The largest expert travel community:
  • 774,659 Total members
  • 4,168 Users online now
  • 1,729,724 Threads
  • 31,960,274 Posts
737 Max

FAA and Boeing Complete 737 MAX Test Flights – What’s Next?

FAA and Boeing Complete 737 MAX Test Flights – What’s Next?
Joe Cortez

The Federal Aviation Administration and Boeing completed the 737 MAX test flights, evaluating the aircraft over three days. Now, civil aviation officials will evaluate the data gathered from the flights, determine if any additional changes are needed, before rescinding the aircraft’s ground order.

After three days of flight testing, Boeing and the Federal Aviation Administration are done examining the 737 MAX operations, and now begin the arduous process of evaluating whether or not the troubled airframe should carry passengers again. The FAA confirmed the end of flight testing in a press release and test video published online.

Evaluating Automated Flight Systems on the Aircraft

The test flights began on Monday, June 29, 2020, after the FAA gave Boeing clearance over the prior weekend. The exam flights continued through Wednesday, July 1, 2020, giving engineers on both sides adequate data to evaluate aircraft operations and software, including the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS).

“During three days of testing this week, FAA pilots and engineers evaluated Boeing’s proposed changes in connection with the automated flight control system on the aircraft,” the FAA statement reads. “While completion of the flights is an important milestone, a number of key tasks remain, including evaluating the data gathered during these flights.”

While the test flights offered valuable insight into changes Boeing made, there’s no timetable to when the FAA may rescind their grounding order. Before any decision is made, the FAA must go through at least four steps involving multiple stakeholders.

The first is a review with the Flight Standardization Board and the international Joint Operations Evaluation Board (JOEB). The JOEB includes partners from Canada, Europe and Brazil, and will focus on minimum pilot training requirements. Together, the two committees will evaluate the data, and prepare a public report on their findings. The FSB will then present a final public report.

From there, the aviation administration and the multi-agency Technical Advisory Board will go through Boeing’s final design documentation for compliance. Both groups will issue reports, in order to determine if the aircraft meets FAA requirements.

Once those are complete, the FAA will issue a Continued Airworthiness Notification to the International Community, as well as an airworthiness directive on corrective action needed to fly the aircraft once more. After all these steps, the FAA could rescind the ground order.

Boeing has not publicly commented on the test flights or the comments from the FAA.

Tests Complete After Damaging OIG Report

The 737 MAX test flights completed on the same day the U.S. Department of Transportation Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a timeline report on the launch and grounding of the 737 MAX. The report noted that Boeing created the MCAS system to compensate for larger engines, but may not have been forthcoming to the agency about changes. In addition, a culture of internal pressure could have contributed to Boeing “cutting corners” on the aircraft’s approval.

The Inspector General is not the only one frustrated about the 737 MAX program. In June 2020, U.S. Senators accused the current FAA director of “stonewalling” several investigations related to the airframe’s approval and subsequent fatal accidents.

View Comments (14)

14 Comments

  1. Superjeff

    July 2, 2020 at 7:45 pm

    Unfortunately, Boeing has a history that is scary in this regard, going back to the rudder problems with the 737-200 and 737-300 fleets (think United @ COS, US Air @ PIT, and the Eastwind 733 which survived, but which allowed them to figure out the problem). One of the main reasons US Airways never bought Boeing after that is that Boeing tried to blame them, not the airplane. The problem is that this time the 737 Max issue was about the same time they had major issues with battery fires on the 787 fleet, coupled with the Covid 19 situation. It is going to take Boeing a long while to get their customers’ confidence back.

  2. kc1174

    July 3, 2020 at 4:09 am

    Imagine that – US Senators accusing someone of stonewalling investigations. Pot, kettle, black. Anyway, nice to see it back in the air.

  3. Rassalas

    July 3, 2020 at 5:32 am

    What next? The scrap yard. Noone is flying anymore. Noone is especially going to fly in a Maxair 737. Are they out of their minds?

  4. destockwell

    July 3, 2020 at 6:47 am

    Those LEAPs are honking big engines…flew from Montreal to Dublin on an Air Canada 737 MAX. Regarding the AOA/MCAS issue, wondered if maintenance or cleaning was a factor, causing the AOA vane to seize. That said, the MCAS should NEVER have been made dependent on only one indicator.

