FAA is doing Boeing a favor, delaying Max re-certification

Courtesy Getty Images

The B737 Max fallout has affected not only the credibility of Boeing as the aircraft manufacturer but also that of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as the regulator. (See Are there more skeletons in the Boeing cupboard? Jan 10, 2020; A new beginning for Boeing? Dec 23, 2019)

The B737 Max fallout has affected not only the credibility of Boeing as the aircraft manufacturer but also that of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as the regulator.

FAA has been censured for oversight laxity when it allowed Boeing to self-certify. If it had been a friend and supporter of Boeing in the early days of the disasters of two Max air crashes involving Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines five months apart, it has distanced itself in working its own agenda to repair its own reputation.

Clearly FAA wants to be seen to be reasserting its authority as regulator. Its chief administrator Steve Dickson has made it known that “the FAA fully controls the approval process” and will not rush the certification at the bidding of Boeing.

To show it is serious about how Boeing had misled the FAA, the regulator is seeking to fine the aircraft manufacturer US$5.4 million for “knowingly” installing faulty parts on the Max jet, following the release of internal staff communications, one of which mentioned that the plane was “designed by clowns”. (See Are there any more skeletons in the Boeing cupboard? Jan 10, 2020)

Looking back, FAA may be wishing it had acted sooner to ground the Max jet after China became the first country to do so, followed by the rest of the world while the United States tarried, insisting at that time there was no reason to suspect the aircraft’s safety.

That, despite the revelation now of a November 2018 internal FAA analysis made after the Lion Air crash that the Max could have averaged one fatal crash about every two or three years. Whatever counter measures FAA might have taken then proved to be inadequate to prevent the Ethiopian Airlines crash.

In the words of the chairman of the House Transportation Committee Peter DeFazio, “FAA rolled the dice on the safety of the travelling public and let the 737 MAX continue to fly.”

This has led to other regulatory authorities such as Canada and the European Union setting their own criteria for approval even as FAA has made it known it is implementing stringent tests to ensure that Max is safe.

One issue has to do with the need for pilot training. It has been revealed lately that in a March 2017 email, then Boeing’s 737 chief technical pilot Mark Forkner wrote: “I want to stress the importance of holding firm that there will not be any type of simulator training required to transition from NG to Max.”

Apparently that was to cut back cost to make the price of the plane more attractive to customers, speed up aircraft production and hasten FAA approval. Boeing continued to maintain that position in the aftermath of the air disasters despite a number of regulators including Canada and the European Union insisting on the requirement. Only this week has Boeing agreed to reverse its decision and recommend Max simulator training for all pilots.

FAA in renewing its commitment to be thorough as it had not been before is in fact doing Boeing a favour by delaying approval of the new MAX, thus allowing time to heal and repair the unfortunate perception.

Are there any more skeletons in the Boeing cupboard?

In my last post, I asked if 2020 would mark a new beginning for Boeing with the appointment of a new CEO – David Calhoun – to replace Dennis Mullenberg who had held on with the support of the Boeing Board of Directors. (See A New Beginning for Boeing? Dec 23, 2019)

Courtesy Boeing

If Boeing were a Japanese company,Mr Mullenberg would have long stepped down following two fatal B737 Max crashes involving Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines within five months of each other. And it would likely be seen as a voluntary leadership gesture to shoulder the responsibility for what had happened.

It took the Board more than a year from the time of the first crash to fire Mr Mullenberg as the pressure piled up, pushing it to recognize – in its own words – that “a change in leadership was necessary o restore confidence in the company moving forward as it works to repair relationships with regulators, customers, and all other stakeholders.”

For too long, Boeing had stagnated in the denial mode, which was not unexpected at the onset. But as the company dug in its heels to deny any fault on its part, the defence soon became untenable, worsened by reports about its suspect work ethos at the plants. As recent as October, one of the company’s employees was said to have misled FAA about MAX’s MCAS anti-stall technology, and that he had “basically lied” to the regulator.

One wonders how many more skeletons are left in the cupboard. Here is now the opportunity for the new Boeing to make a clean sweep of its house, or the continuing saga of mismanagement, lies and deception will hang over its shoulders like the ancient mariner’s albatross.

