourself note a lot of checklists already exist. By the logic of the pilot association, these should be done away with. We can't trust pilot's memory and ability to memorise things, such as which checklist to consult to keep planes safe.
Re: (Score:2)
They just don't want additional stuff shoveled onto their checklists that should be fixed elsewhere, I think.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. But that is not a principle we use in any field on any meaningful scale, because it's the task of the worker to adapt to novel technologies, especially when alternative is extremely expensive fix for a very minor flaw that has never manifested in real life in spite of massive body of testing.
Bringing Equity to the air (Score:2, Funny)
the FAA stated that debris from such a breakup could penetrate the fuselage, putting passengers seated at windows behind the wings in danger
I had always heard that it was safer to sit in the rear of an aircraft as more people died in the front of the craft from airplane crashes...
It's kind of Boeing to bring equity to the situation and distribute the odds of overall survival equally among all passengers, both front and back. No more worrying if I will get my preferred section with the odds of death equal a
Re: (Score:3)
I am the walrus!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the whole, yes. But it also depends on the type of crash. Nose first into the ground (or ocean)? Nobody is walking away. A more pancake accident where the plane skims across the ground? You'll have survivors.
Also depends on the type of plane. This woman [theguardian.com] was the sole survivor on a 25-seat plane which crashed in Vietnam.
Re: (Score:1)
Fire is the real killer, even survivable crashes that cause only broken bones or knock individuals unconscious can be deadly to everyone since they can't get out in time before flames erupt
Boeing has you covered here too, with emergency exits that auto-open even before a crash is detected, or you are near the ground. No time wasted opening anything, just head out.
What happened to Boeing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What happened to Boeing? (Score:5, Interesting)
What happened to Boeing, greatly simplified, is that in 1997 they were forced by the US Gov't to merge with Douglas -- because at that time Douglas was sniffing around China for partners.
The marriage of Boeing and Douglas is what broke Boeing. They went from a mainly engineering-driven company to an accountant-driven company. The Boeing leadership bailed out, the Douglas leadership took over. The Douglas leadership is why Douglas was broke in the first place -- bad choices made the DC-10 and it's flaky doors, weak-ass floor and lack of hydraulic fuses. A few bad wrecks and presto-bango, no one wants your planes anymore.
How to fix it? Change the culture. Let go of those who insist on doing it the Douglas way. Didn't work in the 70's, still doesn't work now. Do it and do it well, or get your lunch eaten by Airbus.
Re:What happened to Boeing? (Score:5, Informative)
The marriage of Boeing and Douglas is what broke Boeing. They went from a mainly engineering-driven company to an accountant-driven company. The Boeing leadership bailed out, the Douglas leadership took over. The Douglas leadership is why Douglas was broke in the first place *snip* Let go of those who insist on doing it the Douglas way.
Yep, this. I once worked with a very nice guy who was a tool and die maker who worked as a contractor for Douglas for over 10 years. He would never fly on a Douglas airplane. He described some of the crazy shit they did in the name of saving a buck or two. Boeing should have just bought the military division which worked under far different standards and folded up the commercial airline part of it. And they should have given all the management golden parachutes and refused to integrate them. Now it's going to take a Steve Jobs type of leader to fix Boeing. Say what you will about Jobs (and there are many valid criticisms of him) but he was able to save Apple and make it relevant again.
Re: (Score:2)
And they should have given all the management golden parachutes...
Literally. From 30,000 feet.
Re: (Score:3)
The guy responsible for most of Boeing's woes - Dennis Muilenburg - started his career at Boeing in 1985, way before the merger with MD, and was fired in 2019. That is Boeing through and through. The former MD management was only responsible for the shitshow that was the 787 design process.
Re: (Score:2)
Ground the entire fleet (Score:4, Insightful)
We're not talking about boats, trains or automobiles here. When something goes wrong with one of those things, they just stop. At 35,000 feet you can't just stop, without making a very deep hole in the ground with lots of fiery debris in it.
Re: (Score:3)
The testers seem to be doing their jobs. It seems to be bean-counters or someone who wants to ignore the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
The bean counters are leading Boeing. This is very worrisome. Very very very worrisome.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Ground the entire fleet (Score:2)
None of those other things just stop. Boats of any significant size go on for a long time, trains derail with often catastrophic consequences... None of them should be permitted to be as unsafe as they are now.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like the FAA has heard you - they have grounded at least a part of the fleet of these flying dumpster fires today.
Ralph Nader has a counteroffer (Score:2, Insightful)
Where is the marketing department (Score:2)
Why are still calling these things "MAX" at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are still calling these things "MAX" at this point.
Because "flying piece of shit a Boeing executive wouldn't set foot on" isn't as catchy?
Re: (Score:2)
Why are still calling these things "MAX" at this point.
Because any vehicles that can fly are better than Windows?
If it's Boeing ... (Score:5, Funny)
Boeing petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration for an exemption from key safety standards for the 737 MAX 7
If it's a Boeing I ain't going.
What could possibly go wrong? (Score:1)
oh wait
How about this (Score:2)
You get your exemption, but if it ends up killing anyone, we take your balls.
Re: (Score:2)
You get your exemption, but if it ends up killing anyone, we take your balls.
That's why this ask is so egregiously bad, they already pulled this stunt with the 737 Max, the one with MCAS and the different wing. "Oh, we'll self-certify." That went soooo well. x.x People already died.
Yeaaaaah no. Boeing has to be treated like the FNG that needs constant supervision -- they've already demonstrated they can't do it right.
Wish the FAA actually had passenger safety in mind. It seems they have the pocketbook of airline and makers in mind, instead of public safety. Had they any sembla
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the answer. (Score:2)
NO!
You don't get to skirt safety rules.
