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

581–590 of 611 posts

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

#581

Post by swozey »

watwut wrote: post #559
swozey wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was homeless at 17 in high school before going into the Marines in 2002. I know what having negative money is like, health problems or not. That doesn't change the fact that it comes from absolute privilege to tell someone that they should just quit their job because you don't agree with the ethics or morality of work they're doing. If you HAVE the privilege, the savings, the good health not needing COBRA, etc, the…

Honestly, meh, especially for white collar professes like ours or this one. First of all, generally we are not talking about people who have no other choice but do something unethical. We are talking about people who have choices and are choosing either somewhat higher salary or inertia. And second, I do know multiple people who made the choice of not getting employment somewhere unethical. It is not some kind of rar…

> you could make that argument about factory near some trailer park or poor area, but not really about us.

That's the entire point. We're privileged. My god. My example was literally a mom in a factory with starving children who began building bombs instead of cars.

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

#582

Post by philwelch »

runarberg wrote: post #570
philwelch wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here is the official statistic for federal inmates Federal inmates are a tiny minority of inmates in the United States, because the vast majority of crimes are prosecuted at the state level. There are about 147,000 convicted federal inmates compared to over a million held in state prisons and 103,000 convicts held in local jails. > This methodology of counting current prison population is biased for more serious cr…

> This strikes me as an attempt to move the goalposts. This is HN, threads are supposed to get more interesting as they get longer. I was simply expending on my parent’s point by providing the data which was lacking, and my editorialization was to provide the necessary context. Edit (re: move the goalpost): If you want to play fallacy bingo, then you were the one that actually placed the goalpost, and it was placed o…

> Edit (re: move the goalpost): If you want to play fallacy bingo, then you were the one that actually placed the goalpost

This is false.

This is the ancestor comment that set the goalpost with the statement that "95% of US inmates are on plea deal". Neither that comment nor any of its ancestors were mine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40906705

And it's rather rich of you to accuse me of dishonesty when you're the one providing misleading and unrepresentative statistics by focusing on federal inmates in particular.

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

#583

Post by WalterBright »

bumby wrote: post #579
WalterBright wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"redesigned the airframe" means designing an Entirely New Airplane. Boeing didn't do this because designing an entirely new airplane would have been: 1. an absolutely enormous cost, like a couple orders of magnitude more 2. several years of delay 3. pilots would have to be completely retrained 4. the airlines liked the 737 very much 5. mechanics would have to be retrained 6. the inherent risk of a new, untried airfra…

>designing an entirely new airplane would have been: 1. an absolutely enormous cost, like a couple orders of magnitude more 2. several years of delay 3. pilots would have to be completely retrained Yes, this is the same case I was making. They took a higher (or unknown) risk for business (profit) motives. That's why they deserve a large chunk (but certainly not all) of the blame. There was nothing at all inherently w…

> The damning part of it is that they were likely wrong for the reason of increasing profit.

Are you still advocating designing a whole new airframe instead?

> we still have to acknowledge it's not the best solution

We don't have to agree on that at all. It's an inherently simple solution, although Boeing made mistakes in its implementation.

> Just because a mitigation works some of the time

It's turning off a switch. The purpose of that switch is supposed to be a "memory item", meaning the crew should not need to consult a checklist. The switch is for dealing with runaway stab trim. Reading the step-by-step of the crisis, it is impossible for me to believe that the pilots did not know they had a runaway trim problem. There are two wheels on the side of the console, painted black and white, that spin when the trim runs, making a loud clack-clack sound. They are physically connected to the stab trim jackscrew with a cable. If the trim motor fails, the crew can manually turn the jackscrew via those wheels.

> You are advocating against well-established best practices in safety and reliability

Turning off a system that is adversely working is well-established in aviation. It's quite effective.

> and argue the points rather than appealing to (relatively weak) authority

Appeal to authority is not a fallacy when one has some authority :-) And so it is fair to list what makes one an authority.

> This isn't a pissing contest

You might want to review the condescending and quite rude post you wrote that I replied to. Your reply here is also rather rude. I don't think I've been rude to you.

Thank you for listing your credentials.