The release of yet another batch of company communications between employees have raised more questions of the Max jet if at all they were anything new.

One employee said in 2017: “This airplane is designed by clowns who in turn are supervised by monkeys.”

The language might be seen to be a stretch too far, but the frustrations translated into concerns were clearly there.

Another employee wrote: “Would you put your family on a Max simulator-trained aircraft? I wouldn’t.”

These redacted communications were said to be released by Boeing as part of its commitment to transparency, unlike previous criticisms of the slack work ethos at its plants.

The company itself may be said to have not helped contain the narrative from becoming one more about its trustworthiness as a company than the air crashes. While it pushes to get Max back in the air soonest, it has failed to understand the ramifications of its largely perceived insensitive and self-preserving approach.

Could this have come earlier? That lost opportunity is now water under the bridge, but public perception of Boeing as a company driven by profit at the expense of passenger’s safety has been so galvanized by the stories thus far that it is not going to be one easy to put to rest in a long time. And certainly not if more skeletons keep falling out of the Boeing cupboard.

Caution keeps B737 Max jet grounded

Courtesy Getty Images

Carriers which had been hopeful that the Boeing B737 Max jet would return to the skies as early as next month have deferred scheduled dates to operate the aircraft.

Earlier in August, Boeing CEO Dennis Mullenburg was hopeful that this would happen in the fourth quarter of the year and the airlines could look forward to capturing the peak holiday season traffic.

American Airlines which owns 24 of the Max jet is pushing the date to Dec 3. United Airlines with a fleet of 14 is moving it further down the road to Dec 19. It looks like both carriers are still hoping to cash in on what shall remain of the peak season including the Christmas holiday. But Southwest Airlines, the largest of the Max operators worldwide with 34 aircraft has moved the scheduled date to Jan 5 next year.

North of the border, Air Canada (which owns 24 Max jets) and Sunwing (with 4 aircraft) are not expecting the aircraft to be operational until next year. For Air Canada, it is Jan 8. And for Sunwing, even later in May. WestJet (with a fleet of 13 Max jets) too is not scheduling Max flights during the year-end holiday season, but said the company might consider an occasional flight to ease the demand should the ban be lifted then.

WestJet’s vice-president in charge of scheduling said: “It’s a little harder to unmix the cake at that point, but we would look at peak days, the Friday before Christmas (for example) where we can still sell seats and we’ll put the airplane back in.”

Elsewhere across the world, affected carriers remain non-committal on their plans. Other major operators until the jet was grounded include Norwegian Air Shuttle (18 aircraft), China Southern Airlines (16), TUI Group (15), China Eastern Airlines (14), Lion Air (14), FlyDubai (14), Turkish Airlines (12), and XiamenAir (10).

The B737 Max jet was grounded globally following two fatal incidents, one involving Indonesian carrier Lion Air in Oct last year and the other involving Ethiopian Airlines in Mar this year, both crashes claiming a total of 346 lives.

Quite naturally, carriers which own the Max jet are keen to see its early return to the skies. Many of them have cut back capacity to cope with the shortage of aircraft and are reporting losses as a consequence. United which took out 70 flights a day in its September schedule will see the number increased to 90 in December. Together, the three airlines – American, United and Southwest – have cancelled 30,000 flights. Delta Air Lines, however, stands to gain from these airlines’ disadvantage as it does not own any Max aircraft.

Budget carrier Norwegian Air Shuttle which plies the ultra-long haul is said to be on the brink of collapse, and the grounding of the B737 Max jet isn’t helping. According to former CEO Bjorn Kjos, the restriction has cost the airline US$58 million. Norwegian, which took the US by storm with its low fares, raising objection from American carriers, has cancelled numerous flights between Europe and the U.S.

Both the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Boeing have suffered some loss of credibility in the wake of the two crashes. Stories about Boeing’s shoddy work at is plants and allegations of FAA’s relegating its oversight role to the manufacturer had hit hard. FAA’s delayed action to ground the Max jet after a number of authorities across the globe had done so also called into question FAA’s leadership role in the field.

However, FAA may have learnt its lesson. Following meetings between Boeing and various industry players where disagreement on the readiness of the Max jet was apparent, FAA had said, “Our first priority is safety, and we have set no timeframe for when the work will be complete. Each government will make its own decision to return the aircraft to service, based on a thorough safety assessment.”

