New Fraud, Same as the Old Fraud
As you may know, on December 22 of last year when everyone was preparing for the holidays and not paying attention, the FAA announced a minuscule $12 million dollar fine against Boeing to settle a token few of its myriad numbers of noncompliances to FAA requirements.
Although many people like me will know that this token announcement in itself was a fraud, many people not familiar with the usual Boeing/FAA Management "working together" fraud will not.
As usual, it was just another Kabuki dance type announcement meant to give the false impression that the FAA is doing its job of overseeing Boeing's design and production systems. As documented previously on this website, the opposite is actually true.
The press release announcing the fine and the make believe "extra" oversight measures is literally dripping in deference to Boeing's every want (my comments on this fraud are in parenthesis within the press release text):
Press Release – Boeing Agrees to Pay $12 Million and Enhance its Compliance Systems to Settle Enforcement Cases
(Boeing "agrees" to pay? You mean, Boeing was that nice? They didn't have to pay the fine and they did so out of the good of their heart? Of course not. This is just the usual effort by Boeing's FAA to make Boeing appear in the best light even in cases like these when they should be presented to the public like the criminal enterprise they are. If the FAA went per its regulations for once, they would have simply stated that they fined Boeing the $12 million, as per those regulations, Boeing has no real choice not to. If they refused, the FAA could shut BCA down, costing Boeing $12 million or more per hour until they decided to do anything the FAA wanted or liquidated the company if they chose not to. In my report to the FAA, I suggested that they pull Boeing's Production Certificate until the massive noncompliance throughout Boeing's quality system could be corrected, as such small fines get Boeing to do exactly nothing of real import, as Boeing saves many more millions than such fines by continuing to not comply with FAA requirements on a massive scale. So, as noted, $12 million means nothing to Boeing. The FAA has virtually no limit to such fines, however even a $120 million dollar fine would not turn the massive ship of corruption that is Boeing to any degree from the illegal course it is on.
Then, the title of the press release tells an even bigger lie. "Boeing Agrees to...Enhance its Compliance Systems to Settle Enforcement Cases?" Wow. If you read this as written you would think that Boeing did nothing wrong and that oh so ethical Boeing was "agreeing" to "enhance" its already compliant design and production compliance systems just out of the goodness of its heart. Ridiculous Boeing deferential wordsmithing on the part of Boeing's FAA. Or maybe Boeing itself wrote this or edited it before release. As anyone who has previously perused this website knows, Boeing's quality system has been massively noncompliant to minimum FAA requirements for decades. It would require an ethical FAA and a herculean effort just to bring Boeing's quality system up to those minimum requirements, let alone enhance it above those minimum requirements. As noted before, Boeing didn't actually agree to anything. A purely hypothetically ethical FAA could make Boeing do pretty much anything they wanted Boeing to do--even enhance its quality system above minimum requirements. So agreement by Boeing is really immaterial to this announcement, other than the noted positive Boeing P.R. spin.
It's amazing just how much sucking up to Boeing that whomever at the FAA who wrote this did just in the title of this press release.)
For Immediate Release
December 22, 2015
Contact: Ian Gregor
Phone: email: firstname.lastname@example.org
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration today announced a comprehensive settlement agreement with Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA) that resolves multiple pending and potential enforcement cases.
(Comprehensive? Really? It resolves everything? Wow. It must be great then and we should be happy that this solves all of Boeing's massive problems--not. It actually is not comprehensive in capturing Boeing's noncompliance across the enterprise to any degree, and it may resolve a few of the minimal items they chose to write up in time, but, historically, that has not been the case, as Boeing's habitual re-offending with the FAA shows.)
Under the agreement, BCA pledged to implement and improve several certification processes to further enhance the airworthiness and continued compliance of all BCA products.
(Pledged? Really? I know corporations like Boeing are supposedly people now. Did Boeing put its hands on a bible when it made such a solemn pledge? Or was it just a pinky swear? LOL. As anyone who knows the character of Boeing Management knows, Boeing never follows through on its promises. This press release in part proves that. Boeing has agreed to comply with FAA regulations since the first days of the FAA, but that hasn't stopped Boeing from violating those requirements at will. Compliance with those requirements is supposed to be a prerequisite for Boeing even to be in the business, but Boeing continually subverts compliance to those requirements in order to pad the bottom line, like a crack dealer being released for the 18th time after promising again not to deal drugs.
Boeing pledged to "improve" and "further enhance" the "continued compliance" of the certification and airworthiness of Boeing airplanes? I thought the title of this press release was bad, but this short sentence is worse. Most people probably haven't seen such sucking up since the last time they watched "Deep Throat." I've known that the FAA has been captured by Boeing since 2002, but now their subjugation has obviously become so profound that they are not just engaged in monetary quid pro quo fraud with Boeing, they are literally felating Boeing in press releases like this.
Again, reading this sentence you would get the impression that Boeing was enhancing its already compliant processes for the FAA, rather than getting fined for the noncompliances they committed.)
“It is imperative that everyone complies with our aviation system’s high safety standards,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. “This agreement is an important step toward ensuring that Boeing fully meets all applicable compliance standards going forward.”
