151–160 of 367 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do the authorities distinguish sincere cooperation from fabricated deflection, in the absence of evidence?
I’m guessing it creates more probable cause for subpoenas and leverage in interviews and hopefully they find more evidence … or not.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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…
The Chief Project Engineer is the person who is ultimately responsible for the design, engineering, testing, setting training requirements, certification, and everything else. The CPE for the 737 MAX was Michael Teal. There’s only room for one signature on the FAA application for an ammended type certificate, and it was his. Forkner was not the Chief Pilot. He was the the Chief Technical Pilot, who is the person resp…
Even if you were to remove Forkner entirely from the decision making process, pilots would have been asked to fly an aircraft with a 'catastrophic' hazard only reduced to 'hazardous' by training pilots to respond to a very rare event within ~4 seconds of a failure event that the pilots weren't even notified of because the AoA sensor disagreement warning feature was an optional paid addon[2]. If a pilot were to take 10 seconds to respond... too late, the aircraft would likely have been lost[3].
Even with the best training in the world, is it reasonable to just expect pilots, within seconds, to be able to work around 100's of crap engineering and human machine interaction design decisions? As [3] notes, the lack of consideration of the pilot (as a human not a robot or computer) in the engineering design of the aircraft is glaring. Corporate Boeing wanted an aircraft that pilots didn't need to be retrained in, and thanks to unrealistic schedule expectations, they seemingly also didn't want to spend the time needed to remove all the HMI pain points that are inflicted on pilots.
[1] https://transportation.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Compressed%20...
[2] https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/30/politics/boeing-sensor-73...
[3] https://www.incose.org/docs/default-source/enchantment/21031...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Inaccurate, please stop sharing misinformation. Seeing this on HN is unfortunate.
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 not saying it's just the test pilot who lied, or held sole responsibility, but yeah, he was a member of a criminal enterprise that resulted in people's deaths.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you’re deeply misunderstanding the purpose of the FAA and the magnitude of the problem here. Like almost every other agency (the FDA didn’t do the vaccine trials; are they incompetent too?) they don’t do the tests. They just police the industry. Theoretically if you set laws and regulations and dole out severe punishment for bad behaviour, you don’t need to be the one running the tests. People should want the…
'and dole out severe punishment for bad behaviour' When will Boeing CEO and Board of Directors get locked up as part of the severe punishment?
Wow. They didn’t go after an executive? Just a pilot? So blatantly corrupt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
> That sounds like they are knowingly incompetent? That sounds like they are knowingly underfunded, which they are. > And aerospace engineers are dirt cheap. They are? Where are all the airline startups? I assume they measure in the hundreds with all this dirt cheap talent running around.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/boeings-fatal-flaw/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.)
The FAA was aware that this system existed.