Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Boeing to plead guilty to criminal fraud charge stemming from 737 MAX crashes

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 611 posts

Re: Boeing to plead guilty to criminal fraud charge stemming from 737 MAX crashes

#481

Post by swozey »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #475
swozey wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What absolutely weird replies. You clearly are the victim of the world, sir. Nobody has worse problems than you! None of this was a competition, super strange to make it so and not just recognize not everyone can quit their job today, nod your head and agree. Because that is a fact.

What part of "I don't expect others to care how life has been for me" did you not understand? I would like to think that even without ME/CFS I would still hold such views.

"I recognize that my life experience is not the life experience of everyone else. Some have it better, some have it worse, regardless of how good or bad MY OWN life is.

I recognize that Jane with 4 starving kids, one with cancer, making $7.15/hr with an empty fridge and a broken down car potentially can't just quit her job at the factory today even though they switched from building cars to bombs.

My life is not a comparison against other peoples lives."

Thanks. Just because you have problems doesn't mean they're better or worse than others. This isn't about you. I'm sure your response is "I'd rather be jane than have CFS," or something about how you're morally superior and would be homeless before making a bomb/whatever.

Absolutely weird thought process, especially from someone who has never been homeless but would prefer to be homeless than xyz. Very im14andedgy vibe.

Re: Boeing to plead guilty to criminal fraud charge stemming from 737 MAX crashes

#482

Post by WalterBright »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #462
WalterBright wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you start criminally charging people for mistakes in critical systems, what you're going to get is coverups. With a no-fault system, mistakes are not covered up, but fixed. With a fault system: 1. if a mistake is discovered, it will not be fixed because that would be an admission of criminal liability. 2. Quality will not be improved, because that is (again) an implicit admission that the previous design was fau…

You're not the first person I've head of this idea from; it's from the NTSB charter The NTSB does not assign fault or blame for an accident or incident; rather, as specified by NTSB regulation, “accident/incident investigations are fact-finding proceedings with no formal issues and no adverse parties … and are not conducted for the purpose of determining the rights or liabilities of any person” But there was plenty o…

> That it works for you actually makes me feel less safe flying.

Feel free to ask the flight crew next time you're on a 757. The service record of the 757 speaks for itself. I fly Iceland Air because their fleet consists of 757s. I literally bet my life on my work.

> Boeing tried to blame the pilots

The pilots were partially responsible.

1. First incident - the LA crew followed emergency procedures and continued the flight safely.

2. Second incident - the LA crew restored normal trim 25 times, but never turned off the stab trim system, which is supposed to be a memory item.

3. Third incident - Boeing sent an Emergency Airworthiness Directive to all MAX pilots. The EA crew did not follow the simple 2 step procedure. A contributing factor is the crew was flying at full throttle, and ignored the overspeed warning horn you could hear on the cockpit voice recorder.

> who rather conveniently for Boeing died and are no longer around to defend themselves.

The flight voice and data recorders spoke for them. We know what they did.

If you want to know the truth, read the official government reports on the crashes. Ignore what the mass media says.

Re: Boeing to plead guilty to criminal fraud charge stemming from 737 MAX crashes

#483

Post by KittenInABox »

tomp wrote: post #446
ilyagr wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-limits-scop... Somewhat opinionated, but clearer explanation: https://jacobin.com/2024/06/supreme-court-corruption-thomas-... Perhaps somebody finds a better overview.

Supreme Court simply limited the (in their opinion overbroad) lower court's interpretation of the law. Congress is free to fix the law.

I really struggle with this circular issue:

1) state laws can be unfair, slanted, and make voting difficult, meaning that voters may not be adequately able to collectively vote in their best interests

2) courts generally have continued to limit any laws on the books to counter this, saying that congress can clarify and strengthen if this is the case

So it looks to me like the ability to actually vote to hold congress accountable is being forever eroded with no accountability for anyone?

Re: Boeing to plead guilty to criminal fraud charge stemming from 737 MAX crashes

#484

Post by bumby »

tsunamifury wrote: post #478
bumby wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah we both agree that the decision isn’t “kill/not kill”. It’s much more ambiguous and murky, especially when dealing with low probability events. That’s why it takes expertise, but it doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be accountability for those “expert” decisions. Other engineering domains already have this, there isnt anything that makes these decision inherently different.