(Anthony Foxx seems like a good guy, and is relatively new to his role. Maybe he doesn't know that the FAA he oversees is controlled by Boeing. But don't hold your breath for a good answer on that question. He makes the same "high safety standards" error. If Boeing were to ever comply with them, they would not be complying with some "high" standard well above what is expected. They would only be complying to the minimum safety standards as written in the regulations. Boeing's ownership of the FAA over the years has continually resulted in the decline in those safety standards, not making them more stringent. And, unfortunately Foxx's last sentence is not true. It is not an important step in ensuring Boeing is compliant going forward. The last such exercise, which was much more massive in breadth and scope, the FAA's 1999/2000 Special Technical Audit (STA) of BCA, changed nothing at Boeing, as this 16 year later press release and my later report to the FAA and this website proves. That failed effort brought about one of the most significant quid pro quo hires by Boeing from the FAA.
So, this effort will fair no better, and serves to only make it appear as if the FAA is making real efforts to ensure compliance at Boeing. Neither does it, "ensur(e) that Boeing fully meets all applicable compliance standards going forward," as it doesn't require immediate compliance by Boeing to occur at all--only some nebulous promise of some future goal of Boeing being compliant, which will also come and go without any real compliance by Boeing just as the STA reforms did.)
“Compliance requires all certificate holders to develop and implement internal controls that ensure they’re operating according to the highest standards,” said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. “Boeing has agreed to implement improvements in its design, planning, production and maintenance planning processes, and has already implemented several of these improvements.”
(Huerta also appears to be a good pick, and a relatively new one. But his not knowing about the extent to which the FAA is in bed with Boeing in not ensuring compliance is much less believable than Foxx's case is on the subject, as he is at the head of corrupt FAA Management. He does have some skills that will be useful in interacting with Boeing Management. He had a long career managing New York's and other city's ports, which would make him intimately knowledgeable about how to deal with the organized criminals that run Boeing's Management that illegally ensures noncompliance, rather than compliance. What remains to be seen is whether he opposes that RICO-esque "crime family" running Boeing and the FAA, or he also succumbs to its ubiquity.
Huerta also uses the noted "highest standards" misstatement in his statement, as well as states that Boeing is taking steps to improve its compliance, rather than the reality that they have committed to starting to bring some insignificant portion of their massively deficient compliance processes up to just minimum standards. It would appear by these massively Boeing biased words that Huerta is indeed already in Boeing's corrupt pocket. No lawbreaker deserves such deference.)
BCA’s obligations commit the company to meeting specific performance targets. They are designed to enhance BCA’s early discovery and self-disclosure of potential regulatory compliance problems, as well as the timely development and implementation of effective corrective actions.
("Performance targets?" Did an MBA write this, or someone with knowledge of FAA regulatory requirements? Also, this confirms this is not about Boeing complying now, but at some hypothetical future date. Again, Boeing should be made to comply immediately, not at some future date. Then comes again the fraudulent "enhance" argument that was obviously brainstormed in some Boeing/FAA Management meeting deciding how this press release would be written.
"They are designed to enhance BCA’s early discovery and self-disclosure of potential regulatory compliance problems...?" LOL. This is ludicrous. Boeing Management doesn't need to "discover" their regulatory compliance problems at all. They know intimately already why they chose not to comply with each FAA regulation, as they have always chose to do so willingly, and always for the same reason--to save costs and improve production flow in order to enhance the bottom line and the related company stock's value.
"Self-dislosure?" That is something Boeing will never do willingly other than make a couple disclosures a year in order to make it appear it is complying with this agreement. Boeing Management indeed knows where all of its regulatory compliance skeletons are buried, and they will not disturb their creation of value for the company to any significant extent willingly.
"Timely (and) effective corrective actions" is a good goal in any case, but as that will only occur during the noted token and insignificant dislosures, it effectively achieves nothing of significance other than this P.R. stunt.)
The company also must make an immediate payment to the United States Treasury in the amount of $12 million and faces stiff penalties for failing to follow through on its commitments.
(This is an insignificant fine and potential future fines for Boeing. As noted elsewhere on this site and in my report, the only real leverage the FAA has is to pull Boeing's Production Certificate for a length of time that will significantly impact the stock value on which Boeing Executive pay depends. This fine and the potential additional fines will ensure exactly no real compliance by Boeing in the many areas Boeing enhances the bottom line by not complying with laws and regulations.)
BCA’s obligations include:
Improved Management Oversight and Accountability
(And here is where this part of the announcement fails before it even begins. Relying on endemically corrupt Boeing Management to ensure compliance to any agreement, regulation, or law is ignorant folly. It makes about as much sense as hiring an ISIS babysitter to watch your Christian kids.)
- Implement the Safety Management Systems (SMS) plan BCA has developed to meet internationally accepted standards, throughout the company’s activities.
(Wow. Making Boeing implement a plan Boeing already planned to do to give the appearance of compliance with another "check the box" nebulous international optional standard? That must have been hard for the FAA to do--not. Boeing will agree to any amount of these temporary and subjective programs to get out of jail. You won't get, however, any programs implemented at Boeing that ensure any real and systematic reform to the widespread corrupt "FAA Management approved" frauds that Boeing Management has been mining for decades to markedly enhance the bottom line. And SMS is perfect for corrupt Boeing Management to implement--Boeing Management just "checks the box" that they did so, and there is no way to prove they didn't, or just did the usual purposefully ineffective "going through the motions" effort in doing so.)
- Use the FAA’s safety analysis modeling, in addition to BCA’s proprietary risk modeling, to assess all identified compliance issues.
