Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Boeing push to make training profitable may have left 737 Max pilots unprepared

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 137 posts

Re: Boeing push to make training profitable may have left 737 Max pilots unprepared

#81

Post by speedplane »

blotter_paper wrote: post #80
speedplane wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I claimed that regulation is antithetical to free exchange -- if you restrict me from trading something then I am not free to trade it Not quite. If you buy something without knowing what you're getting, that's not free trade. An airline selling a ticket on an unsafe plane but calling it safe is fraud, and fraud is not free trade. A "perfect" regulation would only limit fraudulent trade, but allow all other types o…

> Not quite. If you buy something without knowing what you're getting, that's not free trade. As a matter of language, I disagree. If I want to bet that the man offering me a lottery ticket is accurately conveying the odds, and you don't want to let me make that decision because you just overheard him discussing the fraud he was about to commit against me, physically stopping us from making that exchange by use of fo…

> If I want to bet that the man offering me a lottery ticket is accurately conveying the odds, and you don't want to let me make that decision because you just overheard him discussing the fraud he was about to commit against me, physically stopping us from making that exchange by use of force is a restriction of my freedom to make that bad decision.

If someone wants to sell your friend a lottery ticket, and you know with certainty that the seller has no intention of paying out a winner, this is not free exchange. It's just a lie and simple fraud. Furthermore, as a friend, you should probably at least try to intervene. The same is true of government (or any authority).

Making a fraudulent trade is not "free exchange", legally, morally, or linguistically.

Re: Boeing push to make training profitable may have left 737 Max pilots unprepared

#82

Post by blotter_paper »

speedplane wrote: post #81
blotter_paper wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not quite. If you buy something without knowing what you're getting, that's not free trade. As a matter of language, I disagree. If I want to bet that the man offering me a lottery ticket is accurately conveying the odds, and you don't want to let me make that decision because you just overheard him discussing the fraud he was about to commit against me, physically stopping us from making that exchange by use of fo…

> If I want to bet that the man offering me a lottery ticket is accurately conveying the odds, and you don't want to let me make that decision because you just overheard him discussing the fraud he was about to commit against me, physically stopping us from making that exchange by use of force is a restriction of my freedom to make that bad decision. If someone wants to sell your friend a lottery ticket, and you know…

I would try to intervene with language, but not violence. I would appreciate and expect the same from my friends -- there are people in my life I've discussed very similar hypotheticals with. None of that has to do with whether or not physical interference would constitute a cessation of free exchange; forget legality and morality, just think about the definitions of the words we're using.

In any situation where you are using violence to stop two people from exchanging physical objects, you're interfering with free exchange. If you actually disagree with this, I would like a term which refers to the concept I'm trying to discuss. I'd suggest that you're referring to something more specific like "well informed free trade" or "information symmetric free trade".

Re: Boeing push to make training profitable may have left 737 Max pilots unprepared

#83

Post by rapsey »

softwaredoug wrote: post #54
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #5

I hate the "everything must be a profit center" MBA attitude. Boeing is a profitable company because they make machines that fly people from place to place safely and efficiently. Part of that is having training, support, service, replacement parts, sales, manufacturing, IT, R&D, and all the other things required to make things fly. It's easy to sit in a conference room and say "gee, IT hasn't made any money, instead…

Is this an "MBA attitude?" I get the urge to rant, but I feel like even a good MBA would have seen training as a liability to mitigate in the larger business, not a profit center in its own right. A competent exec doesn't structure a business so that "everything is a profit center", as that drives specific behaviors, and you have to be careful about the accountability you put in place and how you're measuring those d…

This is unfortunately a very naive point of view. An exec in charge of training is an exec in charge of a cost center. No one likes costs, so no one appreciates his job and his career is hampered.

Turning it into a profit center earns him respect and promotions.

Re: Boeing push to make training profitable may have left 737 Max pilots unprepared

#84

Post by [deleted] »

speedplane wrote: post #81
blotter_paper wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not quite. If you buy something without knowing what you're getting, that's not free trade. As a matter of language, I disagree. If I want to bet that the man offering me a lottery ticket is accurately conveying the odds, and you don't want to let me make that decision because you just overheard him discussing the fraud he was about to commit against me, physically stopping us from making that exchange by use of fo…

> If I want to bet that the man offering me a lottery ticket is accurately conveying the odds, and you don't want to let me make that decision because you just overheard him discussing the fraud he was about to commit against me, physically stopping us from making that exchange by use of force is a restriction of my freedom to make that bad decision. If someone wants to sell your friend a lottery ticket, and you know…

[deleted]

Re: Boeing push to make training profitable may have left 737 Max pilots unprepared

#85

Post by speedplane »

blotter_paper wrote: post #82
speedplane wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I want to bet that the man offering me a lottery ticket is accurately conveying the odds, and you don't want to let me make that decision because you just overheard him discussing the fraud he was about to commit against me, physically stopping us from making that exchange by use of force is a restriction of my freedom to make that bad decision. If someone wants to sell your friend a lottery ticket, and you know…

I would try to intervene with language, but not violence. I would appreciate and expect the same from my friends -- there are people in my life I've discussed very similar hypotheticals with. None of that has to do with whether or not physical interference would constitute a cessation of free exchange; forget legality and morality, just think about the definitions of the words we're using. In any situation where you…

Who said anything about violence? No one should try to stop fraud with violence, except in extreme circumstances. The answer to fraud is to simply repay the person who was defrauded... someone who bought a fake lottery ticket should just get their money back, there is no need to resort to violence.

