Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2017
- Messages
- 5,082
- Reaction score
- -15
- Country
- Location
US FAA was investigated: FAA handed over 737MAX safety certification job to Boeing itself
https://www.guancha.cn/internation/2019_03_18_493996.shtml
2019-03-18 12:45:15
Source: Observer Network
Keywords: Ethiopian air crash Boeing 737MAX safety assessment deposit leaks US Federal Aviation Administration
(Observer Network News)
Ethiopian Airlines’ air crashes still hang around the world. As the investigation deepens, Boeing is likely to face even greater challenges and crises: 11 days ago, before the Ethiopian air crash, the media sent a safety hazard report to Boeing and the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), but it was sinking Since there is a problem with the Boeing 737MAX flight control system, how is it certified by the safety authorization?
A Seattle-based newspaper, Seattle Times, published an article on March 17th entitled "Defective Analysis, Failure Supervision: How Boeing and FAA Certified the Suspicious Boeing 737MAX Flight Control System." The US federal government's security investigators believe that there is a critical omission in the safety assessment of the new flight control system used by the Boeing 737MAX aircraft, and the federal government is not responsible for aircraft safety certification.
In order to catch up with the progress of competitor Airbus, FAA management constantly urged the security engineering team to complete the authorization certification quickly, so entrusted the security certification work to Boeing's own team, on the one hand, to reduce the review work. In addition, Boeing's 737MAX passenger aircraft was designed with systemic flaws and “errors” in the safety assessment report to provide data to influence the assessment results; in order to attract more airline buyers, Boeing even concealed the installation of a new flight system, reducing Pilot training is a selling point to save huge costs.
According to the latest news from the Wall Street Journal, a person familiar with the matter said that the US Department of Transportation is investigating the FAA's approval of the Boeing 737MAX passenger aircraft. The Wall Street Journal said it was an "unusual investigation" of potential mistakes in the safety approval of new aircraft.
Boeing 737MAX8 passenger aircraft @Visual China
The Seattle Times quoted FAA's current and former engineers as saying that after the introduction of the new 737MAX passenger aircraft in 2015, Boeing submitted a safety assessment for the new flight control system of the passenger aircraft to the FAA in order to obtain the federal government's certification. The system is called the "manipulation feature increase system." (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, referred to as MCAS).
Unlike Boeing's tradition of giving pilots full control over the aircraft, the new flight control system prevented pilots from fully controlling the aircraft. Because the engine of the Boeing 737MAX passenger aircraft is too large, the position on the wing must be higher, resulting in a change in the aerodynamic lift of the passenger aircraft.
Boeing engineers conducted a system safety analysis for MCAS through a FAA-authorized representative, followed by a document entitled “Development to ensure the safe operation of the 737MAX” was shared by aviation safety regulators around the world, including Europe and Canada. The paper concludes that the system complies with all FAA regulations.
How the MCAS system runs on a Boeing 737MAX passenger aircraft Image from the Seattle Times
However, FAA engineers found that the security assessment submitted by Boeing has the following problems:
1. The safety report does not adequately identify the full power of the new flight control system. In order to prevent the aircraft from stalling in the air, the flight control system can rotate the flat tail of the aircraft with the nose facing down. However, after the passenger aircraft is in service, the MCAS rotation speed is more than four times higher than the initial safety assessment marked;
2. The report does not explain how the system automatically resets when the driver responds, nor does it fully take into account the potential impact that the system may continue to push the nose down;
Third, the system's risk assessment is rated as “hazardous” and is one level lower than “catastrophic”. Even at the “dangerous” level, the single sensor signal cannot be used to prevent the flight control system from starting, and the Boeing 737MAX system is designed in this way;
4. According to the report, the angle of rotation of the flat tail of the passenger plane is less than 0.6 degrees. However, after the crash of the Indonesian Lion Air 610 flight in October last year, Boeing’s first explanation of the “manipulation characteristics increase system” provided by various airlines marked the angle as 2.5 degrees.
