Aerospace Industry in Crisis: Greed Over Safety Leads to Catastrophe - Research Paper

Introduction

The aerospace industry has recently been rocked by constant criticism and grave life claiming accidents which are often as a result of negligence on those tasked with ensuring the safety of passengers and workers is prioritized. These shortcomings have firmly been attributed to greed given the stiff competition between airlines which has left them prioritizing profits over safety as was the with Boeing with its 737 max fatal crash in Indonesia and Ethiopia as well as substantial failure on the part of the regulating agency, FAA. This paper looks at the legal issues arising out of the negligence by Boeing as well as the failure by the FAA for authorizing Boeing which shall paint a clear picture of the civil aviation industrial and institutional rot, before giving various recommendations.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Civil aviation in the US is governed under the United States Department of Transportation by the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA). Among other roles, the FAA is tasked with regulating and oversight of the civil aviation industry in the. It also operates and oversees the development of the national airspace system in ensuring the safety of the industry. Its contributory negligence was of primal concern after the two fatal crashes of the Boeing in Indonesia and recently in Ethiopia.

Particulars of Negligence By The FAA

In promoting trade and reducing institutional bureaucracy, the government has often given the airlines broad operating powers and substantial 'independence' through approving the design of new aeroplanes and short legislations that are approved hastily and without significant consideration. The government has been delegating more of its regulatory authority to manufacturers which have slowly crippled the regulator's power to challenge or dispute the designs and procedures followed in the creation of new planes. Being the largest and dominant airline manufacturer in the US, it is also argued that Boeing has substantially been involved in the drafting and passing of various legislation affecting it to their liking which brings a conflict of interest and explains its current wars. Resultant effects have led to various agencies questioning the competency of the FAA to carry out its statutory regulatory mandate. (Dawna Rhoades, 2011).

FAA is legally faulted for approving Boeings aeroplane design which had substantial flaws. This was caused by the fact that FAA had hired untrained personnel, had failed to train its employees, or deployed unqualified individuals to inspect the worthiness of the 737 max 8. Should they have carried out a competent inspection, it is argued that the crash would have been avoided. Despite Indonesian crash, the FAA recklessly and unlawfully failed to inform, provide adequate information or educate passengers as well as flight personnel on the causes of such catastrophes and how to avoid them. Instead, it downplayed the accident as having been caused by typical deficits in the flight system, which was a neglect of their lawful duties. (Natalie and David 2019).

It is also notable that FAA allowed Boeing to evaluate its own work which signified serious under-resourced and inadequate staff in the FAA. Boeing's self-assessment was prompted by the Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) which was adopted by the FAA in 2005. It left a lot to be desired in that even after such delegation, after the Indonesian crash, the FAA failed to take any good action against Boeing as FAA was under-resourced and had no sufficiently qualified personnel to carry out its responsibilities.

The FAA aided and abetted Boeing in understating and presenting a false picture to the public that all was well, knowing that it was wrong, professional incompetent and illegal. Whatever transpires between the two entities in hiding such incompetence, be it corruption, is a case of conflicting interests and is evident in the negligence depicted in their false play. This assumption has been brought out in a claim filed by representatives of one Stumo (Deceased) where they claim that the FAA failed to act independently due to the close relationships cultivated by former Boeing executives with its own. (Corporation Case: 1:19-Cv-02281, 2019).

They recount that after the accident by the Lion Air Flight 610 in Indonesia, Boeing's CEO called the president personally advocating for the flight not to be grounded, signalling that such companies were colluding with politicians in hiding their footsteps. This form of political interference shatters the oversight duty of the FAA, resulting in such avoidable accidents. Nevertheless, FAA has a responsibility to all flight passengers, to competently inspect flights before certifying them in a bid to prevent such accidents, which duty was knowingly breached and as a result a lot of human lives were lost.

Particulars of Negligence Boeing

It is alleged that blinded by its greed, Boeing rushed the authorization of the Boeing 737 MAX 8 to the market by the FAA having concealed the defects in its automated systems. The airline's leadership had also been engaging in numerous decisions after the Indonesia crash, which blinded it into falling into yet another trap while trying to salvage the company's image.

Boeing also is faulted for not properly informing the pilots of the existence of a new system for controlling the flight as well as not training them on how it entirely operated. It also failed to address the failures experienced in the Indonesian flight crash, which were similar to those that later caused the Ethiopian fight crash. It is also faulted for having failed to include critical standard features in the flight as opposed to upgrading its operating system which mainly focused on competing with Airbus, a rival airline company rather than focusing on the safety of its customers. Boeing also failed to address various concerns raised by pilots and other staff concerning the inappropriateness of the flight as was the case with the Lion Air Flight Jet 610 that had earlier crashed in Indonesia.

