Boeing Keep your seatbelt low and tight in flight, especially when seated next to a plugged door

[russ_watters]

My point is that Dave Calhoun isn't going to jail, or even trial.

Why not? Btw, the one I'd be after is Dennis Muilenburg, who was CEO during the development of the Max and the crashes.

 

[DaveE]

Why not? Btw, the one I'd be after is Dennis Muilenburg, who was CEO during the development of the Max and the crashes.

Because a prosecutor won't bring charges of "The CEO told the CFO to reduce expenses". Proving that any of them intended to kill people or were criminally negligent, i.e. should have known that people would die, is essentially impossible. Maybe some middle manger could be tried for lying to the FAA or such, but it won't touch the C-suite.

Prosecutors don't file cases they don't think they can win, even if the perp is a crook.

 

[russ_watters]

Because a prosecutor won't bring charges of "The CEO told the CFO to reduce expenses".

The charge would be instructing employees to falsify federal paperwork. That's already happened, at least for the company.

Proving that any of them intended to kill people or were criminally negligent, i.e. should have known that people would die, is essentially impossible. Maybe some middle manger could be tried for lying to the FAA or such, but it won't touch the C-suite.

Prosecutors don't file cases they don't think they can win, even if the perp is a crook.

It's not impossible because it's happened before, as my example shows (though the first was a silly suggestion - nobody in these businesses intends to kill people). I'm not saying I know for sure it would succeed, I'm just saying it's a possible option on the table. The 737 Max design was a business decision chock-full of engineering compromises. They were not very hard for an intelligent person to understand even if they were a businessperson and not an engineer, and the decisions that mattered and set up the situation for killing people were absolutely made on the C-Suite level.

The decision to lie to the FAA about it was almost certainly made in the C-suite as well. That's the decision that makes it homicide. The entire point of FAA's oversight is for safety, so it's predictable that the thing you're lying to the FAA about it, it could kill people. It's worse than financial fraud and it's unconscionable that it is punished less harshly.

In 20 years this may replace the Challenger/Morton Thiokol disaster in college ethics courses.
That was more a business failure than an engineering failure, and in hindsight I wonder if it is taught in business ethics too. The main takeaway for engineers is "stand your ground". The takeaway for businesspeople should be "listen to your engineers".

 

[russ_watters]

Sure, the feds can even put a company out of business. They did so to Arthur Andersen. But there was still a need for accounting and so many of the partners simply moved elsewhere.

Here's my two-fold theory on this: 1) Boeing is too big to fail and 2) government agencies have a mandate to fix the operations (consent decree) vs shutting down the company. And the way the regulations are written, some companies are licensed and others aren't, which makes shutdown clear-cut in some cases but not others. Arthur Andersen lost its license, so it couldn't practice accounting anymore. There's no analogue for aviation -- or pharma, for that matter. So the FAA/FDA just says, 'we're in charge now and we'll force you to fix things.'

....though there is for other types of engineering, such as the structural engineer for the Hyatt walkway collapse, which was also forced out of business. Last I heard their principal engineer now works as an engineering ethics lecturer.

[edit] He passed away in 2012 at age 84: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse

 

[Vanadium 50]

The FAA, and indeed the government as a whole, is nit allowed to do whatever it thinks is a good idea. In particular, the executive branch needs something called "enabling legislation" to act. While firing the entire C-suite, and their replacements (and their replacements, as far down as necessary) might be a good idea.

In theory, the Executive could threaten to disqualify Boeing as a vendor unless there was a management change. I expect Boeing would resist and use an army of lawyers to fight. That's what they did with the KC-X scandal and it worked. By the time they got through with it, the only people who went to jail were in the Pentagon.

As far as the MAX, the defense will say "Golly, try to put in an improved safety system and you get nothing but trouble. And besides, Mr. Government, aren't you the ones telling us we need to design more fuel efficient planes? And beside s- MCAS was invented precisely to satisfy FAA regulations - and the FAA approved it!" That argument may not fly (get it?) with civil litigation, but may well be effective in a criminal trial.

Further, the accident rate looks to be about 1 in 100,000 flight hours (pre-fix). There are 8000 hours in a year. It is impossible to test systems at this level before releasing them. Their lawyers - and did I mention they had an army of them - will certainly bring this up.

They might also point out that the crash rate of other aircraft is higher - almost 3x as high for the Osprey.

I don't see them making criminal charges stick.

