Originally Posted by bocastephen (Post 31643752)

That's what I mean by a rebuild - new software, not just a patch, proper software written stateside, not by foreign contractors, and with the FAA certification people monitoring every iteration and test onsite, over everyone's shoulder. If additional sensors are needed, they go in, if not, it's just new software - and no pushing through certification, but a lengthly process with frequent checks and balances by outside officials not connected with Boeing given all the eyes not just on Boeing, but on the FAA for mishandling this process from the beginning.

Originally Posted by J.Edward (Post 31645133)

I by no means am an expert or have any insight beyond the little I read, but my arm-chair take on the situation is Boeing opted for what they perceived at the time to be an optimal strategy to edge out the next-gen A320 series.

A large part of this rested on not requiring expensive pilot re-certifition and extracting more efficiency from the 737 platform by using a higher bypass engine. However, achieving the required gains from a new engine required a larger engine. Due to the ground-to-wing clearance of the 737s, or lack thereof, Boeing mounted the engine further forward on/in-front of the wing to accommodate the increased diameter of the new engine. This in turn changed the handling characteristics of the MAX which jeopardized Boeing's promise pilots would NOT need to be re-certified.

This lead Boeing to develop the MCAS system to "simulate" the handling of a 737NG and avoided, or so they believed, needing to re-certifiy pilots.

I always know the winning lottery numbers...problem is I only know them about a day too late.

In hindsight, my guess is "yes", it would have been cheaper for all involved.

What's troubling to me is it appears Boeing failed to place the safety of their ultimate customers - you and me - first through willful ignorance, if not outright deception, and in doing so violated the public's trust (or at least IMHO - still following the story to see what further develops).

Originally Posted by bocastephen (Post 31643752)

new software, not just a patch, proper software written stateside, not by foreign contractors

Originally Posted by fumje (Post 31645239)

Thanks, the description of their design decisions matches my understanding.

And indeed, I am certain they can see in hindsight mistakes they've made, or maybe even wrongdoing by some.

But what I'm wondering is right now, going forward, are they still expecting the expected cost of keeping MCAS to be less than the cost of retraining pilots? It seems the cost of keeping it at best is subject to all kinds of demonstrations of safety and regulatory hoops. It may even be fair to include writing off the entire MAX development and production.

Is setting up for re-certification still comparatively more onerous?

Originally Posted by goodeats21 (Post 31645368)

I don't think the one-time cost of setting up training is the issue. I believe (please someone correct if wrong) that United pilots fly only one certification at a time. I don't think the pilots could hop back-and-forth between Max and other 737s if a separate certification is required.

Originally Posted by goodeats21 (Post 31645368)

I don't think the one-time cost of setting up training is the issue. I believe (please someone correct if wrong) that United pilots fly only one certification at a time. I don't think the pilots could hop back-and-forth between Max and other 737s if a separate certification is required.

So if a separate certification is mandated for the Max, then those pilots would not be flying any other type. Which would be a major expense/headache to develop a whole separate team of pilots for just the Max.

And I would imagine airlines made decisions to purchase based on that spec, and could theoretically pull out of Max purchases if not met.

Originally Posted by goodeats21 (Post 31645368)

I don't think the one-time cost of setting up training is the issue. I believe (please someone correct if wrong) that United pilots fly only one certification at a time. I don't think the pilots could hop back-and-forth between Max and other 737s if a separate certification is required.

So if a separate certification is mandated for the Max, then those pilots would not be flying any other type. Which would be a major expense/headache to develop a whole separate team of pilots for just the Max.

And I would imagine airlines made decisions to purchase based on that spec, and could theoretically pull out of Max purchases if not met.

Originally Posted by jsloan (Post 31645381)

That is precisely the issue, and I don’t think that policy is limited to UA, either.

Originally Posted by fly18725 (Post 31645385)

Correct. However, there is no realistic basis for a separate type certification of the MAX (of course, this would prompt separate type certs for 777-200ER and -300ER, A330-200/300 and -900 and A320ceo and neo ). What is more likely is that greater differences training will be required. Previously, it was just a computer based training, which is typical for these situations. Going forward, some regulators could require SIM time either before flying the MAX or during recurrent training.

Originally Posted by J.Edward (Post 31645593)

Thank you both for posting ^ - I (poorly) understood certification played a role but did not understand this aspect of it.

Originally Posted by mahasamatman (Post 31645252)

Sorry, but this is a load of crap. U.S. developers are no better than developers in other countries (and I've worked with a whole lot of both). I can easily point to more garbage being written in the U.S. than anywhere else.

Originally Posted by mduell (Post 31645150)

These assertions have no basis in the reality of flight control development nor aircraft certification. I'm not even going to take your Gish Gallop.

Originally Posted by bocastephen (Post 31645809)

Whatever....but the reality of flight control development and aircraft certification are going to need to change 180deg if there is any hope of getting this airplane off the ground, ever again. I don't care how things were done in the past, I am asserting how things will need to be done going forward to get the MAX flying again.

Originally Posted by goodeats21 (Post 31645368)

I don't think the one-time cost of setting up training is the issue. I believe (please someone correct if wrong) that United pilots fly only one certification at a time. I don't think the pilots could hop back-and-forth between Max and other 737s if a separate certification is required.

So if a separate certification is mandated for the Max, then those pilots would not be flying any other type. Which would be a major expense/headache to develop a whole separate team of pilots for just the Max.

And I would imagine airlines made decisions to purchase based on that spec, and could theoretically pull out of Max purchases if not met.

Originally Posted by jsloan (Post 31645381)

That is precisely the issue, and I don’t think that policy is limited to UA, either.

Originally Posted by fly18725 (Post 31645385)

Correct. However, there is no realistic basis for a separate type certification of the MAX (of course, this would prompt separate type certs for 777-200ER and -300ER, A330-200/300 and -900 and A320ceo and neo ). What is more likely is that greater differences training will be required. Previously, it was just a computer based training, which is typical for these situations. Going forward, some regulators could require SIM time either before flying the MAX or during recurrent training.

Originally Posted by fly18725 (Post 31645829)

Do you propose that every other airplane developed with similar process, philosophy and under the same certification regime be grounded as well?

While mistakes were made (either intentionally or inadvertently), I don’t think an approach akin to throwing a fit and giving up serves customers or airlines well.

Originally Posted by fumje (Post 31645833)

Thanks all, this is great information. I had the apparent misconception that pilots could go back and forth between the 767 and 777, for instance.

Would regulators stipulate that the MAX without MCAS has to be a separate certification? If not, I can't see why they aren't seriously considering removing MCAS rather than getting an update accepted.

Originally Posted by fumje (Post 31645833)

Thanks all, this is great information. I had the apparent misconception that pilots could go back and forth between the 767 and 777, for instance.

Would regulators stipulate that the MAX without MCAS has to be a separate certification? If not, I can't see why they aren't seriously considering removing MCAS rather than getting an update accepted.

Originally Posted by bocastephen (Post 31645866)

That's a strawman question - but I will answer it.

If another aircraft was developed under the FAA's flawed self-certification scheme AND there are/were accidents or incidents that indicate a safety risk AND there is evidence of outright fraud committed by the aircraft manufacturer in terms of falsifying records or withholding prior knowledge of a known defect, then YES I would expect that aircraft to be grounded immediately as an imminent safety hazard.

Fraud is not a mistake - deliberately misleading regulators and purchasers about a known defect or safety hazard which results in an accident with a loss of life, we're now into the territory of sending people to prison.

Originally Posted by JimInOhio (Post 31645953)

Help me out here... aren’t pilots dual certified on 757 and 767?