Loose bolts have caused significant troubles for Boeing, but there were warnings and whistleblowers for years. What can engineers learn from this event about balancing professional standards with management pressures?
Just four days after Boeing fired Ed Clark, the head of the 737 Max program, the FAA has released its 50-page report by an expert panel assigned by the FAA to investigate Boring’s safety management process.
The report was ordered by congress following a pair of crashes in 2018 and 2019, but took the recent mid-flight blowout of a door into consideration as well.
The section of the fuselage that blew out is known as a “door plug,” which fills a gap in the fuselage that could be turned into a functioning door if the airline purchases that option. The door plug is held in place with a number of bolts and other devices to keep the plug intact. These are common bits of kit that have been used on passenger planes for years without incident…until now.
Read the FAA report on Boeing’s safety culture here
The report is, perhaps unsurprisingly, critical of Boeing’s safety culture and safety management systems. The panel combed through 4,000 Boeing documents and conducted 250 interviews and meetings with Boeing employees.
The panel found a disconnect on safety culture between Boeing’s senior management and other members of the organization. It says Boeing’s safety management system (SMS) meets international aviation standards on paper, but in practice was poorly structured and in a constant state of change, leading to confusion.
It also said there were opportunities for retaliation, with regards to salary and furloughs, against Boeing’s Organization Designation Authorization unit members—the people at Boeing tasked with deciding if a plane design is airworthy.
The panel found there was no “consistent and clear safety reporting channel or process,” and employees did not understand how to use the processes that were in place.
Ultimately, the report contains 27 findings and 53 recommendations for Boeing to improve its safety regime. The company has six months to begin addressing the reccomendations.
But remember, this report was ordered in 2020, after two planes dropped out of the sky. Indeed, these safety and quality issues have been continuing unhindered for four years. Yet days after the most recent door incident, Boeing President and CEO Dave Calhoun addressed safety culture in a company-wide meeting.
“As we move forward together, I ask all teammates to use their voices to speak up as we continue to focus on every detail through the lens of safety and quality first,” he said. “Our people on the factory floor know what we must do to improve better than anyone. We should all seek their feedback, understand how to help and always encourage any team member who raises issues that need to be addressed.”
It begs the question, does Boeing actually want that feedback?
According to an unnamed whistleblower who spoke to KIRO, a news station near Boeing headquarters, the answer is no. Claiming to be a current Boeing employee, the individual claims that Boeing executives are resistant to changes that improve safety, prioritizing shipping out products to clients quickly rather than making sure they’re manufactured properly.
In addition, an anonymous commenter on another site, also claiming to be a Boeing employee, said that the 737 production system is a “rambling, shambling, disaster waiting to happen.” The commenter also seems to have access to Boeing’s records, and shares exhaustive details about the production process, where it went wrong, and how the planemaker is to blame.
Are they legitimate whistleblowers, disgruntled employees, or just people out to cause trouble with no real insight into the problem? It’s impossible to say right now because of their anonymity. However, if Boeing’s records do indeed document these issues, then that should come out during the FAA’s investigation.
A history of whistleblowing at Boeing
This isn’t the first time Boeing has had to deal with a whistleblower, though.
In October 2018, a 737 MAX operated by Lion Air crashed, killing 189 people. Five months later, an Ethiopian Airlines 737 MAX crashed, killing 157 people. This led to a worldwide grounding of the entire 737 MAX fleet.
An 18-month investigation by the U.S. House of Representatives found Boeing failed in its design and development of the MAX and lacked transparency with the FAA. The investigation featured a damning account by a whistleblower working at Boeing at the time, senior engineer Curtis Ewbank.
“I was willing to stand up for safety and quality but was unable to actually have an effect in those areas,” Ewbank said. “Boeing management was more concerned with cost and schedule than safety or quality.”
It couldn’t have been easy for him to make the complaint about his own employer. In his statement, he claimed he was motivated by the “ethical imperative of an engineer to protect the safety of the public.” He no longer works at the company.
What would you do?
These are very public examples of people who felt intense pressure from above them in the hierarchy to ignore safety concerns, and who blew the whistle on their employers. What lessons can we learn from them?
Engineers are members of a highly specialized profession whose work can mean the difference between life and death. They are problem-solvers by nature and are not only technically skilled, but also trained to uphold professional and civic standards. That means that when there’s management pressure to put those standards aside, they need to tread with integrity—and caution.
Four tips to protect yourself while raising concerns
If you’re in a situation where your dedication to safety and quality seems to be at odds with the direction from your manager, it’s best to be prepared. You need to thoroughly consider your ethical, professional, financial and family responsibilities to determine the right course. Fortunately, you’re not alone and there is help.
First, go through the proper channels
It is vitally important to raise your concerns through established internal channels first, enabling management to recognize and fix the problem. This essentially gives management the benefit of the doubt, and an opportunity to address your concerns.
If the issue can be resolved through this channel, then not only is a solution found, it also verifies a company’s quality control and assurance safeguards to ensure that the final product is trustworthy. That way, not only do you avoid potential conflict and pressure, you can also provide added value to the company’s operations and bottom line—which could lead to future opportunities.
If it can’t be resolved internally, and those internal mechanisms are not up to the task, then you can demonstrate that you followed procedure to the best of your ability, with professionalism, accountability and integrity. The employee who spoke to KIRO pointed out that he had exhausted all internal review options before going to the media.
Document your work thoroughly
Engineers already tend to keep diligent track of their work—so that works in your favor. It’s important to keep thorough and accurate notes of what you do in this matter: from identifying the problem, to each step you take internally to resolve it, to reactions and direction from management.
Past Boeing whistleblowers like Ewbank were able to lend significant credibility to their criticisms by backing them up with details, records and independently verified evidence that supported their claims. It should be noted that the anonymous whistleblowers’ details about the Air Alaska emergency are still to be confirmed by the investigation. However, if that information be verified, it not only lends their claims weight, it also points regulators towards the evidence they need to pursue meaningful action against the planemaker if necessary.
Talk to your governing body
Many engineers are members of self-governing professional bodies such as the American Society of Professional Engineers, Engineers Canada, Engineers Europe, and the Institute of Engineers (India)—the largest in the world.
These organizations exist to foster trust and accountability with the public. To be certified by one of these bodies is to be recognized for having a certain level of skill, competence and integrity—and it also means members are accountable to them for their codes of conduct.
These bodies can provide resources and advice, such as whistleblower coverage, to an engineer who feels they’re being pressured to perform or ignore substandard work.
Seek legal advice
It’s a good idea to seek independent legal advice as well as talking to your professional body. You may not need a lawyer on speed dial—you might just want to book an appointment to go over your situation and get a better understanding of your rights and obligations before you take the next step. This could be done at any point in the process, but it’s never too early to do so. Your professional association may be able to help facilitate a meeting with a lawyer.
Grace under pressure
“Your professional responsibility to report what you know may come into conflict with practical considerations such as legal costs, loss of employment, and the expenses of finding new work,” says Engineers Canada.
Dealing with pressure from management isn’t unusual—but it becomes much more complex when safety and quality suffer because of it. You may never get to the point where you feel you have to make the difficult choice to be a whistleblower. But it’s very important to know what your options are.
Engineering.com writer Matt Greenwood also contributed to this article
