← Back to Squawk list

36

FAA Will Lift US Grounding of Boeing 737 MAX on Wednesday

提交時間：4個月之前

Sources tell KING 5 that the Federal Aviation Administration will lift the 20-month grounding of the Boeing 737 MAX in the United States on Wednesday. (www-king5-com.cdn.ampproject.org) 更多...

47 個會員評論

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

ADXbear 4個月之前 18

God bless that airplane and Boeings employees. We need a big boost to aviation, hoping for a stellar 2021 on all fronts..

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

emkostiuk 4個月之前 7

Good

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

Jamar Jackson 4個月之前 4

Just like the B58 Hustler scared the pilots crashed twice in paris airshows, the MAX scared the public world wide perception is ruined. Bad gamble by Boeing that will cost them Billions. Sad the FAA global reputation and trust was also ruined.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

darjr26 4個月之前 3

I’ve never understood why Boeing didn’t design a 757-Max. Performance wise the 757 is a much better aircraft and they wouldn’t have had the ground clearance problems the 737 has.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

JMARTINSON 4個月之前 1

could it be because Southwest likes ground clearance problems?

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

David Tsai 4個月之前 1

Probably has something to do with the supply chain and type ratings.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

Bob Hallissy 4個月之前 3

three video clips on this page play at the same time -- turn your sound off until you can find all the pause buttons!

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

WhiteKnight77 4個月之前 1

I sent them an email about that from their contact us page. That is really unacceptable.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

George Wilhelmsen 4個月之前 4

It's about time.

Consider this:
2 US air crews had this malfunction. No loss of life. Both planes flew safely.
2 foreign carrier air crews had this event, and crashed.

Do you see a link here? It comes down to inadequate training by foreign carriers.

But Boeing has big pockets, and takes the blame. And the plane gets a black eye.

Could the design have been better? Sure.

But the fact remains that all the air crews had to do is open the circuit breakers on the right lower section of the throttle pedestal, and everybody lives.

I'd fly a Boeing product any day of the week. If you fly an Airbus plane, listen as the plane lands. It sounds like it's falling apart. You don't get that from any Boeing plane.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

bobinson66 4個月之前 5

I think there's more to it than poorly trained pilots. The two planes that crashed were sold with a minimum of upgrades. For whatever reason, Boeing let those planes out of the factory with minimal redundant systems that fed data to the MCAS. Couple a bad AOA sensor with undertrained pilots who never knew there was an MCAS system and we see the results.

American carriers purchased fully upgraded equipment with several redundant systems feeding data to the MCAS leading to far fewer MCAS problems. American carriers pilots with many more hours of training and experience were also able to overcome MCAS deficiencies when problems arose. Still, Boeing not telling pilots about the MCAS is, at best, questionable. At worst, criminal.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

JMARTINSON 4個月之前 1

I think there's more to it than poorly trained pilots... Like Lion Air's problems with procedures, documentation, and maintenance, you mean?

The two planes that crashed were sold with a minimum of upgrades... They were also bought that way.

For whatever reason, Boeing let those planes out of the factory with minimal redundant systems that fed data to the MCAS.... They reason is they were designed that way.

Couple a bad AOA sensor with undertrained pilots who never knew there was an MCAS system and we see the results... How in the world did the pilots in the second crash not know about MCAS? By then everybody knew what MCAS was.

American carriers purchased fully upgraded equipment... Some did, some didn't. Some like Southwest did, but didn't have due to a software glitch.

with several redundant systems feeding data to the MCAS leading to far fewer MCAS problems... Wrong, they all had the same level of redundancy.

American carriers pilots with many more hours of training and experience were also able to overcome MCAS deficiencies when problems arose... what problems? As in airline and flight number, please.

