Boeing Resumes Self-Certification for Airworthiness

Minuteman

Minuteman

Shipoaster
tl;dr this is not hugely controversial unless you have strong views that the FAA should not delegate any certification, or have concerns about regulatory capture (hello).

I believe this is only for airworthiness certs on individual production examples. It turns out the Alaska plug door event happened on an aircraft that was subject to FAA sign-off. That has a few implications: a) that Boeing and the FAA's inspection capabilities are comparable, and b) the process at the time was so massive and opaque that anyone's standards were insufficient.

E.g., one system for planning and tracking work, and a second, separate one for documenting for certification. That seems like nickel-shaving tech debt that contributed to massive errors that cost more than any capital investment or delays.

Short of a small army of auditors with proctoscopes, I don't see how any customer could have made an informed choice that would have deterred them from "give us more airframes now!!"

viewfromthewing.com

FAA Gives Boeing Back The Power To Declare New 737 MAX And 787 Jets Safe

Starting July 20, Boeing will again issue final airworthiness certificates for newly built 737 MAX and 787 aircraft—authority the FAA reserved after fatal crashes and production failures. The agency says eight months of alternating inspections produced comparable quality findings, while federal...
viewfromthewing.com viewfromthewing.com
 
Last edited:
Minuteman said:
tl;dr this is not hugely controversial unless you have strong views that the FAA should not delegate any certification, or have concerns about regulatory capture (hello).
Click to expand...

It's the latter that tends to raise an eyebrow with me (metaphorically since I can't physically do that) mainly because it seems to normalize across most industry sectors. If there was a more ironclad (and enforced) standard to prevent this kind of thing, even at the optics level, I'd have more faith. Like if, say, the administrator of an agency was barred from that role until he provided adequate documentation of divestiture from industry assets.

Yes, I'm crossing some parallel but related streams here.
 
Granting an airworthiness certificate for an approved design on an individual airframe is a whole lot different than approving a new design, which is what happened with the MAX. I know some of those southern plants had some QA issues too, but customers will probably be enough to keep that in check, since the customers are airlines who maintain fleets.
 
GolfChuck said:
I believe the FAA reviews certification from the aircrafts country of origin and okays it. Same with all foreign designs with us registration.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I wasn't clear. Does EASA allow Airbus to self certify new models, variants or individual airframes? And if so do you trust them more than their US counterparts?
 
BobDDuck said:
Yes I trust EASA more than I'd trust the FAA.

Airbus does not self certify new models and variants. I believe most of their production lines can self certify each tail that comes of the line.
Click to expand...

100%

And we’re living in a ‘failed state’ when it comes to regulation. Taylor Farms… I rest my case.
 
“Suicide by cop” in play here?

It could be considered the cowardly way out, as opposed to just pulling the trigger oneself.
 
knot4u said:
Is that your uncle? I heard they were cleared regarding poop in their lettuce but perhaps you have inside info?
Click to expand...

Fun fact, I have zero uncles.

I suggest a little reading about the outbreak, Taylor Farms and some phone calls made.

Ready, fire, aim -> a dangerous way to go through life as a former mechanic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top