Ethical Failures Behind Boeing 737 MAX Crashes: A Cautionary Tale

Abstract

Instructor’s Name What happened to Boeing’s 737 MAX airlines? The morally irresponsible ethics depicted by Boeing is a subject of concern due to the lives lost following the eminent crashes. The mystery surrounding the fatalities caused by the two planes Lion Air Flight 610 on October 29, 2018, and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 on March 10, 2019, was horrifying, claiming over 350 lives. The airline company was grounded for 20 months after two accidents occurred in similar situations. The main subverted ethical principle was the plane's engineering ethics involving poorly designed software. The crash of the two plains gained global attention on the culture and practices of Boeing Company. According to (Herkert et al., 2020), the flight data recorder recovered from the wreckage contained information on the faultiness of the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), designed software for the MAX forced the Norse of the aircraft down 26 times in ten minutes. Many blamed the MCAS software and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for violating engineering ethics. Boeing wanted to compete in the market with its rival airline, Airbus, and engaged in an unhealthy plan that led to its detriments. Airbus raised its bar with the A320neo jetliner, a fascinating A320 narrow-body aircraft. The aircraft was fuel efficient and extensive, giving it accolades in the market. Boeing tried a similar approach with the same engine upgrades from 737NG to 737 MAX gaining a base in the airline market. The pressure by Boeing to maintain its rivalry with its competitor raised a significant challenge in engineering, and Boeing resorted to designing the 737 max brand rather than getting a new aircraft (Herkert et al.). Large and fuel-efficient engines were a threat to the design of the aeroplane. The design choices caused the risk of the possibility of a nose-up stall in certain flight conditions. The engineering problem at Boeing was out of negligence and the lack of ethical engineering principles. Boeing owed a duty of care to society. However, they violated the ethical principles in the engineering context on the fundamental canon, informed consent, and precautionary principle. The National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics, the first fundamental canon of ethics, stipulates that engineers are paramount to the public's safety, health, and welfare. The company design entailed simple and cheap warning displays alerting pilots, and if the software had been appropriate, the pilots could easily deduce the plane's malfunctioning. Changing the design to a more straightforward and dangerous design is a threat to the public's safety. The engineers are paramount to the safety of all, and they should have ruled out the gaps that threatened the plane's safety and notified the necessary authorities. Just like cars have safety machineries like safety belts and airbags, the engineers should have made it suitable to the advantage of public safety. In the context of informed consent, pilots were not informed about the new software installed for the plane's functioning. The lack of knowledge on why computers repeatedly pushed the nose down was insane. The concept of informed context deserves to be reassessed and procured in engineering ethics and pilots, given information on the function of the different software. Gauging on the morality of the CEO of the then company, Dennis Muilenburg, he was wrong in his measures to call president Trump eight days after the grounding all over the world to allow the planes to operate in the United States. The company was after competition going against the precautionary principle. The CEO alluded that they did not know what caused the crash of the planes and that the grounding was unnecessary. The CEO was disobeying the precautionary principle. When safety has been scrutinized, and its safety doubted, precautionary measures ought to be embraced. The CEO OF Boeing was way back on the ethical principle of safety. Boeing company has very many vital stakeholders that uphold their company. They include employees, investors, business partners, and corporate shareholders. After the fatalities caused by the Boeing 737 MAX model, the company suffered a massive blow in its discharge of responsibilities. This accident awoke the stakeholder management of the company to discern corrective action. The company's employees are stakeholders that enhance performance through delivering quality products and ought to be motivated and trained to suit the company’s needs. Since some were conversant, the employees lacked the values and expertise to handle the issue. According to (Spiekermann et al., 2020), value-based engineering ethics would tackle the design problem. The business partners include the suppliers who face strange measures following the company’s untrustworthy reputation. The company's demands seem very high and strict, making supplies unable to meet their high expectations. Investors define the organizational framework of a company, and, unfortunately, the catastrophe made investors sell their shares to a third party following the company’s grounding. Customers are essential stakeholders in determining a company's profit. Boeing had to suffer rejection from its customers due to its reputation. Ethics in engineering thrives on excellent and desirable characteristics which are considered moral. When engineers introduce a new concept in the market, they consider various factors, including efficiency, time, and costs, while adhering to safety standards and a code of engineering practice. Just like Boeing engineers failed, engineers sometimes violate their ethical principles. Daniels Funds Ethics initiative principles can be used to explain Boeing’s catastrophe in the line of virtue ethics. There are eight principles, but for Boeing, the principles it violated include; accountability, transparency, fairness, and trust. The messes need to be ethically approved. Boeing should be accountable for its decisions. They ought to acknowledge that they are wrong and solder on to reviving their business. The faults emanated from software malfunction, and it was the company's idea to make a change. Accountability also means compensating the families who lost their lives following the plane crash. The company has made many mistakes, yet it never took precautions. Boeing was afraid of Airbus company thriving in business, and the need to change the plane model was for competition. It is within ethics for the company to engage in fair competition that takes precautions...