[ringshall]

I find this really disgraceful.

A flaw in procedure that led to the initial catastrophes is at least understandable in terms of insidious errors in complex systems.

A continuation after the initial error is hard to explain other than by deliberate personal moral failure.

[RachelF]

More disgrace: "The FAA is also accused of retaliating against whistleblowers, possibly obstructing the Office of the Inspector General’s investigation into the crashes"

[systemvoltage]

I feel bad for the engineers and scientists that work at Boeing. I've worked with some of the brightest people in the aviation industry and I am sure they're internally facepalming at the actions of a few bad individuals.

[jjoonathan]

...inside a system that very intentionally put N people in competition to cheat, thereby ensuring that cheating would happen, and in a manner that could plausibly be blamed on the person who happened to do the cheating rather than the system that knowingly ensured that the cheating would happen.

[schoolornot]

Have any Boeing engineers publicly left due to this? I remember tons of people leaving well known tech firms just for having Homeland Security / ICE as customers. I couldn't continue to work for a company that exhibited such deprave indifference to human safety.

[RachelF]

Boeing has been run by accountants from McDonald Douglas for the last 15 years, not engineers like it used to be.

Perhaps that has some bearing on the problem?

[newacct583]

> A continuation after the initial error is hard to explain other than by deliberate personal moral failure.

No, just denial: Look, it's a safe plane. We know it's a safe plane. Sure, it's not exactly like the earlier model, but those rules are needlessly strict. This plane is better, we know it's better. And pilots aren't idiots. They'll figure it out.

As we all learned, there's no single feature you can point to in the MAX that was a bad engineering decision in isolation. So if you don't want to see bad engineering, you don't have to.