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

US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

on.ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 367 posts

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#91

Post by logifail »

dmurray wrote: post #17
brink wrote: post #6

What other industry is allowed to inspect itself? It completely ruins the point of an inspection. It's like being the judge and jury in your own trial. I'm amazed this is a thing in the first place.

Stockbroking, cinema, accountancy, law, life insurance, financial planning, nuclear power, real estate, medicine, advertising, media...[0][1] Self-regulation (especially at the industry level rather than delegating to individual companies) doesn't seem completely broken. Actually it can work quite well. You keep some oversight, and reserve the right for the state regulator to step in if the SRO goes bad. The people w…

> The people who run the SRO have an interest in perpetuating their organization, so they if anything have an incentive to be stricter than the government would

Except if the "people who run the SRO" are in fact employees of the very company they're supposed to be regulating... ?

Then they surely have an even greater incentive to keep quiet in order to keep their jobs?

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#92

Post by 51Cards »

mattmaroon wrote: post #79
strangattractor wrote: post #47

Many people seem to think this couldn't/wouldn't have happened if someone else had been doing the inspections. This problem was likely caused by a flaw in the process. A mistake a 3rd party could also make. It is not a mistake where Boeing is doing nefarious cost cutting and needs to hide it or has made a huge engineering mistake affecting all the aircraft. Somebody put the plug in - got a phone call, or shift change…

The same problem has been found on several plans. Far too many and too high a percent to not be a systemic issue. A phone call or shift change might explain one or two errors, not the same error in many planes across multiple airlines. They don’t build 100 of those things a day. They don’t even average one a day. Whatever the issue, it went on over quite a period of time. Given the other issues with the 737 Max line,…

Just a note that the bolts problem on other planes is not the same as this one. This plane it seems that the locking bolts were missing entirely, not just loose. Their design requires a cotter pin and castelated nut to disappear and then for them to be completely removed, all 4, before the door can move. They act like a pin locking the door in place so all 4 have to no longer exist vs. just being loose. Of course the final report will tell but it looks like they were just not there. The other loose bolts found do however indicate a lack of attention and inspection in this area on a whole which may have contributed to this slipping through.

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#93

Post by 123pie123 »

Dalewyn wrote: post #54
jillesvangurp wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easier said then done. Inspecting planes is job that requires a lot of skill and knowledge. Most of those people aren't cheap and they tend to work for airplane companies that need their skills and can pay their salaries. Which in the US means Boeing basically employs all the best people for this. IMHO, the system actually works just fine. Accidents are extremely rare and companies tend to learn from them. A better f…

For all the criticism the American aerospace industry gets, Boeing is the only one clearly suffering the problems they have. If stricter regulations mean Boeing can't do business, tough luck. Boeing's entire business is to make good aircraft, and they are grossly failing to do so; their problems extend far beyond just the 737 MAX. A business that can't sell good products shouldn't be in business one way or another.

>Boeing's entire business is to make good aircraft,

it looks like from the outside that Boeing c-suite of people think... "Boeing's entire business is to make good profit"

without understanding the consequences of cutting corners in the process

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#94

Post by strangattractor »

treesknees wrote: post #53
strangattractor wrote: post #47

Many people seem to think this couldn't/wouldn't have happened if someone else had been doing the inspections. This problem was likely caused by a flaw in the process. A mistake a 3rd party could also make. It is not a mistake where Boeing is doing nefarious cost cutting and needs to hide it or has made a huge engineering mistake affecting all the aircraft. Somebody put the plug in - got a phone call, or shift change…

I was with you until midway. You're making quite an assumption while the NTSB's investigation is still ongoing. We don't know the root cause - Those bolts may have very well been in place and passed an inspection during install, but rattled loose and fell out (and then subsequently were blown out of the plane when the plug failed.) United reported loose bolts, not missing bolts. This indicates a more systemic issue a…

I do not think using words such as "likely" and "I suspect" constitute asserting anything. Those doors and plugs are designed to wedge themselves against the seal when they are in place. Just looking at them from the outside will not give any indication as to whether they are bolted. A few rapid vertical jolts (which might occur in flight) could jar them loose without the bolts. There is no damage to the structure of the plane. Bolts on planes are either carter pinned, safety wired or have a nylon ring to prevent loosening. They generally don't just fall off - not to mention having several fall off simultaneously.

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#95

Post by istjohn »

josh_carterPDX wrote: post #38
brink wrote: post #6

What other industry is allowed to inspect itself? It completely ruins the point of an inspection. It's like being the judge and jury in your own trial. I'm amazed this is a thing in the first place.

The FAA is bad, but I would say the FDA is worse. Any industry in which you have companies actually writing the text of the regulations used to oversee them is a recipe for disaster. Sadly it usually takes a tragedy to highlight these egregious systems that exist in our country. We also need to get lobbyists out of Washington so that the real impactful work can begin to separate the government agencies from the compa…

We need to get money out of politics.

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#96

Post by ryanisnan »

I posted this because I was curious to learn that indeed, aviation companies were doing this.

This type of self-evaluation is pretty common in software, though audits of compliance are also common.

I wonder what sort of scenario might unfold if a company had a team of developers who's sole job it was to test other teams' software in a red-team fashion. I am all too familiar with QA organizations, and the problems in that environment, and am all for developers conducting their own testing as a fundamental part of development, but what if we took it a step further?

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#98

Post by vkou »

shutupnerd0000 wrote: post #85
beambot wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prominent examples of "Self Regulating Organizations": The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), The Financial Planning Association (FPA), Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT), American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI), Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA), Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (FICC), Options Clearing Corporation (OCC), American Institute of Certified Public Accounts (AICPA) https://www.investopedia.…

All very upstanding and incorrupt organizations

Would you like to tell us how the NYSE is corrupt?

Or do they just get tarred with 'Well, they work in finance, of course they are all crooks' brush?

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#99

Post by chx »

protastus wrote: post #52
jillesvangurp wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easier said then done. Inspecting planes is job that requires a lot of skill and knowledge. Most of those people aren't cheap and they tend to work for airplane companies that need their skills and can pay their salaries. Which in the US means Boeing basically employs all the best people for this. IMHO, the system actually works just fine. Accidents are extremely rare and companies tend to learn from them. A better f…

Inspecting planes does require a lot of skill and knowledge. But one doesn't need deep expertise to detect loose bolts. My experience is that when quality breaks down, the effects are visible at multiple scales and multiple places. Who knows what else is non-compliant in the 737 MAX assembly line (surely this is why the FAA announced an audit). Loose bolts happen because multiple layers of protection were bypassed. h…

> But one doesn't need deep expertise to detect loose bolts.

Oh yeah you do.

Because some bolts should be lose and some shouldn't be. They would be studded or welded together if you never wanted to loosen it, after all.

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#100

Post by asylteltine »

brink wrote: post #6

What other industry is allowed to inspect itself? It completely ruins the point of an inspection. It's like being the judge and jury in your own trial. I'm amazed this is a thing in the first place.

The ones that pay off the government which is… everyone! Except you, the private citizen.
Post reply on HN