Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 247 posts

Re: Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters

#111

Post by rusk »

cm2187 wrote: post #106

I must say that seeing the SEC’s handling of internal emails in the Tourre affair taught me a lesson about internal corporate communications. Some personal emails which were unrelated to the affair were published in the SEC report (clearly for the benefit of the front page of newspapers). The extract contained jokes where the sentence had been edited to alter the meaning of the sentence. The published extract was “wh…

It amazes me in this day and age that people don't realise that anything they say on these systems can be dug out and read by anybody, anywhere at any time ...

Re: Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters

#112

Post by FooHentai »

cedivad wrote: post #110
ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Boeing is a company of national importance and also a monopoly on home turf, vital to the US security and economy so they're untouchable in the US. Just like how no VW employee went to jail in Germany for emissions cheating.

VW wasn't nearly as bad. People need to go to jail over those deaths and their legacy used as a reminder for those that come next. Here is another damning Boeing message, follow the source for more: https://twitter.com/cedivad/status/1215558552229683200

As bad by what metric? VWs emissions overshoot has been projected to cause 1200 deaths: http://news.mit.edu/2017/volkswagen-emissions-premature-deat...

Re: Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters

#113

Post by ChuckNorris89 »

cedivad wrote: post #110
ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Boeing is a company of national importance and also a monopoly on home turf, vital to the US security and economy so they're untouchable in the US. Just like how no VW employee went to jail in Germany for emissions cheating.

VW wasn't nearly as bad. People need to go to jail over those deaths and their legacy used as a reminder for those that come next. Here is another damning Boeing message, follow the source for more: https://twitter.com/cedivad/status/1215558552229683200

Define bad. As a cyclist in Europe I breathe in fumes from VWs diesel engines on a daily basis.

I'm wondering how shorter the lifespan for me and others like me will be in the long run.

I'd say that's pretty bad but as the deaths are not instantaneous, the long term damage is difficult to quantify.

Re: Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters

#114

Post by cedivad »

FooHentai wrote: post #112
cedivad wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VW wasn't nearly as bad. People need to go to jail over those deaths and their legacy used as a reminder for those that come next. Here is another damning Boeing message, follow the source for more: https://twitter.com/cedivad/status/1215558552229683200

As bad by what metric? VWs emissions overshoot has been projected to cause 1200 deaths: http://news.mit.edu/2017/volkswagen-emissions-premature-deat...

Company values. On one end of the spectrum you have a relatively small group of people cheating and no idea where the bucket stopped.

For Boeing you have multiple lines (not only the 737 MAX but the 777 too) going as far as handing over bribes to the FAA, with upper management investing the budget savings on some yacht time.

Re: Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters

#115

Post by adwww »

markdown wrote: post #88
antpls wrote: post #65

Other quote from the reuters article ( https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-737max/designed-by... ) : “I want to stress the importance of holding firm that there will not be any type of simulator training required to transition from NG to MAX,” Boeing’s 737 chief technical pilot said in a March 2017 email. “Boeing will not allow that to happen. We’ll go face to face with any regulator who tries to make that a re…

> Boeing’s 737 chief technical pilot He's one who really needs to go to jail. Why didn't they name him?

The further down the PDF I go, the more I agree with you.

Here's another one of his quotes:

> There is absolutely no reason to require your pilots to require a Max simulator to begin flying the Max. Once the engines are started, there is only one difference between NG and Max procedurally, and that is that there is no OFF position of the gear handle. Boeing does not understand what is to be gained by a 3h simulator session, when the procedures are essentially the same.

Re: Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters

#116

Post by thaumasiotes »

jpmoral wrote: post #109
fingerlocks wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If what you’re saying is true, this is a full reversal in the meaning of the leaked conversation. You’re implying the employees not only trust the MAX, their trust is such that they are comfortable kicking back with their shoes off on a flight.

How'd you get there? >"Would you put your family on a Max simulator trained aircraft? I wouldn't," says one employee to another, who responds, "No."

Conceptualize it as a three-point scale of trust:

1: I will fly with you.

2: I will fly with you without even wearing shoes. (Realistically, I can't imagine why shoes would make a difference.)

