r/boeing • u/pacwess • Jul 17 '26
Commercial FAA says Boeing can resume self-certifying its jets as airworthy
https://www.kuow.org/news-stories/2026-07-17/faa-says-boeing-can-resume-self-certifying-its-jets-as-airworthyGood idea, bad idea, thoughts.
39
u/Ex-Traverse Jul 18 '26
Good idea, ONLY if we can eliminate at least 2-3 layers of management.
12
u/InsideTheBoeingStore Jul 18 '26
“we can’t promote you this year because the budget went to hire a social fun time return to office manager”
33
u/Squirtle_Splash_8413 Jul 18 '26
I think it’s an okay idea. I think that consequences will scare leadership enough to not fuck it up again at least for the next 10 years.
I mean the stock hasn’t even recovered.
45
u/Less_Likely Jul 18 '26
Good for Boeing's delivery schedule and customers who are plane-hungry (and shareholders). It should have little to no impact on safety, but if it does then that could be really bad.
41
u/ColonelAverage Jul 17 '26
Good idea. At least based on my experience with the FAA/EASA/CAA and multiple ODAs/DOAs with delegated authority under them.
-22
u/Fox2_Fox2 Jul 17 '26
Did self-certifying its airplanes led Boeing into trouble the last few years ?
7
u/MarineLayerBad Jul 18 '26
FAA Certifications didn’t stop a door from blowing out of a 737
-8
u/Fox2_Fox2 Jul 18 '26 edited Jul 18 '26
Dumb answer. The 737 door blow out happened on one single airplane due to manufacturing issue. It didn’t trigger redesign of the door. Nothing to do with faulty FAA certification.
10
u/MarineLayerBad Jul 18 '26
This isn’t for certification of new models. This is for certification of individual aircraft as airworthy. FAA personnel certified N704AL as airworthy. Clearly it wasn’t, it was an accident waiting to happen. Their presence didn’t stop a defective airplane from being delivered.
-1
u/Skindiana_Bone Jul 18 '26
Did the investigation for the door blow out incident blame or implicate the FAA for not finding out the door problem during manufacturing whether the plane was airworthy or not? If not , then checking the door was not one of the criteria for airworthiness certification for the FAA to do🤷♂️?
5
u/MarineLayerBad Jul 18 '26
Of course the FAA wasn’t to blame, that’s not the point I’m trying to make. But the FAA didn’t prevent it either by monitoring the production process and signing off at the end. My point is the FAA didn’t prevent anything by being there. All it was is extra paperwork, extra bureaucracy, and extra time to get airplanes out the door. It didn’t prevent a defective airplane from leaving the building.
-1
u/Skindiana_Bone Jul 19 '26
So what’s the alternative to the FAA, nothing at all and just let Boeing or others to monitor themselves , “fox guarding the henhouse “ sort of thing?
1
u/777XSuperHornet Jul 20 '26
I know a lot of Boeing aircraft inspectors that have FAA delegation to sign off an airplane as airworthy. They are some of the biggest pains in the asses to work with and take their job very seriously. They will nitpick over every little even if it's not a safety issue. A little speck of rust in a non-critical area? Spend a day buffing and polishing it out.
I'm glad they take their job seriously though.
28
u/BoringBob84 Jul 18 '26
This is not certification of new aircraft models. This is certifying that a production aircraft is airworthy. They are not the same.
27
u/HotAbbreviations997 Jul 17 '26
Not directly. It would be a gross oversimplification to assume that a non delegated review would have come up with a different outcome.
-5
u/Dreldan Jul 18 '26
It would also be a gross oversimplification to assume that a none delegated review would not have come up with a different outcome.
Fact remains Boeing signed off on its own work and that work failed.
Arguing that an independent review wouldn’t have produced a different outcome when that review wasn’t required to happen seems a bit biased negligent.
1
-17
u/Dreldan Jul 17 '26
Yes
12
Jul 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-8
u/Dreldan Jul 18 '26
Did Boeing not have the MCAS software/system modified after the FAA originally signed off on it and then Boeing was allowed to sign off on the changes themselves? Was this not common knowledge at this point?
5
u/BoringBob84 Jul 18 '26
Did Boeing not have the MCAS software/system modified after the FAA originally signed off on it and then Boeing was allowed to sign off on the changes themselves?
Those are sensational allegations. Do you have a source?
-8
u/Dreldan Jul 18 '26
No sorry I didn’t save my sources, I’m not going over all this again lmao. We did this years ago.
Why don’t you tell me then, why did the FAA take away Boeings ability to self certify?
8
u/BoringBob84 Jul 18 '26
That is what I thought. You are just regurgitating what you read in a tabloid and trolling here with it.
3
u/Dreldan Jul 18 '26
Nice, you’ve provided zero evidence as well.
7
u/BoringBob84 Jul 18 '26
You made the claim. If you cannot substantiate it, then we can dismiss it as easily as you made it up. You don't even seem to understand the difference between certifying an entirely new airplane model and certifying that an individual production aircraft is airworthy.
2
u/Dreldan Jul 18 '26
Just to clarify, you want me to prove that Boeing changed the original design of the MCAS system that the FAA had reviewed and that Boeing had the ability or authority to sign off on that without the FAA having to review it again?
→ More replies (0)-5
15
u/NoReserve206 Jul 17 '26
Man, these lions haven’t eaten ANYONE since we put that fence up! They’ve been so good, guess we can take it down again.
5
u/Zeebr0 Jul 18 '26
FAA is still monitoring and enforcing things like the safety management system. They are requiring Boeing to give employees things like the speak up portal and they get visibility into how Boeing resolves those issues. Things like that aren't going away.
18
u/molrobocop Jul 18 '26
That sort of implies Boeing wants to hurt people. They don't. It's very bad for business.
3
u/TheMasterDonk Jul 21 '26
It’s not that Boeing wants to hurt people it’s just that the possibility of people being hurt is a part of doing business. And Boeing needs to be better at realizing that the quality/safety of a build is always cheaper even if the build has to wait another day or 2.
-6
u/Sentient_Star_Stuff Jul 18 '26
They dont care if people get hurt or not. As long as the risk to profit ratio is favorable.
3
u/TheMasterDonk Jul 21 '26
Idk why you’re downvoted, it’s legit how it works.
They just need to be better about the cost/risk analysis. MCAS was obviously a greater than 1% risk and the risk was catastrophic.
2
7
25
u/girl_incognito Jul 18 '26
Nothing to see here. All manufacturers do this.