The criminal trial begins for the only accused of the 737 Max | Airlines News, rss1

What happened to the 737Max, when the American Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) was led to believe that the plane was operating normally, is having economic consequences for Boeing, but it will have criminal consequences for those involved. This Friday began in Fort Worth, Texas, the trial against Mark Forkner, the pilot who tested these planes, for allegedly offering false testimonies to investigators (Alert in the US for Boeing manufacturing defects).

On the first day of the trial, the pilot said through his lawyer that Boeing engineers had not informed him of the changes to the planes, which led to two accidents with 346 deaths.

“Not guilty,” the defendant said when he faced the jury.

What has to be determined is whether Forkner deliberately lied or whether he did not have the correct information. She is the only person who is criminally charged for what happened with this plane.

All the press is aware of the trial because it is to be assumed that many sensitive issues of Boeing will be aired in it. It is very likely that there will be technically complex testimonials and internal company communications will be revealed.

In professional circles, it is considered that Boeing, which traditionally prioritized quality over profit, had lately fallen prey to a desperate search for money, which led it to create a structure so as not to adequately control production. It must be borne in mind that, in many phases, the system was self-certifying, so that it was Boeing itself that had to inform the FAA of the corrections it made to the planes (Boeing wants to double production of the 737Max).

Forkner was until 2018 the most senior technical pilot for the 737Max, which allowed him to understand the differences between this aircraft and previous models. Likewise, it was he who decided how to train the pilots.

Apparently, Forkner should have known about the computer changes introduced in the plane, of which the pilots of the airlines that owned the devices had not been informed.

–