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

321–330 of 367 posts

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

#321

Post by soylentnewsorg »

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.

I see. So me using "she" and "he" when I talk about people is me making sure you know I'm talking about a woman.

Welcome to the English language. We don't type extra text like "he/she" every time for zero reason. It's not a conspiracy theory - it's how people talk. Quite a conspiracy theory you got there buddy. You must think the entire world has "something more going on" since the entire world uses "she" or "he" while speaking. Or, perhaps you lack practice speaking to people? Tell me, when the basement gets very cold in the winter, do you venture upstairs with all that sunlight, or do you use a little space heater for your feet?

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

#322

Post by SyzygistSix »

softawre wrote: post #287
larrydag wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Genuinely curious; how big is that title? Are they essentially an overall project manager who gives the green light? Do they have the power to tell the executive class "Nope" without getting fired?

Never mind. I saw Buildsjets comment that explains his position.

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

#323

Post by jeffrallen »

AllThatJazz wrote: post #277

Earlier this year, the feds signed an agreement that let Boeing executives off the hook for the 737 MAX catastrophes, which killed 346 people. The lead prosecutor, Erin Nealy Cox, then took a job with the firm that leads Boeing's criminal defense.

The real scandal is what's legal...

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

#324

Post by slownews45 »

WalterBright wrote: post #139
ummonk wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first paragraph of the EAD is: "Disengage autopilot and control airplane pitch attitude with control column and main electric trim as required. If relaxing the column causes the trim to move, set stabilizer trim switches to CUTOUT. If runaway continues, hold the stabilizer trim wheel against rotation and trim the airplane manually."

The entire EAD must be read, not the first paragraph. Including the digressions (your phrase). It's only two pages. I am not a pilot. But I am an aerospace engineer who worked on critical flight detail designs. You've likely flown on my work. My father was a pilot for the AF for 20 years. You don't get to be an old pilot if you don't pay attention 100% to the instructions and training. Flying isn't like driving a car…

One advantage in flying - you are pretty much told EXACTLY how to do many things.

This is what makes me think flying will be automatable. There are a lot of checklists already written for almost everything. Ie, electrical power up, preflights, (CDU preflight?) before taxi before takeoff etc.

Runaway trim was a memory item (!). ie, so important you have to have it memorized.

What's interesting is that because of a jammed actuator motor in an earlier US situation (way back) they have this language about a "maximum two person effort will not break the cables"

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_jY4nvLmuE4/XQ_n-FaocOI/AAAAAAAAG...

This is because you have to basically break out of a clutch and friction condition if a motor seized which aside from the MCAS crashes could require pretty large efforts.

There is evidence of somewhat routine stab trim issues, at least 1x per year mistrim stuff, and more often inop etc. Before these crashes I don't think it was considered even a very serious concern because pilots would handle it in ordinary course of things.

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

#326

Post by jaywalk »

jandrese wrote: post #303
HPsquared wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overall though, I'm at least happy some individuals are getting prosecuted, it sends a message that there are legal risks to individuals involved in this kind of thing, not just diluted corporate responsibility.

What really needs to change is the corporate culture that led a person to think that they would be doing the company a favor by lying to the regulators. This probably goes all the way to the top. Also, whomever decided that a basic software safety check would be an optional extra with a price tag should definitely not be in the management chain. That's the sort of next quarter profit-only thinking that rots companies…

The "software safety check" wasn't an optional extra. It didn't exist at all! The optional add on was for an "AOA DISAGREE" warning light, which would have indicated that the MCAS might be relying on faulty data (if the pilot was even aware of MCAS in the first place) but wouldn't have actually stopped it from doing so.

Now, the updated MCAS will only activate if both AOA sensors agree. Which seems like a fucking no brainer that should have been the case from the start, but... yeah.

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

#327

Post by spfzero »

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…

Supposedly, having a serious penalty for lying to the FAA should imply veracity. Same way perjury penalties should ensure truthful court testimony.

Agree the FAA should cross-check, before a plane crashes, but when they catch this behavior they should, IMHO, punish it.

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

#328

Post by nickff »

lazide wrote: post #176
nickff wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most regulators don’t verify much, (the SEC almost never actually looks at bank account balances,) they just look for inconsistencies in the information they receive.

The SEC isn’t regulating banks generally so bank account balances shouldn’t matter much - they are regulating security markets no? So looking at discrepancies between data from market participants IS verifying and regulating. Same as if the FDA looked at raw study data and compared it to equivalent studies for similar types of drugs/treatments, or the FAA had an engineer on staff to double check elements of a new des…

I meant to imply that the SEC could check companies' bank accounts to verify the truthfulness of balance sheets and income statements.

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

#330

Post by WalterBright »

slownews45 wrote: post #324
WalterBright wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire EAD must be read, not the first paragraph. Including the digressions (your phrase). It's only two pages. I am not a pilot. But I am an aerospace engineer who worked on critical flight detail designs. You've likely flown on my work. My father was a pilot for the AF for 20 years. You don't get to be an old pilot if you don't pay attention 100% to the instructions and training. Flying isn't like driving a car…

One advantage in flying - you are pretty much told EXACTLY how to do many things. This is what makes me think flying will be automatable. There are a lot of checklists already written for almost everything. Ie, electrical power up, preflights, (CDU preflight?) before taxi before takeoff etc. Runaway trim was a memory item (!). ie, so important you have to have it memorized. What's interesting is that because of a jam…

> One advantage in flying - you are pretty much told EXACTLY how to do many things.

Experience shows that will get you safely out of the vast majority of emergency conditions. The ones that are left require understanding and a brain, which is why we still have human pilots.

Runaway stab trim is so serious a condition that the cutoff switches are within easy reach right there on the console. It doesn't really matter how many safeguards there are against runaway trim, the pilot needs to be able to just turn the thing off. It's also deliberate that the electric trim switches override everything but the cutoff switches.

Pure speculation on my part, but I suspect that Boeing thought that it was so easy to just turn off a misbehaving trim system, that the pilots would just do that.

It's sort of like one day I was working away on my desktop, and smoke started boiling out of the case. My first reaction was to pull the plug out. Fortunately, that stopped the fire. If it hadn't, my second reaction would have been to throw the box outside.

My lawnmower, power tools, etc., are all designed so that chopping the power to them is as easy as possible. Even race cars have a large switch mounted on the exterior to shut off all power.

Post reply on HN