Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want to call yourself "engineer" then at a minimum all those standards and minimum requirements should apply, no questions asked. I've heard stories of hauling civil engineers out of retirement and in front of a tribunal after some structure that collapsed before it's time, or it was found that the original design was flawed in some way. An engineer "signing off" on something actually means something, with act…
All those engineers need to be hauled up because they’re killing people. Software engineers by contrast are high performance: barely any fatalities and so much value created. It’s why it’s not construction firms that are the most valuable companies but software companies. You can count on software engineers to build things that won’t kill, for the most part. Other kinds of engineers, on the other hand, are constantly…
Why you've never been in a plane crash
241–250 of 310 posts
Re: Why you've never been in a plane crash
#242...by Kyra Dempsey, a.k.a. Admiral Cloudberg, who has a long series of in-depth airplane crash investigation articles on Medium: https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/ This is her Medium article on the LAX runway collision: https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/cleared-to-collide-the-c... - with further details that would probably have distracted from the point she's trying to make in the Asterisk article (e.g. that the…
And if you like this sort of thing, you might also enjoy the various people that do reconstructions on YouTube - the real audio played over animations/flight sim of what the planes are doing. The most interesting/lively ones are those with a 'possible pilot deviation' or 'number to call' IMO if you want a search term to narrow them down. I'm not a pilot or planespotter or particularly interested in planes generally,…
Too bad really. So what if you get to watch yourself die horribly, you die either way! You will still be pasta sauce on the other end of the incident, you really shouldn't care. You might have a stronger spike of adrenaline than otherwise, but that's not going to hurt you any more than being pulverized will.
Re: Why you've never been in a plane crash
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want to call yourself "engineer" then at a minimum all those standards and minimum requirements should apply, no questions asked. I've heard stories of hauling civil engineers out of retirement and in front of a tribunal after some structure that collapsed before it's time, or it was found that the original design was flawed in some way. An engineer "signing off" on something actually means something, with act…
> An engineer "signing off" on something actually means something, with actual stakes. It's all about the social impact of a mistake. The reason "engineers" sign off stuff is not because they are engineers. It's because society frowns upon people dying due to a faulty building, wants to see those responsible for the disaster punished and not be behind another project again. Society's response to ensuring incompetent…
Is it not time things change?
How many lives have been destroyed by shoddy software? UK post office scandal? Therac-25? Leaked personal, intimate or payment data?
Re: Why you've never been in a plane crash
#244Great article. I agree a lot with the safety culture in commercial aviation and the commitment to investigate and fix root causes. Now can we please apply the same standards to car crashes? The same human errors and bad infrastructure keep getting repeated over and over again. And the problems are getting worse, with SUVs and distracted driving on the rise. See https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/ for a community that…
Unpopular opinion, but the truth: We have to drive and it's a right. I agree about the infrastructure issues. Still the modern "safe driving" mentality that people want is at odds with that REALITY. This could change with public transit, however we don't do this. Even the best countries fall short, and most don't get close. It's actively discouraged in the USA. Actually, you could argue that people already have to de…
But being forced to drive was absolutely a choice, and one that, with some effort, can be undone.
Re: Why you've never been in a plane crash
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
Instead of a blameless culture, more desirable is a shared responsibility culture. There are always things the engineer all the way up to the CEO could have done prior and could do after to move the company in a positive direction.
I don’t think “blameless” and “shared responsibility” are mutually exclusive, in fact, they are two halves to this same coin. The dictionary definition of “blameless” does not encompass the practical application of a “blameless” culture, which can be confusing. The “blameless” part here means the individual who directly triggered the event is not culpable as long as they acted reasonably and per procedure. The “share…
But when I think of “shared responsibility”, I think of everyone as sharing fault.
When something goes wrong, I think someone, somewhere likely could have mitigated it to some degree. Even if you’re following procedures, you could question the procedure if you don’t fully understand the implications. Sure, that’s a high bar, but I think it’s a preferrable to pointing the finger at the people who wrote the procedures.
On that note, someone or some group being at fault doesn’t necessitate punitive action.
Re: Why you've never been in a plane crash
#246Great article. I agree a lot with the safety culture in commercial aviation and the commitment to investigate and fix root causes. Now can we please apply the same standards to car crashes? The same human errors and bad infrastructure keep getting repeated over and over again. And the problems are getting worse, with SUVs and distracted driving on the rise. See https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/ for a community that…
Enforcement focuses on the wrong parameters. Police love to remind us that, "Speed is always a factor." Well, it's certainly the most easily measured one. The trouble is, what speed is wrong? Is it the 5 cars who want to drive 90mph on the freeway, or the 2 cars who want to drive 65 in both lanes? By obsessively enforcing speed limits, police have managed to perversely incentivize the difference in speed between drivers who are willing to risk a ticket, and drivers who self-righteously bottleneck traffic. I have never even heard of the law, "keep right except to pass" being enforced, even though it seems pretty obvious that it would help.
