Boeing's Crashes Expose Systemic Failings • Hacker News Board

Re: Boeing's Crashes Expose Systemic Failings

#111

Post by salawat » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 2:09 AM UTC

cmpolis wrote: post #69

FabHK wrote: post #9

> What's more, over the course of his 55 years in the profession, he [lawyer Marc Moller] [has] learned that every plane crash can be traced back to a single, simple cause. I don't know, that strikes me as nonsense. It's precisely the interplay of many factors that lead to an accident - and if any one of them had been different, the outcome might have been different. See Reason's "swiss cheese" model of accidents - a…

The quote from Marc Moller seems counter to what I have seen as the prevailing thought regarding aviation accidents, which is: accidents are the result of a "chain" of failures; if any link in the chain does not occur the accident can be avoided. It is easy to say "software bug" or some single thing caused this failure, but there are many other factors that need to be considered: a/c certification requirements, train…

Note that the aviation industry (as you are likely aware) operates on a blameless basis in the interest of preventing a repeat of the same tragedy. That part has come and gone. The cooperation has happened. The investigation has been conducted, the physical, objective nature of the issue; it's implementation, and the physical chain of events that led to the crashes is established.

Boeing survived that.

What they haven't survived is the full process of peeling back the layers of paperwork, and subsequent investigation into what enabled the physical foundation of these crashes to come about.

Considering there was apparently a whistleblower willing to testify that decisions material to enabling the crash were made specifically to meet deadlines by dodging regulator scrutiny, I have the feeling Boeing will have a rough time of it.

Re: Boeing's Crashes Expose Systemic Failings

#112

Post by salawat » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 2:15 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #82

FabHK wrote: post #9

> What's more, over the course of his 55 years in the profession, he [lawyer Marc Moller] [has] learned that every plane crash can be traced back to a single, simple cause. I don't know, that strikes me as nonsense. It's precisely the interplay of many factors that lead to an accident - and if any one of them had been different, the outcome might have been different. See Reason's "swiss cheese" model of accidents - a…

> that strikes me as nonsense It is nonsense. It takes multiple failures to bring down an airliner, and the NTSB accident reports recommend fixing all of them. It's why airliners are so safe today. The 737MAX issue is no different.

Actually, they've been required to completely rearchitect the computer system due to being able to prove in an engineering simulator that a certain combo of single event upsets could end up causing loss of the aircraft.

They had three pilot's attempt the scenario, and one of them lost the plane. This never got looked at well enough before. If they had, they wouldn't have been able to certify before their deadline.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/a-lac...

Re: Boeing's Crashes Expose Systemic Failings

#113

Post by Xixi » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 2:18 AM UTC

Havoc wrote: post #102

At this rate they're getting a US bailout. I don't recall Boeing positive anything recently. And as much as it fuckin irks me...US better throw them a juicy bailout if necessary. Because one aircraft manufacturer global monopoly would be a epic shitshow. Boeing and Airbus have to walk away from this alive and roughly equal.

Don't worry, the duopoly will soon die. Comac is coming with the C919 and C929, and with a huge captive domestic market they are bound to succeed (given enough time).

I know I will sound cynical, but if the past is any indication of what's coming, it is entirely possible that a decade from now Airbus and Boeing won't be able to fight for Chinese orders anymore, while Comac will enjoy the ability to fight for every single American and European order...

Re: Boeing's Crashes Expose Systemic Failings

#114

Post by salawat » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 2:28 AM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #43

denton-scratch wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wot? Potentially-dangerous planes must be kept flying, because air-travel chaos and widely-used-ness?

I think you missed the point. "They're fixed now" != "potentially dangerous". (Unless you define all planes to be "potentially dangerous". But if you ground all such planes, you don't have an air travel industry at all.)

They (787's) aren't necessarily all fixed. And in fact, I recall reading somewhere that the fix was to ensure that a 787 could not fly with any more than 1 of the batch of engines that has a penchant for premature turbine failure due to the high sulfur content of the atmosphere where the turbine blades were manufactured.

Still not necessarily an "oh God, ground it", but there is a growing pile of very hard to stomach problems that the aviation industry is having to cope with this year.

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/rolls-royce-problems-trent-100...

Re: Boeing's Crashes Expose Systemic Failings

#115

Post by salawat » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 2:49 AM UTC

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #38

CivBase wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If those are teething issues, I'm scared to find out what you'd consider to be a serious problem.

Per TFA QA wasn't definitively being done not because they were too stupid to want it done but because of coordination issues with the suppliers because it was a new plane and they didn't have the process down yet. That is almost by definition teething issues. It takes some serious mental gymnastics to say with a straight face that coordination issues with suppliers when a product is first being made are not "teethin…

My issue as a Quality Assurance practitioner, is that this excuse (coordination issues) quite literally pops up everywhere, and one of the first skills you need to master to get anywhere with a business is to nip that attitude in the bud. No one will let you have the license to test what needs to be tested unless you are willing to hold up the entire project until you get your results/questions answered.

