5 ms·

I want to see charges levied against some specific individuals, not an amorphous corporation, in order to drive actual changes to individual’s behavior within s

I want to see charges levied against some specific individuals, not an amorphous corporation, in order to drive actual changes to individual’s behavior within said corporation. The Chief Project Engineer, Michael Teal, would seem to be an appropriate person to be charged. It was his responsibility as the CPE to oversee the safe design and testing of the MAX. It was his responsibility to ensure that adequate engineering processes and resources were in place to assess the safety and certification impact of design changes that occurred as the design matured, in accordance with federal law. (14 CFR §21.93 if you care. Mr. Teal apparently did not.) It was his physical signature on the FAA form 8110-12 Application for Type Certificate that affirmed that all the data provided to the FAA to support certification was true and correct, and it apparently was not. If the Federal Government was defrauded, that would the smoking gun to indicate whodunnit. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Form/8110-12_20240206.pdf https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Form/8110-12_20240... If you want a laugh, just read the transcript of his testimony before Congress. In my opinion, his answers provide clear evidence of his dereliction of duty. Insipid local media coverage: https://archive.is/fPy0p https://archive.is/fPy0p The real meat: https://democrats-transportation.house.gov/imo/media/doc/FINAL%20Michael%20Teal%20(Boeing)%20Transcript%20and%20Exhibits%20and%20Attachment%20(9.9.20).pdf https://democrats-transportation.house.gov/imo/media/doc/FIN...

ianbicking 2y ago
I totally agree that individuals should be targeted, even lower-down people in my opinion. I think it actually protects those people with less authority... when you disobey orders from above in service of executing your duties responsibly it's a meaningful defense to say "people have gone to jail for doing what you are asking me to do." But I also see why it can't happen. If anyone gets charged they have a lot of rights about what information to bring to their defense. Any single individual can pull in the entirety of Boeing. Because Boeing is strategically important to the country (along several axes) that can't happen. (Just in a realpolitik sense.) I do wish at least that notable people in leadership were fired with cause. It's inadequate, but at least it's something.
- newZWhoDis 2y ago
  Boeing is a strategic embarrassment to the United States. Jail 5 layers deep from the CEO to send a message.
- pas 2y ago
  Yes, in some sense it's important to have airplane manufacturing capability, but it's not important that it has to be Boeing. And it's definitely not the case that it has to be this iteration of Boeing. Yes, let the chips fall, clean up the floor, and if it's that important to have this, then the state with the prospective buyers can help restart Boeing. (There are thousands of Boeing planes that need servicing, replacement parts, and there are probably pending orders. It's not like it's a burn pit for money.)
lolinder 2y ago
Criminal charges aside, I thought the whole premise of having licensed engineers was that licenses can be revoked if the engineer screws up badly enough. Presumably this CPE has a license in some engineering discipline and should most definitely not have that license anymore, no? If we can't even get that right we're definitely not going to escalate to criminal charges.
- nyokodo 2y ago
  > I thought the whole premise of having licensed engineers was that licenses can be revoked if the engineer screws up badly enough The cynical take is that the primary role of industry licensing bodies is to limit competition to insiders. I suppose we’ll find out if it’s more realistic than cynical if this individual remains licensed.
- CuriousCosmic 2y ago
  Yes and no. In some industries (namely civil), licensed engineers actually deal with the weight of their licenses. In others it seems like there isn't enough weight for licensed engineers to actually care. A bunch of engineers may work on a project but then a handful quickly go through and sign off on the drawings. You could go through your entire career as a mech E or chem E without getting a license. You still do the same job, just someone else signs off on it. So there is unfortunately in a lot of places a culture where licensing is less about holding the actual engineers responsible and more about having a designated fall guy to throw to the wolves in the event something goes wrong.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    Well, right, but where is the fall guy at Boeing? Someone put their signature on everything, why are they still practicing?
- addandsubtract 2y ago
  Also, what is the "responsibility" of a C-level, if not for faults like this? I thought that was the argument for getting 7+ figures.
sholladay 2y ago
I’m not disagreeing with you, but the whole point of a corporation existing is to have a legal entity that takes responsibility for the work of one or more individuals. The corporation provides the basis for limited liability, to the extent of the law. In theory, this protection isn’t supposed to cover criminal liability. But we often see it do just that or something adjacent to it. Corporations get punished all the time, but their board of directors, officers, employees, and shareholders rarely do. Even in cases where people knowingly and deliberately make dangerous decisions. I don’t think this is going to change without fundamentally reconsidering the role of corporations in our society. Which… is unlikely to happen anytime soon.
- buildsjets 2y ago
  No. A corporation in an entity formed to provide a limited liability legal shield for the owners and investors of the company. It does not protect the officers who operate the company. Officers of corporations go to jail all the time for violating the law for the benefit of their company. Including Boeing employees, for example, Darlene Drunyun and Michael Sears, if you feel like checking out their Wikipedia entries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_M._Sears https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_M._Sears https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darleen_Druyun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darleen_Druyun
rurban 2y ago
Thanks for the real meat, the transcript. So now, why is it forbidden for participants to record the interview also? Apparently only the court is allowed to do so, which makes editing / censoring / falsifying court records really easy. This sounds extremely worrying to me. I only found this UK legislation https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Guidance-No.-42-Remote-Hearings.pdf https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Guidance...
- yencabulator 2y ago
  Generally, courts can strike items from the transcript, if someone misspeaks / reveals things they were not supposed to reveal / if a witness speaks to things that were not part of the question, etc. That mechanism would slip a lot more often if there were multiple recordings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_to_strike_(court_of_law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_to_strike_(court_of_law... I'm pretty sure committees examining confidential materials routinely have someone review the transcript for accidental disclosures.

