[situational87]

>The pilot, Mark Forkner, complained that the system, known as MCAS, was causing him trouble. “It’s running rampant in the sim,” he said in a message to a colleague, referring to the simulator. "Granted, I suck at flying, but even this was egregious,” he went on to say, according to a transcript of the exchange reviewed by The New York Times.

People need to go to prison over this.

[Judson]

I'm not sure if the link originally pointed to NYT, but the currently linked reuters report adds a bit more context to the messages.

>Forkner said in one text message, “I basically lied to the regulators (unknowingly).” The other employee responded that “it wasn’t a lie, no one told us that was the case” of an issue with MCAS.

>Forkner responded soon after: “Granted I suck at flying, but even this was egregious.”

[jonplackett]

I don’t really understand the context of these messages.

The one about MCAS running rampant is clear enough but what does he mean saying that he sucks at flying? What is egregious?

[arcticbull]

I interpreted that as “I may be a bad pilot but MCAS made my trying to fly in the simulators particularly unsuccessful”

[dmix]

Nope he was complaining they made changes to the MCAS without telling him and he was concerned the simulator wasn’t accurate to the planes actual experience.

Those are the pilots words and he’s saying the messages are being misinterpreted and cherry picked without context.

[arcticbull]

That's not what it appears from context.

[sz4kerto]

He was joking, as if you'd be a professional F1 pilot and when testing a new car you would say "I suck at driving but this thing loses grip in the corners".

[reaperducer]

I read it as self-deprecation. Something people do to take the edge off of bad news.

[anon1m0us]

Think about it from a Dunning-Kruger perspective. The more you know about flying, the worse you think you are. The pilot is an expert and very experienced. He knows what he doesn't know.

He's acknowledging that even with all his experience, he could be wrong -- but clearly he wasn't.

[atonse]

I wholeheartedly agree. These are crimes that have resulted in hundreds of deaths.

[nostromo]

Prison: our solution to every problem.

[jacquesm]

I'm normally against prison as a deterrent because it is used against people where it wouldn't work as a deterrent. In cases such as these it might actually work if the execs of such companies were simply jailed for a very long time as though they were about equally responsible as a regular bus driver would be if they were negligent at their job and killed a bunch of people. It just might have a positive effect the next time someone thinks they might get away with cutting some corners.

[WJW]

I would support this sentiment usually, but in this case I don't really see a way to determine the chain of responsibility. Who do we force into prison in this scenario? The engineer(s) who made MCAS? Just the one that wrote the lines of code that monitor the airflow sensors? Do we also imprison the QA people that signed off on this? Why not also their managers? Who of the C-suite? Probably the CTO and maybe the CEO, but isn't their behavior influenced by financial pressures from the CFO. Maybe we should just put them all into jail? The FAA was supposed to monitor this stuff but didn't. Should they be jailed as well? How about any congress people that cut the budget for the FAA? The list goes on. There are negative modifiers as well: what if the person who made MCAS was a very junior engineer in his/her first week? Are they still culpable? What if the CTO can prove they were never involved?

I don't think it's all that easy who is responsible.

[jacquesm]

It's super simple:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_passing#%22The_buck_stops...

If the CEO's are held responsible for the deeds of the companies they lead you can bet that there would be an instant improvement of corporate accountability.

[WJW]

Will the engineers also be responsible? I don't see how any attribution of blame can work in a system where causes are very distributed, such as in any large corporation. There is no one person responsible and claiming there is would just lead to a different sort of injustice.

[jacquesm]

No solution will ever be perfect. But the present day one clearly does not work, it leads to endless games of externalization and avoidance of eventual responsibility.

I've seen up close what even a little bit of accountability can do to large organizations, something a bit stronger would surely still have a positive effect.

As for whether the engineers will also be responsible: REAL engineers already carry responsibility and do so without any problem at all because they know their fellow engineers would not do any different. Professional integrity that's called. Software does not even come close to those standards, nor does most of tech.

And aviation - supposed to be different - went downhill in a hurry in the last decade and a half, not too late to turn back, though for Boeing it may very well be too late to recover their reputation.

[WalterBright]

You'd also get no new airplane designs.

[jomoio]

Airbus A380 sustained a catastrophic uncontained engine failure due to a Rolls Royce flaw. Landed and everybody went home. Maybe they can help.

[TheOtherHobbes]

You'd get no new broken airplane designs - which is the point of the exercise.

Management culture needs to change. Feral greed needs to stop being seen as an acceptable excuse for unacceptable behaviour.

[jacquesm]

That may be preferable to broken ones, but no I don't think that will be the outcome. The outcome will be that companies will still follow the money and that executives will make it very plain that we're all playing by the same set of rules.

Rules without accountability and enforcement are meaningless.

[davidw]

IDK, it's overused in the US, but a lot of people died too and that's... pretty bad?

