Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 131 posts

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#51

Post by estearum »

akerl_ wrote: post #48
estearum wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As has been noted in the actual reports, the crashes (as is true of all crashes) were the result of a specific chain of failures across several functions and organizations. One component of that chain of failures is the self-certification process. If the FAA had the resource and mandate to actually understand each aircraft design change, then it's very likely (not guaranteed, but very likely) that the MCAS design hav…

Design changes are not part of the self certification process, they’re part of the type certification process, which has always been handled by the FAA.

Design changes de facto are part of the self-cert process because it had no requirement for FAA oversight of post-flight design changes.

DOT OIG disagrees that this played no role. Here's from Page 2 of their report, i.e. the entire "Findings" summary:

While FAA and Boeing followed the established certification process for the 737 MAX 8, we identified limitations in FAA’s guidance and processes that impacted certification and led to a significant misunderstanding of the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), the flight control software identified as contributing to the two accidents. First, FAA’s certification guidance does not adequately address integrating new technologies into existing aircraft models. Second, FAA did not have a complete understanding of Boeing’s safety assessments performed on MCAS until after the first accident. Communication gaps further hindered the effectiveness of the certification process. In addition, management and oversight weaknesses limit FAA’s ability to assess and mitigate risks with the Boeing ODA. For example, FAA has not yet implemented a risk-based approach to ODA oversight, and engineers in FAA’s Boeing oversight office continue to face challenges in balancing certification and oversight responsibilities. Moreover, the Boeing ODA process and structure do not ensure ODA personnel are adequately independent. While the Agency has taken steps to develop a risk-based oversight model and address concerns of undue pressure at the Boeing ODA, it is not clear that FAA’s current oversight structure and processes can effectively identify future high-risk safety concerns at the ODA.

https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/FAA%20Certificat...

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#52

Post by rogerrogerr »

estearum wrote: post #51
akerl_ wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Design changes are not part of the self certification process, they’re part of the type certification process, which has always been handled by the FAA.

Design changes de facto are part of the self-cert process because it had no requirement for FAA oversight of post-flight design changes. DOT OIG disagrees that this played no role. Here's from Page 2 of their report, i.e. the entire "Findings" summary: While FAA and Boeing followed the established certification process for the 737 MAX 8, we identified limitations in FAA’s guidance and processes that impacted certific…

You are confidently acting like you understand this process, while repeatedly confusing design certification (of the type) vs. airworthiness certification (of individual airplanes).

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#53

Post by jayofdoom »

bushido wrote: post #7

The 737 has had 14 major recertifications. The aircraft today looks/behaves nothing like the original from the 1960s. The main motivation for recertifications comes from commercial pressure where if a aircraft is given a new number and not recertified, then the pilots have to be retrained. Honestly, back when the 737 MAX debacle happened, a lot of consumers claimed that they would stop flying aircrafts if they ran in…

Honestly they kinda screwed over people -- like me -- who tried to avoid the MAX planes for a while. I'd specifically book around the MAX planes and then they would change equipment at the last minute into a MAX. There is no meaningful "knob" an aviation consumer can turn to express an aircraft preference, and given how US airspace works, you often don't have a meaningful choice in carrier (unless you're willing to take on extra stops).

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#55

Post by [deleted] »

bushido wrote: post #7

The 737 has had 14 major recertifications. The aircraft today looks/behaves nothing like the original from the 1960s. The main motivation for recertifications comes from commercial pressure where if a aircraft is given a new number and not recertified, then the pilots have to be retrained. Honestly, back when the 737 MAX debacle happened, a lot of consumers claimed that they would stop flying aircrafts if they ran in…

[deleted]

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#56

Post by estearum »

rogerrogerr wrote: post #52
estearum wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Design changes de facto are part of the self-cert process because it had no requirement for FAA oversight of post-flight design changes. DOT OIG disagrees that this played no role. Here's from Page 2 of their report, i.e. the entire "Findings" summary: While FAA and Boeing followed the established certification process for the 737 MAX 8, we identified limitations in FAA’s guidance and processes that impacted certific…

You are confidently acting like you understand this process, while repeatedly confusing design certification (of the type) vs. airworthiness certification (of individual airplanes).

In the above OIG finding, can you please explain what "ODA" means?

Maybe DOT OIG is confused? Big if true!

