71–80 of 367 posts
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.
Well let's hope that some C-Suite got punished.
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.
There are entire generations of people inside that company that should at least sit their asses in court.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately it looks like this is really a fall guy with no mention of where the instruction to hide this information came from. On the other hand, according to his Linkedin Mark Forkner worked for the FAA before moving to Boeing to become the chief technical pilot, so he should have been well aware of the stakes when he hid information.
This is the C suite guy getting the charges levied on him with pretty solid evidence against him. if he wants to avoid long term jail they will use him to cut a deal to get more information to find out if any of the few people that are above him ordered him to do it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"he was probably coerced or induced by someone with more authority" Then he should flip. Naming names will at least buy some sympathy points.
How? If there's no evidence of a conversation, it won't help his case.
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.
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.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
to calibrate our hopes we can just look at VW dieselgate
The CEO at the time, Martin Winterkor, and at least six other executives were indicted. Some of the executives were jailed but still not the CEO (I can find mentions of prosecutors discussing the sentence but no mention of him actually starting serving it). But I have muche less hope in the capacity of the US to seriously incriminate its poster child.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Winterkorn#United_State...