Former Boeing 737 Max Chief Technical Pilot Indicted for Fraud • Hacker News Board

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

#291

Post by hef19898 » Fri, Oct 15, 2021, 1:24 PM UTC

VBprogrammer wrote: post #289

hef19898 wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

That seems to be the answer. And I kind of get the reasoning. Under EASE rules, there are accountable people at the head of approved design and production orgs. I hope those people at least got their licenses revoked, if something similar exists under FAA rules.

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

#292

Post by roelschroeven » Fri, Oct 15, 2021, 1:27 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #271

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…

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.

Not just existing stick pressure progression, but required stick pressure progression. As far as I understand it, in that specific situation the 737 MAX without MCAS does not comply with the rules regarding aerodynamic stability. It's not dramatic, doesn't manifest itself in normal flight, and could be dealt with by pilots quite easily as far as I understand it. But it's a rule, and it was important enough for Boeing to first put a quite gentle MCAS on the plane, and then to increase the effect of MCAS.

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

#293

Post by josho » Fri, Oct 15, 2021, 1:28 PM UTC

snarf21 wrote: post #278

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 po…

I can’t help but feel that this is all by design. Legislators require financing from corporations for re-election, corps don’t want whistleblowers because it risks their bottom line. Therefore legislators don’t improve protections.

Does everything come back to campaign finance reform?

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

#294

Post by FridayoLeary » Fri, Oct 15, 2021, 1:32 PM UTC

hef19898 wrote: post #199

dsq wrote: post #164

It is important to note that Boeing settled for 2.5 billion in which it is agreed that "...the misconduct by its former employees was “neither pervasive across the organization, nor undertaken by a large number of employees, nor facilitated by senior management". ( https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-reaches-2-5-billion-sett... ). So remember, when push comes to shove, the technical lead always gets thrown to the wol…

Boeing got away with that, VW tried and didn't. I would prefer companies not getting away with these settlements.

I think they did (UK).

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

#295

Post by roelschroeven » Fri, Oct 15, 2021, 1:34 PM UTC

gonesilent wrote: post #202

Daub wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Except...they also cheaped out on both the number of sensors and even the frigging lightbulbs to warn pilots of sensor error. I believe that the issue was more tragic than that (no expert)... They wanted to 'hide' the fly by wire (FBW) as for it to be apparent would require that the plane (effectively) be re-classified as a new plane, requiring expensive up-skilling of the pilots. The existence of the new FBW was e…

adding a light bulb, the disagree error was only shown in the optional heads up display.

There is no optional heads up display, only an optional warning on the already present display.

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

#296

Post by snarf21 » Fri, Oct 15, 2021, 1:35 PM UTC

josho wrote: post #293

snarf21 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 po…

I can’t help but feel that this is all by design. Legislators require financing from corporations for re-election, corps don’t want whistleblowers because it risks their bottom line. Therefore legislators don’t improve protections. Does everything come back to campaign finance reform?

It could be a factor for sure. I don't think campaign finance reform will ever happen but whistle blower could. I've given up hope on the altruistic billionaire to do things the government is reluctant to.

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

#297

Post by CivBase » Fri, Oct 15, 2021, 1:38 PM UTC

broknbottle wrote: post #48

I knew this whole Boeing disaster was the work a rogue chief technical pilot.

How unfortunate the certification process for a safety-critical system simply has to be designed such that one bad actor can cause so much damage. And I'm sure he was motivated purely by spite for the FAA and potential 737 MAX passengers - not at all by management that prioritizes speed and cost reduction above all else. What a terrible, very bad individual.

Oh well. At least we know that nobody else at all in Boeing was responsible in the slightest. Everyone else involved with the program were probably angels and this one bad bad man pulled the wool over their eyes. So sad. At least they caught the only bad man before he could strike again. Did I mention he's solely responsible for this whole thing yet?

It really was unfortunate, but these things just happen you know? I guess we just better cross our fingers and hope real hard that it doesn't happen again. There's nothing more to learn from this.

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

#298

Post by axus » Fri, Oct 15, 2021, 1:43 PM UTC

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…

Perhaps the FAA could get Airbus to contribute a review of the test plan when a new plane is close to release. Then you'd certainly see a more lively technical debate.

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

#299

Post by thereddaikon » Fri, Oct 15, 2021, 1:45 PM UTC

zinekeller wrote: post #252

jaycroft wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And FINRA is made up of brokers and banks but overseen by the SEC. The EPA doesn't directly monitor every factory. The NTSB sets general testing guidelines and standards and seems to have greatly increased auto and aviation safety, but they can't police everything and at least to the public seem to regulate after the fact. The general term, I believe, is self-regulatory-organization. The theory, I guess, is that the…

... and for most of the agencies, it's not that their budget is small or the agency itself is incompetent: it's what's required by law and they can't override it unless Congress decides to change the laws.

You don't want regulatory agencies creating law on their own though. Not only is that unconstitutional but the reason its unconstitutional is because you would inevitably end up with some busybody who is not accountable to the people massively over stepping their power and creating tyranny.

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

#300

Post by dls2016 » Fri, Oct 15, 2021, 1:51 PM UTC

xenadu02 wrote: post #121

dls2016 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like the mafia.

It means don't throw your people under the bus by blaming them and when something goes wrong take responsibility. When it goes wrong at the VP level it means an organizational failure and/or your failure to understand what your org was doing or your failure to train/hire good subordinates who could handle the details for you.

I agree but it also suggests that anyone above the VP level who sticks around for any length of time is infallible (otherwise they’d be gone).