These problems have shocked engineers. After the investigation of the lion's crash, the only sensor on the Boeing 737MAX aircraft that protruded out of the aircraft failed, causing the flight control system to be activated multiple times before the plane crashed. The nose was pushed down and the pilot was desperately pulling the plane up.
Security engineers told their findings to the Seattle Times. Subsequently, the newspaper informed the Boeing Company and the FAA about the news 11 days ago, that is, the Ethiopian March 10 air crash, but did not receive any response.
After the crash, on March 15, the FAA stated that the certification of the Boeing 737MAX aircraft complies with the standard procedures. A FAA spokesperson said that due to the recent rush, the FAA “cannot comment on any detailed questions”.
On March 16th, Boeing issued a statement saying that “FAA took into account the final assembly structure and operating parameters of the “manipulation feature addition system” in the 737MAX certification process, and considered that the system complies with all certification and regulatory requirements.”
Boeing also said that because the Ethiopian air crash is under investigation, it is impossible to comment. When asked about the specifics of the "manipulation feature increase system" safety assessment, Boeing only said that "many statements are very inaccurate", but did not directly respond to MACS certification defects.
According to several technical experts within the FAA, the Indonesian Lion Air crash is only the latest sign that the safety certification team has done too much. The Lion Aviation Survey has clearly shown that it is related to the MACS system, and Boeing employees have a safety analysis of the Boeing aircraft. Such a big power is not appropriate.
A FAA security engineer said that we must ensure that the FAA is more involved in the failure assessment.
At the same time, the Ethiopian air crash investigation has made the latest progress. Reuters said on the 17th, according to aircraft black box data, the crash of the Ethiopian Boeing 737MAX flight and the Indonesian Lion Air crash in October last year have obvious similarities.
FAA entrusts safety certification to Boeing
According to the Seattle Times, the FAA has delegated more aircraft safety certification work to Boeing for years due to lack of funds and resources.
Initially in the safety certification for the Boeing 737MAX aircraft, the FAA Safety Engineering team delegated a portion of the technical assessment directly to Boeing and retained it as a relatively more critical part of the FAA.
However, several FAA technical experts said in an interview that management has been urging them to accelerate during the certification process. Because the Boeing 737MAX competitor is the European Airbus A320neo, the Boeing 737MAX is nine months behind Airbus. Time is of the utmost importance to Boeing if you want to catch up with Airbus.
A former FAA security engineer who directly participated in the 737MAX passenger aircraft certification said that during the certification process, “management asked us to re-evaluate the content of the mandate. The management believes that we have reserved too much for the FAA.”
“The pressure to reassess the initial decision has always existed,” the former engineer said. “Even after our reassessment... management continues to discuss that more projects should be entrusted to Boeing.”
Moreover, even part of the work reserved for the FAA is sometimes subject to reduction restrictions, such as reviewing technical documents provided by Boeing. He added that “there is no comprehensive and appropriate review of these documents”, “in order to complete within a specific certification period, the review process is very hasty.”
When the time left for FAA technicians is too short to complete the review, sometimes either the manager signs the document himself or delegates the review to Boeing.
The engineer said, "Only FAA managers, not security agency technical experts, have the power to finalize the authorization."
Finally, the Boeing 737 MAX aircraft was certified by the FAA in 2017.