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

#584

Post by philwelch »

underlipton wrote: post #543
philwelch wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Citation needed. Particularly if you're talking about federal inmates, state, or both. I'm talking about both, but here: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2024.html > It's disingenuous (re: primacy bias) to lead off with murder and rape, which account for a far smaller portion of "violent" crime than robbery (which I assume includes burglary, in which the victim and perpetrator don't make contact) and assault…

You're conflating inmate population with convictions, the latter being more salient in a discussion of plea deals. As another poster mentioned, these statistics are methodologically biased towards more serious crimes with longer sentences. That is, a convicted murderer or rapist goes through the trial process once (barring appeals) for a "spot" in prison that lasts 10-20 or more years. Multiple convicted robbers with…

> You're conflating inmate population with convictions, the latter being more salient in a discussion of plea deals. As another poster mentioned, these statistics are methodologically biased towards more serious crimes with longer sentences.

The original context is this comment, which discusses a percentage of US inmates (not a percentage of convictions): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40906705

While it's true that people serving longer sentences represent a higher proportion of inmates than they do convictions, it also doesn't seem obvious to me which base denominator is more important. If anything, weighing convictions according to how serious they are seems more sensible than treating a small misdemeanor conviction equivalently with a murder conviction.

Furthermore, plea bargaining cuts both ways: the net effect of a plea bargain is often a conviction on a lesser charge, with less or sometimes no prison time.

> It's a question of what we value our prison system(s) for. I would hope for efficient deterrence and rehabilitation. That is, sentences likely to dissuade people from committing crimes, and best efforts to prevent offenders from offending again. You seem to think that the street-level homicide rate is too high, and I'd agree. I would say that, as such murders are generally crimes of passion or disordered thinking - instinct or illness (psychological, social) rather than reason - harsh punishments are not necessarily useful in deterring them.

I don't necessarily think the threat of incarceration deters common criminals very much, but it does separate them from the population, which is preferable to simply leaving them on the street.

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

#585

Post by bumby »

WalterBright wrote: post #583
bumby wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>designing an entirely new airplane would have been: 1. an absolutely enormous cost, like a couple orders of magnitude more 2. several years of delay 3. pilots would have to be completely retrained Yes, this is the same case I was making. They took a higher (or unknown) risk for business (profit) motives. That's why they deserve a large chunk (but certainly not all) of the blame. There was nothing at all inherently w…

> The damning part of it is that they were likely wrong for the reason of increasing profit. Are you still advocating designing a whole new airframe instead? > we still have to acknowledge it's not the best solution We don't have to agree on that at all. It's an inherently simple solution, although Boeing made mistakes in its implementation. > Just because a mitigation works some of the time It's turning off a switch…

>Are you still advocating designing a whole new airframe instead?

That would be the ideal solution for that hazard. But I can’t say if it’s the best risk profile overall. I would settle for a properly implemented engineered mitigation of MCAS.

>* It’s an inherently simple solution*

The fact that the engineers who built the thing mischaracterized it would seemingly be evidence to the contrary. I have experienced this flawed thinking often, where software is treated as a quick simple solution without considering the effects on the overall system.

>Appeal to authority is not a fallacy when one has some authority

It actually is. As Carl Sagan said, “mistrust arguments from authority.” But regardless, we seem to have different ideas on what makes someone an “authority”. You may be an aerospace authority when you’re in a room of CRUD software developers, but this forum has a much wider net than that. “Technical authority” is an actual assigned title at NASA, and you probably wouldn’t get it with 3 years of experience from decades prior.

“Turning off a switch” is the easy solution when you’re dealing with the benefit of hindsight. The pilots were operating in a completely different different environment. That’s why administrative mitigations are not a favored approach. Boeing simulator results demonstrate that it was a confusing scenario to identify the correct root cause in a time-critical situation.

As to the tone of the post, I’ve witnessed you in many aero circumstances state your credentials as a “I know what what I’m talking about so that’s the end of it” puffery tone. It in itself comes across as condescending and, worse, adds little to the conversation. I generally try to be respectful on these forums until someone shows they aren’t reciprocating. Normally I just roll my eyes and move on. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don’t even realize the condescending tone some of your posts take. I debated even responding but thought it might make you realize how off-putting you’re style can be. In your case, it comes across as very arrogant rather than curious which is contrary to the HN guidelines. If it offended you, I apologize.