3: I would let my family fly with you.

If you say you wouldn't put your family in a Max, then your trust in the Max is not at level 3. Logically, this is a very weak constraint; it only shows that trust However, vernacular language generally doesn't work that way. A common mode might come from the following train of thought:

- I don't trust this plane.

- How much do I not trust it? The MAXIMUM LEVEL, LEVEL 3!

- "I would not let my family fly on this plane."

Here, from a logical perspective, the person has confused "lack of level 3 trust" with "level 3 distrust". This is bad in a math class (the scope of the negation is wrong -- [not [level 3 trust]] vs [level 3 [not trust]]), but routine in ordinary speech.

Re: Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters

#117

Post by solatic »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #45
solatic wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because openness and transparency requires emotional security as a prerequisite. Surveillance and transparency are not the same thing. If you subject people to an all-seeing eye, people will default to covering their asses, and you will not get the information you seek. Attempting to force people to be vulnerable by unilaterally being open about your own vulnerabilities is manipulative. You will get "my biggest weakn…

I’m not sure how this relates to what I asked at all. If something I said at work gets leaked to the public or a regulator, that makes my employer look bad, why should I worry about that? That sounds a lot more like their problem than mine. > Attempting to force people to be vulnerable by unilaterally being open about your own vulnerabilities is manipulative. This comment makes no sense to me. Aside from not relating…

> Personally I speak my mind wherever I work, and if my employer doesn’t like that, I’m more than happy to find a new job.

This is more or less my point. If your employer was happy with it, then your employer was the kind of employer attempting to build a transparent organization (and worked to build emotional security etc.). If your employer wasn't happy with it, then you and your employer have different opinions on the importance of transparency, which points to a cultural mismatch, which points in the direction of parting ways.

The key insight is understanding that it's the employer, not the employee, who have both the responsibility and the power to set culture and direction. So if the employer decides not to work on building transparency into the culture, the employer will get an opaque culture as a result. Maybe this results in the kind of problems that Boeing is suffering from now, maybe it results in bankruptcy, maybe not. The employer is responsible and accountable to decide. The employee's decision is much simpler - adapt or leave. Most people decide to adapt; the potential upside to leaving is a murky gamble taken on faith, particularly if people don't have a specific offer lined up at a specific place that seems to be a better fit for specific reasons. So it shouldn't be a surprise to you that employers get what they (intentionally or unintentionally) incentivize.

Re: Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters

#118

Post by Entalpi »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #100
markdown wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Boeing’s 737 chief technical pilot He's one who really needs to go to jail. Why didn't they name him?

Because Boeing is a company of national importance and also a monopoly on home turf, vital to the US security and economy so they're untouchable in the US. Just like how no VW employee went to jail in Germany for emissions cheating.

Lets not forget that some actually got to go to prison[0].

[0]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-06/vw-execut...

Re: Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters

#119

Post by eldelshell »

theprop wrote: post #98

The McDonnell Douglas leadership seems to have put business ahead of engineering (and safety) at Boeing (from other pieces I've read). There are at present just two manufacturers of big planes in the world (China may have a third soon I believe) so it would be terrible for airline safety/efficiency if Boeing did go bankrupt (which is still unlikely) and left just one company with no competition. I think what we shoul…

Basically, aircrafts manufacturing is a duopoly: Airbus & Boeing. Isn't there enought market for these two as to not having to cut costs anywhere and airlines pony up with whatever price they set? I know we're talking big numbers here, but come on, Airbus can't produce enough aircrafts to satisfy 100% of the market, so why obsess with cost cutting in such ridiculous things like avionics or simulators?

Re: Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters

#120

Post by int_hdlr »

tigershark wrote: post #81
thaumasiotes wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> regardless of what extra safety measures are implemented to get it re-certified. To be fair, after this the Max is likely to be one of the most intensively studied and prepped planes in existence for pilots who might have to fly one. Pilots don't want to die either.

How can all the study and preparation of a pilot help in a catastrophic mechanical failure caused by some likely design flaw that still is not apparent?

I think it's very apparent by now.
Post reply on HN