Boeing Seeking FAA Exemption For 737 MAX 7 & MAX 10

[@harat-xwb]

There is already another exemption for MAX 10 and 7 about AOA. It is the 3rd AOA sensor requirement which was imposed by EASA. Even if FAA says ok, there is no way EASA will accept this exemption.

[@d.b.cooper1]

Meh, they'll probably lobby Trump to bully EASA/EU into bending to their will. Where there's a will....there's a way...historically for Boeing $$$ lobbying goes far. Why do the hard work when you can take short cuts

[@planelover234]

easa accepts anything which FAA approves.

[@propman7896]

@@planelover234hopefully they will not do so this time. Boeing needs to build safe aircraft and not dodge behind exemptions

[@MrSchwabentier]

@@planelover234 no. Those times ended with the MCAS affair

[@GermanGuy007]

@@planelover234 “Anything” is simply wrong!

[@dcassus]

That sigh between "Boeing" and "of all companies".

[@Adrenaline_chaser]

Relatable 😂😂

[@Rasscasse]

An exemption is a shortcut. You could say it means they want permission not to do it properly. The reason they want not to do it properly, is because they make more money more quickly, than if they do it properly. I don’t believe this is a good strategy for the public good. If all the systems on your aircraft are working perfectly as intended, you don’t need any exemptions. I think Boeing should do the right thing in the right time, no matter if it delays bringing these variants into service. Maybe Boeing would also like an exemption on the fitting doors properly ?

[@AutieTortie]

Wait, isn't FAA excemptions what got them into this mess in the first place?!

[@camhusmj38]

Ultimately, it was bad design, poor quality management and ignoring its own engineers’ warnings that did.

[@wyoboatman]

No it didn’t have anything to do with exemptions.

[@camhusmj38]

@ That's not strictly true. The 737 MAX was certified as a variant of the 737. This meant it was exempt from a lot of the requirements that apply now. Boeing's design aimed to keep that privilege and they went to great lengths to achieve it. MCAS would have been studied properly if it was certified as part of a new aircraft.

[@reubenmorris487]

@@camhusmj38 They "lied" about MCAS, didn't fully disclose how it was intended to work and why, and omitted from the QRH.

[@SnurX]

No exceptions anymore for Boeing and no exceptions when safety is involved, always.

[@delta_cosmic]

at this rate, we are never seeing the 737 max 7, 10 and even the 777x being certified with all of these exemptions.

[@Infiltrate.and.Betray]

What are "all of these exemptions" with the 777X? I'm not aware of a single one.

[@Ayden2008]

I’m a Boeing fan, but can’t they learn? Plus, didn’t they want to do something similar towards the end of 2023 with the anti-ice system for the max 7?

[@camhusmj38]

Yes. This time they’re claiming they need to do this to deliver the initial MAX improvements.

[@avalons343]

context matters. At the end of the day the system in place now has never presented an issue in the preceding decades. so why not exempt it, while giving the time to make it better? certify it now and you get an aircraft that's just as safe as what's currently flying,.

[@cjmillsnun]

@@avalons343 Because it is presenting problems with the Leap 1B engines.

[@-Osiris-]

If it's Boeing I ain't going

[@jerardsuarez1395]

Classic Boeing Behaviour on safety exemptions

[@user-yt198]

There is a reason why rules of aviation are written in blood. Boeing wants us to neglect those rules for them.

[@MySkyranger]

You mean exempt from being a safe flying machine. It qualifies for that easily.

[@bmanna495]

If I were a 737 pilot I'd start looking for jobs in Airbus only airlines

[@crispy-qx5oi]

i dont think north america has any LOL. maybe spirite or Frontier

[@fafileblond9202]

SMYD well fonctionned with the Boeing 737 NG. But the engines have changed place until this time on the MAX variant. Boeing doesn't remember it's own changes?🤔🤔🤔

[@Luke-GO]

What a perfect time for Canada, Mexico, China, and Europe to either tax Boeing or reject any FAA Exemption for these airplanes.

