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

111–120 of 367 posts

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

#111

Post by dataflow »

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…

It wouldn't require several times more manpower for the FAA to figure out there's something called MCAS that didn't exist before, would it? (Note that I'm talking in the current world we live in, not in a hypothetical world where Boeing would be a mortal enemy of the FAA doing everything within the stretch of human imagination to hide MCAS.)

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

#112

Post by lazide »

imajoredinecon wrote: post #85
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Many of those juicy emails are from before the past few years' wave of tech lawsuits. At least at the entry level, I think a lot of the "don't say the word 'competition'" training started as a reaction to relatively recent legal tangles - it wouldn't be surprising if people at the senior level also have gotten more careful about how they communicate.

I remember getting the ‘be careful how you communicate’ training at a FAANG over a decade ago, it’s well known CYA every place I’ve been at.

That said, people get complacent and then wham - front page of the New York Times saying something dumb.

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

#113

Post by ummonk »

whoknowswhat11 wrote: post #101
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…

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!).

The EA crew followed that memory item. It didn't work. (Had they reduced the throttle it probably would have helped, which is why the need to limit speed during runaway trim events has been added to the updated memory item now)

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

#114

Post by lazide »

NortySpock wrote: post #76
loeg wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How? If there's no evidence of a conversation, it won't help his case.

It does point some heat at the named person, and maybe drags their name through the mud.

No one is going to give immunity or spare someone from prosecution if that have that person nailed hardcore, and the only evidence they have against the ‘mastermind’ is he said/she said that isn’t going to go anywhere in court.

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

#115

Post by lazide »

didntknowya wrote: post #13
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.

well some C-level staff eventually has to take some responsibility, can't keep passing the buck.

You’re generally not going to make it to C level at a Corp that size if you aren’t good at covering your ass.

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

#116

Post by Cerium »

JshWright wrote: post #60
ttyprintk wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect the regulatory environment in aviation is the strictest any developer faces.

laughes in healthcare

Not sure about your healthcare, but the healthcare company I work for is full of ex-aviation engineers who are happy to comply with our regulatory requirements.

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

#117

Post by scottlamb »

dboreham wrote: post #82
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…

How were they supposed to do that? They'd have had to either review the source code and somehow notice that it had too much control authority over the horizontal stabilizer, or run the flight control system in a simulator that reproduced the failure conditions found in the field. These seem _possible_ but not exactly easy. It'd have been much easier for the Boeing engineers who designed the thing so badly to have had…

> It'd have been much easier for the Boeing engineers who designed the thing so badly to have had bosses who said "wait...what? No you can't do it like that".

Interesting. I never even imagine that happening anymore. I find the reverse so much more plausible: the bosses say to design it like that but the engineers have the backbone to say no (even at the risk of being fired and replaced).

On the one hand, I see where you're coming from. Executives are the ones with the money and power, so they should have the responsibility. They should go to prison when they order misconduct (whether that's negligence, fraud, etc.). This should incentivize them to act conservatively. (Where right now, we reward them largely based on short-term stock performance, and we never punish them, and I think our executives are overwhelmingly sociopaths who pursue short-term stock performance above all else.)

On the other hand, engineers are the ones who throughly understand the issues and have licenses with ethical standards attached. They're going to notice the problem. I believe many already aren't willing to sign off on something they don't believe is safe. With good enough whistleblower protection, they'd be likely to speak up when they see someone else signing off improperly.

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

#118

Post by caf »

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.

I don't think Chief Technical Pilot is a corporate grunt. It is a management position.

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

#119

Post by ummonk »

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…

There was actually a test with Southwest Airlines line pilots, and it took them a minute to get to the stab trim cutout in response to this issue. https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/3BBE2CD5-AE41...

The Ethiopian Airlines pilots did get to the stab trim cutout as well (probably because they had read the emergency directive Boeing sent out) but were unable to manually trim afterwards due to the forces involved - had they cut airspeed at the start they probably would have been able to do so, but that was not part of the instructions at the time. For an analysis of the situation they were in, see https://leehamnews.com/2019/04/05/bjorns-corner-et302-crash-...

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

#120

Post by smnrchrds »

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…

I don't think this style of regulation is limited to FAA. FDA does not independently test all drugs either. They just review and ensure the drug companies' tests are acceptable.
Post reply on HN