FAA Delays Boeing 737 Max 10 Certification Over Software
Left 50%
Center 50%
Right 0%
1 left · 1 center · 0 right
What happened
The Federal Aviation Administration is delaying certification of Boeing’s 737 MAX 10 after Boeing reported a software glitch on some 737 MAX aircraft. FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford said Monday in Washington, D.C., that the agency has not concluded whether the issue is a safety-of-flight problem but will hold the MAX 10 until it is satisfied there is none. Boeing said last month the glitch can cause the vertical navigation (VNAV) system to disengage during certain missed-approach or go-around procedures; it said pilots remain in control and are trained for those cases. The FAA certified the smaller MAX 7 last month; U.S. carriers said their in-service MAX fleets do not use the software versions involved. Boeing shares fell nearly 7% after Bedford’s remarks.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 3 articles
2 of 2 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 2 of 2
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: FAA, Bryan Bedford, Boeing and Federal Aviation Administration
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 2
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
- Credits another outlet 0 of 2
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 0 of 2
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 27, 01:32 UTC by CBS News, naming its source.
- Not counted 1
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
BLINDSPOT.
Only left-leaning outlets are covering this story
— the other side's media is silent.
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Left-leaning coverage never starts the clock on when Boeing learned of the 737 MAX software glitch, and right-leaning outlets had not covered the FAA delay as of publication. It reports a problem that can affect landing procedures and says pilots remain in control, but not that an airline first flagged the issue in November 2024. Boeing then judged it not a safety issue before a later review went to the FAA. A reader of the silent side therefore misses both the hold on the MAX 10 and that earlier in-house judgment.
Left-leaning coverage, citing the FAA administrator, frames the problem as a "workload component." It does not report that vertical navigation can disengage and leave pilots a less sophisticated pitch mode on the next approach.
What did the additional operator information show that Boeing's first safety judgment did not?
Bottom line
CNBC's account of the MAX 10 freeze never mentions that an airline flagged the glitch to Boeing in November 2024. The delay therefore reads as a new FAA hold rather than the end of a months-long internal clock.
The receipts — 6 facts one side's coverage lacks
- Boeing was first told of the issue by an airline in November 2024
- Boeing's initial bulletin said a software fix would be ready sometime in 2028
- Southwest Airlines and United Airlines will not accept delivery of new aircraft with that operating system
- Boeing told operators the glitch is not an immediate safety issue
- The glitch surfaced in versions 14 and 14.1 of the flight-management-computer operating system
- The FAA will convene a Corrective Action Review Board
The Left View
CNBC framed Bedford’s announcement as a setback for a years-delayed jet Boeing’s CEO had said could be approved “very soon,” stressing a nearly 7% share drop, the MAX family’s crash history, and FAA language that “safety dictates the certification timeline.” It quoted Bedford that the concern is pilot workload, not loss of control, and Boeing that it is following the FAA. CBS News added technical and timeline detail: in specific precision-approach, autopilot, and flight-plan-change conditions, VNAV can drop to a less automated pitch mode during a go-around, increasing low-altitude workload. CBS reported Boeing was first told by an airline in November 2024, judged it not a safety issue in February 2025, then opened a formal review after further operator information; the FAA will convene a Corrective Action Review Board. CBS also reported Southwest and United will not take new jets with the affected operating-system versions, that a software fix had been aimed at 2028, and that MAX 7 deliveries could also slip.
Our Take (balanced)
The story is substantive: it is built on named officials, on-the-record FAA and Boeing statements, a specified software failure mode, airline delivery positions, and a measurable market move—not a single unverified claim. Established: the FAA publicly delayed MAX 10 certification over this glitch; Boeing disclosed a VNAV disengagement risk on certain flight-management-computer software versions (14 and 14.1); the agency has not yet classified it as a safety-of-flight issue; and U.S. airlines say in-service MAX fleets are not flying those versions. Unresolved: whether the FAA will treat it as a safety issue, the effect on recently certified MAX 7 deliveries, and when a software fix will actually ship. No right-leaning outlet has reported this. Watch for the Corrective Action Review Board’s findings, an FAA safety determination, an accelerated fix or new pilot-procedure bulletin, and whether Southwest or other customers delay MAX 7 or MAX 10 deliveries.
3 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.