Aardvark Daily

Please visit the sponsor!

The FAA has questions to answer

If you live around Portland in the USA then a few days ago you had a lot more to worry about than some Christmas present drone crashing into your garden.

Someone ended up with part of a Boeing 737 Max 9 in the daffodils -- and not a small part.

While a falling plastic drone might create an annoyance, a heavy metal door plug from a Boeing 737 Max 9 which has plumeted from 16,000 feet would almost certainly cause fatal injuries if you happened to be standing in the wrong place at the wrong time.

However, the FAA in the USA seems far more focused on demanding that users of hobby drones and RC model aircraft fit Remote ID (RID) tracking beacons to their craft than they are on ensuring that Boeing lives up to its promises to review its safety systems.

As if the hundreds who died in the Max 8 crashes counted for nothing, the FAA is still playing the wrong ball when it comes to public safety.

Absolutely not good enough!

This week's Max 9 incident highlighted some other massive issues with Boeing's attitudes to safety.

Firstly, in checking this door plug setup on other aircraft, airlines have found multiple instances where the retaining bolts are loose. It's not known yet whether the bolts were not properly torqued down during assembly or whether the torque specification was inadequate for the loads being experienced.

Secondly, it appears that during inspections other bolts in the Max 9 were found to be loose or missing. This time in the rudder control system.

WTF Boeing?

Pilots have also raised another significant issue.

When the Alaskan Airlines Max 9 suffered a rapid decompression through the loss of a door plug, the door which separates the pilot cockpit from the passenger area blew open. This caused pilots to lose an important checklist that was blown out of the aircraft and also resulted in headsets being dislodged.

It was believed that this door would remain shut in such an incident. After all, it would reduce the rate at which the cockpit suffered decompression and it's also supposed to be strong enough to resist attempts to break it down in case of terrorist attacks by passengers.

Pilots are not happy that apparently the door is designed to blow open in such an event and that they weren't notified of this fact. Kind of like pilots weren't notified of the way that the flight trim system worked in the Max 8 -- resulting in the crash of two craft and loss of hundreds of lives.

Perhaps the big problem here is that the Boeing 737 is a *very* old aircraft, 55 years old in fact.

When this craft was first designed and built, engines were far less powerful and its certified passenger load was far lower than the versions flying today. Boeing have been steadily upgrading the 737 over the past half century or so but doing so in a way that has avoided the need for pilots to be recertified with a new type-rating. Retraining pilots to be certified for different aircraft is an expensive operation that can cost airlines a small fortune. Boeing realises that by avoiding this, the 737 has a lower operational cost than a whole new design would.

To avoid having to retrain pilots, Boeing seems to have worked very hard to try and hide many of the changes under a layer of technology. In effect, they fly just like the old ones because computers are doing all the hard work. As a result, pilots don't need to be retrained.

However, this seems to have encouraged Boeing to withhold some very important information from pilots -- as in the case of the Max 8 and now the Max 9. Significant changes to operation would require pilot retraining/recertification so it appears that Boeing would rather just not mention such things -- until they either kill or surprise the pilots.

The 737 Max 9 is an aircraft in huge demand right now and Boeing's order book is full-to-busting, at least in part because of the pricing benefit associated with being an aircraft that requires little or no pilot retraining. With this huge demand, the pressure to take shortcuts during production must be immense -- perhaps explaining the loose or missing bolts that have caused the recent problems.

The FAA should be demanding answers -- but it seems they're just too busy focusing on demanding that toys carry tracking beacons.

Never in the entire history of mankind, anywhere on the planet, has a person died as the result of the recreational use of a multirotor drone. How many have died from Boeing's profit-driven shortcuts? How many more will die?

Am I the only one who thinks that perhaps the FAA also needs a whack upside the head with a clue-stick?

Carpe Diem folks!

Please visit the sponsor!

PERMALINK to this column

Rank This Aardvark Page

Change Font