US FAA chief Steve Dickson has defended the administration’s decision to wait for empirical evidence to order the grounding of the Boeing 737 Max, rather than follow other authorities’ precautionary approach. The FAA grounded the type on 13 March, three days after the loss of an Ethiopian Airlines aircraft – the second fatal Max accident – having held out against a wave of suspensions by other regulators, including the European Union Aviation Safety Agency. US regulators had originally insisted that there was no basis on which to order a grounding of the Max, despite concerns over similarities between the Ethiopian accident and that involving a Lion Air jet five months earlier. Speaking during a briefing in London on 6 February, Dickson acknowledged that regulatory alignment would have been preferable. But he also defended the FAA’s decision to wait for data to establish a common thread, the behaviour of the Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System, between the two Max accidents. “If you ground an airplane arbitrarily – if you’re making any kind of safety decision arbitrarily – you really don’t know when you’ve got to a point where the situation has been improved,” he says. “These two accidents had different factors associated with them – two airlines, two groups of pilots – so they weren’t the same scenario. “They did have a common thread of MCAS. But having the data from which to make those decisions certainly focuses your effort.” Dickson says has a “big focus” on data at the FAA and believes the industry needs to “raise the bar” and ensure interested parties have the “same kind of availability of data”. “I don’t know on what basis EASA made their [grounding] decision,” he says. But he believes that the FAA and Canadian regulators took data-based decisions. “I do know the agency was looking to identify a common thread, and it took getting the data to be able to make that decision. It was not available for a couple of days,” says Dickson, adding that reinforcement of data provision around the world would contribute to moving from “forensic” to “pro-active” analysis

Source: Cirium.

US FAA administrator Steve Dickson expects changes being considered in the wake of the Boeing 737 Max crisis could impact future “grandfathered” certification of derivative aircraft such as the 777X, which recently began flight-testing.
Major aircraft derivatives like the new 777X family – which features key changes such as a new carbonfibre wing with folding tips, new-generation engines, systems and flightdeck and larger cabin windows – can use “grandfather rights” to be certificated as amendments to an existing type certificate, even if the original approval dates back decades. The 737 Max was approved as a derivative of the FAA’s original 1967 certification of the 737-100. The 777-9, which is the first variant of the 777X family, made its first flight on 25 January. Boeing aims to certificate the 777X as derivative of the original 777-200, which was approved in April 1995. The FAA’s “changed product rule” requires applicants to apply for a new type certificate for a “changed product” if it decides that “the change in design, power, thrust, or weight is so extensive that a substantially complete investigation of compliance with the applicable regulations is required”. Speaking at the Aviation Club of the UK today, Dickson explained that the FAA is re-examining the changed product rule as well as taking input from the findings of the technical advisory board (TAB) set up in the wake of the Max grounding. The TAB is an independent panel which the FAA has asked to review its work regarding the 737 Max return-to-service effort. “In terms of 777X and what certification [of derivative aircraft] will look like going forward beyond that – those are related but different subjects,” said Dickson. "We will take some of the processes that we’re using now with the 737 Max, such as the technical advisory board, with the 777X [certification].” Dickson says that the changed product rule is also to be scrutinised. “Moving forward, one of the recommendations is to go back and work with all the authorities on the changed product rule, which has been harmonised globally,” he says. “That’s something that we will certainly undertake with the other states of design around the world to make that determination of what that process looks like.” Dickson adds that there are too many variables currently to be specific on how it might affect individual aircraft such as the 777X. “I don’t think it’s something you can put a number on. It depends on the architecture of the aircraft: for example, if it’s more software-based and less hardware-based then that may create some changes in how that is approached in the future.”

Source: Cirium

South African Airways will stop eight international routes from Johannesburg, as the airline undergoes a business restructuring aimed at easing its financial woes. From February 29, it will no longer serve Abidjan via Accra (Ghana), Entebbe (Uganda), Guangzhou (China), Hong Kong, Luanda (Angola), Munich (Germany), Ndola (Zambia), and Sao Paulo (Brazil). On its domestic route network, it will continue to serve Cape Town from Johannesburg on a reduced basis, but will end all other destinations, including Durban, East London and Port Elizabeth. Domestic routes operated by its low-cost subsidiary Mango will not be affected. Customers booked on cancelled flights will receive a full refund, or be re-accommodated on services operated by Mango. International services between Johannesburg and Frankfurt, London Heathrow, New York, Perth and Washington via Accra will be retained. Regional services from Johannesburg to Blantyre, Dar es Salaam, Harare, Kinshasa, Lagos, Lilongwe, Lusaka, Maputo, Mauritius, Nairobi, Victoria Falls, Livingston and Windhoek will also continue. The business rescue practitioners (BRPs) leading the restructure said that while a full plan would be published in late February, some measures needed to be implemented more quickly due to an “urgent” need to conserve cash. As well as route network changes this will include the deployment of more fuel-efficient aircraft, optimisation of organisational structures and renegotiation of contracts with suppliers. The BRPs said that “rationalisation programmes are under consideration for SAA’s subsidiaries, as well as the sale of selected assets,” in order to improve liquidity. In a bid to reassure potential passengers, they added that further route changes are not expected. Employee numbers will be reduced, but the number of job cuts has not been announced. South African Airways was saved from the brink of collapse in late January, when it was given 3.5 billion rand (£185 million) in emergency funding from the government-owned Development Bank of Southern Africa. The airline was placed in a form of bankruptcy protection in December, but an expected 2 billion Rand (£104 million) government loan was postponed, with South Africa’s finance minister saying the bailout could not increase the country’s budget deficit. The state-owned airline has not made a profit since 2011, and bailouts over the last three years have totalled more than 20 billion rand (£1 billion). The airline’s BRPs say they are now planning to “develop a sustainable, competitive and efficient airline”.

Source: Business Traveller