[miracle2k]

Sometimes people die and there is no one to blame. The tendency to find a scapegoat is strong and human and needs to be resisted.

Maybe someone should go to jail here, but I doubt it.

[TheOtherHobbes]

The legal definition of culpable negligence is actually pretty straightforward.

I see no reason not to hold key decision-makers responsible for the consequences of decisions that aren't just misguided or incorrect, but actively and wilfully negligent of factual information - especially if they cause even more deaths by attempting to suppress that information and place blame on innocent parties.

[privateSFacct]

Boeing has designed planes that have an INCREDIBLE safety record, particularly when flying in US regulated airspace.

Interesting that prison time is demanded here when a much more simple explanation is that this was an oversight by the pilots in the sim who didn't fully understand the issue was MCAS related.

Millions killed from opioid epidemics, thousands killed from violence and various preventable diseases, huge number of road fatalities do not result in prison time.

The safety record of aviation in the US should be applauded.

[atonse]

So you want to use their historical record as some kind of justification for their dismal record with the 737 MAX, as if one is related to the other?

Cold comfort to the 300+ lives, and families destroyed.

Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2tuKiiznsY

This isn't just some "oops, these were badly trained pilots" – the whole premise of MCAS is seriously screwed up and smacks of non-engineers running the place.

[Gpetrium]

What op seems to imply is that airplane incidents rates actually have a stronger track record as opposed to the opioid epidemic, road fatality, etc. And that if society believes that this individual/group should go to prison based on this mistake and in hindsight, without account for all the other factors that were a part of the decision making process, then society should start reconsidering the way it treats opioid, road fatality, etc.

The mindset of "quick to imprison" can also run the risk of creating a society that is overly averse to risk taking, which can hinder technology and scientific advances. For example, it may take 10 times as long to get a new, more advanced traffic light implemented in your city because now everyone wants to make sure no stone was left unturned, otherwise someone will get into an accident and a staff/group will be imprisoned. Or a new software is implemented but 3 months later it is found that failure under very specific scenarios has caused over 50 deaths. There are millions of potential scenarios that may fall under similar conditions as exemplified above.

Please note that this writing is not advocating for or against either views, it is simply shedding light on risks that should be considered.

[WalterBright]

This is already the case with the FDA 1962 "safe effective" regulations. There is little downside to the FDA wanting to take no risks whatsoever in approving a drug, but a huge downside to the regulators if they approve a drug that turns out to have a fault in it.

The result is that developing new drugs got enormously more expensive, far fewer new drugs get developed, long delays in effective treatments getting approved, diseases that don't affect large numbers of people don't get cures developed, etc.

The net result was a negative for patients.

This was all discussed in "Regulation of Pharmaceutical Innovation" by Sam Peltzman.

There have been a lot of deadly aviation crashes due to mistakes, false assumptions, oversights, incompetence, human failings, etc. But somehow we've wound up with incredibly safe airline travel. Millions of flights with no incident. Do we really want to start jailing people now? What improvements will we forsake if we give airframe makers powerful incentives to hide mistakes? or simply avoid making improvements to safety, because who wants to risk jail for making a mistake?

[luckylion]

Has anybody argued that nobody else should be punished, ever? Otherwise "but there's drug addiction and car accidents! We shouldn't pass judgement on Boeing until everything else is perfect" is a really strange argument.

[privateSFacct]

The really strange argument is saying it is totally OK for people to willfully engage in activities that result in significant and ongoing fatality rates within the bounds of US law without punishment (slaps on the wrist for everything from willful pollution to opiods where the investigators were waved off) and then demand jail time for folks who have no fatalities within US law AND have an incredible safety record in their field, a record FAR FAR better then lots of other areas (drug distribution, medical malpractice, enviro health and safety etc).

If you wanted to reduce auto accident rates, opiod deaths etc you'd put these folks in charge, not put the law enforcement lobby in charge (yes, they will arrest lots of low level offenders but will not systematically address the issues and do not chase the folks at the top).

[privateSFacct]

I'm making the point that for for US flying (with US levels of maintenance / pilot training etc) boeing and even the 737MAX has a safety record that is incredible.

Not only that, it beats almost all other regulated modes of transit and even other regulated hazards (OSHA controlled worksites etc).

As always, it could be better - but it's actually amazingly good already - these planes are incredible safe in a challenging environment (miles, landing cycles, tolerances etc).

The demand for prison time here, when we have so many many areas where prison time can be MUCH more closely and immediately linked to bad actions (and goes unpunished) is misguided.

[situationista]

If it were safe to fly the Max in the US, and the problem were the pilots, it would be in the air now. It isn't, as the problem is clearly with the plane. It was likely just a matter of time before another Max fell out of the sky somewhere in the US, Europe or elsewhere.

[privateSFacct]

The problems were a chain -> starting with terrible maintenance not pilots.

And part 121 planes in the US do not fly multiple legs with the problems described on these planes.