You don't get to shortcut procedure.
You don't get immunity from wrongdoing.
Sorry! (Score:3)
putting passengers seated at windows behind the wings in danger
Boeing, where safety is a $29 seat upgrade.
Yet (Score:2)
"The 737 MAX has been in service since 2017 and has accumulated over 6.5 million flight hours. In that time, there have been no reported cases of parts departing aircraft due to overheating of the engine nacelle inlet structure." .. YET! What the hell has happened to Boeing? Fix the damn problem you bean counting morons.
Re:Yet (Score:5, Informative)
RitchCraft demanded:
What the hell has happened to Boeing? Fix the damn problem you bean counting morons.
Harry Stonecipher [wikipedia.org] happened. He was a disciple of "CEO of the Century" Jack Welch [wikipedia.org], who oversaw General Electric's transformation from one of the leading technology companies of the 20th century to a teetering pile of overvalued shit by slashing headcount and spending on R&D in favor of growth by constant acquisition, playing shell games with offshore banking havens, and bribing congresscreatures to tack GE-specific tax exemptions onto general spending bills at a cost of billions of dollars to American taxpayers. Stonecipher learned everything Welch could teach him about the art of MBA/CEO mismanagement, then resigned from GE when it became clear that he would not be named Welch's successor.
He took over as CEO of McDonnell-Douglas (where he regularly and bitterly criticized the "arrogance" of MD's aircraft engineers' quality- and safety-driven culture impeding his drive to cut costs at all costs), until it was acquired by Boeing (in a coup Wall Street wags referred to as "buying Boeing with Boeing's own money). Elevated to CEO of Boeing, he oversaw the exit of Boeing's Board and C-suite members, filling their positions with MBAs and accountants - and laying off thousands of Boeing's best-paid (i.e. - "most experienced") engineers, and moving the combined company's HQ to suburban Virginia, in order to be closer to the Washington, DC money spigot.
That's what happened to Boeing.
Get It in the Air (Score:2)
Or keep it in the air?
Boeing at it again... (Score:1)
simple solution? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
If the problem with the exemption would be that pilots might forget to turn off the deicing system, how hard would it be to add a reminder? Say, every so many minutes a message pops up asking if deicing is still needed? Or How about monitoring the temperature and turning the deicing off and issuing a message if it gets too high? It seems like these would not be difficult.
This is BOEING we're talking about here.
The Boeing that couldn't be bothered to properly design an aircraft with high bypass engines in the first place because that costs too much.
So they created a gross hack (MAX) with a piss poorly designed augmentation system to preserve pilot type ratings that got hundreds of people killed because competent design costs too much.
Now if they implemented a simple timed warning or an automated sensor to keep the aircraft from melting itself to death there would be a huge a
Does the 737 MAX 7 have MCAS? (Score:2)
Let's see how long it take Boeing to bribe the FAA (Score:2)
If itâ(TM)s Boeing, Iâ(TM)m not going! (Score:1)
This exemption actually makes sense (Score:1)
The key point here is that the 737 MAX is *already being flown today* with the flaw in it. The airlines are allowed to do this because they have a mitigation procedure. The new model doesn't have a new flaw, it's the same one. So an exemption makes sense: there is no value in forbidding airlines from using the new model while allowing them to use the other models that have the same issue.
I've seen this same thing happen in software: Version 1 of a product passes QC checks and is released. The team devel
Re: (Score:2)
The key point here is that the 737 MAX is *already being flown today* with the flaw in it. The airlines are allowed to do this because they have a mitigation procedure. The new model doesn't have a new flaw, it's the same one. So an exemption makes sense: there is no value in forbidding airlines from using the new model while allowing them to use the other models that have the same issue.
I see value in incentivizing the manufacturer to fix the problem.
I've seen this same thing happen in software: Version 1 of a product passes QC checks and is released. The team develops Version 2 which fixes a bunch of issues in Version 1. Now some client or regulatory body does a static analysis of the code and finds a bug in *both* version 1 and version 2. So they refuse to upgrade to version 2 because they only accept systems that pass the check.
Why should the customer pay for version 2 when it too is defective? Once the customer forks over cash for the new version their leverage is dramatically reduced.
That makes no sense because version 1 also didn't pass and they continue to use it. Don't refuse version 2 because it only fixes 5 out of 10 bugs. It's still better.
The choice was never merely between version 1 and version 2.
Boeing Bonus Special Today! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, AND the window that blew out was towards the back of the plane.
Oh man.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's an archived NYT article [archive.is].
Re: (Score:2)
The plane was certified in November, according to the F.A.A. registry of aircraft. It entered commercial service that month and has since logged 145 flights, according to Flightradar24.
Yeah, no. (Score:2)
Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 (Score:2)
And the very next day... (Score:2)
And the very next day, we are greeted with the latest news.
"The US airline regulator has ordered the grounding of some Boeing 737 Max 9 jets after part of one plane fell off during an Alaska Airlines flight.
"Images sent to news outlets showed the night sky visible through the gap in the fuselage, with insulation material and other debris also seen."
B silent Boeing (Score:2)
Boeing is more accurately named 'Owing' - they keep writing safety IOUs to the regulators and hence, to the flying public.
"The 737 MAX has been in service since 2017 and has accumulated over 6.5 million flight hours. In that time, there have been no reported cases of parts departing aircraft due to overheating of the engine nacelle inlet structure," the filing states.
How lawyerly and utterly bereft of meaning! This statement remains true even today, when an entire passenger door has departed a 737 MAX in flight. But hey, that wasn't due to the:
overheating of the engine nacelle inlet structure
Such shortcuts to safety proposed to the regulators must be utterly rejected.
If Boeing had instead done a proper engineering analysis, instead of having a PR flack write the statement above, it may have looked