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

Former Boeing 737 Max Chief Technical Pilot Indicted for Fraud

justice.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 367 posts

Re: Former Boeing 737 Max Chief Technical Pilot Indicted for Fraud

#61

Post by ummonk »

WalterBright wrote: post #59
ummonk wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Ethiopian Airlines pilots followed the EAD to the letter. First, they attempted to adjust trim using electric stabilizer trim, and then upon realizing that the they were experiencing an uncommanded nose down stabilizer trim, they followed the runaway stabilizer procedure - namely, stab trim cutout and trim wheel grasp and hold. Afterwards, they attempted to adjust the stabilizer manually. There is a note in the E…

> Boeing did not instruct pilots to make sure to neutralize trim first using electric trim before doing the stab trim cutout. Yes, they did: "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 forces before moving the STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches to CUTOUT. Manual stabilizer trim can be used bef…

That's not an instruction - it's a digression. The wording there is "can be used".

The actual instruction is to follow the AFM Runaway Stabilizer procedure. That's exactly what the Ethiopian Airlines pilots did.

Re: Former Boeing 737 Max Chief Technical Pilot Indicted for Fraud

#62

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

steveBK123 wrote: post #22
civilized wrote: post #18

Nailed for being the only guy stupid enough to write instant messages bragging about misleading the FAA. As a longtime corporate grunt, I can guess exactly how management leaned on him. He should have left and let the scumbags find another patsy to do their dirty work.

Exactly. There's a reason when you deal with people senior enough in any big organization that everything is verbal...

Not sure I agree. Look at all these court cases producing juicy emails from tech giants.

Re: Former Boeing 737 Max Chief Technical Pilot Indicted for Fraud

#63

Post by AlexCoventry »

systemvoltage wrote: post #43
lotsofpulp wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not know if these discussions happened in WA, but WA had one party consent audio recording laws instead of all party consent, then executives would be more wary of instructing underlings to do something illegal.

Are there any downsides to this?

Loss of institutional memory encoded in the destroyed records.

Re: Former Boeing 737 Max Chief Technical Pilot Indicted for Fraud

#64

Post by Sebb767 »

Someone1234 wrote: post #14

Here are the HN threads from both crashes: Oct 2018: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18324997 March 2019: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19351835 May be interesting to read with the benefit of hindsight and everything we've learned about the process that lead to those crashes.

It's really fascinating how the first thread barely has any mentions of technical difficulty, while in the second thread nearly no one blames the pilots anymore. Benefit of hindsight, really.

Still, it's important to remember that Boeing and the FDA dragged their feet for ages before grounding the plane after the second crash. So that's at least part of why they get so much flac in the second thread.

Re: Former Boeing 737 Max Chief Technical Pilot Indicted for Fraud

#65

Post by pdonis »

While I don't have any sympathy for this pilot, I also find the FAA's excuses here to be less than convincing. Basically, their position is "Well, we trusted this Boeing employee to tell us the truth about the new flight controls, and he didn't." But if the regulators had actually done their job and independently evaluated the new flight controls, they wouldn't have had to take the word of any Boeing employees. I realize that that's the way the FAA does things now, but this whole debacle should be a warning to everyone that that method of regulation is not acceptable. The whole point of independent regulation is to not allow obvious conflicts of interest to harm the public.

Re: Former Boeing 737 Max Chief Technical Pilot Indicted for Fraud

#66

Post by topspin »

dgdosen wrote: post #5

I'm sure this guy knew what he was doing - but yes, he was probably coerced or induced by someone with more authority. There's no way the buck stops there.

"he was probably coerced or induced by someone with more authority"

Then he should flip. Naming names will at least buy some sympathy points.

Re: Former Boeing 737 Max Chief Technical Pilot Indicted for Fraud

#67

Post by WalterBright »

ummonk wrote: post #61
WalterBright wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Boeing did not instruct pilots to make sure to neutralize trim first using electric trim before doing the stab trim cutout. Yes, they did: "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 forces before moving the STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches to CUTOUT. Manual stabilizer trim can be used bef…

That's not an instruction - it's a digression. The wording there is "can be used". The actual instruction is to follow the AFM Runaway Stabilizer procedure. That's exactly what the Ethiopian Airlines pilots did.

> That's not an instruction - it's a digression. The wording there is "can be used".

Why do you think Boeing wrote an EMERGENCY AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE and the FAA mandated it be sent to all MAX pilots?

If you're a pilot, it is YOUR JOB to read, understand, and remember every EMERGENCY AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE. Not to parse words. If you want to parse words, get a job as a lawyer, not a pilot.

The "can be used" is there to explain how to overcome aerodynamic forces that make using the manual trim wheel difficult.

Re: Former Boeing 737 Max Chief Technical Pilot Indicted for Fraud

#68

Post by elisbce »

This is so much bigger than just a rogue guy. So basically this is saying that the FAA just makes judgement and decisions based on documents and information coming from a chief pilot, without verifying or inspecting the codebase. This whole FAA process is flawed to the core.

Re: Former Boeing 737 Max Chief Technical Pilot Indicted for Fraud

#69

Post by refurb »

steveBK123 wrote: post #22
civilized wrote: post #18

Nailed for being the only guy stupid enough to write instant messages bragging about misleading the FAA. As a longtime corporate grunt, I can guess exactly how management leaned on him. He should have left and let the scumbags find another patsy to do their dirty work.

Exactly. There's a reason when you deal with people senior enough in any big organization that everything is verbal...

“Never write if you can speak; never speak if you can nod; never nod if you can wink, never wink if you can do nothing.”

Re: Former Boeing 737 Max Chief Technical Pilot Indicted for Fraud

#70

Post by nickff »

pdonis wrote: post #65

While I don't have any sympathy for this pilot, I also find the FAA's excuses here to be less than convincing. Basically, their position is "Well, we trusted this Boeing employee to tell us the truth about the new flight controls, and he didn't." But if the regulators had actually done their job and independently evaluated the new flight controls, they wouldn't have had to take the word of any Boeing employees. I rea…

At some point, auditors have to trust some things that their subjects are saying. If the auditor has to re-evaluate every piece of information, they will end up re-doing the subjects' jobs.
Post reply on HN