Boeing Engineers Lost Control of the Company

> Why does Tesla get a pass in terms of pitching that their system is something that it isn't except in the obligatory fine print?

Because we're talking about legality, not morality. I have said in my original comment I hate how Tesla markets this, but that does not absolve the driver of responsibility for piloting their multi-ton metal box at high velocity on public roads. What you're effectively saying is you want some entity, likely the government, to hold Tesla accountable for their claims. Except you will never find an official statement from Tesla saying you can drive without paying attention (there are numerous unofficial statements, and even a video of Elon Musk personally demonstrating the technology without paying attention on national TV) - so it's a question of proving fraud at that point. And proving fraud is an insanely difficult process, because you have to prove intent. Even proving neglect in this instance is challenging. I do wish there were more stringent regulations about advertising for driver-assist systems, but currently they do not exist.

Yes, in a perfect world, I would love for Tesla to not get away with this shit. But rather than only blame Tesla, perhaps we should recognize that driving is a privilege, not a right. You have to pass a test to get your driver's license. You are responsible for the car so long as you are driving. If you are so easily duped that you can be dissuaded otherwise, you are likely not fit to be a safe driver.

Ultimately what I care about is how safe the roads are. I care much less about pointing the finger. Tesla deserves criticism for their disingenuous marketing, but so do lazy drivers who literally fall asleep at the wheel without even checking to see if that's okay.

If Boeing (management, or board, or shareholders) wants to give part of the company to the employees, that's their business. But if Sanders makes them, that's taking the company from the shareholders. That's nationalization. The fact that he then gives it to the employees doesn't change the fact that the government took it in the first place.

And they may know how to manage devs but they have very little change of being good at , which is what protects the dev team.

When the smooth talking suits show up and tell their pretty dictions, there aren’t enough people who know how to push back.

But where would you find these classically trained managers who haven’t drunk the Taylor koolaid?

I agree that higher standards for getting (and keeping) driver's licenses is a good thing to discuss. (It's political suicide, which is why it never gets acted upon in spite of the thousands of road deaths every year.)

But I think the solution to the problem describe upthread is more along the lines of "we need higher standards of truth in advertising".

While I agree that "the onus is on the driver to understand how their car works" - I think it's entirely understandable that drivers base that understanding on what the sales guy and marketing team told them when they researched and bought it, and that if they use works like "self driving" and "autonomous" and "autopilot" that it's reasonable for drivers to interpret them in their commonly understood meanings. Disclaimers in legal documentation redefining commonly understood English words are _not_ OK in my opinion.

>The first of the 3 sets of pilots did this, and landed without incident.

Extra pilot in cockpit. Not a CRM situation that's a given.

>The next set overrode MCAS successfully 25 times, inexplicably did not turn off the trim, did not override it the last time, and crashed.

They didn't know why the trim was kicking in in the first place, and the senior pilot was the one countering the trim. He handed it off to the junior pilot to sift through the manual, which ironically, would have been futile anyway as MCAS was dropped from the manual. The behavior did not present as a classic stabilizer runaway. Other pilots interviewed also pointed this out including in the Australian 60 minutes expose on the 737 MAX if I recall correctly, so I'm not sure that the same definition you're fond of is universally shared amongst pilots. Bad priming is also a human factor that is catastrophically lacking among other things not being taken into account.

Furthermore, if pilots were really held to account for knowing the hardware they're operating, they should have known the nature of the trim switch change between the 737 NG and MAX, and the consequences thereof; that wasn't included.

>The last set successfully countered MCAS twice, then turned off the trim. They did not follow the directions on Boeing's Flight Crew Operations Manual Bulletin: "Uncommanded Nose-Down Stabilizer Trim Due to Erroneous Angle Of Attack During Manual Flight Only", which the FAA turned into a mandatory emergency airworthiness directive.

They did follow it actually, but also notice the Note toward the end (see the appendix in the Ethiopian preliminary report. The line reads)

>Note: Initially higher control forces may be needed to overcome any stabilizer nose down trim already applied. Electric stabilizer trim can be used to neutralize control column pitch before moving the STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches to CUTOUT.

Now. There is something to be said for "Gee, did they read it", but considering the bloody thing includes a disclaimer that the AFM supersedes the bulletin due to not being approved by the FAA, the note being presented outside the main content of the directive, and the notification beeping issued in November, I don't have high hopes for the real effectiveness of the bulletin at clearly communicating the severity of the problem, something which simulator time would have made plain and obvious.

Then again, that's just me.