4 ms·
Wow. The quote from Capt Ray Miller is particularly telling: “I have been told by my company . . . that the FAA and Boeing (were) aware of the problems with th
by jfk13 8y ago
Wow. The quote from Capt Ray Miller is particularly telling:
“I have been told by my company . . . that the FAA and Boeing (were) aware of the problems with the spurious rudder inputs but considered them to be more of a nuisance problem than a flight safety issue. I was informed, that so far as everyone was concerned, the rudder hardovers were a problem but that the `industry' felt the losses would be in the acceptable range. I was being mollified into thinking the incident did not happen, and for the `greater good' it would be best not to pursue the matter. In other words I am expendable as are the passengers I am responsible for, because for liability reasons the FAA, Boeing et al cannot retroactively redesign the rudder mechanisms to improve their reliability."
And this was after the fault had not just caused in-flight emergencies, but had already killed people...
- gameswithgo 8y agoI wonder what solutions there are to these liability/blame problems. I have seen a similar case in Australia, where a parking barrier was an extreme danger as it cross over a biking path, and was hard to see until the last minute. It caused a crash that took a mans leg, and the legal proceedings took years. During that time the barrier remained in place, still a danger, because removing it would have admitted fault.
- why-el 8y agoWhat was the result of the litigation? From a money perspective, it seemed like "admitting fault" would be far more reasonable, and I think in this sense executives tend to exaggerate effects of "admitting fault", because, in the end, they are betting that legal proceedings would nullify its effects, but as we are learning now, it's not the case at all. Public memory might be short, but it regenerates at alarming speeds if you continue down this path.
- testvox 8y agoThey might have not been contractually allowed to admit fault. Many insurance policies do not allow the insured to admit fault, or they forfeit the policy.
- btown 8y agoThis type of term should be made illegal. No civil contract should be able to incite a party to knowingly withhold evidence that could save lives.
- ridgeguy 8y agoI think it's different in the US. Post-incident efforts to repair usually aren't considered an admission of responsibility in US tort law. Social policy reason is to encourage repair of hazards, rather than reinforce the circumstance you note.
- azernik 8y agoA side note: there is a well-defined value of "acceptable range", i.e. regulators regularly make decisions based on whether the cost of a change would be more than the "statistical value of a human life". (https://www.theglobalist.com/the-cost-of-a-human-life-statistically-speaking/ https://www.theglobalist.com/the-cost-of-a-human-life-statis...) The question is whether, through regulatory capture or negligence, monetary costs are being valued too highly.
- brian-armstrong 8y agoYes I have also seen Fight Club
- Dylan16807 8y agoIt's not a cynical measure of what makes more money. The risk tolerance is set a lot smaller than that level. Which is a reasonable acknowledgement that you can't prevent all risk. At some point the overhead of your anti-risk measures starts causing more harm than good.