[@NautilusShell-s2o]

I imagine Denmark and Panama will be first in line.

[@Luke-GO]

​@@NautilusShell-s2o Well, Canada has already announced​ retaliatory tariffs. They were first. Denmark doesn't have their own "FAA," but the EASA didn't just approve the maxes after their last grounding . This would be the perfect opportunity to refuse new "Boeing-safe" MAX-airplanes.

[@camf7522]

I think Europe may require an independent certification by EASA before any of these aircraft fly to/from Europe.

[@0rgasmdonor]

Supply and demand bud, everybody is hurting for narrowbody airplanes if you tax it it will still sell like hot cakes everywhere else, average 7 years wait list for a 737 now

[@JimboJimbo-i4i]

That’s moronic, make an enemy of the company making most of the planes you use? Yeh just stupid

[@joeking22]

Maybe Boeing should ask Deepseek what their next step should be 😎

[@renscience]

Here in the US exemptions from title 14 are only granted if there is no impact on safety and it has to be in the PUBLIC’s interest, not the applicant. Neither apply here

[@shoutyshouty]

If you believe in your products, why would you need an exemption?

[@wyoboatman]

Has zero to do with belief

[@iceman9678]

Following that logic ETOPS should have never changed.

[@avalons343]

exactly. they believe in their product. And that product is what is in place now, and has been for the past 20+ years. They are asking for an exemption on what they are still working on..

[@x97k8]

The max 7 n 10mins just short n stretch version of the max 8 duh

[@davidhodgson977]

I don't mind Admitting it, I'm confused.

[@planesandcooking5142]

Exactly!

[@jgnclvgmng5408]

Hopefully, EASA will tell them to get lost and do the job properly. Considering that Ryanair is the second main customer for the new MAXs and there are other european ones they'll have to do that. Tough luck. Should have been competent and honest in the first place.

[@Marqk-]

No more exemptions

[@rkan2]

The B737-E Max for Boeing 737 Exemption to the Max. 😂

[@user-jo7dd2jn5s]

You cannot make that s.... up

[@marksellinger3736]

Boeing is beginning to panic cuz Southwest and Ryan Air want their damned Max 7's. If they can get the 8 & 9 certified, what's the problems?!

[@AttaboyIII]

As a safety engineer, I have to say that this sort of exemption from standards is perfectly normal in the certification process for complex engineering systems. So long as the deviation is justified and provides an equivalent level of safety it’s actually common practice.

[@SRT8-u6y]

At last, someone who actually knows what they're talking about. Very refreshing, as opposed to the barrage of the so called experts you normally find here.

[@reubensandwich9249]

From what I read earlier this week, the Angle of Attack and Enhanced Angle of Attack, AOA & EAOA, sensors are linked to the SMYD certification. The SMYD certification is the next step to "fixing" the MAXX issue normally think about for these two variants.

[@fafileblond9202]

Common to Boeing for sure 😂.

[@shreyas7372]

How did boeing had mcas problem i wonder even after going through all these certification process????

[@user-yt198]

As an engineer I strongly disagree. First, this is not a "complex" system. It is a predictable, measurable, linear, time invariant system. Second, there can be no exemption from safety. Third, we are talking about Boeing. We don't know what they are hiding this time.

[@jhmcd2]

This video confirms why I blocked Simply Flying. They are bias. Two days ago a A321 caught on fire, which most likely started from the APU, but no video. It would make over a dozen in less than a year with half being Neos. But they make sure a videos bashing the 737 permeate their site. And they are bias in the reporting. The exemption is meant to break up the certification of an enhancement that was not required when the aircraft was initially designed and constructed, but a new requirement that was made relatively recently (within the last 2 or 3 years). Essentially they want to break up one required fix into two separate fixes so that they can get it out faster as part of it is already ready to go onto both new jets and retrofit existing jets, and the other portion, which is complete but still needs to go through complete certification, which considering how now our anal butt wipe leader just fired half the FAA may take a while, even longer than what it was previously as the FAA doesn't have enough inspectors to watch over the manufacturer. But of course, all that was left out for a much more riveting story of how Boeing lacks a decent safety culture. Let's ignore Airbus request lots of these too.

