On April 2nd, Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg testified before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. He addressed concerns about Boeing aircraft safety, the company’s safety culture, and the changes needed to restore its reputation.

Unfortunately, as anticipated, the Senators’ questions were largely superficial, lacking the depth required for real accountability. For instance, when asked about defects in Boeing airplanes, Ortberg highlighted the company's efforts to improve safety and quality but failed to address the ongoing engineering and manufacturing defects that still exist within 737 MAX airplanes. Additionally, when questioned about quality control improvements, CEO Ortberg neglected to mention the company’s removal of thousands of quality control inspections on individual aircraft—an action taken without the FAA’s knowledge. When asked about manufacturing related electrical defects contributing to the two MAX airplanes that crashed, Mr. Ortberg indicated he was unaware of such reporting. He also failed to mention that before he took over as Boeing’s CEO, he was President of the company that made the angle of attack sensors and MCAS software that failed in both crashes.

To truly enhance aviation safety, we need our legislators to ask more pointed, in-depth questions. Softball questions will not even begin to solve any of the significant problems at Boeing.

Sadly, March 10th marked the sixth anniversary of the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crash which killed 157 people. Just four months earlier, Lion Air Flight 610, another Boeing 737 MAX airplane, crashed into the Java Sea claiming 189 lives. Following these crashes MAX aircraft were grounded while the investigations were underway, and the aircraft recertification process was undertaken. Despite being hailed as the “most comprehensive in history,” by then FAA Administrator Steve Dickson, the recertification process narrowly focused on MCAS software and pilot training, while ignoring critical issues including manufacturing related electrical system failures. The MAX fleet continues to experience significant problems as outlined by our cover story in this edition of the Aviation Watchdog Report.

Last month, victim families and representatives from The Foundation for Aviation Safety met with Congressional staffers to urge Congress to act. Legislative staff were shocked to learn that Boeing’s 737 MAX airplane still has numerous unresolved engineering and manufacturing defects, all of which were uncovered after the FAA's 20-month recertification process.

Family members highlighted the repetitive cycle that is all too common. An accident occurs with the loss of life that is so traumatic. This is followed by media attention and promises of investigations and corrective actions. With the passage of time comes complacency as the accident becomes old news. Then another tragedy occurs, and it starts all over again. Family members are calling on Congress to support an interagency task force under the DOT to urgently address systemic aviation safety issues. Additionally, they urged Congress to demand NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy release newly uncovered evidence related to the Ethiopian crash, evidence she is withholding in violation of ICAO standards. Without transparency and a new approach, these recurring problems will never be fixed. In this edition, we cover flying with children, a couple near-misses, and a fatal engine defect that remains unresolved. Thank you for your interest in aviation safety.

Nearly everyone has watched the striking video of Southwest Flight 2504 conduct a go-around to avoid a potential collision with a Flexjet aircraft at Midway Airport on February 25. Some might view this as an isolated incident, but the truth is far more serious. In fact, in fiscal year 2024 there were 1,758 runway incursions. But what exactly is a runway incursion?

The FAA website provides the following information:

What is a Runway Incursion? Any occurrence at an aerodrome involving the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle or person on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and take off of aircraft.

What is a Surface Incident? A surface incident is an unauthorized or unapproved movement within the designated movement area (excluding runway incursions) or an occurrence in that same area associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of flight.

There are four categories of runway incursions:

Category A is a serious incident in which a collision was narrowly avoided.

Category B is an incident in which separation decreases and there is a significant potential for collision, which may result in a time critical corrective/evasive response to avoid a collision.

Category C is an incident characterized by ample time and/or distance to avoid a collision.

Category D is an incident that meets the definition of runway incursion such as incorrect presence of a single vehicle/person/aircraft on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and take-off of aircraft but with no immediate safety consequences.

While an analysis of the thousands of incursions might reveal many of them are of the Category D variety, they still represent significant warning signs. Nearly all aviation accidents (as defined by the FAA) have been preceded by “close calls” or “near misses.” Simply ignoring them because no injuries or deaths occurred is irresponsible. In fact, that complacency will inevitably lead to an accident that was not only foreseeable but preventable had appropriate action been taken. There’s an old saying in the safety world that continually rings true: “There are no accidents, just predictable outcomes.”

Although the DCA midair collision in January was not strictly the result of a runway incursion it was certainly the result of ignoring the warning signs related to inadequate aircraft separation. Unbelievably, the last major airport in the U.S. opened in 1995. We are constantly trying to fit more aircraft into the same airspace each day. The question is now being asked more frequently, “is it safe to fly?” Statistically it is safe, but it can always be safer. There are at least 1,758 reasons to make it safer right now! Saying it is safe doesn’t help make it better nor offer any comfort to those hesitant to fly or to those who have lost loved ones to a tragic accident.

A safe airspace system is reliant upon all organizations to do their jobs with attention to detail and unwavering dedication to proper procedures, policies, clear communication, and appropriate accountability. The Foundation calls on the FAA, all part 91, 135, and 121 carriers and operators, and all aviators to take more aggressive action to prevent this unacceptable number of incursions. The system is stressed and rides upon a razor’s edge each day. We must be better than this.