הכול
← Back to Squawk list
“We will not simply accept FAA’s word on MAX’s safety….” says European Pilots’ Group
“Simply accepting the FAA’s word on the Max’s safety won’t be enough,” the European Cockpit Association said in a statement. The European pilots’ group (ECA) urged the EASA to conduct its own thorough and independent review of the Boeing 737 Max before allowing the planes to fly again. “we will rely heavily on the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) to scrutinise and explain the certification and the potential return to service of the MAX.” (newsinflight.com) עוד...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
The problem is now.. That the FAA has lost all credibility not just with the Flight Crews but equally important, the public. They have shown they have forgotten their primary purpose which is the safety or aircraft and aviation as a whole. Instead they have clearly shown they have put profits before people. In regards to the Boeing 737 MAX .. will the public ever feel safe in it? I wonder how many cabin and Flight crew will not feel safe in it regardless what is found and tested and said to be safe. That is what they said last time. The whole design is flawed. Any aircraft which must have a "MCAS" type system to get it's airworthiness Certificate is to my mind flawed. An aircraft should be stable under its own design without need for any "additional" help... Boeing should just take the hit acknowledge it is flawed and withdraw it totally. That at least in the eyes of the public and those in the industry would go a long way to show that Boeing is committed to safety of everyone... because at the moment they are all wind no action.
At this point I think any safety organization that wishes to lend "a second set of eyes" and opine as to the air worthiness of the MAX should be welcomed by Boeing and the FAA.
If engineers and pilots checked the design instead of the sharp pencil boys (accountants) there would not be a single angle of attack sensor with full control of the elevator.
If engineers and pilots checked the design instead of the sharp pencil boys (accountants) there would not be a single angle of attack sensor with full control of the elevator.
Valid points presented. But the Boeing crashes killed 300+ souls and made front page headlines on every newspaper and news web site in the world. Airbus's problems have had minimal news coverage. In the blame game, anything associated with Boeing is going to take a huge hit.
Funny thing is, while the FAA is taking the heat, EASA was involved in the production and certification oversight as well and never spoke up about any of the certification problems beforehand...
This is what happens when you defer to the FAA.
What does that even mean?
I think he means rely on other regulators to do your job for you.
I’m pretty sure there was more to it, but it wasn’t really articulated.