Governing Laws

The United States have ratified various laws and treaties which govern the aviation industry. These include but are not limited to the Convention for The Ratification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air 1999. The Convention regulates all international carriage of goods and passengers by flights. (Montreal Convention, 1999). The flight in contention here involved the transportation of passengers from Ethiopia to Kenya using a plane manufactured by a US company, Boeing, thus fell under the realm of the Convention. The Convention removes limitations on damages concerning air travel. It states that the carrier is responsible where damages are suffered, such as a result of death or injury of a passage(s), damage or loss of cargo damage or while on the flight.

The case also falls within the bounds of the Convention On International Civil Aviation 1944(The Chicago Convention). According to the Convention, the issuing of certificates of fitness to fly as well as licenses by the contracting states where the aeroplane is registered, shall be accepted as binding by the other nations who are a party to the Convention. This shall however be so provided that the requirements under which those certificates were issued by following the lowest principles recognized under the treaty or as may from time to time change. The FAA, which issued Boeing with the approvals to operate the impugned flight, contravened this proviso, by granting it negligently and recklessly. The passengers relied on the safety of the plane and resultantly lost their lives.

The FAA also contravened the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 by failing to rescind or ground the operation certificates of Boeing following the Indonesian flight crash, which meant by effect, that Boeing could continue operating their high-risk flights like nothing had happened. The section inter alia requires the FAA to ground flights that are not airworthy and rescind operating certificates until the courier meets safety requirements.

In British Caledonian Airways Limited Vs Langhorne Bond (1981) the court faulted the FAA for not legally voiding the operation of American airline DC-10 after it lost an engine and crashed in Chicago. It was held that the FAAs refusal to rescind the courier's operations violated various international conventions and in particular section 1102 of the federal aviation act of 1958. (D.C. Cir. 1981)

Various cases have been filed with federal courts in the US by numerous entities as well as individuals, more so the personal representative of the deceased in the 737 MAX. Save for seeking compensation for the loss of their loved ones and property that was lost, their main claim being the negligence and recklessness by both Boeing and the FAA.

Recommendations

The government should adequately fund the FAA and ensure that such resources are well used in a bid to purchase up to date inspection gadgets and employ adequate personnel. Enough resources shall also enable it to train its employees adequately and ensure that they are up to the task in performing their statutory duties. There is also a need to overhaul the leadership in the FAA by bringing in fresh leadership to eliminate the aspect of conflicting interests between old executives in the FAA and Boeing as well as other couriers.

The Organization Designation Authorization 2005 (ODA) should also be abolished, stopping airline manufacturers from scrutinizing themselves. Self-assessment raises concern on the ability of airlines to avail accurate reports about themselves hence increasing the risk factor in flights. It is also illogical for one to be a judge in his case. FAA should fully implement its duties without delegating its work to airlines.

The FAA should also consider inter-professional education and collaboration between its team and that of flight companies. This shall enable them to share information as well as educate their members on how the industry works. This ensures that both sides are adequately informed and warned on the lines they should not cross. Lastly, the FAA should tighten its grounding and rescinding regulations. Once a courier has been involved in such gross violations of the law or has been engaged in such deadly accidents, the FAA should ground its operations until its victims and personal representatives of the deceased are fully compensated. This shall prompt the airlines to exercise some extra care ad due diligence in improving their safety guidelines to avoid parting with the companies' profits in damages.

Conclusion

The prioritization of the companies' profits over human life is the primary cause of Boeings accidents, not to mention other couriers. The FAA, which is a government body, should realize that it is a servant to the US citizens and not private profit greedy companies. As such, its members should cut their selfish personal interests in the businesses that they are supposed to be regulating to prevent future accidents and professional incompetence by the airlines. The consumer must always be protected by his or her government from unscrupulous businesses and substandard services.

References

Michael Stumo & Nadia Milleron, as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Samya Stumo, Deceased Vs. The Boeing Company & two others (2019) Corporation Case: 1:19-Cv-02281

British Caledonian Airways Limited Vs Langhorne Bond (1981) 665 F.2d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1981)

Dawna Rhoades in, John Frankie O'Connell, George Williams (2011) Air Transport in the 21st Century: Key Strategic Developments, Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 98

Natalie and David 2019, Before Deadly Clashes, Boeing Pushed for Law That Undercut Oversight. Retrieved at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/27/business/boeing-737-max-...