3 ms·

"...if the pilots turned the switch off, turning off much more than just the MCAS (as there's no switch "just turn MCAS off, keep the rest on"), but then the pl

"...if the pilots turned the switch off, turning off much more than just the MCAS (as there's no switch "just turn MCAS off, keep the rest on"), but then the plane was already not possible to save (it was only 1000 ft above the ground!) and they turned the switch back on, hoping for obtaining more power/possibility to trim, and the faulty MCAS kicked in again (despite being the reason for the switch cutoff before) and even sped up the crash, then the pilots in fact did absolutely all that was possible to do..." If this is indeed what is announced, I sincerely hope the responsible parties for making the decision to go through with MCAS in this way are paid well in jail time.

KMag 8y ago
> If this is indeed what is announced, I sincerely hope the responsible parties for making the decision to go through with MCAS in this way are paid well in jail time. I'm sorry, but your wording sounds like you're advocating taking revenge on engineers / managers for poor decisions made in good faith. That's barbaric, and I hope we as a society move beyond this sort of communal revenge. We'll all be psychologically better off if we encourage more healthy ways of seeking relief from tragedy.
- WalterBright 8y ago
  Such a proposal would mean no more new airplane designs. Note that modern airliners are much safer than their predecessors. An awful lot of mistakes are only "obvious" in hindsight; engineering is full of such.
  - acqq 8y ago
    > Such a proposal would mean But who actually proposed what here?
    - WalterBright 8y ago
      Read the parent of my post.
  - chopin 8y ago
    I don't think there is a hindsight here. Boeing made false statements when certifying the plane.
- acqq 8y ago
  > but your wording sounds like you're advocating taking revenge No. It's you, KMag, who is creating a straw man against SolaceQuantum. SolaceQuantum's actual wording is using "paid well in jail time." Which means the expectancy of the involvement of the judicial system (courts, lawyers etc.) which could also eventually produce such a sentence (jail time). And that is certainly not "advocating taking revenge." SolaceQuantum also never mentions "engineers." It's again your straw man construction and a false claim. It's already clear that in this case the "fox was guarding the hen house" (As reported in (1)): "The FAA, citing lack of funding and resources, has over the years delegated increasing authority to Boeing to take on more of the work of certifying the safety of its own airplanes." Note: FAA "is a governmental body of the United States with powers to regulate all aspects of civil aviation." Also note, just as an example: "The FAA has been cited as an example of regulatory capture, in which the airline industry openly dictates to its regulators its governing rules, arranging for not only beneficial regulation, but placing key people to head these regulators." (3) 1) https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faile... ) Also (2): 2) https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/senate-committee-opens-737-max-probe-over-whistle-blower-complaints-about-faa-inspectors-training/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/senat... 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Administration#Conflicting_roles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Administratio... All that is certainly not about the "engineers." And the Senate Committee already investigates.
  - KMag 8y ago
    > Which means the expectancy of the involvement of the judicial system Mob vengeance intermediated by the state is still mob vengeance. > SolaceQuantum also never mentions "engineers." The decision makers certainly included management and engineers, and the OP was ambiguous about which decision makers should be punished. I think my statement is just as true if amended to just read "management". > It's already clear that in this case the "fox was guarding the hen house" A conflict of interest is not proof that one is making decisions in bad faith. We should certainly strive to eliminate conflicts of interest. On the other hand, to jump to the conclusion that decision makers are likely deserving of prison time shows a lack of perspective and empathy. I'm sure a lot of people at Boeing will carry a lot of guilt with them for the rest of their lives over this. Maybe there were decisions made in bad faith, but I think we have far far too little information (and too much hindsight bias in the balance) at this point to determine if those making poor decisions were making them in bad faith, even if there was a clear conflict of interest. It's comforting to believe that most tragedies are the result of evil people making decisions in bad faith, and that most tragedies can be avoided by identifying and punishing these evil people. The real world is seldom so black-and-white, and I strongly oppose our society's common knee-jerk reaction to quickly reach for imprisonment as the solution to the latest tragedy. By all means, punish people who make conscious decisions to harm their fellow humans, but many tragedies don't fit this simple narrative.
- sfopdxnonstop 8y ago
  No, not barbaric, that's the liability attached to all normal activities. "Knew or should have known" is the standard. Boeing management knew or should have known that selling an essential safety system relying on a single sensor is categorically unsafe. All blame to management unless the programmers knowingly miscoded the software.

