[ad_1]
The Acting Chief of the Federal Aviation Administration defended the agency's certification procedures regarding the Boeing 737 Max aircraft, now on the ground, and told the House Transportation Committee on Wednesday that the process by which paid employees by the company inspecting their own plane was "a good system".
F.A.A. Daniel Elwell, a senior executive, said his agency was reviewing a decades-old practice that allowed F.A.A. of 79 aircraft manufacturers to participate in aircraft certification. But he said he supported the idea of delegating "certain tasks and decisions" in the certification process to private sector employees, despite criticisms that this practice would have led to lax supervision.
Mr. Elwell, a former pilot and industry lobbyist, had to answer two hours of questions from skeptical members of the committee. This was the first of several hearings the committee intends to hold on the role of the regulator following two fatal accidents involving the distressed airliner.
"How can we have a single point of failure on a modern plane?" Asked representative Peter A. DeFazio, Democrat of Oregon, and the chairman of the commission, who wondered if the system of The inspection could have caused problems with the airliner. "How was this certified? We should not be here today.
Representative Rick Larsen, a Democrat from Washington who heads the Transportation Committee's subcommittee on aviation, lobbied Mr. Elwell on the authorization process for his agent and on the role of the CA. in the development of pilot training procedures for the 737 Max. The pilots were not informed of an anti-stall system, the MCAS, which was new to the aircraft and had played a role in both accidents.
[Liseznotrearticlesurlafaçondont[Readourarticleabouthow[Liseznotrearticlesurlafaçondont[ReadourarticleabouthowBoeing leaders resisted urgent appeals by pilots to repair the 737 Max.]
"The committee's investigation is just beginning and it will take some time to get some answers, but one thing is clear at the moment: the F.A.A. has a credibility problem, "said Larsen.
The 737 Max was stalled in March after an Ethiopian Airlines flight crashed shortly after taking off from Addis Ababa, killing 157 people on board. Less than five months earlier, a flight of the Lion Air 737 Max crashed in Indonesia, killing 189 people.
"I thought the MCAS should have been explained more adequately" to pilots around the world, Elwell said. He wondered whether the pilots had received adequate training on modifications to the aircraft's navigation and stabilization systems.
Mr. Elwell also stated that he was "not satisfied" with the 13-month lag between reports of a "software anomaly" on a control panel indicator and the actions of the company. Boeing to solve the problem. But he said that he did not believe that this problem contributed to one or the other of the accidents.
According to investigators of the agency, Boeing should soon submit a software patch that would prevent the automated system from activating it on the basis of erroneous data, determining factor in both accidents. A first version of the new software is currently tested on simulators, F.A.A. the officials said.
Mr. Elwell gave no schedule for the time when the aircraft could be allowed to fly again. He added that the agency would proceed with aircraft cleaning only on the recommendation of a technical advisory committee composed of several experts from the FAA, the Air Force, NASA and the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center and not having participated in the initial certification of the 737 Max. .
F.A.A. Officials convened a meeting with aviation officials from other countries this month to address their concerns about the plane, he said, with the aim of strengthening the trust in the "grounding" of the plane when it will finally be approved.
Mr. Elwell also emphasized why the CA.A.A. did not anchor the plane until China, much of Europe and Canada already had it.
"Why did it take so long?" Asked Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Democrat and non-voting delegate from the District of Columbia in the House.
"The perception of the public," added Dina Titus, a Nevada Democrat, is: F.A.A. "Is in bed" with Boeing.
Mr. Elwell stated that the decision to dock jet aircraft was based on consultations with Canadian authorities that provided radar tracking information linking the two accidents to the MCAS system. He defended the F.A.A. as a "data-driven" organization and said that of the 24 reports of aircraft handling problems, "none" was linked to the MCAS.
He also suggested throughout the hearing that the lack of experience and the actions of flight crews in both accidents may have contributed to the accidents.
"They never controlled the speed," he said.
Earl Lawrence, Executive Director of Aircraft Certification of the agency, told the F.A.A. was in the process of creating a new office to oversee the public-private inspection process. He added that the 737 Max had only been approved after five years and 10,000 "hours of work".
"We benefit from the expertise of people who design and build the aircraft to help us," said Lawrence.
"I'm proud of my team," he added among federal employees who oversaw Boeing's work.
Also on Wednesday, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation will question Stephen Dickson, the former leader of Delta Air Lines that President Trump has called to permanently head the American airline on the plane.
In the last two months, Mr. DeFazio asked F.A.A. and Boeing with respect to the inspection process and the review undertaken to determine the safety of the MCAS. He focuses particularly on why Boeing did not ask pilots to take additional training with the anti-stall system.
Mr. DeFazio has not yet received any of the requested documents, although the F.A.A. should start providing documents to the committee soon. It is unclear when Boeing intends to respond – and Mr. DeFazio warned the manufacturer that he had to provide the documents "voluntarily" or he would look for other ways to get them.
Senator Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts and a member of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, also sent a request to Boeing for answers on his procedures. He received two pages later that referred to Mr. Elwell's previous public statements, but provided little new information.
Members of the committee sometimes seemed anxious to see Mr. Elwell's reluctance to provide detailed answers about the internal improvements that the agency was planning to undertake.
For his part, Mr. Elwell expressed concern that criticism of the actions of F.A.A. had a negative impact on the agency.
"I'm a little worried about the morale of the FIA right now," said Elwell.
[ad_2]
Source link