3 ms·
So, on the topic of misleading regulators, is Boeing being taken to task for that? I'm following the mainstream media coverage, so I may not be privy to details
by Spartan-S63 8y ago
So, on the topic of misleading regulators, is Boeing being taken to task for that? I'm following the mainstream media coverage, so I may not be privy to details, but is that being made into a big deal. It feels like it should be because regulators signed off on their impression, then Boeing changed the control authority of MCAS without informing regulators.
If this isn't illegal and fineable, I hope the outcome of this makes misleading regulators in this way a criminal act.
- bumby 8y agoI'd like to read more on this, do you have any article sources that go into a deeper dive on how they changed the configuration after certification/testing?
- Spartan-S63 8y agoIf you look at the comment I replied to, their cited source has a section on the change in MCAS control authority to the rear stabilizer.
- bumby 8y agoThat article seems inconclusive to me. The FAA said the software change was news to them but Boeing said the FAA considered the final configuration in their analysis. Either somebody is mis-remembering, outright lying, or they didn't consider the software change a true configuration change.
- HeyLaughingBoy 8y agoNobody needs to remember anything. The phrase "if it's not documented, it didn't happen" means something.
- bumby 8y agoFair enough from a QA standpoint, except the FAA authorities (according to the article) gave them a pass on not documenting it (at least, not documenting it until later). It seems like the FAA was too trusting in this case.