Ann: Appendix 4C and Quarterly Update - June 2023, page-11

Sorry this is a bit long.

Dunno about you but I am quite confused about this FAA certification process and Boeing's activities and where it is all at.

Others may understand the path to approval better than I, so ---

First as per the para below – ‘additional testing that has been requested in relation to the APB application by the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA)’ – I must have missed it but I was unaware the FAA were even looking at an application re the APB let alone requiring additional testing. I thought (obviously wrongly) Boeing required the additional testing in respect of potential issues between anti-corrosion compounds, and then once this was clear Boeing would be making the application to the FAA.

“The Company has provided a number of updates to the market over the reporting period regarding the additional testing that has been requested in relation to the APB application by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) towards certification of the draft Boeing service bulletin, which remains a key priority.”

So Service bulletin by Boeing or AMOC by FAA?

I thought we were going for an AMOC to be issued by the FAA yet it seems all we need is a Boeing Service bulletin presumably prepared after their in depth corrosion analysis.

And then we have this-

"SMS Chief Technical Officer Trevor Lynch-Staunton P. Eng said ongoing testing has made favourable progress on the CIC issue with Boeing. Thetargeted solution requires no sensor system changes, only some minor changes to the Service Bulletin ahead of the anticipated FAA certification"

So all the testing appears to have validated all that CVM has to offer and we are now just waiting on some wording changes to the Service Bulletin– who is doing this Boeing or FAA.? How long to write some new words?

It almost seems to be that the original CVM FAA approval for the wifi application has been of no benefit – with this APB application requiring fresh testing and then lo and behold it gives rise to the fact that there are no CVM sensor system changes required. So why wasn’t CVM accepted as approved as it was for the wifi?

I wonder how well the next application for use of CVM will flow if this is an example of something with prior approvals?

redgum