KMag 8y ago

> If this is indeed what is announced, I sincerely hope the responsible parties for making the decision to go through with MCAS in this way are paid well in jail time. I'm sorry, but your wording sounds like you're advocating taking revenge on engineers / managers for poor decisions made in good faith. That's barbaric, and I hope we as a society move beyond this sort of communal revenge. We'll all be psychologically better off if we encourage more healthy ways of seeking relief from tragedy.

WalterBright 8y ago
Such a proposal would mean no more new airplane designs. Note that modern airliners are much safer than their predecessors. An awful lot of mistakes are only "obvious" in hindsight; engineering is full of such.
- acqq 8y ago
  > Such a proposal would mean But who actually proposed what here?
  - WalterBright 8y ago
    Read the parent of my post.
- chopin 8y ago
  I don't think there is a hindsight here. Boeing made false statements when certifying the plane.
acqq 8y ago
> but your wording sounds like you're advocating taking revenge No. It's you, KMag, who is creating a straw man against SolaceQuantum. SolaceQuantum's actual wording is using "paid well in jail time." Which means the expectancy of the involvement of the judicial system (courts, lawyers etc.) which could also eventually produce such a sentence (jail time). And that is certainly not "advocating taking revenge." SolaceQuantum also never mentions "engineers." It's again your straw man construction and a false claim. It's already clear that in this case the "fox was guarding the hen house" (As reported in (1)): "The FAA, citing lack of funding and resources, has over the years delegated increasing authority to Boeing to take on more of the work of certifying the safety of its own airplanes." Note: FAA "is a governmental body of the United States with powers to regulate all aspects of civil aviation." Also note, just as an example: "The FAA has been cited as an example of regulatory capture, in which the airline industry openly dictates to its regulators its governing rules, arranging for not only beneficial regulation, but placing key people to head these regulators." (3) 1) https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faile... ) Also (2): 2) https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/senate-committee-opens-737-max-probe-over-whistle-blower-complaints-about-faa-inspectors-training/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/senat... 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Administration#Conflicting_roles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Administratio... All that is certainly not about the "engineers." And the Senate Committee already investigates.
- KMag 8y ago
  > Which means the expectancy of the involvement of the judicial system Mob vengeance intermediated by the state is still mob vengeance. > SolaceQuantum also never mentions "engineers." The decision makers certainly included management and engineers, and the OP was ambiguous about which decision makers should be punished. I think my statement is just as true if amended to just read "management". > It's already clear that in this case the "fox was guarding the hen house" A conflict of interest is not proof that one is making decisions in bad faith. We should certainly strive to eliminate conflicts of interest. On the other hand, to jump to the conclusion that decision makers are likely deserving of prison time shows a lack of perspective and empathy. I'm sure a lot of people at Boeing will carry a lot of guilt with them for the rest of their lives over this. Maybe there were decisions made in bad faith, but I think we have far far too little information (and too much hindsight bias in the balance) at this point to determine if those making poor decisions were making them in bad faith, even if there was a clear conflict of interest. It's comforting to believe that most tragedies are the result of evil people making decisions in bad faith, and that most tragedies can be avoided by identifying and punishing these evil people. The real world is seldom so black-and-white, and I strongly oppose our society's common knee-jerk reaction to quickly reach for imprisonment as the solution to the latest tragedy. By all means, punish people who make conscious decisions to harm their fellow humans, but many tragedies don't fit this simple narrative.
sfopdxnonstop 8y ago
No, not barbaric, that's the liability attached to all normal activities. "Knew or should have known" is the standard. Boeing management knew or should have known that selling an essential safety system relying on a single sensor is categorically unsafe. All blame to management unless the programmers knowingly miscoded the software.