Europe’s aviation safety watchdog – the European Aviation Safety Agency (Easa) – for one will not rely entirely on a US verdict on whether the Max jet is safe to resume flying. It will instead additionally conduct its own tests on the plane before giving its final approval.

Transport Canada has insisted on the need for essential simulator training in early discussions when Boeing said it was not necessary since the Max jet was a variation of the B737 master model. The authority said it “will not lift the current flight restriction… until it is fully satisfied that all concerns have been addressed by the manufacturer and U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, and adequate flight crew procedures and training are in place.”

According to a report by the Wall Street Journal, multiple regulatory bodies around the world were not satisfied with Boeing’s briefing on the Max software update. They contended that Boeing “failed to provide technical details and answer specific questions about (the) modifications.” Boeing is expected to resubmit documents providing more details, and that these should be first approved by FAA before a follow-up meeting is convened. This in a way reminds FAA of its oversight role.

While affected airlines are looking forward to normalising their operations with the return of the B737 Max jet, what happens post-ban is another story. In fact, it may present a more difficult problem to handle than the technical aspects of the saga as the carriers try to win back the trust of travellers. If, indeed time is the healer, then taking the time to be absolutely convinced of the jet’s airworthiness before lifting the ban may be a good thing for the airlines.

What…? A New MAX Issue?

Courtesy Getty Images

Just as it all seems to be good news for Boeing with IAG placing a tentative order for the B737 MAX jet, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has uncovered a new potential risk during simulator tests.

Some carriers such as American Airlines have been optimistic that the grounding would be lifted soon, but the new discovery can only mean pushing the date further down the road.

The FAA has clarified that’s not the priority for now. This was made clear in a statement that it issued: “The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is following a thorough process, not a prescribed timeline, for returning the Boeing 737 Max to passenger service. The FAA will lift the aircraft’s prohibition order when we deem it is safe to do so.”

The FAA seems determined to reassert itself after being criticized for lacking in oversight following the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines disasters. It sees an important role now in discovering and highlighting potential risks, and has engaged the service of a Technical Advisory Board, which is an independent panel.

On the latest finding, FAA said it is “a potential risk that Boeing must mitigate.”

IAG probably did not see this coming, but it is to be assumed that the order is only as good as when the MAX is fully certified to be airworthy.

However, each time a new issue surfaces, public confidence sinks to a new low.

No new spin: Boeing sings the same apologetic tune

Courtesy Getty Images

The Paris Air Show (June 17 to 23) should provide an opportunity for aircraft manufacturer Boeing to clear the air of any misgiving and doubt that industry players may have of the company’s commitment to production priorities following the B737-800 MAX 8 disasters and the unsavoury stories that have unfolded since the two incidents involving Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines.

It will be a mammoth effort trying to regain customer trust particularly in light of how many travellers surveyed have indicated they would not ever fly the MAX jet even after the authorities have cleared it for service resumption. So far it is anybody’s guess as to when the grounding will be lifted. The date keeps pushing into the future.

Airlines which own a sizeable fleet of the MAX, having reported the cancellation of thousands of flights since the grounding, may be keen to see it back up in the air sooner. American Airlines which owns a fleet of 24 jets is pre-empting an October date.

But the authorities want to be more conservative this time as they grapple with issues of training and procedures with the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) thinking it may be longer than that. Canadian transportation authorities for one are insisting on simulator training which Boeing, the FAA and American carriers think would not be necessary.

Boeing CEO Dennis Mullenberg all but knows too well the score. Quite wisely he had said of the Paris Air Show: “This is a different show for us, it is not about orders. It is really focused on safety and the safe return of the Max flight.”

Boeing had reported no new commercial aircraft orders in May, although according to Mr Mullenberg, the company had more than 4,000 orders of the MAX jet in backlog. He is expecting to see the aircraft back in the air by the end of the year, but the timeline is still not specific if not uncertain. Reports seem to be ambivalent as to whether the software glitch of the computer system known as MCAS has been definitively fixed or that Boeing is still working on the update.

The hardware may not be as difficult an issue to handle as that which concerns public opinion, perception and reservations. So in doses Boeing is dishing out apologetic messages but falling short of admitting sole responsibility for the tragic MAX incidents.

