By Aritra Banerjee
Multiple crashes seem to have cast aspersions on the safety record of one of the aviation industry’s greatest giants, questioning the age-old adage, “If it’s Boeing, I’m going!”
Between 2006 and 2021, a spate of Boeing 737 Next Generation air crashes claimed 787 lives and left 271 severely injured. Over 500 of these deaths occurred in the past five years.
The latest in this list of mishappenings was the crash of China Eastern Airlines Flight MU5735 that killed all 132 on board. This recent incident, an addition to the inventory of Boeing air crashes, has once again brought the company – which already has a chequered air safety history when it comes to the 737-800 aircraft family – under the global scrutiny of aviation watchdogs.
What Happened To Flight MU5735?
It was 22 March, a Monday. Flight MU5735, a Boeing 737-800 plane operated by China Eastern Airlines, carrying 132 people onboard, crashed near a village in Teng county, near the city of Wuzhou in Guangxi. According to Flight Radar 24, the aircraft abruptly descended from cruising altitude. Flight MU5735 was flying eastward when it made a sudden plunge at 2:20:59 PM, abruptly transitioning from a level flight to a plummet of 31,000 feet per minute. The drop was extranormal in terms of flight parameters.
The next 45 seconds saw the decline become slightly less steep and for a brief moment, the plane began to climb more than 1,000 feet. In the 10 seconds that followed, Flight MU5735 rose from 7,424 feet to 8,600 feet. This short-lived climb was followed by the aircraft resuming its violent descent at a rate of 31,000 feet per minute. The last position record of the flight radar was at 2:22:36 PM, approximately a minute and 35 seconds after the aircraft took off.
Aviation analysts speculate that the earlier dive would have resulted in items onboard being flung up to the aircraft ceiling, while the rapid rise would have pinned people to their seats, a traumatic experience during what would be a fatal flight.
The 737 Family: 800 & Max 8 What Is The Difference?
The Boeing Next Generation (NG) series, comprising the 737-600/700/800/900 variants, was launched in 1997. Aircraft under this series are fitted with more potent engines and have an enhanced wing design. In addition, they feature a larger area with the ability to mount winglets; they sport a better-equipped passenger section, too.
The 737-800 variant featured in the recent crashes is a narrow-body aircraft capable of seating 189 passengers in a single-class configuration and 162 passengers in a two-class configuration.
Following this series, Boeing developed the 737 Max series of which the ‘controversial’ 737 Max 8 was intended to replace the 737-800.
The Boeing 737 Max “Conspiracy”
The 737 Max has been described “as the most scrutinised transport aircraft” in history. Its safety has remained a significant point of contention amongst air safety experts worldwide. The scrutiny began when two Boeing 737 Max 8 crashed within six months of each other- leading to the global grounding of the aircraft.
The first of said crashes took place on 29 October 2018, when Indonesian carrier Lion Air Flight 610 nose-dived into the Java Sea just 13 minutes after takeoff, killing all 189 passengers and crew. This was followed by the crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 on 10 March 2019, near the town of Bishoftu a mere six minutes after takeoff. This one claimed the lives of all 157 onboard. With a death toll of 346 people, these crashes became the subject to major investigations and media glare.
The 737 Max aircraft was plagued by issues as well. It began developing technical problems soon after being pressed into service in 2017. Following the two air crashes, the Boeing 737 Max being operated by 59 airlines worldwide were subject to global grounding. Boeing was called into question over the aircraft’s “faulty design” and later faced fraud charges for withholding information from safety regulators.
After a lot of corporate embarrassment, the company signed an agreement with the United States Department of Justice (DoJ) to resolve the criminal charge levied against it. The “conspiracy” charge was about Boeing’s attempt to, “defraud the Federal Aviation Administration’s Aircraft Evaluation Group (FAA AEG) in connection with the FAA AEG’s evaluation of Boeing’s 737 MAX airplane”. The DoJ required Boeing to pay more than $2.5 billion as a total criminal monetary fund.
This comprised $243.6 million as a “criminal monetary penalty” and $1.77 billion in compensation payments to the airlines which procured the 737 Max. Boeing was also required to set up a crash-victim beneficiary fund worth $500 million to remunerate the families and legal beneficiaries of the victims of the two 737 Max 8 crashes.
