FAA Says Lack of Federal Whistleblower Protections Is 'Enormous Factor' Hindering Blue Origin Safety Review

Jackie Wattles writes via CNN Business: Jeff Bezos' rocket company, Blue Origin, became the subject of a federal review this fall after a group of 21 current and former employees co-signed an essay that raised serious questions about the safety of the company's rockets -- including the rocket making headlines for flying Bezos and other celebrities to space. But that review was hamstrung by a lack of legal protections for whistleblowers in the commercial spaceflight industry, according to emails from Federal Aviation Administration investigators that were obtained by CNN Business. The FAA also confirmed in a statement Friday that its Blue Origin review is now closed, saying the "FAA investigated the safety allegations made against Blue Origin's human spaceflight program" and "found no specific safety issues."

The emails obtained by CNN Business, however, reveal that investigators were not able to speak with any of the engineers who signed the letter anonymously. Investigators also were not able to go to Blue Origin and ask for documents or interviews with current employees or management, according to the FAA. The situation highlights how commercial spaceflight companies like Blue Origin are operating in a regulatory bubble, insulated from much of the scrutiny other industries are put under. There are no federal whistleblower statues that would protect employees in the commercial space industry if they aid FAA investigators, according to the agency.

The commercial space industry is in a legally designated "learning period" until at least October 2023 -- a "learning period" that has been extended several times, most recently by a 2015 law called the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act. The idea is to allow the industry to mature and give companies a chance to self-regulate without overbearing government interference. But that designation effectively bars federal regulators from implementing certain new rules or wielding the same oversight powers for commercial space companies as it does for aviation. That meant that investigators had to rely on current and former Blue Origin employees voluntarily coming forward to offer information.

Not a problem.

[quintessencesluglord]

Just have the engineers disclose their concerns pertinent documents to Wikileaks.

Oh wait.

Expectation of safety

[fermion]

The Airbus disaster because the device used to measure airspeed froze over, and the Boeing disaster because the repositioned the wings so the aircraft became inherently unsafe were abject failures of regulations. They involve very mature and none technology and the defects should have been obvious in there had been enough critical eyes on the design. These things can be overlooked by one review, but I have seen defect come to light and be corrected by proper review that is not just signing off to cover someoneâ(TM)s ass.

Commercial rocket travel is not a mature technology and we do know the appropriate level of safety margin. We likely want something more than Russia where just enough of the vehicle remains in tact to get the people more of less safe to the ground. But we canâ(TM)t afford US humanspec travel as that costs $10,000 a kilogram.

Right now any one who boards a rocket should have no expectations of living. The successful commercial rocket companies will be those that find the best compromise between safety and cost. A Lamborghini is worth the money as you hit a tree at high speed and walk away with minor injuries. But most of choose to save a little money, try to drive safe, and know we are going to die.

The main focus of safety reviews should be on keeping us the ground safe. This has been the issue in the rio grande valley. Reckless launches that threaten the safety of the public.

Re:

[phantomfive]

A Lamborghini is worth the money as you hit a tree at high speed and walk away with minor injuries

Are you sure a Lamborghini is safer than a Honda Insight?

Re:

[fermion]

I do suppose the insight might be safe in the same way a riding lawnmower is safer that an insight.

Re:

[phantomfive]

I would bet that riding lawnmowers are not particularly safe.

Re:

[Mal-2]

In the sense that it's quite unlikely to reach the same speeds, or to make the driver want to hit the same speeds -- yes. You just can't build up as much speed in the Honda Insight, and therefore, not as much kinetic energy either.

That doesn't mean the Insight is safer at the same speed, just that it's not likely to have time to accelerate to 156 mph like Henry Ruggs did unless it's dropped out of a helicopter.

Re:

[phantomfive]

Supercars are great, but they aren't known for their safety record.

Re:

[Mal-2]

But they _are_ known for staying on the road at reasonable speeds when the driver isn't an idiot. A Honda Insight on pizza cutter tires (for fuel economy) may not. That's all I was getting at.

Re:

[phantomfive]

I see your point.

Re:

[drinkypoo]

Measured how? Audi is pretty good at crash safety stuff when they care and modern lambos are basically just pointy Audis, so from that standpoint sure.

