Washington: U.S. investigators on Thursday sanctioned Boeing for disclosing details of a probe into a 737 MAX mid-air incident, a move that led them to refer Boeing’s conduct to the Justice Department. This development prompted the aerospace giant to issue an apology.
The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) accused Boeing of “blatantly violating” its regulations by sharing “non-public investigative information” and speculating on potential causes of the January 5 emergency involving Alaska Airlines during a factory tour attended by numerous journalists.
The decision highlights growing tensions between Boeing, currently under scrutiny to avoid potential criminal charges from the Department of Justice by July 7, and federal agencies.
“As a long-time participant in NTSB investigations, Boeing is well aware of the rules,” the NTSB stated.
Boeing will retain its status as a party in the investigation but will no longer receive updates from the NTSB’s ongoing probe into the incident, which involved a mid-air blowout of a door plug missing four bolts. Unlike other parties, Boeing will be barred from questioning other participants during an upcoming hearing on August 6-7.
“We deeply regret that some of our comments, intended to clarify our accountability in the incident and explain our corrective actions, exceeded the NTSB’s role as the primary source of investigative information,” Boeing expressed in a statement.
The NTSB’s rebuke centers on statements made during a media briefing on Tuesday at the 737 factory near Seattle, viewed as an effort to enhance transparency ahead of the Farnborough Airshow.
During the briefing, conducted under embargo until Thursday, a Boeing executive revealed that the plug had been removed on the assembly line without proper paperwork to address a quality issue with adjacent rivets, and acknowledged that the missing bolts had not been replaced. Elizabeth Lund, Boeing’s Senior Vice President of Quality, clarified that the team responsible for closing the plug was not tasked with reinstalling the bolts.
According to the NTSB, Boeing’s commentary on investigative details and its analysis of previously released information breached its agreement with the agency.
“Boeing provided opinions and analyses on factors it suggested contributed to the incident,” the NTSB added.
Also Read | US Charges 193 Individuals in $2.75 Billion Healthcare Fraud Crackdown
DOJ Investigation into Boeing
In May, the DOJ accused Boeing of violating a 2021 settlement, potentially exposing it to criminal charges related to interactions with the Federal Aviation Administration before the 2018 and 2019 MAX crashes that claimed 346 lives. Sources indicate U.S. prosecutors have recommended pursuing criminal charges. The DOJ is separately investigating the door-plug incident.
Thursday’s exchange underscores ongoing tensions between Boeing and the NTSB. In 2018, Boeing drew criticism for implying pilot error in the initial fatal MAX crashes, later attributed to flawed software.
In March, NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy criticized Boeing at a Senate hearing for delaying the disclosure of names of employees involved in the 737 MAX door team, prompting swift compliance from Boeing.
The NTSB clarified that Boeing’s portrayal of its investigation into the Alaska air incident to the media as a search for the individual responsible for the plug work diverged from the agency’s focus on determining the probable cause, rather than assigning blame.
During Tuesday’s briefing, when asked about documentation lapses, Lund deferred to the ongoing NTSB investigation on personnel accountability.
The issue of individual responsibility in air safety is particularly sensitive amid legal trends in some countries towards criminalizing air accidents, contrasting with global norms that prioritize identifying causes and improving safety without assigning blame.
Aviation experts argue that an international treaty promoting open dialogue on accident causation has significantly reduced accidents since the jet age, emphasizing the need to prevent undue influence by involved parties.
Critics, including legal experts, contend this system may not adequately address the families’ need for detailed explanations.
In past incidents, the NTSB has restricted parties like United Parcel Service (UPS.N) and Tesla from investigations, highlighting occasional disputes over procedural adherence.
