Keep your seatbelt low and tight in flight, especially when seated next to a plugged door

morrobay said:

This Boeing culture that takes profits over lives needs to be taken criminally accountable https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1WJ2K6/.

Vanadium 50 said:

In the US one cannot jail people for being bad. They have to have actually committed a crime. What crime should they be charged with?

The entry-point is that they were charged with and admitted to conspiracy/fraud:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/boei...aud-conspiracy-and-agrees-pay-over-25-billion

One could see other more severe charges branching out from that(literally, people died in part because of the fraud), but it looks like they settled so I'm not sure it will. IMO, that's insufficient.

[oops, scooped]
[edit]
Note that there is precedent in pharma for executives going to jail for corporate misconduct that lead to deaths. It's probably difficult to detangle how decisions were made and who was responsible if they are complex, but the idea is that ultimately the leadership team is responsible if they knew or should have known (in both the below and for Boeing they clearly knew):
https://www.odtmag.com/contents/vie...former-synthes-executives-jailed-over-deaths/
IMO this was still insufficient though.

Vanadium 50 said:

What crime should they be charged with?

Greg Bernhardt said:

DoJ now investigating
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/justic...oeing-737-max-9-door-blowout-alaska-airlines/

morrobay said:

For example knowingly using sub standard parts.

Is that a crime? I just used a cheap Chinese lightbulb in my fridge until the real one showed up from Amazon. I wonder how long I will be sentenced for,

Vanadium 50 said:

Is that a crime? I just used a cheap Chinese lightbulb in my fridge until the real one showed up from Amazon. I wonder how long I will be sentenced for,

If that lightbulb ends up killing people...

Vanadium 50 said:

Is that a crime?

If you lie about it on federal documents, yes.

Sure...you can put the company on trial. The outcome can be a fine or something called a "consent order", but nobody is going to jail. And the execs get to keep their jobs and most likely their bonuses.

Every time a submarine is launched, there is VP from General Dynamics on board. It's in the contract (at least it was). That caused a very different attitude towards safety.

Vanadium 50 said:

Sure...you can put the company on trial. The outcome can be a fine or something called a "consent order", but nobody is going to jail. And the execs get to keep their jobs and most likely their bonuses.

In the pharma example I gave, the execs lost their jobs and went to prison because of the fraud they committed that got people killed. What it takes is primarily the will to hold them accountable for their decisions/actions.

Ironically, financial fraud is easier to prosecute because the numbers have to add-up. So there are often clearer-cut cases to be made and therefore harsher prison sentences for Enron, for example.

Vanadium 50 said:

Every time a submarine is launched, there is VP from General Dynamics on board. It's in the contract (at least it was). That caused a very different attitude towards safety.

One of the power plants I worked at was the first to use Bechtel's pre-stressed concrete containment buildings. Part of the pre-op testing was a "hydro" where they used a bunch of big diesel air compressors to pump the containment up to 125% of design pressure. The story was, they had the Bechtel lead civil engineer on site taking data from the strain gauges draped around the building.

Vanadium 50 said:

In the US one cannot jail people for being bad.

..., or stupid, greedy, etc.

Plus, the very first thing a corporate officer does, unless they are stupid, is review with a lawyer how to not be personally responsible for what their company does. It may be a criminal investigation, but ultimately it will just be another line item on the P&L statement, maybe; plus some temporary bad PR. When a company is faced with existential, or even significant, competition, the DOJ might be the least of their concerns.

Which reminds me of a (humorous?) response to Mitt Romney's campaign statement (and the Citizens United decision?) "corporations are people" -- "I'll believe that corporations are people when Texas executes one".

russ_watters said:

In the pharma example I gave, the execs lost their jobs and went to prison because of the fraud they committed that got people killed. What it takes is primarily the will to hold them accountable for their decisions/actions.

Ironically, financial fraud is easier to prosecute because the numbers have to add-up. So there are often clearer-cut cases to be made and therefore harsher prison sentences for Enron, for example.

Both are cases of personal fraud, not corporate malfeasance. The difference between them is a bit murky when stock options are a significant part of executive compensation; but sometimes it is obvious.

