737max test pilot hung out to dry.

[G-RFRY 1,712]

Former chief test pilot for Boeing charged with lying about flight controls on 737 Max (msn.com)

[W2DR 1,860]

Why to you think he has been "hung out to dry", i.e. abandoned in a time of great need or danger. Wouldn't it better to wait until the investigation is complete before concluding anything? Being charged with a crime is far from being "hung out to dry". Unless, of course, you believe the charges have no basis.

Edited October 15, 2021 by W2DR
kant spel

[rmeier 473]

I agree with W2DR.

I had read earlier reports that this test pilot had willingly deceived at least two regulatory authorities (in writing!) regarding the certification of the aircraft and then joked about how incompetent the authorities were based on his ability to thwart safety protocol. If those reports are in fact true, I don't have any sympathy for his indictment, nor do I agree that he has been hung out to dry.

If your misleading title is a response that no higher management has (yet) been charged with respect to this matter, I would assume that investigation is ongoing to secure evidence (that this dum-dum so easily provided to incriminate himself...apparently).

[bill62 40]

Guess the folks really "hung out to dry" were the poor souls who boarded those planes, trusting that proper safety protocols were followed and in place.

 

[lzamm 143]

 

1 hour ago, rmeier said:

If your misleading title is a response that no higher management has (yet) been charged with respect to this matter, I would assume that investigation is ongoing to secure evidence (that this dum-dum so easily provided to incriminate himself...apparently).

No way.  Boeing settled with the DoJ for 2.5 billion (meaningless, Boeing will just add a few dollars to the price of every plane they sell the USAF) to end a criminal investigation into the department's actions.  The little guy, who doubtless followed his boss's orders and then was dumb enough to crow about it, doesn't get that option.  Hung out to dry is correct.

 

Edited October 15, 2021 by lzamm

[mwilk 1,106]

12 minutes ago, lzamm said:

 

No way.  Boeing settled with the DoJ for 2.5 billion (meaningless, Boeing will just add a few dollars to the price of every plane they sell the USAF) to end a criminal investigation into the department's actions.  The little guy, who doubtless followed his boss's orders and then was dumb enough to crow about it, doesn't get that option.  Hung out to dry is correct.

 

So he bears no responsibility because he was following his bosses' orders? He had the option of telling the truth. His lying cost people's lives. I have no sympathy for him at all. Just following orders didn't work as an excuse after WWII, I doubt it will work here either.

[ESzczesniak 128]

7 minutes ago, lzamm said:

 

No way.  Boeing settled with the DoJ for 2.5 billion (meaningless, Boeing will just add a few dollars to the price of every plane they sell the USAF) to end a criminal investigation into the department's actions.  The little guy, who doubtless followed his boss's orders and then was dumb enough to crow about it, doesn't get that option.  Hung out to dry is correct.

 

That's not the way it works.  When providing information to any regulatory authority such as the FAA, veracity is above all else.  Allegiance to your employer is secondary.  That's why the various whistleblower laws and protections have been put in place.  His only defense would be that he provided information he thought to be true, i.e. Boeing fooled him too.  He blew this by bragging about how easy it was to fool the authorities.  

Yes, it's unfair Boeing had the money to "bribe" a settlement.  But that has no bearing on guilt of Boeing, or this gentlemen (assuming claims to be true).  And it's far more unfair that people boarded an aircraft they trusted to be safe and lost their lives.  Accidents happen, this sounds more than just an accident.  I'm a huge fan of Boeing aircraft (other than the MCAS fiasco), but honestly I'm not sure I can convince myself they should be allowed to continue to remain open...again assuming the allegation of coverups at Boeing to be true.

[dbw1 445]

This has yet to be proved in court. At the moment it is another instance of the media conducting a trial, verdict and sentencing before the matter has its day in court. How can a jury then be selected (assuming jury trial)  with the technical* background to effectively render a verdict and the also selection process to find jurors that have not been affected** by the media. Another question is whether this former employee  has any indemnification from his former employer - if not he is screwed from a simple financial viewpoint as it is unlikely he will have the financial resources to fight the charges effectively.

*possible

**unlikely

[lzamm 143]

14 minutes ago, mwilk said:

So he bears no responsibility because he was following his bosses' orders?

Not saying that at all.  But he's the only one taking the rap. 

 

14 minutes ago, ESzczesniak said:

Yes, it's unfair Boeing had the money to "bribe" a settlement

Not just unfair and unjust.  It also removes any incentive to change things at Boeing, which would be an admission of guilt (remember how long it took them to fix the PTU's on the 737?).  

 

[G-RFRY 1,712]

3 hours ago, W2DR said:

Why to you think he has been "hung out to dry", i.e. abandoned in a time of great need or danger. Wouldn't it better to wait until the investigation is complete before concluding anything? Being charged with a crime is far from being "hung out to dry". Unless, of course, you believe the charges have no basis.

So he`s the only one at Boeing that new about this before Boeing put in service, the management and bosses new nothing.  

[W2DR 1,860]

That has yet to be determined. Personally, I think he's the guy who was picked to spill the beans on who else was involved in exchange for a favorable plea agreement ( and a lesser sentence). There is no doubt, in my mind, that he lied to the F.B.I. I'll be amazed if the "higher ups" knew nothing. I just hope he has some hard documentation to back it up. Or, maybe, he just went off on his own and kept the whole thing a secret. Time will tell.

[lzamm 143]

2 hours ago, W2DR said:

Personally, I think he's the guy who was picked to spill the beans on who else was involved in exchange for a favorable plea agreement

I don't think that's likely.   The charges are hiding information from the FAA, not producing a dangerous aircraft.  The elephant in the room is that the FAA itself seriously dropped the ball on this one through its lack of oversight (much as it did with the 787) and having the excuse of being deliberately misinformed is a useful piece of bureaucratic a$$-covering.

 

 

[enright 496]

Hi All - no need to speculate on this - it's all spelled out in detail in internal emails from this individual and others within Boeing. Word to the wise: if you are doing something that is ethically questionable, and you know its ethically questionable, do not document said behavior in official company emails (or ANY email for that matter).

In general, no one wants to endanger people's lives. It's also true that the drive for profit is sometimes at odds with that statement. At Boeing, it was this person's job to represent pilots, and to prevent things like this exact scenario from happening. He made some extremely poor decisions and knowingly mislead regulators. Other people at Boeing made poor decisions. The FAA made poor decisions. That's how disasters happen - usually not one single mistake, but a series of mistakes that culminate in tragedy. 

Boeing was nearly destroyed and is permanently damaged by this catastrophe  - the entire Airline industry was negatively impacted. It's not as simple as "a fall guy". This individual is one of thousands that will pay a steep price for their poor decisions - though none as high a price as those that lost their lives. 

Here's an incredible documentary on the whole fiasco:

Boeing's Fatal Flaw (full documentary) | FRONTLINE - YouTube