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#57

Post by jordanb »

tzs wrote: post #37

> The U.S. government on Friday said Boeing can once again issue airworthiness certificates for its bestselling 737 Max aircraft and 787 Dreamliners, an authority that was stripped from the manufacturer after fatal crashes in 2018 and 2019 of the 737 Max. I'm a bit confused by this. From what I've read an "airworthiness certificate" is not a certificate that the aircraft design is good and safe. That would be a type…

The issue was actually the door plug scandal. It showed that Boeing's QC was compromised in their factory and they were not able to properly certify that the aircraft were being built as designed.

As an aside this a long talked-about problem with the South Carolina factory, that the place does not follow aerospace standards and practices. The door plug failure was the highest profile QC miss out of that factory.

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#58

Post by aaronmdjones »

estearum wrote: post #47
akerl_ wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As has been noted in several of the comments, the crashes were a result of a faulty design, not aircraft failing to meet the design. The self-certification here wasn’t part of the chain of events that led to the crashes; it appears to have been related to other issues the FAA uncovered as a side effect of their investigation.

As has been noted in the actual reports, the crashes (as is true of all crashes) were the result of a specific chain of failures across several functions and organizations. One component of that chain of failures is the self-certification process. If the FAA had the resource and mandate to actually understand each aircraft design change, then it's very likely (not guaranteed, but very likely) that the MCAS design hav…

The addition of MCAS to the 737 MAX received type approval by the FAA in response to Boeing's documentation, not in response to anything Boeing approved or issued. No aircraft manufacturer has ever been allowed to issue a type certificate.

The self-certification process (airworthiness certificates) is the manufacturer (rather than the regulator's inspectors) stating "this one specific aircraft with serial number _______ has been built according to the design covered by its type certificate". Nothing more.

In other words, an airworthiness certificate only specifies that a specific aircraft is airworthy /because/ it is built according to an airworthy design. Whether the design is safe or not has always only been up to the regulator to decide. In this case, the regulator dropped the ball and approved an unsafe design. If Boeing was not allowed to self-certify their own aircraft, the FAA would still have issued airworthiness certificates for them, including the two aircraft that would have gone on to kill hundreds of people, because they were built according to the design the FAA approved.

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#59

Post by appreciatorBus »

estearum wrote: post #41
appreciatorBus wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

No it's actually bad when financialization reaches such a degree that planes fall out of the sky. You as an oncologist: "cells have been dividing for thousands of years and are better off for it. the word is meaningless. I would hate to be a single-celled organism." lmao Great insight! Therefore there's no such thing as pathological cell division or pathological financialization. Or maybe it's just if someone is supe…

Cancer is a disease that attacks living organisms, similar to how collectivism attacks living societies.

"Financialization" is a 7 syllable word with no definition.

There is nothing about how Boeing builds & sells planes today that is qualitatively different than how they did it 50 years ago. Yes I am familiar with the concern that engineers hold less sway than previously and I agree this is a concern. I would not be shocked to discover that it's true. But this is not a new thing.

People who sell a thing, be they multinational airline manufactures, or a kid selling lemonade, have been able to profit by lying or skimping on quality since the dawn of time.

If your concern is that Boeing will skimp on quality & safety, then say that, instead of a buzz word like "financialization"

I have no idea where you came across the word, but when I see it used, there's generally a lot of handwaving and some vague implication that it's some new concept/activity that started in the 1970's. The only consistencies I've observed in attempts to define it is that money = financialization or "number go up" = financialization, and the speaker is generally uncomfortable with money as one of the tools we use to organize society.

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#60

Post by rogerrogerr »

estearum wrote: post #56
rogerrogerr wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are confidently acting like you understand this process, while repeatedly confusing design certification (of the type) vs. airworthiness certification (of individual airplanes).

In the above OIG finding, can you please explain what "ODA" means? Maybe DOT OIG is confused? Big if true!

Nah, you can figure that out pretty easily yourself, and I get the sense your question is not in good faith. Earlier in this thread you called someone "profoundly lazy" for asking a less simple question.

There are many types of designation in the system; your quote above is _not_ about Production Certification ODA staff (which this article is about), and indeed there is no world where Production Certification ODA would be expected to find the MCAS issue your quote is about. Those would be Type Certification ODA folks.

Post reply on HN