 

[russ_watters]

The FAA, and indeed the government as a whole, is not allowed to do whatever it thinks is a good idea. In particular, the executive branch needs something called "enabling legislation" to act.

Sure, maybe commercial aircraft manufacturers should be licensed, like run-of-the-mill structural engineering firms who build hotel walkways are?

In theory, the Executive could threaten to disqualify Boeing as a vendor unless there was a management change.

That doesn't require legislation, just an angry executive with a pen.

I expect Boeing would resist and use an army of lawyers to fight.

I know I'm punting here, but I'm pretty sure that happened on a stealth bomber or fighter program and didn't pan-out for the sore loser.

That's what they did with the KC-X scandal and it worked. By the time they got through with it, the only people who went to jail were in the Pentagon.

[googles - I'd forgotten about that.] So, I feel like you're arguing against your point, in that the government wields all the power here. After lots of shenanigans they picked Boeing because Boeing.

As far as the MAX, the defense will say "Golly, try to put in an improved safety system and you get nothing but trouble.

We already know that isn't true. What they tried to put in was a system designed to provide blind feedback to the pilots so they wouldn't require re-training. It wasn't sold as a safety system - Indeed, they used that (lack of safety impact) as an attempted defense: but it was a flight control system impacting safety. Clearly.

The question isn't whether it was a well-meaning mistake. It's who knew of/directed the fraudulent attempt to circumvent safety requirements when they implemented a work-around with safety implications falsely presented as a flight control feel enhancement.

And besides, Mr. Government, aren't you the ones telling us we need to design more fuel efficient planes? And beside s- MCAS was invented precisely to satisfy FAA regulations - and the FAA approved it!"

Neither of those are true. MCAS was invented because the 737 is too short to carry bigger engines to satisfy FAA efficiency regulations. It was Boeing's choice to lie about it and bandaid it rather than doing a more substantial redesign of the 737 to accommodate the change. Or, maybe, design a new plane rather than keep patching a 50 year old one? If your company's product doesn't meet the federal requirements and you kill people to avoid a major change to meet those requirements, that's your company's fault, not the government's. Sheesh.

Further, the accident rate looks to be about 1 in 100,000 flight hours (pre-fix). There are 8000 hours in a year. It is impossible to test systems at this level before releasing them. Their lawyers - and did I mention they had an army of them - will certainly bring this up.

Nonsense. It's not about time/breakdown/wear, it's about test parameters. This isn't a hard drive spinning for 100,000 hours. The failure scenario was highly specific and they failed to test for it (yet another failure). Specifically: pito-tube failure (somewhat common) on climb-out triggers the software bug.

They might also point out that the crash rate of other aircraft is higher - almost 3x as high for the Osprey.

The Osprey is a military plane. Airliners, no.

I don't see them making criminal charges stick.

Quite frankly, all of your handwaving-away doesn't have anything at all to do with the crimes. What is a reasonable standard for safety of military vs civilian aircraft (for example) is interesting, but it has nothing at all to do with lying to the government. That's just plain fraud. Fraud that killed people. And they've already basically admitted to it. The only real question here is whether they've been punished adequately for it.

 

[russ_watters]

Mutual funds are under the same pressures as everybody else....

You might say that well-run companies make more money in the long run, but the evidence is that the fees needed to pick funds that pick well-managed companies is larger than the cost differential.

You also might argue that fund managers can put their feet down and insist that all companies are well-managed. This is good for the economy as a whole, but individual fund managers are compensated based on how they do relative to their peers. A rising tide lifts all boats...except theirs.

This is an aside, but studies have shown that chimpanzees and dartboards pick stocks as well as professional brokers do. But chimps aren't very good salesmen. That's what brokers are and what people pay them for, even if they don't realize it. Individual fund managers are compensated based on the profitability of the fund(for the manager), not the performance of the fund(for the client).

But they vote in shareholder meetings on behalf of the clients they are cheating. This is a systemic problem that causes the focus to be short term(to get the broker his next job) instead of long term(to get the client their best retirement outcome...and the health of the companies).

 

[Vanadium 50]

Oh, I agree that I put a ton of spin on my "Boeing will argue..." message. Because they will, and their history is to try and out-lawyer anyone who stands in their way,

Here;s something else they are going to argue - new aircraft are at their most dangerous in early operations. That's why we wanted to base as much of the MAX design as we could on the tried-and-true 737. They will argue that there was no intent - it was a set of plans to make a safer aircraft that went awry.

