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

361–367 of 367 posts

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

#361

Post by lazide »

nickff wrote: post #328
lazide wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

True, though with the way GAAP and accrual accounting works (generally cash balances are only tangential to income, expenses, or even assets once you get past small to medium businesses), and the scale and number of accounts most businesses have, that’s a lot of work for a very muddied view of what is likely happening outside of some specific circumstances like a depository, clearing house, or the like.

That I somewhat like counting the number of bolts ordered and delivered by Boeing to ensure they are staying compliant with building their airframes.

If they never order any, or there aren’t many arriving where you expect, is that a problem? Sure, though it’s probably a subcontractor ordering them, or they haven’t bought any when you were looking because they have a large stockpile, or whatever.

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

#362

Post by IG_Semmelweiss »

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…

The principle here should be the same as the principle of proper auditing.

Take the population of x , then sample y and if the sample passes the tests then you have z degree of confidence of projecting the results of the sample over the entire population.

Its not hard. Its only that bureaucrats are generally not hired for the industry knowledge but instead career paper pushers and ticking boxes on their way up, instead of, you know, getting dirty with actual work

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

#363

Post by curryst »

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…

> basically ruin someone's life and make them almost unhire-able in their field.

It will make them almost unhireable everywhere. Even outside their field, they're still a risk. They've now got a very public "troublemaker" label.

The prizes would also have to be pretty large. We're talking "never have to work again" large, because that's a very real possibility, or at least a very real perceived concern.

We're talking people who make a good living. For people not close to retirement, it's probably a multi-million dollar number. At $200k/year, that's $2 million per decade, and not including potential raises. After you pay income taxes on the prize, you probably need it to be close to $10m to break even.

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

#364

Post by samhw »

sdhfjgjh wrote: post #318
samhw wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"Price gougey" implies that the prices are unethical; not in compliance with ethical norms; not normative.

'Not normative' doesn't mean 'not in compliance with ethical norms'. It means not pertaining to ethical norms. It's not the correct word, however you twist it.

Here's some more info if it helps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_statement

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

#365

Post by randomswede »

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.

That there's multiple other airplane manufacturers, not targeting the "large passenger jet" market, but more towards the "general aviation" market?

Textron (Cessna, Beechcraft, hawker), Piper, Carlson, Viking, ... There's dozens of aircraft manufacturers (I have intentionally not listed those who make hit planes, but I think they too fall under FAA checks).

I would not actually be surprised if the small airplane manufacturers puts substantially higher load on FAA than Airbus and Boeing do.

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

#366

Post by snarf21 »

curryst wrote: post #363
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…

> basically ruin someone's life and make them almost unhire-able in their field. It will make them almost unhireable everywhere. Even outside their field, they're still a risk. They've now got a very public "troublemaker" label. The prizes would also have to be pretty large. We're talking "never have to work again" large, because that's a very real possibility, or at least a very real perceived concern. We're talking…

I was assuming they would be even higher. However, look at the economic damage being done by things like the opioid epidemic or the lives lost from these lies inside Boeing. We spend hundreds of billions on boondoggles, it doesn't seem like putting aside $5B per year to make the world better is much of a strain for the US government.

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

#367

Post by paulmd »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #197
paulmd wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the end of the day this is what you want, though: people need to realize that they are going to be held personally responsible if they're involved in pencilwhipping the FAA approval process, and tell their boss they're not going to jail so that Boeing can make another 1% profit this year. I'm not saying it's just the test pilot who lied, or held sole responsibility, but yeah, he was a member of a criminal enterpri…

I like the result. Too many people hide behind “I was just doing my job and helping the company.” At some point you have to make a personal stand to not harm humanity. And programmers reading this, that era is definitely upon us. When we see programmers charged who implemented the twisted evil shit Facebook or whoever ordered them to, we will be making some progress on fixing the problem.

and in particular, it appears this guy was actively talking about how to deceive the FAA and avoid attention, so yeah... fuck him, this isn't a random fall guy, this is a chief test pilot who was in on the plan.

again, by all means, this should not be the only prosecution here, and if they can flip him on the rest of his conspirators then he should get a reduced sentence, that's the standard RICO playbook. But prosecution is the lever you use to flip the ones you catch on the rest of their conspirators, and this guy very clearly was a willful participant in this criminal enterprise.

(obviously the jury gets to decide that, but this isn't a courtroom, and barring some gross miscarriage of justice, the quotes they're presenting sound pretty damning)

Post reply on HN