Back to Squawk list
  • 36

Inspector General report says Boeing shielded key 737 Max details from FAA

Boeing shielded from federal regulators reviewing its 737 Max aircraft the extent and capability of the flawed computer system that ultimately brought down two jets, according to an inspector general report obtained by CNN. The report also faults the Federal Aviation Administration for poor communication and notes it handed over the vast majority -- 87% -- of certification responsibility to Boeing. ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Chris Hann 9
People who have been paying proper attention will notice that MCAS was not the only issue. There was also the problem that making the displays bigger, which dates back to the NG, makes the manual trim wheels too small to move by hand at when the aircraft is at high speed. Smaller diameter wheels have less mechanical advantage. There were other software issues too. Even when the aircraft is released to fly again, the crews now all need training on the new system.
djames225 2
Thks Chris. that point about smaller wheels was never discussed in other squawks. Nice to see others picked up on them as well.
It is ironic that they build the craft with FBW technology, yet leave mechanical trim wheels. Harkens back to the days of having an assignment due for the professor, then realizing on the last day, "OMG I am not done", so parts of it get cobbled together from older assignments.
Hopefully all the kinks are ironed out, as it's costing many lots of $$.
Stefan Sobol 3
Even if the wheels are smaller a) it wouldn't make that much different because the wheels aren't that large to begin with and b) they could adjust the mechanical advantage elsewhere in the system to make it equivalent.
bentwing60 2
They could have had a 15" Cragar on both sides and not be able to move it at 400 + a bunch knts!
djames225 0
I never brought up anything about the crashes, so do not know why you did.
If anyone can't move the wheels @ 400 knots, there is an issue, since cruise speed is 453-454 knots.
F A 0
After seeing your post [djames225] I became very discouraged.

If you aren’t a pilot, please stop posting things like “if anyone can’t move the wheels...blah blah”, because you don’t understand how trim works, the purpose of the trim wheel, the actual corrective action when you find yourself over 250 knots faster than the trim speed of the aircraft (hint, slow down a tad, don’t touch the wheel yet)...if you are a pilot please reach out to a mentor and send him/her your draft posting for review.

And get some refresher time with an instructor focused on stuck/disabled trim. Again, only if you are a pilot.
bentwing60 2
Well, F A, you beat him up with facts and here is another crucial one, Vne 340knts.
bentwing60 -1
Refer to runaway stab. trim in the emergency procedures, it has an indicated airspeed limit!
geroldn 7
Did you notice the part where Boeing presented the differences between the 737 and 737MAX in 500(!) slides over 2 days to the FAA. No human can possibly digest that. Boeing then buries 2 slides about the MCAS in that briefing. No wonder the FAA (or anyone else with authority) didn't catch that. It gives a whole new meaning to the phrase 'death by PowerPoint'.
There's a political party in Switzerland whose ENTIRE platform is the elimination of PowerPoint.
hal pushpak 2
Oooh. That last sentence..
bentwing60 2
The poignant point is that No fed followed up on the 'death by PowerPoint' and knew what was goin' on in the 'game'. But, in the end it was the FAA that issued the type and airworthiness certificates.
Clive Tudge 2
Not 2 slides, 2 lines of text. Even worse!
K R 1
Depends a lot on what is on the slide. 4 minutes a slide is certainly possible (I can certainly read a technical one in in my engineering subject matter in that time) but depends a lot on the subject matter (how complex and how many bullet points)and the knowledge of the reader. I can't see that there are sufficient real technically important differences between 737 generations to generate 500 slides requiring technical understanding. I presume therefore that most of the slides were quick & easy to comprehend - "fluff or marketing" slides I call them. So yes, the presenters could be accused of padding their presentation with not relevant material, but any competent viewer can ask them to flip through the "fluff" slides and focus on (and come back to, if necessary) a discussion on the relevant content - MCAS being an obvious one since no competent engineer I know believes the hype of AI in any area of engineering. I still think that this whole issue comes down to the competency of the (underfunded) FAA viewers (should have been competent engineers not incompetent engineers or accountants or lawyers). And to come back to the report from the IG. Boeing "shielded" data from incompetent FAA. No competent engineer gets "shielded" from the data for any length of time, and certainly not by "approval time". The IG is just trying to cover the ass of the Government who caused the problem by under-funding the FAA and put idiots in charge (ones who would not go public about the under-funding compromising the integrity of the FAA) by whining "its Boeing's fault that they did not/could not dumb down the presentation to the intelligence/experience level of the FAA". The IG is in fact "shielding" the ass of the Government from being spanked.
DGR Rathborne 2
It's amazing to me how much authority the FAA gave Boeing ,and how much Boeing deceived . But what about this new certification of the Max . This has to be the most perfect plane ever made . But i still don't know how that can be replicated on all the Max Aircraft out in Airline hands , and the #'s of Max's made and never delivered . There is still an enormous amount of work ahead for all parties , Airlines and other Country regulators , before they will have all of the Max's back in the air . .....
21voyageur 4
Unfortunately there are many lives that were lost with grieving families due to the gov't allowing Boeing to govern themselves. Yes Boeing should be held accountable for deceiving the FAA but the system was set up in a manner that allowed that to happen. Shame on the government for allowing that and shame on Boeing for placing greed ahead of human life.
K R 1
The IG is just trying to cover the ass of the Government who caused the problem by under-funding the FAA and put idiots in charge (ones who would not go public about the under-funding compromising the integrity of the FAA) by whining "its Boeing's fault that they did not/could not dumb down the presentation to the intelligence/experience level of the FAA". The IG is in fact "shielding" the ass of the Government from being spanked.
darjr26 1
Would there even be a 737 Max if it wasn’t for Southwest’s insistence for a common type rating?
Jim DeTour 1
Could of sworn some of the info I saw on developing the software had a couple Indian names making the software. Also thinking it was sort of a contracted engineering deal. I don't think it would go well if they weren't American citizens with no prior aircraft systems experience. Not good for company or FAA.
DGR Rathborne 1
your belief that if you have a foreign name , then your just off the boat . They could be MIT grads and 2nd generation Americans . By your comments can also draw a pretty clear picture of you .

