Live data from Hacker News

More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

bloomberg.com

261–270 of 454 posts

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My only point was that hearing about the issues found by more inspections shouldn't change your mind about the safety because performing more inspections and reporting on the findings doesn't reduce the safety of what it already was (what you were presumably already OK with before simply hearing about the new inspections and issues found).

Your logic is absurd. We shouldn't worry because we weren't worrying before we knew the problem existed? Now we are educated about the problem what are we supposed to do? Put our heads in the sand and pretend the problem doesn't exist?? We weren't OK before, we were ignorant.

Nobody is saying to put your head in the sand.

But I don't see how the planes are any less safe than they were months ago.

If anything they are safer now that the issues are being fixed.

So if they aren't any less safe now, and I was willing to fly in one then, then logically I should be willing to fly in one now. That's how it seems to me at least.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, is it? Boeing is in the category of too big to fail. I agree its not government per say.. but it is really not a private business either.

Yes, the US government is not Boeing. Yes, Boeing is a private business. You are describing your general distaste for two entities and attempting to rationalize it. My only guess that steelmans that is you think Boeing would cease to exist without its defense business.

As of 2020, 21% of the DoD's budget went to Boeing, and was 31% of Boeing's revenue:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2020/01/02/ho...

It's unlikely either organization would exist as it currently does without the other.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#263
post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't buy the oft-repeated claim that you can re-make a company simply by replacing the CEO. I don't believe that CEOs in large companies have much influence on the company's direction, except in terms of decisions to downsize/outsource, how to use money, and who's on the board. There's only so much one person can do (and accordingly, I think all big-company CEOs are vastly overpaid). Moving the deckchairs in the b…

You can't "re-make" a company by replacing the CEO/CxO, but I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the influence of the c-suite either. What they care about and talk about filters down, often through unofficial channels of communication, and it does have an impact on how front-line employees do their work. Of course, this does take time and often involves some changes in management as well.

I've been watching the Post Office Horizon Inquiry sessions, and reading transcripts. From what I've seen, a completely new board would have no noticeable effect on the PO; they'd have to remove most of the management. It looks as if the company ethos is driven by line management.

Well, that really means tearing the company up completely. I can't see how a new board could effect reform. And replacing all the middle management would destroy the company.

And as you say, it takes time for a new culture to move through the layers; but the PO doesn't have time. Does Boeing? I realize the companies are very different, but both have marinated in an unhealthy culture for a long time.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boeing needs to dump the CEO and install someone from an engineering lineage if they want to build their reputation back. An engineering company run by a longtime manager with a background in accounting is in large part how Boeing got here. Fire the guy and get someone with a technical background in there.

> Boeing needs to dump the CEO and install someone from an engineering lineage if they want to build their reputation back. I'd argue they need an effective engineering culture , and leadership that enables and values and fights for it, not a former-engineer figurehead. Good engineers within Boeing need to be enabled to do their job properly, within normal business constraints, and bad engineers need to be removed. T…

The senior leadership does not lack the self awareness, they know exactly that they are bad and they act to cover it as best as possible. I saw this up close in other similar companies (manufacturing moved to all non-technical leadership).

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#265
post #213
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

neither Japan nor South Korea are South East Asia

What part of Asia are they then? They’re East and south of its center.

The vocabulary that defines geographical terms was always politically loaded and never meant to be interpreted in a scientific, rational manner.

South east asia doesn't literally mean "everything that is south and east in Asia". Just like how Europe isn't an actual continent but an arbitrary border that defines itself, in reality, by "the place where white people live in the West of the continent and who aren't Russians". Because the actual contiguous landmass, is, well, Eurasia, and Europe is an arbitrary human color that paints something that doesn't exist over the world.

https://dppa.un.org/en/northeast-asia

The United Nations define Northeast Asia as being: Japan, China, Mongolia, South and North Korea.

From wikipedia :

> The term Northeast Asia was popularized during the 1930s by American historian and political scientist Robert Kerner. Under Kerner's definition, "Northeast Asia" includes the Japanese Archipelago, the Korean Peninsula, the Mongolian Plateau, the Northeast China Plain, and the mountainous regions of the Russian Far East, stretching from the Lena River in the west to the Pacific Ocean in the east

>The definition of Northeast Asia is not static but often changes according to the context in which it is discussed.