Still, Boeing not telling pilots about the MCAS is, at best, questionable. At worst, criminal... What if, say, Boeing did tell pilots about MCAS but you say they didn't? What's that at best and worst? System differences manual page 748 if I remember right.f

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

Roger Neuhaus 4個月之前 2

ah, so, the FAA grounded an airplane for quite 2 years (20 months) because of inadequate training of foreign carriers??? Interesting your argument. Give a break and come up with more reasonable thinking and conclusions. Your writing shows little respect for the 386 deaths and for countries that are not able to be "Big America" and have not the means.
I will not comment your stupid last sentence, which lacks any logic

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

sprint113 4個月之前 2

The poor training arguably also falls on Boeing. The Max is attractive because it required minimal training for existing 737 pilots. So either they nix the minimal training "feature" of the plane, or they re-engineer/re-design aspects of the plane so that pilots can still receive minimal training and safely operate the plane, or a little of both.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

JMARTINSON 4個月之前 1

The airlines thank you for the free pass.

Boeing doesn't have any authority in, say, Indonesia. They can only advise.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

Steve Cutchen 4個月之前 2

"Do you see a link here?"

I see an anecdote.
Maybe a basis for a hypothesis.
I certainly do not see science.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

Steve Cutchen 4個月之前 2

I also see outcome bias, and I see hindsight bias.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

John Thacker 4個月之前 1

Well stated. The media in this world has gone over the edge. THANKS for you insight and position!

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

Frank Zackary 4個月之前 2

I find it odd that no Airbus aircraft were grounded after MULTIBLE fatal aircraft computer generated crashes.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

Dave Mathes 4個月之前 2

...and the Zen master said "we'll see"...

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

pilotjag 4個月之前 2

Boeing Press Release...
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2020-11-18-Boeing-Responds-to-FAA-Approval-to-Resume-737-MAX-Operations

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

Jasper Buck 4個月之前 2

Wednesday 18 November 2020

RESCISSION OF EMERGENCY ORDER OF PROHIBITION

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Emergency Order of Prohibition issued March 13, 2019, applicable to Boeing Company Model 737-8 and Boeing Company Model 737-9 airplanes, is rescinded with effect as described below. This rescission enables operation of Boeing Company Model 737-8 and Boeing Company Model 737-9 airplanes only upon satisfaction of applicable requirements for return to service. The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2018-23-51, which applied to all The Boeing Company Model 737-8 and 737-9 (737 MAX) airplanes.

Please see the following FAA documents for a comprehensive discussion of the foregoing;

https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=93206

https://www.faa.gov/foia/electronic_reading_room/boeing_reading_room/media/737_AD_2019-NM-035fr.pdf

https://www.faa.gov/foia/electronic_reading_room/boeing_reading_room/media/737_MAX_Rescission_of_Grounding_Order.pdf

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N_8900.570_FAAWeb.pdf

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N_8900.569_FAA_Web.pdf

Best Regards

Capt J Buck

ATP DC-9 B757 B767
Flight Instructor
Ground Instructor
Aircraft Dispatcher
A&P Mechanic
Air Traffic Controller
FAA Aviation Safety Inspector (Ret.)
FAA certified accident investigator (Ret.)
ICAO Panel Member
Aviation Safety Consultant

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

Juan Zermeno 4個月之前 2

Imagine Ford, GM or any automotive manufacturer kept their 1967 car line up and just added better brakes, better engine, seats, but left the original body style and they tried to sell it to the public. I know the cost between creating a new car and plane is huge but see my point?

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

JMARTINSON 4個月之前 1

No, not really.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

Joel Rugeno 4個月之前 2

Sad that Boeing’s good name has been tarnished so badly and the CEO who committed the deed has been rewarded with a nice financial package into retirement. The FAA, too, has lost the stellar reputation they once enjoyed. The Max is now a safe airplane to fly but I intend to never be in it

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

Leo Larkin 4個月之前 1

Makin the B737 100-300 series look like gem all the time

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

William Smith 4個月之前 1

Seems everyone firgets about all the problems and deaths regarding the DC-10. Was it grounded worldwide? Nope. Even though far more people died. Every aircraft is a compromise. There is no guarantee that issues won't show up with a new or modified design. You want a guarantee? Buy a toaster, and even then you're not guaranteed perfect safety.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

darjr26 4個月之前 2

The DC-10 was grounded in the USA and in most other countries, I think around 1979. It didn’t help much because it had several major accidents after it was returned to service.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

Peter Ashby 4個月之前 1

Sir Laurence Olivier "is it safe?"