(Use a particular flow charting technique to assess the token few items corrupt Boeing Management chooses to identify? What could go wrong with this? Everything, in fact.)
- Comply with a new Regulatory Compliance Plan, which requires BCA to assign each compliance matter to a manager-level employee for resolution and accountability.
(This is laughable in the extreme. Actually, compliance would be much more likely at Boeing if compliance was left with the hypothetical Boeing non-management employee that was still deluded that they were supposed to actually fix something, rather than assigning it to the typically corrupt Boeing Manager who knows that real compliance is the enemy to their stock options' value, who will only ensure the appearance of compliance to the minimum extent possible.)
- Require review of the regulatory compliance performance of BCA managers.
(By whom? Other higher level and more corrupt Boeing Management? That will ensure the opposite of an ethical outcome. Relying on Boeing Management to be ethical in any way to ensure the successful outcome of anything shows either ignorance of the highest level, or compliance with corrupt Boeing Management in drafting these requirements.)
- To improve its internal audit processes, audit teams will be required to report directly to BCA’s Vice President of Quality, and conduct audits across all processes (Engineering, Supplier Management, Production, Modification, Repair and Customer Support) at all sites.
(Few things are as corrupt as the auditing and quality assurance across the Boeing enterprise that Boeing's VP of Quality ensures continuance of. So why not improve Boeing's internal auditing by again making him responsible to improve auditing at Boeing? The outcome will not again be a totally corrupt and ineffective system, right? Riiight.
As noted, Boeing's VP of Quality ensures continuation of the massive noncompliance of Boeing's quality system as documented throughout this website, as well as the intentionally ineffective auditing of Boeing supplier quality systems.
But what more evidence do I have of this than the massively noncompliant quality system that Boeing V.P. is ensuring?
It's quite evident, even on public websites such as Linkedin.com. You would think that the VP of Quality at Boeing would be the most expert person in BCA about quality and quality requirements, with many years of rising through the quality organization management ranks, and even before management, having experience in quality from a line employee level.
However, when you look at the resume of the current V.P. of Quality at Boeing, Lindsay Anderson, you will find the opposite is true. He had no experience in Quality before he became V.P. of Quality. You may be dumbfounded at this news, but it proves everything I experienced at Boeing and what you'll read throughout this site. At Boeing, Quality is only a shell organization, meant to give only the appearance that Boeing is meeting its quality and safety requirements, and nothing more. That is why they put someone who knows nothing about the importance and intricacies of a quality assurance program in that role.
But it's even worse than that. Mr. Anderson not only had no experience in Quality before he was made V.P. of it by corrupt Boeing Executive Management, he actually was in the one job at Boeing most adverse to quality by ensuring the most uninspected Boeing airplanes at Boeing delivered on time no matter what was threatening to hold their deliveries up.
Obviously, therefore, Mr. Anderson is equivalent to the Mr. Anderson from "The Matrix" movies that tries to corrupt the system from within by taking it over.
He was most recently Boeing V.P. of 737 Field Operations and Delivery. 737s are some of the the most quality compromised airplanes Boeing delivers. Only some work on 737s is partially inspected depending on which day of the week it is (sad but true--that is just some of what the corrupted FAA allows). It is far, far worse than other Boeing airplane programs where every installation is "pretend inspected," rather than just an "installation of the week" being pretend inspected.
In that role, he was the "enforcer" who visited Boeing managers on the field when the delivery of a 737 within the contract month threatened to not occur, potentially threatening Boeing not getting paid on time for that plane. The threat of him showing up to find out what was holding a delivery up was as equivalently stressing as a mafia boss "Guido" showing up at one of his factories to find out why his bootleg booze delivery was being held up, with the same consequences. A Boeing manager's body may similarly never be seen again anywhere at the vast expanse of the worldwide Boeing enterprise after such a visit by Mr. Anderson.
He assured over 2400 737 on schedule deliveries that way, decidedly not by ensuring the quality of those 737s. In fact, an ethical and effective quality assurance organization would have been his enemy in reaching those goals. However, since Quality is almost totally subverted at Boeing and is only the noted corrupt shell organization, he didn't have to fight any such hypothetically ethical quality organization at Boeing during any of those deliveries.
What's even more surprising about Mr. Anderson's history at Boeing is that he wasn't ever an aerospace engineer when Boeing hired him. He was just a chemical engineer. What did he engineer while at Boeing? Fire retardant fabrics? His real expertise at Boeing seems to be as a "fixer" in Boeing Management willing to do anything to get the job done. That is why he rose to the purely figurehead position of the V.P. of the shell organization that is Quality at Boeing where he only had to give the appearance of performing a job that Boeing Executive Management does not want done. Maintaining the corrupt relationship with the FAA that put out this bogus press release is probably the most important part of his job. From that corrupt relationship all other "value adding" noncompliance at Boeing flows.
So, the breadth of the audits required as well as the audits themselves means nothing as corrupt Boeing Management will ensure that they are not done with either the required breadth or effectiveness. Requiring such a corrupt Boeing V.P. of Quality to oversee the effort only ensures its doom.)
- Assess the effectiveness of its internal auditing systems.
(You can pretty much guess how that assessment will turn out--just as many self assessments always turn out when done by people who are without ethics.)
- Appoint audit team members with appropriate technical expertise to assess the extent of regulatory compliance.
(Having corrupt Boeing Management pick such members bodes ill for the effort. They may have the right experience on paper, but such management will ensure they stay within the unethical bounds of the program to ensure they always find compliance where none exists, except for a few pre-approved token items.)