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

djames225 10
Robert...ENOUGH with the political pandering. This is an aviation site, not a place to keep airing your political agendas. It creeps in enough without it being purposely inserted.
Thank you, we come here to discuss topics concerning our love for Aviation not to hear political rants.
bentwing60 1
djames225, when you figure out that you can BS some of the people some of the time, but none of the old pros. ever, you will be one step ahead of robert.
Robert Cowling -8
But politics has infected all of our lives, and in many ways that people can't even fathom. I'm sure that American politics was last on the minds of the people that died in the two crashes, but toxic politics allowed Boeing to do 87+ percent of the certification approvals for THEIR OWN PRODUCT!

Politics is unavoidable as it gets more and more toxic. It oozes through everything. It's killing and driving people apart every day! Sorry to bring it up, but damn, to ignore it is just bizarre. IF the same crap happens that allowed the MAX to fly, will you also be the first to defend the process that accomplished nothing meaningful? We all need to be aware at what is happening and the ramifications of it. We will pay for decades for what is happening now. Many, too many with their lives.
Greg S 11
You really comes across most of the time as a toddler having a temper tantrum. Your thinking is so simplistic you should be embarrassed to express it. Your's is the mindset that says "if it saves just one life it's worth it" and yet is unable to understand that regulation also costs lives. Everything is a trade-off.
Dave Hahn 1
I enter these sites in part because he is predictable as to his childish comments
F A 5
“ toxic politics allowed Boeing to do 87+ percent of the certification approvals for THEIR OWN PRODUCT!”

It’s economics, not politics that holds the final say in matters like this. Growing the FAA to accomplish this function would have cost money in funding and personnel. Boeing was probably very happy with the economic decision - or maybe they weren’t happy with that decision since they had to grow their own personnel and fund extra workers to self certify, thereby adding an extra cost to the final product.

From my perspective I place more weight on economics, not saying that politics doesn’t also come into play.
EASA in Europe will require a triple system to eliminate one system if it does not agree with the other 2.

Boeing put landing gear that was much longer on the KC135s to hang CFM 56 engines where they belong. Put the 737 engines where they belong aerodynamically and they don’t need the fix.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

d. thayer -1
Hmmm, racist!
Dave Hahn 7
Who cares at this point
Franky16 1
Nothing to do with racism, it’s about reality...


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.