Did you know I survived a plane crash? It was a Boeing 757, and it was my 21st birthday – a day that stole both my parents. Of the 164 souls aboard AA Flight 965, only four survived when it tragically impacted Monte Delulvio, the ‘Mount Flood’, in Colombia. The recent grounding of Boeing 737 Max aeroplanes has stirred a flood of memories and emotions within me, alongside a surge of critical questions. Why was there such a delay in grounding these planes in the US, when much of the world acted weeks prior? This hesitancy raises serious concerns for passengers and demands a deeper look into aviation safety protocols.
I was vacationing in Antigua when the FAA finally grounded the 737 Max. The repercussions were immediate: flight disruptions, extended stays, and a scramble to rearrange life back home. Yet, amidst the inconvenience, a sense of relief mingled with frustration. The delay in grounding, the seemingly minimal pilot training on these new aircraft, and the slow reaction to two fatal crashes within months – it all pointed to a systemic issue. Boeing’s assurance that a software update will resolve the problems is unsettling. Should our safety in the skies hinge on a software patch? It begs the question: did someone, somewhere in the rush to production, know these planes weren’t ready? We are left with unanswered questions and the devastating cost of two tragedies.
This isn’t an isolated incident for Boeing. Prior to the 737 Max crisis, the Air Force rejected KC-46 tanker planes due to FOD – Foreign Object Debris – left inside during manufacturing. While FOD itself isn’t a direct safety hazard, it signals a lapse in quality control and adherence to procedures. The Air Force rightly questioned what larger, unseen issues might also be overlooked. Boeing’s management promised stricter controls and automated checks, but the pattern of rushed production and compromised safety culture seems to persist. It’s not just about Boeing; the FAA, the regulatory body meant to oversee safety, has faced budget cuts and staff shortages, leading to a delegation of safety oversight back to Boeing itself. This is akin to asking students to grade their own exams – a clear conflict of interest and a recipe for potential disaster.
Whenever an aeroplane crashes, anywhere in the world, the echoes of AA Flight 965 resonate deeply within me. Any compromise on safety, any rushed decision, feels intensely personal. I’ve learned firsthand the devastating consequences of negligence. Disregarding standard procedures, prioritizing profits over safety, or any hidden agendas should never endanger the lives entrusted to the aircraft and its crew. We place immense faith in the machines that carry us through the skies. Just as we expect peak engineering and reliability from a Mercedes Aeroplane in the automotive world, shouldn’t we demand the absolute highest standards of safety and quality in aviation?
In my view, Boeing has once again flown into ‘Mount Flood’. My sincere hope is that everyone at Boeing and the FAA, from executives to frontline workers and regulators, experiences a profound introspection. May this be a catalyst for a renewed commitment to excellence, inspiring them to do better and be better. I believe that unsafe planes were not rolled out intentionally, but a lack of rigorous intention and oversight has fostered a dangerous culture. It’s a culture that needs urgent and comprehensive reform, for their sake, and for the safety of us all.
Word count: 721 words.
