Revelation wrote:

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.

Thank you!

mxaxai wrote:

The way I see it, there are two ways Boeing could potentially be found guilty.

DoJ looks for crimes like fraud and corruption. AFAIK the things you've described are not criminal acts.

Revelation wrote:

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.

Depends on how literally you take the comparison. VW was required to provide software updates. Cars would have lost their certification otherwise. Just like the 737max is grounded now.

6 VW employees were sent to jail at least temporarily, including Audi CEO Rupert Stadler (who was then dismissed by Audi). And we definitely did not have evidence that VW cheated before the investigation had begun. That's why the investigation is there. To go and look if such evidence exists.
I agree that Boeing will survive, but not unscathed.

musman9853 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

Quite the difference between a safety feature knowingly not fitted and a certified to work features that ... doesn't work( at all, as expected ) the interesting item is "a promise not fulfilled".

Revelation wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

The way I see it, there are two ways Boeing could potentially be found guilty.

DoJ looks for crimes like fraud and corruption. AFAIK the things you've described are not criminal acts.

Providing false data or skipping essential procedures - on purpose - to obtain the certification would be fraud, no?

Other acts would lean towards negligence, misleading statements or misconduct that resulted in injury, death or financial damage. Perhaps that is not within DoJ jurisdiction but could certainly be criminal acts.

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

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

The FBI Computer Forensics team is the best there is. You don't want to mess around with them. They will find EVERYTHING. Any attempt to destroy any evidence is another federal charge. Boeing & its employees don't want those problems.

If Boeing knowingly and willingly provided false statements to the FAA they could be guilty of violating '18 U.S. Code § 1001. Statements or entries generally" and/or "18 U.S. Code § 1519. Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy"

JAAlbert wrote:

The Justice Department should be investigating the FAA as well.

They are. It's part of the probe.

I am far more skeptical that anything will happen. A few “campaign contributions” to the right people will make anything go away. They will keep this pretense of an “investigation” on to satisfy the masses looking for a quick news bite before moving on with their coffee. In a couple of months no one will care and the MAXs will be back in business.

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 but the Japan Airlines 747 rear pressure bulkhead failure caused it to loose part of the tail section. The control lines failed when part of the tail section broke off.

As a Boeing shareholder, I'm shocked and horrified by all of this. If any of the allegations and reports are even partially true, then that means that "my" company took unacceptable shortcuts (that's putting it politely) in order to push a flawed product out the door in the name of meeting a schedule and earning some nice profits. Heck, I want to profit from my investment but what Boeing seems to have forgotten here is that designing and selling flawed products is in no one's best interest, not the company's, the investors', the airlines', and most importantly the poor souls who lost their lives. Boeing's commercial airliner division is in the business of designing and selling safe and reliable transportation; they clearly failed. Personally, I do hope that individuals are held to account. What makes the near-lawyer in me really suspicious is that Boeing said a few days ago that they were ten days from a software fix. This means that they were aware after the Lion crash of the problem, probably intimately aware, and didn't try to ground the planes on its own, let alone do a more significant MCAS awareness program with the airlines and pilots. I tend to think that they were rolling the dice, hoping that they could push that software update out the door and propagate it throughout the fleet before another crash. Well, they bet poorly, and it cost more people their lives. That could easily be termed criminal and/pr willful negligence by whichever parties made said bet against time. At a minimum, the civil penalties will be enormous, as they should be.

DL717 wrote:

JAAlbert wrote:

The Justice Department should be investigating the FAA as well.

And EASA.

The FAA and EASA have reciprocal agreement. If one approves it they both accept it. I think thats now out the window from the EASA side no longer trusting the FAA certification.

Revelation wrote:

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.

If Boeing told the Ceritfcation agencies that MCAS would only provide X amount of auto trim, and Boeing actually allowed (when the statement was made, or if it was changed afterwards with out notification) the auto trim to provide more than X, it could be said that Bowing was manufacturing a non certificates aircraft.

rbavfan wrote:

DL717 wrote:

JAAlbert wrote:

The Justice Department should be investigating the FAA as well.

And EASA.

The FAA and EASA have reciprocal agreement. If one approves it they both accept it.

Nope, they have a bilateral agreement that facilitate the granting of reciprocal agreements.

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/i ... /overview/ says:

Bilateral agreements facilitate the reciprocal airworthiness certification of civil aeronautical products imported/exported between two signatory countries.

It's not as simple as "if one approves it they both accept it".

Please read the link...

Revelation wrote:

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?

