> The U.S. government on Friday said Boeing
can once again issue airworthiness certificates for its bestselling 737 Max aircraft and 787 Dreamliners, an authority that was stripped from the manufacturer after fatal crashes in 2018 and 2019 of the 737 Max.<p>I'm a bit confused by this. From what I've read an "airworthiness certificate" is <i>not</i> a certificate that the aircraft design is good and safe. That would be a type certificate.<p>The airworthiness certificate is issued for a particular aircraft and certifies that it conforms to the approved design for that type of aircraft, all outstanding airworthiness directives applicable to the type have been applied, no unsafe alterations or repairs have been made, all required documentation and logs are present, the inspector doesn't see any damage, leaks, or other problems that could make it unsafe, and other things like that.<p>The two 737 MAX crashes had nothing to do with anything that would have been found during their airworthiness inspections. They were functioning exactly as they were designed to, as covered by their type certificate.<p>So what was the point of suspending Boeing's authority to do those inspections?
Doesn't directly answer your question, but the CNBC article appears to be correct. See <a href="https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-statement-boeing-airworthiness-certificates" rel="nofollow">https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-statement-boeing-airworthin...</a><p>> The FAA stopped allowing Boeing to issue airworthiness certificates for 737 MAX airplanes in 2019 during their return to service following the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes, and for Boeing 787 airplanes in 2022 because of production quality issues.
“You can no longer certify aircraft of this design as safe” seems a reasonable response to a design flaw causing multiple crashes. My question would be whether the design flaws have been addressed. If not, then allowing them to keep making and certifying them does turn the whole exercise into a piece of theatre. Unfortunately, it’s a totally believable decision for some bureaucracies.
The two are unrelated, though. The airworthiness certificate is focused on whether a particular plane is built according to the design. It doesn't say anything about the design. And the planes were still being certified, just by the FAA instead of Boeing.<p>(Looking at a bit more research, I think this bit was revoked because during the investigation the FAA found that Boeing was skimping on these inspections too, but the details are a little unclear)
The 737 has had 14 major recertifications. The aircraft today looks/behaves nothing like the original from the 1960s.<p>The main motivation for recertifications comes from commercial pressure where if a aircraft is given a new number and not recertified, then the pilots have to be retrained.<p>Honestly, back when the 737 MAX debacle happened, a lot of consumers claimed that they would stop flying aircrafts if they ran into 737 MAXs. And I don't think it happened in enough numbers - or even enough to make news. Sales went through the roof, everything kept working.<p>Recertifications are very common. The issue really is is the aircraft is AS different and untested as the old MAXs, and I really can't see that happening again in the next decade or two atleast.
Honestly they kinda screwed over people -- like me -- who tried to avoid the MAX planes for a while. I'd specifically book around the MAX planes and then they would change equipment at the last minute into a MAX. There is no meaningful "knob" an aviation consumer can turn to express an aircraft preference, and given how US airspace works, you often don't have a meaningful choice in carrier (unless you're willing to take on extra stops).
The #1 rule of marketing is that people's actions rarely line up with what they <i>say</i> they're going to do.
> Honestly, back when the 737 MAX debacle happened, a lot of consumers claimed that they would stop flying aircrafts if they ran into 737 MAXs. And I don't think it happened in enough numbers - or even enough to make news. Sales went through the roof, everything kept working.<p>Is this kind of consumer revolt even really possible?<p>If you feel strongly enough that you refuse to fly altogether, then of course you can avoid flying on a 737 MAX. But I think most people did not feel the risk was <i>that</i> high. They just want to select "guarantee no 737 MAX" when booking a flight, and as far as I can tell that option doesn't exist.<p>Even if the flight is not a 737 MAX when you book, they can and sometimes do change aircraft, and as far as I know there's no option to get your money back when they do. If you show up and see it's a 737 MAX...you either get on or you lose your money, and have to find some other way to get where you're going, right?
Consumers are indeed very concerned... that they be able to purchase £49 tickets on RyanAir.
Toyota had the largest recall in history for the unintended acceleration debacle. Yes, lots of people were saying they'd never set foot in a toyota again. Now people don't even remember it.
Just to comprehend this a bit better - it sounds like the FAA had stripped Boeing of the ability to self-recertify and actually sent inspectors for the most recent certifications. After several successful certifications and what would appear, to the inspectors, to be real process improvements, they're now re-granting Boeing the ability to self-recertify when self-recertification is allowed?<p>This is well outside my knowledge domain so I'm not trying to make any statements on whether this was correct, but rather to better comprehend the change.
Boeing was vibe-manufacturing at least a decade before anyone started using the word. Now they can have an llm say all tests passed.
Yeah, not thanks. A company being kept alive by the US government is not one I'll ever trust with my life.
This is absolutely frightening.
[flagged]
Wow you got 'em.<p>Oncologist: You have Stage 4 cancer<p>You: Wow, that's frightening<p>Oncologist: You've had it at least since September, were you frightened then?<p>Brilliant argument. No longer concerned!
What if they didn't know that and simply assumed self-certification simply would never happen again?<p>Or are you implying that "since no plane crashed since September, they're safe going forward"?<p>"Read the article". Clearly reading is not enough.
[flagged]
Why?
[Deleted]
Who gave whom a golden airplane ... totally worth it, for them at least.
I only fly airbus. If it’s Boeing, I ain’t going.
All I read is that the US govt signs on off US export. I'd be surprised if there was not pressure on FAA to lower the bar.
The EU should refuse to allow such planes to enter their airspace.
Totally insane. Repeating the same errors as in the past and hoping for a better outcome...
Only corruption can explain that...
I have read that self-issuance of airworthiness certificates has been normal since the 1950s. Given that, I don't think the issue is due to regulatory corruption but an issue at Boeing which has (hopefully) been resolved.
Let's see if the EU shows some backbone or not.
The EU is like a tiger - without teeth, fur or claws. I think the only thing that works here is total boycott of airplanes that constantly unalive people through mass crashes. (Wikipedia really gathers useful data here in a simple-to-read manner: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Boeing_737" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident...</a>)
You can and should say the word “kill”.
Interesting analogy, maybe a house cat?<p>I think a better analogy is "The EU is like a lumbering elephant. You can steer it, but only if you know how. Otherwise it just keeps on lumbering"<p>Airbus was a bureaucrats wet dream, and by modern Biz Bro standards should never have got off the ground.<p>Now it rules the skies. Boeing, having drunk the financial Kool Aid is wilting<p>Tortoise and the hare?
[dead]
Can you explain exactly why this is bad?
Until the next mass crash ...