Boeing pilot indicted over 737 Max

[bitchstewie]

Not sure you see this often!

Boeing pilot indicted for allegedly deceiving US regulators over 737 Max

[Octoposse]

I saw that this morning and instantly smelt a very pongy ’pin it on the most junior person in the room’ rat. The fall guy, oops, ‘pilot’ is 49 now and this is a few years ago?

Sounds utterly plausible that no one more senior initiated the deception, or approved it!

You’d think, as per multiple gangster movies, the ‘Feds are squeezing him until he flips . . . but that’s crap because the political appetite in the US for bringing down Boeing by exposing wrong doing to the highest levels is probably well below zero.

[captain_cynic]

Octoposse said:

I saw that this morning and instantly smelt a very pongy ’pin it on the most junior person in the room’ rat. The fall guy, oops, ‘pilot’ is 49 now and this is a few years ago?

Pretty much.

Who can we blame it on that won't implicate management.

At the risk of rousing my stalker (has LT been banned yet) the same people who ran McDonnell Douglas into the ground are now running Boeing.

It was stupid for Boeing to use software to compensate for a hardware flaw in the first place (MCAS to compensate for different flight characteristics) but they've doubled down on stupid by trying to manage their way out of the problem.

I think we're going to have another 737 MAX incident, I just hope it won't be fatal.

[Derek Smith]

captain_cynic said:

Octoposse said:

I saw that this morning and instantly smelt a very pongy ’pin it on the most junior person in the room’ rat. The fall guy, oops, ‘pilot’ is 49 now and this is a few years ago?

Pretty much.

Who can we blame it on that won't implicate management.

At the risk of rousing my stalker (has LT been banned yet) the same people who ran McDonnell Douglas into the ground are now running Boeing.

It was stupid for Boeing to use software to compensate for a hardware flaw in the first place (MCAS to compensate for different flight characteristics) but they've doubled down on stupid by trying to manage their way out of the problem.

I think we're going to have another 737 MAX incident, I just hope it won't be fatal.

Someone on here seems suspicious of the suggestion that a lowly pilot would be the cause of all the deaths. We should for a club.

It's Boeing, it's the USA, a fine has been paid, everyone's happy but they need someone to point to in order to show they've cleaned up their mess.

It stinks so much, respirators are required.

[Southerner]

Yet another situation in which you find yourself thanking f'ck that you aren't an American.

Jesus Christ

[Byker28i]

Stuck this on the thread in boats, planes etc

DOJ release
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-boeing-737-m...

[captain_cynic]

Byker28i said:

Stuck this on the thread in boats, planes etc

DOJ release
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-boeing-737-m...

Court in North Texas... Why am I not surprised.

[mac96]

So, numerous Boeing employees were admitted to be party to the same thing, but Boeing have paid a huge bribe (sorry, fine) to avoid any of them being prosecuted? But this fallguy wasn't included in the deal, so it's his fault.

Almost unbelievable.

[38911]

captain_cynic said:

It was stupid for Boeing to use software to compensate for a hardware flaw in the first place (MCAS to compensate for different flight characteristics) but they've doubled down on stupid by trying to manage their way out of the problem.

I think we're going to have another 737 MAX incident, I just hope it won't be fatal.

If only the world largest Aerospace manufacturer could tap into the expertise here on PistonHeads, all their problems could be avoided.

It makes you wonder how they have lasted over 100 years having build more than 20,000 jet airliners, given they are "stupid".

[mondeoman]

38911 said:

captain_cynic said:

It was stupid for Boeing to use software to compensate for a hardware flaw in the first place (MCAS to compensate for different flight characteristics) but they've doubled down on stupid by trying to manage their way out of the problem.

I think we're going to have another 737 MAX incident, I just hope it won't be fatal.

If only the world largest Aerospace manufacturer could tap into the expertise here on PistonHeads, all their problems could be avoided.

It makes you wonder how they have lasted over 100 years having build more than 20,000 jet airliners, given they are "stupid".

He didnt say they were stupid in everything thing, he said that one decision was stupid.

But you knew that anyway, didn't you.

[Octoposse]

38911 said:

If only the world largest Aerospace manufacturer could tap into the expertise here on PistonHeads, all their problems could be avoided.

It makes you wonder how they have lasted over 100 years having build more than 20,000 jet airliners, given they are "stupid".

You jest.

But . . . . because I was too shy to chase girls I spent rather too many teenage years looking at aeroplanes instead. My practical experience of aeronautical engineering is flying to Malaga in Economy, jumping out of aircraft, and being the qualified pilot of a paraglider.

Yet even I could look at a picture of a 737 Max and think ”mmmm . . . there’s something not quite right there . . .”!

[PurplePangolin]

Octoposse said:

38911 said:

If only the world largest Aerospace manufacturer could tap into the expertise here on PistonHeads, all their problems could be avoided.

It makes you wonder how they have lasted over 100 years having build more than 20,000 jet airliners, given they are "stupid".

You jest.

But . . . . because I was too shy to chase girls I spent rather too many teenage years looking at aeroplanes instead. My practical experience of aeronautical engineering is flying to Malaga in Economy, jumping out of aircraft, and being the qualified pilot of a paraglider.

Yet even I could look at a picture of a 737 Max and think ”mmmm . . . there’s something not quite right there . . .”!

Is picture of the 737 Max when it’s flying or when it has become a lawn dart?!

[captain_cynic]

38911 said:

If only the world largest Aerospace manufacturer could tap into the expertise here on PistonHeads, all their problems could be avoided.

It makes you wonder how they have lasted over 100 years having build more than 20,000 jet airliners, given they are "stupid".

