Fallout of Boeing 737 Max 8—Will Legislation Repair Broken System?
The 737 Max 8 tragedy offers the FAA, Boeing, and aviation manufacturers an opportunity to learn from the mistakes of the past and to make aviation safer, says Ladd Sanger managing partner of the Dallas office of Slack Davis Sanger.
January 12, 2021 at 08:36 AM
5 minute read
![](http://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/401/2021/01/Boeing-737-MAX-8-Article-202101071550.jpg)
On Nov. 18, 2020, the Federal Aviation Administration set forth the requirements for the 737 Max 8 to return to service after the March 13, 2019, grounding of the world's most popular airliner following two crashes that killed 346 people. The scrutiny associated with the Max 8 crashes has highlighted the way the FAA has deputized aviation manufacturers to self-certify the safety of their own products.
Operating under the Organization Designation Authorization (ODA), 14 C.F.R. part 183, subpart D, the FAA has the authority to delegate its safety oversight responsibilities to the aviation manufacturer to review and confirm the designs meet the FAA-imposed minimum standards of safety. A review of the ODA system in the aftermath of the 737 Max crashes has revealed the aircraft manufacturers have been exploiting this privilege to certify that aircraft systems meet FAA minimum safety standards when they do not. Larger aviation companies are self-approving approximately 95% or more of their own products. Congress has recognized the inherent conflicts of interest the ODA system creates and its negative impact on aviation safety. In an effort to keep the ODA system but erect some guardrails to provide more oversight, Congress is considering the Aviation Safety and Certification Reform Act of 2020.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All![About Face: Court Takes Up Boeing Suit It Had Rejected About Face: Court Takes Up Boeing Suit It Had Rejected](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/texaslawyer/contrib/content/uploads/sites/392/2022/12/southwest-airlines-767x633.jpg)
![Class Action Claims American Airlines Implemented 'Unsustainable' Sales Plan Causing Stock to Tank Class Action Claims American Airlines Implemented 'Unsustainable' Sales Plan Causing Stock to Tank](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/401/2024/08/american_airlines_miami_jad_07-767x633.jpg)
Class Action Claims American Airlines Implemented 'Unsustainable' Sales Plan Causing Stock to Tank
4 minute read![Litigation Launched: How to Sue NASA for Fallen Space Debris Litigation Launched: How to Sue NASA for Fallen Space Debris](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/292/2024/08/Mica-Nguyen-Worthy-767x633.jpg)
![737 Max Crash Victims' Families Blast Proposed Boeing Punishment as 'Sweetheart Deal' 737 Max Crash Victims' Families Blast Proposed Boeing Punishment as 'Sweetheart Deal'](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/390/2024/06/Boeing-737-MAX-8-767x633-1.jpg)
737 Max Crash Victims' Families Blast Proposed Boeing Punishment as 'Sweetheart Deal'
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
- 2Securities Report Says That 2024 Settlements Passed a Total of $5.2B
- 3'Intrusive' Parental Supervision Orders Are Illegal, NY Appeals Court Says
- 4Federal Laws Also Preempt State's Swipe Fee Law on Out-of-State Banks, Judge Rules
- 5Judge Grills DOJ on Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250