- Conduct an evaluation of regulatory compliance procedures among different facilities and programs.
(Luckily for corrupt Boeing Management the FAA didn't require an effective and unbiased evaluation of those procedures--just an "evaluation" of any quality or effectiveness. Also, they didn't even require a completion of such an evaluation with deliverables of any kind. They just required that Boeing conduct such a undefined evaluation, after which they can just trash the results.)
- Implement risk-based criteria for selecting the subjects of audits.
(This is a great idea for corrupt Boeing and FAA Management to ensure nothing is found of just how massively noncompliant Boeing's quality system is across the enterprise, from the most simple process on up. And Boeing Management gets to select the criteria and the subjects of the audits. What could possibly go wrong with corrupt Boeing Management being responsible for that?)
Enhanced Supplier Management
- To determine whether incomplete work is being accepted, conduct an initial set of audits of its suppliers, analyze the results and consult with the FAA on audit findings.
(LOL. Boeing was supposed to be auditing their suppliers for decades, but hasn't with any required breadth or effectiveness. To see just how bad Boeing has intentionally let their suppliers' quality systems devolve as long as those suppliers reduce their prices, look at this page. This "extra" effort by the FAA to get Boeing to do so is similarly doomed from the start.)
- Based upon risk analysis, conduct a second, more extensive set of audits, again reporting the results to the FAA and providing the FAA with a summary of any corrective actions.
(A similarly doomed requirement of Boeing that inexplicably only requires a minuscule subset of suppliers selected by corrupt Boeing Management to be audited.)
Quality and Timeliness Regulatory Submissions
- Meet progressively more stringent performance metrics in the quality and timeliness of its written submissions to the FAA.
(Again, not quite sure other than the usual FAA Management corruption as to why Boeing would be given this extra time to comply with FAA minimum requirements for the timeliness and quality of their submissions to the FAA.
On a small positive note, maybe the FAA's seeming focus on the quality of the submissions means that the FAA is no longer simply accepting strips of paper with the words "it's all good" from Boeing for such reports.)
- Annually for the next five years, review and simplify at least 15 process specifications used in the design, build, delivery and support of BCA products.
(Wow. This proves just how fraudulent this effort is. "Specification simplification" was a finding from the STA Audit Resolution Plan (ARP) 16 years ago, and was supposed to be fixed by that plan, with the oversight of the FAA well over a decade ago. I guess this issue recurring proved that that effort was the fraud and failure it was. I remember this ridiculous effort back then. Making "torque wizard" programs so that mechanics could figure out what torque to use with the specific fastener combination they were installing, without having to refer to the process specification at all.
Being a mechanic or inspector at Boeing is not supposed to be a job for illiterates, except for maybe Boeing's South Carolina Plant (you have to make due with the quality of employees in the chosen non-union area). Boeing workers are now (except maybe for the noted plant) at least graduates of good high schools in states with excellent schools like Washington State.
(As an aside, South Carolina high schools aren't quite as bad as I thought they would be. They only rank 33rd worst out of the 50 states. I would have guessed they would have ranked somewhere in the ten worst in the nation. They are a little better than that. But one thing is clear, Boeing didn't put the second 787 production line in South Carolina due to its well educated workforce. What could it have been? Closer to the equator to make more efficient launches into space? No. 787 airplanes aren't launched into space at all. They only operate in the atmosphere. Maybe it is because of South Carolinians' love for the arts in addition to book lernin' as documented in this documentary? Your guess is as good as mine. I've never been there.)
Back to the subject at hand. Such a well educated workforce in such well paid jobs (less South Carolina) should be expected to read engineering blueprints and process specifications. In fact, those are pretty basic job requirements for mechanics and inspectors at Boeing. Maybe in 1949, but today there is no excuse that Boeing can believably make that it didn't ensure those mechanics and inspectors could read Boeing blueprints and process specifications before they were hired. Sure, Boeing employees get even more skilled every time they do a job as some "on the job" training does occur in the beginning of their careers, but as most Boeing employees are veterans with the company, that is not an excuse.
Not to brag or anything, but I was considered a subject matter expert when it came to process specification interpretation at Boeing's Everett and Propulsion Systems Divisions. Other inspectors and even mechanics would ask for my opinion in the rare case they wanted a second opinion, so to speak. I became so expert at what the specifications stated because I was not allowed to surf the internet all day like rollerstamping inspectors were if they stamped off enough jobs on time. I would be disciplined if I did so, because I was the kind of inspector corrupt Boeing Management hated and wanted to get rid of--an inspector who actually inspected the hardware, and documented those defects to ensure they were corrected. I would be written up if I surfed the net in my downtime like the rollerstamping inspectors did. So I spent my time between inspections reading process specifications that were applicable to the work in that area, reading the jobs that defined the work I was going to inspect in that area, and surfing the Boeing network looking for more proof of Boeing Management fraud to report to the relevant enforcement agencies.
And what I found was that the process specifications we used were surprisingly easy to interpret, considering how it was that they defined some of the processes to put together some of the most advanced technology man has yet produced. All you needed was just a basic understanding of the Boeing drawing system to find out which specifications applied to the work you were doing, and a minimal understanding of how Boeing process specifications were arranged. Easy peasy.
