BOEING: Destruction of Aerospace, Medical, Automotive, Electronics & All Industries Requiring ISO and AS Certifications

From 9/11 to 2025: How Delegated Authority, a Missing AS9100 Record, and a 2012 Warning the System Ignored Became a Leadership Test for the United States Senate

In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the United States transformed its aviation oversight system in the name of speed, resilience, and security. Two decades later, the consequences of those changes raise a question Congress has yet to answer: Did delegated certification quietly replace independent verification-and did the system continue even after formal warnings were issued?

This press release presents a documented timeline from 9/11 through 2025 showing how expanded FAA delegation, unresolved certification gaps, and internal contradictions within the global aerospace quality system converged into a crisis of governance.

Delegation After 9/11: Oversight Becomes Trust

Following 9/11, the FAA accelerated the delegation of certification authority to manufacturers under Organizational Designation Authorization (ODA) programs. The intent was efficiency. The risk was dependence. Boeing announced to lay of 20,000 to 30,000 employees. 2009 The FAA made Boeing an basic FAA satellite agency that can self-certify their own aircraft, aircraft technologies like the MCAS system that killed 346 souls on the Ethiopian and Indonesian airline 2018-2019. They made some of Boeing employees FAA inspectors getting paid by Boeing. By them being full-time Boeing-FAA inspectors, this intern would make the CEO of Boeing an FAA administrator.

By the early 2000s, compliance with AS9100 (after January 2026 it will be referred to as IA9100) had become the baseline quality expectation for aerospace manufacturers worldwide. Certification was not symbolic-it was the foundation upon which airworthiness, conformity, and safety findings rested.

On Boeing's Supplier Portal where a company would go to check out Boeings requirement for supplier approval it stated "third party registrars must be ANSI-ASQ accredited. (ANSI-ASQ changed in 2008 to ANSI-ANAB -Boeing has not upgraded their website to this change for over 17 years! -2025 it remains ANSI-ASQ.

In April 2002 Supplier Bulletin, Boeing told suppliers it was eliminating "redundant inspection" for PRI/NADCAP-accredited facilities-meaning Boeing would no longer send its own inspectors to verify flight-critical special processes like heat treatment, welding, or non-destructive testing. In practice, Boeing shifted full trust to third-party accreditation, even though these processes cannot be fully validated by inspection alone, making safety assurance dependent on external audits while Boeing's own certification and governance remained in question. In July 2002, Boeing issued a supplier bulletin demanding that all suppliers be AS 9100 certified through ANAB-a sweeping move that set a new industry standard. Earlier in April 2002 and again in July 2002, Boeing's bulletins made clear that, if the need arises or need be, Boeing inspectors could visit supplier facilities to conduct inspections, reinforcing their direct oversight authority.

The July 2002 bulletin specifically mandated AS 9100 certifications through ANAB, formalizing the requirement across the supply chain. By October 2003, ANSI-ANAB escalated the requirements with Heads Up 22, mandating that all AS 9100 suppliers be listed on the OASIS Online Aerospace Systems Information System database, managed by the International Aerospace Quality Group. With Boeing controlling 65% of this system, suppliers had no option: refusal to join, pay fees, or comply would jeopardize their certification, consolidating Boeing's control over the entire aerospace supply chain.

The 2012 Letter That Changed Everything

In 2012, Tim Lee, then Chair of the International Aerospace Quality Group (IAQG) and the Boeing designated member of ANAB's Management System Accreditation Committee (MSAC) that can grant, suspend & withdraw certification (2014-2024), issued a formal warning that "unaccredited certificates are migrating into the AS9100 accredited system." The letter framed this migration as a serious threat to aerospace safety and quality integrity.

That warning is now unavoidable-because at the time it was issued, Boeing itself was not demonstrably certified to the AS9100 (from July 2002 to 2025: 23-years.) standard it was demanding across the global supply chain.
This creates a governance contradiction that has never been reconciled:
How could the leader of the IAQG and designated member (MSAC) warn the industry about unaccredited certifications infiltrating the AS9100 system while representing a corporation that was itself operating without AS9100 accreditation?

Once such a warning was formally issued, continued reliance on delegated authority without independent verification became a matter of accountability, not ignorance.

Leadership, Quality, and Institutional Silence

During the years that followed, aircraft programs continued to receive approvals under the same delegated framework. Accreditation bodies continued to grant approvals. Quality systems continued to be represented as compliant.
Senior quality leadership-including VP of Quality Elizabeth Lund, for the Boeing Company, who held executive quality and compliance responsibilities during critical periods-operated within and enforced these systems. The question raised is not personal intent, but institutional responsibility: Ms. Lund stated in a Reuter interview June 27,2024 "Boeing was willing and prepared to get AS9100, we are compliant and performing internal audits as if were AS 9100 certified" In October 2003 Daryl Guberman 40 year quality expert and Boeing Shareholder went out to Washington State to visit Boeing sites Everrett, Auburn, Renton, Northfield and canvassed 300-600 employees concerning AS 9100 and internal auditing along with being a concerned shareholder inquiring about internal functions of these four facilities. They did inform me many times they were called for training and their supervisor told them no since this would slow production.