DaveE said:

Both are cases of personal fraud, not corporate malfeasance. The difference between them is a bit murky when stock options are a significant part of executive compensation; but sometimes it is obvious.

I'm not sure whether that's true, applicable or why it matters. Can you elaborate on what your point is?

Sure, the feds can even pit a company out of business. They did so to Arthur Andersen. But there was still a need for accounting and so many of the partners simply moved elsewhere.

Berardino did OK too - he moved to biotech. If I were feeling snarky, I'd ask why Elizabeth Holmes didn't put him on the board of Theranos. He sounds like just the kind of director she was looking for.

For those of you too young to remember:
The optimist says the glass is half full.
The pessimist says the glass is half empty.
Arthur Andersen asks "How much would you like us to say is in the glass?"

russ_watters said:

I'm not sure whether that's true, applicable or why it matters. Can you elaborate on what your point is?

My point is that Dave Calhoun isn't going to jail, or even trial. The only effect he'll see is a drop in his investment portfolio or a BOD that might sacrifice him for Wall Street. It is all (only) about the corporation's value on Wall Street.

Ultimately it will just be another line item on the P&L statement. That was my point.

DaveE said:

My point is that Dave Calhoun isn't going to jail, or even trial.

Why not? Btw, the one I'd be after is Dennis Muilenburg, who was CEO during the development of the Max and the crashes.

russ_watters said:

Why not? Btw, the one I'd be after is Dennis Muilenburg, who was CEO during the development of the Max and the crashes.

Because a prosecutor won't bring charges of "The CEO told the CFO to reduce expenses". Proving that any of them intended to kill people or were criminally negligent, i.e. should have known that people would die, is essentially impossible. Maybe some middle manger could be tried for lying to the FAA or such, but it won't touch the C-suite.

Prosecutors don't file cases they don't think they can win, even if the perp is a crook.

DaveE said:

Because a prosecutor won't bring charges of "The CEO told the CFO to reduce expenses".

The charge would be instructing employees to falsify federal paperwork. That's already happened, at least for the company.

DaveE said:

Proving that any of them intended to kill people or were criminally negligent, i.e. should have known that people would die, is essentially impossible. Maybe some middle manger could be tried for lying to the FAA or such, but it won't touch the C-suite.

Prosecutors don't file cases they don't think they can win, even if the perp is a crook.

It's not impossible because it's happened before, as my example shows (though the first was a silly suggestion - nobody in these businesses intends to kill people). I'm not saying I know for sure it would succeed, I'm just saying it's a possible option on the table. The 737 Max design was a business decision chock-full of engineering compromises. They were not very hard for an intelligent person to understand even if they were a businessperson and not an engineer, and the decisions that mattered and set up the situation for killing people were absolutely made on the C-Suite level.

The decision to lie to the FAA about it was almost certainly made in the C-suite as well. That's the decision that makes it homicide. The entire point of FAA's oversight is for safety, so it's predictable that the thing you're lying to the FAA about it, it could kill people. It's worse than financial fraud and it's unconscionable that it is punished less harshly.

In 20 years this may replace the Challenger/Morton Thiokol disaster in college ethics courses.
That was more a business failure than an engineering failure, and in hindsight I wonder if it is taught in business ethics too. The main takeaway for engineers is "stand your ground". The takeaway for businesspeople should be "listen to your engineers".

Vanadium 50 said:

Sure, the feds can even put a company out of business. They did so to Arthur Andersen. But there was still a need for accounting and so many of the partners simply moved elsewhere.

Here's my two-fold theory on this: 1) Boeing is too big to fail and 2) government agencies have a mandate to fix the operations (consent decree) vs shutting down the company. And the way the regulations are written, some companies are licensed and others aren't, which makes shutdown clear-cut in some cases but not others. Arthur Andersen lost its license, so it couldn't practice accounting anymore. There's no analogue for aviation -- or pharma, for that matter. So the FAA/FDA just says, 'we're in charge now and we'll force you to fix things.'

....though there is for other types of engineering, such as the structural engineer for the Hyatt walkway collapse, which was also forced out of business. Last I heard their principal engineer now works as an engineering ethics lecturer.

