Boeing push to make training profitable may have left 737 Max pilots unprepared • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by marvin » Sun, Dec 22, 2019, 11:22 AM UTC

speedplane wrote: post #85

blotter_paper wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

You're commenting on a common libertarian rhetorical excess that's ancillary to the point being discussed: If something can be ultimately done by force, it is equivalent to violence.

Meaning, when you get a parking ticket, that's state-sanctioned violence, because ultimately some non-consentual means could be applied to force you to turn over the money. Taxes are violence by the same argument, and, I presume, regulation of a lottery. (Someone might be sent to prison).

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

#112

Post by LatteLazy » Sun, Dec 22, 2019, 11:29 AM UTC

Wasn't the whole point of the 737max to all planes with new engines (which were more efficient but changed significantly the flight characteristics) to be flown by pilots without having to re certify?

As I understand it, airlines or the faa only permit pilots to be licensed for 2 airframes at a time. So a 747 pilot can also fly 737s but not other commercial airliners. That's a problem because if the new boeing isn't a 737, existing pilots can't fly it without giving up one of the other two. Airlines dont want that as it makes introducing the new plane a massive pain in the arse and it means either dumping old planes or running a complex mixed infrastructure.

So Boeing effectively had pilots fly a 737 simulator that would make the actual Max fly when/where/how they wanted.

Except the simulator had a bug where if a single sensor failed it crashed the plane.

So the trigger of the issue is a single point of failure in a sensor but the fundamental causes are needing to not change pilot certification and/or only being allowed 2 certifications at a time.

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

#113

Post by andrepd » Sun, Dec 22, 2019, 12:32 PM UTC

speedplane wrote: post #70

blotter_paper wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anarchist here, used to identify as a communist. I'd argue that both of your "capitalism" definitions can be pointed to as potential causes of the 737 fiasco, but that the latter ("free economic exchange through markets") seems more in line with what GP was wanting to, err, correct; I read GP as wanting more regulation for airplanes, which is antithetical to free exchange. I feel like the market itself will correct f…

> your "capitalism" definitions can be pointed to as potential causes of the 737 fiasco For capitalism to work as intended, there has to be "perfect information", i.e., no lying and everyone knows what they're paying for. This is obviously a practical impossibility: companies and people lie, and most consumers buy things without fully researching or knowing what it is that they're getting. One purpose of regulation i…

>For capitalism to work as intended, there has to be "perfect information", i.e., no lying and everyone knows what they're paying for. This is obviously a practical impossibility: companies and people lie, and most consumers buy things without fully researching or knowing what it is that they're getting.

And of course advertising, a nefarious tool to lead people to make decisions which otherwise they would have not.

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

#114

Post by andrepd » Sun, Dec 22, 2019, 12:43 PM UTC

nosianu wrote: post #105

andrepd wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly it's not a feature of Boeing, but a feature of unchecked capitalism.

Because in feudalism and before, or more recently in socialism - where I grew up - nobody ever took shortcuts, for selfish reasons or to please someone or to fulfill some goal (set by some boss or by the "central committee", does not matter) and everybody only thought of the greater good? Many times when there is discussion about issues like the environment there is such a comment blaming capitalism. I can assure you…

Precisely. People generally do as the system rewards them. If you live in a society of good opportunities and strong law enforcement, people have no incentive to steal, and will probably mostly not do so. If punishment for rape is lax, and/or the culture does not strongly censor it, then sexual crimes will abound. Etc.

And of course, in neoliberal growth capitalism, the pursuit of perpetual growth will mean that some very stupid things are going to be done because they please the system: planned obsolescence, burning unsold clothes to keep the brand valuable, etc. They would mine the earth dry if it would make them a penny in their quarterly reports.

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

#115

Post by blotter_paper » Sun, Dec 22, 2019, 2:15 PM UTC

speedplane wrote: post #85

blotter_paper wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

How do you intended to enforce regulations without violence? Without violence, your regulations are merely suggestions which I am free to ignore. I'm fine with suggestions.