[@yutakago1736]

Everyone want safety. The problem with Boeing is the same as other US companies that are listed on the stock exchange. They hired CEO whose only priority is to protect the interest of shareholders. Meaning they will cut headcount to save labor cost in order to boost share price. They retrench many QC inspectors that are suppose to ensure the quality of the plane build at Boeing. That is the reason why the quality of Boeing 737 Max drop. Therefore, to solve Boeing problem is to delist Boeing from the stock exchange and get rid of the shareholders. Hired a CEO who can focus on the aircraft production quality and don't care about the share price.

[@markellsworth4194]

SMYD had nothing to do with 737-Max crashes. Those were MCAS foulups, so the implication and slant on this question is contrived.

[@mikelurban892]

Another approach to put sales pressure above safety concerns could stall Boeings way back to a trusted manufacturer.

[@incediery]

here we go again more short cuts...I get why they asked they need to start deliveries on the 7 and 10 variants to improve cash flow...but can they be trusted to deliver quality aircraft

[@LaczPro]

The FAA: Sure, why not? Everyone else: Are you serious?

[@kgjung2310]

I think Boeing has earned not having the benefit of the doubt. Prove that every safety system works on this platform or let Airbus eat your lunch.

[@camhusmj38]

I think this is the right answer. Boeing has lost its credibility and needs to earn it back.

[@Rasscasse]

Well said

[@Embargoman]

Let new comers outshine them.

[@user-zu2ng5ko8l]

Comments mean nothing none of these people know anything about this system. If you think boeing is in the business of crashing plane like let's be real if it was a safety issue they would never let the planes fly but it's not.

[@magnustan841]

If it means future MAX aircraft will be able to attain a more up-to-date and higher standard, it sounds reasonable enough for the FAA to consider, provided it has the same conditions as per the EICAS modifications Boeing is expected to make to every single 737 MAX after the MAX 7 and 10 are certified. That said, I won't be too surprised if it was denied.

[@reubensandwich9249]

From what I read, they need this to get to the enhanced angle of attack program, which is the fix everyone wants.

[@Jet-Pack]

This is standard in the industry. Requirements change and become more strict over time but when new aircraft derivatives are added and are re-using old systems which were already certified "back then" they can be used in the new aircraft and be certified based on the old regulations instead of the new ones, unless significant changes are made. Given that the SMYD seems to have a low failure rate so far I think it's OK to install them on the new aircraft and give them a time-limited approval. Sure, the general public would not agree, but then they'd also complain if the ticket prices went up as a result of the inevitable delay.

[@epenos2154]

hope this isnt a misunderstanding; ortberg youre supposed to be fixing this company

[@EuropeanRailfan-AM]

Some decisions aren't done by Ortberg

[@cippalippa5327]

Boeing said there are no adverse safety concerns, so everyone is safe! Sure!!

[@ihmcallister]

Trump's FAA so the ethos will be - Aviation safety, like never before seen. - American-built, so all waivers approved for Boeing. - In fact, let's give all certification responsibility back to Boeing.

[@eamonahern7495]

The video title wasn't a good look for Boeing. But, having heard the details, it's understandable why Boeing made the request.

[@derekcaan7686]

Boeing needs to be stripped down and rebuilt from the ground up as a company run by engineers who are committed to technological innovation and safety. We need to get the financial bean counters, who are only focused on number fudging and stock buybacks out of the boardroom

[@Gaurav_Sharma3112]

Nice

[@alltimeaviation6812]

A simple example of corruption that led to the crashes in Indonesia an Ethiopia in the first place

[@iceman9678]

yeah, maintenance shortcuts and skimping on pilot training is not a good idea.