US Federal Aviation Administration @Vision China
https://www.guancha.cn/internation/2019_03_18_493996.shtml
美FAA被调查：将737MAX安全认证交给波音自己
https://www.guancha.cn/internation/2019_03_18_493996.shtml
2019-03-18 12:45:15
来源：观察者网
关键字:埃塞俄比亚空难波音737MAX安全评估存纰漏美国联邦航空管理局被查
（观察者网讯）
埃塞俄比亚航空公司空难伤痛仍笼罩着全世界。随着调查的深入，波音公司恐怕将面临更大的质疑和危机：11天前，也就是埃塞俄比亚空难发生前，媒体将一份安全隐患报告发送给波音和美国联邦航空局（FAA），却石沉大海；既然波音737MAX飞行控制系统存在问题，那又是如何通过安全授权认证的？
波音总部所在地西雅图的一家媒体《西雅图时报》3月17日发表一篇文章，题为“有缺陷的分析、失败的监督：波音、FAA是如何认证可疑的波音737MAX飞行控制系统的”。美国联邦政府的安全调查员认为，波音737MAX客机使用的新型飞行控制系统的安全评估存在关键疏漏，联邦政府对飞机安全认证也没有尽责。
为了追赶竞争对手空客的进度，FAA管理层不断敦促安全工程团队迅速完成授权认证，于是一边将安全认证工作委托给波音自己的团队，一方面缩减审查工作。此外，波音的737MAX客机的设计中出现系统性纰漏，并在安全评估报告中“错误”提供数据从而影响评估结果；为了吸引更多航空公司买家，波音甚至隐瞒了安装新型飞行系统一事，减少飞行员培训，以节省巨大成本作为卖点。
美国《华尔街日报》最新消息，有知情人士透露，美国交通部正在对FAA批准波音737MAX客机的情况进行调查。华尔街日报称，这是一项针对新飞机的安全批准存在潜在失误的“不寻常调查”。
波音737MAX8客机 @视觉中国
西雅图时报援引FAA现任及前任工程师的话称，波音公司2015年推出737MAX新型客机后，为了获得联邦政府的认证，向FAA提交了客机新型飞行控制系统的安全评估，该系统全称是“操纵特性增加系统（Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System，简称MCAS）。
与过去波音公司给予飞行员完全控制飞机的传统不一样的是，这套新型飞行控制系统让飞行员无法完全控制飞机。因为波音737MAX客机的引擎过大，所以在机翼上的位置必须更加靠前，从而导致客机的气动升力发生了改变。
波音工程师经FAA授权代表为MCAS进行系统安全分析，随后一份名为“为确保737MAX安全运行而开发”的文件在欧洲、加拿大等世界各地的航空安全监管机构共享。这份文件得出的结论是，该系统符合所有FAA法规。
MCAS系统如何在波音737MAX客机上运行 图片来自西雅图时报
但是FAA工程师发现，波音提交的安全评估存在以下问题：
一、安全报告没有充分标识出新型飞行控制系统的全部动力。为了防止飞机空中失速，飞行控制系统可以转动飞机的平尾，让机头朝下。但客机服役后，MCAS转动速度要比初始安全评估标出的速度高出四倍多；
二、报告没有解释当驾驶员做出响应后系统如何及时自动复位，也未能充分考虑到系统还可能继续将机头往下推的潜在影响；
三、系统的危险评估定为“危险性”（“hazardous”）等级，比“灾难性”低了一级。即便是“危险性”等级，也不能只靠单一传感器的信号来阻止飞行控制系统的启动，而波音737MAX这套系统恰恰是这样设计的；
四、报告称，客机平尾的转动角度小于0.6度。但去年10月印尼狮航610航班坠毁后，波音公司首次向各个航空公司提供的“操纵特性增加系统”说明中则把角度标成2.5度。
以上这些问题令工程师们十分震惊。狮航失事后的调查显示，波音737MAX客机上伸出机外的唯一传感器失灵，导致飞机坠毁之前飞行控制系统被多次启动，机头不断下推，飞行员则拼命将飞机向上拉抬。
安全工程师将他们的发现告诉了西雅图时报。随后，该报在11天前、也就是埃塞俄比亚3月10日空难发生之前，将这一消息通报了波音公司和FAA，但都没有得到任何回应。
空难发生后，3月15日，FAA表示，对波音737MAX客机的认证遵守标准程序。FAA的一位发言人表示，由于最近过于繁忙，FAA“无法对任何详细质询作出置评”。
3月16日，波音公司又发表声明称，“FAA在737MAX的认证过程中考虑到了‘操纵特性增加系统’最终的装配结构和操作参数，认为该系统符合所有的认证及规章要求”。
波音还表示，由于埃塞俄比亚空难正在调查中，无法进行评论。当被问及“操纵特性增加系统”安全评估的具体情况时，波音仅表示，“很多说法都非常不准确”，但是没有直接对MACS的认证缺陷作出回应。
据FAA内部若干技术专家认为，印尼狮航坠机事故仅仅是安全认证团队做得太过的最新迹象，狮航空难调查已明确显示与MACS系统有关，而且波音公司员工对波音飞机的安全分析拥有如此大的权力是不合适的。
FAA的一位安全工程师表示，我们必须确保FAA更多地参与到故障评估中去。
同时，埃塞俄比亚空难调查有了最新进展。路透社17日称，据飞机黑匣子数据显示，埃塞俄比亚波音737MAX航班的坠毁与去年10月印尼狮航坠毁有明显相似之处。
FAA将安全认证委托给波音
据西雅图时报透露，FAA以缺乏资金和资源为由，多年来将更多的飞机安全认证工作授权给波音公司。
起初在针对波音737MAX客机的安全认证中，FAA安全工程团队将一部分技术评估直接委托给波音，并将其认为相对更关键的一部分仍保留给FAA。
但是，数名FAA技术专家在采访中表示，在认证过程中，管理层不断催促他们加速。因为波音737MAX客机的竞争对手是欧洲空客的A320neo客机，但是波音737MAX的研发比空客晚了9个月。若想要赶超空客，时间对波音而言至关重要。
一位直接参与737MAX客机认证的前FAA安全工程师表示，在认证途中，“管理层要求我们重新评估委托授权的内容。管理层认为我们保留了太多给FAA。”
“重新评估最初决定的压力一直存在”，这位前工程师称，“即使在我们重新评估后……管理层仍在继续讨论应将更多的项目委托给波音公司。”
而且，即便是保留给FAA的一部分工作中，有时还会遭到缩减限制，比如审查波音公司提供的技术文件。他补充称，“没有对这些文件进行全面适当的审查”，“为了在特定认证期内完成，审查过程非常匆忙。”
当留给FAA技术人员的时间太短而无法完成审查时，有时要么是管理者自己签署文件，要么将审查委托给波音公司。
