FAA 737 MAX airworthiness
After Lion Air 610, an emergency AFM procedure did not stop 737-8/9 passenger flights; a later emergency order did. The green leaf was not the stop.
What. We read named FAA documents: an airworthiness directive that required cockpit procedures, and a later emergency order that grounded the types in US commerce.
Why. Institutional analogue: a process can stay “legal to operate” under one leaf while a later instrument is the actual stop. Useful as a tree of implication, not as an AI safety proof.
Witnesses.
- Experiment methodology (Expectation 4): institutional analogue — one green leaf is not the same as the binding stop.
- Institutional histories (App M): airworthiness-directive versus emergency-order framing on named FAA documents.
Host.
Named FAA documents (not an AI system).
Setup.
Frozen tree h5-faa-737max-v1.json, protocol h5-v1.0.0. Checker check_h5_trees.py.
Analysis.
After Lion Air 610, does the emergency airworthiness directive that required AFM runaway-trim procedures stop 737-8/737-9 passenger flights, or does only the later emergency order do that? If the order leaf is ignored, the root (“may operate”) stays the earlier world.
Finding.
AD 2018-23-51 did not stop 737-8/9 passenger flight; the 2019 emergency order did. The procedure leaf was not the halt. Full results