[K0balt]

The design decisions were acceptable, if they had admitted the fact that the new design necessitated significant new training for the pilots, who were now flying a version of the 737 that could lose positive stability in some corners of its flight envelope….a fact they buried to reduce scrutiny (or facilitate deniability) from regulators and to make it an easier sell to airlines.

Bean counters bathing in blood, all the way down.

The forward mounting of the engine nacelles could have been countered with a small adjustment of the sweep or the surface area of the horizontal stabiliser, instead of the faulty flight control software solution, keeping the aircraft an aerodynamically safe aircraft as had been earlier generations. But that would have been a de-facto admission that the fundamental aerodynamic characteristics of the aircraft as certified were changed by the forward mounted nacelles.

They chose to monkeypatch the flight control system instead of making a minor change that would have produced the inherently safe aerodynamic characteristics that the aircraft was certified with.

They did this to avoid the delay and cost that would have resulted if they had been required to prove the aircraft design was still airworthy. There’s a reason that new designs must be certified to be used in passenger transport. They tried to work around the fact that the 737 max is a substantially new aircraft by monkeypatching the FCS to compensate for a potentially dangerous aerodynamic flaw that was introduced by the new location of the engines.

They chose to produce a more profitable but potentially dangerous aircraft instead of letting the engineers do their job and make the aircraft stable with the new engines. Regulators were also complicit in the regulatory evasion. Hundreds died as a direct result of this malfeasance.

Bean counters bathing in blood, all the way down.

[robocat]

The accountants are part of the engineering on large engineering projects.

> instead of letting the engineers do their job

This is your central point - that you imply engineers are infalliable and therefore it most be someone else's fault.

A problem due to systematic effects. As you point out the mistakes have obvious fixes if you have perfect 20/20 hindsight.

[K0balt]

There was significant debate within Boeing about aerodynamic fixes for the forward mounted nacelles. The aerodynamic fix was rejected because it would result in additional regulatory requirements for flight testing and certification. The FCS was certifiable with a pen.

You are correct in saying that the accountants are a critical part of the company and the engineering, it’s the MBAs in leadership that I’m referring to derisively.