Mods, there are quite a few open threads regarding the 737MAX issues and fallout, if this should be in one of those threads I apologize in advance. If this has already been discussed I’m sorry, like I said there are a few open threads going on at the same time.

That being said:

The Justice Department has issued official notices to Boeing to hand over documents and info relating to their FAA certification and pilot training practices.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/justi ... ar-BBV1TOn

The Justice Department should be investigating the FAA as well.

JAAlbert wrote:

The Justice Department should be investigating the FAA as well.

I would have to agree.

Here’s more,

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/fbi-joining-criminal-investigation-into-certification-of-boeing-737-max/

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Here’s more,

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/fbi-joining-criminal-investigation-into-certification-of-boeing-737-max/

Oh dear.

JAAlbert wrote:

The Justice Department should be investigating the FAA as well.

I think thats the IG not DOJ who would do that. Or Congress?

ikramerica wrote:

JAAlbert wrote:

The Justice Department should be investigating the FAA as well.

I think thats the IG not DOJ who would do that. Or Congress?

Well whatever or whoever -- it just seems to me that you can't give away your authority and then claim surprise when someone else uses it to their advantage.

I thought I'd read something long the lines of JPATS looking to add some Boeing 737s....but I guess its pouring at Boeing these days...

CLTRampRat wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Here’s more,

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/fbi-joining-criminal-investigation-into-certification-of-boeing-737-max/

Oh dear.

Yeah. Like I've said before I wonder when and if the MAX is allowed to fly passengers again and how far this ball will roll.
And now, depending on what is found and the law suits to follow from Airlines, passengers and countries, what will be the state of Boeing and FAA when the dust settles.

JAAlbert wrote:

The Justice Department should be investigating the FAA as well.

Agreed.

JAAlbert wrote:

The Justice Department should be investigating the FAA as well.

Yep. Fully agree.

If they find Boeing and the FAA guilty then could airlines sue either one of the two? Also don't national aviation authorities also need to approve new aircraft?

Blerg wrote:

If they find Boeing and the FAA guilty then could airlines sue either one of the two? Also don't national aviation authorities also need to approve new aircraft?

I don't know about airlines, maybe they could cancel their contracts if they want to?
I'm almost certain that relatives of the one deceased can sue Boeing if they get convicted.

IWMBH wrote:

Blerg wrote:

If they find Boeing and the FAA guilty then could airlines sue either one of the two? Also don't national aviation authorities also need to approve new aircraft?

I don't know about airlines, maybe they could cancel their contracts if they want to?
I'm almost certain that relatives of the one deceased can sue Boeing if they get convicted.

True, they could always claim MAX isn't what they were promised to be, not to mention that the model is unsafe.

ikramerica wrote:

JAAlbert wrote:

The Justice Department should be investigating the FAA as well.

I think thats the IG not DOJ who would do that. Or Congress?

DoT's IG to be specific, according to the article:

Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao on Tuesday asked the agency's inspector general to investigate the Max certification.

The article also addresses one of my questions:

It's not yet clear what possible criminal laws could be at issue in the probe. Among the things the investigators are looking into is the process by which Boeing itself certified the plane as safe, and the data it presented the FAA about that self-certification, the sources said.

The FBI Seattle office and Justice Department's criminal division in Washington are leading the investigation.

What crimes could be committed in this space?

Seattle Times suggested FAA inspectors felt pressured by their bosses to deliver results more quickly. Guess what: most of us get such pressure every day.

ST suggested that FAA technical people felt that FAA managers delegated too much certification scope to Boeing yet also said it was management's prerogative to do so.

ST suggested that Boeing made changes to the way MCAS worked after the certification was done and did not update them on that. If proven true, is that a criminal offense?

ST suggested as always that FAA favors the advancement of aviation (i.e. commercial interests) over aviation interests. Seems to be more an issue for Congress than DoJ, IMHO.

To me that mainly leaves the issue of ordinary crimes such as fraud or corruption, but I've seen no allegations of that anywhere.

In the end it might be a lot of looking and not a lot of finding, IMHO.

A criminal case (such as racketeering, reckless endangerment, conspiracy to defraud the government etc) the FBI could handle here without any conflict needing an outside or independent counsel.

Any airline suits or claims (such as for fraudulent misrepresentation or breach of contract/duty) could take note of facts made public in any DOJ/FBI case that is tried.

Blerg wrote:

IWMBH wrote:

Blerg wrote:

If they find Boeing and the FAA guilty then could airlines sue either one of the two? Also don't national aviation authorities also need to approve new aircraft?