Again, if you can't agree with my use of words then please provide a term you find suitable for the concept I'm trying to convey. I provided two terms I find suitable for the concept you're trying to convey, but you've provided me none despite an explicit request. To me, when somebody refuses to find common language it seems like they're using language as a barrier rather than a bridge. To disagree on a definition can be understandable, but refusing to provide any alternative looks like rhetoric rather than a legitimate attempt at mutual understanding. What do you call unrestricted exchange of items between individuals regardless of differences in knowledge or legal ownership? I want a term that will clearly convey this concept to you, and others who are using language in a similar manner. [Edit: how would you feel about "unrestricted object swapping" or "unrestricted barter"?]

> If someone puts a gun to your head to buy something, that isn't free exchange.

I don't think I've said anything that would suggest this example is a free exchange, but the other two which don't involve coercion through threats of force I will stand behind (as free exchange, not necessarily as nice things to do to people).

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

#116

Post by rdtwo » Sun, Dec 22, 2019, 3:23 PM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #102

rapsey wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is why some orgs did an "internal outsourcing" of their IT / training / other "shared services" - they bill the other departments for what they do. It both disincentivizes waste for the client departments and prevents the "IT department is a cost center" mindset, at the downside of a boatload of bureaucracy if every purchase of, let's say, a broken HDMI cable has to go through countless approval loops.

Our department once tried to buy a 200$ fiber optic cable... it took 2 engineers, a manager and a director 9 months of paperwork to request one... and in the end we never got the cable.

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

#117

Post by jimkleiber » Sun, Dec 22, 2019, 3:42 PM UTC

tome wrote: post #97

jimkleiber wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate you pointing this out. Reminds me of a book called Obliquity where I think the author specifically mentions Boeing in a story talking about how companies make more money when they don't specifically focus on making money. If I recall correctly, he mentions how Boeing used to focus on making really good planes and when they did, they made a lot of money. When they shifted to focusing on profit, they start…

Is it this? https://www.johnkay.com/2004/01/17/obliquity/

Yes! That's it. I only read the first few chapters because my friend loved it and I gave it to him. However I loved those first few chapters

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

#118

Post by yardie » Sun, Dec 22, 2019, 3:43 PM UTC

notreallymee wrote: post #32

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…

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…

As someone who is familiar with BA IT operations but not connected to B2B/C in any function I can say what a shitshow from experience. Engineering has put up a decent firewall to keep the MBAs from mucking it up. But shit rolls downhill and it’s only a matter of time.

Hopefully the Boeing fiasco is causing other engineering lead companies to refocus their priorities.

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

#119

Post by jimkleiber » Sun, Dec 22, 2019, 3:44 PM UTC

dmix wrote: post #94

jimkleiber wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate you pointing this out. Reminds me of a book called Obliquity where I think the author specifically mentions Boeing in a story talking about how companies make more money when they don't specifically focus on making money. If I recall correctly, he mentions how Boeing used to focus on making really good planes and when they did, they made a lot of money. When they shifted to focusing on profit, they start…

That's because we as a culture over-analyze and study businesses as if they are living entities that are the sum of all of it's different internal divisions/parts/stockholder-connected output, instead of fundamentally about delivering value to customers and getting back a greater amount of value in return. The universities and pop-business books has made everyone so obsessed with the business processes themselves and…

I agree. I think we often get too focused on the small details of life and forget the big picture. And by we I mean me as well thank you for your words

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

#120

Post by petilon » Sun, Dec 22, 2019, 4:10 PM UTC

na85 wrote: post #65

petilon wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> insufficiently stable to meet certification requirements Sounds like unstable to me. "I am not fat, I am just insufficiently thin".

It's stable. In aerodynamics, stability has a specific meaning and it's possible for two things to be stable, and for one of those things to be less stable than the other. Picture a pendulum that is hinged on a greased axle vs one that is hinged on a high-friction axle. Both will reach equilibrium eventually (they're stable) but one will do it faster/with fewer oscillations. The 737 MAX is longitudinally stable, but…

There is so much doublespeak here. If it is less stable than required for airworthiness then it is not airworthy. Can we agree on that?