The head of the FAA condemned Boeing’s “systemic quality-control issues” in a severe statement on Wednesday, adding more fallout for the aircraft manufacturer following a Jan. 5 flight when a door panel detached on an Alaska Airlines 737 MAX 9, forcing an emergency landing.
“Boeing must commit to real and profound improvements,” Federal Aviation Administrator Mike Whitaker wrote in a statement after meeting with Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun in an all-day safety discussion on Tuesday at FAA headquarters. He gave Boeing 90 days to develop a plan to address quality control matters.
“Making fundamental change will require a sustained effort from Boeing’s leadership, and we are going to hold them accountable every step of the way, with mutually understood milestones and expectations,” Whitaker continued.
In response to Whitaker's condemnation, Boeing said it will develop the requested comprehensive action plan. In a statement, Calhoun added: “By virtue of our quality stand-downs, the FAA audit findings and the recent expert review panel report, we have a clear picture of what needs to be done. Transparency prevailed in all of these discussions. Boeing will develop the comprehensive action plan with measurable criteria that demonstrates the profound change that Administrator Whitaker and the FAA demand. Our Boeing leadership team is totally committed to meeting this challenge.”
Last week, Boeing removed Ed Clark, who headed the 737 MAX program in a management restructuring. On the same day, Boeing appointed a new Chief Human Resources Officer, Uma Amuluru, who succeeds Michael D’Ambrose, who held that position for four years and will retire in July.
Whitaker also said Boeing must include steps it will take to “mature” its Safety Management System, which it committed to in 2019 after two MAX planes crashed in 2018 and 2019, killing 346 people and leading to the grounding of the 737 MAX for 20 months.
“Boeing must take a fresh look at every aspect of their quality-control process and ensure that safety is the company’s guiding principle,” Whitaker added.
A separate FAA expert panel report commissioned in early 2023 was released earlier this week saying Boeing has been hindered by “inadequate and confusing implementation of the components of a positive safety culture.”
The door panel blowout accelerated concerns that “safety-related messages or behaviors are not being implemented across the entire Boeing population,” the FAA expert panel said.
The 50-page FAA expert panel report, released Monday, reviewed 4,000 pages of Boeing documents and relied on 250 interviews and seven surveys of Boeing employees. It made 27 findings and 53 recommendations.
“The expert panel observed a disconnect between Boeing’s senior management and other members of the organization on safety culture,” the FAA expert panel said in a summary. It also said safety management system (SMS) procedures “are not structure in a way that ensures all employees under their role” in SMS.
The panel added that Boeing had restructured the way it managed its authorization unit following the fatal crashes in 2018 and 2019, but said the restructuring “still allows opportunities for retaliation to occur, particularly with regards to salary and furlough.”
The expert panel also found other issues at Boeing that affect aviation safety, including “inadequate human factors consideration commensurate to its importance to aviation safety and lack of pilot input in aircraft design and operation.”
While the panel was not tasked with investigating specific airplane accidents, it found on several occasions during its work that “serious quality issues with Boeing products became public. These quality issues amplified the expert panel’s concerns that the safety-related messages or behaviors are not being implemented across the entire Boeing population.”
The National Transportation Safety Board on Feb. 7 said there was a “quality control problem” at Boeing, one day after finding that four bolts meant to secure the door plug appeared to be missing before the blowout on Jan. 5.
RELATED: Boeing 737 MAX 9 exit door blowout raises old safety concerns about manufacturer, FAA: Hamblen
Concerns about the FAA's role
Following the criticism of Boeing by the FAA, at least one critic said the FAA is also at fault for poor oversight of the airline manufacturer..
"Boeing should not have to come up with a quality plan, as instructed by the FAA," said Gregory Travis, a pilot and software developer who has followed the mishaps with flight control software known as MCAS used in the fatal MAX crashes. "The quality plan should have always been there if the FAA was doing its job."
Following the fatal crashes in 2018 and 2019, Travis publicly criticized the design of the MAX planes and the location of its engines, which changed the planes' flight dynamics, making the MCAS software necessary, even as the MCAS and related sensors failed to protect the passengers as expected.
The FAA's role in oversight of planes is managed through a Parts Manufacturing Approval process granted by the FAA. The PMA documents precisely how the plane will be manufactured and what quality controls will be in place, Travis said. "My point is, the FAA is deeply involved in granting the PMA," he said.
"I find it amazing the FAA has the gall to scold Boeing for its dysfunctional culture when it is the FAA's job to make sure that manufacturers are not manufacturing airplanes with a dysfunctional manufacturing culture. It's literally the FAA's one job," Travis said.