I don't know about airlines, maybe they could cancel their contracts if they want to?
I'm almost certain that relatives of the one deceased can sue Boeing if they get convicted.

True, they could always claim MAX isn't what they were promised to be, not to mention that the model is unsafe.

I think according to the Boeing press releases, the MAX is safe, not safer. The upgrades would make a safe aircraft safer...

Where does it stink the most? I want names. Who is responsible for MCAS? Systems integration? Testing and certification? Who besides Dennis Muilenburg? Eric Linblad?

I personally believe that this is going nowhere. They have to look; but, I think they will find that there were no criminal activities involved.

Have a great day,

Very, very interesting read. Seems like buying planes from Boeing is like buying a ticket on an LCC.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/busi ... harge.html

From the article:

Neither feature was mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration. All 737 Max jets have been grounded.

“They’re critical, and cost almost nothing for the airlines to install,” said Bjorn Fehrm, an analyst at the aviation consultancy Leeham. “Boeing charges for them because it can. But they’re vital for safety.”

Blerg wrote:

Very, very interesting read. Seems like buying planes from Boeing is like buying a ticket on an LCC.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/busi ... harge.html

From the article:

Neither feature was mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration. All 737 Max jets have been grounded.

“They’re critical, and cost almost nothing for the airlines to install,” said Bjorn Fehrm, an analyst at the aviation consultancy Leeham. “Boeing charges for them because it can. But they’re vital for safety.”

Holy hell, this stuff should be standard equipment! I've always been a Boeing fan but more and more I'm left shaking my head.. I hope the company learns from this and comes out a better organization, but I fear any would be short lived.

As to the FBI/DOJ looking into, very smart thing to do, not sure much will come of it.

[code][/code]

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

Where does it stink the most? I want names. Who is responsible for MCAS? Systems integration? Testing and certification? Who besides Dennis Muilenburg? Eric Linblad?

Hamilton.

He's now in charge of the lion air and Ethiopian crash team.
He knows first hand which evidence has to be shredded ASAP.

Boeing is taking no chances.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... sh-456777/

You couldn't make it up, I know.

HaulSudson wrote:

[code][/code]

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

Where does it stink the most? I want names. Who is responsible for MCAS? Systems integration? Testing and certification? Who besides Dennis Muilenburg? Eric Linblad?

Hamilton.

He's now in charge of the lion air and Ethiopian crash team.
He knows first hand which evidence has to be shredded ASAP.

Boeing is taking no chances.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... sh-456777/

You couldn't make it up, I know.

They know they are facing jail time if they take out the shredders.

2175301 wrote:

I personally believe that this is going nowhere. They have to look; but, I think they will find that there were no criminal activities involved.

It's funny how few seem to be allowing for this kind of outcome.

In another thread we have posters saying blame should be assigned before the facts are known.

Seems due process is a concept lost on them.

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

They know they are facing jail time if they take out the shredders.

You don't want to mess around when US prosecutors have dropped subpoenas on you.

Ref: Deiselgate.

Clearly for Boeing the question is not if they are in the shit, but how deep. It gets worse every day...

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk

Revelation wrote:

Seattle Times suggested FAA inspectors felt pressured by their bosses to deliver results more quickly. Guess what: most of us get such pressure every day.

ST suggested that FAA technical people felt that FAA managers delegated too much certification scope to Boeing yet also said it was management's prerogative to do so.

ST suggested that Boeing made changes to the way MCAS worked after the certification was done and did not update them on that. If proven true, is that a criminal offense?

ST suggested as always that FAA favors the advancement of aviation (i.e. commercial interests) over aviation interests. Seems to be more an issue for Congress than DoJ, IMHO.

To me that mainly leaves the issue of ordinary crimes such as fraud or corruption, but I've seen no allegations of that anywhere.

In the end it might be a lot of looking and not a lot of finding, IMHO.

Good summary and I agree with your conclusion.

The one thing I do fear, is that these type of folks won't stop investigating digging until they found something they think is not right and should be prosecuted, without fully understanding the underlying context.

JAAlbert wrote:

ikramerica wrote:

JAAlbert wrote:

The Justice Department should be investigating the FAA as well.

I think thats the IG not DOJ who would do that. Or Congress?

Well whatever or whoever -- it just seems to me that you can't give away your authority and then claim surprise when someone else uses it to their advantage.

Proof? please these are complicated procedures that aren't simply a matter of "giving away authority"

This isn't the first time this has happened. Lauda 405 was also due to a critical design flaw that was improperly tested by Boeing and approved by the FAA.

