Government Measures to Save Boeing

Running head- GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO SAVE BOEING
Government Measures to save Boeing
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1Government Measures to save Boeing
On the day of October 2018, nearly 189 fatalities were reported due to the Boeing 737
Max Lion Air flight crash in Indonesia, that was due to the sudden nosedive that the aircraft
faced and crashed into the sea after few minutes from the take-off. Another equivalent
incident occurred by the Boeing 737 Max Ethiopian Airline, in 2019, where the number of
fatalities was 157 and the crash was outside Addis Ababa. The collisions were reported due to
the software errors and disputes with the sensors, that was seen in both the flights that
crashed (Intereconomics 2018). The primary issue was with the Maneuvering Characteristics
Augmentation System (MACS), that was specially intended with the purpose to retain the
flight from any imbalances. The Chairman and the Chief Executive Officer of Boeing
rejected the accusations initially but later disclosed about the software breakdown of the
aeroplanes. This essay aims at analyzing the corporate governance failures that resulted in the
crash (Parker, Peters and Turetsky 2015). Further, it provides measures to prevent the
fatalities from happening that the Company might have taken at the first step to avoid such
risks.
The main factor for the fatality included the technical failure in the aircraft and the
lack of training that it failed to provide to the pilots that would have saved the aircraft from
crashing. The Boeing accidents are examples of the failure of a single sensor that led to such
a massive disaster (Nytimes.com 2020). The system that was made to ensure the safety of the
people backfired, and in turn, the result was disastrous. Addition to that the lack of
governance also includes the information that was not provided to the pilot, and the pilots
were unaware about the software that was installed to provide the information in cases of any
malfunction (Duppati, Scrimgeour and Stevenson 2018). However, the fact that they were
unaware about it, the pilots, we are unable to use it to ensure the safety. The Boeing aircraft
was designed in such a way that permitted for a strong command by the computer due to the
software that was installed that would trigger with a single faulty sensor (Fischer and Dov

2Government Measures to save Boeing
2014). Even though both the aircraft were installed with such software due to the lack of
training to the pilots they were utterly unaware of the sensor and were not able to use it in
time before they take off. The primary liability was not upon aircrew alone, and it was also a
responsibility of the Company to understand their choices and conduct proper governance as
it includes the loss of lives of many people that could have been avoided with proper
governing measures (Mallin 2014). The prime liability, comprised of the risky design
selections and the safety valuations that were noticed as faulty, contributes to the fatalities
and the mishap in the aircraft.
The crucial aspect that was detected was the mechanical issues of the aircraft that was
responsible for the catastrophe. Firstly, Boeing was building aircraft using modern
technologies since the year 2011 so with that there should have been proper training to the
crew to use such technical software. To achieve such levels of the usage of the technological
advances it equipped more engines that would be significant for the usage of such software,
it was positioned on a high level on the wings of the aircraft, these changes required changing
the entire aerodynamics of the plane. In order to stabilize the aircraft with the usage of the
new mechanisms, Boeing created new software that was known as the MCAS ( Maneuvering
Characteristics Augmentation System). The key feature of the software was that it pushed the
plane to make the flying machines constant in various situations. However, it was evident
from both the crashes that in both the crashes the MCAS software that was installed crashed
within minutes before the take-off took place and despite the numerous attempts to start the
software the aeroplanes kept tumbling. Later reports showed that not only the fact that the
pilots were not trained about the usage of such software but they were also unaware of the
installation of the software. This shows that the first action required by the Company was
sufficient training. The other apprehension was due to the absence of information, as the
pilots flying the of the aircraft were not cognizant about the new software installations and

3Government Measures to save Boeing
thus attained no training to regulate the aircraft that resulted in the fatalities. The pilots were
not aware of the new descriptions of the anti-stall system of the aircraft. The system was such
that even a slightly faulty system, the software were able to be triggers that due to the lack of
knowledge remained inoperative. It was primarily due to the lack of training that the pilots
must have received as the safety of the passengers in a flight remain upon the pilots, so they
require to equip themselves with the knowledge that relates to ensuring the safety of the
passengers.
The investigation of the Boeing Lion Air Crash was done by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA.). The findings were such that the Boeing aircrafts 737 MAX received
its safety certificate from the FAA quickly without analyzing all the factors required to
provide them with the safety measures (Cunningham 2018). The FAA is under the course of
its inquiry by the DOT regarding the Boeing 737 MAX crash. It is responsible for exploring
all such Ethiopian Airline crash that was linked to the Lion Air Craft Crash. The Boeing
received its safety permit, but it was designated that though they established the certification,
numerous flaws were remaining inside the managerial system and in the corporate
governance of the economy. Finally, it was concluded that the Company would close in order
to the lack of safety concerns about the public and open up with new technological
advancement and software installations.
It is evident in this essay that the fatality was due to the lack of governance on the part
of the Company, and as there was the lack of awareness relating to operating the software the
fatalities occurred. Those fatalities could have been avoided following specific measures and
guidelines. Such guidelines include various measures. The primary measure would be a
reformation in the management structure of the Company. It includes training their pilots and
other necessary crew members, and they must be made aware of the slightest change in the
software or the technologies installed in the aircraft. Another method could be runway

