The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed a $3.1 million civil penalty against Boeing after uncovering widespread safety violations across the company’s 737 production lines. The move signals a continued tightening of regulatory oversight on one of the world’s largest aircraft manufacturers, which has faced mounting scrutiny over its safety practices following several high-profile incidents.

FAA Findings: Safety and Compliance Breaches

According to the FAA, the violations occurred between September 2023 and February 2024 at Boeing’s 737 assembly plant in Renton, Washington, and at Spirit AeroSystems’ facility in Wichita, Kansas, where fuselages and other components are manufactured. Federal investigators documented hundreds of instances in which Boeing failed to follow its own quality-control procedures and FAA-mandated safety requirements.

The FAA alleges that Boeing’s internal oversight system broke down in multiple areas, including:

• Noncompliance with quality processes that are designed to ensure airworthiness.
• Presentation of at least two aircraft to regulators for approval that were not airworthy.
• Pressuring an FAA-designated employee to sign off on a 737 MAX aircraft that did not meet regulatory standards.

These findings suggest not just isolated errors but systemic problems in Boeing’s production process, raising fresh concerns about whether the company has adequately reformed its safety culture since earlier crises involving the 737 MAX.

Alaska Airlines Mid-Air Incident Triggers Probe

The FAA’s heightened scrutiny was prompted in part by a January 2024 incident involving an Alaska Airlines 737 MAX 9. During a flight, four bolts that secure a critical fuselage panel came loose, forcing an emergency landing and grounding a significant number of aircraft for inspection.

Although no injuries were reported, the incident echoed the fatal crashes of Lion Air Flight 610 in 2018 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 in 2019 — tragedies that led to the worldwide grounding of the 737 MAX fleet for nearly two years. Regulators and the public have since demanded more aggressive oversight of Boeing’s production and quality systems.

Regulatory Pressure and Production Cap

Since early 2024, the FAA has imposed a cap of 38 737 MAX aircraft per month on Boeing’s production line, citing ongoing safety concerns. This limit will remain in place until the FAA is satisfied that Boeing’s processes meet federal standards.

In addition to the production cap, the FAA has stationed inspectors at Boeing’s manufacturing sites to conduct real-time audits of its operations. These inspections uncovered 97 separate instances of noncompliance, confirming regulators’ concerns that Boeing has not fully addressed its quality-control lapses.

Boeing’s Position and Response

Boeing has 30 days to respond to the FAA’s proposed penalty. The company said it is reviewing the findings and remains committed to working closely with regulators to address their concerns. In recent months, Boeing executives have repeatedly promised to improve safety culture and restore public trust in the company’s aircraft.

While Boeing has acknowledged past mistakes, it is expected to argue that many of the problems are already being corrected through ongoing quality improvements and additional employee training. Spirit AeroSystems, a major supplier for Boeing, declined to comment on the FAA’s enforcement action.

Legal and Criminal Exposure

The civil penalty is not Boeing’s only concern. The company is also facing a criminal investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), which is examining whether Boeing violated a 2021 deferred prosecution agreement that shielded it from criminal liability after the 737 MAX crashes. If prosecutors conclude that Boeing failed to meet the terms of that agreement, the company could face renewed criminal charges and additional financial penalties.

What’s at Stake for Boeing

For Boeing, the stakes could not be higher. Beyond the financial impact of the proposed $3.1 million fine — a relatively small amount for a company of its size — the greater risk lies in reputational damage and further regulatory action. Airlines, investors, and passengers are watching closely to see whether Boeing can deliver on its promise to make safety its top priority.

Industry analysts warn that any additional production delays or regulatory restrictions could put Boeing at a disadvantage against Airbus, its primary competitor. The European planemaker has continued to capture market share while Boeing works to stabilize its operations.

The Bigger Picture

The FAA’s proposed fine is part of a broader effort to strengthen federal oversight of aircraft manufacturing. Aviation experts say the enforcement action is significant because it shows regulators are no longer willing to rely solely on Boeing’s self-policing efforts.

The case also highlights a crucial balancing act for the FAA: it must support the U.S. aerospace industry, which employs tens of thousands of workers and contributes billions to the economy, while also ensuring that passenger safety is never compromised.