The DoJ pulled no punches in its statement against Boeing; “The tragic crashes of Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 exposed fraudulent and deceptive conduct by employees of one of the world’s leading commercial airplane manufacturers,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General David P. Burns of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.
“Boeing’s employees chose the path of profit over candour by concealing material information from the FAA concerning the operation of its 737 Max airplane and engaging in an effort to cover up their deception. This resolution holds Boeing accountable for its employees’ criminal misconduct, addresses the financial impact to Boeing’s airline customers, and hopefully provides some measure of compensation to the crash-victims’ families and beneficiaries.”
The misleading statements, half-truths, and omissions communicated by Boeing employees to the FAA impeded the government’s ability to ensure the safety of the flying public,” said U.S. Attorney Erin Nealy Cox for the Northern District of Texas. “This case sends a clear message: The Department of Justice will hold manufacturers like Boeing accountable for defrauding regulators – especially in industries where the stakes are this high.”
“The decision to move its headquarters from Seattle to Chicago was also highly significant. It meant that the Boeing leadership was a step removed from daily operations. People who worked on the production lines claim executives started to focus more and more on the financial side – putting pressure on the manufacturing operation to cut costs and boost output.”
– Theo Leggett, International Business Correspondent at BBC –
Reported Causes Of 737-800’s Crashes In The Last Decade
Boeing has seen a considerable number of crashes over the past decade, most having been attributed to pilot error.
On 5 February 2020, Pegasus Airlines Flight 2193, flying from Izmir to Istanbul, skid off the runway while landing at Istanbul-Sabiha Gökçen International Airport. While 180 people made it to the survivors’ list, three did not. Pilot error was the reported cause.
Air India Express Flight 1344 was flying as part of the Vande Bharat Mission to repatriate Indian nationals stranded across the globe due to the pandemic on 7 August 2020. The scheduled international flight from Dubai, with 184 people on board, was to land at the Calicut International Airport. The plane overshot its tabletop landing at this airport- 169 people survived, 29 did not. “Pilot error,” declared an Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) report.
Air Niugini Flight 73 flew for the last time on 28 September 2018. It was flying from Pohnpei to Port Moresby via Chuuk, FSM. The aircraft landed not at the runway at Chuuk International Airport but instead flew straight into the Chuuk Lagoon. This crash left six injured, one dead. 46 others survived. Reportedly, pilot error and loss of awareness resulted in the plane being ditched short of the runway.
Flydubai Flight 981, a scheduled passenger flight from Dubai International Airport to Russia’s Rostov-On-Don Airport, had 62 people on board on 19 March 2016. All the people were killed in a crash that was also chalked to pilot error. According to the investigation, the pilot experienced spatial disorientation due to a loss of situational awareness.
Air India Express Flight 812 crashed on 22 May 2010 on landing. The plane was making a trip from Dubai to Mangalore. Of the 166 occupants on board, 158 did not make it out alive. Preliminary findings indicated that the pilot had landed the aircraft beyond the touchdown point at the Mangalore International Airport.
Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409 crashed in the Mediterranean after it took off from the Pacific Hariri International Airport. In this crash that took place on 25 January 2010, the aircraft made an impact at sea, killing all 90 onboard.
Boeing has reported 21 major accidents since the aircraft’s conception. However, going by 2019 data, the “Next Generation” variants have a record of only 0.07 fatal air crashes per million. Paul Hayes, Director of Air Safety & Insurance at Cirium, an aviation consultancy firm, vouched for the variant, “The 737NG has been in operation for 25 years and has an excellent safety record.”
“The safety record of the Max is well documented. There are repeated occurrences in India, even on the 737-800 family, which need to be highlighted. In the recent past, most runway overruns on runways have involved B737 aircraft“
– Capt. Vikram Munshi Airline Pilot, Author & Analyst –
“Pilot Error” Aside, Is Boeing’s Corporate Culture & New Management To Blame?
Author & aviation analyst Joseph P Chacko shared his take on the spate of air crashes plaguing the aerospace giant: “Boeing seems to have accumulated technical problems in recent years, including electrical faults in the cockpit of the Max, fuselage anomalies on the 787 and delays on the 777X.”
“The crashes [in 2018 and 2019] were due to a fault in the MCAS flight control software. Now, another accident has been added to [Boeing’s] lapel with the crash of China Airlines Flight 611. The causes are yet to be ascertained.