As long as regulatory bodies allow manufactures to determine on their own what's safe, this things are gonna happen. Sadly, the FAA has been known as the "Tombstone Agency" for years.

nycbjr wrote:

Holy hell, this stuff should be standard equipment! I've always been a Boeing fan but more and more I'm left shaking my head.. I hope the company learns from this and comes out a better organization, but I fear any would be short lived.

Short lived? Boeing have often had engineering issues with new types. Some examples from the jet era:

- Lack of rudder boost on the 707 which led to dozens of deaths in training accidents due to lack of control authority with an outer engine failed. Forced to make the change by the UK regulator so as to sell to BOAC;
- Four 727 approach crashes at night within six months of entering service in 1965, killing over 280. Whilst the root cause was identified, most perished because of fires started when broken generator leads ignited the severed centre-section aluminium fuel lines. Those were replaced in 300 in-service aircraft with stronger, flexible tubes in an emergency fix program;
- 737 Classic rudder actuator, often discussed here;
- 747 tail control runs inadequately separated, leading to loss of control when rear pressure bulkhead failed. 505 died due to this.
- 767 thrust reverser issues already mentioned

In fact the 757 and 777 are the only two which come to mind which didn't suffer from significant engineering oversights or shortcuts.

ELBOB wrote:

nycbjr wrote:

Holy hell, this stuff should be standard equipment! I've always been a Boeing fan but more and more I'm left shaking my head.. I hope the company learns from this and comes out a better organization, but I fear any would be short lived.

Short lived? Boeing have often had engineering issues with new types. Some examples from the jet era:

- Lack of rudder boost on the 707 which led to dozens of deaths in training accidents due to lack of control authority with an outer engine failed. Forced to make the change by the UK regulator so as to sell to BOAC;
- Four 727 approach crashes at night within six months of entering service in 1965, killing over 280. Whilst the root cause was identified, most perished because of fires started when broken generator leads ignited the severed centre-section aluminium fuel lines. Those were replaced in 300 in-service aircraft with stronger, flexible tubes in an emergency fix program;
- 737 Classic rudder actuator, often discussed here;
- 747 tail control runs inadequately separated, leading to loss of control when rear pressure bulkhead failed. 505 died due to this.
- 767 thrust reverser issues already mentioned

In fact the 757 and 777 are the only two which come to mind which didn't suffer from significant engineering oversights or shortcuts.

Different times now. Even the 777 was 30 years ago.

It is 2019.

New Planes falling out of the sky are unacceptable


Heck, new space shuttles falling out of the sky are unacceptable.

nycbjr wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Very, very interesting read. Seems like buying planes from Boeing is like buying a ticket on an LCC.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/busi ... harge.html

From the article:

Neither feature was mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration. All 737 Max jets have been grounded.

“They’re critical, and cost almost nothing for the airlines to install,” said Bjorn Fehrm, an analyst at the aviation consultancy Leeham. “Boeing charges for them because it can. But they’re vital for safety.”

Holy hell, this stuff should be standard equipment! I've always been a Boeing fan but more and more I'm left shaking my head.. I hope the company learns from this and comes out a better organization, but I fear any would be short lived.

As to the FBI/DOJ looking into, very smart thing to do, not sure much will come of it.

I mean thousands of people die every year in auto accidents that probably could be avoided with modern safety tech, if their cars had them. No one blames ford is someone dies in a crash that could have been avoided if they bought forward collision assist. It's not really different

If, as it seems thus far, a potentially critical safety component was made a costed 'optional extra' (at great profit to Boeing) they are going to have to dig VERY deep into their pockets here.

JAAlbert wrote:

The Justice Department should be investigating the FAA as well.

And EASA.

DL717 wrote:

JAAlbert wrote:

The Justice Department should be investigating the FAA as well.

And EASA.

Erm...why?

ELBOB wrote:

nycbjr wrote:

Holy hell, this stuff should be standard equipment! I've always been a Boeing fan but more and more I'm left shaking my head.. I hope the company learns from this and comes out a better organization, but I fear any would be short lived.

Short lived? Boeing have often had engineering issues with new types. Some examples from the jet era:

- Lack of rudder boost on the 707 which led to dozens of deaths in training accidents due to lack of control authority with an outer engine failed. Forced to make the change by the UK regulator so as to sell to BOAC;
- Four 727 approach crashes at night within six months of entering service in 1965, killing over 280. Whilst the root cause was identified, most perished because of fires started when broken generator leads ignited the severed centre-section aluminium fuel lines. Those were replaced in 300 in-service aircraft with stronger, flexible tubes in an emergency fix program;
- 737 Classic rudder actuator, often discussed here;
- 747 tail control runs inadequately separated, leading to loss of control when rear pressure bulkhead failed. 505 died due to this.
- 767 thrust reverser issues already mentioned

In fact the 757 and 777 are the only two which come to mind which didn't suffer from significant engineering oversights or shortcuts.

