Boeing’s Homicides Will Give Way to Safety Reforms if Flyers Organize

By Ralph Nader | April 4, 2019

To understand the enormity of the Boeing 737 Max 8 crashes (Lion Air 610 and Ethiopian Airlines 302) that took a combined total of 346 lives, it is useful to look at past events and anticipate future possible problems.

In 2011, Boeing executives wanted to start a “clean sheet” new narrow body air passenger plane to replace its old 737 design from the nineteen sixties. Shortly thereafter, Boeing’s bosses panicked when American Airlines put in a large order for the competitive Airbus A320neo.  Boeing shelved the new design and rushed to put out the 737 Max that, in Business Week’s words, was “pushing an ageing design past its limits.” The company raised the 737 Max landing gear and attached larger, slightly more fuel efficient engines angled higher and more forward on the wings. Such a configuration changed the aerodynamics and made the plane more prone to stall (see attached article: https://www.aviationcv.com/aviation-blog/2019/boeing-canceling-737-max).

This put Boeing’s management in a quandary. Their sales pitch to the airlines was that the 737 Max only received an “amended” certification from the FAA. That it did not have to be included in more pilot training, simulators, and detailed in the flight manuals. The airlines could save money and would be more likely to buy the Boeing 737 Max.

Boeing engineers were worried. They knew better. But the managers ordered software to address the stall problem without even telling the pilots or most of the airlines. Using only one operating sensor (Airbus A320neo has three sensors), an optional warning light and indicator, Boeing set the stage for misfiring sensors that overcame pilot efforts to control the planes from their nose-down death dive.

These fixes or patches would not have been used were the new 737’s aerodynamics the same as the previous 737 models. Step by step, Boeing’s criminal negligence, driven by a race to make profits, worsened. Before and after the fatal crashes, Boeing did not reveal, did not warn, did not train, and did not address the basic defective aerodynamic design. It gagged everyone that it could.  Boeing still insists that the 737 Max is safe and is building two a day, while pushing to end the grounding.

Reacting to all these documented derelictions, a flurry of investigations is underway. The Department of Transportation’s Inspector General, Calvin L. Scovel III, is investigating the hapless, captive FAA that has delegated to Boeing important FAA statutory and regulatory duties. The Justice Department and FBI have opened a criminal probe, with an active grand jury. The National Transportation Safety Board, long the hair shirt of the FAA, is investigating. As are two Senate and House Committees. Foreign governments are investigating, as surely are the giant insurance companies who are on the hook. This all sounds encouraging, but we’ve seen such initiatives pull back before.

This time, however, the outrageous corner-cutting and suppression of engineering dissent, within both Boeing and the FAA (there were reported “heated discussions”) produced a worst case scenario. So, Boeing is working overtime with its legions of Washington lobbyists, its New York P.R. firm, its continued campaign contributions to some 330 Members of Congress. The airlines and pilots’ union chiefs (but not some angry pilots) are staying mum, scared into silence due to contracts and jobs, waiting for the Boeing 737 Max planes to fly again.

BUT THE BOEING 737 MAX MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO FLY AGAIN. Pushing new software that will allow Boeing to blame the pilots is a dangerous maneuver. Saying that U.S. pilots, many of whom are ex-Air Force, are more experienced in reacting to a sudden wildly gyrating aircraft (consider the F-16 diving and swooping) than many foreign airline pilots only trained by civil aviation, opens a can of worms from cancellation of 737 Max orders  to indignation from foreign airlines and pilots. It also displays an aversion to human-factors engineering with a vast number of avoidable failure modes not properly envisioned by Boeing’s software patches […]

via Boeing’s Homicides Will Give Way to Safety Reforms if Flyers Organize

5 thoughts on “Boeing’s Homicides Will Give Way to Safety Reforms if Flyers Organize

  1. “…investigating the hapless, captive FAA that has delegated to Boeing important FAA statutory and regulatory duties”
    Sounds like another set of captives, FDA and CDC to Big pharma!

    Like

    • One thing I really liked about this article, ebolainfo, is the discussion (that has been totally left out of the mainstream media) is the Boeing decision (for cost cutting reasons) to cut down from 3 senors to 1. The media has been making out like it was a software failure, but apparently it wasn’t. It was the sensor that failed.

      Like

  2. The planes motors are mismounted. No properly built jet would require software to lower the nose or correct for the other inherwnt aerodynamic flaws of the jet design.
    If ford sold cars that had engines, that fell out of the car, while driving down the freeway, they would get sued into bankrupsy.

    Like

  3. Found this on an aviation blog, sounds like our FDA/CDC:
    https://wordpress.com/read/blogs/131077946/posts/7858

    “There is much written elsewhere on the self-certification Boeing is allowed to get away with – the FAA sets standards and Boeing is allowed to simply say its met them. The number of ex-Boeing staff at the FAA has also drawn much criticism but has had little real scrutiny. The “revolving door” of staff moving from the Pentagon to Boeing to the FAA and back has long been a fact of life. The acting Secretary of Defense is a former Boeing executive, just as one prominent example.

    With an unhealthy relationship between the regulator and the regulated, the profits of Boeing – largely credited with keeping the US stock market boom at such high levels, as it ploughs billions of dollars back to investors, another dangerous feedback loop appears.”

    Like

Leave a reply to ebolainfo Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.