11-19-2019, 11:59 AM
737 MAX - update: 19/11/19
From WSJ, via the Oz...
FAA boss urges safety rethink over aircraft certification
By BENJAMIN KATZ and ANDY PASZTOR
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
12:00AM NOVEMBER 19, 2019
![[Image: 887206cca66ed88ec19b6f389e761946?width=650]](https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/887206cca66ed88ec19b6f389e761946?width=650)
FAA Administrator Stephen Dickson has previously said he wants to adopt a more holistic approach to certification. Picture: Stefani Reynolds
US air-safety regulators are considering ways to alter fundamentally how they certify aircraft in the wake of Boeing’s 737 Max crisis, the head of the Federal Aviation Administration says.
FAA Administrator Stephen Dickson has previously said he wants to adopt a more holistic approach to certification.
In an interview in Dubai on Sunday, he gave new details about the agency’s thinking, including the possibility of the FAA being involved in the design of a new plane from the outset.
There should be more dialogue between the FAA and plane-makers over the course of the development of a new jet, Mr Dickson said, and “human factors” — such as how rapidly airline pilots realistically are able to react in certain emergency situations — should be more of a priority in the process of designing jets.
“That probably needed to happen some time ago,” he said.
The proposals for any overhaul are still general and could change once US congress weighs in, as the FAA responds to criticism of the way it approves new aircraft and what some politicians see as its too-close relationship with the industry.
Mr Dickson, a former air force and commercial pilot who came to the FAA from a senior safety job at Delta Air Lines, did not provide more specifics about his plans and nor provide a target date for implementing a new system.
He has told aides he did not plan to unveil specifics until the grounded 737 Max fleet was back in the air following two fatal crashes, people familiar with his thinking said.
Still, on the sidelines of an international air show in Dubai, the FAA chief suggested a move towards greater agency input. Today’s certification system, he said, provided manufacturers with a list of rules they must meet, but the FAA was often brought in only at the end to assess the design.
“The current approach is you’re answering all these questions and then it’s ‘OK FAA, here’s my final exam. Grade my paper,’ ’’ Mr Dickson said. “That’s the transactional approach. The holistic approach is more of a dialogue as you go through the process.” The FAA has been under pressure over its initial safety approval and subsequent scrutiny of the 737 Max. Boeing relied on overly optimistic assumptions about pilot behaviour both in designing some flight-control systems and vouching for their safety after the initial crash, The Wall Street Journal has previously reported.
In the dual crashes, which together killed 346 people, misfires of an automated system put the jets into nosedives despite pilot efforts to stop the descents.
The crashes triggered a global grounding of the aircraft, disrupting airline schedules and creating the biggest financial and public relations crisis for Boeing in recent memory.
Separate groups of US and international experts, including accident investigators, already have urged both the FAA and Boeing to jettison decades-old assumptions about likely pilot responses. They have released reports recommending switching to more realistic design principles based on actual flight tests using a broad range of pilots with varying levels of experience and training.
Boeing has vowed to learn from its mistakes, although it has previously said development and testing of the Max was the result of a lengthy, methodical process and the plane met all federal safety standards. Since the crashes, the Chicago plane-maker has moved to revamp its safety review procedures, in part by giving members of the board of directors more insight and enhanced authority over top-priority risks.
The FAA also has been subject to criticism for essentially outsourcing much of its certification responsibilities to industry engineers and other experts, who are authorised to make decisions on behalf of the regulator.
Outside experts have proposed a range of potential improvements to the FAA, including a stepped-up focus on pinpointing potentially hazardous new technologies, reducing the number of risk analyses delegated to industry and beefing up the agency’s expertise when it comes to automation.
The longstanding industry practice has grown in scope as planes become more complicated and amid limited FAA resources. Mr Dickson’s predecessor said reversing that trend might require some $10bn in extra FAA funding over a number of years — something politicians are unlikely to embrace.
Mr Dickson, though, said he didn’t think that aspect of the certification process was necessarily an issue, adding that other manufacturers were “doing a very good job of this.