The MAX is essentially a build up of MODs, and that MOD stack is part of its certification. To make a change after certification would be considered as a new MOD. Depending on the scale of change and its safety/airworthiness implications, it would be considered as a minor or major MOD. Depending on the level of delegation from the FAA to Boeing, Boeing would have to involve the FAA in buying off this new MOD, or not.

In my opinion (I’m not a lawyer...), intentionally declaring a major MOD as a minor MOD and thereby cutting out the FAA could be considered an offence, if the intent can be proven. If this shortcut then leads to loss of life, then I would think it could be considered as manslaughter?

I would like to think Boeing, the FAA and their employees should be presumed innocent unless found guilty after a trial.

This process of an investigation does not mean there is anything wrong, it is necessary to have it however to have an independent check to see the system is working for it to regain international confidence.

Far too many people jumping to conclusions.

zeke wrote:

I would like to think Boeing, the FAA and their employees should be presumed innocent unless found guilty after a trial.

This process of an investigation does not mean there is anything wrong, it is necessary to have it however to have an independent check to see the system is working for it to regain international confidence.

Far too many people jumping to conclusions.

Of course. Although there are some who already know that Boeing did nothing wrong. A bit early, given that two aircraft crashed and the entire fleet is grounded. I'm sure there are some very worried Boeing employees right now.

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.

Why? It’s not like Boeing is hated more than anything under the sun by a significant number of Americans and there is a witch hunt against them and they are a target and will do anything to destroy them.

Aptivaboy wrote:

As a Boeing shareholder, I'm shocked and horrified by all of this. If any of the allegations and reports are even partially true, then that means that "my" company took unacceptable shortcuts (that's putting it politely) in order to push a flawed product out the door in the name of meeting a schedule and earning some nice profits. Heck, I want to profit from my investment but what Boeing seems to have forgotten here is that designing and selling flawed products is in no one's best interest, not the company's, the investors', the airlines', and most importantly the poor souls who lost their lives. Boeing's commercial airliner division is in the business of designing and selling safe and reliable transportation; they clearly failed. Personally, I do hope that individuals are held to account. What makes the near-lawyer in me really suspicious is that Boeing said a few days ago that they were ten days from a software fix. This means that they were aware after the Lion crash of the problem, probably intimately aware, and didn't try to ground the planes on its own, let alone do a more significant MCAS awareness program with the airlines and pilots. I tend to think that they were rolling the dice, hoping that they could push that software update out the door and propagate it throughout the fleet before another crash. Well, they bet poorly, and it cost more people their lives. That could easily be termed criminal and/pr willful negligence by whichever parties made said bet against time. At a minimum, the civil penalties will be enormous, as they should be.

Exceptional, thank you.

Is Boeing manufacturing new MAX aircraft while the investigation is ongoing or have they halted all production?

Are aircraft manufacturer employees held to the same standard we are on the ramp when it comes to aircraft crashes?

For those who doesn’t know; if you are working on the aircraft as a ramp agent, a gate agent, or a Fueler.. etc... we get charged with man slaughter for every person on the plane and (I think) a count for every person killed on the ground.

If this boils down to someone or a group of people will they be charged with this?

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 put it in bold for you.

PW100 wrote:

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.

Hmmm. Is there any history of a probe into one very loud publicly alleged activity not finding anything on that subject, but getting convictions on unrelated topics where fanboys say "Got ya" anyway?

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?

Agreed. It would be the OIG (Office of Inspector General)

Adipocere wrote:

I am far more skeptical that anything will happen. A few “campaign contributions” to the right people will make anything go away. They will keep this pretense of an “investigation” on to satisfy the masses looking for a quick news bite before moving on with their coffee. In a couple of months no one will care and the MAXs will be back in business.

If that were true, no corporation would get punished and we know that's simply false. I would be more concerned about scapegoating to make the problem go away. Best case scenario of course is that they solve the problem. The technical side can be fixed, but the PR nightmare is much more difficult.

CWizard wrote:

Especially the Justice Department, where anti-trust has become a complete joke.

It's not the Justice Department, it's the courts.

So many people here make the mistake of believing that the DOJ has the same direct enforcement authority on airlines that the DOT wields... it doesn't. The worst that the DOJ can do is sue to enjoin, and it loses such cases fairly often.

The threat (read that: "cost") of defending a DOT suit is what discourages most potential anti-trust defendants; but for those determined enough to stick it out, the DOJ often has a difficult time demonstrating the required showing of irreparable harm by permitting defendants to advance their course-- becoming even more pronounced in the current federal court system. And airlines (and other companies) know this.

