Breaking News
Get 40% Off 0
Is NVDA a 🟢 buy or 🔴 sell? Unlock Now

Democratic lawmakers question FAA decisions on Boeing safety issues

Published Nov 07, 2019 10:24PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This article has already been saved in your Saved Items
© Reuters. Larsen speaks during House aviation safety hearing in Washington
Add to/Remove from Watchlist
Add to Watchlist
Add Position

Position added successfully to:

Please name your holdings portfolio

By David Shepardson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two Democratic U.S. lawmakers said on Thursday the Federal Aviation Administration overruled agency technical specialists on two Boeing (NYSE:BA) Co safety issues involving the 737 MAX and the 787 Dreamliner jets that they said could be "potentially catastrophic."

The issues involve the 737 MAX rudder cable and lightning protection for fuel tanks on the 787 Dreamliner.

Representative Peter DeFazio, who chairs the House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and Representative Rick Larsen, who chairs the aviation subcommittee, said in a letter to FAA Administrator Steve Dickson that FAA management ultimately overruled the technical specialists after Boeing objected.

That action raises "questions about how the agency weighs the validity of safety issues raised by its own experts compared to objections raised by the aircraft manufacturers the FAA is supposed to oversee," the lawmakers said in the letter.

The lawmakers, who have been probing two deadly 737 MAX crashes, demanded a list of detailed answers from the FAA by Nov. 21.

Boeing spokesman Gordon Johndroe said the manufacturer is aware of both issues and "confident that each was properly considered and addressed by Boeing, thoroughly reviewed with and approved by the FAA, and handled in full compliance with the processes governing review and disposition of such issues."

An FAA spokesman said the agency would respond directly to the lawmakers.

The letter said the committee had information and documents "suggesting Boeing implemented a design change on its 787 Dreamliner lightning protection features to which multiple FAA specialists ultimately objected."

The letter also raised concerns that Boeing "reportedly produced approximately 40 airplanes prior to the FAA's approval of the design change. If accurate, that is an astonishing fact that suggests either willful neglect of the federal aviation regulatory structure or an oversight system in need of desperate repair."

The FAA safety office rejected Boeing's lighting protection change in February but was overruled in March by FAA management, the lawmakers said.

The other issue involves the adequacy of rudder cable protection on the Boeing 737 MAX "from an uncontained engine failure and the possibility of severance of the cable and a potentially catastrophic loss of control," the letter said, citing a 2014 memo from an FAA manager that suggested Boeing had not incorporated adequate protection following a deadly 1989 United Airlines engine failure accident in Iowa.

The letter said Boeing objected to making design changes to the 737 MAX rudder cable arguing they "would be impractical and noting the company's concern about the potential impact on 'resources and program schedules.'"

The letter comes as many in Congress want to reform the longstanding practice of designating new airplane certification tasks to the manufacturer.

An October report by aviation regulators said the FAA had 45 people in an office overseeing 1,500 Boeing’s Organization Designation Authority employees and faulted the FAA's oversight, saying it did not have enough staffing and found “signs of undue pressure” on Boeing employees performing tasks for the FAA.

Democratic lawmakers question FAA decisions on Boeing safety issues

Related Articles

Add a Comment

Comment Guidelines

We encourage you to use comments to engage with other users, share your perspective and ask questions of authors and each other. However, in order to maintain the high level of discourse we’ve all come to value and expect, please keep the following criteria in mind:  

  •            Enrich the conversation, don’t trash it.

  •           Stay focused and on track. Only post material that’s relevant to the topic being discussed. 

  •           Be respectful. Even negative opinions can be framed positively and diplomatically. Avoid profanity, slander or personal attacks directed at an author or another user. Racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination will not be tolerated.

  • Use standard writing style. Include punctuation and upper and lower cases. Comments that are written in all caps and contain excessive use of symbols will be removed.
  • NOTE: Spam and/or promotional messages and comments containing links will be removed. Phone numbers, email addresses, links to personal or business websites, Skype/Telegram/WhatsApp etc. addresses (including links to groups) will also be removed; self-promotional material or business-related solicitations or PR (ie, contact me for signals/advice etc.), and/or any other comment that contains personal contact specifcs or advertising will be removed as well. In addition, any of the above-mentioned violations may result in suspension of your account.
  • Doxxing. We do not allow any sharing of private or personal contact or other information about any individual or organization. This will result in immediate suspension of the commentor and his or her account.
  • Don’t monopolize the conversation. We appreciate passion and conviction, but we also strongly believe in giving everyone a chance to air their point of view. Therefore, in addition to civil interaction, we expect commenters to offer their opinions succinctly and thoughtfully, but not so repeatedly that others are annoyed or offended. If we receive complaints about individuals who take over a thread or forum, we reserve the right to ban them from the site, without recourse.
  • Only English comments will be allowed.
  • Any comment you publish, together with your profile, will be public on and may be indexed and available through third party search engines, such as Google.

Perpetrators of spam or abuse will be deleted from the site and prohibited from future registration at’s discretion.

Write your thoughts here
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
Post also to:
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Thanks for your comment. Please note that all comments are pending until approved by our moderators. It may therefore take some time before it appears on our website.
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Add Chart to Comment
Confirm Block

Are you sure you want to block %USER_NAME%?

By doing so, you and %USER_NAME% will not be able to see any of each other's's posts.

%USER_NAME% was successfully added to your Block List

Since you’ve just unblocked this person, you must wait 48 hours before renewing the block.

Report this comment

I feel that this comment is:

Comment flagged

Thank You!

Your report has been sent to our moderators for review
Continue with Google
Sign up with Email