Mr Mullenberg expressed disappointment that Boeing had not been more transparent with regulators and the public when it discovered a safety light was not operating as designed. He echoed Boeing vice-president Gordon Johndroe who said ahead of the Paris Air Show: “We clearly fell short in the implementation of the AOA disagree alert and we clearly should have communicated better with our regulators and the airlines.”

And, one wonders, what would have had happened then?

Clearly the road ahead for Boeing is marked with PR pointers to appeal to the heart for understanding and perhaps implicitly forgiveness without admitting liability. It knows that the airlines who were operating the MAX before its grounding have much to lose if they do not work together to get the aircraft safely back in the air.

Some more Boeing woes: Shoddy work at manufacturing plant

As Boeing works at regaining the trust of travellers in the B737 Max 8 jet (following the crashes of an Ethiopian Airlines jet and a Lion Air jet in similar circumstances), assuring them that the software fix to the anti-stall system will make it the safest aircraft to fly the skies, new issues that have surfaced aren’t helping.

A New Times report (April 23, 2019) stated that the Boeing factory in North Charleston (South Carolina) that makes the 787 Dreamliner “has been plagued by shoddy production and weak oversight that have threatened to compromise safety.”

Whistle-blowers have pointed out defective manufacturing resulting from faulty parts being installed, debris left on planes dangerously close to wiring beneath the cockpits, and pressure to not report violations. The debris includes tools, metal shavings, Bubble Wrap and chewing gum, and it is alleged that customers had found random objects in new planes.

One airline – Qatar Airways – it seems, was so upset that it has since 2014 bought only planes built in Boeing’s main plant in Everett. It may sound ridiculous, but will travellers now go checking where the Dreamliners operated by other airlines were built, as a supermarket shopper would ordinarily do?

While the public may understand the risk of a mechanical failure of any machine, it is quite a different thing when the problem lies in a culture of not caring enough to ensure that the safety of the traveller comes before all else, that kind of trust that travellers must have in the product such as a plane.

Pushing production to meet deadlines at all cost and compromising safety standards can only rattle the traveller’s confidence. Already more than 50 per cent of Americans have said they will not fly the Max jet, even if the problem has been fixed.

And now the concern is extended to the Dreamliner. What next?

The New York Times report raises many concerns, top of which is how the management had turned a blind eye to complaints by the staff. Some of them alleged they had been punished or fired when they voiced concerns.

Two former managers said they were pushed to cover up production delays and employees were told to install equipment out of order to make it appear production was on schedule. In fact, Qatar’s beef was that Boeing was not being “transparent” about the cause of production delay.

What about the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)’s role in all this, particularly when in the Max investigations the agency the agency had been censured for allowing Boeing to self-certify?

According to the New York Times report, an FAA spokesman, Lynn Lunsford, said the agency found metal silvers in several planes certified by Boeing as free of debris.

The FAA issued a directive in 2017 requiring that Dreamliners be cleared of shavings before they are delivered. However, it was determined that the issue does not present a flight safety issue.

Boeing has all along insisted the Max is a safe aircraft and that there are procedures in place to correct errors presented by the anti-stall system. The software fix to be implemented is meant to make a safe aircraft “safer”.

Boeing CEO Dennis Mullenberg, courtesy CNBC

Today Boeing CEO Dennis Mullenberg echoed the same line, saying on Monday April 29 that the pilots of the fateful Ethiopian Airlines flight did not “completely” follow the although Ethiopian officials said earlier they did but could not control the plane.

Mr Mullenberg said: “When we design these systems, understand that these airplanes are flown in the hands of pilots.” Without saying as much, the competence of the pilots or their familiarity with the procedures has been called into question. “Going forward we have identified a way to improve,” he added, “I am confident that that again will make one of the safest airplanes in the air to fly”

Those words of assurance have since been uttered often and will continue to be repeated as Boeing faces the uphill task of regaining trust in the improved Max jet. More than their airline customers – some of whom have stood staunchly by Boeing – it is the majority of travelling end-users that they need to convince.

Will you take a Boeing 737 MAX flight again?

https://www.todayonline.com/commentary/will-you-fly-b737-max-8-jet