Back to Squawk list
  • 36

Changes coming at FAA after crashes, watchdog says

(CNN)The Federal Aviation Administration and an inspector general will signal changes to aviation safety oversight in the wake of two fatal Boeing 737 MAX 8 crashes, according to prepared testimony obtained by CNN for a highly anticipated congressional hearing. Dan Elwell, the acting FAA administrator, will tell members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation's Subcommittee on Aviation and Space Wednesday afternoon that the agency's "oversight approach… ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

JJ Johnson 3
"Changes coming" "oversight approach needs to evolve" translated is people died so we need to CYA. We (The FAA) can't be proactive and look around corners and catch issues of this magnitude before they happen. We must live up to our reputation as the "Tombstone" agency and wait for people to DIE then we will issue feel good empty statements like "Change is coming" and 'We need to evolve" You don't fool anyone you are just covering your rumps. Look up the word "Proactive" A word you need to learn FAA. If you are in the safety business you must think of worst case scenarios ahead of time not wait for people to die or airframes to be lost.
bentwing60 3
You do realize that the original charter documents for the FAA (nee CAA) read, and I paraphrase, "To promote and regulate the nascent aviation industry". I don't believe it has changed to this day. The dichotomy of the very charter explains some of the questionable relationships vis a vis the evolution of the industry and their regulators/promoters. I'd guess from the Tombstone term you are a soap boxer, not a barnstormer. I used to ride around airshows on golf carts with a couple of local feds, it was a different era.
ken young 1
Here is a dose of governmental reality.
What we experience with govt action is similar across the board.
For example. Significant road improvements designed to improve safety despite obvious safety hazards. Nope, government won't budget on these until the crash and fatality statistics warrant the change.
It is almost to be believed that govt officials see the concerns and say "no one has died. Don't spend the money".
Does it come as no surprise that most Americans have a particular disdain toward government and those in office? Does it also come as no surprise we object to paying exorbitant taxes because we believe our money is being wasted on nonsense

Highflyer1950 3
Ok, so now we will have two AOA sensors to agree with each other in order to activate MCAS, should have been that way from the start? Plus now you get thta pretty little annunciator free of charge as well? Like Sully, you plow through a flock of birds and they take out both AOA Vanes and the MCAS activates at 2800’, at least everyone now knows about those two trim cutout switches! I honestly can’t fathom any airline not ordering the AOA indicators and annunciator with any model, not just the Max. Poor planning by the two airlines and poor training.
bentwing60 2
Remember the old AOA referencers on the Sabres mounted on the glare shield? They had an uppy arrow, a downy arrow and the green segmented circle in the middle. The arrows were for fast or slow and the green circle meant "on speed" when fully configured and represented 1.3 Vso, or pretty much Vref. I know you know this HF, I'm just splainin it for the younger crowd and pointing out that some of the OLD stuff was quite effective and didn't require a rocket scientist to use it.
Highflyer1950 1
Sure do! It made circling approaches at night in a Learjet a breeze.
bentwing60 1
Which was pretty much the norm with a NW wind at TEB, ILS 6, circle to 1 and a pretty good perspective of the view of the tall tower light bulb changers. Cheers
Tom Zaidman 2
Why wasnt the MCAS automatic activation not mentioned in the manuals? Oviously trying to hide that the Max had a balance problem with the new engines. Am I right.
Roy Corrales 1
Tom of course you're right... I share the same opinion here, root problem was money and a perverted airframe with bigger engines causing a balance big problem, then all the other issues following. But STILL MANY PEOPLE hiding the dirt under the carpet and blaming the dead pilots for lack of training.
The FAA was wrong, however the airline companies must also share in the blame for these disasters. The bottom line is that $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$,s rule. Above any safety consideration, money and lobbyists are responsible for our current situation. The travelling public deserve better.
al potter -1
The airline was the one saving $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. A 200 hour co-pilot is likely the main or only reason the plane crashed. No telling what the maintenance by the airline if they use novices for pilots.
I see everyone is talking about "software updates" I would guess most of us have been around the block with "software" with Microsoft and how RELIABLE software is this to me is not to bright. A slight mention of the AOS sensors is sounds like the real problem. Are these of a poor design that they are providing false info to the "software"? Are these sensors a complex "level". Sounds like a carpenter level in the cockpit would do the trick but to allow "software" to rule is NOT GOOD!
Philip Lanum 1
Microsoft has absolutely nothing to do with flight deck avionics, your analogy is bordering on the simplistic. Software in aircraft is updated all the time in accordance with established procedures by the airframe vendor, government regulators and component suppliers.

It is AOA sensor not AOS. Boeing's mistakes in this case was not using both AOA sensors but only one, inadequate Fault Tree evaluation of the MCAS system for single component failure and very poor training updates on the MAX.

In today's aircraft software rules, it is a fact of life and has been since "glass" flight decks were introduced. "Carpenters level", what a joke, never worked for a airframe manufacture have you. Nice try at trolling.
F Minook 1
I read somewhere that the right side AOA was an accessory and would cost the buyer extra to activate. The right side AOA is in place because the 1st crash had the data in the black box. It was only the left side AOA data that had Electrostatic charges riding on the data. That almost indicate that the aircraft skin charges were entering the computer and activating the MCAS function. They need to find the basic fault of why the aircraft skin was conducting electrostatic charges into the AOA cabling. The new standard by Boeing will require both AOA data to be compared to prevent the MCAS system total control of the stall system. You are correct that the software changes are simple to install and require about 2 hours at most. It took us about an hour a bus to install all the route data changes.
john krull -2
I am honestly sorry to point this out, but... Weren't those 2 crashes outside of the U.S.? (Sorry for pointing the finger at other countries). Could it be that these countries need to revamp their flight instruction to not only keep up with the ever changing instrumentation, but for Boeing itself to send better instruction manuals on their upgraded instruments? I point out that the crashes occurred in other countries, only for the fact that, although I have heard of problems with the upgrades here in the U.S. but no actual crashes.

To me it's either the foreign countries not providing the best flight instruction, or Boeing not providing the best info on the new upgrades
Tom Bruce 1
Ethiopia has a very good safety record... it's Boeing and the FAA
bentwing60 1
Does it not occur to you and the previous poster that US pilots experienced the same issues and responded appropriately? No absolution of Boeing or the FAA but a clear cut indication of the proper flight crew response resulting in a squawk as opposed to fatalities.
Don Copley 1
John check out this article by a fellow pilot... He actually posts some NASA reports by US pilots complaining about the MAX doing stupid stuff and Boeing's training.


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.