Sorry I meant as an organization, engineering wise I'm sure this will have a lasting impact.

Nice summary!

yuomi wrote:

DL717 wrote:

JAAlbert wrote:

The Justice Department should be investigating the FAA as well.

And EASA.

Erm...why?

You think the FAA is the only agency that certified the MAX? Europe and Canada’s FBI equivalents should get busy.

Why is anyone surprised?
Over the last thirty years or so the multi-national corporations, banks, etc. and their lobbyist have perverted the system to the point the U.S. is as corrupt as any third world banana republic. Especially the Justice Department, where anti-trust has become a complete joke.

DL717 wrote:

yuomi wrote:

DL717 wrote:

And EASA.

Erm...why?

You think the FAA is the only agency that certified the MAX? Europe and Canada’s FBI equivalents should get busy.

But the USA justice department has no jurisdiction over EASA. At least not in this case, a frame manufactured and certified in the USA. If we would be looking at a European manufactured frame, it could be a different case.

mjoelnir wrote:

DL717 wrote:

yuomi wrote:

Erm...why?

You think the FAA is the only agency that certified the MAX? Europe and Canada’s FBI equivalents should get busy.

But the USA justice department has no jurisdiction over EASA. At least not in this case, a frame manufactured and certified in the USA. If we would be looking at a European manufactured frame, it could be a different case.

Even if it was a European manufactured plane the FBI has no jurisdiction or grounds to investigate the EASA, they would have to investigate why the FAA certified the aircraft. It is up to the Europeans to decide if they want to investigate why EASA did not put up a bigger fight.

I mean thousands of people die every year in auto accidents that probably could be avoided with modern safety tech, if their cars had them. No one blames ford is someone dies in a crash that could have been avoided if they bought forward collision assist. It's not really different

If it were not really different, Ford would be marketing a car with a design weakness eg incorrect front/lrear weight distribution where the weight over the front wheels was excessive. To counteract the problem a computer-based system is added to limit brake pressure to the rear wheels to prevent lock up but if the system failed it would lprevent any pressure being applied to the rear brakes with attendant problems (increased braking distance / front wheel skids).

After a few people had been killed after losing control on a corner/driving into the back of a truck, I think the model concerned would be grounded until the anti-skid system was fixed. I also think Ford 's letter box would be full of correspondence from lawyers representing the families of the deceased.



.

art wrote:

I mean thousands of people die every year in auto accidents that probably could be avoided with modern safety tech, if their cars had them. No one blames ford is someone dies in a crash that could have been avoided if they bought forward collision assist. It's not really different

If it were not really different, Ford would be marketing a car with a design weakness eg incorrect front/lrear weight distribution where the weight over the front wheels was excessive. To counteract the problem a computer-based system is added to limit brake pressure to the rear wheels to prevent lock up but if the system failed it would lprevent any pressure being applied to the rear brakes with attendant problems (increased braking distance / front wheel skids).

After a few people had been killed after losing control on a corner/driving into the back of a truck, I think the model concerned would be grounded until the anti-skid system was fixed. I also think Ford 's letter box would be full of correspondence from lawyers representing the families of the deceased.

.

Pretty much every extra safety feature that gets standardized in a car is due to previous accidents.
Like rear cameras for example. A lot of those were optional but due to constant "backing up and hitting someone/something" type of accidents, rear cameras are mandatory on new cars in US.
Still, it won't make shit drivers awareness better but combined with aural warning it will save lives.
I just hope boeing didn't knowingly ignore certain safety aspects. It will suck to have a monopoly. It slows everything down.

CWizard wrote:

Why is anyone surprised?
Over the last thirty years or so the multi-national corporations, banks, etc. and their lobbyist have perverted the system to the point the U.S. is as corrupt as any third world banana republic. Especially the Justice Department, where anti-trust has become a complete joke.

I agree completely. Lobbying is simply legalized bribery. Free speech includes dirty money - one of the main reasons why the American people do not trust government any more. I will be interested to see what consequences the 737 MAX 8 saga will have for Boeing, the FAA, etc. I don't think we can expect too much, however. No criminal prosecutions when the government is just as much to blame as the manufacturer.

Polot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

DL717 wrote:

You think the FAA is the only agency that certified the MAX? Europe and Canada’s FBI equivalents should get busy.

But the USA justice department has no jurisdiction over EASA. At least not in this case, a frame manufactured and certified in the USA. If we would be looking at a European manufactured frame, it could be a different case.