[@camhusmj38]

@@iceman9678The new AoA sensor on the Lion Air flight was miscalibrated in the US. The Ethiopian sensor failed during takeoff. Pilot training would not have helped because there was no training for this scenario.

[@iceman9678]

@@camhusmj38 MCAS integration is a contributing factor. Similarly, the failed AOA sensor (bird strike) is also a contributing factor. The pilot(s) of the plane had the plane at full throttle because the pilots did not disengage the auto-throttle auto-trim, autopilot for the entire tragic flight. An argument could be made that the pilot(s) were NOT in command of the plane.

[@jgnclvgmng5408]

@@iceman9678 "Contributing factor" 😂😂🤣🤣 Yes, Boeing accepted legally the blame on both crashes because it was pilot error.

[@iceman9678]

@@jgnclvgmng5408 I have to rethink everything. You're right. The pilots did everything right.

[@geertvandermeer4938]

Like that kid in class that is not doing their homework and then is asking for lenience.

[@neilpickup237]

No doubt we will have Airbus fanboys complaining and Boeing fanboys saying that the exemption should be given. Both I suspect will not have come to their conclusions by studying any of the facts beforehand. Even as someone who believes that the 737 was a little past its sell by date with the NG, and way past it with the MAX which should have been a clean-sheet design worthy of the Boeing name, and even as someone firmly of the mind that Boeing deserve no favours whatsoever - quite the opposite in fact, after having heard the explanation, I would not be against it in principle. However, to avoid any suspicion of favouritism, I would like for EASA to look at the merits and temporary accommodations and training requirements, and for them to rule.

[@Witty_HistoryGeek]

Boeing: Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make

[@kevinchallinor9116]

Because they are desperate to get in service. It's that classic thing of buy cheap you buy twice. They've failed to maintain the standards over long periods, now they are desperate to get planes out there whilst playing catch-up

[@dorson723]

We have a few former boring engineers in our department. The common features of them include poor technical know how, no desire to learn, diplomatic talking style, and so on. But they excel all other engineers in getting promoted, as they have one more thing in common: play dirty politics in group.

[@sundragon7703]

Takes a lot of nerve to ask for a big favor when one is under the microscope.

[@MustafaKemal-oe8ie]

How about a 737-01 max Max version of the 737-100

[@randomscb-40charger78]

Because that was the worst-selling variant in the entire 737 family. It wasn't because it was a poor design it had good bones, but most airlines wanted a larger version of it which ended up as the 737-200.

[@MustafaKemal-oe8ie]

@ yeah i know. Most airlines preferred the more capacity -200 variant

[@avalons343]

This seems like a perfectly reasonable exemption, but it appears a lot of people in the comments don't seem to comprehend context.

[@wayne-x30]

Don't do it, FAA

[@Bananaskin101]

Boeing wants to shortcut the safety system again

[@drevil2675]

Nope. Definitely not. Boeing must pay the price.

[@deniermurch8693]

This smacks of desperation, from a Boeing, up to it's eyeballs in debt, and beginning to panic. It's defence and space side losing money hand over fist, it's desperate to get the Max 7, 10 and 777x earning money at any cost. As I said smacks of desperation. (satire)

[@SwordQuake2]

So they want more planes falling out of the sky. Nothing new

[@randywoods2902]

NEED TO TAKE CARE OF THE INVESTORS AND CEO

[@thisladsamystery]

That doesn't matter..the primary job of a company is to maximise profit for stakeholders...

[@camf7522]

The immediate answer should be, NO and don’t ask again.

[@yeahbuddy300lbs]

Oh yeah, what could go wrong??

[@kkrsnn5632]

How about NO.

[@idpro83]

Boeing should rename themselves to Elon Trump Aircrafts.