And your experience is?

Thought not.

Mine is in understanding and correcting systemic failures in complex systems. You can't correct problems by introducing break fixes higher in the stack... If your problem is hardware... It can't be fixed in software.

When your problem is you sling larger engines on a frame designed in the 60s that can't accomodate and then add a software system to make it fly like the older jet with different flight characteristics to avoid type recertification, a system which then causes 350 fatalities... And pay off the regulators to get flying again you have a management issue.

[Derek Smith]

captain_cynic said:

And your experience is?

Thought not.

Mine is in understanding and correcting systemic failures in complex systems. You can't correct problems by introducing break fixes higher in the stack... If your problem is hardware... It can't be fixed in software.

When your problem is you sling larger engines on a frame designed in the 60s that can't accomodate and then add a software system to make it fly like the older jet with different flight characteristics to avoid type recertification, a system which then causes 350 fatalities... And pay off the regulators to get flying again you have a management issue.

You take no prisoners. I like that in a poster.

[anonymous-user]

Derek Smith said:

captain_cynic said:

And your experience is?

Thought not.

Mine is in understanding and correcting systemic failures in complex systems. You can't correct problems by introducing break fixes higher in the stack... If your problem is hardware... It can't be fixed in software.

When your problem is you sling larger engines on a frame designed in the 60s that can't accomodate and then add a software system to make it fly like the older jet with different flight characteristics to avoid type recertification, a system which then causes 350 fatalities... And pay off the regulators to get flying again you have a management issue.

You take no prisoners. I like that in a poster.

He does talk A LOT of bks about aviation though.

[38911]

captain_cynic said:

38911 said:

If only the world largest Aerospace manufacturer could tap into the expertise here on PistonHeads, all their problems could be avoided.

It makes you wonder how they have lasted over 100 years having build more than 20,000 jet airliners, given they are "stupid".

And your experience is?

Thought not.

Mine is in understanding and correcting systemic failures in complex systems. You can't correct problems by introducing break fixes higher in the stack... If your problem is hardware... It can't be fixed in software.

When your problem is you sling larger engines on a frame designed in the 60s that can't accomodate and then add a software system to make it fly like the older jet with different flight characteristics to avoid type recertification, a system which then causes 350 fatalities... And pay off the regulators to get flying again you have a management issue.

And yet still, given their 100 years experience in building aircraft, with 65,000 employees, you assume they didn't think about this? Um, ok...

My experience? Pilot.

[Derek Smith]

I know little about commercial aircraft. When I joined Gatwick, I went to the plane-spotter's bookshop at a viewing area and asked if they had an I-Spy book for airliners. The chap's reactions were interesting. So take this as what was said to someone inquisitive and trying to learn about commercial flying and airlines, but starting from a low level.

I had an interesting chat with an IT bloke with regards to sensors on an airline's planes. The company replaced the standard set and had additional ones; the bloke emphasised the rudder actuator for some reason. The suggestion was that there were a number of hiccups noted. If they'd occurred on the approach and possibly take-off they could prove 'difficult', giving symptoms similar to wind-shear (which I know nothing about). He said there was no way he'd get into this particular aircraft.

The actuator had been, or was about to be, changed I was told, but there were lots of planes still flying with the old ones at the time.

I spoke about it to my sergeant, a bit of a nerd on the matter, and he said the 'difficulties' were well-known.

[38911]

Derek Smith said:

I know little about commercial aircraft. When I joined Gatwick, I went to the plane-spotter's bookshop at a viewing area and asked if they had an I-Spy book for airliners. The chap's reactions were interesting. So take this as what was said to someone inquisitive and trying to learn about commercial flying and airlines, but starting from a low level.

I had an interesting chat with an IT bloke with regards to sensors on an airline's planes. The company replaced the standard set and had additional ones; the bloke emphasised the rudder actuator for some reason. The suggestion was that there were a number of hiccups noted. If they'd occurred on the approach and possibly take-off they could prove 'difficult', giving symptoms similar to wind-shear (which I know nothing about). He said there was no way he'd get into this particular aircraft.

The actuator had been, or was about to be, changed I was told, but there were lots of planes still flying with the old ones at the time.

I spoke about it to my sergeant, a bit of a nerd on the matter, and he said the 'difficulties' were well-known.

Do you mean the 737 rudder hardover issue in the 1990's?

[anonymous-user]

It’s also important to note that Forkner wasn’t just some “Boeing pilot” he was chief technical pilot which is a fairly senior position and due to the way the FAA regulate and let manufacturers use the FAA Designated Engineering Representative DER programme, meant he held a post with huge responsibility.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-boeing-737-m...

Undoubtedly the issues go far beyond him but the way he and his role are described in some of the media very much underplays these seriousness of what he’s being accused of.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense...

[Octoposse]

38911 said:

And yet still, given their 100 years experience in building aircraft, with 65,000 employees, you assume they didn't think about this? Um, ok...

I imagine they did.

Just like investment bankers thought about the risks of securitising sub-prime mortgages.

And pharmaceutical companies thought about the downside of hard-selling strong opiates across the US.

(I write of things I know very little of, but feel free to insert other examples).

You don’t have to be an XR tree-hugger hand-road-gluer to perceive that if you incentivise people in organisations to prioritise short-term profit at any cost, you get short-term profit at any cost and potential medium / long term catastrophe.

And - organisationally - you’re probably more likely to have this sort of outcome in organisations of 65,000 than 6. OK, banks pulling the plug tomorrow is less of a risk, but you have hierarchical structures, cut throat internal competition, and a ’bring me solutions not problems’ culture. Doesn’t matter if the solutions are crap . . .