For a criminal conviction, you need to convince 12 out of 12 jurors that there is no reasonable doubt. The lawyers will try very hard to spin a tale where that doesn't happen.

My point with the power of the executive is that the power has its limitations, both statutory and practical.

 

[Astronuc]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/com...of-work-on-boeing-jet-s-door-plug/ar-BB1jPTPo

NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy said in a letter to senators that investigators sought security camera footage when the door plug was opened and closed in September but were informed the material was overwritten. "The absence of those records will complicate the NTSB’s investigation moving forward," Homendy said.

The NTSB said previously that four key bolts were missing from the door plug that blew out on the plane.

Last week, Homendy said she spoke to Boeing CEO David Calhoun "and asked for the names of the people who performed the work. He stated he was unable to provide that information and maintained that Boeing has no records of the work being performed."

That's bizarre!

Io would imagine that somewhere, someone has to sign and certify the work was done and in compliance with appropriate requirements. If they lack objective evidence that the work was completed, that's a possible violation with potential civil and criminal penalties.

Boeing said its working hypothesis was "the documents required by our processes were not created when the door plug was opened."

Homendy last week criticized what she called Boeing's lack of cooperation and failure to disclose some documents, including on the door plug opening and closing, as well as the names of 25 workers on the door crew at the 737 factory in Renton, Washington. After Homendy's comments, Boeing provided the 25 names.

QC records were not generated or maintained?! That's a big deal.

Usually, at the end, someone responsible signs off that all requirements are met - under penalty of civil and possible criminal charges if the claims are found to be false.

 

[Vanadium 50]

That's bizarre!

Io would imagine that somewhere, someone has to sign and certify the work was done and in compliance with appropriate requirements.

It's been reported they kept two sets of books. Perhaps not like Tony Soprano (but then again...) but two sets. One was the official set (which of course in the modern era is a computer application and not a set of leather-bound books) which was a very heavyweight process, with layers and layers of reporting and sign-offs.

The other was unofficial, but more lightweight and easier to use.

Is there any surprise that the two sets got out of sync?

If you have worked at a national lab, you probably had to take "records training". Because the government insists that the Labs follow a strict and specified records-retention policy, the Labs teach people how not to create official records inadvertently. They are not being evil, just trying to do their jobs without a mountain of paperwork.

Lest people misinterpret, in the words of Mr. Spock, "I said I understood. I did not say I approve."

 

[Borg]

Lest people misinterpret, in the words of Mr. Spock, "I said I understood. I did not say I approve."

That's like when I tell my wife that I hear what she's saying.

 

[berkeman]

Oh my gosh, this looks to be a big development...

https://abc7news.com/alaska-airlines-flight-1282-fbi-boeing-737-max-9/14557496/

SEATTLE -- Passengers on board the Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 Max 9 that suffered a terrifying midair blowout in January have received a letter from the FBI saying they may be victims "of a crime."

Attorney Mark Lindquist, who represents multiple passengers that were on Alaska Airlines flight 1282, shared with CNN the letter that the FBI office in Seattle sent to passengers on Tuesday.

"I'm contacting you because we have identified you as a possible victim of a crime," the letter reads in part. It also notes that the FBI is currently investigating the case.

"The FBI does not confirm or deny the existence of an investigation," FBI Seattle's Public Affairs Office wrote in an email to CNN, citing Department of Justice policy.

 

[Borg]

Beat me to it.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The FBI does not confirm or deny the existence of an investigation,

... sometimes we just send random letters to random people saying they may be victims of crimes. You know, just to see what happens.

Riiiight.

However, it would be interesting to know exactly what crime they are talking about.

 

[morrobay]

This may be going way deeper than the Alaska Air blowout: Boeing signed a deferred prosecution agreement after fraud was uncovered in the two Max crashes that resulted in three years of accountability. The Alaska incident happened two days before the three year window expired. So this latest incident could lead to criminal prosecution for the Max crashes. * What crime related to the blowout: possibly falsifying a quality control inspection.


https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/...on Administration's Aircraft Evaluation Group

 

[Vanadium 50]

But at best, that would mean that the Alaska Air passengers were witnesses to a crime (and maybe not event that).

 

[gmax137]

When I was working in nuclear power, our "regulator," the US NRC, would frequently request information from the licensees (ie, the utility companies running the power plants). The NRC often specified that the response must be signed "under oath and affirmation." That means that the signature (a company officer) is swearing to the truth of the response, and if it turns out to be false, they can be charged criminally and go to prison.

