4 ms·

Yep. "We don't need to brief anyone on the technicals of our plane, we know better and it's great for stock prices to mislead buyers into thinking it's just a

by junon 3y ago

Yep. "We don't need to brief anyone on the technicals of our plane, we know better and it's great for stock prices to mislead buyers into thinking it's just a New and Improved model of the same plane flyable in the exact same way!" It's criminal. They should be criminally charged. I hope this goes through, and I hope prosecutors sweep up all of the floor workers who have already stated they would never fly in the newer planes.

nemo44x 3y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- user_7832 3y ago
  I think criminal negligence might be one. Even if a law doesn't exist, such behaviour should absolutely be corrected, and if the market can't do it then the government must step in.
- junon 3y ago
  Misleading marketing, skirting inspection regulation by employing your own inspectors, failing to notify pilots of a system that could not initially be overridden (directly causing two flights to nose dive, killing everyone on board). Ignoring safety concerns from employees (negligence). I'm not a lawyer so I'm sure the list could go on. EDIT: probably having a single point of failure for that catastrophic system (a single sensor) could be something.
  - nemo44x 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - junon 3y ago
      Negligent homicide and/or involuntary manslaughter, and false or misleading information resulting in a death (18 U.S. Code § 1038) both are. I would imagine evidence tampering is another.
  - rainsford 3y ago
    I'm all for calling the MCAS system bad engineering, but raising any of those things to the level of criminality seems a bit ridiculous. Lacking sensor redundancy is arguably a bad design decision, but what law was actually broken?
    - salawat 3y ago
      Criminal negligence. It is obvious to any practitioner the safety consequences of implementing systems that way. Fraud would be another. Agents of Boeing represented to airlines and regulators that training nor knowledge of implementation details were necessary for safe operation. Airlines and regulators relied on that misrepresentation to the public's and their own detriment. Finally, securities fraud. The problem of course, is any evidence from the NTSB must be omitted from any criminal prosecution.
      - rainsford 3y ago
        > Criminal negligence. It is obvious to any practitioner the safety consequences of implementing systems that way. I'm not an aerospace engineer, but it doesn't seem at all obvious the design of MCAS would rise to the level of criminal negligence, which is an understandably high bar. It's not a flight critical system (pilots can easily safely fly the plane without it functioning) and pilots are trained to respond to issues with automatic trim regardless of the cause. The particular failure mode of the system and the difficulty the pilots had in responding to it, even after they knew about it in the case of the second MAX crash, should obviously be addressed and arguably should have been considered during the design phase. But I don't see any world where that reasonably meets the bar of criminal liability. > Fraud would be another. Agents of Boeing represented to airlines and regulators that training nor knowledge of implementation details were necessary for safe operation. Again I don't see how that meets the criminal fraud bar unless Boeing knew in advance that extra training and awareness were required and deliberately chose not to provide those things.
        salawat 3y ago
        MCAS's design was single sensor because dual sensor eould not have skated by the FAA without simulator time as a requirement which Boeing could not afford, because their contracts were competitive over Airbus contingent on there not being simulator training required to get pilots type rated. Boeing absolutely knew. As Upton Sinclair famously states however, it is hard to get a man to understand that which his paycheck depends on him not understanding.
- dylan604 3y ago
  Negligent homicide would be one that seems applicable to this non-lawyer but watches cop/lawyer dramas on TV. Or you could take your pick from this wiki article on Corporate Crime: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_crime
- dclowd9901 3y ago
  Criminal negligence is the act of knowingly creating a dangerous situation. Of course, it’s extremely difficult to prosecute that “knowingly” part. Though I’d argue a reinterpretation of that is in order: as a company exec, it is negligent to not know what is going on within your company.

by junon 3y ago

nemo44x 3y ago

[flagged]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
user_7832 3y ago
I think criminal negligence might be one. Even if a law doesn't exist, such behaviour should absolutely be corrected, and if the market can't do it then the government must step in.
junon 3y ago
Misleading marketing, skirting inspection regulation by employing your own inspectors, failing to notify pilots of a system that could not initially be overridden (directly causing two flights to nose dive, killing everyone on board). Ignoring safety concerns from employees (negligence). I'm not a lawyer so I'm sure the list could go on. EDIT: probably having a single point of failure for that catastrophic system (a single sensor) could be something.
- nemo44x 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - junon 3y ago
    Negligent homicide and/or involuntary manslaughter, and false or misleading information resulting in a death (18 U.S. Code § 1038) both are. I would imagine evidence tampering is another.
- rainsford 3y ago
  I'm all for calling the MCAS system bad engineering, but raising any of those things to the level of criminality seems a bit ridiculous. Lacking sensor redundancy is arguably a bad design decision, but what law was actually broken?
  - salawat 3y ago
    Criminal negligence. It is obvious to any practitioner the safety consequences of implementing systems that way. Fraud would be another. Agents of Boeing represented to airlines and regulators that training nor knowledge of implementation details were necessary for safe operation. Airlines and regulators relied on that misrepresentation to the public's and their own detriment. Finally, securities fraud. The problem of course, is any evidence from the NTSB must be omitted from any criminal prosecution.
    - rainsford 3y ago
      > Criminal negligence. It is obvious to any practitioner the safety consequences of implementing systems that way. I'm not an aerospace engineer, but it doesn't seem at all obvious the design of MCAS would rise to the level of criminal negligence, which is an understandably high bar. It's not a flight critical system (pilots can easily safely fly the plane without it functioning) and pilots are trained to respond to issues with automatic trim regardless of the cause. The particular failure mode of the system and the difficulty the pilots had in responding to it, even after they knew about it in the case of the second MAX crash, should obviously be addressed and arguably should have been considered during the design phase. But I don't see any world where that reasonably meets the bar of criminal liability. > Fraud would be another. Agents of Boeing represented to airlines and regulators that training nor knowledge of implementation details were necessary for safe operation. Again I don't see how that meets the criminal fraud bar unless Boeing knew in advance that extra training and awareness were required and deliberately chose not to provide those things.
      - salawat 3y ago
        MCAS's design was single sensor because dual sensor eould not have skated by the FAA without simulator time as a requirement which Boeing could not afford, because their contracts were competitive over Airbus contingent on there not being simulator training required to get pilots type rated. Boeing absolutely knew. As Upton Sinclair famously states however, it is hard to get a man to understand that which his paycheck depends on him not understanding.
dylan604 3y ago
Negligent homicide would be one that seems applicable to this non-lawyer but watches cop/lawyer dramas on TV. Or you could take your pick from this wiki article on Corporate Crime: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_crime
dclowd9901 3y ago
Criminal negligence is the act of knowingly creating a dangerous situation. Of course, it’s extremely difficult to prosecute that “knowingly” part. Though I’d argue a reinterpretation of that is in order: as a company exec, it is negligent to not know what is going on within your company.