[edit] He passed away in 2012 at age 84: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse

The FAA, and indeed the government as a whole, is nit allowed to do whatever it thinks is a good idea. In particular, the executive branch needs something called "enabling legislation" to act. While firing the entire C-suite, and their replacements (and their replacements, as far down as necessary) might be a good idea.

In theory, the Executive could threaten to disqualify Boeing as a vendor unless there was a management change. I expect Boeing would resist and use an army of lawyers to fight. That's what they did with the KC-X scandal and it worked. By the time they got through with it, the only people who went to jail were in the Pentagon.

As far as the MAX, the defense will say "Golly, try to put in an improved safety system and you get nothing but trouble. And besides, Mr. Government, aren't you the ones telling us we need to design more fuel efficient planes? And beside s- MCAS was invented precisely to satisfy FAA regulations - and the FAA approved it!" That argument may not fly (get it?) with civil litigation, but may well be effective in a criminal trial.

Further, the accident rate looks to be about 1 in 100,000 flight hours (pre-fix). There are 8000 hours in a year. It is impossible to test systems at this level before releasing them. Their lawyers - and did I mention they had an army of them - will certainly bring this up.

They might also point out that the crash rate of other aircraft is higher - almost 3x as high for the Osprey.

I don't see them making criminal charges stick.

Vanadium 50 said:

The FAA, and indeed the government as a whole, is not allowed to do whatever it thinks is a good idea. In particular, the executive branch needs something called "enabling legislation" to act.

Sure, maybe commercial aircraft manufacturers should be licensed, like run-of-the-mill structural engineering firms who build hotel walkways are?

In theory, the Executive could threaten to disqualify Boeing as a vendor unless there was a management change.

That doesn't require legislation, just an angry executive with a pen.

I expect Boeing would resist and use an army of lawyers to fight.

I know I'm punting here, but I'm pretty sure that happened on a stealth bomber or fighter program and didn't pan-out for the sore loser.

That's what they did with the KC-X scandal and it worked. By the time they got through with it, the only people who went to jail were in the Pentagon.

[googles - I'd forgotten about that.] So, I feel like you're arguing against your point, in that the government wields all the power here. After lots of shenanigans they picked Boeing because Boeing.

As far as the MAX, the defense will say "Golly, try to put in an improved safety system and you get nothing but trouble.

We already know that isn't true. What they tried to put in was a system designed to provide blind feedback to the pilots so they wouldn't require re-training. It wasn't sold as a safety system - Indeed, they used that (lack of safety impact) as an attempted defense: but it was a flight control system impacting safety. Clearly.

The question isn't whether it was a well-meaning mistake. It's who knew of/directed the fraudulent attempt to circumvent safety requirements when they implemented a work-around with safety implications falsely presented as a flight control feel enhancement.

And besides, Mr. Government, aren't you the ones telling us we need to design more fuel efficient planes? And beside s- MCAS was invented precisely to satisfy FAA regulations - and the FAA approved it!"

Neither of those are true. MCAS was invented because the 737 is too short to carry bigger engines to satisfy FAA efficiency regulations. It was Boeing's choice to lie about it and bandaid it rather than doing a more substantial redesign of the 737 to accommodate the change. Or, maybe, design a new plane rather than keep patching a 50 year old one? If your company's product doesn't meet the federal requirements and you kill people to avoid a major change to meet those requirements, that's your company's fault, not the government's. Sheesh.

Further, the accident rate looks to be about 1 in 100,000 flight hours (pre-fix). There are 8000 hours in a year. It is impossible to test systems at this level before releasing them. Their lawyers - and did I mention they had an army of them - will certainly bring this up.

Nonsense. It's not about time/breakdown/wear, it's about test parameters. This isn't a hard drive spinning for 100,000 hours. The failure scenario was highly specific and they failed to test for it (yet another failure). Specifically: pito-tube failure (somewhat common) on climb-out triggers the software bug.

They might also point out that the crash rate of other aircraft is higher - almost 3x as high for the Osprey.

The Osprey is a military plane. Airliners, no.

I don't see them making criminal charges stick.

