ZCZC
BFF-31
US-ETHIOPIA-AVIATION-ACCIDENT-BOEING-REGULATION
Boeing crashes cast spotlight on US aviation regulator
NEW YORK, March 18, 2019 (BSS/AFP) – Was the United States complacent in
its certification of the Boeing 737 MAX?
That’s a question everyone is asking after Addis Ababa said flight recorded
data showed “clear similarities” between last week’s Ethiopian Airlines crash
and that of Indonesia’s Lion Air five months earlier.
In service since May 2017, the 737 MAX 8, one of several variants of the
737 MAX, has now experienced two deadly tragedies, a scenario that is
unprecedented for a new aircraft.
The March 10 crash, south-east of the Ethiopian capital, claimed 157 lives,
on top of the 189 who died when the Lion Air flight plunged into the Java Sea
in October 2018.
Investigations are ongoing but early evidence has pointed to a problem with
the flight stabilization system designed to prevent stalling, the Maneuvering
Characteristics Augmentation System or MCAS.
Ethiopian Transport Minister Dagmawit Moges said Sunday that a study of the
flight data recorder retrieved from the Ethiopian plane had shown “clear
similarities” to that of the Lion Air flight.
While it may take months for definitive conclusions, experts are asking why
the MCAS was green lit despite objections by American pilots who had voiced
concerns with the system. – Boeing employees at the helm –
The US Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) is in the line of fire because it
authorizes the commissioning of airplanes.
But for the past decade, it has outsourced the mission, entrusting the task
to airplane manufacturers themselves and to external experts.
Under this new program, known as the Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA), employees of Boeing accredited by the FAA assist the regulator in
approving the aircraft of their employer (from design, production, flight
tests, maintenance and other systems) as well as signing off on the training
procedures of pilots on new planes.
The trend has accelerated due to budget cuts and the increasing volume of
air travel, industry sources told AFP. In the case of the 737 MAX, Boeing
expressed a case of urgency because of its medium-haul competition with the
Airbus A320Neo that launched shortly before, the sources said.
The original safety analysis that Boeing delivered to the FAA had “several
crucial flaws”, according to a report in the Seattle Times on Sunday.
There were also strong differences of opinion between FAA staff in Seattle,
where Boeing planes are built, and in the Washington D.C. headquarters, a
government source told AFP.
The agency defended itself Sunday, telling AFP in an email: “The 737 MAX
certification program followed the FAA’s standard certification process.”
Dennis Muilenburg, Boeing’s CEO, said Sunday the company was finalizing a
software update to the MCAS. Industry sources indicated to AFP it would be
ready in about 10 days. – Public hearings? –
Peter DeFazio, chairman of the House of Representatives’ Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee, is planning to launch an investigation into the
737 MAX’s certification, Congressional sources said, adding that public
hearings have not been ruled out.
“The FAA’s credibility is really on the line here, as is Boeing’s. And,
the global system of aircraft certification reciprocity is at risk too,” said
Richard Aboulafia, an aeronautical analyst at Teal Group.
Following the Lion Air crash, the FAA asked Boeing to modify its flight
manuals and pilot training so they could recognize and respond to unexpected
maneuvers initiated by the MCAS.
Pilots had notably underlined the need for information and training beyond
what had initially been provided.
The 737 MAX was certified as a variant program of the its predecessor, the
737 Next Generation, despite major differences in the engine and the MCAS,
according to documents available on the FAA’s website. In a nutshell, the
plane was not examined in its entirety.
BSS/AFP/RY/1622 hrs