Why No Boeing 737Max Prosecutions For Criminal Negligence?

[Vanadium 50]

this quote from Fight Club

People are unhappy when safety is considered a variable to optimize and not just set to the maximum, but.

About 35,000 people in the US die in automobile accidents. If one could improve this by a factor of 10 by making cars 1% more expensive, everybody would say "do it!". If one could improve this by 1% by making cars 10x more expensive, very few people would react this way: cars - which would look more like tanks - would be too expensive to drive. So these decisions are being made all the time, including by us, as consumers.

(Fact: car prices have gone up ~50% in real dollars since 1970, and auto fatalities are down a little more than a factor of 2)

 

[jbriggs444]

About 35,000 people in the US die in automobile accidents

per year.

Gotta include the units.

 

[morrobay]

People are unhappy when safety is considered a variable to optimize and not just set to the maximum, but.

About 35,000 people in the US die in automobile accidents. If one could improve this by a factor of 10 by making cars 1% more expensive, everybody would say "do it!". If one could improve this by 1% by making cars 10x more expensive, very few people would react this way: cars - which would look more like tanks - would be too expensive to drive. So these decisions are being made all the time, including by us, as consumers.

You seem to be in denial here: This is nothing to do whatsoever with ex. cost of building a plane that would be crash passenger survivable- because there would only be room inside for 5 passengers. It is specifically about deception/negligence . From the much needed informative link enclosed: paragraph 6. ' And Boeing kept pilots in the dark about potential failure modes that could result in a taxing mental and physical struggle in the cockpit with just seconds to execute correct decisions and maneuvers'
Now in relation to the Seattle Times links above. It seems that if this investigation does not just fade away and there are charges/prosecution and if the jury is not full of uneducated people with an acquitted trial and if the court does not overturn a conviction, then there is a long odds chance for justice. https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/0...utives-should-be-prosecuted-for-manslaughter/

 

[Vanadium 50]

You seem to be in denial here

Do you really want to go down this path? Really?

I think my position is adequately summed up by:
1. Just because I don't like something doesn't automatically make it a crime.
2. In the US at least we prefer to have the investigation before people are charged with a crime.

I understand that your socialist friends don't think this way. They can believe what they want.

 

[russ_watters]

The points made here about how such businesses operate made me think of this quote from Fight Club:

"A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."

I imagine the execs at a lot of companies like Boeing think along those lines.

The message of Fight Club was that corporations are soulless and evil and terrorism(!) is therefore justified in order to even the score. Really?

That example sounds like a fictionalization of the Ford Pinto case. It's altered to make the fault 100% on the car company as opposed to partly on the driver(s).

In the Pinto case, there was indeed a memo that went public where the company weighed the societal cost of saving lives against the cost of upgrades to improve safety in the fuel tank:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Cost–benefit_analysis,_the_Pinto_Memo

Let me put that in stark terms: Ford sold and declined to recall/upgrade a product that they KNEW and EXPECTED to kill some if their customers due to a choice of profit over safety.

The media and lawyers spin and the general public believes that this sort of cost benefit analysis is unethical/immoral. They are wrong. The practice isn't just standard, it's both necessary and right, in the absence of specific regulations. But it is also difficult to do and open to interpretation.

For the Pinto, there's every indication in hindsight that they were for the most part unfairly judged. They did pretty much everything right except in estimating the public's stomach.

It isn't any more wrong than a consumer choosing to buy a car without the latest safety features to save money. The main difference is that the corporation actually did a calculation whereas the consumer almost certainly did not.

But Boeing did get the cost benefit analysis wrong. Again: the main problem isn't that they did the cost-benefit analysis, it's that they did it wrong. And that's the part people calling for jailing management repeatedly get wrong:

You seem to be in denial here: This is nothing to do whatsoever with ex. cost of building a plane that would be crash passenger survivable- because there would only be room inside for 5 passengers.

Er - you did indeed argue in post #14 that Boeing's decision making was based on prioritizing profit over safety. The extreme example of a plane with room for only 5 passengers is Reductio ad absurdum; people who argue against putting profit above safety never draw a limit to their position, making the example a logical conclusion of the argument.

It is specifically about deception/negligence . From the much needed informative link enclosed: paragraph 6. ' And Boeing kept pilots in the dark about potential failure modes that could result in a taxing mental and physical struggle in the cockpit with just seconds to execute correct decisions and maneuvers'

What you are saying is - remains - just plain factually wrong. Everything we know to date says that Boeing didn't include the description of MCAS in the manual, not because they were trying to hide a flaw, but because they believed the system to be safe and insignificant. There's a huge factual/logical gulf between those two points, and you've repeatedly pointed to the wrong one. It's conspiracy theory at best, misinformation at worst.

Again, Boeing didn't knowingly implement and then hide a major, known to be faulty system, they implemented a system that should have been insignificant and turned out to be significant because of an unknown flaw. It's negligent engineering/management, but not criminally negligent because they didn't purposely create, much less hide the flaw. Unless something changes about what we know, there is virtually no chance of criminal prosecution coming from this.