Re:Expectation of safety

[Strider-]

Boeing disaster because the repositioned the wings so the aircraft became inherently unsafe were abject failures of regulations

That's not quite what happened with the Max-8 debacle. The wings of the 737 are the same as previous generations, however to fit the larger, more efficient engines they had to move them forward and up, so they would clear the runway while on the ground. This change in the engine characteristics had a corresponding change in the handling of the aircraft.

It didn't make it inherently unsafe, but different enough that if left alone, the pilots would need additional training and basically a new type rating. All jets have a tendency to go nose-up when you apply more thrust, moving the engines further forward and higher increases this tendency. The P-8 Poseidon (also based on the 737 airframe) has a similar tendency, but the Navy pilots have been trained to deal with it, and have not had an issue.

To make these aircraft more appealing to airlines, they instead added an MCAS system which was intended to mask the physics, and make the aircraft handle like the previous generation jets. The problem is the MCAS system. A) it depended on a single angle of attack sensor B) For some stupid reason they made the "disagree" light a paid option c) If the pilots started using their training from the previous generations to fight the actions, they would make the problem worse.

So yes, it was an absolute failure of management at Boeing, but it doesn't make the aircraft themselves inherently unsafe.

Re: Expectation of safety

[VeryFluffyBunny]

Once they start taking passengers, the expectation of reasonable safety is there. The govt essentially told them, "You don't have to let safety get in the way of your ambitions." So they won't.

just imagine

[Anonymous Coward]

If Cap'n Kirk had died because of Bezos' corner cutting. Thank god nothing came of this.

This doesn't add up

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this a problem now and not in the last century-or-so of aircraft safety investigation?

Is it a factor that the FAA isn't all that independent itself, seeing its entanglement in Boeing, shown us in the 737 MAX crashes and investigative aftermath? That would make Blue Origin rightfully leery of the FAA's motives, that that, not lack of whistleblower protections, is already the deathknell of the FAA's investigative ability.

Should the NTSB be doing this, rather than the FAA, mayhaps?

Re:

[Entrope]

The same NTSB that is supposed to supervise Tesla's Autopilot feature?

The issue here seems to be the "learning period" exception to generally applicable safety regulations for commercial space launch programs. That exception is pretty much designed to let these companies "move fast and break things", and people are surprised when things break.

Re:

[arglebargle_xiv]

Because they're in a "learning period", a.k.a. a get-out-of-jail-free for anything they might do. The idea is to give the industry "a chance to self-regulate". OK, sure you might say, this has never ever ever worked in the entire two-hundred-odd year history of the industrial age, but why not give it another go in case it suddenly starts working now?

Re:

[markybob]

there are countries that limit "trying new things", but that's not seen as a good thing... due to history. most modern countries let people go a little crazy for a little bit. if not, the world would still be flat (please don't start)

Do it while you can

[AndyKron]

Go fast and break stuff until you can't anymore

The rich like Jeff Bezos'

[oldgraybeard]

have always just paid their government employees(Politicians and Public Servants) for exceptions from laws and regulations. Selling the rich exceptions to laws and regulations IS the business of government. That is why the rich own politicians and public servants(self servants) in the first place.

WTF?

[kot-begemot-uk]

Investigators also were not able to go to Blue Origin and ask for documents or interviews with current employees or management, according to the FAA.#

So what did they review? The bananas futures prices on the Windward Islands market?

Re:

[chadenright]

Clearly, they gave Bezos a call, asked if everything was OK. He said yep, their tickets to a paid resort were in the mail. They closed the investigation; everything was fine.

The dangers of commercializing space

[Pollux]

The emails obtained by CNN Business, however, reveal that investigators were not able to speak with any of the engineers who signed the letter anonymously.

This is the biggest threat to the commercialization of space: the desire to privatize profits at the expense of socializing the losses. When a rocket launch is "successful", a.k.a. passengers pay money to a company to get launched into space for a short period of time, then return safely to the surface, the company gets to keep all the money. But the m

it's worse than most imagine

[markybob]

this happens all too often, even outside of the "leading-edge tech space". i remember being a CTO of a surgery center back in 2005 (HIPAA applied) and I didn't know what to do with the fact that I knew that hundreds of thousands of accounts (people's health records) were in danger. it's a *very* lonely place to be in. the government needs to help

So we have to let Bezos endanger our astronauts?

[billd10]

We need to protect our country from Jeff Bezos. Just because he has enough money to file lawsuits when he doesn't get his way is no reason to let him put people at risk of their lives.