Why Did Boeing Conceal That Its Planes Are Unsafe?

by Charles Shi 8 months ago in investigation

Deaf Ear to Massive Chinese Fake OEM Safety Parts Still on b737 Flight Control Systems

Why Did Boeing Conceal That Its Planes Are Unsafe?

Boeing failed to warn the airline industry about a potentially dangerous feature in its a new flight-control system that is suspected to play a role in the fatal Lion Air crash in Indonesia a few weeks ago.

Does Boeing know its planes are unsafe? They certainly do! Lion Air crash serves as a vivid example of Boeing's hypocritical safety culture. Will Boeing take lessons learned? Probably Not!

Boeing Is Blamed for Massive Chinese Made Counterfeit Parts Knowingly Installed and Kept on Its B737 Flight Control Systems.

The scam started 3.5 years ago, some 500 Boeing planes were compromised. Unfortunately Boeing did not take any action to remove the safety threat. Instead, Boeing was denying it was an issue of having counterfeit safety parts on its planes. A spokesperson for Boeing said the company found no issues with the parts in question.

However Boeing accused me, the whistleblower, of making a false claim.

Boeing is lying to journalist of NBC

A few who-don't-care-Boeing-safety professionals are echoing Boeing's deceit. They want me to stop alerting flying public of the deadly safety threat by "Give it a rest!"

These people who may be Boeing pilots or working at airlines must know thatBoeing planes are not designed to fly for two months or three years.But why do they utter such unprofessional advice?

Other Boeing provocateurs spread fake news that "Chinese counterfeit parts were removed per NOE of FAA"(IF the counterfeits were removed, why was I not notified as the exclusive whistleblower?Does Boeing care about its Goodwill?)

Some Boeing insiders dared even to forge fake news by saying I am "a Chinese agent provocateur."

Fake news on Yahoo

It seems to Boeing that taking genuine action to remove the massive safety threat could open Pandora’s Box.

The scam started with Moog Aircraft knowingly sourcing and installing Chinese made OEM counterfeit parts onto Boeing planes.

FAA as the watchdog of aviation safety failed completely on substantiating the safety violations by refusing to conduct independent investigation.

OIG of Department of Transportation refused to conduct criminal investigation upon such a massive OEM counterfeiting.

Dear Mr. Shi,

As a fellow whistleblower I just want to thank you for standing up. My testimony before the US Congress in 1987 began a long journey to this very day. As the first Eastern Airlines mechanic to expose Eastern’s maintenance frauds then and followed by additional testimonies by other mechanics, Eastern was served a 60 count indictment in 1990. Pleadings to the FAA continued to fall on deaf ears for a year and a half until a Grand Jury did their work for them.... Further on, and after a three year effort and FAA denials, I and others forced the issue of a dangerous type of electrical wire (Kapton) and airframe insulations (Mylar)that were highly flammable. Although both Douglas and Boeing had also warned of these since 1996 through proprietary directives, and the FAA Technical Center had written of this in 1990, it still took the FAA until December 2016 to require their removal (ADs). Simply, the FAA allowed the industry to ‘retire’ the problem rather than take other actions far more costly to the industry.

As you have noticed, none of the "checks and balances;" the oversight functions of government work as we assumed they should.

The root problem (the ‘carrot’) appears to the "co-opting" of all oversight agencies by the industries they regulate and the power of money to lawmakers, a revolving door, and awards of career-building appointments to converted industry positions and "study" committees. The ‘stick’ is banishment, with no support from the very agencies sworn to uphold the law. Only the occasional loss may briefly open a window of honest dialogue and safety advancements. The primary US oversight agencies (i.e. FAA, the NTSB) count on a large under reporting of incidents (which are mandatory for reporting; i.e. Service Difficulty Reporting system (SDRs) and the NTSB’s companion ‘Rule 830.5’ Reporting System. Decades of non-compliance persist because the industry knows these agencies have never enforced their own requirements (Federal Air Regulations) and isn’t likely to begin now.

Under reporting ranges from 10 percent to 60 percent depending on the specific carrier involved and the carriers get to determine what is filed. As such, it is unrealistic to expect any fleet-grounding issues. It is far easier to call any loss a "once off" event and that dead pilots don’t talk. The truer risks remain obscured in unreported incidents, selected reports in the databases, propriety Service Reports and other such industry insider data. Who is to know how many of these parts you have identified have failed. In one Canadian Report, just a half dozen failed heaters were known but Boeing held over 60 more.

But, as with you, we persist with a few victories. I do it with the belief we owe a debt of gratitude to those whose and ideals have passed, and we have an obligation to try to leave a better world to those that follow.

Simply, and as others before us have noted; it’s an insiders game and not easily rooted out, but lay down a paper trail we must.

Below are a few such men. I have spoken with so many more.

The Last Boeing inspector (Gerald Eastman)

Rodney Stitch (FAA Inspector/Whistleblower)

Thanks again for standing up. If any questions, feel free to ask.

John King


I wish more supporters and flying public join us in crying out for action! Please contact me at: [email protected]

My blog site :






Read next: Eliminating Bail
Charles Shi

Charles  Shi. formerly employed by the Aircraft Group of Moog Inc. as East Asia Supply Chain Manager,a whistleblower of the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) on an extraordinary Boeing plane safety threat.

[email protected]

See all posts by Charles Shi