How did known certification contradictions persist across leadership tenures without triggering enforcement, suspension, or independent review?

From Tragedy to Reckoning-Without Resolution

Public disasters later exposed deep flaws in the delegated oversight model. Investigations acknowledged cultural and procedural failures. Reforms were announced. An FAA spokes person stated after the 2018-2019 crashes "The FAA never allows a company to police-themselves or self-certify their own aircraft".
Yet the historical certification record-particularly the 2002-2025 AS9100 gap and the unresolved implications of the 2012 IAQG letter-remains unexamined by the United States Senate.

Acknowledgment without accountability is not reform-it is delay. For over 23 years, Boeing built more than 12,000 commercial aircraft and 400+ military planes in an uncertified, unverified AS 9100 environments. The Senate never questioned DARYL GUBERMAN, whose timeline and documentation reveal this systemic failure. Canvassing employees in Washington state confirmed that most delivered aircraft lacked complete life-of-aircraft documentation, leaving critical histories missing. This is not about isolated design issues or doors popping off; it is the underlying disease behind tragedies such as the Ethiopian Airlines and Indonesian airline crashes. Today, there are 12,000 ticking time bombs in the skies, plus 400+ military aircraft, all flying without proper certification or traceable histories. This is not speculation-it is documented reality. Reform without accountability fails to protect lives. The truth is clear: decades of unchecked production created a global safety crisis, and the time for reckoning is now.

A Question Only the Senate Can Answer

This is not an attack on aviation. It is a defense of it.
If certification standards can be enforced without being met,
if warnings can be issued without consequence, and if delegation can continue after contradictions are documented,
then certification no longer means safety-it means approval.
The United States Senate now faces a defining choice:
Will it examine whether delegated authority crossed into regulatory abdication-or will silence stand as consent?

Finally, with DHS, DOC, DOJ, & FDA not only being ANSI-ANAB board members but also customers this illustrates conflict of interest. Also, the FAA, DOT, FBI, and many other federal agencies that are supposed to regulate these organizations create regulatory capture.

Conclusion:

From 2002 to 2025, Boeing, in concert with ANSI-ANAB, exercised total control over accreditation while operating without proper certification for 23 years. By 2018, ANSI had effectively taken complete control of ANAB-one company under two names-while Boeing sat on committees (2014-2014) with the power to grant, suspend, or revoke certifications, undermining ISO and AS standards worldwide. In 2026, AS 9100 becomes IA 9100 under GloBAC, merging ANSI-ANAB and international partners. This structure compromises all certifications globally, leaving MRAs-Multi-Regional Agreements, MLA -Multi-Lateral Agreements accreditation bodies on the IAF, ILAC, and GloBAC structurally invalid, with no excuses for Boeing or ANAB.

Boarding Your Next Flight? You Might Be Playing Boeing's Deadliest Lottery https://www.prlog.org/13092956-boarding-your-next-flight-you-might-be-playing-boeings-deadliest-lottery.html

"Boeing's 22-Year-264 months & 8,036 days: Certification Monopoly: 8,300-12,500 Aircraft Flying Without True Independent Inspection"
https://www.prlog.org/13092750-boeings-22-year-264-months-8036-days-certification-monopoly-830012500-aircraft-flying-without-true-independent-inspection.html

GUBERMAN-PMC,LLC
1345 BARNUM AVENUE SUITE 9
STRATFORD, CT 06614
PRESS CONTACT:
DARYL GUBERMAN
203 556 1493

Daryl Guberman boasts a wealth of experience spanning four decades in the realm of quality across diverse sectors, including aerospace, medical implants, medical materials, printing, plastic distribution, consulting, NADCAP implementation, and certification services. His expertise transcends industry boundaries, as he has successfully advised companies from various sectors, enabling them to achieve substantial cost savings while instilling confidence in the quality of their products and services.

Daryl Guberman is widely recognized as an authority in specialized areas such as aerospace, medical implants and materials, and printing. He is renowned for his in-depth knowledge and unwavering commitment to quality standards in these fields.

WEBSITE: https://guberman-quality.com/

PRESS RELEASES: https://pressroom.prlog.org/daryl1962/page9.html

After Guberman exposed these documents during the April 17, 2024, DHS Subcommittee meeting https://www.newstribune.com/photos/2024/apr/18/3749044/

This release was published on openPR.