Quite frankly, all of your handwaving-away doesn't have anything at all to do with the crimes. What is a reasonable standard for safety of military vs civilian aircraft (for example) is interesting, but it has nothing at all to do with lying to the government. That's just plain fraud. Fraud that killed people. And they've already basically admitted to it. The only real question here is whether they've been punished adequately for it.

Vanadium 50 said:

Mutual funds are under the same pressures as everybody else....

You might say that well-run companies make more money in the long run, but the evidence is that the fees needed to pick funds that pick well-managed companies is larger than the cost differential.

You also might argue that fund managers can put their feet down and insist that all companies are well-managed. This is good for the economy as a whole, but individual fund managers are compensated based on how they do relative to their peers. A rising tide lifts all boats...except theirs.

This is an aside, but studies have shown that chimpanzees and dartboards pick stocks as well as professional brokers do. But chimps aren't very good salesmen. That's what brokers are and what people pay them for, even if they don't realize it. Individual fund managers are compensated based on the profitability of the fund(for the manager), not the performance of the fund(for the client).

But they vote in shareholder meetings on behalf of the clients they are cheating. This is a systemic problem that causes the focus to be short term(to get the broker his next job) instead of long term(to get the client their best retirement outcome...and the health of the companies).

Oh, I agree that I put a ton of spin on my "Boeing will argue..." message. Because they will, and their history is to try and out-lawyer anyone who stands in their way,

Here;s something else they are going to argue - new aircraft are at their most dangerous in early operations. That's why we wanted to base as much of the MAX design as we could on the tried-and-true 737. They will argue that there was no intent - it was a set of plans to make a safer aircraft that went awry.

For a criminal conviction, you need to convince 12 out of 12 jurors that there is no reasonable doubt. The lawyers will try very hard to spin a tale where that doesn't happen.

My point with the power of the executive is that the power has its limitations, both statutory and practical.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/com...of-work-on-boeing-jet-s-door-plug/ar-BB1jPTPo

NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy said in a letter to senators that investigators sought security camera footage when the door plug was opened and closed in September but were informed the material was overwritten. "The absence of those records will complicate the NTSB’s investigation moving forward," Homendy said.

The NTSB said previously that four key bolts were missing from the door plug that blew out on the plane.

Last week, Homendy said she spoke to Boeing CEO David Calhoun "and asked for the names of the people who performed the work. He stated he was unable to provide that information and maintained that Boeing has no records of the work being performed."

That's bizarre!

Io would imagine that somewhere, someone has to sign and certify the work was done and in compliance with appropriate requirements. If they lack objective evidence that the work was completed, that's a possible violation with potential civil and criminal penalties.

Boeing said its working hypothesis was "the documents required by our processes were not created when the door plug was opened."

Homendy last week criticized what she called Boeing's lack of cooperation and failure to disclose some documents, including on the door plug opening and closing, as well as the names of 25 workers on the door crew at the 737 factory in Renton, Washington. After Homendy's comments, Boeing provided the 25 names.

QC records were not generated or maintained?! That's a big deal.

Usually, at the end, someone responsible signs off that all requirements are met - under penalty of civil and possible criminal charges if the claims are found to be false.

Astronuc said:

That's bizarre!

Io would imagine that somewhere, someone has to sign and certify the work was done and in compliance with appropriate requirements.

It's been reported they kept two sets of books. Perhaps not like Tony Soprano (but then again...) but two sets. One was the official set (which of course in the modern era is a computer application and not a set of leather-bound books) which was a very heavyweight process, with layers and layers of reporting and sign-offs.

The other was unofficial, but more lightweight and easier to use.

Is there any surprise that the two sets got out of sync?

If you have worked at a national lab, you probably had to take "records training". Because the government insists that the Labs follow a strict and specified records-retention policy, the Labs teach people how not to create official records inadvertently. They are not being evil, just trying to do their jobs without a mountain of paperwork.

Lest people misinterpret, in the words of Mr. Spock, "I said I understood. I did not say I approve."

Vanadium 50 said:

Lest people misinterpret, in the words of Mr. Spock, "I said I understood. I did not say I approve."

That's like when I tell my wife that I hear what she's saying.