When you criminalize the role either no one will take the role or an incompetent patsy will. I dont know when HN became a bunch of keyboard jockies white knighting what they'd do... but reality is a very different story.

When you avoid accountablilty, you pervert the risk/benefit. So people get incentivized to roll the dice on low-risk/high severity events because most of the time, it will come out in their favor and they can continue cashing their checks. But in the off-times when it doesn't, people just shake their heads and say "Who could've known!?" when in reality, there were people sounding the alarm the entire time. The outcome you're advocating hiding the risk into the shadows where nobody talks about it. I'm advocating a structure that isn't risk-adverse necessarily, but at least lays it all out for transparent risk-informed decision making.

You're talking to someone who spent years working in the aerospace industry. I'm not sure, but it seems like you have some hypothetical idea of what reality is, but it doesn't align with my actual experience. Not to sound disrespectful, but it sounds like one of us actually has experience and the other is going off a narrative they've created in their head.

I do hear people often talk about the "incompetent patsy" excuse. But I'm curious, where do you think that stops being relevant? Do you not hold medical doctors liable for decisions because a patient will just find another "incompetent patsy" to prescribe them whatever they want? Do you not expect civil engineers to be responsible for a structural design of a bridge because a company will find an "incompetent patsy" to sign off on a sub-standard design that is better for profit margins? We're used to holding all kinds of professionals liable, but there seems to be a cultural shift in the last 40-50 years where we've rationalized bad behavior as the norm rather than holding people accountable.

Re: Boeing to plead guilty to criminal fraud charge stemming from 737 MAX crashes

#485

Post by tomp »

ilyagr wrote: post #448
tomp wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supreme Court simply limited the (in their opinion overbroad) lower court's interpretation of the law. Congress is free to fix the law.

How long do you think it will take for Congress to fix the law? Until then, the ancestor poster's interpretation of "Don't worry, it's now legal for the judge and everyone else involved to get a nice present from Boeing, as long as it happens afterwards!" is more or less correct AFAICT (though I'd appreciate more educated opinions).

This ”congress is too slow” is an oft-repeated trope but completely wrong.

What people like you don’t understand is that slowness is a feature, not a bug!

The first COVID relief bill was passed in less than a month. Because it had broad support and was urgent!

Laws that have broad support are passed quickly. Laws that lack broad support are passed slowly or not at all.

That how lawmaking should work!

Re: Boeing to plead guilty to criminal fraud charge stemming from 737 MAX crashes

#486

Post by cjbgkagh »

WalterBright wrote: post #482
cjbgkagh wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not the first person I've head of this idea from; it's from the NTSB charter The NTSB does not assign fault or blame for an accident or incident; rather, as specified by NTSB regulation, “accident/incident investigations are fact-finding proceedings with no formal issues and no adverse parties … and are not conducted for the purpose of determining the rights or liabilities of any person” But there was plenty o…

> That it works for you actually makes me feel less safe flying. Feel free to ask the flight crew next time you're on a 757. The service record of the 757 speaks for itself. I fly Iceland Air because their fleet consists of 757s. I literally bet my life on my work. > Boeing tried to blame the pilots The pilots were partially responsible. 1. First incident - the LA crew followed emergency procedures and continued the…

Weird to see such a strongly held belief of not blaming people abandoned so quickly.

It's pretty standard to blame the pilots, as we know there is a Swiss cheese model for statistical analysis of risk and from my vantage point opening such large holes in the MCAS layer with the expectation that events are caught at the pilot layer is inadequate. That not all events are caught at the pilot layer is to be expected.

Edit: I should add that the pilots already got a death sentence for their involvement.

Re: Boeing to plead guilty to criminal fraud charge stemming from 737 MAX crashes

#487

Post by t_mann »

abeppu wrote: post #480
t_mann wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the funds previously marked for Boeing would be open for new firms even if staffed by former Boeing employees > delivering a very clear message to shareholders and C-suite officers that this sort of conduct will not make them rich And the best way to make that point is to create new investment opportunities that will make some former employees of the same company and many of the same investors rich?

