91–100 of 247 posts
I think the only thing that can actually fix Boeing is bankruptcy, so I hope that people refuse to fly on the Max even after recertification and it ends up being too big of a financial blow to recover from.
Or nationalization. Make success about safety and transport rather maximizing profit.
Geez. > "Would you put your family on a Max simulator trained aircraft? I wouldn't," says one employee to another, who responds, "No." > Peter DeFazio, [D-Oregon], called newly released documents "incredibly damning" That's hard to argue with. You'd like to think this kind of thing would... leak. Who said conspiracies involving hundreds of people are impossible?
> Who said conspiracies involving hundreds of people are impossible? Companies are pretty opaque by design and I'm sure these people signed NDAs. As long as they believed the company was acting legally (even if not ethically) they might not have felt like they had the legal right to share insider information. Others might have simply felt the company was working on it. And others might not have wanted to damage the c…
Paraphrasing a famous saying, it's hard to make somebody care about something if their livelihood depends on them not caring.
"this airplane is designed by clowns who in turn are supervised by monkeys" In the moment, I would imagine this comes across as sour grapes. With the benefit of hindsight, that sentiment seems to hold some water.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t see that extra bit of context changing the quote
Vague remarks about the design of the plane being unsound at any point in time prior to it being approved to fly passengers, doesn’t reveal any information at all about the soundness of the design of the plane that was eventually approved to fly passengers.
But all evidence shows it wasn't good enough (the design killed some 300 people!), but it got rubber stamp approval.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two things: 1. You would be surprised at how normal talk like that is in huge corporations due to internal politics. People bad-mouth other projects that are getting limelight, taking away resources, etc. A more benign example is how often Google employees rag on the GCP engineers as being inferior, which has more to do with the money flowing into GCP than merit. 2. People are irrational about safety, despite data sh…
In pilot lingo there are four levels of trust in a pilot (ascending order): 1. I won't fly with you 2. I will fly with you 3. I will fly with you and take my shoes off during take off 4. I will let my family fly with you. This phrase used verbatim means quite a lot.
You’re implying the employees not only trust the MAX, their trust is such that they are comfortable kicking back with their shoes off on a flight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presumably internal employees are familiar with the design process of planes. Or do you suspect they make statements like this for every plane during th early stages?
I have no idea. I doubt anybody commenting in this thread does either, given the complete lack of context. Given Boeing’s proven track record, you could potentially speculate that the comments are actually in reference to some serious failure. But the quote as it’s presented doesn’t provide any meaningful information.
Someone once gave the sage advice of never using the word 'kill' in your code base. 'm_Object.KillListeners();' can sound pretty bad in court. A lawyer can try to make your source code a legal matter, and a jury is free to interpret 'm_Object.KillChildren();' as being proof of willful negligence. Of course, this doesn't really matter when you're actually exposing willful negligence over your internal communication ch…
> man kill KILL(1) User Commands KILL(1) NAME kill - send a signal to a process SYNOPSIS kill [options] [...] Probably not a unix user then?
To a techie it's obvious what it means, but if the code runs on some hardware that ends up killing people for real and the code gets inspected during discovery, having words like that could be a liability since jurors are less likely to understand the technical meaning.
I worked in the automotive industry for a few years, we where told not to use the terms "crash","kill","die" and a few others anywhere in code or documentation for exactly this reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no idea. I doubt anybody commenting in this thread does either, given the complete lack of context. Given Boeing’s proven track record, you could potentially speculate that the comments are actually in reference to some serious failure. But the quote as it’s presented doesn’t provide any meaningful information.
The 'proven track record' is pretty much non existent at this point.
Read the whole sentence. Boeing does have a proven track record of serious failures, negligence, coverups... If you were inclined to speculate, you could speculate that this comment is in reference to some sort of serious issue that eventually made it into the production model. However the article doesn’t substantiate that implication (and it is only an implication).
The author of the article clearly wants you to come away from reading it with a diminished impression of Boeing. They have a clear profit incentive to make the article as outrageous as possible. A lot of people (myself included) already have a pretty poor opinion of Boeing, and I’d bet a lot of people who clicked on the article would be inclined to believe any negative claims made against them. The dangers of Fake News are often discussed on HN, and this is exactly the sort of situation where it is most important to exercise critical thinking.
That quote, without context, doesn’t reveal any meaningful information at all. I presume I’m getting downvoted because people think I’m defending Boeing, which I haven’t done once. I’m simply pointing out the danger of getting sucked in by outrage journalism, especially when it plays into your preconceived notions (no matter how well founded they are).
Other quote from the reuters article ( https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-737max/designed-by... ) : “I want to stress the importance of holding firm that there will not be any type of simulator training required to transition from NG to MAX,” Boeing’s 737 chief technical pilot said in a March 2017 email. “Boeing will not allow that to happen. We’ll go face to face with any regulator who tries to make that a re…
> Boeing’s 737 chief technical pilot He's one who really needs to go to jail. Why didn't they name him?
Just like how no VW employee went to jail in Germany for emissions cheating.