7 ms·

I know better than to read between the lines on a press release like this, but can't help but notice that it falls far short of accepting responsibility for the

I know better than to read between the lines on a press release like this, but can't help but notice that it falls far short of accepting responsibility for the problem. He admits that MCAS "activated in response to erroneous angle of attack information" but doesn't admit that this alone directly resulted in the crashes. Rather, he implies that this sets off a chain of events which the pilots are unable to deal with ("pilots have told us, erroneous activation of the MCAS function can add to what is already a high workload environment") which puts undue blame on the pilots rather than the system. If you'll excuse the analogy, it's as if they installed a new griddle in a restaurant kitchen which randomly gets ten times more hot than it ought to be, with no warning. The cook doesn't know it's too hot until the eggs start burning. Now the manager is saying that since the kitchen is so busy, the cook can't flip the eggs fast enough in response to these randomly fluctuating high temperature events. We're being told it's the cooks' fault. I don't like being bullshitted and find this sort of dodgy language completely inappropriate when 300 people died.

sundvor 8y ago
I agree. They certainly stopped short of exonerating the pilots, and the airlines.
bitreality 8y ago
With the way litigation works, corporations will never admit blame for anything, since it greatly increases their legal risk. It's unfortunate, but their responsibilities lie with their shareholders, not the people who lost their lives on their planes.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  People may get angry about this fact, but it really is the simple reality of an executive's fiduciary obligations. Ideally you run the enterprise in a manner that keeps the discharge of fiduciary duties within your personal moral constraints, but if you're not careful enough, you end up in this guy's shoes. And that's why they pay him the big bucks, because of such risks. That said, it's also true that Boeing is in a boatload of trouble. This is gonna get ugly. Likely not for the CEO. I'm pretty sure his signature is not on any of the relevant paperwork. But now that this report has been released, it might be prudent for people who do have their signatures on the relevant paperwork just to consult with some legal counsel. I suspect Boeing, as a company, wouldn't hesitate to throw them under the bus.
  - onli 8y ago
    > People may get angry about this fact, but it really is the simple reality of an executive's fiduciary obligations. Sorry, but that's bull. Owning the mistake - and yes, that includes paying the families of the victims - and offering a serious apology combined with "that's what we will do to make sure it never happens again" would have been the best way to guarantee that Boeing as the current company will continue to exist. Right now they risk the 737 MAX being scrapped and governments around the work taking actions against the obvious regulatory shortcomings - the corruption that obviously happened, to have a plane being able to run itself into the ground based on one sensor system without any redundancies or other securities. Now they need the US to protect them with further illegal subventions and government influence because they are too important for that country to fail. That's in no way the ideal way to follow "fiduciary obligations".
  - salawat 8y ago
    >People may get angry about this fact, but it really is the simple reality of an executive's fiduciary obligations. With all due respect, that's Bullshit, and anyone who cares to look into the provenance of the modern concept of a corporation can see that. A corporation is a mechanism by which people pool resources and distribute risk such that endeavors unachievable by any individual of that collective group. This privileged collective vehicle, however, was based on the principle that the existence of the corporation was providing a service or good to the benefit of the society enabling the incorporation. As a sibling poster mentioned, the Reagan/Thatcher years ushered in "the death of Society" and the birth of the "shareholder value" meme. A corporation does not exist without the societal framework in which it is implemented. If corporations don't take this into account moving forward, the system that put them in a position to do what they are doing may find itself under attack from without by legislators, and within by an increasingly marginalized millennial demographic. Point being, you can't sit here and say that the only obligation executives have is to their shareholders when the entire arrangement that makes that possible is dependent on the goodwill of everyone else who isn't a shareholder. I acknowledge my arguments may not convince a hard core "shareholder value" believer, but I'm willing to put my money in the long run on the state of corporatism in America sidling up to a line after which there isn't going to be much they have to lean on once people start realizing that shareholder/not shareholder is becoming the new social division point. Either we're all countrymen, or we're not. If corporate America pounds the "not" drum hard enough, I have no delusions enough people won't get together to bring the entire house of cards to the ground.
