[SystemSafety] "FAA chief '100% confident' of 737 MAX safety as flights to resume"

[Kinalzyk, Dietmar AVL/DE]

Olwen, Peter,

I know the best solution is to have stable physical behavior without electronics. Nose up compensation for 737 MAX with MCAS is just a work around.
I would not compare avionics with automotive, but the first A-class Mercedes passed the elch test only with adding stability control like ESP system from Bosch. Never heard any complains after it.


Dietmar KINALZYK
Principal Development Engineer
Product Safety & NON-PT Safety
AVL Software and Functions GmbH
Im Gewerbepark B29, 93059 Regensburg
Germany
www.avl-functions.com

Von: systemsafety <systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de> Im Auftrag von Olwen Morgan
Gesendet: Sonntag, 22. November 2020 16:59
An: systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
Betreff: Re: [SystemSafety] "FAA chief '100% confident' of 737 MAX safety as flights to resume"



On 22/11/2020 15:48, Peter Bernard Ladkin wrote:


On 2020-11-22 15:49 , Olwen Morgan wrote:


 ... the FAA is likely to have been under pressure to accede to demands not to require solution of the problem in the physics.
Not in the slightest.

There would not have been such demands. There is no scope, either in FAA or EASA certification regulations, for requiring a specific kind of solution to an issue where a requirement is not fulfilled.


What charmingly disingenuous weasel-wording!

Both Boeing and the FAA know that fixing the physics is technically the best solution. My belief on this is that Boeing told the FAA (sub rosa) that they didn't want to pay for the best solution and the FAA obligingly rolled over (again).



Still harbouring no intention of flying in a recertified 737 MAX,

Olwen




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/pipermail/systemsafety/attachments/20201123/2dfaf44e/attachment.html>