ianbicking 2y ago

I totally agree that individuals should be targeted, even lower-down people in my opinion. I think it actually protects those people with less authority... when you disobey orders from above in service of executing your duties responsibly it's a meaningful defense to say "people have gone to jail for doing what you are asking me to do." But I also see why it can't happen. If anyone gets charged they have a lot of rights about what information to bring to their defense. Any single individual can pull in the entirety of Boeing. Because Boeing is strategically important to the country (along several axes) that can't happen. (Just in a realpolitik sense.) I do wish at least that notable people in leadership were fired with cause. It's inadequate, but at least it's something.

newZWhoDis 2y ago
Boeing is a strategic embarrassment to the United States. Jail 5 layers deep from the CEO to send a message.
pas 2y ago
Yes, in some sense it's important to have airplane manufacturing capability, but it's not important that it has to be Boeing. And it's definitely not the case that it has to be this iteration of Boeing. Yes, let the chips fall, clean up the floor, and if it's that important to have this, then the state with the prospective buyers can help restart Boeing. (There are thousands of Boeing planes that need servicing, replacement parts, and there are probably pending orders. It's not like it's a burn pit for money.)

lolinder 2y ago

Criminal charges aside, I thought the whole premise of having licensed engineers was that licenses can be revoked if the engineer screws up badly enough. Presumably this CPE has a license in some engineering discipline and should most definitely not have that license anymore, no? If we can't even get that right we're definitely not going to escalate to criminal charges.

nyokodo 2y ago
> I thought the whole premise of having licensed engineers was that licenses can be revoked if the engineer screws up badly enough The cynical take is that the primary role of industry licensing bodies is to limit competition to insiders. I suppose we’ll find out if it’s more realistic than cynical if this individual remains licensed.
CuriousCosmic 2y ago
Yes and no. In some industries (namely civil), licensed engineers actually deal with the weight of their licenses. In others it seems like there isn't enough weight for licensed engineers to actually care. A bunch of engineers may work on a project but then a handful quickly go through and sign off on the drawings. You could go through your entire career as a mech E or chem E without getting a license. You still do the same job, just someone else signs off on it. So there is unfortunately in a lot of places a culture where licensing is less about holding the actual engineers responsible and more about having a designated fall guy to throw to the wolves in the event something goes wrong.
- lolinder 2y ago
  Well, right, but where is the fall guy at Boeing? Someone put their signature on everything, why are they still practicing?
addandsubtract 2y ago
Also, what is the "responsibility" of a C-level, if not for faults like this? I thought that was the argument for getting 7+ figures.

sholladay 2y ago

I’m not disagreeing with you, but the whole point of a corporation existing is to have a legal entity that takes responsibility for the work of one or more individuals. The corporation provides the basis for limited liability, to the extent of the law. In theory, this protection isn’t supposed to cover criminal liability. But we often see it do just that or something adjacent to it. Corporations get punished all the time, but their board of directors, officers, employees, and shareholders rarely do. Even in cases where people knowingly and deliberately make dangerous decisions. I don’t think this is going to change without fundamentally reconsidering the role of corporations in our society. Which… is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

buildsjets 2y ago
No. A corporation in an entity formed to provide a limited liability legal shield for the owners and investors of the company. It does not protect the officers who operate the company. Officers of corporations go to jail all the time for violating the law for the benefit of their company. Including Boeing employees, for example, Darlene Drunyun and Michael Sears, if you feel like checking out their Wikipedia entries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_M._Sears https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_M._Sears https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darleen_Druyun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darleen_Druyun

rurban 2y ago

Thanks for the real meat, the transcript. So now, why is it forbidden for participants to record the interview also? Apparently only the court is allowed to do so, which makes editing / censoring / falsifying court records really easy. This sounds extremely worrying to me. I only found this UK legislation https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Guidance-No.-42-Remote-Hearings.pdf https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Guidance...

yencabulator 2y ago
Generally, courts can strike items from the transcript, if someone misspeaks / reveals things they were not supposed to reveal / if a witness speaks to things that were not part of the question, etc. That mechanism would slip a lot more often if there were multiple recordings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_to_strike_(court_of_law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_to_strike_(court_of_law... I'm pretty sure committees examining confidential materials routinely have someone review the transcript for accidental disclosures.