HCL Technologies, Cyient refute claims in Boeing 737 MAX report

Indian engineers were blamed for faults in planes that crashed

A recent report blaming Indian engineers for faults in planemaker Boeing’s 737 MAX aircraft has left the Indian technology industry feeling targeted and online forums buzzing. 

Bloomberg on Saturday reported that at the heart of Boeing aircraft’s ongoing crisis, which led to two major crashes killing 346 people, was the software work it outsourced to Indian engineers from HCL Technologies and Hyderabad-based Cyient.

“Based on resumes posted on social media, HCL engineers helped develop and test the MAX’s flight-display software, while employees from another Indian company, Cyient, handled software for flight-test equipment,” Bloomberg had reported. 

It further quoted a former Boeing software engineer whose team worked on the MAX. He claimed the code written by Indian engineers was “far less efficient”.

The issues that led to the crashes, and subsequent grounding of Boeing 737 MAX aircraft by several countries across the world involved an internal software and a cockpit warning light that didn’t work.

Even though Bloomberg quoted Boeing as saying it did not rely on HCL or Cyient engineers for either, the suggestions that outsourced technology work caused Boeing design to suffer found a lot of support online.

The ire was directed at the H1B visa programme, which has extensively been used by Indian and US-based companies to send Indian workers to the US client locations. The programme has been at the heart of many controversies, most based on the premise that H1B visa holders are taking away jobs from Americans. 

Companies refute claims

Cyient, which specialises in engineering design and domain expertise in areas such as manufacturing, rail, and aerospace, confirmed it had a long-standing deal with Boeing. “Cyient refutes the claim made by some publication on its involvement in the development of the Boeing 737 MAX Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS). The news articles wrongly claim Cyient’s involvement in software development for the flight test equipment. As Boeing clarified, Cyient was not involved in the design of the MCAS or the cockpit warning light,” it said in a statement.

HCL reiterated its stand on the issue: “HCL has a strong and long-standing business relationship with The Boeing Company, and we take pride in the work we do for all our customers. However, HCL does not comment on specific work we do for our customers. HCL is not associated with any ongoing issues with 737 MAX.”

Online outrage

“The very important INGREDIENT that was added by Boeing to production recently is H1B visa workers. H1Bs are CHEAP. They save company a lot of money! American education is rated #4 in the World, INDIAN #76!!!  But Corporations still PREFER H1Bs!” said a person part of a Facebook group called “H1B and IT Outsourcing”.

Several others blamed the quality of Indian “cheap labour” as well. There were, however, many who questioned the claims made by Bloomberg.

“The 737 MAX didn’t crash because of a software bug or software mistake. The software that went into the aircraft did exactly what Boeing told the Federal Aviation Administration (who just rubber stamped it) said it was going to do. Let that sink in, the software did as it was designed to do and people died,” said a user in Reddit’s programming subreddit or community. Users on Twitter said the report was ‘based on hearsay’, ‘unfortunate’, and ‘shooting hitjob’.

Industry responds

The Indian technology industry took a strong exception to the report.

“This is a gratuitous swipe at global services, not expected of Bloomberg @business: airily connecting these disasters to @hcltech without any proof. Neither company nor regulator has suggested that the software wasn’t performing as functionally designed,” tweeted Manas Fuloria, chief entrepreneurship organiser at IT services software firm Nagarro. 

Industry body National Association of Software and Services Companies said: “The Indian IT industry works on a very strong foundation of codes and ethics, and is compliant with the laws of the countries where they carry out their operations. The industry and its member companies have always adhered to the institutional practices as prescribed by the authorities, and are transparent in their processes.”