![]()
The FAA has adopted a new policy to require any design changes that would have a notable effect on the airworthiness of the plane to be considered "major," improving the safety of the aircraft certification process. This policy was issued on Nov. 20, alongside additional guidance for manufacturers on how to identify safety-critical information in applications. The FAA has undergone extensive certification reform efforts after the Aircraft Certification, Safety and Accountability Act was passed in 2020, proposing changes to FAA airplane certification in the wake of two deadly Boeing 737 Max crashes. This policy change is another action in response to the deadly crashes that claimed the lives of over 300 people.
The policy requires an applicant for, or holder of, a type certificate to disclose any design or analysis change that would "materially alter any submission previously made to the Administrator." The new policy statement reports that any proposed design change that would "materially alter safety critical information is not minor within the meaning of FAA regulations." All applicants or type certificate holder must disclose these changes to the Administrator in the form, manner and time required. This includes any newly discovered information.
The safety critical information is described as any design or operational details, intended functions and failure modes in the system that, without command from the flight crew, would control the operation of safety critical functions required to control the plane during flight or could otherwise alter the flight path or airspeed of the plane. This includes the autopilot and autothrottle systems if applicable. The FAA policy notes that this includes any failure the applicant or holder anticipates or has concluded will result in an outcome with a severity level of hazardous or catastrophic and any change that would fail to meet requirements of applicable regulations without new software to augment flight controls.
The type certificate holder is required to determine the proper classification of the change as either major or minor. Per 14 CFR § 21.95, certain applicants are allowed to approve minor changes before submission to the FAA of substantiating or descriptive data. These minor design changes are defined as one that has no large impact on the weight, structural strength, balance, reliability or operational characteristic of the plane. Those seeking approval of major design changes, including changes that incorporate a design or analysis change that could impact the airworthiness of the aircraft, must gain approval in accordance with 14 CFR § 21.97(a).
The policy is applicable to those seeking changes for 14 CFR Part 25 transport category airplanes. Since safety critical information relates to the airworthiness characteristics of a product, proposed design or analysis changes that would alter critical flight or safety information do not meet the minor change classification and would not be approved as such. To prevent improper approval, FAA personnel and designees, including Organization Designation Authorization holders, must carefully review and update any relevant documentation, such as ODA procedures manuals, within six moths of the effective date of this policy. The FAA hopes these changes will ensure that design or analysis changes that would alter critical information are not approved as a minor change.RELATED STORY:Recent FAA airplane performance guidance revision provides clarity
This policy was adopted alongside a revision to the FAA guidance on airplane performance certification and operating rules, stating that regulatory language was complex, leading to confusion and questions among inspectors and stakeholders. The FlightTechnologies and Procedures Division developed Notice 8900.683 - Revision—FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 4, Chapter 3, Airplane Performance and Airport Data, along with a change to FAA Order 8900.1, Flight Standards Information Management System (FSIMS), regarding Airplane Performance and Airport Data. The revised guidance includes information on the subject of plane performance and its regulatory basis and the restructuring of some information in the chapter.
These changes are part of a broader movement over the last two years to enhance the FAA certification process and safety-oversight. This includes policy to require ODA holders to investigate and report all allegations of interference among aviation manufacturers, established a clear path for industry employees to talk freely with FAA certification officials, updates to criteria on safety assessments and revising regulations, expanding the use of independent internal/external safety review experts and improving the reporting safety critical information. In January 2023, the FAA appointed 24 experts to review Boeing's safety management processes and how they affect the company's safety culture. The panel of experts includes representatives from NASA, the FAA, labor unions, independent engineering experts, air carriers, manufacturers and legal experts and they will have nine months to complete a review and issue findings and recommendations.RELATED STORIES:In Boeing 737 MAX crash case, judge says he lacks authority to reopen plea dealJudge orders Boeing to arraignment on 737 MAX federal chargesNTSB says Ethiopian 737-8 MAX crash investigation left out key facts
After two Boeing 737 MAX crashes in the span of five months claimed the lives of 346 people, people demanded change. The families and friends of the victims of the two crashes urged the government to hold Boeing accountable and initiate change to prevent another catastrophe. According to Reuters, the crashes have cost Boeing over $20 billion in compensation, fines and production costs and also led to a 20-month grounding for the 737 MAX. The company has undergone heavy public scrutiny over the perceived deception. Friends and families of the victims filed charges and Boeing admitted to defrauding the FAA during the process in January 2021. While Boeing has cooperated with the FAA since the crashes, the agency has also been under fire for allowing the plane's certification initially.
The 2020 legislation was passed as a direct result of reviews and investigations into the FAA's certification of the Boeing 737 MAX aircraft, leading to immense changes in the two years since it came into effect. This required aviation manufacturers to adopt safety management systems, authorize civil penalties against those who interfere or place undue pressure on employees empowered to act as FAA designees, requires the FAA to approve each new designee who evaluates whether a product complies with requirements, expand whistleblower protections and locked in new requirements on the disclosure of safety-critical systems.
"This historic legislation is a major step to prevent the certification of substandard aircraft and avoiding future crashes," said Michael Stumo, whose daughter Samya died in the Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 crash.RELATED STORIES:Deliveries dip in Q1 for Gulfstream - but the G700 looks to change thatGulfstream G700 certification delayed as FAA adds requirementsWhile improving safety is crucial, no matter how many hoops it adds to the many manufacturers must already jump through to certify an aircraft, it has led to delays for the certification for aircraft like the Gulfstream G700. The G700 was originally expected to be certified in 2022, but due to additional software testing requirements by the FAA it has faced numerous delays. This delay was due to the FAA's decision to bolster software standards in the wake of the 737 MAX MCAS system failures. Gulfstream shared in 2022 that the certification process had a first-time requirement in the wake of the crashes that was not part of the company's original flight test plan prior to development.
The changes from the 2020 legislation have led to delays, including those for the G700. While these policy changes and stricter requirements have pushed certification for some aircraft, like the G700, for months to possibly years, it is in the name of safety. The FAA is continuing to abide by the legislation imposed after over 300 people lost their lives due to a cut corner in the certification process. Aviation safety is critical, especially in an age with increased runway excursions and while the FAA's authority over the industry is in peril as the FAA reauthorization bill is still being debated in the government, despite an extension and looming year-end deadline.
As next-generation aircraft like flying cars and eVTOLs are closer to integrating into the national airspace, the FAA having a firmer grasp over aircraft certification and aviation safety is more imperative than ever. Strengthening aircraft certification in the wake of the deadly 737 MAX crashes and with a continually changing industry can prevent another tragedy.