- pauljurczak 8y ago
  > their responsibilities lie with their shareholders This is the "shareholder value" theory, modern economists successfully brainwashed the population with. It became popular during the 1980s, "greed is good" times. It's just an ideology disguised as a science. The purpose and structure of modern corporation hasn't changed in the last hundred years or so. In 1950s and 1960s the public good, among others, role of corporations was wildly accepted. What changed is the ideologues who became more vicious and took complete control of the narrative.
  - tmd83 8y ago
    I was thinking similar things. I'm plenty sure they don't have any legal responsibility to mislead and confuse people which is essentially what they are doing. They might have a legal responsibility to say we are at fault if their internal investigation is still ongoing. But almost certainly knowing they are fault and trying to placate people and distribute blame is all about greed, lack of moral and setting up a false narrative of 'duty to shareholder'.
  - everdev 8y ago
    If the CEO of a public company owns 10% of that company's shares and 90% of their new worth comes from the value of that stock, I can imagine them caring a great deal about increasing the value of the stock. This is what people are referring to when they say "shareholder value" -- diving up the value of the stock.
  - TrolTure 8y ago
    Somewhat hilariously it's also often claimed that CEO's are not allowed to lie due to then being liable for misinforming shareholders.
    - Judgmentality 8y ago
      Are you saying it's okay to commit fraud?
      - bitreality 8y ago
- ncmncm 8y ago
  A Japanese executive would accept responsibility honestly and commit seppuku. I don't expect him to kill himself, but honesty seems the least we should expect in its place. Dishonesty is what caused it, and dishonesty continues dragging it out. He should be pelted with rotten fruit whenever he show his face in public until he comes clean.
- ssss11 8y ago
  I’m appalled by this point of view. Perhaps this is a weakness of capitalism.. primary responsibility should be to those who perished, not the shareholders.
  - bitreality 8y ago
    From Boeing's standpoint, it's actually even worse than this. The families of the people who perished pose a risk to their business. The company doesn't want these people drawing attention to the incident, and they want to minimize any legal recourse. It's about finding a balance, pay them a reasonably small amount to get them to shut up and go away. Capitalism, baby!
    - OneWordSoln 8y ago
      >> Capitalism, baby! I know what you are saying and fully agree but would like to put a finer point on it: the problem is with unfettered capitalism, especially after 100 years or more of the lawyers writing the laws for the wealthy, who own the vast majority of the corps. What we need is a balance between the entrepreneurial spirit of capitalism and governments that enforce corporate responsibility to its human workers and our communal environment. The corps have very effectively massaged the legal systems of the world into removing almost all notions of corporate responsibility. And here we are.
      - newsgremlin 8y ago
        Corporations can't win big if they aren't exploiting some workforce somewhere. Whether it's keeping their skilled employees quiet on the shady business and anti-consumer practices through the veiled threat of job stability and thus their lifestyle, or the ones on the other side of the globe slaving away constantly to meet demands of their products or raw materials at the prices they dictate and not by the labour put into making the product.
      - AsyncAwait 8y ago
        > would like to put a finer point on it: the problem is with unfettered capitalism Sure, but then I'd like for people to also realize that the problem is with authoritarian communism. Sadly, only capitalism seems to get a break.
- siruncledrew 8y ago
  I know it's about litigation and looking out for themselves, but Boeing had to have been apprised of the reports and findings from multiple agencies about the circumstances of the crash prior to this announcement. Surely, some granule of awareness had to sink in for Boeing and the CEO to realize "Damn, we fucked up." One way or another, the public is going to realize Boeing seriously fucked up, whether they will admit it or not. The total dollar amount of the damage is still going to be settled in court, but there's no escaping the fact that Boeing's actions had an impact in this catastrophe. Boeing would have to be incredibly oblivious to hold a position that they had nothing to do with this. But that's not how this whole show goes. CEOs are like robots that only act happy or serious. Go into a press conference and act all remorseful for the public, but don't ever offer a genuine apology or own up to the company's actions. Then when all the legal dust clears, the CEO can give a later update about how he is "shocked and appalled" that a verdict could possibly blame Boeing. What a joke.