People don't want to drive. People have to drive. That reality perversely incentivizes drivers to minimize effort. There is very little motivating drivers to drive better than they need to. How could we possibly change this incentive? Fear tactics are not working. Threats are not working. This is an open question: what if it has no answer?
Infrastructure demands backwards-compatibility. We can't just build a new part of a city without roads. Where would people put their cars? If people living there didn't have cars, then where could they go? Where could they work? Could anyone visit? Utopia must have a compatibility layer: somewhere that alternative transit can transition to highways. But where? If you have to park your car away from home, then you need to manage the risk of unattended property. If you have to get a ride in someone else's car, is that affordable? If you are going to take a bus, how long will you have to wait? How many busses will you have to transfer between? No matter what we do, the compatibility layer will always be inefficient.
Infrastructure demands infrastructure. The only solution to more traffic is more road. The only solution to more road is longer driving distance. The only solution to longer driving distance is more time in traffic, which is identical to more traffic. The only way to stop growing this system is to stop growing the amount of drivers. How can that be done? In order to become a non-driver, you need a minimum viable alternative, otherwise you will have to drive just like everyone else. In order for alternative transit to be viable, there needs to be enough of it around that it feeds its own infrastructure demand. If alternative transit is built with a highway-compatibility layer, then that compatibility will effectively remove the need for alternative-transit growth. Realistically, alternative transit won't start demanding itself until its utility is equal to the highway system. We can't build that all at once, so how can we overcome the already-present highway infrastructure demand cycle?
No matter how you look at it, the highway system is feeding the worst aspects of itself into its own growth. The only way to change this cycle is to build a lot of alternatives really fast, and make them dirt cheap. It's a political nightmare. Even so, I would much rather live in that nightmare than the one where rubber meets the road.
Re: Why you've never been in a plane crash
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want to call yourself "engineer" then at a minimum all those standards and minimum requirements should apply, no questions asked. I've heard stories of hauling civil engineers out of retirement and in front of a tribunal after some structure that collapsed before it's time, or it was found that the original design was flawed in some way. An engineer "signing off" on something actually means something, with act…
All those engineers need to be hauled up because they’re killing people. Software engineers by contrast are high performance: barely any fatalities and so much value created. It’s why it’s not construction firms that are the most valuable companies but software companies. You can count on software engineers to build things that won’t kill, for the most part. Other kinds of engineers, on the other hand, are constantly…
If organizations and software engineers were held to account for data breaches, we'd have a whole new landscape.
Lives are lost to software failures as well.
Re: Why you've never been in a plane crash
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
Four million is definitely in the range of an outage at peak, that's not counting reallocated engineering resources to root cause and fix the problem, the opportunity cost of that fix in lost features, extra work by PR, potential contractual obligations for uptime, outage aftershocks, recruiting implications, customer support implications, etc. If you have a once a year outage, how many employee-hours do you think yo…
By that measure a loss of 1 second would be $7k lost revenue. A 100ms outage would be $700. Reality is that revenue wouldn't be lost if you had a 100ms outage, it wouldn't even be noticed.
If that little blip cascades briefly and causes 1000 users to see an error page, and a mere five of them (0.5%) to give up on purchasing, boom you just lost those $700 (at least in the travel industry where ticket size is very high). Probably much more.
Re: Why you've never been in a plane crash
#249Something that appealed to me during my years at Bridgewater is the willingness to attribute failure to individuals without making those individuals suffer. In "blameless" there's no personalities mentioned at all but in reality personality and individuals matter. EG if we had an outage because I put code into production w/o review, yes it's a systemic failure but it's also something about me, something about my mana…
For example, reading any NTSB report would make it quite clear that the actions of specific individuals - from pilots to controllers to maintenance techs and more - are very much mentioned and dissected under the "blameless" style of investigation that international aviation adheres to. But people already have their own ideas of what "blameless" means that inevitably colours their reading - in some cases, colours it so strongly that not even the evidence of success is enough to budge the conclusion that there must be something wrong with the way "blameless" culture is implemented.
Re: Why you've never been in a plane crash
#250This is the first time I've heard of "just culture" and wish it would spread to other areas of the world and life.
This system does in fact work very well for aviation in the USA. But I think we can't just blindly apply it to everything everywhere, assuming it will work the same. We should be able to consider what cultural factors allow it to work and what might cause it to fail. Among those reasons: * It expects everybody in the organization to be earnest rule-followers doing the best they can to achieve the goals of their organ…
But of course, it's easier to wring our hands over not having the perfect culture to implement what was itself the culture-builder than to actually put in the decades of work required.
As an aside, I think a lot of readers would be better served by setting aside their existing notions of what "blameless" means and looking into what it _actually_ means for the industry in question.