“And I’m not saying Boeing doesn’t normally do a good job.”
MTF...P2
From WSJ, via the Oz...
FAA boss urges safety rethink over aircraft certification
By BENJAMIN KATZ and ANDY PASZTOR
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
12:00AM NOVEMBER 19, 2019
FAA Administrator Stephen Dickson has previously said he wants to adopt a more holistic approach to certification. Picture: Stefani Reynolds
US air-safety regulators are considering ways to alter fundamentally how they certify aircraft in the wake of Boeing’s 737 Max crisis, the head of the Federal Aviation Administration says.
FAA Administrator Stephen Dickson has previously said he wants to adopt a more holistic approach to certification.
In an interview in Dubai on Sunday, he gave new details about the agency’s thinking, including the possibility of the FAA being involved in the design of a new plane from the outset.
There should be more dialogue between the FAA and plane-makers over the course of the development of a new jet, Mr Dickson said, and “human factors” — such as how rapidly airline pilots realistically are able to react in certain emergency situations — should be more of a priority in the process of designing jets.
“That probably needed to happen some time ago,” he said.
The proposals for any overhaul are still general and could change once US congress weighs in, as the FAA responds to criticism of the way it approves new aircraft and what some politicians see as its too-close relationship with the industry.
Mr Dickson, a former air force and commercial pilot who came to the FAA from a senior safety job at Delta Air Lines, did not provide more specifics about his plans and nor provide a target date for implementing a new system.
He has told aides he did not plan to unveil specifics until the grounded 737 Max fleet was back in the air following two fatal crashes, people familiar with his thinking said.
Still, on the sidelines of an international air show in Dubai, the FAA chief suggested a move towards greater agency input. Today’s certification system, he said, provided manufacturers with a list of rules they must meet, but the FAA was often brought in only at the end to assess the design.
“The current approach is you’re answering all these questions and then it’s ‘OK FAA, here’s my final exam. Grade my paper,’ ’’ Mr Dickson said. “That’s the transactional approach. The holistic approach is more of a dialogue as you go through the process.” The FAA has been under pressure over its initial safety approval and subsequent scrutiny of the 737 Max. Boeing relied on overly optimistic assumptions about pilot behaviour both in designing some flight-control systems and vouching for their safety after the initial crash, The Wall Street Journal has previously reported.
In the dual crashes, which together killed 346 people, misfires of an automated system put the jets into nosedives despite pilot efforts to stop the descents.
The crashes triggered a global grounding of the aircraft, disrupting airline schedules and creating the biggest financial and public relations crisis for Boeing in recent memory.
Separate groups of US and international experts, including accident investigators, already have urged both the FAA and Boeing to jettison decades-old assumptions about likely pilot responses. They have released reports recommending switching to more realistic design principles based on actual flight tests using a broad range of pilots with varying levels of experience and training.
Boeing has vowed to learn from its mistakes, although it has previously said development and testing of the Max was the result of a lengthy, methodical process and the plane met all federal safety standards. Since the crashes, the Chicago plane-maker has moved to revamp its safety review procedures, in part by giving members of the board of directors more insight and enhanced authority over top-priority risks.
The FAA also has been subject to criticism for essentially outsourcing much of its certification responsibilities to industry engineers and other experts, who are authorised to make decisions on behalf of the regulator.
Outside experts have proposed a range of potential improvements to the FAA, including a stepped-up focus on pinpointing potentially hazardous new technologies, reducing the number of risk analyses delegated to industry and beefing up the agency’s expertise when it comes to automation.
The longstanding industry practice has grown in scope as planes become more complicated and amid limited FAA resources. Mr Dickson’s predecessor said reversing that trend might require some $10bn in extra FAA funding over a number of years — something politicians are unlikely to embrace.
Mr Dickson, though, said he didn’t think that aspect of the certification process was necessarily an issue, adding that other manufacturers were “doing a very good job of this.
“And I’m not saying Boeing doesn’t normally do a good job.”
MTF...P2