19ED01-B737 Max Summit-Jack Netskar

IFALPA Editorial Captain Jack Netskar, President

B737 Max Summit, Montreal, Canada

In March 2019, regulators and airlines around the primary source, and, at the same time, keep track world grounded the B737 MAX passenger aircraft of what our Member Associations and the comafter two nearly new aircraft tragically crashed less munity at large bring forward. than five months apart, killing all 346 passengers and crew. The accidents befell Lion Air Flight 610 As part of this information gathering, IFALPA has, on October 29, 2018 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight among other things, met with representatives of 302 on March 10, 2019. Boeing for three separate briefings. Most recently, we attended the IATA B737 MAX 2nd Summit in Ethiopian Airlines was first to ground the aircraft, Montreal, just last week. effective the day of the accident. On March 11, the aircraft’s airworthiness was publicly reaffirmed by The purpose of this exceptional meeting, attended its certifying agency, the US Federal Aviation Adby 18 airlines, 9 regulators, Boeing, ICAO, IFALPA, ministration. The same day, the CAA of China was CAE, lessors, and other relevant stakeholders, was the first regulator to order the MAX grounding. to identify the challenges and gain a common understanding of a roadmap to bring the B737 MAX In the next two days, most other airlines and regback to operation in the safest, most efficient, and ulators around the world grounded it as well. On timely manner possible. March 13, the FAA was one of the last agencies to ground the MAX, citing similarities between the The big question amongst all stakeholders, includtwo crashes. In total, 387 airplanes were grounded. ing IFALPA, is the “return to service” process. Views on this will vary depending on who you talk to, but From the time the B737 MAX was grounded unfor us the priorities are clear: til today, countless news articles, television/radio broadcasts, PRs, aviation expert commentary and 1. The technical challenges must be remedied so-called experts have been produced. Informaand satisfy established safety standards; tion has been provided about the relationship be- 2. The regulatory processes must take place in a tween regulators and the manufacturer regarding way that prevents a greater degree of self-regwithholding important information about the airulation and removal of factors for different uncraft type, about the cost pressures that challenge derstanding of the systems; flight safety as priority number 1, about problem- 3. The training must be adequate and relevant atic issues concerning internal reporting, etc. information about the flight systems must be available. For IFALPA, it is important to maintain credibility in our statements and positions as safety profession- The absence of one or more of these points will als. We must, therefore, seek information from the result in a lack of trust, and that is precisely where

we have been, and still partially remain. It was therefore fruitful that the three main contributions came from Boeing, the FAA, and CAE. “In a world Point 1 is technically being solved by Boeing and approved by the FAA. MCAS is one component of of growing the Speed Trim System (STS). The technical fix is based on new software/Flight control law in the competitions, we 737 MAX flight control computer. This will provide similar flaps-up protection to the already existing need to improve flaps-down 737NG STS. IFALPA is confident that all parts of the system are being reviewed and seand increase the cured. Boeing as a company cannot withstand another accident. amount of training

Point 2 has been a concern at IFALPA for a long a professional time. We have a long-standing cooperation with OEMs through, among others, the ADO Commitpilot receives, not tee, but we have no formal lines to Certifying state and therefore have less insight into the processes diminish it. The surrounding certifying types. This process takes place between the individual state CAA and OEM. gradual erosion of IFALPA and our MAs are related to the CAAs more on the oversight part. This means that we must rely training time will on Certifying state and aircraft manufacturers to do a qualitatively good job and ensure that assessments are based on flight safety and not selling have a delayed points. Are we creating software fixes to be able to sell an aircraft as one type to reduce required effect as the older training? It is an important question to ask. generation of pilots The FAA is focused on providing Safe and Compliant Aircraft Design and changes to MCAS design leave the left seat on one hand and the return-to-service process on the other. EASA, TCCA, and ANAC have a commitand take their ment to collaborative process with the FAA for certification, pilot training, and ungrounding. Given experience with the reduced degree of trust that exists for both the manufacturer and the regulator, it will be crucial them.” that all these regulators, as well as China, reach an agreement before the aircraft is put into service. IFALPA Pilot

It would be very problematic politically to argue Training Standards that the aircraft is safe when someone does not approve parts of the changes and does not return Manual it to service. What is important to understand is that only the FAA certifies Boeing, while all other regulators validate this process.

PAGE 2 OF 3

“It all comes down to trust. Trust towards the regulator, trust towards the manufacturer, trust towards the operator. At the Summit, all the stakeholders from IATA, FAA, and Boeing, to Regulators and ICAO, pointed to the pilots as the main symbol of trust for the public.”

In this context, it is important that IFALPA coordigradual erosion of training time will have a delayed nate our input to the FAA, EASA, Transport Canaeffect as the older generation of pilots leave the left da, and ANAC, on a global level. seat and take their experience with them.” (https://bit.ly/2J3ikYI) Normally, the inputs would come separately, through each national MA, without much use of The opportunities for varied and customized train- IFALPA. However, in this context, we believe it is ing were presented well by CAE during the meetvery important to align in the same way as the ing, but investments by the operators are required, regulators do. and regulators must be able to withstand the cost perspective in their assessments. Based on Boe- Point number 3, Training. This is an extremely iming’s prediction of the need for 600,000 new pilots portant part of the whole problem. We have seen over the next 20 years, this becomes increasingly that the requirements for training and qualificaimportant to maintain future requirements for the tion have gradually been reduced over the last flight safety standard. decades for economic reasons. Some will argue that new technology and reduced fail margins and As I mentioned, it all comes down to trust. Trust frequencies mean that the need for training is not towards the regulator, trust towards the manufacthe same as it once was. turer, trust towards the operator. At the Summit, all the stakeholders from IATA, FAA, and Boeing, to But it is precisely because systems have become Regulators and ICAO, pointed to the pilots as the increasingly complex and failures occur less often main symbol of trust for the public. IFALPA will, in that there is a need for more and relevant training. a trustworthy and reliable way, contribute to the As type training is recommended by the OEM and process of return-to-service of the MAX, but always approved by the regulator; I firmly believe that, as with a view to safer skies as our main goal, in this a profession, we should have a greater say in this and in all our ventures. process. What is IFALPA’s position on the MAX at this mo- As IFALPA’s Pilot Training Standards Manual States, ment? We are doing our utmost to validate the pro- “In a world of growing competitions, we need to cess; we cannot presently approach the public with improve and increase the amount of training a a clean bill , but will, if and when we feel comfortprofessional pilot receives, not diminish it. The able to do so.

©2019 The International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations. This publication is provided for information purposes only, in all cases pilots should follow their company’s guidance and procedures. In the interest of flight safety, reproduction of this publication in whole or in part is encouraged. It may not be offered for sale or used commercially. All reprints must credit IFALPA.

PAGE 3 OF 3