It is not sufficient to get an unproven platform out there to build up "track record" to prove it is safe. That's ludicrous. That's how you get things blowing up, catching on fire, losing power, throwing turbine blades, what have you.

You have to have your your fundamental analysis done, and if you are integrating with a major system from someone else, you need to bloody coordinate with them, and ideally talk with their Quality department. If your plane is going to be spending a lot of time in Asia, testing how your turbine should up to the atmosphere there is not an unreasonable experiment to run. Expensive? Yes. Difficult to prepare? Yes. Unreasonable? Goodness, no.

The thing that scares the bajeezus out of me, is that I've not once come across anywhere that makes that kind of contact between organizational Quality departments feasible or efficient. In my pursuits, I basically end up having to do end runs around obstacles and become such a subject matter expert, I start asking questions that make other service providers nervous, because they don't know whether they're saying too much. I've spent so much time tearing stuff apart it's just natural to me to do so; but as I'm frequently reminded, I'm apparently not a typical specimen in my craft.

Re: Boeing's Crashes Expose Systemic Failings

#116

Post by salawat » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 3:16 AM UTC

papito wrote: post #41

This is probably the best piece I've read about this: "How the Boeing 737 Max Disaster Looks to a Software Developer" https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/how-the-boeing-...

Obligatory further reading repost.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/the...

EDIT: What? It's one of the better written articles that actually includes most of the technical details, plus some of the corporate environment related ones. The two articles together are basically guaranteed to contain all the essentials one needs to understand what happened.

Re: Boeing's Crashes Expose Systemic Failings

#117

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 4:20 AM UTC

FabHK wrote: post #9

> What's more, over the course of his 55 years in the profession, he [lawyer Marc Moller] [has] learned that every plane crash can be traced back to a single, simple cause. I don't know, that strikes me as nonsense. It's precisely the interplay of many factors that lead to an accident - and if any one of them had been different, the outcome might have been different. See Reason's "swiss cheese" model of accidents - a…

[deleted]

Re: Boeing's Crashes Expose Systemic Failings

#118

Post by jfnixon » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 4:44 AM UTC

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #78

SilasX wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but the work of lawyers has often forced industries to do things differently, even when the best science says they shouldn't do it that way. For example, lawsuits over botched baby deliveries that argued "you should have c[aesarean]-sectioned" resulted in extreme overuse of the procedure in the US, with higher resultant risks. So ... I wish it worked like you described.

I suspect the reasons for increased c-sections are manifold. When we medicalise pregnancy and childbirth, then fill hospitals with profit driven policy, and surgeons who fear malpractice accusations, is it any wonder c-sections can become over used? Fear of malpractice alone can’t explain it all, as it some other lawyer could demonstrate c-sections are over used and lead to complications.

I don't think the parent is arguing malpractice fear explains it all. But clearly, that fear is a significant element in many decisions.

Re: Boeing's Crashes Expose Systemic Failings

#119

Post by jfnixon » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 5:10 AM UTC

msbarnett wrote: post #92

BurningFrog wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the regulatory incentives seem to be a substantial factor here.

Not really. Market forces drove Boeing to rush out a more fuel efficient 737. Even absent regulatory incentives, market forces drive them to want to deliver a 737-dimensioned plane, because a huge selling point for the NG and MAX is that they're still compatible with decades' old infrastructure at rarely-upgraded regional airports. Bolting large enough engines to deliver the market-desired fuel efficiency on the mark…

So if the A320neo isn't suitable for a large portion of the customer base, how is it a competitor to the 737MAX 8?

Re: Boeing's Crashes Expose Systemic Failings

#120

Post by jfnixon » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 5:14 AM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #84

avar wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This idea that there's one guy or set of people to be found whose fault it is that you have a systemic problem is so uniquely American. In this case you're proposing to punish the smallest cog in the machine, some middle-manager or executive at Boeing. It would be just as logical to throw every single American in prison for around 45 minutes (~1 person dead in 737 MAX crashes for every million Americans, 80 years (le…

The simple answer is to make the entire C-suite criminally liable - collectively and individually. Because the usual argument is that the C-suite and especially the CEO are personally responsible for the successes of a company. So it's not unreasonable to hold them personally responsible for the failures too - especially when those failures amount to suspected criminal negligence. This is not the same as assuming gui…

I'd recommend using monetary penalties, including clawbacks, for motivational purposes. I suspect jail isn't quite the same level of deterrent as money for people who value those extra 0s on their net worth. Civil litigation is easier to win, too.