4Government Measures to save Boeing
situation awareness measures. This step includes the necessary groundwork in order to
maintain stability in situations where there is a crisis. It would also include helping the pilots
to make appropriate decisions that would be required to support better-informed decisions
that would support the various approaches for a safe landing. Such programs must be
designed in a way where the preparation stage through landing acceleration, the Runway
Situation Awareness measures would provide a blend of solution where there is a runway
problem. Another essential measure will include continuous monitoring that may be helpful
to avoid any fatalities in the future. Monitoring would help in keeping a proper note of the
mechanisms that are working correctly, and it would be also helpful in identifying any
fatality that might be caused due to the technical issues in the aircraft. Problems would be
identified easily that would help in providing a face pace solution to the problem. In this case,
if monitoring was done before the faults could have been easily identified that nay has helped
in avoiding the crash. All the crew members should receive proper training on a practical
sense about the usage of the software so that in any case of fatality or error they can avoid it
easily not causing any harm to the passengers. Finally, the Company should concentre on
providing various policies to the passengers that will safeguard the security of the passengers.
The policies must be designed in such a way, where the safety of the passengers is the utmost
concern of the Company, not the business.
In conclusion, it is stated that it was the lack of governance and proper training to the
crew members that resulted in the fatalities. It can be further specified that the fatality that
occurred was due to the lack of administration by the end of the Company that it failed to
train its crew about the functioning of the aircraft. It was evident that even after the first crash
the Company was not responsible enough to train its resources as the accidents caused were
very near and the fatalities that were caused was due to the software problem that was the
same for both the aircraft. From that, it can be identified that after the first crash, the

5Government Measures to save Boeing
Company did not take any initiative to train their resources or to find out the reason for the
crash. It was apparent negligence and the lack of governing powers of the Company that they
were responsible for. The full responsibility of the passengers depend upon the pilots and the
crew of the aircraft's and the responsibility to train the pilots, and the crew members rely
upon the Company, and it is the sole responsibility of the Company to make the pilots and the
crew aware about the usage of all the technical equipment of the aircraft. Not only the
Company the FAA too was responsible for providing the safety certificate without proper
investigations. So the measures as per stated can be used to combat the problems regarding
the improper functioning that was present in the case. If the Company considered such
measure earlier, these crashes could have been easily avoided.

6Government Measures to save Boeing
Reference
Cunningham, L.A., 2018. Deferred prosecutions and corporate governance: an integrated
approach to investigation and reform. Fla. L. Rev., 66, p.1.
Duppati, G., Scrimgeour, F. and Stevenson, R (2018)., Corporate governance in the airline
industry-evidence from the asia-pacific region. Corporate ownership & control, p.329.
Fischer, Dov, (2014) Was Boeing’s Compensation Committee Sufficiently Independent in
Judging the Business Risk of the 737 Max? Available at SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3370066 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3370066
Intereconomics (2018). The airbus-boeing dispute: Implications. Intereconomics.
Mallin, C. (2014). Corporate governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nytimes.com (2020). Boeing Refuses to Cooperate With New Inquiry Into Deadly Crash.
[online] Nytimes.com. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/business/boeing-
737-inquiry.html [Accessed 2 Mar. 2020].
Nytimes.com (2020). How Boeing’s Responsibility in a Deadly Crash ‘Got Buried’. [online]
Nytimes.com. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/20/business/boeing-737-
accidents.html [Accessed 2 Mar. 2020].
Parker, S., Peters, G. and Turetsky, H. (2015). Corporate governance and corporate failure: a
survival analysis. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society,
2(2), pp.4-12.

7Government Measures to save Boeing