HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » FAA chief faces questions...

Wed May 15, 2019, 06:15 PM

FAA chief faces questions over Boeing 737 Max crashes

WASHINGTON — Daniel Elwell, acting administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, faced sharp questions from lawmakers on Capitol Hill on Wednesday about how his agency certified the safety of Boeing’s 737 Max jet, two of which crashed within five months in Indonesia and Ethiopia, killing 346 people.

“Mr. Elwell, the FAA has a credibility problem. The FAA needs to fix its credibility problem,” said Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Everett, chairman of the House aviation subcommittee.

Questions focused on an FAA certification system that gives Boeing and other manufacturers far-reaching powers to oversee themselves. Lawmakers also asked Elwell how the FAA and Boeing plan to assure travelers and aviation authorities around the world that the 737 Max is safe to resume flying.

“I want to emphasize at the outset that the FAA welcomes scrutiny that helps make us better. That is how our global leadership will endure,” Elwell told the committee.

But Republicans on the committee came to the FAA leadership’s defense and also raised questions about the pilots’ behavior in the pair of crashes.

Rep. Garret Graves, R-Louisiana, said he has seen nothing that undermines his “confidence in the FAA’s safety judgment to date.”


Sure Rep. Graves. All them dead people are fereners so who gives a damn.

1 replies, 277 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 1 replies Author Time Post
Reply FAA chief faces questions over Boeing 737 Max crashes (Original post)
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin May 2019 OP
Midnightwalk May 2019 #1

Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2019, 06:42 PM

1. There should be a Feynman type investigation

Like there was for the challenger disaster. Don’t presume where there is and isn’t fault.

Did the design decision to add the larger engines to the existing frame make it fundamentally flawed? That is was it reasonable to try to fix the instability with the new software feature?

How did the business decision to not require new training for this model impact the pilot’s ability to know whether the mcas system was actively pitching down or the ability to disengage the system permanently?

How did the FAA pushing certification back to the vendor contribute to the failures?

I read that having mcas pitch down due to angle of attack made the sensor fall into a more critical category which required redundancy. What is that full story? Sorry im too lazy to google that right now.

Likewise I read that the original design limited elevator movement but that was increased during flight testing to increase stability. Was that change properly reviewed and approved?

The testing, certification and approvals missed the problem. What changes to those processes were made for the fix? Are there other fixes not in the first delivery?

The FAA was almost if not last in saying there was a problem. Why did other countries decide to ground the plane first?

I am not in the aviation industry but those are the questions I would like an independent auditor to answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread