Jump to content

U.S. regulator sees approval of Boeing 737 MAX to fly as soon as late June - sources


webfact

Recommended Posts

U.S. regulator sees approval of Boeing 737 MAX to fly as soon as late June - sources

By Allison Lampert and David Shepardson

 

2019-05-23T231806Z_8_LYNXNPEF4M1AD_RTROPTP_4_ETHIOPIA-AIRPLANE-AIRLINES.JPG

FILE PHOTO: An aerial photo shows Boeing 737 MAX airplanes parked on the tarmac at the Boeing Factory in Renton, Washington, U.S. March 21, 2019. REUTERS/Lindsey Wasson/File Photo

 

MONTREAL/FORT WORTH, Texas (Reuters) - The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) expects to approve Boeing Co's 737 MAX jet to return to service as soon as late June, representatives of the U.S. air regulator informed members of the United Nations' aviation agency in a private briefing on Thursday, sources told Reuters.

 

The target, if achieved, means U.S. airlines would likely not have to greatly extend costly cancellations of 737 MAX jets they have already put in place for the peak summer flying season, but the FAA representatives warned that there was no firm timetable to get the planes back in the air.

 

American Airlines Group Inc, Southwest Airlines Co and United Airlines suspended 737 MAX flights into July and August after the FAA grounded Boeing's best-selling jet in March following two crashes in the space of five months that together killed 346 people.

 

FAA and Boeing officials privately briefed members of the International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO) governing council in Montreal on the 737 MAX on Thursday, the same day that the FAA's acting administrator Dan Elwell met with international air regulators for eight hours in Fort Worth, Texas.

 

Laying out a potential schedule for getting the 737 MAX back in the air in the United States goes further than the FAA's public statements so far.

 

Elwell declined to answer questions about the private ICAO briefing. "The last thing I want is to put a date out there and then to have anybody, either the FAA, or you or the public drive to the date instead of the end result or the process," he told Reuters at a briefing with reporters after the Fort Worth meeting, which he called "constructive."

 

He repeated previous statements that the FAA will not approve the plane for flight until it has completed a safety analysis, with no set timetable.

 

The path to getting the 737 MAX back in the air outside the United States remains even more uncertain. Canada and Europe said on Wednesday they would bring back the grounded aircraft on their own terms, not the FAA's.

 

Shares of Boeing, the world's largest plane maker, pared earlier losses on Thursday to close down 0.6% at $350.55. The stock has fallen about 17 percent since the second crash, of an Ethiopian Airlines jet in March, wiping about $40 billion off its market value.

 

BLOCKS TO RETURN

The FAA has said it will not reverse its decision to ground the plane until it sees the findings of a multi-agency review of Boeing's plan to fix software on the 737 MAX which the plane maker has described as a common link in the two crashes.

 

Boeing said last week it had completed an update to the software, known as MCAS, which would stop erroneous data from triggering an anti-stall system that automatically turned down the noses of the two planes that crashed, despite pilot efforts to prevent it from doing so.

 

Boeing has yet to formally submit the fix to the FAA and has not set a date to do so.

 

"Once we have addressed the information requests from the FAA, we will be ready to schedule a certification test flight and submit final certification documentation," Boeing communications director Chaz Bickers said on Thursday.

 

Even after the FAA lifts its ban on 737 MAX flights, airlines will have to spend about 100 and 150 hours getting each aircraft ready to fly again after being put in storage, plus time for training pilots on the new software, officials from the three U.S. airlines that operate the 737 MAX told Reuters.

 

Southwest, American and United provided estimates to Reuters after discussing the process with Boeing in Miami earlier this week.

 

FAA associate administrator Ali Bahrami said on Thursday it could take up to a week to return the planes to service following approval, noting that some grounded 737 MAX planes have missed scheduled inspections during the grounding.

 

On top of that, each airline must train its pilots on the new software.

 

Boeing has said that simulator training is not necessary for the 737 MAX, and is recommending a mandatory computer-based course that explains MCAS and could be completed at a pilot's home in about an hour, according to pilot unions.

 

Elwell said on Thursday that "no individual country stood up and said we need to have sim (simulator) training." The FAA has made no decision yet on what type of pilot training will be required. Each airline will be responsible for developing its own training plan once the FAA lays down guidelines.

 

Simulator training remains a "possible option" for Canadian Boeing 737 MAX pilots, but it is too early to say whether it would be mandatory, a Transport Canada official said on Thursday night after the meeting in Fort Worth.

 

"It would be premature not seeing what Boeing has fully proposed yet to determine if simulator training will in fact be included," said Nicholas Robinson, the regulator's director general, civil aviation, told reporters on a conference call.

 

If the FAA hits its target of approving the 737 MAX to fly by the end of June, airlines may still have to adjust their schedules for the busy summer travel season.

 

United has removed the MAX from its flight schedule through July 3, Southwest through Aug. 5 and American through Aug. 19.

 

For Southwest and American, that has meant more than 100 daily flight cancellations during the summer travel season. Both have said they will start using the aircraft as spares if they are ready to fly before those dates.

 

(Reporting by Allison Lampert in Montreal and David Shepardson in Fort Worth, Texas; Additional reporting by Tracy Rucinski in Chicago and Eric Johnson in Seattle; Editing by Matthew Lewis and Bill Rigby)

 

reuters_logo.jpg

 -- © Copyright Reuters 2019-05-24
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, webfact said:

Boeing has said that simulator training is not necessary for the 737 MAX, and is recommending a mandatory computer-based course that explains MCAS and could be completed at a pilot's home in about an hour, according to pilot unions.

