
Boeing 2016 internal messages suggest employees may have misled FAA on 737 MAX - HugoHobling
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-airplane-boeing-exclusive/exclusive-boeing-2016-internal-messages-suggest-employees-may-have-misled-faa-on-737-max-sources-idUSKBN1WX25G
======
tspike
The actual transcript is illuminating. This feels like corporate throwing the
test pilots under the bus.

[https://graphics.reuters.com/BOEING-737/0100B2J51TY/Boeing%2...](https://graphics.reuters.com/BOEING-737/0100B2J51TY/Boeing%20Document.pdf)

------
Obi_Juan_Kenobi
Why are journalists still calling this an 'anti-stall' system. It's not, and
it's so deceptive about what it actually does. The crashes had nothing to do
with stalls, the system does nothing to prevent stalls, and the safety
regulations that brought it about are only indirectly related to stalls.

The system affects _how the flight stick feels_ and that's really it. The more
you pull up (higher AoA), the more force is needed on the stick. That's
supposed to be linear within some margin of error. The big fat new engines
took it out of the linear envelope, making it a bit lighter than it 'should'
be at high AoA as the engines caught the wind. They either fixed this, or else
needed a new type rating (pilots can't hold more than one, so it's a _huge_
issue for existing operators of 737s).

The solution was MCAS which, as originally designed, wasn't powerful enough to
cause problems. But test pilots said that the stick was still a bit light, so
they reworked it and made it way too strong, while still being invisible to
pilots and lacking the reliability of a critical system. Then several hundred
people died.

~~~
anticensor
> pilots can't hold more than one, so it's a huge issue for existing operators
> of 737s

You can hold more than one but you need to maintain each separately.

------
jonplackett
What’s the implication here? That it’s these pilot’s fault? Surely their job
is just to report what they experience during a flight sim and it’s someone
else who would have decided to hide that.

~~~
mattlondon
The implication is that people at Boeing _knew_ there were problems with MCAS
before the crashes happened. I am not saying these particular guys are at
fault.

The transcript ([https://tmsnrt.rs/2OZl4Ic](https://tmsnrt.rs/2OZl4Ic)) shows
them specifically talking about MCAS doing weird stuff in simulators and they
they didn't know what was going on, or what the expected behaviour was.
Interesting that it happened in a _simulator_ where I presume that sensors
don't sporadically break or deliberately give duff readings in what is
probably a lot of highly controlled tests... perhaps a pure software error?

Did this problem just get lost somewhere in the noise of development? Was it
"unreproducible" (in the bug sense)? Was it willfully ignored by "the
management"? Who knows - but we now _do know_ that some people at Boeing
involved in development were aware of problems before the crashes.

Pretty sad really.

~~~
MFLoon
Simulators can "break" in the sense that support simulating various failure
modes, including presumably sensor malfunctions. It's very possible that they
stumbled on the exact conditions that led to the real world crashes, which
would be even more damning.

~~~
mattlondon
Yeah absolutely but if you are running a simulation/test would you
deliberately inject some random sensor failure if you are doing your tests for
something else?

It is not clear what they were testing - perhaps they were indeed testing the
MCAS system with sensor failures, but if so I probably wouldn't have expected
such a surprised resction from them. It seemed like it was totally unexpected
and unexplained, which is not a reaction I would expect if they were testing
this.

~~~
jjoonathan
AoA sensors are far from specific to MCAS. They may have been injecting AoA
faults to test some other system that depends on the AoA sensors.

~~~
mattlondon
Sure - but either way it doesn't look good.

------
situational87
>The pilot, Mark Forkner, complained that the system, known as MCAS, was
causing him trouble. “It’s running rampant in the sim,” he said in a message
to a colleague, referring to the simulator. "Granted, I suck at flying, but
even this was egregious,” he went on to say, according to a transcript of the
exchange reviewed by The New York Times.

People need to go to prison over this.

~~~
privateSFacct
Boeing has designed planes that have an INCREDIBLE safety record, particularly
when flying in US regulated airspace.

Interesting that prison time is demanded here when a much more simple
explanation is that this was an oversight by the pilots in the sim who didn't
fully understand the issue was MCAS related.

Millions killed from opioid epidemics, thousands killed from violence and
various preventable diseases, huge number of road fatalities do not result in
prison time.

The safety record of aviation in the US should be applauded.

~~~
atonse
So you want to use their historical record as some kind of justification for
their dismal record with the 737 MAX, as if one is related to the other?

Cold comfort to the 300+ lives, and families destroyed.

Watch this video:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2tuKiiznsY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2tuKiiznsY)

This isn't just some "oops, these were badly trained pilots" – the whole
premise of MCAS is seriously screwed up and smacks of non-engineers running
the place.

~~~
Gpetrium
What op seems to imply is that airplane incidents rates actually have a
stronger track record as opposed to the opioid epidemic, road fatality, etc.
And that if society believes that this individual/group should go to prison
based on this mistake and in hindsight, without account for all the other
factors that were a part of the decision making process, then society should
start reconsidering the way it treats opioid, road fatality, etc.

The mindset of "quick to imprison" can also run the risk of creating a society
that is overly averse to risk taking, which can hinder technology and
scientific advances. For example, it may take 10 times as long to get a new,
more advanced traffic light implemented in your city because now everyone
wants to make sure no stone was left unturned, otherwise someone will get into
an accident and a staff/group will be imprisoned. Or a new software is
implemented but 3 months later it is found that failure under very specific
scenarios has caused over 50 deaths. There are millions of potential scenarios
that may fall under similar conditions as exemplified above.

Please note that this writing is not advocating for or against either views,
it is simply shedding light on risks that should be considered.

~~~
luckylion
Has anybody argued that nobody else should be punished, ever? Otherwise "but
there's drug addiction and car accidents! We shouldn't pass judgement on
Boeing until everything else is perfect" is a really strange argument.

~~~
privateSFacct
The really strange argument is saying it is totally OK for people to willfully
engage in activities that result in significant and ongoing fatality rates
within the bounds of US law without punishment (slaps on the wrist for
everything from willful pollution to opiods where the investigators were waved
off) and then demand jail time for folks who have no fatalities within US law
AND have an incredible safety record in their field, a record FAR FAR better
then lots of other areas (drug distribution, medical malpractice, enviro
health and safety etc).

If you wanted to reduce auto accident rates, opiod deaths etc you'd put these
folks in charge, not put the law enforcement lobby in charge (yes, they will
arrest lots of low level offenders but will not systematically address the
issues and do not chase the folks at the top).

------
stupidcar
Quelle surprise

~~~
dang
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and/or flamebait to HN?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
notadoc
The repetitional damage to Boeing on this has to be considerable.

