By Andy Pasztor and Andrew Tangel
A House panel's investigation into Boeing Co.'s 737 MAX provides
support for potential far-reaching changes to air-safety laws. But
bickering on Capitol Hill, combined with a limited revamp already
embraced by regulators, could derail the efforts.
Democrats on the House Transportation Committee released a
report detailing a series of errors that led to two fatal MAX
crashes in less than five months, including "technical
miscalculations and troubling management misjudgments" by
Boeing.
The report, released Wednesday along with hundreds of additional
pages of backup material, also cites "grossly insufficient
oversight" by the Federal Aviation Administration and lays out a
litany of agency policies and procedures it claims need
revision.
Relevant House and Senate committees still haven't agreed on a
common legislative approach for revising the FAA's safety oversight
of new aircraft designs, according to people familiar with the
matter. At this point in an election year, with limited legislative
time left, opportunities to work out agreements or engage in floor
debates are shrinking.
As a result, veteran government, industry and labor officials
said that barring a breakthrough in the next few weeks, they are
skeptical significant changes are imminent.
On Wednesday, the Senate Commerce Committee failed to advance a
bipartisan package prompted by the MAX's fatal problems, which
claimed a total of 346 lives in 2018 and 2019. Members on both
sides of the aisle had expected the bill to pass.
Proposed by Sens. Roger Wicker (R., Miss.) and Maria Cantwell
(D., Wash.) after weeks of staff discussions, the bill seeks to
give the FAA more control and more clearly defined authority over
certification of new aircraft models by requiring the agency to
approve specific industry employees working on its behalf. Under
longstanding procedures blessed by Congress, such company
officials, known as FAA designees, are authorized to make a range
of safety evaluations and decisions as stand-ins for the
agency.
Among other changes, the Senate bill would establish new
whistleblower protections and aim to shore up channels for
reporting safety problems during the process of certifying new
aircraft. It would also mandate the agency pay greater attention to
how pilots react to automated cockpit systems.
Sen. Cantwell said committee members hadn't come to an agreement
over several amendments filed late Tuesday. She said she and Mr.
Wicker will continue to "work with our colleagues on these
unresolved issues."
Calling the delay a setback, Mr. Wicker said in a statement he
remained willing to work with committee members on any
proposal.
The bill might not come up for a committee vote this year,
according to one of the people tracking the legislation.
Democratic staffers on the House Transportation panel, by
contrast, over the months have told industry and labor
representatives they are aiming for broader changes. The House bill
that was being drafted weeks ago, according to people briefed on
the process, included provisions that would put certain designees
on the FAA payroll, even though they would remain employees of
Boeing or other companies. The goal is to insulate them from undue
pressure by corporate management.
The House bill also might include some type of a sunset
provision, which would bar Boeing and other plane makers from
basing new aircraft models on previous designs after a specified
number of years. The 737 MAX was the latest of many updated
versions of a plane that entered service in the late 1960s.
Republicans on the House committee have indicated support for less
far-reaching revisions to current practices.
With negotiations under way on both sides of Capitol Hill, some
of those earlier provisions could change significantly, according
to people tracking developments.
Meanwhile, FAA leaders have said they are implementing several
changes of their own aimed at improving communication among various
agency offices; providing enhanced protections for FAA employees
subject to industry pressure; and ensuring that crucial safety data
is promptly and widely distributed throughout the agency.
On Tuesday, before the blowup in the Senate committee, Rep.
Peter DeFazio of Oregon, the Democratic chairman of the House
panel, expressed optimism he could work with his GOP counterparts
to get legislation through Congress, even in a lame-duck session
after the November election.
Mr. DeFazio said he didn't want to eliminate the system of
delegated regulatory authority entirely.
"We're not going to scrap the whole process," Mr. DeFazio said
in a call with reporters. "But in the case of the MAX, it pointed
to problems with that process as it exists and we will be adopting
significant reforms to it."
Some longtime FAA engineers have complained in recent years that
the current delegation system affords the industry too much say
over regulatory decisions. They say the current process has
diminished FAA oversight over who acts on the agency's behalf, and
generally has allowed manufacturers significant sway over safety
decisions during the certification process, with managers at times
overriding them in favor of the industry.
Front-line FAA employees are often left checking regulatory
paperwork after systems are designed, they say, leaving regulators
unable to perform meaningful oversight.
FAA officials previously said the existing system of delegation
has produced the safest era in commercial aviation safety, and said
it would require hiring thousands of additional agency engineers to
perform tasks now completed by company employees on behalf of the
government.
But even senior FAA officials acknowledge the need for a closer
relationship between the agency and those using its delegated
authority. "I would certainly wish that we had better
communication," Ali Bahrami, the agency's safety chief, told House
committee investigators in December 2019.
Write to Andy Pasztor at andy.pasztor@wsj.com and Andrew Tangel
at Andrew.Tangel@wsj.com
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
September 17, 2020 10:10 ET (14:10 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Boeing (NYSE:BA)
Historical Stock Chart
From Feb 2024 to Mar 2024
Boeing (NYSE:BA)
Historical Stock Chart
From Mar 2023 to Mar 2024