这位工程师表示，“只有FAA的管理人员、而不是安全机构技术专家，才拥有最终授权的权力。”
最后，波音737 MAX客机于2017年获得FAA授权认证。
美国联邦航空管理局 @视觉中国
https://www.guancha.cn/internation/2019_03_18_493996.shtml
2019-03-18 12:45:15
Source: Observer Network
Keywords: Ethiopian air crash Boeing 737MAX safety assessment deposit leaks US Federal Aviation Administration
(Observer Network News)
Ethiopian Airlines’ air crashes still hang around the world. As the investigation deepens, Boeing is likely to face even greater challenges and crises: 11 days ago, before the Ethiopian air crash, the media sent a safety hazard report to Boeing and the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), but it was sinking Since there is a problem with the Boeing 737MAX flight control system, how is it certified by the safety authorization?
A Seattle-based newspaper, Seattle Times, published an article on March 17th entitled "Defective Analysis, Failure Supervision: How Boeing and FAA Certified the Suspicious Boeing 737MAX Flight Control System." The US federal government's security investigators believe that there is a critical omission in the safety assessment of the new flight control system used by the Boeing 737MAX aircraft, and the federal government is not responsible for aircraft safety certification.
In order to catch up with the progress of competitor Airbus, FAA management constantly urged the security engineering team to complete the authorization certification quickly, so entrusted the security certification work to Boeing's own team, on the one hand, to reduce the review work. In addition, Boeing's 737MAX passenger aircraft was designed with systemic flaws and “errors” in the safety assessment report to provide data to influence the assessment results; in order to attract more airline buyers, Boeing even concealed the installation of a new flight system, reducing Pilot training is a selling point to save huge costs.
According to the latest news from the Wall Street Journal, a person familiar with the matter said that the US Department of Transportation is investigating the FAA's approval of the Boeing 737MAX passenger aircraft. The Wall Street Journal said it was an "unusual investigation" of potential mistakes in the safety approval of new aircraft.
Boeing 737MAX8 passenger aircraft @Visual China
The Seattle Times quoted FAA's current and former engineers as saying that after the introduction of the new 737MAX passenger aircraft in 2015, Boeing submitted a safety assessment for the new flight control system of the passenger aircraft to the FAA in order to obtain the federal government's certification. The system is called the "manipulation feature increase system." (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, referred to as MCAS).