“The blame is on Boeing’s corporate culture. A parliamentary report published in September 2020 on the crashes of the MAX had put forward a change in the corporate culture after the merger with McDonnell Douglas in 1997, with more attention paid to financial profits and less to the resolution of engineering issues.”
Indian aviation journalist and analyst Prashant Prabhakar agreed with Chacko’s assessment and added, “Until then [the merger], Boeing was renowned for its exceptional engineering and safety qualities. The new management has only been focussed on cutting costs, and safety has taken a back seat.”
Other structural factors seem to have been at play, too. BBC’s International Business Correspondent, Theo Leggett exclusively told IA&D: “The decision to move its headquarters from Seattle to Chicago was also highly significant. It meant that the Boeing leadership was a step removed from daily operations. People who worked on the production lines claim executives started to focus more and more on the financial side – putting pressure on the manufacturing operation to cut costs and boost output.”
“It is arguable that they couldn’t see the consequences of their decisions because they were in Chicago. In the aftermath of the 737 Max affair – and at a time when the 787 programmes has also been hampered by serious production problems – senior executives have reportedly spent much more time in Seattle and North Charleston. There’s a reason for that,” Leggett hinted before signing off.
Chacko also pointed towards such issues. “The setbacks on the 787 highlight internal communication problems, and Dave Calhoun has repeatedly assured that the issue would be quickly resolved. The company lacks the ability to bring up bad news and fix it promptly. It gives the impression that the company is not entirely managing the situation,” he noted.
In addition to this, the safety culture of Boeing is also under the radar. Captain Vikram Munshi, an airline pilot, author & analyst explained that apart from the business culture, the existing safety culture in a manufacturing unit is also important for making safe and reliable products. “Failures in any system aren’t caused by practices at one single level or even a couple of levels. They are a culmination of repeated and recurring omissions, weak practices, faulty strategy, and lax supervision from the highest leadership structures to the lowest factory floor practices,” he said.
He further noted that a “breach or malpractice/violation which results in any failure or accident is one of many which has existed in the system and escaped known checks that fateful instant to cause an accident. Check or action at any level could have prevented the mishap, but when it doesn’t, it just shows that not one but all preventive or safety levels failed. So the blameworthiness is across the organisation, not just at the strategic leadership level though it is seen that leadership can be apportioned responsibility for any aberration in an organisation under the supervision and strategic planning.” He said that the causative factors are inherently embedded in the DNA or safety culture or lack of it in a company.
“The blame is on Boeing’s corporate culture. A parliamentary report published in September 2020 on the crashes of the MAX had put forward a change in the corporate culture after the merger with McDonnell Douglas in 1997, with more attention paid to financial profits and less to the resolution of engineering issues.”
– Joseph P Chacko, Aviation Analyst –
India’s Stake & Response To The Crashes?
Indian low-cost airline Spicejet has 60 Boeing 737 planes in its fleet and with 13 Boeing 737 Max in its fleet, is the only operator of the controversial aircraft in the country.
The other 47 are 737 NGs, of which 36 are 737-800s, five are 737-700s, and five are 737-900s. Air India Express has 24 Boeing 737-800 aircraft in its fleet, while Vistara has five. The company reportedly has an order book of 214 Boeing Max from Spicejet and Akasa Air. The latter is the newest addition to Boeing’s Indian clientele, and has inked a deal for the purchase of 72 Boeing 737 Max planes. Akasa Air is slated to receive its first Boeing 737 Max by mid-june and the airline is scheduled to begin commercial operations by July this year.
India’s aviation watchdog, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), has cleared the Boeing 737 Max following the global grounding through an order issued on 26 August 2021. This decision came after the company made design changes and was given an Airworthiness Directive certificate in November 2020 by the American aviation watchdog, FAA. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) also soon followed suit and issued an Airworthiness Directive certificate in February 2021; by August that year, over 17 regulators cleared the Boeing 737 Max.
However, following the crash of Flight MU5735 in China, the DGCA enhanced its surveillance of the Boeing 737 fleet. “Flight safety is serious business. We are closely studying the situation, and in the interim, we are mounting enhanced surveillance on our 737 fleet,” DGCA Chief Arun Kumar said. Monitoring teams had already been deployed by the DGCA. These teams’ job is to ensure the prescribed regulations in place to maintain and operate the Boeing 737s are being adhered to by the airlines operating the fleet. This surveillance will continue until the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) concludes the exact cause of how Flight MU5735 crashed, and indeed, the role of the 737-800 in the fatalities.