So, there is no problem with the specifications being too complex for a person who was able to graduate high school to interpret them. Additionally, as noted, some improvements were made to dumb down the already quite straightforward process specifications during the ARP.
So, why is this non-problem brought up again? There was never a problem even during the STA 16 years ago. What this problem shows is just one bogus explanation that Boeing gives to its FAA when they are caught with their pants down violating a regulation during an FAA audit. It is a better deflection to the FAA than telling them the truth that Boeing actually prefers it when inspectors don't inspect per the planning, specification, and drawing so that inspectors don't find more "non-value added" defects that will probably not cause the airplane to crash if delivered to customers. Boeing is so cost and schedule conscious that each "rework loop" that an inspector starts by documenting a defect is considered an unnecessary extra cost and an interruption in the production flow. That's why inspectors like me at Boeing that documented every defect we found during our inspections had to be dealt with, rather than the root cause that resulted in the defect. And, it seems, things have only gotten worse since I was there. Corrupt Boeing Executives are putting even more cost saving pressure on suppliers and employees than they used to.
This is probably why Boeing has yet again invoked the bogus "our specifications are too complicated" ruse to explain to the FAA why Boeing airplanes are still so defect riddled, even 16 years after the supposed STA "reforms." The truth is much worse. Due to the excessive use of Lean Manufacturing in Boeing's plants, mechanics and inspectors no longer have the time to read the jobs, process specifications, and drawings they need to know before doing or inspecting a job. Things have gotten that bad. Spend too much time looking at the planning paperwork, process specifications, and/or engineering drawings and your management will ensure you are canned. I remember this even as a mechanic when I was first transferred to the Everett plant in 1993. I was working on the 747 Body line on the 41 section (flight deck). We were getting ready for inspection to do a shakedown of the section. My lead pointed to an area of a major structural member adjacent to some fasteners and told me to "drill a 1/4 hole there and put an XXX fastener in" (paraphrasing). This was before Lean at Boeing. Long story short, I went to look up the drawing before I drilled the hole and installed the fastener. After all, this was an airplane, not a roof shingle that needed another nail.
So, this bodes ill for Boeing manufacturing. Not only is inspection almost entirely corrupted as documented on this website, but corrupt Boeing Management's incessant "going to the well of Lean" again and again to cut costs and make production flow more efficient over the years has even resulted in mechanics not having the time to refer to specifications, drawings and plans. That is bad news. For, since inspectors have been compromised for decades at Boeing, you would at least hope that mechanics were still allowed the time to refer to the specifications during their work so that the airplane is built somewhat to the engineering requirements. Apparently that is not the case with the current cost imperatives from above.
Another reason the specification simplification reason for Boeing noncompliance is not believable is that mechanics and inspectors have or had leads, which were much more experienced mechanics and inspectors to go to if they had a question about a specification or other requirement. That may no longer be the case, albeit there are always "old timers" that know as much as the leads would in the mechanic and inspector ranks. At the time I forceably left the company, the old lead system was being replaced by a Team Leader system, in which the experienced leads were replaced by the employee on the crew that best sucked up to management, experience and knowledge be damned.)
- Implement improvements to processes to ensure that assembly installations that have been affected by process or design changes continue to conform to type design.
(LOL. More FAA sucking up to their handlers at Boeing. "...Ensure that assembly installations (sic--should be "assemblies and installations") that have been affected by process or design changes continue to conform..." Why The Fuck would Boeing have to "implement improvements to processes" if Boeing's such First-Article Verification (FAV) processes already ensured that such assemblies and installations conformed to type design when changed? This makes no sense. This just shows that this press release has been wordsmithed so many times to suck up to corrupt Boeing Management that it has lost any meaning it originally had. So, to reverse suck up write this bullet point, you have to assume that Boeing isn't performing FAVs as required, some 16 years after the same write up during the STA, and that this agreement is supposed to fix that this decade. Riiight. Boeing and FAA Management corruption never changes. Just some of the faces change as time goes on. Also note the term "First-Article Verification." That term in itself is a bow by the FAA to corrupt Boeing Management. It should be "First-Article Inspection." But since corrupt Boeing Management hates even the word "inspection" because they consider all inspection "non-value added" and a needless drain on their stock options' value, they changed it to "verification." Similarly, you will see "validated" instead of "inspected" at Boeing a lot.)
Stampings and Other Verification Records Accuracy
- Conduct mandatory training of all manufacturing and quality employees who exercise stamping approval authority, and conduct recurrent training at least every 24 months.
(LOL, or COL--"Cry Out Loud"--more accurately. This is certainly not a laughing matter. This same exact problem continues unabated some 16 years after the STA ARP. No, the problem's root cause is not that mechanics and inspectors don't know what to stamp on the paperwork. The cause is that they never look at the paperwork until they stamp it. They should be reading the plan and stamping it off carefully as they complete the work and inspections. However, that does not happen as any time to actually read the jobs enough and accurately stamp them has been "leaned out" of the production process.
It seems that not only inspectors have become rollerstampers at Boeing. Things have devolved further. Actually, a missing manufacturing stamp is prima facie evidence of an extreme rollerstamping inspector (an inspector who stamps a job off certifying they inspected it as required when they haven't) buying off the job. One of the very basic jobs of an inspector is to ensure the job is stamped by mechanics and "in process" inspectors before doing the final buyoff. If an inspector makes such an obvious error in such a basic non-drawing or specification related requirement, it is near 100% correct that the inspector is a rollerstamper that read little if any of the job and none of the related engineering drawings and specifications. To Boeing Management, that is a "good inspector."