[@Onlyenjoying420]

48 sec is goonable

[@Chika_Champon]

What lol

[@avrahamg7925]

Why can't they just got they're act together instead of wasting time you would think they are building a brand new Air plain from the ground up it's time that Boeing cuts the crap and gets back into the business of building new and existing plains Amen

[@memofromessex]

I'm confused. But still, if it's Boeing, I aint going. But then again I don't fly due to environmental reasons. I am still fascinated by flight though.

[@0x1EGEN]

Just fyi, cars produce more pollution than all aircrafts combined.

[@cskvision]

No more exemptions for Boeing. The MAX 7 and 10 EIS will be 2030 regardless.

[@martinsutherland5502]

Corporate greed has lead Boeing to this point. Trying to make a 50+ year old design safe and relevant

[@toonistiny]

You're asking me NOT to fly the 737 Max again...

[@miki_9034]

Here we go again!

[@Embargoman]

We will soon see the Boeing CEO plead not guilty for 2 plane crashes in Latin America and Kelly Ortberg receiving the presidential Medal of Freedom and AeroMexico switching from Boeing to Airbus. Yet a whole protest at Boeing headquarters with everyone holding a Mexican flag.

[@qtdcanada]

With Trump in the White House, and GOP control in both House and Senate Boeing will get a free pass. The current FAA director is stepping down, and it wouldn't be a surprise to see a Boeing-friendly person taking over. Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst, as the impacts would probably not be seen right away.

[@frankiexv4533]

Can someone put this into super simple terms?

[@ebx100]

I only fly Airbus.

[@elestromusicgamesfun1101]

Same

[@harshbayad27]

nobody cares and boeing couldnt care less.

[@elestromusicgamesfun1101]

@ - Oh, salty. I do think Boeing cares about their reputaion actually.

[@EuropeanRailfan-AM]

Ah sh8, here we go again.

[@user-gc1ky2rf3y]

How often does Airbus request exemptions?

[@TC-n5z]

Just last month, FAA granted an exemption for ,of all things ; bird strike ingestion for the Pratt powered A321XLR !!!!

[@user-yt198]

​ @TC-n5z Don't forget that EASA is telling FAA that their regulations are too strict in this case. Additionally A321XLR was already certified with CFM engines. This is for PW engines, an American company!!

[@iceman9678]

You could have done a basic search and got your answers.

[@randomscb-40charger78]

@@TC-n5z Those are American engines, the CFM Leap engines aren't American.

[@jameshannay7376]

This company never learns 💔

[@azeoprop]

Ask gravity for exemption 😂

[@HondaTiger56]

they hope with thew trump admin appointed director they will allow the exemption

[@SRT8-u6y]

A bit more professionalism in your report needed. Childish sigh and the (again) intro shows just that !!

[@theamazinghippopotomonstro9942]

If boeing is the only major airplane manufacturer in the US & they always get exemptions for the rules, why even have the rules in the first place?

[@thetruthbehindplanes]

They do not get exemptions

[@bearabletable7527]

At this rate, MC-21 and C929 would of been in commerical service before max 7 and 10 even certified 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@logicae4096]

No more exemptions for Boeing... they have failed too many projects from Starliner to Boeing to SLS to (put program name here). American companies have now become quagmires of politics in reflection of the federal government. We need to companies to put safety, reliability and facts ahead of feelings of personal safety (wokeness) and empowerment.

[@smoketinytom]

Wants to install an uncertified part that will be delivered to customers... Not having an "adverse" effect... So it does have a small effect, which could be the reason a crash happens.

[@tarikselaiwa7433]

Not good

[@John_Be]

If I was the FAA I would respond like this. "Lolz. Thanks for the laugh. Let me think about it... Um NO. Stay off drugs Boeing. Drugs are bad M'kay. Love The FAA"

[@elestromusicgamesfun1101]

Boeing = not going

[@RaY_77W]

Pressure from trump I assume, he wants the money to be made. I hope I’m wrong, either way they just need to get it done AND STOP TRYING THE DAMN SHORTCUTS! THATS HOW THEY GOT INTO THIS MESS.