If you think really hard about what those countries have in common, something that isn't related to a rational view of geography, it's that they're asians who don't look too brown. Yes, the origins of the definitions of SEA vs NEA are racially motivated and they're terms we're stuck with because most of the world knows what you mean when you talk about SEA vs NEA.

https://src-h.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/publictn/acta/15/kotokin/ko...

> "On the intimate frontiers between the Russian and the Chinese empires," Kerner wrote in the 1920s, "are face to face the world's largest, fastest-growing white population and the world's largest, ablest and perhaps fastest-growing yellow population." Much the same could be said seventy years later, even if we would disavow the racial categories that provided much of the attraction for Kerner

Those definitions were written by people who didn't shy away from calling others "Yellow population". But they also became part of the language enough that even entities like the United Nations won't bother trying to change them.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#266
post #257

Does Boeing's miltiary contract work also suffer from "deny the problem and ship it"?

Part of the reason military equipment is so very expensive is the labyrinth of requirements and verifications. Military contract work suffering from the same problems would require a lot of straight up fraud and document forging which is different that what seems to be happening to the commercial unit which is more laziness and corner cutting. Like there is a MIL-SPEC for pop-tarts that specifies how much filling there is and frosting coverage (finding stupid MIL-SPECs was great fun as a group of interns at Lockheed Martin, also reply-all email chains of memes which started causing outlook server problems before we were gently encouraged to stop)

The FAA shares a lot of blame for these problems by being negligent in their verification duties and delegating them to the companies they are verifying.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like this guy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk Someone with an engineering background and a pinch of Vlad the Impaler;)

Whatever your opinion of Elon is, it’s extremely generous to say he comes from an engineering background and just flat-out wrong to say he comes from the type of traditional engineering background relevant to companies like Boeing (the PE type of engineering). If you approve of Elon as a leader, he is basically the embodiment of “you do not need to be an engineer to run a highly technical company”

I think describing Elon as a small-e engineer (not designing powertrains, but at least understanding them) is accurate, and saying that an an engineering-first mindset is important for companies like Boeing and SpaceX would ring true. Engineering background is different than engineering mindset.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> also be a pilot with the suitable type ratings to fly the stuff they build. Why the pilot? When it comes to handling these machines, the pilots are one small corner. I would think that someone with experience keeping them safe and functional would be more on point these days. How about someone with the ratings for maintaining the machines? No pilot has ever inspected let alone installed a door plug.

It takes ~ 50 hours to get a pilot license and understand what is that. You don't need ATPL as a CEO, but flying regularly will keep you connected in a way that cannot be substituted, definitely not by the glasshouse that is a MBA. Can you be a successful CEO of a car manufacturer if you cannot drive a car?

50 hours? To fly an airliner you need way more than 50 hours. This isn't bouncing around the circuit in a Cessna. Boeing sells aircraft for use by airlines. Short of a handful people who own their own, to fly an airliner you need to be employed by an airline. You generally need something more like 1500 to 3000 hours before an airline is going to trust you with their equipment.

https://atpflightschool.com/become-a-pilot/airline-career/ho...

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#269
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> domestic flyers in the U.S. deserve something better than a 1967 design. Or maybe the market has spoken. Similar to how people complain about lack of legroom but proceed to book with airlines that have less legroom because it's cheaper, they're happy to fly on 1967 design planes to save a buck.

> Similar to how people complain about lack of legroom but proceed to book with airlines that have less legroom because it's cheaper When you're booking a plane ticket, you don't have much information about the legroom amount. Maybe you can tell somewhat from the airline, but most airlines have a variety of different planes, and I don't know how to use that information to determine legroom.

>When you're booking a plane ticket, you don't have much information about the legroom amount

Google flights shows it eg. "Below average legroom (29 in)"

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#270
post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>By the time there were c380 Max's built ??? Are you talking about the 737 max?

They mean "c" as in "circa," i.e., about 380 had been delivered.

That’s why god created “~” character.
Post reply on HN