Originally Posted by
KRUSTY 34
Agree, but how would his legal team choose to spin it?
Our client cannot be held responsible because he could not have predicted the possible outcome. Or...,
Our client cannot be held responsible because his technical and Human Factors expertise had been overwhelmed by corporate expectations.
Mmm? Incompetence, or Ethical blindness. Tough, but obvious choice.
An offer of immunity to the chief test pilot is in the public interest. Nobody asks the lawyers to spin it, he gets immunity so all the weaknesses in the plane get located and fixed.
There are undoubtedly other booby traps hidden in that plane. They need to be found and fixed, this guy knows where they are.
I've sat on standards bodies as an engineer. I believe if something is a real issue, there are always "nudge nudge wink wink" engineer to engineer methods to get tech issues fixed across the industry, one of the nastiest of which is just talking to a friend who works for a competitor, who has a friend in the specialist press. My feelings is that if he wanted to, the Chief Test Pilot at Boeing had discrete ways to get the FAA to have a hard look at MCAS and get Boeing to make it robust or add training materials without making too many waves.
Boeing certainly had the ability, resources and even time to solve a few more "minor bugs" before launching the plane. This is what engineering firms do, they polish the design until it is good. the Chief Test Pilot's job is to tell them if it's good, in this case he can tell us for safety's sake what was left undone. .
Edmund