- Chris_Chambers 8y ago
  Why is ncmncm’s interesting response to this flagged? HN is officially pozzed.
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  "Sharehlder value" as sole or even primary obligation is a myth. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2311&context=facpub https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
potiuper 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_Design_Approval https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_Design_Approval
pauljurczak 8y ago
Yep, it is full of bullshit corporate PR and crisis management. This story has just begun. FAA and Boeing hopefully will be held responsible. I don't hold my breath to see criminal charges for Boeing management, but this time, I wouldn't be completely surprised, if it happens.
- markdown 8y ago
  > I don't hold my breath to see criminal charges for Boeing management, but this time, I wouldn't be completely surprised, if it happens. I'd be very surprised if it did happen. "Lucky" for Boeing, it was mostly brown people in a third world country that died. Had it instead been two American planes that went down, Boeing and their executives would be in significantly deeper shit.
  - saiya-jin 8y ago
    I don't get the downvotes, the real world out there is still very much racist in many aspects and places, and lives are not treated as equal but depending on nationality, color and situation. Things are improving, but it will take a lot more time to actually arrive there, even if we consider only western democracies. Back to the topic - I am not surprised by this kind of empty bullshit talks from CEO, what else to expect from massive PR team? Each word was carefully considered together with big team of lawyers too. For me the outcomes are clear: - be very suspicious about anything coming from Boeing, their reputation is properly damaged (Airbus doesn't get a free pass, but their products didn't kill 300 people recently and they didn't try to shift blame everywhere else but themselves although things are crystal clear now) - FAA lost any credibility, period. Globally no other national agency should trust its evaluations, since its obviously susceptible to external pressures and failed at its core mission, directly in the media spotlights, globally, just few weeks ago. Gaining back the trust would be a lengthy process of measurable changes that led to their failure to act, and monitoring the results of this for quite some time.
_sh 8y ago
Indeed, the whole press release brings to mind a couple of points from "Engineering a Safer World" which, if you're interested in this stuff, I can't recommend enough[0]. In the section "Questioning the Foundations of Traditional Safety Engineering": Old Assumption Most accidents are caused by operator error. Rewarding safe behaviour and punishing unsafe behaviours will eliminate or reduce accidents significantly. New Assumption Operator error is a product of the environment in which it occurs. To reduce operator "error" we must change the environment in which the operator works. And: Old Assumption Major accidents occur from the chance simultaneous occurrence of random events. New Assumption Systems will tend to migrate toward states of higher risk. Such migration is predictable and can be prevented by appropriate system design or detected during operations using leading indicators of increasing risk. In the press release we see both the "operator error" and "random events" hand-waving. Regardless of the fiduciary duty of this man, this is just not good enough. [0] Open Access PDF: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/engineering-safer-world https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/engineering-safer-world
- acqq 8y ago
  The same quotes in an easier to read format, and I agree with them: "Old Assumption - Most accidents are caused by operator error. Rewarding safe behaviour and punishing unsafe behaviours will eliminate or reduce accidents significantly. New Assumption - Operator error is a product of the environment in which it occurs. To reduce operator "error" we must change the environment in which the operator works. --- Old Assumption - Major accidents occur from the chance simultaneous occurrence of random events. New Assumption - Systems will tend to migrate toward states of higher risk. Such migration is predictable and can be prevented by appropriate system design or detected during operations using leading indicators of increasing risk." Just a day ago, user Gibbon1 also posted a link to a talk by the author of that book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBktiCyPLo4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBktiCyPLo4
  - OneWordSoln 8y ago
    What a fantastic talk! Witty, well-paced and truly insightful. "Operator error is a symptom, not a cause." Ms. Leveson's book "Engineering a Safer World" has a free PDF download at http://sunnyday.mit.edu/safer-world.pdf http://sunnyday.mit.edu/safer-world.pdf
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Latteland 8y ago
Yeah, this is better than their initial "what, me worry" response. They should just own up to their screw up. They will owe giant fines and be sued. Their reputation is what is more important long term. Own up to the change.
