91–100 of 367 posts
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
well some C-level staff eventually has to take some responsibility, can't keep passing the buck.
some C-level staff eventually has to take some responsibility That may be optimistic. Off the top of my head I can't remember any c-level execs of such a massive corporation having criminal charges brought against them. (except maybe for some type of tax/securities fraud) There's probably... some? My knowledge of the area certainly isn't comprehensive.
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…
I’m afraid I’m saying a lot of things from memory from the time I had written a report on the Max 8 accidents and an actor analysis. (I’d anyone is interested I could perhaps share it.) Most of this stuff came from the DoT report on the accident, the rest from reputable news articles.
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.
Remember, the "I" in "IM" stands for "incriminating".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How? If there's no evidence of a conversation, it won't help his case.
It's not that simple. Sincere cooperation has value and is weighted by authorities, regardless of where it does or does not lead. Years served are based on such factors. Also, there are the civil suits. Standards of evidence are generally lower and a credible and cooperative peon has value to plaintiffs as they pursue the big targets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.”
He was still incredibly stupid and made horrible choices, but the environment he was in only facilitates and encourages behavior like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He is c-level. He’s the _Chief_ Technical Pilot.
"Chief Technical Pilot" is not a role listed amongst the dozens of executive council roles and vice president roles at Boeing[1]. What about the following executive roles listed at [1]: * Chief Aerospace Safety Officer * Chief Compliance Officer * Chief Engineer * Vice President, Total Quality, Boeing Commercial Airplanes * Vice President and Chief Engineer, Boeing Commercial Airplanes * Vice President, Manufacturing…
Forkner was not the Chief Pilot. He was the the Chief Technical Pilot, who is the person responsible for developing new training information for changed systems, getting it certified by the FAA, and coordinating with airlines to deploy it to their pilots. Therefore Forkner was responsible for:
Signing off on manuals to be provided to pilots that omitted MCAS. Signing off on training materials that omitted MCAS. Signing on on the verification and validation that MCAS was correctly represented in the flight simulators.