Welcome, Autel Pilots!
Join our free Autel drone community today!
Join Us

FAA Turned Over More Safety Work to Boeing Under Pressure to Regulate Drones

Jagerbomb52

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
Messages
6,875
Reaction score
5,316
Age
66
Location
Northern Ontario
Wow. Boeing is responsible for the crash of two of their new planes, killing, what...300+ people? And still not one death attributed to a drone. Injuries of course....but still. FAA needs to do what they do best and stop messing with us as much as possible. (if thats possible!)
 
Wow. Boeing is responsible for the crash of two of their new planes, killing, what...300+ people? And still not one death attributed to a drone. Injuries of course....but still. FAA needs to do what they do best and stop messing with us as much as possible. (if thats possible!)
Boeing probably is a big contributor to political campaigns, you aren't.
 
Interesting. It smells like textbook quid pro quo to me. Boeing was under the same amount or more pressure to thwart Airbus’ A320/1neo sales avalanche with the 737 MAX models. While the fault for the crashes is complicated, partially related to pilot training at each airline, Boeing could have done more to emphasize the auto-pilot changes not clearly detailed in the manual. I’ll help you with drones if you rush certification through?
 
Just a few personal comments based on a career as a NAVY, commercial, instructor and test pilot who is married to an aviation attorney.

1) Drones haven't killed anyone - yet! Give it time. There is a significant effort in process to prevent that from occurring. By-the-way, this statement isn't entirely true.

2) The FAA is not short handed due to it's efforts to regulate the recreational drone industry. But they are understaffed and funded but that's another story.

3) Was the input test data on the MCAS system rigged? Perhaps, but in the movie Draft Day, the saying "when you get the answer you want, hang up", may apply here, to quote a whistle blower VERY familiar with the Max testing program.

4) Boeing pulled a bit of a trick play regarding the 737 Max program. Hence, it was classified as an "update" to a previously certified platform (yeah right - I've seen the the technical specs and, as a former test pilot, know how to interpret them). I can say with good authority that Boeing applied pressure to it's 737 Max team to deliver the model in direct competition with the Airbus A320 neo (New Engine Option.) Side note - I was on the engine test team and asked the engineers at Airbus "lame name, can't you come up with a better one?)

5) The modified air frame had some tricky stall characteristics, hence, the MCAS system. Boeing was behind schedule and someone "greased the skids" to obtain certification (in my opinion) and convinced the FAA they could "self-certify". That's a bit like asking the fox to guard the hens.

6) in their haste, Boeing has pushed orders for the A320 neo through the roof and all but killed (no pun intended) the 737 Max program at the same time. The very inverse of their marketing objective (seems Darwin missed a few). Not to mention the loss of life.

That's my rant on the subject. Anymore and I'd likely get slapped from my wife.

CAVU
 
Just a few personal comments based on a career as a NAVY, commercial, instructor and test pilot who is married to an aviation attorney.

1) Drones haven't killed anyone - yet! Give it time. There is a significant effort in process to prevent that from occurring. By-the-way, this statement isn't entirely true.

2) The FAA is not short handed due to it's efforts to regulate the recreational drone industry. But they are understaffed and funded but that's another story.

3) Was the input test data on the MCAS system rigged? Perhaps, but in the movie Draft Day, the saying "when you get the answer you want, hang up", may apply here, to quote a whistle blower VERY familiar with the Max testing program.

4) Boeing pulled a bit of a trick play regarding the 737 Max program. Hence, it was classified as an "update" to a previously certified platform (yeah right - I've seen the the technical specs and, as a former test pilot, know how to interpret them). I can say with good authority that Boeing applied pressure to it's 737 Max team to deliver the model in direct competition with the Airbus A320 neo (New Engine Option.) Side note - I was on the engine test team and asked the engineers at Airbus "lame name, can't you come up with a better one?)

5) The modified air frame had some tricky stall characteristics, hence, the MCAS system. Boeing was behind schedule and someone "greased the skids" to obtain certification (in my opinion) and convinced the FAA they could "self-certify". That's a bit like asking the fox to guard the hens.

6) in their haste, Boeing has pushed orders for the A320 neo through the roof and all but killed (no pun intended) the 737 Max program at the same time. The very inverse of their marketing objective (seems Darwin missed a few). Not to mention the loss of life.

That's my rant on the subject. Anymore and I'd likely get slapped from my wife.

CAVU
LOL, exactly right, I was trying to be less technical ;)
 
Last edited:
Just a few personal comments based on a career as a NAVY, commercial, instructor and test pilot who is married to an aviation attorney.

1) Drones haven't killed anyone - yet! Give it time. There is a significant effort in process to prevent that from occurring. By-the-way, this statement isn't entirely true.

2) The FAA is not short handed due to it's efforts to regulate the recreational drone industry. But they are understaffed and funded but that's another story.

3) Was the input test data on the MCAS system rigged? Perhaps, but in the movie Draft Day, the saying "when you get the answer you want, hang up", may apply here, to quote a whistle blower VERY familiar with the Max testing program.

4) Boeing pulled a bit of a trick play regarding the 737 Max program. Hence, it was classified as an "update" to a previously certified platform (yeah right - I've seen the the technical specs and, as a former test pilot, know how to interpret them). I can say with good authority that Boeing applied pressure to it's 737 Max team to deliver the model in direct competition with the Airbus A320 neo (New Engine Option.) Side note - I was on the engine test team and asked the engineers at Airbus "lame name, can't you come up with a better one?)

5) The modified air frame had some tricky stall characteristics, hence, the MCAS system. Boeing was behind schedule and someone "greased the skids" to obtain certification (in my opinion) and convinced the FAA they could "self-certify". That's a bit like asking the fox to guard the hens.

6) in their haste, Boeing has pushed orders for the A320 neo through the roof and all but killed (no pun intended) the 737 Max program at the same time. The very inverse of their marketing objective (seems Darwin missed a few). Not to mention the loss of life.

That's my rant on the subject. Anymore and I'd likely get slapped from my wife.

CAVU

Miss your insight buddy. Stop in more often. ;)
 
I think the MAX will be just fine. Some airplane lessors are actually adding orders. Changing to a new aircraft type is expensive unless you fly it already. The S/W and training changes were in the works before the 2nd crash. I know a Southwest pilot in AZ, and he said his buds @AA & UA were not in favor of the grounding. They understood MCAS, trained for it, and had no issues with it...
As far as the FAA certification process for the MAX? It could be scandalous, and nothing Being hasn’t tried in other arenas.

 
Last edited:

Latest threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
11,229
Messages
102,660
Members
9,819
Latest member
sky3d