Unlike Boeing's tradition of giving pilots full control over the aircraft, the new flight control system prevented pilots from fully controlling the aircraft. Because the engine of the Boeing 737MAX passenger aircraft is too large, the position on the wing must be higher, resulting in a change in the aerodynamic lift of the passenger aircraft.
Boeing engineers conducted a system safety analysis for MCAS through a FAA-authorized representative, followed by a document entitled “Development to ensure the safe operation of the 737MAX” was shared by aviation safety regulators around the world, including Europe and Canada. The paper concludes that the system complies with all FAA regulations.
How the MCAS system runs on a Boeing 737MAX passenger aircraft Image from the Seattle Times
However, FAA engineers found that the security assessment submitted by Boeing has the following problems:
1. The safety report does not adequately identify the full power of the new flight control system. In order to prevent the aircraft from stalling in the air, the flight control system can rotate the flat tail of the aircraft with the nose facing down. However, after the passenger aircraft is in service, the MCAS rotation speed is more than four times higher than the initial safety assessment marked;
2. The report does not explain how the system automatically resets when the driver responds, nor does it fully take into account the potential impact that the system may continue to push the nose down;
Third, the system's risk assessment is rated as “hazardous” and is one level lower than “catastrophic”. Even at the “dangerous” level, the single sensor signal cannot be used to prevent the flight control system from starting, and the Boeing 737MAX system is designed in this way;
4. According to the report, the angle of rotation of the flat tail of the passenger plane is less than 0.6 degrees. However, after the crash of the Indonesian Lion Air 610 flight in October last year, Boeing’s first explanation of the “manipulation characteristics increase system” provided by various airlines marked the angle as 2.5 degrees.
These problems have shocked engineers. After the investigation of the lion's crash, the only sensor on the Boeing 737MAX aircraft that protruded out of the aircraft failed, causing the flight control system to be activated multiple times before the plane crashed. The nose was pushed down and the pilot was desperately pulling the plane up.
Security engineers told their findings to the Seattle Times. Subsequently, the newspaper informed the Boeing Company and the FAA about the news 11 days ago, that is, the Ethiopian March 10 air crash, but did not receive any response.
After the crash, on March 15, the FAA stated that the certification of the Boeing 737MAX aircraft complies with the standard procedures. A FAA spokesperson said that due to the recent rush, the FAA “cannot comment on any detailed questions”.
On March 16th, Boeing issued a statement saying that “FAA took into account the final assembly structure and operating parameters of the “manipulation feature addition system” in the 737MAX certification process, and considered that the system complies with all certification and regulatory requirements.”
Boeing also said that because the Ethiopian air crash is under investigation, it is impossible to comment. When asked about the specifics of the "manipulation feature increase system" safety assessment, Boeing only said that "many statements are very inaccurate", but did not directly respond to MACS certification defects.
According to several technical experts within the FAA, the Indonesian Lion Air crash is only the latest sign that the safety certification team has done too much. The Lion Aviation Survey has clearly shown that it is related to the MACS system, and Boeing employees have a safety analysis of the Boeing aircraft. Such a big power is not appropriate.
A FAA security engineer said that we must ensure that the FAA is more involved in the failure assessment.
At the same time, the Ethiopian air crash investigation has made the latest progress. Reuters said on the 17th, according to aircraft black box data, the crash of the Ethiopian Boeing 737MAX flight and the Indonesian Lion Air crash in October last year have obvious similarities.
FAA entrusts safety certification to Boeing
According to the Seattle Times, the FAA has delegated more aircraft safety certification work to Boeing for years due to lack of funds and resources.
Initially in the safety certification for the Boeing 737MAX aircraft, the FAA Safety Engineering team delegated a portion of the technical assessment directly to Boeing and retained it as a relatively more critical part of the FAA.