What is weird about this is that in 2006 when I was made to leave Boeing, Boeing had fully implemented a computer based system for all rejection tags, and was supposedly moving to put all of the Operations and Inspection Records (O&IRs) online as well, which would prevent buyoff of a job unless all of the shop and inspection stamps were in place. This makes me think that Boeing must have cheaped out, and stayed with paper based O&IRs. Too bad for their corrupt selves. Putting them online like the Non-Conformance Management (NCM) system would have gone a long way in continuing to cover up the massive rollerstamping going on throughout Boeing's quality system. Instead, we get this proof that rollerstamping is currently at least as bad as it was when I was there and documented it first hand.)
- Conduct mandatory training of all engineering employees on their regulatory compliance obligations.
(This is interesting. Engineers are now rollerstamping drawing approvals off as well? Not surprising. Boeing Management is universally corrupted throughout Boeing and looks to use similar fraud to save costs and meet schedule throughout the enterprise. Boeing Engineers, please contact me and fill me in on this sordid new area of Boeing fraud. Now not only the production of Boeing airplanes is massively noncompliant, but the engineering is as well due to subversion of those processes by corrupt Boeing Management? No wonder those batteries blew up and caught fire, although more than the design was deficient.
Actually, I reported corrupt Boeing engineers to the FAA back in 2002 as well. You would think that brainiac Boeing engineers are smart enough to do their jobs and want to do those jobs the best as they can. However, that is not true in at least some cases, such as "propulsion" engineers and quality engineers at Boeing's Propulsion Systems Division (PSD), which is the division responsible for integrating the jet engines with the rest of the airplane. It seemed to me that those two particular engineers had just bought their degrees, instead of earning them. But maybe they just wanted to go into management so they were just compromising their work and ethics to get into their corrupt ranks. But I would have to say that most engineers I interacted with at Boeing were very good, especially the Key Engineers of the time for the process specifications. I witnessed one reject pressure from my QA supervisor at the time to do the wrong thing and change the process specification to allow significantly damaged engines to deliver to Boeing customers. Such continuous pressure by Boeing QA Management to allow discrepant airplane components that were damaged beyond minimally acceptable standards (and/or otherwise discrepant) deliver to Boeing customers was also continuous with inspectors who did the right thing, like me. Boeing QA Management did the opposite of what their roles were supposed to be per the FAA regulations.)
- During each year of the agreement, conduct at least three internal audits of each product line and at least one audit of each BCA fabrication site.
(Wow. That's pretty much nothing. Pretend to audit each production line three times in one year? That's about as much justice as the "affluenza" teen got for killing four kids, which was also pretty much nothing. But Boeing's noncompliance could kill hundreds per crash. "Justice," indeed.)
- Prevent any repeat findings of improper stamping.
(Boeing will fail this, just as they did 16 years ago. However that doesn't mean that the FAA will write Boeing up for it at all even if Boeing flagrantly continues with violations as the FAA only does what Boeing wants, such as this public simulation of effective FAA oversight. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of stamps have been missing and improperly applied without merit since the STA. Don't expect to hear about this again no matter how bad it becomes, until the next 16 years is up and the FAA has to fabricate evidence of impartial oversight of Boeing to give the public the false impression that the FAA is doing its job and is not in Boeing's pocket.)
Corrective Action Development, Implementation and Sustainment
• Apply the “Boeing Problem-Solving Model” to a wide variety of analyses that BCA submits to the FAA.
(Wow. The FAA is letting Boeing use its obviously superior and more technical "Problem-Solving Model" instead of the FAA's process? Is it really that much superior and more technical? No. Here is "Boeing's Problem-Solving Model." (Bottom of page two.) A grade school kid could have made that highly technical process up. Define the problem. Identify the root cause(s). Think of an effective solution. Implement it. Keep it fixed. The problem, and this press release itself proves this, is that Boeing doesn't keep it fixed, if it decides to actually fix it at all. That's what you get with corrupt Boeing Management when actually fixing a noncompliance is considered non-value added and even value destroying, so purely P.R. efforts like this are much more preferable to actually getting rid of those value producing noncompliances. That's what Boeing and the FAA also did 16 years ago with the STA as well. Note that the FAA apes Boeing's "sustain(ment)" language in the above linked document as well as other internal Boeing language as well, in place of its own. More evidence that Boeing and the FAA are illegally conjoined. And so it goes.)
• For future violations that the FAA identifies, conduct a second, follow-up audit within 12 months of the original incident to ensure that corrective actions were effective at the time and continue to be effective.
(So maybe the FAA is not taking Boeing's word that it is fixing FAA identified problems? Unfortunately, not so. The FAA is leaving it totally up to Boeing to ensure the C/A bought off in error by the FAA actually "took." And they are giving Boeing a year to do it. The FAA isn't requiring effective C/A from Boeing until a year after the violation, and then they are letting Boeing's corrupt personnel decide if C/A was effective and are not requiring any oversight of this Boeing self-inspection by the FAA. What could go wrong? Literally everything, with this "plan."