- sundvor 8y ago
  I would trust them infinitely more if they could just say we fucked up, sorry, we'll fix it properly, then take a hard look in the mirror, and change.
  - agumonkey 8y ago
    it's said to be business 101 in management classes ...
guatepejor 8y ago
These airplanes were not designed for third world lower IQ pilots. Boeing still has the thinking of the 80s and 90s when the pilot demographics (even in the third world) was quite different. The tasks of dumming down the controls and much more training is the new reality that Boeing must implement.
- m0zg 8y ago
  > third world lower IQ pilots Ewww. Not here, please.
  - guatepejor 8y ago
    Why no free speech here? This is not Goolag. Or is it?
  - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
    Just flag and move on. Don't give the trolls the attention they crave.
Simple_Guy 8y ago
You can't admit fault or imply so. The legal department will veto it.
- enriquto 8y ago
  > You can't admit fault or imply so. The legal department will veto it. They should do it anyway. After the Challenger and Columbia disasters, there were major public changes at NASA. If there are none at Boeing now, we have a huge problem (since the number of deaths is an order of magnitude larger!).
rdiddly 8y ago
Yeah in fact it narcissistically points out how much this hurts them, and how smart and heroic they are in their solving of the problem. Wow good thing they happened along to save the day, eh?
ekianjo 8y ago
Companies will usually not admit any kind of fault because it opens for door for trials and so on. You should not expect a press release like this to fall into self incrimination. Press releases are reviewed by groups of lawyers as well so they will edit the language carefully.
FabHK 8y ago
In a similar vein, I found Boing's statement about the software fix objectionable: “Our proposed software update incorporates additional limits and safeguards to the system and reduces crew workload,” ... reducing crew workload enough that the crew have a chance to figure out why the plane is trying to kill them? Nice move.
mattrp 8y ago
Unfortunately, there's nothing different he can say at this point. If he wrote it they way you and I would like it to be, he'd probably be facing shareholder lawsuits and SEC fines and none of that would lead to a productive outcome. And it wouldn't change the fact that 300 people are still dead. All we can do at this point is hope they don't rush the MAX fleet back into service before its really ready and that the Boeing board really inspects the company's culture to ensure the whole fiasco has a lasting impact. Almost a "never again" sort of approach. Boeing has been doing a tremendous amount of innovative stuff and pushing the envelope in way more areas - commercial flight, space, military - than ever before, but apparently at the expense of what got it to its dominant position in the first place -- uncompromising engineering excellence. I would agree with you that before we, as the passengers of their products, can move forward, a stronger statement needs to at least address the specifics of how this is going to change.
- mattrp 8y ago
  And not to diminish this one issue - but if this can happen to Boeing, imagine the risks that many other companies with less of a track record in engineering may be inadvertently taking with introductions/reliance on ML. We've focused a lot on the ethics of AI making life/death decisions but in this case, based on what we know today, the prime culprit seems to lie in the decisions of humans (i.e. not to put two devices in place, or three as many have suggested, the decision to place engine mass in a different area, the lack of UI in the cockpits, etc)

sundvor 8y ago

I agree. They certainly stopped short of exonerating the pilots, and the airlines.

bitreality 8y ago

With the way litigation works, corporations will never admit blame for anything, since it greatly increases their legal risk. It's unfortunate, but their responsibilities lie with their shareholders, not the people who lost their lives on their planes.