  5. Ifti Khan

    July 3, 2020 at 9:05 am

    Can we put it thru the tests with PIA pilots? (Not generalizing).

  6. ednumrich

    July 3, 2020 at 9:17 am

    The old song lyrics are still apt here: “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread . . . .” , I’m no angel, but the team of Boeing/FAA will never convince me to board the MAX.

  7. BC Shelby

    July 3, 2020 at 11:32 am

    …so I wonder if part of the test was to see how the aircraft handled with MCAS turned off. I remember reading a report over a year ago where a Boeing engineer and test pilot, in multiple simulator sessions, had similar difficulties with MCAS just like the crews of the two lost aircraft. The Max should be certified as a “new type” and thus require airlines to properly train aircrews in the different handling characteristics compared to the “classic” model. Employing a flawed piece of software with insufficient backups and contingencies to “lull” pilots into thinking it handles lie every other model is a deception with dangerous implications.

    Time to put the engineers back in control of decision making.instead of the bean counters.

  8. edgewood49

    July 4, 2020 at 5:52 am

    What will be interesting to see is a schedule of what profiles they did fly into and the results. Another post brought up the past issues with the -200 I too remember the crash outside of Pittsburgh. As designers push the “envelope” on designs and lets remember these new generations of planes rely on computer programs more and more.

  9. Boggie Dog

    July 4, 2020 at 1:35 pm

    MCAS is just a bandage covering up a major wound. The 737 Max is unstable in certain flight regimes, in particular low speed high power situations such as an aborted landing shortly before touchdown. Due to thrust angles of the LEAP engines, caused by having to move the pylons forward along with an upward cant of the inlet to make the engines fit under the wing, the nose pitches up in the described situations. I can’t stop the FAA from certifying the Boeing 737 Max but I darn sure don’t have to fly in it!

  10. edgewood49

    July 7, 2020 at 8:14 am

    So Boggie Dog would you fly a 777? 789 and oh by the by some AB’s also have similar engine/pylon designs. If you think the Max is the only one as well as it will be around in future designs

  11. PaulMSN

    July 8, 2020 at 10:15 am

    edgewood49, did those planes have the same problems with control that the MAX has? I’ve heard nothing like that.

  12. Boggie Dog

    July 11, 2020 at 3:24 pm

    @edgewood49: The 737 series aircraft has a wing that is much lower to the ground than the other aircraft you mentioned. The design was suitable until the LEAP engine was selected for the Max. This engine is much larger in diameter and required adding height to the nose gear, moving the engine pylon forward, and tilting the engine intake up so it would fit under the wing so as to not strike the ground. The original engines used on early 737 series aircraft had plenty of room for the engines. Later series adapted a more efficient high bypass turbo fan and if you notice the bottom of the intake is flattened on those models. The Max went too far to adapt this newer, more fuel efficient engine which messed up a really good airplane.

    And that’s why MCAS is such an important system on the Boeing 737 Max.

  13. seigex

    July 12, 2020 at 12:18 pm

    “Unfortunately, Boeing has a history that is scary in this regard, going back to the rudder problems with the 737-200 and 737-300 fleets (think United @ COS, US Air @ PIT, and the Eastwind 733 which survived, but which allowed them to figure out the problem).”

    Boeing’s not the only plane with a history of rudder problems. Let’s not forget the A300 over the bronx (AA587) a month after 9/11.

  14. JonMST

    July 21, 2020 at 9:03 am

    It appears the engine mount position change, and the size of the engine, changed the characteristics of the airframe. This should get a new FAA type certification, rather than trying to cover up the issues with computer control.

You must be logged in on the FORUM to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

More in 737 Max

Airlines Cancel over 300 Boeing 737-MAX Orders in 2020

Joe CortezJuly 15, 2020

DOT Inspector General Report Highlights 737 MAX Problems

Joe CortezJuly 1, 2020

FAA Opens Doors for Boeing 737 MAX Re-Certification Flights

Joe CortezJune 29, 2020

Copyright © 2014 Top News Theme. Theme by MVP Themes, powered by Wordpress.

SIGN UP FOR FLYERTALK TIPS & NEWS


I want emails from FlyerTalk with travel information and promotions. I can unsubscribe any time using the unsubscribe link at the end of all emails