Yes they did break rules. They misclassified it's failure as hazardous instead of catastrophic, and deliberately implemented a SPOF architecture that had to get refactored to include both sensors. Then they misrepresented it as requiring no additional training.
There was a lot done against regulations at a minimum, and damn well don in bad faith with respect to the public.
What's the proof that they broke any rules? Is the FAA charging them with a regulatory failure? None, and no. The NY Times has a nice expose on the matter [1].
Quote from TFA:
Boeing did not submit a formal review of MCAS after the overhaul. It wasn't required by F.A.A. rules.
Comments
Yes they did break rules. They misclassified it's failure as hazardous instead of catastrophic, and deliberately implemented a SPOF architecture that had to get refactored to include both sensors. Then they misrepresented it as requiring no additional training.
There was a lot done against regulations at a minimum, and damn well don in bad faith with respect to the public.
What's the proof that they broke any rules? Is the FAA charging them with a regulatory failure? None, and no. The NY Times has a nice expose on the matter [1].
Quote from TFA: Boeing did not submit a formal review of MCAS after the overhaul. It wasn't required by F.A.A. rules.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/27/business/boeing-737-max-f...