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

241–250 of 367 posts

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

#241

Post by speedybird »

KarlKemp wrote: post #220
bloqs wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm puzzled by the do not discriminate bit, doesn't that mean you do discriminate by only choosing the names you can't pronounce? Minutae aside, as a European I'm shocked and appalled at that process, but surely an employment tribunal would have been the next step? Seems open and shut if you have the details to hand and everything evidenced properly. That said I'm sure you probably didn't want to be there from that p…

“They do the needful” is Indian English. There is more going with the guy, considering the way he makes sure we know the incompetent person was a woman etc.

"Do the needful" was a Britishism originally; Indians got it from the British. Somewhere along the line the British stopped using it but Indians continued.

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

#242

Post by verve_rat »

asah wrote: post #205
KennyBlanken wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment boils down to a false dilemma fallacy between "FAA blindly trusts manufacturers" and "FAA conducts their own testing and validation." Clearly they could have been more actively reviewing stuff coming from Boeing, or engaging in some level of auditing. If the FAA had paid attention they would have seen a company desperate to compete modifying numerous basic characteristics of an airplane to the point of m…

Actually, this is a sauce effect of the complexity of modern systems: regulators have no choice but to trust companies and regulate the results of tests, with heavy penalties for cheating. Consider pharmaceutical trials: it's impractical for the FDA to check on each patient. Financial audits often assume the client isn't directly lying to the auditor, with criminal penalties as the disincentive. The alternative requi…

But in the case of aircraft we pay for that innovation and "progress" with dead bodies. Maybe it is time to rethink the cost/benefit of how we enforce these regulations.

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

#243

Post by ethbr0 »

kiklion wrote: post #237
OneTimePetes wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be done, it just costs money. It can not be done within the liberal frame of mind, were everything that costs money is tax and thus theft. So why not reformulate it correctly. In my ideology, it is not possible to solve this problem. If that ideology would be out of the way, it could actually be tested pretty good via unittest running a simulation. So once developed those tests would actually be pretty cheap t…

> It can be done, it just costs money. Well money and time. You speak as if you think that if only the great billionaires accepted a little less money then we could have safety. How many lives are you willing to lose for a multi year delay to accommodate the FDA recreating every required test that the pharmaceutical company did? How many lives are currently lost because the current system doesn’t work? Your suggestio…

> This is society* deciding that the resources are better used elsewhere

* Actual decisions on resource allocation made by regulatory agencies, which have a close partnership and history of employment with the industry being regulated.

It's different to say "society decided" vs 'a specialized subset of society, with tangled incentives, decided.'

At the end of the day, it's a spectrum from (no oversight) to (full, independent validation).

Boeing didn't want MCAS highlighted as a change, Boeing didn't want the FAA to independently discover it, and Boeing got all these things. Either by action on its part or by design of what the FAA did and did not independently verify.

That's a strong indicator we should shift regulatory posture further towards (full, independent verification). And while it may be cost prohibitive to shift all the way there, that's doesn't mean we can't shift closer to it.

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

#244

Post by verve_rat »

kiklion wrote: post #237
OneTimePetes wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be done, it just costs money. It can not be done within the liberal frame of mind, were everything that costs money is tax and thus theft. So why not reformulate it correctly. In my ideology, it is not possible to solve this problem. If that ideology would be out of the way, it could actually be tested pretty good via unittest running a simulation. So once developed those tests would actually be pretty cheap t…

> It can be done, it just costs money. Well money and time. You speak as if you think that if only the great billionaires accepted a little less money then we could have safety. How many lives are you willing to lose for a multi year delay to accommodate the FDA recreating every required test that the pharmaceutical company did? How many lives are currently lost because the current system doesn’t work? Your suggestio…

Did society decide this distribution of resources? Or was it lobbying?

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

#245

Post by verytrivial »

supportlocal4h wrote: post #238

It is human nature to detest regulation in general but insist upon it after the fact of some failure. This can be easily illustrated with automobile speed limits. Almost everyone would be outraged if they were ticketed for driving 2 k/mph over the posted limit. It is a widely held belief that drivers traveling at or just below the maximum limit pose a safety risk because they are too slow. An officer who rigorously e…

You cite human nature, but I disagree with most if not ALL of what you are saying here. Driving at or just below the speed limit is what the law requires. If the speed limit is wrong, you lobby to get the limit changed or start raising $$ from fines until people get the idea. What you DON'T do is let speed limits become optional else people running over kids near schools will feel like they were morally justified in doing so, because 'Who pays attention to those signs, right?'

You are describing exactly the normalisation of deviance that gets people killed per the 737 Max situation. The Officer in your example is secondarily at fault, the driver is primarily at fault, but the CULTURE that allows these dangerous situations to arise is where the problem needs to be addressed. "Yes, I was speeding/falsifying records, Officer. But everyone else was doing it."

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

#246

Post by [deleted] »

r3trohack3r wrote: post #146
dataflow wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Out of curiosity, how confident are you that there aren’t any other novel systems that didn’t exist before on a similar level as MCAS? Having not had a public debacle around them, how much effort would it take for you to personally certify that MCAS is the only novel system of its caliber on these aircraft?

[deleted]

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

#247

Post by ethbr0 »

r3trohack3r wrote: post #146
dataflow wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Out of curiosity, how confident are you that there aren’t any other novel systems that didn’t exist before on a similar level as MCAS? Having not had a public debacle around them, how much effort would it take for you to personally certify that MCAS is the only novel system of its caliber on these aircraft?

The airplane couldn't have been built without many system diagrams showing MCAS, or a similarly complex component.

The FAA should have pulled schematics directly from Boeing engineering during certification. And the FAA should have someone with enough technical expertise and experience look at them. And that person should have said "The submitted information by Boeing doesn't include full details on this subsystem."

Whether or not the Boeing test pilot highlighted the system for the FAA is a red herring. It's the FAA's job to find this, regardless of whether someone points them at it.

If the FAA doesn't have the technical staffing or expertise to do this, then that's the problem. Charging the test pilot is necessary, but not sufficient.

If the FAA infrequently performs this work (certification of a new aircraft), then flex in retired expertise! You can't tell me there aren't qualified, retired candidates (ex-industry or ex-FAA) who would have signed up for a year or two review. And all the better that they don't have career incentives!

Essentially, this is the FAA charging Boeing for not doing the FAA's job correctly.

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

#248

Post by ethbr0 »

ribosometronome wrote: post #160
dataflow wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

From the article: >Because of his alleged deceit, the FAA AEG deleted all reference to MCAS from the final version of the 737 MAX FSB Report published in July 2017 The FAA was aware that this system existed.

AFAICT (medium certainty), the development sequence went thusly: (1) MCAS added to design, (2) FAA informed about MCAS, (3) MCAS potential control inputs and overrides drastically increased during development, (4) FAA not informed about changes, (5) FAA certifies aircraft on basis of (2).

So it's probably most accurate to say "the FAA was aware of the system existing, but incorrect on the details of that system."

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

#249

Post by verytrivial »

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.

Let's hope he sings like a bird.

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

#250

Post by ethbr0 »

KMag wrote: post #210
lazide wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you’re not going to find any documentation of that because of CYA, and Boeing is the flagship US aircraft manufacturer with a protected (as in ‘in the interest of national security’ protected) position to offset Airbus - that’s pretty much not going to happen.

I think it would be possible to ring-fence the individuals to be prosecuted, facilitate an orderly handover of power inside Boeing, and then prosecute the individuals without risking mortal damage to the company.

That ring should probably extend around McDonnell Douglas' management from the 90s, which made their ways into the upper echelon of Boeing during the merger.
Post reply on HN