SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Justice Department issues subpoenas in criminal investigation of Boeing
US Justice Department prosecutors have issued multiple subpoenas as part of an investigation into Boeing's Federal Aviation Administration certification and marketing of 737 Max planes, sources briefed on the matter told CNN.
[...] Criminal investigators have sought information from Boeing on safety and certification procedures, including training manuals for pilots, along with how the company marketed the new aircraft, the sources said.
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.
See also: FAA: Boeing 737 MAX to get software update
Europe and Canada Just Signaled They Don't Trust the FAA's Investigation of the Boeing 737 MAX
(Score: 4, Informative) by DannyB on Thursday March 21 2019, @05:22PM (5 children)
Crashed jets reportedly lacked key safety features because Boeing charged extra for them [cnbc.com]
Every performance optimization is a grate wait lifted from my shoulders.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by istartedi on Thursday March 21 2019, @07:53PM (4 children)
Wow that sucks. It sucks that Boeing charged for it, and it sucks that the airlines didn't buy it. I mean, it couldn't be a huge percentage of the cost on something that's already really expensive, even if Boeing was over-charging for it.
It was bad enough when Ford didn't give me a real temperature gauge in my Mustang and it overheated. That wasn't life-threatening, just wallet threatening as it reduced the life of the engine.
I guess the real car analogy would be like charging for break-wear indicators and TPMs. I'm not sure about wear indicators, but I believe TPMs became required equipment in 2008.
It sounds like the FAA should have a list of required safety features for planes if they don't already, and require manufacturers to not charge extra for them.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday March 21 2019, @08:18PM
Some safety features might be aircraft specific. This safety feature may only apply to the 737 MAX.
Every performance optimization is a grate wait lifted from my shoulders.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22 2019, @12:00AM
Slightly different take: the entire MCAS system seems designed around the fingers-in-ears fantasy that Boeing needed to sell to everyone that the Max-8 was functionally* identical to other 737s. Any new buttons, indicators, etc. in the cockpit at baseline will get questions, need new training materials and manual entries, and pretty soon people might ask awkward questions.
I think the exclusion of this 'feature' at baseline was much more about making that baseline model not look any different than malice or capitalism gone wrong. That doesn't make it right, just a different perspective.
* May occasionally crash into the ground if the single sensor we bothered to connect malfunctions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22 2019, @07:29AM (1 child)
Southwest paid extra to get more safety. Having paid, they deserve to have more safety than those who didn't pay.
If the other airlines now get an indicator for this problem, they should lose something else to even things up. Boeing could remove 20% of the rivets, replace a cockpit window with an aluminum sheet, or take the labels off of all the cockpit switches and knobs. Something has to be done to make sure that Southwest has the safety advantage they paid for.
(Score: 2) by istartedi on Friday March 22 2019, @05:14PM
The plane plunges and rolls violently. The co-pilot rushes back into the cabin:
"Are there any cryptographers on board?".
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.