[@petesteirer]

Boeing sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@kevinwong1988]

🤦‍♂️

[@NayNay-i9z]

Excemption for accountability

[@yodingdongyo]

(Again) I do not think you should be adding fuel to the fire by writing (again) when a company asks for what appears to be a reasonable exemption so please don't do this (again) as this information is good to know but not out of the ordinary. Thanks (again). There's no need to write (another) one of these right?

[@gregsmith3410]

Your absolutely correct; Exemptions are very common during certification processes. Airbus was granted 3 just in the past few months.

[@harat-xwb]

​ @gregsmith3410 Their aircraft aren't falling out of the sky and they are not lying to their regulator.

[@ashleyhansen6150]

This plane is going to keep killing people I fear.

[@tonamg53]

Boeing should be exempt from all of its eligible exemption…

[@aviatortrevor]

January 21st... wonder what changed around that time... 🤔 hmmm....

[@papatango2362]

Just grant the exemptions FAA. You are unnecessarily dragging out the certifications of these aircraft at the detriment of the flying public. These systems work very well on the other max variants, so there is 0 reason to not grant this exemption. Same logic applies to the anti-ice system with the caveat of adding limitations in the standard operation procedures. All the angry anti-Boeing people in the world need to calm down. You are very unrealistic for expecting everything to be perfectly functional and safe. Anything as complex as an airliner will have minor issues that can be reasonably and safely mitigated. Boeing has vastly improved its safety culture with the installment of Ortberg as CEO.

[@user-yt198]

You still don't understand. Boeing themselves do not understand either. It is not being "anti-Boeing". On the opposite, people like me caring more about Boeing's reputation than some Boeing fanboys. MAX's reputation is already ruined. Instead of finding excuses, creating shortcuts, Boeing needs do whatever required to improve that reputation.

[@harat-xwb]

Work very well on the other max variants? They received MAX certification saying that these are working very well on NG. Then 346 people died.

[@Chika_Champon]

You're a shill who puts profits over safety. Go ride on a first generation max 8. 🖕

[@bigvaxmeanie925]

When your company's products un-alive over 300 people, your company becomes very unpopular. Who knew??

[@elevatorcentral]

id say they need to revoke the type cert ability and make the max its own type it aint a 737 its a frankinstein

[@ce1834]

If its Boeing, I ain't going

[@thetruthbehindplanes]

daily mail reader

[@andrewmolen5618]

Oh yeah! More crashes?

[@thisladsamystery]

More Air Crash Investigations episodes!

[@geoffreyhartman9972]

no wouldn't fly 737 Max

[@PtHough]

An other cover up .don't fly Boeing

[@luiswebster4998]

faa won't be generous

[@skylineXpert]

Oh no you dont

[@bigonicha3225]

No Boeing you get no exemption for anything ever again

[@TheHoustonTraveler]

Lol boeing is a mess. The downfall of a once great plane maker

[@0x1EGEN]

People don't realize the issue isn't production of the plane itself but poor maintenance. New certified aircrafts are almost guaranteed to have flaws, whether if it's Boeing, Airbus or any other well known manufacturer. Aircrafts are suppose to under go routine inspections for every 100 hours of flight time (or annual if not flown as much) OR perform progressive inspections for minimum downtime. Any flaws detected should be reported to the FAA so they can issue an AD for correction. If these flaws aren't corrected in time then problems will arise. Airlines trying to maximize profits by doing sloppy inspections are what causes airplanes to fall apart.

[@camhusmj38]

In the Ethiopian airlines case, it was not a maintenance issue. The sensor failed sometime during take off. Sensors fail, that’s expected. Single points of failure are not. And the issue is not so much that Boeing had issues is that it knew about these issues during certification and concealed them.

[@0x1EGEN]

@camhusmj38 You're right, single point of failures are totally unacceptable for certified aircrafts.