This is as fraudulent as the FAA/Boeing fraud detailed on this site. Why on earth would the FAA allow Boeing to do a follow up inspection to ensure C/A was effective of a noncompliance the FAA itself wrote up? What next? Is the FDA just going to trust that habitually corrupt (like Boeing) meat packing plants inspect themselves for effective C/A on items the FDA inspectors found them committing? WTF? It seems the FAA has been bribed into using Boeing's fraudulent "self-inspection" programs that are about as effective at ensuring quality as masturbation is of making a baby.)
BCA’s Reporting Obligations
• Report to the FAA at least annually about the effectiveness of BCA’s regulatory compliance activities, including a final and comprehensive report after the fifth year of the agreement.
(Wow. That's sure a lax and non-specific reporting requirement. Corrupt Boeing Management must be relieved. Before this much more lax requirement, Boeing had to report to the FAA quarterly. And after five slips of paper sent to the FAA that state only, "it's all good," no more reporting to the FAA at all! Corrupt Boeing Management effectively won the corruption lottery here. Five years more of massive "value-adding" noncompliance throughout BCA with laughable reporting requirements and then Boeing is free to re-offend without the "onerous" fake reports of compliance. Affluenza teens have nothing on Boeing's lack of real sanctions when breaking the law.)
• Report to the FAA each quarter the results of any internal audits pertaining to safety management, regulatory compliance, corrective action implementation and sustainment, process compliance and conforming products.
(Hmmmm. I guess that's better than the above nonspecific annual requirements. But even though the required reporting time for these requirements is every three months, there is nothing preventing Boeing from manufacturing their compliance documentation as usual. Which is a big win for continuance of corruption in Boeing Management. This ensures continuance of the current corrupt Boeing/FAA relationship for the next five years by the current process of Boeing presenting a touchy feely Powerpoint show to FAA Management every few months while massively defect riddled Boeing airplanes continually roll out of the factory doors in the real world outside the Boeing factory office in which they are being presented.)
BCA will face up to $24 million in additional penalties over the next five years if it fails to implement its obligations under the agreement.
(That's an insignificant threat as noted above. Boeing management will do as they always do with such agreements. They will comply only in appearance, and not in any way that matters in the real world so they can maintain Boeing's massive levels of "value adding" noncompliance.)
The performance period for BCA’s commitments begins Jan. 1, 2016 and will continue for five years unless the FAA and BCA agree to an extension.
(Why would the FAA agree to an extension of this do nothing agreement if Boeing does not comply?--Only if Boeing wants them to for some unknown reason.)
The agreement settles two initiated cases and 11 other matters that were opened during the last several years.
The first initiated case involved BCA’s tardiness in developing information for the installation of fuel tank flammability reduction equipment on Boeing 747 and 757 aircraft. The second initiated case involved the company’s insufficient corrective action after discovering that a supplier had been providing incorrectly shaped fasteners. The FAA did not allege that these issues created unsafe conditions.
The uninitiated matters involved allegations of delays in submitting required safety information, production quality control problems, and failures to implement corrective actions for those production problems.
(I guess that's all of the specificity of the other 11 matters that us lowly citizens will get. The "production quality control problems, and failures to implement corrective actions for those production problems" at least verifies that no corrective actions for any of the Boeing/FAA fraud on this website has occurred.
The "first initiated case" was Boeing "dragging its feet" on C/A for the TWA 800 crash, which is despicable indeed after Boeing fraud being responsible for those 230 deaths. But Boeing obviously had to meet the next quarterly profitability targets, so they had to continually move such compliance to the right no matter how many people were endangered because of it. That is the essence of Boeing Management ethics for you.
The "second initiated case" is just as troubling. Although the FAA gives some general details at the link above, it still leaves much open to interpretation. Why did Boeing wait over two years to implement a plan to address the issue? Were any airplanes delivered with the discrepant fasteners? If so, were nonconformance records authorizing their use on the affected planes written? Then there is this nebulous paragraph in the announcement:
"Boeing stopped using the nonconforming fasteners after officials discovered the problem. However, some of the underlying manufacturing issues continued to exist until after the corrective action plan was in place."
That doesn't make much sense. Which "officials," and were they at Boeing or the FAA? Then the following sentence seems to indicate the discrepant fasteners were still used after C/A, because the only "manufacturing issue" could be continued use of the discrepant fasteners. This is why the public deserves detailed reports of these problems with at least the detail the FAA gets from Boeing as the FAA is corrupt and non-transparent as noted throughout this site.
So, with my detailed knowledge of Boeing Management corruption, the noted late and ineffective C/A for the discrepant fasteners was almost surely because Boeing had no allowed substitute or conforming replacements for the discrepant fasteners, so they deliberately stiffed the FAA as noted and used the discrepant fasteners in order to ensure they could deliver them to customers on time. That fits the corrupt Boeing Management M.O. perfectly. Boeing Management doesn't even care about national security when it comes to meeting airplane delivery dates so that Boeing gets paid on schedule and meets quarterly targets. So this fraud by Boeing Management is unsurprising.
The withholding of detailed reports of Boeing's noncompliances when the FAA refuses to do that for the airlines they oversee only goes to show the very tight relationship of mutual corruption that Boeing and FAA Management are in. The above press release highlights and proves that corrupt relationship many times as noted.
Here's an interesting blurb from a Wall Street Journal article also showing how both the FAA and Boeing keep details of Boeing's lawbreaking secret:
"The agency typically makes public copies of settlement agreements with airlines. An FAA spokeswoman said the Boeing document wasn’t released because it contains extensive proprietary information that needs to be redacted.