What a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Tug said:

Cheep dident want to pass on the extra training nessary to the customer a BIG mistake that being said I have faith in Boeing 

The training wasn't the issue, it was the system they had installed to correct a design C of G imbalance that they were well aware of. The system was (is) flawed and the aircrew were not briefed on the system, or given to tools to override it when it went pear shaped.  What Boeing did was criminal and heads should roll.  Of course, they won't because Boeing is too big and too close to the regulators. Previous success in producing good aircraft does not mitigate the criminal neglect of what they did with this aircraft.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tug said:

They will get it right this time I’d fly on it anytime

 

Famous last words, oft repeated, in aviation history.

 

 

I'm sure Boeing execs, and FAA administrators, will be front and center along with the families, loved ones, etc. to step up and fly.

 

 

No amount of compensation can cover the six minutes of terror experienced screaming nose-down at 0.99 mach.

 

Pinto, Edsel, Corvair, New Coke, Tylenol, Asbestos - plenty of room on the heap.

 

Boeing's only way forward: Tort Reform.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pilotman said:

The training wasn't the issue, it was the system they had installed to correct a design C of G imbalance that they were well aware of. The system was (is) flawed and the aircrew were not briefed on the system, or given to tools to override it when it went pear shaped.  What Boeing did was criminal and heads should roll.  Of course, they won't because Boeing is too big and too close to the regulators. Previous success in producing good aircraft does not mitigate the criminal neglect of what they did with this aircraft.  

Seems like the plane wants to crash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, webfact said:

U.S. regulator sees approval of Boeing 737 MAX to fly as soon as late June - sources

9 hours ago, Pilotman said:

Of course, they won't because Boeing is too big and too close to the regulators.

Smack on Pilotman, which is why I won't get on one.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Pique Dard said:

i`ll avoid flights with boeing 734 max unless it`s the only option left

Dead on , pun intended. Im guessing there will be huge discounts to lure the public back and money rules .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pique Dard said:

i`ll avoid flights with boeing 734 max unless it`s the only option left

 

That's exactly what will happen. People are going to suddenly realize what a big deal this is when they need a connecting flight and will not be able to choose. Boeing is one half of a worldwide duopoly and as such people will simply be forced to fly the 737 Max should they need to go anywhere.

 

I guess retirees living in Thailand will have more leeway because they have the time on their hands. However business people do not have a choice they must be there promptly. Also anybody working and needs to fly the family home for Christmas is going to find a take it or leave it proposition when the flights are all booked out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a good statistic to think about.  In hours flown against passenger numbers, the B737, in all its variants, is statistically the safest aircraft ever produced, and yet, more people have died in B737 crashes than on any other type of aircraft. Of course, this is also a function of the number that have been manufactured, but still a rather interesting fact. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dumbastheycome said:

I am going to  be selfish and say that I will  avoid  flights  on this  aircraft until  multi millions of others  arrive  safely at destination !

 

Easier said than done if you need any connecting flight. For short hops sure, it's just your choices of time slots and dates may be severely limited. But if you don't mind doing a layover in Auckland Honolulu, and Seattle on your way to Shanghai you will have no problems.

 

Again this won't affect the TV crowd much who tend to be unemployed retirees. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Easier said than done if you need any connecting flight. For short hops sure, it's just your choices of time slots and dates may be severely limited. But if you don't mind doing a layover in Auckland Honolulu, and Seattle on your way to Shanghai you will have no problems.

 

Again this won't affect the TV crowd much who tend to be unemployed retirees. 

a lot of those TV 'unemployed retirees' have quite a bit of disposable cash and fly quite as often as those poor employed folk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

a lot of those TV 'unemployed retirees' have quite a bit of disposable cash and fly quite as often as those poor employed folk. 

 

I am only implying they have time that some of us mere mortals don't. Loads of disposable cash and all that time means they won't be as impacted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Easier said than done if you need any connecting flight. For short hops sure, it's just your choices of time slots and dates may be severely limited. But if you don't mind doing a layover in Auckland Honolulu, and Seattle on your way to Shanghai you will have no problems.

 

Again this won't affect the TV crowd much who tend to be unemployed retirees. 

lol. I am a retiree. As  such am unemployed. But I still manage  to  get  out and about a  bit !

And in fact the  airlines I prefer do  not operate the  Max and to date have  cancelled orders  for them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Tug said:

Cheep dident want to pass on the extra training nessary to the customer a BIG mistake that being said I have faith in Boeing 

"Cheep dident", well sorry I only have little faith in you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

 

Again this won't affect the TV crowd much who tend to be unemployed retirees. 

No real need for a snidey, snotty crack like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dumbastheycome said:

lol. I am a retiree. As  such am unemployed. But I still manage  to  get  out and about a  bit !

And in fact the  airlines I prefer do  not operate the  Max and to date have  cancelled orders  for them.

 

 

Sometimes on this forum the perspective seems to be solely of the retiree living in Thailand. My comment is merely pointing out that the other 99.999999% of the human population doesn't have the luxury of traveling anytime they want on a whim. The hesitation to fly will probably persist for a few months. However I can't see people not flying over the holidays when they get time off of work because of this.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pilotman said:

Here is a good statistic to think about.  In hours flown against passenger numbers, the B737, in all its variants, is statistically the safest aircraft ever produced, and yet, more people have died in B737 crashes than on any other type of aircraft. Of course, this is also a function of the number that have been manufactured, but still a rather interesting fact. 

The only 'onboard computer' that I trust in the cockpit is myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never ask about what type of plane I am flying on, so I won't have any problem flying on it.   If I know it's one of these, I might ask the air hostess to make sure she gives the flight crew a special safety demonstration before take off.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know much about aviation, but please tell me if I have understood this:

 

Boeing designes an airplane that cannot fly without a piece of software that corrects the initial design flaw? And we are supposed to trust that piece of software that they maybe have got right this time?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...