Former Boing B-737MAX Tech Pilot Found Not Guilty

Capngrog

Capngrog

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
May 31, 2021
Messages
378
Location
Paisley, Florida
Display Name
Display name:
Capngrog
The former Tech Pilot for the Boeing B-737MAX Program, Mark Forkner, has been found not guilty in a jury trial.

Here are some details found in Flying Magazine's on line news site:

https://www.flyingmag.com/former-bo...ebQ&utm_content=207863043&utm_source=hs_email

It seems that FAA Inspector Stacey Klein felt that Mr. Forkner lied to her regarding his participation in the development of the infamous MCAS system. Ms. Klein apparently felt intimidated by Mr. Forkner's attitude during her interviews with him, and according to Courthouse News, Ms. Klein testified during the trial that she felt bullied by Mr. Forkner. Crikey! The government agent with the full weight of one of America's most powerful bureaucracies behind her is "intimidated" by a Boeing employee?(!) It looks like "snowflakes" are alive and well (as well as they could be) in the Federal Government! Ah well, what do I know? I'm just a "dinosaur".

As to my opinion on the outcome of the trial itself: I feel that the conviction of Mr. Forkner would have set a dangerous precedent. I'm glad that he was found not guilty.
 
Awwww. He hurt her feelz. What an incredible waste of money to prosecute him. If you wanted to go farther up the corporate hierarchy, I might agree.
 
That's why it's best to consult with a lawyer first and not say anything to a FAA inspector. About the outcome of the trial, a juror hit the nail on the head when saying
it was “more a corporate and regulatory failure of communication.” It's not the individual fault, it's the corporate hierarchy.
 
Interesting that despite being characterized as an "engineer", he was not an engineer.

Jurist statement is interesting. I got a subtext indicating perhaps the FAA went after Forkner to deflect from Klein's inability to handle the rigors of her job. She was "intimidated."

I did not closely follow the case, so my opinion does not hold much water, but it seems to me like a case of the rats blaming the mice. With Boeing Corporate (aka McDonnell Douglas v2.0) and the FAA playing the role of the rats.
 
Most important about ENGINEER Klein, she was invited to 4 engineering meetings that discussed problems with MCAS, and did not bother to attend. She relied on non Engineer Forkner to tell her if all was well. He had not been invited, and did not attend those engineering meetings.

The FAA designates a lot of the checking out, but does have the responsibility, and opportunity to verify that they are aware of all engineering issues. Skipping those meetings results in their intended reduced oversight being lost, and one layer of the process being lost.

I find it hard to believe that Klein had more important duties than following the development of the controlling software of the 737 MAX. How many other planes was she overseeing at that time? Given the magnitude of this responsibility, she should have been focused on just that one plane, and if not, it is a serious fault of the FAA itself. The engineering personnel who are responsible for a stretched, re engineered plane should be in Seattle full time from the early stages to final approval.

FAA signoff should represent their assigned engineers first hand knowledge of the steps which took place. Then FAA test pilots that fly on the certification test flights should be responsible for actually observing the required tests take place.

Finally, an engineer should not take the opinion of a non flying, non engineer test pilot, who is responsible for developing the training manuals and simulator procedures, as the final word on how the airplane itself actually flies. She should not have been the prosecutors lead witness, she should have been the co defendant.
 
Albany Tom said:
Boeing management team aren't the ones on the hook.
Click to expand...
FYI: Don't know about the FAA side but Boeing management admitted guilt to a single count of conspiracy to defraud, signed off on a deferred prosecution agreement, and paid a $2.5B criminal fine. That got Boeing "off the hook" and set up Forkner for the fall. Now according to some people, if Forkner decides to pursue a defamation suit against Boeing this could open up a whole new can of worms on the civil law side and "rehook" Boeing from a different direction. Time will tell.
 
Albany Tom said:
I don't know a lot of the details, but I don't know why the combined FAA/Boeing management team aren't the ones on the hook. To me this is similar to Challenger, NASA, and Morton Thiokol.
Click to expand...
Similar true, yet one important difference, WAY more people died.

(This observation is in no way an attempt to minimize the loss of life and subsequent pain and grief of Challenger's crew's loved ones).
 
Domenick said:
Similar true, yet one important difference, WAY more people died.

(This observation is in no way an attempt to minimize the loss of life and subsequent pain and grief of Challenger's crew's loved ones).
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're absolutely right.
 
Bell206 said:
FYI: Don't know about the FAA side but Boeing management admitted guilt to a single count of conspiracy to defraud, signed off on a deferred prosecution agreement, and paid a $2.5B criminal fine. That got Boeing "off the hook" and set up Forkner for the fall. Now according to some people, if Forkner decides to pursue a defamation suit against Boeing this could open up a whole new can of worms on the civil law side and "rehook" Boeing from a different direction. Time will tell.
Click to expand...

That deferred prosecution agreement might get set aside: https://reason.com/volokh/2022/10/24/decision-on-boeing-737-max-case/
 
thebruce said:
That deferred prosecution agreement might get set aside:
Click to expand...
Criminal? While France gets away with things like this I doubt it will go much farther here. I dont think the FAA wants their dirty laundry (culpability) over the MAX aired as well.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top