Please, please tell me that you've learned something from this thread and tell me what elements the texting and driving example in the article you linked has that the 737 case does not, and therefore why texting and driving warrants jail time and the 737 case does not.

 

[morrobay]

Boeing didn't knowingly implement and then hide a major, known to be faulty system, they implemented a system that should have been insignificant and turned out to be significant because of an unknown flaw. It's negligent engineering/management, but not criminally negligent because they didn't purposely create, much less hide the flaw. Unless something changes about what we know, there is virtually no chance of criminal prosecution coming from this.

Please, please tell me that you've learned something from this thread and tell me what elements the texting and driving example in the article you linked has that the 737 case does not, and therefore why texting and driving warrants jail time and the 737 case does not.

I chose all the links for the sufficiently complex 737max reports only. Unfortunetly some beside the point very simple auto cases were included. But since you have asked: I would have to say that there is negligence in both cases and they both warrent jailtime. Regarding the "unknown" flaw that you claim Boeing did not purposely hide, see the link here that specifically is counter to that claim.
https://www.npr.org/2019/05/06/7205...ensor-problem-before-plane-crash-in-indonesia

 

[Rubidium_71]

The message of Fight Club was that corporations are soulless and evil and terrorism(!) is therefore justified in order to even the score. Really?

The quote I referenced was simply a comment on the corporate quality control process I thought might be relevant. I at no time endorsed the overall message of the book or film and certainly made no reference at all to terrorism(!).

 

[gleem]

The NY Times has reported internal communications that indicated that the Boeing employees where dissing the FAA and that issues with the 737 MAX were well known.

Boeing has responded with “We regret the content of these communications, and apologize to the F.A.A., Congress, our airline customers and to the flying public for them.”

Some quotes from these communications:“Would you put your family on a Max simulator trained aircraft? I wouldn’t,” Prior to the two crashes

"This airplane is designed by clowns, who are in turn supervised by monkeys.” 2017

What moral responsibility do these people bear in not actively trying to bring the problems to the attention of the FAA?

 

[Rubidium_71]

issues with the 737 MAX were well known.

I think that's what really bothers most of the posters here. Safety issues should be disclosed as soon as they are discovered. I don't expect my car to be built like a tank, but if GM knows there's a problem I expect them to notify me rather than keeping it to themselves.

 

[russ_watters]

The NY Times has reported internal communications that indicated that the Boeing employees where dissing the FAA and that issues with the 737 MAX were well known.

Boeing has responded with “We regret the content of these communications, and apologize to the F.A.A., Congress, our airline customers and to the flying public for them.”

Some quotes from these communications:“Would you put your family on a Max simulator trained aircraft? I wouldn’t,” Prior to the two crashes

"This airplane is designed by clowns, who are in turn supervised by monkeys.” 2017

What moral responsibility do these people bear in not actively trying to bring the problems to the attention of the FAA?

That depends on what problems they were referring to. I read several articles and found little or no context for those quotes.

I have seen nothing so far that says anyone was aware of the bug in the MCAS software.

 

[gleem]

The latest from Aviation Week says that Boeing dissuaded Lion Air of requiring simulator training on the MAX from the very beginning citing unnecessary expense to the airline.

The documents, comprising external and internal emails and internal instant message exchanges, underscore the priority Boeing placed on positioning the MAX as nearly the same as its predecessor, the 737 Next Generation (NG). They also offer some of the most compelling evidence yet that Boeing consciously chose less costly approaches over safer, more conservative ones during the MAX’s development.

From: Boeing Fought Lion Air On Proposed MAX Simulator Training Requirement
Sean Broderick January 10, 2020

 

[gmax137]

the priority Boeing placed on positioning the MAX as nearly the same as its predecessor, the 737 Next Generation (NG)

I believe (with no knowledge nor evidence) that SW airlines made this a de-facto design requirement and once that was established it was repeated as necessary by everyone involved.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Do we know when these emails were sent? I've read "late 2018 and early 2019", which sure seems like after one incident and possibly both. It matters.

 

[gleem]

That depends on what problems they were referring to. I read several articles and found little or no context for those quotes.

You can read 117 emails and internal communications here https://seekingalpha.com/news/35308...p=0&utm_medium=email&utm_source=seeking_alpha

I found the particular comment about monkeys etc. It apparently had to do with the flight management computer not noting the altitude. I missed the location of the other comment.

 

[morrobay]

That depends on what problems they were referring to. I read several articles and found little or no context for those quotes.

I have seen nothing so far that says anyone was aware of the bug in the MCAS software.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48174797

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme...7-max-was-dangerous-and-kept-it-flying-anyway

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/18/boe...is-concerned-it-was-misled-about-737-max.html

Here are several reports that you have seen nothing of.

 

[morrobay]

Engineers in 2017 discovered that a software related warning light failed on 80% of the 737 MAX. But the company chose not to fix it.($) The next year a Lion Air jet suffered the malfunction the alert was designed to detect and crashed in the Java Sea. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ix-737-max-cockpit-light-may-draw-faa-penalty
I rest my case. Take them away.