Daryl Guberman Exposes Boeing's Two-Decade Quality and Accreditation Scandal

NEW YORK - Dec. 12, 2024 - PRLog -- Quality assurance expert Daryl Guberman, with over 40 years of experience, has revealed systemic quality issues within Boeing's supply chain, stemming from improper oversight and conflicts of interest. His findings trace back to the aftermath of 9/11, when Boeing announced plans to lay off up to 30,000 employees and began relying heavily on external certifications in lieu of direct quality oversight. https://theworldlink.com/boeing-to-cut-20-000-to-30-000-jobs-by-end-of-next-year/article_f633820c-ddac-5ba0-9641-2e0a7d90c0cf.html

In April 2002, Boeing collaborated with the Performance Review Institute to introduce NADCAP certification for special processes, such as welding and heat treatment Boeing Intent to Mandate NADCAP Accreditation for Special Processes With in this Boeing Memo what does as the need arises mean?

. Three months later, July 2002 Boeing issued a supplier bulletin mandating that suppliers hold AS9100 certifications accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the American National Accreditation Board (ANAB) BQMS_Bulletin-BQMS_CRB_and_Survey-July_2002.pdf. With in this Boeing Memo page-2 BQMS Survey Requirements section 3 what does if need be mean? This directive eliminated on-site inspections and replaced them with certificate-based validation.

"Boeing's Audit Loophole: 'If the Need Arises' and 'If Need Be'"

Boeing's reliance on NADCAP certification and its Supplier Bulletin PQIT-02-001, which states "if the need arises" or "if need be," underscores a glaring gap in its quality assurance practices. This language effectively allows Boeing to forgo on-site audits for decades, only acting reactively when a significant issue arises, such as material failures or catastrophic events. This hands-off approach raises serious concerns about proactive oversight and accountability in critical aerospace manufacturing processes.

Guberman highlights that Boeing's role on the ANSI-ANAB management committee violates ISO 17011, paragraph 4.4, which requires impartiality in accreditation processes. "Boeing's ability to grant, suspend, or withdraw certifications creates a dangerous conflict of interest," Guberman explained. "This system prioritizes compliance on paper over real-world quality assurance."

The consequences of this policy were compounded in 2009 when the FAA designated Boeing as an agency capable of self-certifying its own aircraft, technologies, and designs. This autonomy allowed Boeing to bypass FAA oversight, enabling it to withhold critical information about the MCAS system, which was implicated in two crashes that killed 346 people.

Guberman also uncovered that government agencies like the Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Commerce, and FDA are not only members of ANSI-ANAB but also rely on their accreditation services. "This dual role is a glaring conflict of interest," Guberman said. "When regulators and industry players operate within the same system, accountability suffers."

Guberman's investigation underscores the urgent need for reforms in accreditation practices, supplier oversight, and the FAA's self-certification policies. He warns that without meaningful changes, the aerospace industry risks further safety failures.

"The certification doesn't make the company; the company makes the certification," Guberman said. "Boeing's overreliance on certificates rather than hands-on inspections has weakened quality standards across the industry."