The (Max Today) flown and built by Boeing flew its 737-7 having FAA examiners on board and representing the Boeing 737 Max family, while using the smallest Boeing 737-7 model in this line as the test example. The strategic choice for testing the 737-7 is a good option as its larger models, the 737-8-10 is sold and containing the most abundant model type (Max-8) to its customers.
Thus, the Max-8 causes a massive look at the majority of aircraft Boeing has parked. Even though Boeing will have to certify all of the grounded Max anyways.
Andrew Boydston: Chief Blogger
If the 737-7 is a "go" by the FAA after the next two flight tests then a quicker delivery can be made with the fewer 737-7 models ordered and is an easier lot to manage than the the 737-8 type at this time. The European flight testing team has yet to be engaged which is needed for all of Boeing's testing hurdles of the Max world wide.
The European approvals for the Max can be made simpler if the FAA/Boeing can independently demonstrate it has met all items both testing agencies meet requirements with a strong case made for each inspection type and the reliability for safe flight.
It will become an expensive process this point forward for new models submitted for certification. As one agency won't approve another agency's findings without validating its own standards for aircraft awaiting certification for safe flight. The agency with the toughest standards will also drive the certification process, since it is simpler to meet some high bar standards while using a double inspection system. The step forward is how the inspection and validation systems work best.
May the agency with the most complete evaluation win the standards battle with an oversight of some other agency having a final role concurring on the first agency's findings for newly minted airplane types. The 737 Max should of had a double check source for testing, as a submission goes to a second agency approving the first agencies findings for an advanced or new airplane submitted even though training and build replicate the prior version or as a clean sheet. Advanced improvements negates a thinner inspection process as is considered in today's process.
It will increase time and money with this approach, but saving a life is worth the "due diligence" applied to any advanced airplane for certification. Lessons learned, is having duplicate testing from an independent governance processes or whatever governance is required. The 737-8 crashes exposed a fault of having a builder and independent inspection listen to the builder without a third party, which does not have overriding authority, or not under pressure from the "others" and not having influence over approval or disapproval for airplane certification flight or commercial service.
In essence 2-1 validation will have "secondary validations answered as well as the primary validations." The by-laws from major airplane builders and inspection agencies cannot assume or demonstrate a bias from builder or agency completing the validation over industry standards.
An unbiased inspection review would of saved hundreds of lives if the 737 Max would have used a more compliant certification process from multiple agencies in the marketplace. In other words from certifying commercial airplanes from single engine to multi engine this would apply. A peer inspection process may cost builders a greater value placed on certified frames but it should save lives.