However, several FAA technical experts said in an interview that management has been urging them to accelerate during the certification process. Because the Boeing 737MAX competitor is the European Airbus A320neo, the Boeing 737MAX is nine months behind Airbus. Time is of the utmost importance to Boeing if you want to catch up with Airbus.
A former FAA security engineer who directly participated in the 737MAX passenger aircraft certification said that during the certification process, “management asked us to re-evaluate the content of the mandate. The management believes that we have reserved too much for the FAA.”
“The pressure to reassess the initial decision has always existed,” the former engineer said. “Even after our reassessment... management continues to discuss that more projects should be entrusted to Boeing.”
Moreover, even part of the work reserved for the FAA is sometimes subject to reduction restrictions, such as reviewing technical documents provided by Boeing. He added that “there is no comprehensive and appropriate review of these documents”, “in order to complete within a specific certification period, the review process is very hasty.”
When the time left for FAA technicians is too short to complete the review, sometimes either the manager signs the document himself or delegates the review to Boeing.
The engineer said, "Only FAA managers, not security agency technical experts, have the power to finalize the authorization."
Finally, the Boeing 737 MAX aircraft was certified by the FAA in 2017.
US Federal Aviation Administration @Vision China
https://www.guancha.cn/internation/2019_03_18_493996.shtml
美FAA被调查：将737MAX安全认证交给波音自己
https://www.guancha.cn/internation/2019_03_18_493996.shtml
2019-03-18 12:45:15
来源：观察者网
关键字:埃塞俄比亚空难波音737MAX安全评估存纰漏美国联邦航空管理局被查
（观察者网讯）
埃塞俄比亚航空公司空难伤痛仍笼罩着全世界。随着调查的深入，波音公司恐怕将面临更大的质疑和危机：11天前，也就是埃塞俄比亚空难发生前，媒体将一份安全隐患报告发送给波音和美国联邦航空局（FAA），却石沉大海；既然波音737MAX飞行控制系统存在问题，那又是如何通过安全授权认证的？
波音总部所在地西雅图的一家媒体《西雅图时报》3月17日发表一篇文章，题为“有缺陷的分析、失败的监督：波音、FAA是如何认证可疑的波音737MAX飞行控制系统的”。美国联邦政府的安全调查员认为，波音737MAX客机使用的新型飞行控制系统的安全评估存在关键疏漏，联邦政府对飞机安全认证也没有尽责。
为了追赶竞争对手空客的进度，FAA管理层不断敦促安全工程团队迅速完成授权认证，于是一边将安全认证工作委托给波音自己的团队，一方面缩减审查工作。此外，波音的737MAX客机的设计中出现系统性纰漏，并在安全评估报告中“错误”提供数据从而影响评估结果；为了吸引更多航空公司买家，波音甚至隐瞒了安装新型飞行系统一事，减少飞行员培训，以节省巨大成本作为卖点。
