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

More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 454 posts

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#271

Post by colechristensen »

jsiepkes wrote: post #40
rootusrootus wrote: post #15

This transparency is good, don't punish them for it. There's no guarantee whatsoever that other plane manufacturers don't run into similar problems and don't announce them.

> This transparency is good, don't punish them for it. There's no guarantee whatsoever that other plane manufacturers don't run into similar problems and don't announce them. Make no mistake, there is no real transparency here. There is no sudden "culture shift". Boeing is under a magnifying glass and no-one is going to stick their neck out and say: "Well, geez this is such a small mistake I'm going to ignore it". Be…

>"Well, geez this is such a small mistake I'm going to ignore it"

There are "mistakes" you ignore when you're building an aircraft but you don't call them mistakes, because they aren't. You have tolerances for everything. To be "correct" a dimension is specified, must be no bigger than this, no smaller than that. And that's it. You're either in the spec or not. If you're not there's no ignoring, parts were delivered out of spec. There isn't some secondary "out of spec but only a little".

Subcontractors (like Spirit), the prime contractor (Boeing), and everyone responsible for verifying (FAA, perhaps others) all share culpability for things going quite wrong. Hopefully the NTSB still has it's head on straight and the coming scathing reports will attract attention in Congress to light a fire under the FAA's ass to do its job, preferably with some direct legislation for things the FAA must do. (i.e. no more manufacturers doing self-verifications)

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#272

Post by FrustratedMonky »

SirMaster wrote: post #261
bmurphy1976 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Think we are arguing about a reaction to imperfect information, verus actual safety.

Yes, today, with increased inspections, planes are 'safer' than they were. If we take a baseline a few months ago, they are 'safer' now.

But

In the past, we had imperfect information about how worried we should have been. So a few months ago 'before knowing about defects' we weren't worried enough.

We didn't know how worried we should have been. Now that we know about defects, we are more worried. Even thought over-all safety is probably better.

EDIT: And, now that we see how much 'cost pressure' has lead to safety cuts, I think we can be more worried now, because we can see how much cost trumps safety. Those cost pressures will remain once the current crisis is past.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#273

Post by colechristensen »

loeg wrote: post #35
rootusrootus wrote: post #15

This transparency is good, don't punish them for it. There's no guarantee whatsoever that other plane manufacturers don't run into similar problems and don't announce them.

I have to wonder if they're using this opportunity to dump all of their known bad production issues so they don't get sued for misleading shareholders later. The kind of stuff that wouldn't have ever come to light if the door hadn't fallen off that Portland flight. Maybe it's even something they can try to spin as improving quality control practices for brand rehabilitation. Or maybe I am just imagining things.

I think it is more like there was a systematic laziness that had been growing with regards to QA which is being replaced by paranoia, so under scrutiny we're seeing attempts to be on the extreme of doing things by the book to avoid the most painful oversight actions. In other words, extreme CYA behavior like this.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#274

Post by strangattractor »

strangattractor wrote: post #246
BoxFour wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like this guy? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Muilenburg

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

He doesn't impale people either so I guess I am wrong on both counts. Maybe get a sense of humor:)

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#275

Post by AdrianB1 »

sandworm101 wrote: post #268
AdrianB1 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-pil…

Read again. I said you don't need ATPL to be the CEO of Boeing. If you don't agree, state that, don't pick on the 50 hours because you are wrong there. And don't be pedantic about ATPL requirements, I am a pilot and I know how this works. I do support my original comment.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#276

Post by SirMaster »

SirMaster wrote: post #261
bmurphy1976 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess I don't think we (travelers) weren't worried enough.

Looking at the overall historical safety and incident records it seems like it was still very safe. Less safe than we thought, sure, but still quite safe, safe enough to not be actively worried as simple travelers, at least in my opinion.

So for me if there were so few incidents with the unknown problems, then I don't see why I should be worried now that they know about and are checking and fixing the problem and even other problems.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#277

Post by emeril »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #185
wongarsu wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's frequently framed as an issue with Boing now having an accounting-driven culture instead of an engineering-driven culture. In that framing a CEO with engineering background is a logical choice to effect that culture change.

Not even accounting driven. It's MBA driven. Accounts ask how much things cost and go from there. MBA's figure out how much things need to cost to make their spreadsheet work and tell you that's what you get. Which is what happened at Boeing. They told the engineers they were going to develop the 787 for half the cost of previous models (we are very very smart). And it took twice as long and cost twice as much. Given…

yeah, I'm an accountant (not an MBA) and we get a bad rap for this

corp accountants don't care about cutting costs, we just care about making sure things are presented/tracked in accordance with gaap

we may help identify/track costs but we aren't usually tasked with cutting costs

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#278

Post by stouset »

TylerE wrote: post #242
stouset wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was not my intent to exclude regionals operating regularly-scheduled white-label service for the majors. It was my intent to exclude microscopic commercial operators doing charter flights, tourism, and other similar activities. I sincerely apologize for the omission, I did not recognize that that Comair flight was operating under the United banner.

Then you also have to count https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalk%27s_Ocean_Airways_Flight... and it's 20 fatalities. That was a regularly scheduled flight by a US carrier.

Chalk’s Ocean was not a major airline and it was not a regional airline performing white-label service for a major airline.

I hope you can recognize that a company privately operating a fleet of seven floatplanes is not particularly relevant to a discussion about the safety of mass passenger air travel, in much the same way that a carnival operating a rollercoaster is not meaningful when discussing passenger rail.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#279

Post by guardiangod »

rossdavidh wrote: post #3

I do get the impression that the current Boeing CEO is attempting to turn the culture around, to a more "admit the problem and fix it" kind of attitude. The problem is that, if you are doing this after many years of "deny the problem and ship it", the number of apparent problems is actually going to go up for a while. I wonder if Boeing's customers and shareholders will have enough patience for him to complete the tr…

I have the exact opposite impression. I don't know why the board hasn't fired him yet. He was brought in to change the company culture. It's been 4 years and this happen. 4 years is a long time, and this failure shows that he failed at what he was hired for (no, making money is not his main job.)

Of course he is going to say whatever is needed to save his job, but in my eyes Boeing should move on and choose someone else. Time is running out.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#280

Post by TylerE »

stouset wrote: post #278
TylerE wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you also have to count https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalk%27s_Ocean_Airways_Flight... and it's 20 fatalities. That was a regularly scheduled flight by a US carrier.

Chalk’s Ocean was not a major airline and it was not a regional airline performing white-label service for a major airline. I hope you can recognize that a company privately operating a fleet of seven floatplanes is not particularly relevant to a discussion about the safety of mass passenger air travel, in much the same way that a carnival operating a rollercoaster is not meaningful when discussing passenger rail.

Why isn't it relevant? They obeyed the exact same rules and regulations (FAR Part 121). That's the exact same part of theregs that applies to Delta and United. They weren't a charter or sightseeing operator.

They were, prior to the their closure, the oldest operating airline in the US and something like #3 worldwide, post-dating only KLM and one of the other European flag carriers. (Lufthansa, maybe? I don't have the list handy)

Post reply on HN