This did not apply to everything universally, but it is very clear about when it does apply. Other things going on at the plant could be found to not comply with the regulations, and these violations lead to fines, enhanced inspections, etc. but nobody goes to prison.

I'm curious about the airline / aircraft industry, do they have similar approach with their regulator?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I just flew on a max8. It was really smooth but I did say a little prayer during take off lol.

 

[berkeman]

I just flew on a max8. It was really smooth but I did say a little prayer during take off lol.

I noticed you took your toolbelt...

https://theshovel.com.au/2024/01/16...to-allow-passengers-to-help-with-maintenance/

 

[morrobay]

Had the blowout occurred at 30 - 40,000 ft. When passengers were out of their seats it could have been catastrophic. And no one was seated in the two seats next to the plug. Was that a coincidence? Sure am glad a criminal investigation is underway. This Boeing/military industrial complex, FAA, Justice Dept* and even federal judges. Seem to be on the same side at the expense of passengers lives/safety.* Deferred prosecution? https://www.texastribune.org/2023/02/13/boeing-prosecution-737-crashes/

 

[mfb]

United Airlines Boeing plane loses external panel in flight
They discovered that it was missing after the flight.

Make your bets: What's falling off next time?

 

[Vanadium 50]

And no one was seated in the two seats next to the plug. Was that a coincidence?

Probably not, but not in the way you think. There were 7 empty seats. Most people are trying to upgrade and not downgrade, so the empties tend to be in the back. These seats are cold, so tend not to get assigned first.

 

[Borg]

United Airlines Boeing plane loses external panel in flight
They discovered that it was missing after the flight.

Make your bets: What's falling off next time?

It's hard to tell from the photos on the internet but it looks like a section under the wing.

 

[morrobay]

All the bolts are in the bolt holes. So the (25 year old ?) panel material failed. Just seems to have torn off.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

All the bolts are in the bolt holes. So the (25 year old ?) panel material failed. Just seems to have torn off.

Great, so the new planes are missing pieces due to poor materials and workmanship and the old planes are missing pieces do to material fatigue?

 

[berkeman]

Oh crap. New Boeing engineers are now posting at PF asking for help keeping their aircraft stable...

TL;DR Summary: How to determine the effects of a heavy storage tank located at the rear of an aircraft might have on aircraft stability.

I'm working on a feasibility study for the integration of a liquid hydrogen storage tank for a Boeing 737-800. The tank weighs approximately 5000 kg and must be located towards the rear of the aircraft. I understand that this will shift the centre of gravity slightly further back and consequently affect stability. I want to test how various positions of the tank might affect this stability. If I could define the force balance equations and then generate some plots to show how each of the stability factors varies as the position of the tank changes and then find a happy medium that would be great. I'm just not sure how I should go about doing this, or what force balance equations/stability factors to use etc. Or if anyone has any other ideas to go about it, it would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance.

 

[Borg]

WTH. Are they planning on putting it in orbit?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Boeing engineer

Did he say that?

I once was peripherally involved in moving something, um, unusual on a C-5 Galaxy. Didn't mean I worked for Lockheed.

 

[DaveE]

Oh crap. New Boeing engineers are now posting at PF asking for help keeping their aircraft stable...

I'm working on a feasibility study

There's just no way to know for a company as large as Boeing what this is. Having worked for a DOD contractor many decades ago, I can attest to the fact that things like proposals, or worse "studies", aren't always taken very seriously. The best engineering talent is rightly reserved for "real projects". I have seen VPs say things like 'we have to put in a bid on this even though we know we won't win'. Why not have a junior engineer with little support take a shot at the preliminary analysis? These things may be really important to the engineer that's been given the task, but perhaps not other's that have been around the block a few times. I've done similar things with new engineers just to give them some experience and to unload the garbage from my plate.

It reminds me of the time I had to do the engineering part of a proposal for a satellite based LIDAR power system with... three days from knowing nothing to done! I got no sleep and it was undoubtedly the worse proposal ever submitted to the Pentagon; hand drawn sketches and such.

Part of every engineering career is working for idiots.

 

[JB312]

Oh crap. New Boeing engineers are now posting at PF asking for help keeping their aircraft stable...

I'm a final-year engineering student in college and this is for a dissertation project, I don't work for Boeing ..