The aircraft involved in the Indian tragedy is the same one previously warned about by the deceased whistleblower.
Last year, a former quality manager at Boeing raised concerns about the 787 Dreamliner factory, highlighting various defects and poor inspection quality. John Barnett, a long-time employee turned critic, accused Boeing of using substandard parts in the plane construction, putting lives at risk due to the focus on speed and efficiency. Barnett’s refusal to fly on the Dreamliner and his subsequent legal battle with the company ended tragically with his apparent suicide.
The plane Barnett had warned about was involved in a fatal crash in Ahmedabad, resulting in the loss of all passengers except one. This incident, the worst aviation disaster in recent times, has drawn renewed attention to Boeing’s practices and manufacturing standards. While investigations are ongoing to determine the cause of the crash, concerns over the aircraft’s technical design have intensified, considering Barnett’s earlier warnings and the legal disputes he was involved in.
Historical Problems and Accumulated Allegations
The introduction of the 787 Dreamliner in 2011 was marked by promises of lower production costs, but critics were quick to point out the complex assembly process involving multiple contractors with limited transparency. Technical issues plagued the Dreamliner from the start, including battery fires that led to a temporary grounding by the FAA in 2013. Subsequent problems with generator control units and fuel leaks further tarnished the aircraft’s reputation.
In the aftermath of Barnett’s death, whistleblower Sam Salehpour, a former Boeing engineer, came forward with additional concerns about the Dreamliner’s assembly process, warning of potential catastrophic failures in flight. Salehpour’s testimony in Congress accused Boeing of concealing issues and engaging in unethical practices. Other whistleblowers echoed similar criticisms, with one meeting a tragic fate. Boeing acknowledged falsifying documentation related to the 787, admitting to lapses in required inspections and possible misconduct within the company.
Despite mounting scrutiny and allegations, Boeing has remained silent in response to requests for comment, leaving unanswered questions about the company’s manufacturing practices and commitment to safety.