You seem be assume that "free exchange" simply means no one is physically stopping you from making a trade. That isn't what free exchange means. Free exchange means that two consenting parties trade known goods without undue influence. If someone puts a gun to your head to buy something, that isn't free exchange. If someone sells you a fake lottery ticket passing it off as real, that isn't free exchange. If someone sells you something they don't actually own, that isn't free exchange.

Re: Boeing push to make training profitable may have left 737 Max pilots unprepared

#86

Post by hliyan »

pcurve wrote: post #73
notreallymee wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using a throwaway account. A few years ago I did some consulting work for British Airways. It was interesting in that as far as the planes themselves, and the operational risk of the planes was concerned, the company had their shit together. Decisions made from a safety first point of view. Engineers making the calls. Everything else no object. But ALL the software around the planes, from the ops to ALL of the b2c wa…

"Their idea of agile was to release stuff once every 3 months in a 2 week window." Can someone explain why this is actually bad? (EDIT: I'm being serious, so please don't just down vote it without explaining. For airline industry with legacy systems, I don't necessarily think it's bad, but maybe I'm missing something.)

Agile Manifesto[1], principle #3: Deliver working software frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a preference to the shorter timescale.

There's nothing inherently wrong with this, if 3 months are considered "frequent" in your industry (true for mission/safety critical systems, or systems that should not be upgraded frequently for some reason).

The idea is to deliver small, non-breaking increments to production frequently, rather than infrequent, big bang releases.

1. https://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html

Re: Boeing push to make training profitable may have left 737 Max pilots unprepared

#87

Post by jrumbut »

chx wrote: post #24
goldcd wrote: post #11

I've read a few stories, with different 'takes' on 'what went wrong' They're all obviously coloured by the sources/reporter as obviously (in this case) if your pilot/simulator was impacted by cost cuts, then you're going to pin those dead passengers on your pilot/simulator changes. I'm fine with that. I'd do the same myself. What scares me though, is that even now the story is still a pile of anecdotal tumble-weed. W…

> Boeing needs to try to own what it'll take to get their planes flying again. I think they will need to meet the EASA at the Canossa Castle so to speak for that plane to fly again. The FAA so completely screwed up the EASA won't trust a word from them for a very, very long while -- not only did they let Boeing effectively certify their own plane but when the fertilizer hit the circular cooling device and the EASA se…

+1 and I wish I could give more for Canossa, that's really what is missing.

From Wikipedia:

"The Road to Canossa...refers to Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV's trek to Canossa Castle, Italy, where Pope Gregory VII was staying as the guest of Margravine Matilda of Tuscany, at the height of the investiture controversy in January 1077 to seek absolution of his excommunication.

According to contemporary sources, he was forced to humiliate himself on his knees waiting for three days and three nights before the entrance gate of the castle, while a blizzard raged. Indeed, the episode has been described as "one of the most dramatic moments of the Middle Age"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_to_Canossa

I also really enjoy Norman Cantor's description in "Civilization in the Middle Ages," where he takes a more cynical view of the actions involved.

Re: Boeing push to make training profitable may have left 737 Max pilots unprepared

#88

Post by dragonwriter »

speedplane wrote: post #77
dragonwriter wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For capitalism to work as intended, there has to be "perfect information", If you assume that capitalism is intended to work not in the way sought by the people who drove the move to capitalism but instead according to idealized economic theories much younger than capitalism, sure.

> If you assume that capitalism is intended to work not in the way sought by the people who drove the move to capitalism but instead according to idealized economic theories much younger than capitalism, sure. I actually agree with you. Much of the foundation of capitalism was based on flawed assumptions ("perfect information" being a major one). Huge amounts of abuse were allowed to be perpetuated as a result, and i…

> Much of the foundation of capitalism was based on flawed assumptions ("perfect information" being a major one)

Perfect information isn't part of the foundation of capitalism.

It's part of rational choice theory, which didn't exist until long ashtray capitalism. (There are arguments for capitalism rooted in rational choice theory, but those are retroactive justifications not the foundation of the system.)

> Huge amounts of abuse were allowed to be perpetuated as a resul

The abuse predates the theory “justifying” it, the theory isn't the cause of the abuse. Capitalism historically wasn't grounded in theory, it was grounded in the opportunism of the mercantile class under late feudalism leverage wealth, power, and the opportunities created by new technology to rearrange society so that the mercantile class (the subset that became the capitalist class) could displace the economic (and also political) power for the feudal nobility.

Re: Boeing push to make training profitable may have left 737 Max pilots unprepared

#89

Post by allovernow »

perl4ever wrote: post #64
notreallymee wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using a throwaway account. A few years ago I did some consulting work for British Airways. It was interesting in that as far as the planes themselves, and the operational risk of the planes was concerned, the company had their shit together. Decisions made from a safety first point of view. Engineers making the calls. Everything else no object. But ALL the software around the planes, from the ops to ALL of the b2c wa…

That's an interesting contrast to what I remember Richard Feynman saying about NASA after the Challenger - that the software was the area that was impeccably run compared to everything else.

Programming was a different game back then, when every kb counted. The bar was much higher. Niche PhDs chasing the cutting edge of technology. Now we have web dev.

Re: Boeing push to make training profitable may have left 737 Max pilots unprepared

#90

Post by praptak »

hkmurakami wrote: post #37
notreallymee wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using a throwaway account. A few years ago I did some consulting work for British Airways. It was interesting in that as far as the planes themselves, and the operational risk of the planes was concerned, the company had their shit together. Decisions made from a safety first point of view. Engineers making the calls. Everything else no object. But ALL the software around the planes, from the ops to ALL of the b2c wa…

This mirrors my experience in automotive regarding the sentiment for hardware vs software.

The one industry where car analogies are appropriate :)
Post reply on HN