Next Steps

Boeing’s response to the FAA will likely determine whether the fine is finalized or negotiated down. The FAA could also impose additional corrective actions, such as requiring Boeing to implement new compliance systems or subjecting the company to heightened oversight for an extended period.

For now, the production cap remains in place, and the aviation industry is watching closely for signals about when — or if — the FAA might allow Boeing to ramp up 737 MAX production again.

Bottom Line

The proposed $3.1 million fine is yet another reminder that Boeing’s road to restoring trust is far from over. The company must not only satisfy regulators but also reassure airlines and passengers that its planes are safe. With both financial and reputational stakes on the line, Boeing’s next steps will be critical in shaping its future as a global aerospace leader.

Stay Informed on Boeing’s Safety Crisis
Follow JDJournal for the latest updates on the FAA’s enforcement actions, Boeing’s response, and the future of 737 MAX production. Don’t miss in-depth coverage on aviation safety, regulatory changes, and how these developments affect the legal and business landscape.

The post FAA Hits Boeing With $3.1 Million Proposed Fine Over Widespread Safety Violations first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Two United States law firms have announced that they are creating drone practice groups due to the increasing popularity of the technology, according to the Washington Post.

The two firms are LeClairRyan, from Richmond; and McKenna Long & Aldridge, from Atlanta.

Tim Adelman and Doug McQueen are the head of the LeClairRyan drone group, which is headquartered in Annapolis. Adelman is a flight instructor and McQueen is a United Airlines pilot. They are both aviation attorneys.

Mark Dombroff is the head of the drone practice for McKenna Long. Dombroff is the partner in the law firm’s McLean office and a former in-house attorney for the Federal Aviation Administration.

The announcements from the firms come not long after the FAA said that it plans to issue rules that regulate civil, unmanned aircraft at some point this year.

“We want to help [companies] shape rulemaking and get a seat at the table, then actually operate in a world they had a hand in creating,” Dombroff said.

Thousands of companies build and market drones, but they find trouble because no regulations have been created by the federal government yet.

“They’re they’re having a hard time expanding their business,” Adelman said. “But as we see these new rules come out in next year or two, you’ll see an explosion of manufacturers and end users.”

Adelman said that drone usage in the real estate and the agriculture industries could be very helpful.

“If someone stole my tractor and it’s on a 1,500-acre farm, if you were to get 20 patrolmen to walk all over the farm, it would take all day,” Adelman said. “I could fly a [drone] in half an hour and scan the area quickly. If real estate agents wanted to take a picture of a house, they could pay a pilot and it could cost $500, whereas if I had a [drone], it would cost cents.”

The post Two U.S. Law Firms Creating Drone Practices first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

As if flying isn’t bad enough, the federal government’s recent spending cuts means that travelers are spending more time stuck on the ground or in the air. Air traffic controller furloughs have caused enormous delays at major airports across the country, and the United States Senate is working furiously to remedy the situation that has left thousands of flights delayed or circling above airports hours beyond any scheduled departure or arrival times.

The furloughs, which are essentially intermittent leave for federal employees implemented to reduce operating costs, have been widespread throughout several federal agencies, but the furloughs for air traffic controllers have been particularly noticeable. Air traffic controllers are Federal Aviation Administration employees tasked with monitoring the airways and granting permission for private planes to take off and land. By reducing the number of available air traffic controllers and relying on under qualified trainees to pick up some of the slack, the FAA has created a bottleneck for departing and arriving flights, which is causing tremendous delays for airline customers across the country.

Though dozens of other agencies are facing the same cutbacks currently plaguing the FAA, the issues plaguing airports has been the focus of media and political scrutiny, and is the cutback that seems to be affecting the public in the most prominent manner. The FAA was forced to make $637 million in cuts, and closed 149 air traffic control towers across the United States.

FAA administrator Michael Huerta said that his agency would “refuse to sacrifice safety even if it means less efficient operations.” Despite the tower closures, furloughs, and delays, Reuters reports that the safety of the country’s airways is the same as it was before the cuts.