Details of the 11 other enforcement matters covered by the agreement weren’t disclosed by the FAA, and a Boeing spokesman also declined to identify them."
(As you can see, even the business friendly Wall Street Journal notes the hypocrisy of the FAA and Boeing keeping the details of Boeing's fraud secret under the guise of "proprietary information" whereas they don't do so for the airlines. It is true, though, that such Boeing lawbreaking is considered by Boeing Management to be a key competitive discriminator for Boeing in it's fight with Airbus and to maximize their stock options' value. Keeping it under wraps is key to Boeing continuing it with the help of corrupt FAA Management. And this agreement does exactly that, ensuring that Boeing can continue to massively violate minimum FAA quality and safety assurance requirements for five more years under it's umbrella where Boeing just oversees itself and sends reports of that fraudulent effort at yearly or quarterly intervals to their FAA at FAA Headquarters.)
Here's Boeing's coordinated press release from the same day as the FAA's press release using remarkably similar language:
Boeing Statement on U.S. Federal Aviation Administration Settlement
SEATTLE, Dec. 22, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- Boeing (NYSE: BA) issued the following statement following today's settlement announcement by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration:
Boeing appreciates the dedication of both the Federal Aviation Administration and Boeing personnel who worked to reach the agreement announced today. This agreement reflects Boeing's deep and shared commitment to safety, quality and compliance – a commitment that has helped make travel on large commercial airplanes the safest means of transportation in history.
(Pure lies. Corrupt Boeing Management is not committed to safety, quality, and compliance as documented on this website in detail. The FAA announcement above was to announce Boeing's still historical levels of noncompliance to their FAA required quality system that is the only thing that ensures the as built safety of Boeing airplanes.)
Boeing believes that this agreement not only fairly resolves announced and potential civil penalty actions – most of which date back years, and two of which were previously announced in 2012 and 2013 – but also will further enhance Boeing's self-correcting quality and compliance systems. Under the terms of the agreement, Boeing has agreed to pay $12 million and make additional quality and compliance process improvements. Many of the improvements listed in the agreement have already been implemented or are in the process of implementation.
(Boeing is also lying in trying to make it seem like their massive noncompliance was years ago. Nothing could be further from the truth. Boeing's fraudulent quality system is still unreformed to this day, and this agreement ensures Boeing Management will be able to continue that fraud for at least five more years.
Then comes the "enhance" wording that Boeing also told the FAA to use as noted above.
And then comes the most outrageous lie in this Boeing press release: "Boeing's self-correcting quality and compliance systems." WTF? Boeing Management continues to subvert its quality system at will. That's the opposite of "self-correcting." How does a hollow shell of a system possibly correct itself? As noted, Boeing Management would never willingly allow that to happen as it would destroy too much hard won (by corruption) cost and flow time reductions.
"Make additional quality and compliance process improvements?" LOL. Boeing is trying to (like the FAA did) make this seem like it is improving Boeing's quality system above minimum requirements when it actually shows Boeing's quality system is actually far below those minimum requirements.)
As a company we take responsibility for our actions, and we will never compromise on our commitment to quality and compliance – a commitment that is one of the core reasons we build the best airplanes in the world. We are actively working on the areas identified in the agreement and see this as another way to continually improve our compliance system.
(I wrote too soon. As a company...we will never compromise on our commitment to quality and compliance." That's just as big a lie as the other one. Boeing Management does nothing but continually compromising quality and compliance as noted on this website. SMH. "...We build the best airplanes in the world." Another huge lie. Airbus planes are the best and most structurally sound in the world. At least they are inspected and the defects found are fixed before delivery unlike Boeing airplanes. "Continually improve our compliance system?" Ridiculous. This website shows that Boeing does exactly the opposite, continually subverting their "compliance system." What a sad bunch of manufactured lies these two obviously coordinated press releases tell. Unfortunately, this proves Boeing and FAA Management are still actively engaged in their "working together" fraud that has negated any significant level of integrity that Boeing's quality system once may have had left.)
So, in conclusion, this press release proves that FAA and Boeing Management are still engaged in this Kabuki dance of corruption to this day as documented on this website, just as they were in the 1999/2000 STA 16 years ago that also was for public consumption only and made no real or lasting improvements to Boeing's massively noncompliant production system. This press release 16 years later with several of the same problems proves that.
So, no improvements to Boeing's massively noncompliant quality system as documented on this website have occurred over the last 16 years, and if this similar press release is to be given similar due credulity, no improvements will occur over the next 16 years either, or forever, if this charade is maintained.
It's worth noting that the central item that I requested that the FAA investigate many times during their investigation of my report that they always ignored remains unaddressed here. It is the investigating and ending of the Boeing QA Management fraud that is behind almost all of Boeing's massive noncompliance. It is the root cause of all of these noncompliances, and it must be addressed to correct them for good. The FAA shows continuing intentional ignorance on the issue above with its unwarranted trust in Boeing Management to implement and verify corrective action for these noncompliances that Boeing chose to commit in the first place.
At this point, the only way the FAA can demonstrate that they are actually starting to do their jobs independently again is the day that they call the FBI and start to turn corrupt Boeing QA/Executive Management in for the habitual felonious criminals they are.
Considering the above continuing proof of FAA and Boeing Management fraud, It's now time for all good people to stand up and push for an end to this codependent fraud on the part of Boeing and the FAA, and for everyone to protect themselves from this fraud by not flying Boeing.