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

101–110 of 367 posts

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

#101

Post by whoknowswhat11 »

WalterBright wrote: post #44
slownews45 wrote: post #11

Boeing were idiots selling this new model into the markets they did right out the gate. It was greed and bit them hard. Poor maintenance. Pilot skills in hand flying and unusual flying and recovery so different (overseas they don't always come through a normal US style GA background). If they would have looked more closely at the US, they would have found that this system was triggered (and resolved) I suspect pretty…

The flight previous to the LA crash also experienced the MCAS malfunction. You don't hear about that one because the crew used the electric trim switches to return trim to normal, then turned off the stab trim system with the cutoff switches. Then, they continued the flight and landed normally. The next flight on the same airplane is the one that crashed. The crew restored normal trim with the electric trim switches…

Yeah, it's a memory item on the 737. Pretty short too.

http://www.b737.org.uk/images/runawaystab1975.jpg

Not to mention I think they ran the plane at full takeoff power during the recovery attempt - I can't even imagine what they were doing in terms of speed monitoring (in a nose down you normally reduce power, no go to full takeoff!).

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

#102

Post by bmitc »

Always seems like some person in the middle of these companies and regulators that always gets hit and not someone deeper in the companies or regulators. Not denying or affirming this person’s role, but it seems to be a pattern, whether it’s financial institutions, corporations, defense contractors, etc. and their associated regulatory bodies.

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

#103

Post by whoknowswhat11 »

ummonk wrote: post #56
WalterBright wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The flight previous to the LA crash also experienced the MCAS malfunction. You don't hear about that one because the crew used the electric trim switches to return trim to normal, then turned off the stab trim system with the cutoff switches. Then, they continued the flight and landed normally. The next flight on the same airplane is the one that crashed. The crew restored normal trim with the electric trim switches…

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…

Is this a joke?

ERROR: Literally the first paragraph of the EAD is about controlling airspeed. [Edit: This is not correct]

They hit 700(!!) MPH. They literally commanded full take off power to accelerate the plane into the ground. You can add power if your pitch is high to arrest a sink rate (ie, during landing), but if you are pitched down, you pull power.

There is also a 300 second limit on T/O power - I'd be interested if they exceeded that as well.

The maintenance on this plane was terrible.

This was not a situation where folks involved "did everything right".

For those not familiar, approx 3 minutes after they did a stab trim cutout they put stab trim back to normal. That's never been in any guidance for EAD or runaway.

The 4th activation of MCAS moved trim down (to 1 unit, should have probably been at 4.3 - 5.x or so). That probably doomed them.

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

#104

Post by rajrkrish »

bmitc wrote: post #102

Always seems like some person in the middle of these companies and regulators that always gets hit and not someone deeper in the companies or regulators. Not denying or affirming this person’s role, but it seems to be a pattern, whether it’s financial institutions, corporations, defense contractors, etc. and their associated regulatory bodies.

There is a term for it - Scapegoating.

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

#105

Post by buildsjets »

WalterBright wrote: post #38
matchedLoad wrote: post #21

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/boeings-fatal-flaw/

"Aviation Disasters" did a much better episode on it than Frontline.

The Frontline episode on PBS is 50% teary-eyed emotional testimonials from the victim’s families, interspersed with 25% stock footage and 25% poorly summarized, and in many cases technically incorrect explanation.

The Smithsonian Channel Episode “Ten Steps to Disaster” is far more technically accurate, and also deep dives the technical, business, and regulatory decisions that lead to the disaster.

https://www.smithsonianchannel.com/video/series/ten-steps-to...

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

#106

Post by lazide »

user_7832 wrote: post #94
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…

What you talk about the FAA doing thier own testing and validation is (unfortunately) almost impossible. Back in the 90s, a senior FAA official (I think a Director) had said something along the lines of “The FAA does not and cannot check everything, we just see that companies are doing their tests.” The FAA would require several times more manpower to be able to actually audit or test everything, and that is assuming…

That sounds like they are knowingly incompetent? If a utility regulator had no one on staff who knew how utility scale power transmission/generation/whatever worked, that’s what we’d call it for sure.

And aerospace engineers are dirt cheap. What sort of clown show is the FAA running?

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

#107

Post by atdrummond »

WalterBright wrote: post #67
ummonk wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

Please don’t flag replies like this; thankfully I was able to vouch for Walt.

For some background, Walt and I are routinely brigaded with downvotes on 737 MAX threads. What he and I have in common, compared to those who engage in such behaviors, is that unlike those we typically are replying to, we both have extensive backgrounds in the aviation field, especially on the programming side.

Back on topic, the takeaway that Walt is making and that seems to be missed continually in these threads, is that Lion Air did not lose their plane due to the MAX’s MCAS implementation. Rather, the pilots engaged with the plane in a manner precisely opposite to what procedure calls for. Despite all of the poor calls made by Boeing here, if LA’s pilots had simply reacted as the previous flight’s pilots had, the plane would have made it.

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

#108

Post by stordoff »

maybelsyrup wrote: post #98
refurb wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.”

What's this from?

It seems to be a quote, or a variation on a quote, from Martin Lomasney:

> Lomasney once advised a young follower, "Don't write when you can talk; don't talk when you can nod your head."[1]

The West End Museum[2] attributes the longer quote to him.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Lomasney referencing https://www.jstor.org/stable/361565

[2] https://thewestendmuseum.org/the-life-legend-and-lessons-of-...

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

#109

Post by lazide »

maxerickson wrote: post #86
calvinmorrison wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's how we got the VAG emissions scandal. Instead of trusting computer outputs, we could have done tried and true dyno tests and the entire thing would have been avoided.

The defeat devices were designed to detect dyno conditions and reduce emissions, it wasn't a case of a regulator trusting a computer output. They were uncovered by doing road tests.

Which a competent regulator would surely be doing randomly across the industry no?

If all they are doing is trusting what the regulated folks are saying they are doing, that isn’t what I would call effective regulation.

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

#110

Post by lazide »

cptskippy wrote: post #55
steveBK123 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sure but thats like 1 in 1000 but putting stuff in text/IM/email is instantly discovered if anything ever goes to trial and there is electronic discovery

Unless your corporate retention policy is only 6 months. I setup an archive to keep important emails around only to find out our retention policy had been applied to it. Once an org gets burned by discovery in a lawsuit they go to great lengths to ensure it will never happen again.

As long as they don’t see who is printing out their emails, still possible to CYA - but it does draw a giant target on ones back if you’re obvious about it.
Post reply on HN