Talk:Boeing 737 MAX certification

Commonality clarity

I revised the lede because the following text could easily be confusing to a general reader: "Boeing used a new autonomous software, the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) to enable a commonality". I understand the meaning behind those words, but for a reader not familiar with the background, the idea that "new" software enabled a "commonality" does not seem logical. If the software is new, then it does not share commonality. Furthermore, the text gave the incorrect impression that MCAS alone enabled commonality between the MAX and NG. The overall design of the MAX was intended to be in common with the NG. MCAS, as we know, contributed to commonality by giving the MAX similar handling qualities. The lede should be written with the following facts in mind: 1) Boeing wanted commonality between the two aircraft generations to minimize pilot training and save customers money; 2) Boeing described MCAS to the FAA as not new, but rather, as part of the existing flight control system, reinforcing the idea of commonality; and 3) to support the idea that MCAS was not new, it was omitted from the airplane manuals. DonFB (talk) 08:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Support: Yes, you are right, MCAS is not alone but the heart of technology to enable the commonality thus allowing the same type certificate : TC No. A16WE rev. 64. The text is also more flow now, bravo! 87.200.125.145 (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Allegation of impropriety ("coaching") during recertification

This should probably be mentioned in the article: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/19/737-max-boeing-inappropriately-coached-test-pilots-say-senators Zazpot (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Another source: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-boeing-737-max/boeing-inappropriately-coached-pilots-in-737-max-testing-u-s-senate-report-idUKKBN28S31H Zazpot (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The 6400$ question.

Is is currently certified? I appreciate the answer may vary by country/area, but I failed to see a clear statement that as of today it is or is not. But perhaps it’s not that simple a question? Springnuts (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

wp:notforum; and you can read the article.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, I did not express myself correctly. I was not asking a question for debate, but requesting an improvement to the article: that an editor with a better understanding of the technicalities include a clear summary of the current position on certification, please, if such as summary is possible? Springnuts (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

in the lead section there is In November 2020, the FAA announced that it had cleared the aircraft to return to service--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

... "subject to the implementation of various design, operation, maintenance and training changes" ... so not yet actually cleared? I'll try an edit - please correct if misleading. Springnuts (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The type has been cleared, individual aircraft are cleared once mandated changes have been applied to.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - I had not understood that. So trying again for an accurate summary. Springnuts (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Forkner indicted

Forkner has been indicted on charges of supplying false and incompete information to the FAA in respect of the certification of the 737 MAX (The Guardian). Not sure were this best fits into the article. Mjroots (talk) 08:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed split of contents to Return to service of the Boeing 737 MAX

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to split Boeing 737 MAX certification#Return to service from Boeing 737 MAX certification. (non-admin closure) Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Agree There is more than enough information to fit on a new page and make this page more readable. Gusfriend (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The present page is 164kb long, and it should be shorter (guideline is 100kb) so go ahead.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed split into new page Investigations of the Boeing 737 MAX in the United States

There are a number of sections talking about different investigations in the US including the DoJ, US House, US Senate, Office of Special Counsel, US Cabinet and NTSB. I propose splitting them off into a new page called Investigations of the Boeing 737 MAX in the United States (or an even better name that someone suggests). Then a brief section here combining some information on the different enquiries.

Happy to put a split suggestion but I wanted some feedback first. Gusfriend (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sur the nationality of the investigation matters so much. It's normal most of the investigation takes place in US for a US plane.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The NCBI investigation is to be expected and the DoJ is not that surprising. I am not sure how common House, Senate and Cabinet investigations are through. Happy to leave it how it is at the moment though. Gusfriend (talk) 10:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)