Live data from Hacker News

Former Boeing 737 Max Chief Technical Pilot Indicted for Fraud

justice.gov

281–290 of 367 posts

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

#281

Rather than acknowledge and address the massive issues caused by instances of regulatory capture, such as this, or realizing the dangers that result from systemic issues with Boeing's incentive structure for management, facilitated by regulatory capture, the Federal Government and Boeing execs are just gonna scapegoat this guy. Nice. He was still incredibly stupid and made horrible choices, but the environment he was…

I thought management’s job was about creating “culture”. Except when that culture is toxic

Everything about Boeing's culture is toxic. The company is a shit show.

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

#282

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…

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?

Every single component in every single aircraft certificated in the USA is tracked all the way to the mine. A quick web search reveals around 11.3 million people work in the aviation industry directly. A significant portion of this would have to be duplicated if the FAA were to verify everything.

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

#283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Normal costs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercorrection

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

#284
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…

Government regulation makes sense when there are externalities, for example a polluting factory that harms society but not the company. Airplane manufacturers, however, can self-regulate. If their planes are unsafe they will be bankrupted by the lawsuits of families of dead passengers, and airlines will not buy their planes.

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

#285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly! And when all US companies refuse to lower their prices, they should start sourcing from foreign companies to increase competition!

Oh hey look, I'm signing yet another contract with an arbitration clause when signing up for a cell phone service. Must be my fault that all of them require the arbitration clause...

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

#286
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…

Also this feels a lot like Boeing offering up a sacrificial lamb. I find it hard to believe that the FAA can focus on one person at Boeing as the reason for the failure in reporting the issue. There are too many managers and engineers involved. On the surface this sounds a lot like the Challenger disaster story.

Is Boeing offering a lamb, or the justice dept applying pressure to get him to cooperate and try to get higher level targets?

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

#287
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…

Also this feels a lot like Boeing offering up a sacrificial lamb. I find it hard to believe that the FAA can focus on one person at Boeing as the reason for the failure in reporting the issue. There are too many managers and engineers involved. On the surface this sounds a lot like the Challenger disaster story.

At least it is somebody with a big title. Chief Technical Pilot.

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

#288
post #169

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…

FAA could facilitate smoketesting and focus on parts they deem the most suspicious/experimental/new in a new airplane. And then outsource the actual tests to a third party.

What could possibly go wrong?

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

#289
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FAA could facilitate smoketesting and focus on parts they deem the most suspicious/experimental/new in a new airplane. And then outsource the actual tests to a third party.

By law, the certifiction activities done by the EASA (I assume the FAA is the same) cannot be done by third parties. It also worth noting, that the aircraft certification procedures worked pretty well for decades , up until Boeing started to lie to the FAA. Not sure how Boeing kept its design org approval after that. EDIT: Some required activities by the organizations to be certified can be outsourced to third partie…

> Not sure how Boeing kept its design org approval after that

That's an easy one. It's too big to fail. One way or another Boeing had to make it out the other end of the 737 Max disaster intact as an organisation. Anything else would have been unpalatable from the point of view of the American military industrial complex. I know that phrase is usually applied in a derogatory way but here I don't even disagree with the thinking.

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

#290
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…

To paraphrase J. K. Galbraith, at any given time there exists an inventory of undiscovered regulatory fraud in the economy, and this inventory is part of the bezzle.[a] In good times regulators are relaxed and trusting, and their approval is easier to obtain. Under these circumstances the rate of regulatory fraud grows, the rate of discovery falls off, and the regulatory bezzle increases rapidly. In bad times all this is reversed. Actions are watched with a narrow, suspicious eye. Regulators assume everyone is dishonest until proven otherwise. Regulatory audits are penetrating and meticulous. Commercial morality is enormously improved. The regulatory bezzle shrinks.

--

[a] The term "bezzle" was proposed by J. K. Galbraith in The Great Crash of 1929: "To the economist embezzlement is the most interesting of crimes. Alone among the various forms of larceny it has a time parameter. Weeks, months or years may elapse between the commission of the crime and its discovery. (This is a period, incidentally, when the embezzler has his gain and the man who has been embezzled, oddly enough, feels no loss. There is a net increase in psychic wealth.) At any given time there exists an inventory of undiscovered embezzlement in – or more precisely not in – the country’s business and banks. This inventory – it should perhaps be called the bezzle – amounts at any moment to many millions of dollars. It also varies in size with the business cycle. In good times people are relaxed, trusting, and money is plentiful. But even though money is plentiful, there are always many people who need more. Under these circumstances the rate of embezzlement grows, the rate of discovery falls off, and the bezzle increases rapidly. In depression all this is reversed. Money is watched with a narrow, suspicious eye. The man who handles it is assumed to be dishonest until he proves himself otherwise. Audits are penetrating and meticulous. Commercial morality is enormously improved. The bezzle shrinks." (https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1466583-the-great-cras...)

Post reply on HN