3 hours ago, KevinAu said:

When we begin charging the designers with crimes when a design fails, that is when we stop advancing that industry.

I don't think it`s the designers that it`s about it`s more to with passing the aircraft fit to fly and safe, when an organization passes a product safe and its not and cost lives then criminal proceedings can follow, any company large or same have a duty of safety to the employees and public.   

Boeing and the US Gov are far too cozy, have been always.

This has lead to Boeing being allowed to in part self regulate and otherwise get special treatment, it's all about restrictive practices and no holds barred capitalism.

Such is the American way and they are entitled to it, but what irritates the world outside is how quick they are to jump on other countries restrictive trade policies and state support of industry when America is the champion of such techniques, though it seems China is about to beat them at their own game.

 

The sad part is that in this system of Capitalist extremism, Lives are sacrificed...shame on all concerned.

 

6 hours ago, KevinAu said:

When we begin charging the designers with crimes when a design fails, that is when we stop advancing that industry.

The criminal probe isn’t about the design as such — it’s about whether any crime was committed either by people at Boeing or elsewhere (including the FAA) in the certification process.

I don’t think it very likely a designer is going to be indicted at all, but, if they were, it wouldn’t be for a bad design.

James

8 hours ago, rjfry said:

I don't know if it`s true but I have read that there could be a criminal investigation into the FAA and Boeing over this. 

I noted that on March 22nd...

 

...but it seems that this information has neither been confirmed nor denied.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/probe-of-faas-oversight-of-boeing-737-began-before-second-crash/

Edited April 5, 20197 yr by DrumsArt

I believe there was actually an attempt to pursue criminal charges against Ford for the Pinto. Not the same situation, but Ford was aware of a defect that would cause the Pinto to burst into flames in certain circumstances when rear-ended. They figured the cost of making the necessary modifications was more than they would likely pay from lawsuits, which from a purely economic standpoint could be considered a rational business decision (though that economic decision likely didn’t factor in the consequences of the economic impact when that decision was publicly exposed). 

I’m not saying that is what this criminal probe is about, but I would say there would be little basis for criminal liability for a design that is shown to be negligent. If, however, there was reckless disregard for a known defect that someone knew would result in deaths, or an attempt to cover up a defect as part of regulatory approval, then a criminal case would be viable. 

Upcoming aw&st will have two articles on the max. Some highlights that pertain to things covered here are that they now cite nacelle lift as the factor for adding mcas. There is no evidence of fod as a factor for the et crash. Though ethiopean govt says crew did everything right, within boeing, they dispute this. Questions about the lack of trim switch inputs by the pilots to override the mcas, the delay in cutting out trim, and the reengagement of the trim system. For boeing, questions about the inability to move the manual trim wheel once well out of trim. details about the changes which include dual aoa inputs, cutout when disagreement, limited application of trim. 

Edited April 5, 20197 yr by KevinAu

5 hours ago, IUBrian said:

I’m not saying that is what this criminal probe is about, ...

Like someone said, it's about the certification process. Specifically, it's looking into the FAA delegating parts of the certification process to Boeing which really isn't the point of a third-party agency testing and passing products to make sure they're safe. Also, they're investigating to see if, in that process, things have been rushed and possibly neglected which otherwise might have prevented the current MCAS design to pass.

17 minutes ago, KevinAu said:

aw&st

What's that?

4 minutes ago, threegreen said:

Like someone said, it's about the certification process. Specifically, it's looking into the FAA delegating parts of the certification process to Boeing which really isn't the point of a third-party agency testing and passing products to make sure they're safe. Also, they're investigating to see if, in that process, things have been rushed and possibly neglected which otherwise might have prevented the current MCAS design to pass.

What's that?

Boeing engineer looking at the block diagram of MCAS>>>>>>   " Looks fine to me".......

8 minutes ago, threegreen said:

What's that?

Aviation Week & Space Technology.

Scott

First crash investigated by the FAA and Boeing in the US still under investigation, the second crash investigated out side of the US first report out, the pilots did everything to Boeings recommendations Boeing CEO says sorry the loss of life but the MCAS WAS A FACTOR IN THE CRASH weeks from the crash.  

1 hour ago, threegreen said:

Like someone said, it's about the certification process. Specifically, it's looking into the FAA delegating parts of the certification process to Boeing which really isn't the point of a third-party agency testing and passing products to make sure they're safe. Also, they're investigating to see if, in that process, things have been rushed and possibly neglected which otherwise might have prevented the current MCAS design to pass.

I agree that appears to be the case, but in the course of the investigation there could be an additional basis for criminal liability. My point was that negligence or 20/20 hindsight isn’t going to be the basis for a criminal indictment (but as an attorney, the threat of getting the word not allowed sued out of you as a a deterrent to being negligent is actually a credit to my much maligned profession). 

Edited April 5, 20197 yr by IUBrian

On 4/4/2019 at 5:46 PM, simbol said:

At 05:39:22 and about 1,000 feet the left autopilot (AP) was engaged (it disengaged about 33 seconds later), the flaps were retracted and the pitch trim position decreased to 4.6 units.

My emphasis...

I guess it is quite easy and only natural for all of us to sit and think and ponder what if's and continue the discussion in hindsight.Hence my further questions.

What would have happened if the crew had turned on the right autopilot? We know that the left AOA vane was providing all the rubbish data. Would the right autopilot use the data from the other vane?  If so then might that have allowed the plane to behave and climb away so that the crew would have time to investigate the emergency?

Also despite all the bells and whistles going on in the cockpit, what if the crew were looking out of the window too? Would they know that the attitude of the plane at the time could not possibly be what the left AOA vane was delivering? Would that have helped in the high workload & stress the crew were going through?

On 4/4/2019 at 9:03 PM, KevinAu said:

Ethiopean reportedly hit a bird at takeoff on the vane.

I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.  

59 minutes ago, tooting said:

I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.  

Yes........never trust a bird.....and they are difficult to throw.

In AOPA's AviationeBrief today has a linked article. The summary of which is...

Since MCAS is only supposed to be active when flaps are fully retracted, is it possible that this second issue is related somehow?

Quote

FAA finds 2nd flight safety issue with Boeing Max software

Boeing has confirmed that the company has been ordered to fix a second software issue with the grounded 737 Max. Previously, the Federal Aviation Administration had ordered Boeing to repair a problem with the model's anti-stall software, and now a second issue has emerged on the software that affects flaps.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/ethiopia-says-pilots-performed-boeings-recommendations-to-stop-doomed-aircraft-from-diving-urges-review-of-737-max-flight-control-system/2019/04/04/3a125942-4fec-11e9-bdb7-44f948cc0605_story.html?utm_term=.0de241b1cb21&wpisrc=nl_sb_smartbrief