Even if it was a European manufactured plane the FBI has no jurisdiction or grounds to investigate the EASA, they would have to investigate why the FAA certified the aircraft. It is up to the Europeans to decide if they want to investigate why EASA did not put up a bigger fight.

I think the FBI would ask EASA directly, if it would be a European manufactured frame. If EASA would decline to answer, EASA employees should be careful and stop traveling to the USA.
It is just that in this case the primary certification agency is the FAA, the worst EASA could be accused of is rubber stamping a decision by an USA agency and I assume the FBI will keep going straight to the source.

mjoelnir wrote:

Polot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

But the USA justice department has no jurisdiction over EASA. At least not in this case, a frame manufactured and certified in the USA. If we would be looking at a European manufactured frame, it could be a different case.

Even if it was a European manufactured plane the FBI has no jurisdiction or grounds to investigate the EASA, they would have to investigate why the FAA certified the aircraft. It is up to the Europeans to decide if they want to investigate why EASA did not put up a bigger fight.

I think the FBI would ask EASA directly, if it would be a European manufactured frame. If EASA would decline to answer, EASA employees should be careful and stop traveling to the USA.
It is just that in this case the primary certification agency is the FAA, the worst EASA could be accused of is rubber stamping a decision by an USA agency and I assume the FBI will keep going straight to the source.

There is a treaty between EU and USA regarding these certifications. Basically, it says "if our friends at FAA thinks it is good enough, it is good for EASA as well. We may check a few things, as our requirements are a touch different - but overall we trust them"
So EASA is a victim here as well.

kalvado wrote:

There is a treaty between EU and USA regarding these certifications. Basically, it says "if our friends at FAA thinks it is good enough, it is good for EASA as well. We may check a few things, as our requirements are a touch different - but overall we trust them"
So EASA is a victim here as well.

But maybe a "willing" victim?

It is suggested that EASA was unhappy about MCAS and pushed back, but eventually relented to the FAA's viewpoint. I don't know how true that is or how hard they pushed back, but it has been mentioned several times in the various MAX threads.

So if they find a legal breach, what could be the consequences?

Blerg wrote:

So if they find a legal breach, what could be the consequences?

Depends on what exactly they find but mostly the usual stuff.

Strictly legally:
- Fines for the company + Compensation for the victims
- Loss of certification for the 737max
- A criminal record for minor players
- Jail time for key persons, especially managers and technical approvers

Beyond that:
- Dismissal of involved employees
- "voluntary" resignation of top level management positions
- Changed procedures
- Loss of trust and stock value

Volkswagen's diesel manipulations or Airbus' corruption probes are some recent, comparable examples that led to some or all of the above.

PW100 wrote:

The one thing I do fear, is that these type of folks won't stop investigating digging until they found something they think is not right and should be prosecuted, without fully understanding the underlying context.

The way I see it, there are two ways Boeing could potentially be found guilty.
The first would be their failure to adhere to standard processes and industry best practices. Most procedures how an aircraft shall be designed and certified are written down, and often in a very clear and unambiguous manner. If some documents do not exist or are clearly unsatisfactory for their purpose, the person(s) responsible for those documents would be in serious trouble. Since such documents are usually signed, this should be easy to trace.

The second would be if they falsified data, dismissed valid concerns or modified the aircraft without including that modification in the certification. It's been suggested that the trim rate provided to the FAA is much lower than what the system actually does. The difficulty here is to prove that this was not accidental. You'd need to look into the system source code, different versions of the system documentation, mails & minutes of meetings, etc.

Unless Boeing can shred & delete enough documentation quickly, it should be in their best interest to fully cooperate with this investigation.

mxaxai wrote:

Volkswagen's diesel manipulations or Airbus' corruption probes are some recent, comparable examples that led to some or all of the above.

Facts don't support taking the analogy as far as you did when mentioning loss of certification.

VW was found intentionally installing a "defeat device" i.e. intentionally detecting it was being tested and reducing its emissions so it can pass tests it won't pass using the default driving configuration. A VW executive signed the paperwork submitted to EPA saying no such "defeat device" would be used, which according to statute was a criminal act, and paid the price via jail time.

We have no evidence that deliberate cheating is going on in the current situation. If DoJ finds proof of such, then things obviously change. Even still, we should keep in mind that at the end of the day, we can still go to our local VW dealer and buy a VW. VW took a big hit, but not a fatal blow.

JAAlbert wrote:

The Justice Department should be investigating the FAA as well.

Then they should also investigate EASA as well, as they also certified the aircraft.