Canada Aviation Authority" not sure yet"

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

Robert Fleury 4個月之前 1

Going down to the basic: does this design carries inherent stabilty? If you need a computer to keep it in the air, the answer is NO. Let's not try to make a cat bark like a dog...

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

Dan Grelinger 4個月之前 2

You're right. BAN Teslas!

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

JMARTINSON 4個月之前 1

Yes, it does "carries inherent stabilty". No you don't need a computer to keep it in the air so the answer is YES. Let's not try to piss on everyone's boots and say it's raining.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

bentwing60 4個月之前 -2

Well over played hand by the guys who 'certified' it.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

Roger Anderson 4個月之前 11

More room for me!

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

Dan Grelinger 4個月之前 3

Do you ride in a car? Hmmmm.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

Dave Mathes 4個月之前 1

...well good for you!...

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

Dave Mathes 4個月之前 1

....uhhh, what's your problem, Bevis...

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

Andy Cruickshank 4個月之前 -2

You sir are the ass

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

Dave Mathes 4個月之前 0

...well, maybe they could call it the ' seven thirty seven eleventy ten'... You know, those imaginary numbers...

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

Edward Bardes 4個月之前 0

Which will last longer?
The grounding of the 737 MAX, or the COVID19 pandemic?

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

JMARTINSON 4個月之前 1

How much money do you have?

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

Edward Bardes 4個月之前 2

No idea what that's supposed to mean.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

Elliot Cannon 4個月之前 -1

Compare the original 737 with the 737 Max. No comparison but differences training is a lot cheaper than having to acquire a whole new type rating. It's all about the $$$.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

Ron Slater 4個月之前 -4

So it's renamed the 737-9 ?

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

Chris Habig 4個月之前 2

No. There are four models of different sizes in the 737 MAX series. 737 MAX 7, 737 MAX 8, 737 MAX 9, and 737 MAX 10.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

Jasper Buck 4個月之前 2

Actually there is no MAX 7 or MAX 10. The official FAA approved Boeing models are:

737-100, 737-200, 737-200C, 737-300, 737-400, 737-500, 737-600, 737-700, 737-700C, 737-800, 737-900, 737-900ER, 737-8, 737-9, C-40A, T-43A.

Those are the models that are on FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet A16WE which can be found here:

ttps://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/1c2b973615d72f9c8625861c00508676/$FILE/A16WE_Rev66.pdf

The Boeing 737-8 and 737-9 are the two airplanes that have the GE LEAP engine and are considered to be the MAX versions of the 737 line. The term "MAX" is a marketing term used by Boeing and not an *official* FAA designation. The -7 and -10 "MAX" airplanes were on the drawing board but have not yet been approved by the FAA.

As an aside all the pilots who get type rated on the 737 get the type rating on their certificate that says B737.

Best

J Buck
FAA (ret.)
ATP DC-9 (DC-9-11 thru B-717)

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

登入

本網站使用cookie。您使用並繼續瀏覽本網站，即表示您接受這一點。

退出

您知道FlightAware航班跟蹤是由廣告支持嗎？

通過允許展示來自FlightAware.com的廣告，您可以幫助我們使FlightAware保持免費。我們努力使我們的廣告保持相關性，同時不顯突兀，以創造一流的體驗。在FlightAware上將廣告加入白名單快速而簡單，或者請您考慮選擇我們的高級帳戶.

退出