The DGCA recently banned 90 Spicejet pilots from flying Boeing 737 Max. They will have to undergo training again, in a proper manner, on the Boeing 737 Max simulator. The Indian aviation watchdog had observed that these pilots have not taken additional training to fly Max aircrafts as directed by the nodal aviation body post resumption of Boeing 737 Max operations in the country.
SpiceJet spokesperson clarified the organisation’s stance in an official statement: “We have received a communication from the regulator on the matter and the airline shall submit its reply within the specified period. We would like to reiterate that safety and security of our operations and passengers are of utmost importance which is manifested in our outstanding track record. None of our operations are compromised and they are in line with the international safety standards.” The Spicejet spokesperson stressed, “Of the 650 trained pilots on the Max, 560 continue to remain available, which is much more than the current requirement.”
“Until the merger with McDonnell Douglas, Boeing was renowned for its exceptional engineering and safety qualities. The new management has only been focussed on cutting costs, and safety has taken a back seat.”
– Prashant Prabhakar, Aviation Analyst –
Is Indian Passengers’ Safety Compromised?
The safety aspect of Boeing planes is quite important for India, and its significance is only set to grow. As Capt. Munshi puts it, “the safety record of the Max is well documented. There are repeated occurrences in India, even on the 737-800 family, which need to be highlighted. In the recent past, most runway overruns on wet/flooded/short runways have involved B737 aircraft. E.g. in Bombay (almost cyclic in two/three years), the Air India Express crash in Calicut and minor overrun in Srinagar etc.”
He predicted that the implications on India will only increase with time as two more new/renewed airlines add Boeing 737 operations to their fleets in a big way. “With the delay of Airbus A320 deliveries due to pending orders, more operators may induct this single-aisle aircraft into their fleets.”
This development, coupled with the FAA coming under scrutiny, seems to point towards a need for India to develop its own civil aviation investigation structures.
Need For Indian Aviation Watchdogs?
“Most of the civil aviation regulators worldwide seem to be following the handouts from the FAA rather than developing their investigative capabilities. Boeing gets away without lawsuits in the event of a crash outside the U.S. Maybe India can start its own investigative department for such problems and offer its services worldwide as an alternative opinion to what airplane manufacturers and the FAA wants the world to believe,” Chacko opined.
Capt. Munshi seemed to be in agreement with the idea. “Aircraft accident investigation is an intensive field with a narrow scope. Incidentally, India doesn’t have any accredited course or organisation for training future investigators. The Indian Air Force has an in-house short capsule for Accident investigators but is way short of producing and developing skills needed for professional aircraft investigators.”
“So, furthering the argument, yes, there is a need for such a department, yet absolutely no infrastructure or academic facilities are available in India. The FAA some still believe is the golden standard in safety and maintenance processes. Though their erstwhile policy of allowing aircraft manufacturers themselves to oversee new and existing safety inspections and issue guidelines was an eye-opener,” he concluded in his assessment.
The Runway Ahead
Whether the FAA becomes even more vigilant or whether new aviation watchdogs come up in India, the fact that the road to recovery and correction is a long, hard one for Boeing, remains.
So far, Boeing has expressed its condolences and has pledged its support to its airline customers whilst supporting CAAC along with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). In the time between the MU5735 crash and the time of publication of this article, two other Boeing aircraft have encountered sorry fates. A DHL Boeing 757 Cargo split into two in Costa Rica and a Boeing 777 met with a “serious incident” while approaching Paris, leading to probes.
It may be poignant to conclude with the development that Boeing 737-800s operated by China Eastern Airlines are being prepared to resume commercial operations. This comes nearly a month after the fatal air crash of Flight MU5735.
It may be a poignant note, that like all of the aforementioned 737-800 accidents, the cause for the crash of Flight MU7535 may have been caused as a result of ‘pilot failure,’ however the exact cause of the mishap cannot be ascertained until investigators submit their findings.
The company has not responded to IA&D’s request for comment at the time of publication. Any comment, if received, will be added as a rejoinder.
