51–60 of 367 posts
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.
¹–https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture?wprov=sfla1
Dear regulators, Do it. Do it now. Sincerely, Everyone
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…
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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model
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…
United reported loose bolts, not missing bolts. This indicates a more systemic issue and not just a miss by an Alaska Airlines maintenance worker taking a phone call. If the systems involved in the failure are all "Boeing", it doesn't seem unreasonable to consider changes, such as requiring a 3rd party with no self-interest in rubber-stamping the go-ahead, to inspect the work.
Dear regulators, Do it. Do it now. Sincerely, Everyone
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…
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.
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…
[0] https://news.yahoo.com/maker-boeing-door-plugs-sued-00335449...
[1] https://jacobin.com/2024/01/alaska-airlines-boeing-parts-mal...
Finally, after a couple of plane crashes, fantastic investigative journalism, and a door blowing off mid flight (thankfully that was caught on video and shared). Too little, too late. We should regulate the regulators, bc I don't trust them either.
The plane crashes had nothing to do with inspection. You could've inspected a 737max down to every single bolt back in 2017 and not have prevented the crashes that happened after that.
Or, just talk on ex-BA SWE and learn about it from them.
Finally, after a couple of plane crashes, fantastic investigative journalism, and a door blowing off mid flight (thankfully that was caught on video and shared). Too little, too late. We should regulate the regulators, bc I don't trust them either.
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.
> What other industry is allowed to inspect itself? Movies. The ratings you see before a movie starts is assigned by the industry after inspecting the movie [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An industry regulating itself is different from an organisation regulating itself. Self regulation of the industry is common as you say. It tends to involve one central body enforcing the standards on the members, and acting as a central point for agreement of the standards. This is not the case with the Aviation regulation. The FAA is the regulator, and has delegated the testing to the people it is meant to be regul…
That’s largely fine though because the stick to enforce good diligence is the threat that the ability to self regulate is removed. As is being seen.
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…
However, do not take this to mean I want the end of the billions of dollars the government gives to Boeing every year, for the R&D to build planes for the military.