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

#586

Post by creer »

tsunamifury wrote: post #394
quasse wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. This might be unfamiliar to software engineers, but there's a reason mechanical engineering and architecture (there might be more, but these are the ones I'm familiar with) schools put students through at least a semester of ethics classes. We are literally the last line of defense in a lot of industries. From the first line of the ASME code of ethics: > Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welf…

This is a noble goal but unrealistic and unfair at scale. Also it belays just a wildly unrealistic understanding of how risk distribution works in corporations. It’s as if in your mind one engineer makes the singular call and sees the entire picture of the project and its risks. Where as more likely a downstream worker who very likely had an incomplete picture will be blamed. Also the personal insult is not needed. I…

Nobody asks the engineer to see the entire picture. (Very few, senior, engineers see the entire picture - to the shock of many newbies. But that's for another discussion). The problem is when the engineer DOES see the problem and doesn't question the project, and stays on, and doesn't figure out a way to get it questioned, and in the end doesn't report anything. THAT is an ethics problem. And yes, in some companies it will cost you your job. That's where the other jobs come in - because there ARE other jobs.

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

#587

Post by creer »

vlan0 wrote: post #361
tsunamifury wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really want the engineer who was last on the line of decisions to go to jail? Because that’s how this will go.

I'm sure they can try. But put yourself in the shoes of that engineer. Imagine what would go through your head. My entire MO would be CYA. Every 1on1 conversation, secretly recorded (thank you favorable NY state laws), and a paper trail a mile long. For just this reason.

CYA emails are not exactly a new concept. Perfectly acceptable from rank and file engineers. And the more senior people you are sending that to - if they are not clueless which does happen - know exactly what this is about.

Project documentation also not a new concept. Also acceptable.

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

#588

Post by WalterBright »

bumby wrote: post #585
WalterBright wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The damning part of it is that they were likely wrong for the reason of increasing profit. Are you still advocating designing a whole new airframe instead? > we still have to acknowledge it's not the best solution We don't have to agree on that at all. It's an inherently simple solution, although Boeing made mistakes in its implementation. > Just because a mitigation works some of the time It's turning off a switch…

> Are you still advocating designing a whole new airframe instead? That would be the ideal solution for that hazard. But I can’t say if it’s the best risk profile overall. I would settle for a properly implemented engineered mitigation of MCAS. >* It’s an inherently simple solution* The fact that the engineers who built the thing mischaracterized it would seemingly be evidence to the contrary. I have experienced this…

I admit to being arrogant, perhaps that's an inevitable side effect of being confident. When proven wrong, however, which has happened on HN (!) I try to admit it. I don't like making mistakes.

I'm not offended, as that's to be expected when I write things that are unpopular.

But I still accept your apology, and no worries. Perhaps we can engage again in the future!

P.S. I know about the simulator issues, but the information came filtered through a journalist and I am skeptical. What I cannot reconcile is the first incident where the deadhead pilot simply turned off the switch, compared with the simulator pilot. It didn't matter whether the runaway trim was the root cause. It did matter that runaway trim will kill you and it must be stopped. All three crews knew that, which is why they fought it.

In my work on the stab trim system, it was accepted that the first resort for trim failure was turning the thing off. Overhead in the 757 is a matrix of circuit breakers, the purpose of each is to turn off a malfunctioning system. The stab trim one, being critical, isn't located overhead but right there on the console.

I work with machinery all the time. When it fails, my first reflex is to always turn it off. For example, one day I smelled smoke. Looking around, smoke was coming out of my computer box. I could see fire through the grille. The very first thing I did was yank the plug out of the wall, the second was to take the box outside. The flames went out when the current was removed.

I simply do not understand failing to turn off a runaway trim system. Especially when it kept coming back on after normal trim was restored.

For another example, an engine fire. I don't know what the fire checklist says, but I bet right at the top it says to activate the fire extinguishers and cut off the fuel and electric power to the engine. I've done the same for an engine fire in my car :-)

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

#589

Post by banish-m4 »

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…

Obama was their pitchman for a while while POTUS. He even directed the DoJ to "announce" premature and incorrect conclusions, overstepping the NTSB's investigation in the Jamaican 737 non-MAX NG crash.

It seems Boeing is getting another sweetheart deal because they have lobbyists and powerful allies in DC who can make the deaths of hundreds of people not matter.

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

#590

Post by banish-m4 »

janice1999 wrote: post #173
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…

It's even softer when you dig into the details. > third-party monitor For just three years. Lawyers for the victims said yesterday Boeing would select the monitor the DOJ would appoint. I hope this is no longer the case but can't find confirmation. If so, it's insane. Self-certification was a major source of corruption and rot in Boring. https://www.newsweek.com/boeing-pleads-guilty-fraud-sweethea...

It's performative BS tantamount to their "self-regulation". Regulatory capture and influence capture is so complete, they can and are getting away with murder.
Post reply on HN