Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Boeing submissions for 737 MAX certification are incomplete, need reassesment, FAA says
WASHINGTON — The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has informed Boeing that several important documents provided as part of the agency's continuing certification process of the 737 MAX 7 jet are not complete, and that other materials require a reevaluation by the American aircraft manufacturer. (www.airlinerwatch.com) Más...Did the FAA indicate exactly what Human Factors considerations were not taken into account in the safety analyses or is that detail being suppressed by the media? Human Factors generally don't figure in safety analyses because physiological factors such as strength, reach, size, visual acuity, hearing threshold, G-force tolerance, etc. which are statistically quantifiable are designed in with some acceptable range (typically 5th to 95th percentile) and are not a "failure probability" during system operation. Psychological factors like memory recall, recall accuracy, distraction, fatigue, spatial disorientation, selection error, etc. have poor repeatability and the underlying triggering and progression mechanisms are not well understood, making statistical predictability meaningless.
More than a decade ago I asked a reliability expert how he factored human error into a fault tree diagram that calculated the probability of an adverse event occurring. His response was we don't, a human is unpredictable in terms of what type of error will be made and when, so to be on the conservative side we would have consider the probability to be 1, and all safety analyses would be of no use for assessing or assuring safety because they would show that failure was guaranteed.
Besides, I don't know what system exists on a -7 or -10 with failures that could potentially have catastrophic effects that aren't on the already twice-certified -8 and -9. Sounds like political games to me.
More than a decade ago I asked a reliability expert how he factored human error into a fault tree diagram that calculated the probability of an adverse event occurring. His response was we don't, a human is unpredictable in terms of what type of error will be made and when, so to be on the conservative side we would have consider the probability to be 1, and all safety analyses would be of no use for assessing or assuring safety because they would show that failure was guaranteed.
Besides, I don't know what system exists on a -7 or -10 with failures that could potentially have catastrophic effects that aren't on the already twice-certified -8 and -9. Sounds like political games to me.
And their back flying again. And people wonder why I've lost respect for Boeing and why I no longer like them. The FAA is to blame here though as well. They never should allow any airline to certify their own aircraft as that's just a ridiculous move and safety hazard.
Boeing should really resume it’s engineering culture as soon as possible. They don’t seem to be there yet!
Boeing needs to put aviation experienced executives back in at the top. A product flying at 30+K feet, needs to ensure all safety aspects are completely covered and there are no shortcuts in the certification process. Not knowing the details behind the submissions, Boeing needs to get back to the Total Quality Commitment program from the 80s/90s and stop trying to cut costs. They needs the best tooling people, engineer, aviation craftsman, and stop the line if something aint right! I as a former Boeing employee, am extremely frustrated with the way executive management has driven this company so far off course as a company of the gold standard of aerospace quality. EXTREMLY DISAPPOINTING!
Perhaps you'd rather take you chances on an unregulated Russian plane.
Crack on fella. Good luck with life.!