Just before their recess, the Senate unanimously passed legislation on Thursday night that is expected to relieve the situation. The legislation grants the Department of Transportation some flexibility on the use of unspent funds in the hopes that they can cover the costs of bringing back additional air traffic controllers and other essential employees, and keep contract air traffic control towers open across the country.

The initial crisis was the result of Congress’ failure to create a budget, resulting in $85 billion in cuts spread across every federal agency. Though the Senate’s new legislation, which is expected to be signed into law by President Barack Obama shortly, will repair some of the damage done to the airline industry, political observers say that the initial cuts were damaging to every federal agency, and that the FAA’s troubles are only the most public.

West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller told Reuters that, while he appreciated the legislation’s quick passage, “it does nothing for other essential government operations and employees that also desperately need relief.”

The post Senate Attempts to Remedy Flight Delays first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

While the fleet of unmanned robotic aircraft keeps growing and adding to the nation’s arsenal, the Pentagon is working out procedures to enable the Federal Aviation Administration to open U.S. Airspace for military drones.

With the gradual pacification of the war-torn areas of Iraq and Afghanistan the time for the drones to return has arrived. The armed forces continued to acquire military drones to upgrade tactical prowess and reduce human casualty throughout the “War against Terror” period. The original fleet of 50 drones as of Sept 11, 2011 has now grown to almost seven and a half thousand.

After returning home, the robotic aircraft would be stationed in military bases around the nation for use in emergencies. Unmanned drones have already been successful in penetrating critical areas and helping people like during the recent tsunami in Japan and earthquake in Haiti.

Steve Pennington, the Director of Ranges, Bases, and Airspace for the Air Force said that “The stuff from Afghanistan is going to come back,” and that the Department of Defense wanted to use the drones for needs of the nation and that the Department “doesn’t want a segregated environment. We want a fully integrated environment.” This can mean that military drones would be brought under the same rules as other military aircraft.

The FAA does not allow remotely controlled aircraft in the national airspace as according to the FAA, drones don’t have adequate “detect, sense and avoid” technology to safeguard collisions with other objects in midair.

While the smaller drones, which are mostly as large as hobby planes may be brought under a system, the question is different for the large Global Hawks, MQ-1 Predators and MQ-9 Reapers which can wreak havoc in the wrong hands.

Last week, Congress approved legislation requiring the FAA to create a plan for wide-scale integration of drones in the national airspace by 2015.

The post Combat Drones Soon To Fly Over U.S. Airspace first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Foley represented MIS Corporation (MIS), an environmental remediation contractor, which had been hired by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to remediate mold contaminating the Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport Air Traffic Control Tower (DTW-ATCT).

Several DTW air traffic controllers employed by the FAA claimed they had become ill from exposure to toxic mold. When they filed lawsuits against the FAA, they were dismissed due to workers’ compensation protection for the government.

Following the dismissal, the air traffic controllers sued MIS and other mold and environmental consultants in Wayne County Circuit Court, alleging MIS and other defendants were negligent in proper elimination of mold in the air traffic control tower.

FBM attorneys Richard S. Baron and Brian H. Phinney removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on the grounds MIS was a federal contractor and therefore was entitled to present its defenses in a federal forum. FBM also filed a motion to dismiss, claiming MIS was contracted by the FAA and conducted work in accordance with detailed directives, and it owed no separate and distinct duty to the plaintiffs. The District Court agreed and dismissed the lawsuit following the Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling in Fultz v. Union-Commerce Associates.

The plaintiffs appealed these rulings in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Sixth Circuit held MIS was entitled to rely on the governmental contractor defense.

Richard Baron of Foley, Baron & Metzger, PLLC, was quoted as saying: “Companies that provide products and services to the federal government should be able to defend themselves in federal court. This ruling has broad implications for manufacturers, distributors and consultants doing business with the federal government.”

Foley, Baron & Metzger, PLLC, headquartered in the Detroit, Ann Arbor, Michigan area, is a broad-service law firm providing environmental, products and corporate legal services throughout the United States.

The post Foley, Baron & Metzger Sets Precedent: Governmental Contractor Defense Not Limited to Military Contractors first appeared on JDJournal Blog.