I know it's partly a labor issue, but mechanics at united will take a plane out of service for practically any reason.

[privateSFacct]

There record is not dismal with the 737MAX.

If you look at where fault lies part lies with boeing and part lies elsewhere in the safety chain. In contrast to many other areas - the evidence of ill intent is relatively weak here. Even without prison Boeing is facing major financial impacts as a result of this issue (as it should).

It's looking like evidence from the airlines that proper maintenance was done may have been faked.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-15/pictures-...

We know lots of maintenance issues unaddressed and repeated warnings by the plane itself that there were sensor issues were not properly addressed.

We know response was not ideal on pilot side which overlaps with some training and other items around stab trim cutoff and/or automation dependency.

These factors are partly why there have been no accidents in 737MAX in US despite lots of flying.

Yes - boeing should design a totally safe plane. Part of that is going to be designing plans to accommodate a wider range of pilot skill (what they are calling "future pilot populations") and to better accommodate maintenance and ground handling training assumptions to allow for greater risk of problems there. This is already being implemented.

Ironically, one element may be to REDUCE the reliance on pilots as a key flight safety control and then increase automation and redundancy in the automation.

[bronson]

> Their record is not dismal with the 737MAX.

By what metric?

By every metric I can find (passenger deaths per trip/flight leg/flight mile, hull losses per delivery/year, etc) the MAX is an outlier.

In fact, I can't find any other airframe in the last 50 years that even comes close (including the DC-9 and TU-154). What other airplane has killed 300+ passengers in its first 4 years of operation?

So, what metric have you selected to show that the MAX isn't dismal?

(and please, no lie-with-statistics stuff like hiding the MAX in 737NG data, or claiming that crashes by foreign pilots or on foreign soil don't count)

[thatswrong0]

> the evidence of ill intent is relatively weak here

Most people are referring to negligence, not ill intent. "Let's make more money and rush this thing out! (Even though this could kill people)", not "Let's deliberately design a system to kill people".

Regardless, one sensor failing should not induce a plane to fly itself into the ground, despite the best efforts of the pilots to recover (and despite the fact they were not necessarily the best trained pilots). 2 / ~400 complete hull losses of brand new jets is completely unacceptable. That is dismal. Don't try to downplay it.

[privateSFacct]

These were not the "best efforts" to recover - stab trim cutout is a memory item.

Absolutely - Boeing is going to be designing much safer planes in future to accommodate different pilot populations. That is clear and necessary. This will make us all safer. Boeing obviously screwed up with a primarily US based mentality.

This system was PARTICULARLY fragile in the face of poor maintenance and reliance on automation - which boeing was unreasonably dependent given a US centric view.

Look into history of comets and concorde if you want to look at hull loss rates (note - both stopped flying forever when safety issues became clear). I predict almost no chance that the max will be taken out of flying forever.

[thatswrong0]

> stab trim cutout is a memory item

1. MCAS does not behave exactly like a normal runaway trim.

2. On the Ethiopian crash, they _did_ initially follow the stab trim cutout procedure, but they didn't manage their speed correctly and thus were unable to control the plane with manual trim.

IMO point 2 is very important - pilots will not always be perfect. It's easy to armchair pilot from your couch and say that "Oh, just manage your speed correctly when your plane is trying to pitch itself into the ground just after takeoff and follow the stab trim cutout procedure. Very easy to deal with MCAS." But reality is not that easy.

> Look into history of comets and concorde if you want to look at hull loss rates

Compared to every other new plane released in the past 20 years, the 737 MAX has a terrible hull loss ratio. I don't really care about the Comet or the Concorde since it's 2019.

[bronson]

By US-based mentality, you mean one where it's OK to design an automation system that takes input from a single sensor? And this is somehow OK for American pilots, but not for foreigners?

I think evidence will show you're wrong. The MCAS is a terrible design no matter where you intend to fly it.

[willvarfar]

A lot of insiders say the safe, old Boeing went out the window with the McDonnell Douglas merger in '97.

It kinda turned into a reverse-merger, where MD bosses took over Boeing and heavily influenced the management style and practices thereafter.

Some of the commentary https://newrepublic.com/article/154944/boeing-737-max-invest...

[bobobooey]

MCAS is a terrible software solution to an engineering problem. On top of that, no sufficient training for the pilots to cover up there awful solution.

There's deaths caused by Boeing's greed and lack of competition against Airbus' new planes.

[anigbrowl]

Impressive spin but not enough to overcome the documentary evidence of deception. Lots of people go to prison for violence and I am heartily in favor of people like pharmaceutical executives joining them.

[philjohn]

They also denied there was a problem with thrust reversers until Niki Lauda forced the issue and they were found to have obfuscated.

There are serious questions to be answered about the corporate governance.

[markus_zhang]

I'd LOL if it's just the pilot who gets the boot (to prison).