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

271–280 of 367 posts

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

#271

Post by snowwrestler »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #187
user_7832 wrote: post #94

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…

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…

The 737 Max is not aerodynamically unstable. I don’t know where people got this idea. The purpose of MCAS is to match existing stick pressure progression in certain situations. It’s not a fly-by-wire system like the F-16.

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

#272

Post by Randosaurus »

hef19898 wrote: post #265
LatteLazy wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course the FDA has to regulate 10s of 1000s of companies\drugs\trials. The FAA basically just oversees Boeing and Airbus in the large commercial jet market and either offers 10s of models...

The FAA oversees every flying object in the US. Not just new models, but also config changes to existing models, continued airworthiness, all the design org and production org certification of manufacturers (per site) and suppliers (again, per site). Which is quite a workload, especially in a world as complex as aerospace.

The point remains.

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

#273

Post by hef19898 »

Randosaurus wrote: post #272
hef19898 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FAA oversees every flying object in the US. Not just new models, but also config changes to existing models, continued airworthiness, all the design org and production org certification of manufacturers (per site) and suppliers (again, per site). Which is quite a workload, especially in a world as complex as aerospace.

The point remains.

What point? That the FAA screwed up? That Boeing intentionally lied? Those were nver in question.

If it is the point that the FAAs job should be easy because the only oversee Boeing and Airbus, well that point is just ignorant.

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

#274

Post by Randosaurus »

ethbr0 wrote: post #243
kiklion wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, ind…

This is the only real reasonable stance in light of what happened with the 737 MAX.

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

#275

Post by Randosaurus »

hef19898 wrote: post #273
Randosaurus wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point remains.

What point? That the FAA screwed up? That Boeing intentionally lied? Those were nver in question. If it is the point that the FAAs job should be easy because the only oversee Boeing and Airbus, well that point is just ignorant.

If you're unable to understand LattleLazy's point it's probably best to refrain from responding to them until you do.

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

#276

Post by jkfdrsak »

Randosaurus wrote: post #270
dash2 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or they could be saying that centralized monopolies are rarely efficient. That is certainly my experience. For example, SpaceX undercut NASA by a factor of about 10, according to this FT report: https://www.ft.com/content/25e2292b-a910-41c8-9c55-09096895f...

NASA sources their materials from the private sector. The private sector is notoriously "price gougey" when it comes to government money.

Government actors are responsible for acquiring material at normative costs. Their failure to do so is their own.

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

#278

Post by snarf21 »

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…

I think the other approach is to have more corporate whistle blower programs with teeth and upside. In a case like this, lots of people knew everything wasn't on the up and up. But it is hard to get someone to understand something when their job depends on not understanding it (Upton Sinclair). However, if the whistle blower programs came with immediate cash (after initial proof was obtained) with more to come and potentially relocation and identity change, people would be more likely to come forward.

Fighting something like this in court plus media scrutiny will basically ruin someone's life and make them almost unhire-able in their field. Excepting someone to ruin their family's life for the greater good isn't likely. There won't always be a young single ideologue who is willing to move overseas to escape his own government. There are lots of major crime systems where someone is the spouse of the criminal and knows what is going on but how are they going to give up their home and life for their kids while also putting their life at risk for the sake of doing the right thing. People have shown that they will do the right thing if you make it easy enough and safe enough.

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

#279

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

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…

What manpower would be needed? How often are new aircraft validated? That's pretty scary that at the end of the day it's just a corporate shill pilot validating. What is the point of all the regulations if that's all that it takes?

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

#280

Post by raxxorrax »

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…

This is the reality of most certification processes. There is no government agency that has the knowledge to evaluate planes on a technical level. So what they do is ensuring engineering care and diligence, clear responsibilities and paper trails in a way that risk is minimized and failures can quickly be located and corrected.

At least that is how it is done for medical appliances, I assume FDA and FAA work similarly. But government just doesn't have the extra engineers to technically evaluate every part of a new plane. That would induce massive costs and the manpower simply doesn't exist.

But if companies don't use due diligence to ensure safety, these agencies have the power to penalize you heavily, so you have to comply anyway. Sadly there is also a political component so agencies sometimes have to work against pressure from politicians that don't want to damage domestic brands.

I believe this case was a clear management error for that matter but the FDA probably has more info.

Post reply on HN