EDITORIAL: FAA shouldn’t cede safety to Boeing and other airplane makers

Nov. 2--During a recent congressional hearing, senators grilled Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg about whether the airplane manufacturer and the Federal Aviation Administration cut corners on safety in the development of the 737 Max. These are important questions to answer -- especially as the FAA appears bent on further outsourcing regulation of aviation safety to the aviation industry.

Muilenburg testified that he knew prior to the second crash that a pilot involved in the development of the 737 Max had expressed concerns about "egregious problems" with an automated system. Despite that and concerns that the automated system -- called MCAS -- was at fault in the first crash, Boeing didn't ground the aircraft to investigate.

The MCAS was needed because Boeing put a larger, more fuel-efficient engine on the airplane, but it didn't want to do an extensive redesign of the airframe to accommodate it. The more powerful engine caused the nose to pitch up unexpectedly in certain flight conditions. The MCAS system was supposed to detect that and push the nose back down.

But the sensors that detect the nose-up condition aren't always right -- and a warning message to pilots if the two sensors disagreed was only available as part of an optional, more expensive upgrade. If the system engaged when the nose hadn't pitched up, the plane would go into a sudden dive.

Even after the second crash, Boeing resisted grounding the fleet. Muilenburg called President Donald Trump to insist the plane was safe. The federal government finally grounded the fleet three days after the crash -- well after other nations acted.

In the months since the crashes, Boeing has come under intense scrutiny. The company doesn't bear sole responsibility, though. This saga has also revealed serious issues with the FAA's certification process for new aircraft.

Earlier this month, a panel of international aviation regulators issued a report that made a dozen recommendations for improving the approval process. The FAA promised to review those them, but at the same time is trying to shift its regulation toward "voluntary consensus standards." Translation: The FAA wants to provide less oversight, leaving it to manufacturers to determine if their planes are safe.

That sort of self-regulation utterly failed with the MCAS, as the international report outlined. The FAA was relying on Boeing engineers and other employees to provide relevant safety information. In addition, Boeing worked to purge the flight manual of information about the MCAS -- robbing pilots of important information -- so Boeing could tell airlines the new plane wouldn't require additional training for pilots.

The FAA's reliance on Boeing employees and "voluntary consensus standards" meant profit was prioritized over safety. The result: hundreds of passengers dead. In light of that spectacular failure, it is beyond irresponsible for the FAA to be considering further delegation of regulatory oversight to Boeing. Yet that is what it is doing.

Americans depend on federal regulators to ensure the safety of the cars they drive in, the food they eat, the water they drink, the planes they fly in and so much more. That job should not, cannot, be outsourced. Only independent, outside regulation will keep companies honest.

You can send a letter to the editor at letters@pressdemocrat.com.

___

(c)2019 The Press Democrat (Santa Rosa, Calif.)

Visit The Press Democrat (Santa Rosa, Calif.) at www.pressdemocrat.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.