[MobiusHorizons]

I found this to be a fascinating dive into a potentially serious safety concern. I was impressed how simple the mitigations could be based on the recommendations in the report. I find the evidence credible for an attempt to burry the issue, but honestly I don't understand the motivation. At this stage I feel Boeing and the FAA could really stand to gain some good press from being extra proactive about such issues. Especially when the proposed mitigations seem like they would be relatively easy to implement, and should not be expensive for airlines from what I can see. It seems like the source being the engine manufacturer and consequently having the potential of affecting other jets including potentially the airbus A320 would only improve the incentives for Boeing to get out ahead of this, and demonstrate a safety culture. Does anyone understand the motivations that could lead to the response we have seen from the FAA and Boeing?

[apical_dendrite]

From what I've read, CFM and Boeing committed back in December to making the software fix that's suggested in the video. https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/news/bird-strike-incident-se...

Why FAA and EASA didn't require any procedure changes in the interim to prevent the issue is a very good question.

[MBCook]

Can they force an install? Or will it be a choice?

I like Mentor Pilot and Air Disasters, so I know I’ve heard of a few where the problem that caused an accident was already known and a fix was available but the airline just chose not to do it because they had that option. Or it was scheduled but hadn’t been performed yet because it wasn’t thought to be that critical.

Having the FAA mandate the fix seems like it would be a much better option.

[V99]

Yes the FAA can issue what are called Airworthiness Directives and require an issue be resolved in the timeframe and manner they specify.

The timeframe could be anything, but common forms are like:

- Within the next X (flight) hours or Y calendar days

- You don't have to, but additional inspection needed every X hours or Y days until you do

- At next annual inspection

- Immediate/before flying again (usually called an Emergency AD)

[MBCook]

I know the FAA can, I was referring to the manufacture. If Boeing makes a software patch do they have any way of forcing everyone to install it other than asking the FAA to issue a directive?

[AdamJacobMuller]

They might be able to, but, if they are effectively saying "our product is broken and you can't use it until you do X" they could be responsible for massive contractual liabilities.

[MichaelZuo]

Based on what legal reasoning…?

I haven’t heard of any similar successful court cases in recent years in the US.

[jiggawatts]

AFAIK, no.

I read through the 787 Dreamliner manual for setting up the software for patch distribution to the planes, and there are checks and overrides at every step. The whole thing is physically controlled by the owning airline or maybe the leasing company, but not Boeing.

[MBCook]

That sounds smart.

I wasn’t thinking a “we’re pushing an update too bad” kind of thing but more a “hey you have to do this to be allowed to fly, your choice” with the weight of law behind it.

[TheRealPomax]

That is to say, they used to. Whether they still do is rather entirely up in the air (wahey).

[p_l]

Sometimes the vendor will provide an optional fix in a safety information bulletin, sometimes they will be mandatory (Sometimes the optional ones become mandatory [1]).

They are coordinated with applicable certification bodies (civil aviation authorities) and distributed as airworthiness directives that can, in fact, force a specific action to be taken.

[1] (writing from memory unfortunately) an airflow modification for 737 NG (iirc, could be older 737, pre-MAX definitely) avionics bay was "optional", as in mandatory only for aircraft flying in hot enough regions. After a near miss in Poland when steadily overheating avionics essentially slowly lobotomized a plane after takeoff. Turned out europe got hot enough for it.

After that incident, Boeing issued a change in safety information bulletin that the modification was now mandatory.