4 ms·

Completely agree with your analysis, and not a pilot or aeronautics-related engineer either. So if we're both right, responsibilities should be cleared. IMO th

Completely agree with your analysis, and not a pilot or aeronautics-related engineer either. So if we're both right, responsibilities should be cleared. IMO the person/team that didn't prepare for sensor redundancy should be even criminally liable, and the authorities that were calling for not grounding the plane yet, should be dismissed, for complete disrespect to cautionary safety.

kayfox 8y ago
The idea that we should parade the heads of the people responsible for this around on a pike is a very emotional reaction. Of course, these will be the people who will be less likely to make any mistakes with this sort of system again, since hundreds of millions have been burned and lives lost. They will be the ones who are skeptical of datasheets, who will request more thorough testing, will spend extra time making sure they don't make the same mistake again. Of course, we could just ground every plane when another plane of that type crashes, and be "100% certain" of no repeats.
- siwatanejo 8y ago
  > The idea that we should parade the heads of the people responsible for this around on a pike is a very emotional reaction. No, it is what you normally find in laws. Doctors who perform poorly at their job are liable. Engineers who disregard basic safety measures established for decades (such as sensor redundancy) should be too (or the managers that approved the cost cut to not include redundancy).
salawat 8y ago
>NTSB final accident reports, with findings as to probable cause and recommendations intended to prevent future accidents, are statutorily prohibited from coming into evidence at trial; however, NTSB factual reports are generally admissible at trial. NTSB investigations typically last for a year or longer. Just a quick Google there. Do note that the intent behind most NTSB reports being inadmissible in a trial is to secure cooperation from all parties in order to get an accurate representation of the problem that caused the disaster in the first place. That's not to say lawsuits or criminal charges won't happen, but those proceedings will not be able to use NTSB investigatory results to make their case. They will have to independently prove their case through other means. NTSB is not in the blame and punish game, and any civil case against Boeing will have a he'll of a time. Never mind that a criminal case will still be required to be levied against an individual at the company, and would have to prove criminal intent. There will not likely be a terribly satisfying legal remedy to this. Taking VW and the financial industry as a starting point for successful pushback against industry, I'm not expecting a terribly satisfying legal conclusion on this one. There will probably be a review of corporate culture, maybe some extra scrutiny for Boeing for a while, some token legislation, and maybe a charity fund for victims. Least that's what my magic 8 ball expects.

kayfox 8y ago

The idea that we should parade the heads of the people responsible for this around on a pike is a very emotional reaction. Of course, these will be the people who will be less likely to make any mistakes with this sort of system again, since hundreds of millions have been burned and lives lost. They will be the ones who are skeptical of datasheets, who will request more thorough testing, will spend extra time making sure they don't make the same mistake again. Of course, we could just ground every plane when another plane of that type crashes, and be "100% certain" of no repeats.

siwatanejo 8y ago
> The idea that we should parade the heads of the people responsible for this around on a pike is a very emotional reaction. No, it is what you normally find in laws. Doctors who perform poorly at their job are liable. Engineers who disregard basic safety measures established for decades (such as sensor redundancy) should be too (or the managers that approved the cost cut to not include redundancy).

salawat 8y ago

>NTSB final accident reports, with findings as to probable cause and recommendations intended to prevent future accidents, are statutorily prohibited from coming into evidence at trial; however, NTSB factual reports are generally admissible at trial. NTSB investigations typically last for a year or longer. Just a quick Google there. Do note that the intent behind most NTSB reports being inadmissible in a trial is to secure cooperation from all parties in order to get an accurate representation of the problem that caused the disaster in the first place. That's not to say lawsuits or criminal charges won't happen, but those proceedings will not be able to use NTSB investigatory results to make their case. They will have to independently prove their case through other means. NTSB is not in the blame and punish game, and any civil case against Boeing will have a he'll of a time. Never mind that a criminal case will still be required to be levied against an individual at the company, and would have to prove criminal intent. There will not likely be a terribly satisfying legal remedy to this. Taking VW and the financial industry as a starting point for successful pushback against industry, I'm not expecting a terribly satisfying legal conclusion on this one. There will probably be a review of corporate culture, maybe some extra scrutiny for Boeing for a while, some token legislation, and maybe a charity fund for victims. Least that's what my magic 8 ball expects.