Revelation wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

DL717 wrote:

And EASA.

The FAA and EASA have reciprocal agreement. If one approves it they both accept it.

Nope, they have a bilateral agreement that facilitate the granting of reciprocal agreements.

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/i ... /overview/ says:

Bilateral agreements facilitate the reciprocal airworthiness certification of civil aeronautical products imported/exported between two signatory countries.

It's not as simple as "if one approves it they both accept it".

Please read the link...

Same parties are influenced by for example WTO trade rules, which prohibit withholding certification as a form of trade restraint / anti-competitive behaviour. So in practice...................

INFINITI329 wrote:

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

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

The FBI Computer Forensics team is the best there is. You don't want to mess around with them. They will find EVERYTHING. Any attempt to destroy any evidence is another federal charge. Boeing & its employees don't want those problems.

If Boeing knowingly and willingly provided false statements to the FAA they could be guilty of violating '18 U.S. Code § 1001. Statements or entries generally" and/or "18 U.S. Code § 1519. Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy"

Burning your computers?

speedbird52 wrote:

INFINITI329 wrote:

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

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

The FBI Computer Forensics team is the best there is. You don't want to mess around with them. They will find EVERYTHING. Any attempt to destroy any evidence is another federal charge. Boeing & its employees don't want those problems.

If Boeing knowingly and willingly provided false statements to the FAA they could be guilty of violating '18 U.S. Code § 1001. Statements or entries generally" and/or "18 U.S. Code § 1519. Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy"

Burning your computers?

That would be destruction, prosecutable under 18 U.S. Code § 1519

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"

And vice-versa. I think this is called a reciprocity agreement.

INFINITI329 wrote:

speedbird52 wrote:

INFINITI329 wrote:

The FBI Computer Forensics team is the best there is. You don't want to mess around with them. They will find EVERYTHING. Any attempt to destroy any evidence is another federal charge. Boeing & its employees don't want those problems.

If Boeing knowingly and willingly provided false statements to the FAA they could be guilty of violating '18 U.S. Code § 1001. Statements or entries generally" and/or "18 U.S. Code § 1519. Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy"

Burning your computers?

That would be destruction, prosecutable under 18 U.S. Code § 1519

That is the reason, why big corporations today have default settings in their e-mail clients, that all "normal" e-mails are deleted after exactly two years. No attorney or three letter organisation can find anything after this time.

Official documents are stored longer but all the daily e-mails between engineers are gone after 2 years.

CLTRampRat wrote:

Are aircraft manufacturer employees held to the same standard we are on the ramp when it comes to aircraft crashes?

For those who doesn’t know; if you are working on the aircraft as a ramp agent, a gate agent, or a Fueler.. etc... we get charged with man slaughter for every person on the plane and (I think) a count for every person killed on the ground.

If this boils down to someone or a group of people will they be charged with this?

From a criminal law perspective everybody involved can be held liable if found to be acting grossly negligent or even intentional.

The 787 had a number of issues during certification and initial operation. The biggest that comes to mind that is similar to this is the battery pack. Things had to be fixed, Boeing had to pay lots of compensation for it. It is not easy to catch everything during a design, in particular when someone has to anticipate all of the piloting commands across 80 languages and a wide range of skill sets.

I am curious how much certification testing was done with MCAS, was it tested with faulty sensors or test inputs of faulty sensors. Did the pilots in certification have above average skill sets and extra training (we are testing MCAS today folks) that when the problem showed up they handled a few cycles with the yoke then switched it off as is procedure. IE the pilots knew to recognize MCAS as a trim issue and how to cut it out.

The FAA regulations place boundaries on updating an existing design vs doing a new design, Boeing had to keep the MAX as an update, I recall reading that the AOA disagree signal had to be an option or it didn't fit in the certification. I suppose from here on Boeing could offer it as a no cost option or even a discount to ensure every one had the option.

Heinkel wrote:

INFINITI329 wrote:

speedbird52 wrote:

Burning your computers?

That would be destruction, prosecutable under 18 U.S. Code § 1519

That is the reason, why big corporations today have default settings in their e-mail clients, that all "normal" e-mails are deleted after exactly two years. No attorney or three letter organisation can find anything after this time.

Official documents are stored longer but all the daily e-mails between engineers are gone after 2 years.

nice try

you have it on thousands of backups if it was only inhouse communication
if its windows its stored anyway on your workstation

if it has left the inhouse network its collected by the mentioned organisations

if it ever has printed it is still stored at the harddisc of the printstation

if it ever reached you at a mobile ios android or bleckberry devise .... it can be restored any time