美国《华尔街日报》最新消息，有知情人士透露，美国交通部正在对FAA批准波音737MAX客机的情况进行调查。华尔街日报称，这是一项针对新飞机的安全批准存在潜在失误的“不寻常调查”。
波音737MAX8客机 @视觉中国
西雅图时报援引FAA现任及前任工程师的话称，波音公司2015年推出737MAX新型客机后，为了获得联邦政府的认证，向FAA提交了客机新型飞行控制系统的安全评估，该系统全称是“操纵特性增加系统（Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System，简称MCAS）。
与过去波音公司给予飞行员完全控制飞机的传统不一样的是，这套新型飞行控制系统让飞行员无法完全控制飞机。因为波音737MAX客机的引擎过大，所以在机翼上的位置必须更加靠前，从而导致客机的气动升力发生了改变。
波音工程师经FAA授权代表为MCAS进行系统安全分析，随后一份名为“为确保737MAX安全运行而开发”的文件在欧洲、加拿大等世界各地的航空安全监管机构共享。这份文件得出的结论是，该系统符合所有FAA法规。
MCAS系统如何在波音737MAX客机上运行 图片来自西雅图时报
但是FAA工程师发现，波音提交的安全评估存在以下问题：
一、安全报告没有充分标识出新型飞行控制系统的全部动力。为了防止飞机空中失速，飞行控制系统可以转动飞机的平尾，让机头朝下。但客机服役后，MCAS转动速度要比初始安全评估标出的速度高出四倍多；
二、报告没有解释当驾驶员做出响应后系统如何及时自动复位，也未能充分考虑到系统还可能继续将机头往下推的潜在影响；
三、系统的危险评估定为“危险性”（“hazardous”）等级，比“灾难性”低了一级。即便是“危险性”等级，也不能只靠单一传感器的信号来阻止飞行控制系统的启动，而波音737MAX这套系统恰恰是这样设计的；
四、报告称，客机平尾的转动角度小于0.6度。但去年10月印尼狮航610航班坠毁后，波音公司首次向各个航空公司提供的“操纵特性增加系统”说明中则把角度标成2.5度。
以上这些问题令工程师们十分震惊。狮航失事后的调查显示，波音737MAX客机上伸出机外的唯一传感器失灵，导致飞机坠毁之前飞行控制系统被多次启动，机头不断下推，飞行员则拼命将飞机向上拉抬。
安全工程师将他们的发现告诉了西雅图时报。随后，该报在11天前、也就是埃塞俄比亚3月10日空难发生之前，将这一消息通报了波音公司和FAA，但都没有得到任何回应。
空难发生后，3月15日，FAA表示，对波音737MAX客机的认证遵守标准程序。FAA的一位发言人表示，由于最近过于繁忙，FAA“无法对任何详细质询作出置评”。
3月16日，波音公司又发表声明称，“FAA在737MAX的认证过程中考虑到了‘操纵特性增加系统’最终的装配结构和操作参数，认为该系统符合所有的认证及规章要求”。
波音还表示，由于埃塞俄比亚空难正在调查中，无法进行评论。当被问及“操纵特性增加系统”安全评估的具体情况时，波音仅表示，“很多说法都非常不准确”，但是没有直接对MACS的认证缺陷作出回应。
据FAA内部若干技术专家认为，印尼狮航坠机事故仅仅是安全认证团队做得太过的最新迹象，狮航空难调查已明确显示与MACS系统有关，而且波音公司员工对波音飞机的安全分析拥有如此大的权力是不合适的。
FAA的一位安全工程师表示，我们必须确保FAA更多地参与到故障评估中去。
同时，埃塞俄比亚空难调查有了最新进展。路透社17日称，据飞机黑匣子数据显示，埃塞俄比亚波音737MAX航班的坠毁与去年10月印尼狮航坠毁有明显相似之处。
FAA将安全认证委托给波音
据西雅图时报透露，FAA以缺乏资金和资源为由，多年来将更多的飞机安全认证工作授权给波音公司。
起初在针对波音737MAX客机的安全认证中，FAA安全工程团队将一部分技术评估直接委托给波音，并将其认为相对更关键的一部分仍保留给FAA。
但是，数名FAA技术专家在采访中表示，在认证过程中，管理层不断催促他们加速。因为波音737MAX客机的竞争对手是欧洲空客的A320neo客机，但是波音737MAX的研发比空客晚了9个月。若想要赶超空客，时间对波音而言至关重要。
一位直接参与737MAX客机认证的前FAA安全工程师表示，在认证途中，“管理层要求我们重新评估委托授权的内容。管理层认为我们保留了太多给FAA。”
“重新评估最初决定的压力一直存在”，这位前工程师称，“即使在我们重新评估后……管理层仍在继续讨论应将更多的项目委托给波音公司。”
而且，即便是保留给FAA的一部分工作中，有时还会遭到缩减限制，比如审查波音公司提供的技术文件。他补充称，“没有对这些文件进行全面适当的审查”，“为了在特定认证期内完成，审查过程非常匆忙。”
当留给FAA技术人员的时间太短而无法完成审查时，有时要么是管理者自己签署文件，要么将审查委托给波音公司。
这位工程师表示，“只有FAA的管理人员、而不是安全机构技术专家，才拥有最终授权的权力。”
最后，波音737 MAX客机于2017年获得FAA授权认证。
美国联邦航空管理局 @视觉中国