1. Boeing investors should take a substantial haircut. If those investors subsequently in on new firms, good for them (though initially these new firms may be private). I see no reason they should expect to "get rich" from the investment. The top institutional shareholder is Vanguard whose involvement will have been minimal and whose future behavior is unlikely to change. But Boeing execs whose compensation is largel…

The investors who got rich through Boeing have cashed in a long time ago. What you're suggesting would be much more interesting to them than Boeing is today. You're basically saying 'this handful of companies is virtually guaranteed to share contracts worth billions per year among them'.

Re: Boeing to plead guilty to criminal fraud charge stemming from 737 MAX crashes

#488

Post by carabiner »

BartjeD wrote: post #124
justinclift wrote: post #31

Seems an extremely soft ball approach: • Under the deal, Boeing agreed to pay a $243.6 million fine and for an third-party monitor to be installed to monitor the company’s compliance. ~$240M seems pretty low for an industry where billions are commonly thrown about. • The deal spares Boeing from a trial just as the planemaker is trying to turn a corner in its safety and manufacturing crises. Sparing them from a trial…

For spilling a hot coffee cup you get $ 2.7 million worth of punitive damages. But for killing more than 200 people and trying to hide the evidence, we'll charge you 200 million and call it a day. That's less per person than the price of a hot-coffee spill.

What, do you think, would be an appropriate damage amount for the coffee spill that caused third-degree burns? Something much less than this?

Re: Boeing to plead guilty to criminal fraud charge stemming from 737 MAX crashes

#489

Post by cjbgkagh »

swozey wrote: post #481
cjbgkagh wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What part of "I don't expect others to care how life has been for me" did you not understand? I would like to think that even without ME/CFS I would still hold such views.

"I recognize that my life experience is not the life experience of everyone else. Some have it better, some have it worse, regardless of how good or bad MY OWN life is. I recognize that Jane with 4 starving kids, one with cancer, making $7.15/hr with an empty fridge and a broken down car potentially can't just quit her job at the factory today even though they switched from building cars to bombs. My life is not a co…

Well, I've also been homeless... before my ME/CFS was bad so it was much easier to deal with. Anyway, that's irrelevant.

You can recognize that such people will make such decisions, and I agree that they will, but where I don't agree is that making such decisions is in anyway morally ok. If Jane chooses to keep her job where she is knowingly cutting corners on making lifesaving widgets I will judge her harshly for that regardless of her personal circumstances. If Janes work is unimportant then I couldn't care less.

Re: Boeing to plead guilty to criminal fraud charge stemming from 737 MAX crashes

#490

Post by WalterBright »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #486
WalterBright wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That it works for you actually makes me feel less safe flying. Feel free to ask the flight crew next time you're on a 757. The service record of the 757 speaks for itself. I fly Iceland Air because their fleet consists of 757s. I literally bet my life on my work. > Boeing tried to blame the pilots The pilots were partially responsible. 1. First incident - the LA crew followed emergency procedures and continued the…

Weird to see such a strongly held belief of not blaming people abandoned so quickly. It's pretty standard to blame the pilots, as we know there is a Swiss cheese model for statistical analysis of risk and from my vantage point opening such large holes in the MCAS layer with the expectation that events are caught at the pilot layer is inadequate. That not all events are caught at the pilot layer is to be expected. Edi…

Finding the source of the error is not the same thing as meting out punishment. I am not aware of any pilot being criminally charged for making a terrible mistake.

Though their careers are usually ended by it. That seems fair to me. An engineer at Boeing who could not be relied on will also find his career shunted to working on non-critical stuff. That's fair as well.

> That not all events are caught at the pilot layer is to be expected.

Of course.

But consider that piloting can all be automated today. Why isn't it done? Because pilots are the backup system for unexpected failures. A great deal (most?) of pilot training is training on what to do in an emergency. One aspect of that training is turning off the stab trim system if the system runs away. It's a switch on the console in easy reach, and it's there for a reason.

Remember that Boeing also sent out an Emergency Airworthiness Directive to all MAX pilots after the LA crash. The EA pilots did not follow it.

Do you want to fly with pilots who don't read/understand/remember emergency procedures? I don't. I wouldn't put them in prison, though, I'd just revoke their license to fly. Pilots undergo regular checks for their competency. No pass => no fly.

Post reply on HN