Boeing has not turned over documents relating to the door plug Issue

Hello Everyone!

I am back with another article! I am creating a series to bring out news regarding airlines, aircraft manufactures and the wider aviation industry.

In this week! Boeing has not turned over documents, says US accident investigator!

The article discusses Boeing’s response to a request from federal regulators for a list of employees involved in the maintenance of a door panel that blew out during a flight. Jennifer Homendy, chair of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), testified to Congress that Boeing had not provided the requested list despite multiple requests over two months. However, Boeing stated that it had cooperated with the NTSB and had provided the names of relevant employees early in the investigation, with the full list provided after Homendy’s testimony.

The NTSB’s preliminary report found that the door panel lacked four bolts, which were not replaced during repairs at Boeing’s factory, leading to the incident. Boeing’s CEO acknowledged the mistake and pledged transparency in the investigation. The incident has raised questions about Boeing’s safety practices, particularly in light of previous issues with the 737 Max aircraft.

Senator Maria Cantwell highlighted concerns about Boeing’s record-keeping practices, suggesting deficiencies and questioning whether documentation related to the repairs even exists. Despite causing no injuries, the incident has renewed scrutiny of Boeing’s safety culture, with an expert panel commissioned by Congress criticizing its processes as inadequate and confusing.

What do think? Should Boeing be more transparent or do you think Boeing is trying to drag out the process in hopes public interest dies down?

Happy to hear your thoughts!

5 Likes

Wonderful Article Bro! Personally I think Boeing should be more transparent but then again I may be wrong, everyones allowed to have an opinion so it doesn’t bother me to be honest 🤷‍♂️

People are still worried about it 😭

Yea. I would as well if an ex 737 program senior manager refuse to fly on a max🫢

1 Like

oopsie! Just in

2 Likes

United is just struggling recently wow.

The timing of my post is amazing to say the least!

1 Like

And now what’s this I just saw in the news? (need to read in the morning, not 737 clearly though)


2 Likes

But I read the testimony in Congress and I think there may be more sensationalism in the headlines than is warranted from considering the actual dialogue.

Also, I think the “former Boeing employee Ed Pierson” is getting excessive press time for the sensationalism. It’s fine as one data point, but one has to be skeptical about any one source of information. There have been some criticisms of his viewpoint as well that need to be carefully weighted in making an informed decision.

.

1 Like

I’ve seen it yesterday, the fallen tyre ended up smashing into the car park resulting a few damaged cars! Ouch!

1 Like

This is pretty interesting. I think Boeing are just doing the work to limit the reputable damage and to frustrated the ongoing investigation process. It’s not good when they are deemed less transparent.
However as @adit rightly said, this is highly likely a piece of sensationalism article and shouldn’t be taken as face value.

What is widely reported is former Boeing employees working on Boeing Max 8 project refused to fly on one due to safely concerns.

Boeing are clearly stonewalling the investigation.

More Max news. This time it’s stuck rudder pedals.

1 Like

edit: Oh wow, I just listened to parts of the testimony I hadn’t heard before or read (I previously sampled some transcripts and video). There was a deadline given for nailing down the info better (somewhat like I suggested…I mean, it’s only natural that kind of pressure will be applied).

This still sounds like to me more about the NTSB’s issue than Boeing’s.
end edit

It’s the NTSB’s job to go into the Boeing facilities and audit any documents and study the internal structures. They have the duty and authority to do so. At least that’s what I’ve been led to believe. So, the testimony from the NTSB official sounds like passing the buck to me.

I would have been interested to hear the interviewer ask: “why haven’t you gone into Boeing with the full weight of your regulatory powers and obtained all that information by now?. What are you waiting for? Forget about Boeing’s response
time to passive requests. This matter is of high priority in the public interest. How about in the next 24 hours you provide a firm date when you will have the asked for information?”

I worked in a high reliability manufacturing environment. If I gave too many answers like that, I would have worried about my job security.

She needs to drop the lawyer talk (“we’re getting lawyers involved”) and proactively go in and get the info.

1 Like

Crazy this is what they mean by “Quality over Quantity”

Maybe the NTSB’s next step is to stop asking nicely and use their full authority like you suggested. Whatever it takes to get the job done, since Boeing isn’t being fully transparent as they promised they would.

2 Likes

I’ll be a bit blunt. I think the NTSB leadership needs stronger technical and manufacturing organization credentials at the top to go along with the communication credentials.

The NTSB leader should be owning this dialogue. If they (the NTSB leadership and Boeing) spoke the same “language” based on appropriately overlapping technical competence, there’s a good chance the Boeing communication mysteries would be substantially managed. Boeing wants to survive after all.

Let’s please wait for a final report.