bilbo0s 8y ago
People may get angry about this fact, but it really is the simple reality of an executive's fiduciary obligations. Ideally you run the enterprise in a manner that keeps the discharge of fiduciary duties within your personal moral constraints, but if you're not careful enough, you end up in this guy's shoes. And that's why they pay him the big bucks, because of such risks. That said, it's also true that Boeing is in a boatload of trouble. This is gonna get ugly. Likely not for the CEO. I'm pretty sure his signature is not on any of the relevant paperwork. But now that this report has been released, it might be prudent for people who do have their signatures on the relevant paperwork just to consult with some legal counsel. I suspect Boeing, as a company, wouldn't hesitate to throw them under the bus.
- onli 8y ago
  > People may get angry about this fact, but it really is the simple reality of an executive's fiduciary obligations. Sorry, but that's bull. Owning the mistake - and yes, that includes paying the families of the victims - and offering a serious apology combined with "that's what we will do to make sure it never happens again" would have been the best way to guarantee that Boeing as the current company will continue to exist. Right now they risk the 737 MAX being scrapped and governments around the work taking actions against the obvious regulatory shortcomings - the corruption that obviously happened, to have a plane being able to run itself into the ground based on one sensor system without any redundancies or other securities. Now they need the US to protect them with further illegal subventions and government influence because they are too important for that country to fail. That's in no way the ideal way to follow "fiduciary obligations".
- salawat 8y ago
  >People may get angry about this fact, but it really is the simple reality of an executive's fiduciary obligations. With all due respect, that's Bullshit, and anyone who cares to look into the provenance of the modern concept of a corporation can see that. A corporation is a mechanism by which people pool resources and distribute risk such that endeavors unachievable by any individual of that collective group. This privileged collective vehicle, however, was based on the principle that the existence of the corporation was providing a service or good to the benefit of the society enabling the incorporation. As a sibling poster mentioned, the Reagan/Thatcher years ushered in "the death of Society" and the birth of the "shareholder value" meme. A corporation does not exist without the societal framework in which it is implemented. If corporations don't take this into account moving forward, the system that put them in a position to do what they are doing may find itself under attack from without by legislators, and within by an increasingly marginalized millennial demographic. Point being, you can't sit here and say that the only obligation executives have is to their shareholders when the entire arrangement that makes that possible is dependent on the goodwill of everyone else who isn't a shareholder. I acknowledge my arguments may not convince a hard core "shareholder value" believer, but I'm willing to put my money in the long run on the state of corporatism in America sidling up to a line after which there isn't going to be much they have to lean on once people start realizing that shareholder/not shareholder is becoming the new social division point. Either we're all countrymen, or we're not. If corporate America pounds the "not" drum hard enough, I have no delusions enough people won't get together to bring the entire house of cards to the ground.
pauljurczak 8y ago
> their responsibilities lie with their shareholders This is the "shareholder value" theory, modern economists successfully brainwashed the population with. It became popular during the 1980s, "greed is good" times. It's just an ideology disguised as a science. The purpose and structure of modern corporation hasn't changed in the last hundred years or so. In 1950s and 1960s the public good, among others, role of corporations was wildly accepted. What changed is the ideologues who became more vicious and took complete control of the narrative.
- tmd83 8y ago
  I was thinking similar things. I'm plenty sure they don't have any legal responsibility to mislead and confuse people which is essentially what they are doing. They might have a legal responsibility to say we are at fault if their internal investigation is still ongoing. But almost certainly knowing they are fault and trying to placate people and distribute blame is all about greed, lack of moral and setting up a false narrative of 'duty to shareholder'.
- everdev 8y ago
  If the CEO of a public company owns 10% of that company's shares and 90% of their new worth comes from the value of that stock, I can imagine them caring a great deal about increasing the value of the stock. This is what people are referring to when they say "shareholder value" -- diving up the value of the stock.
- TrolTure 8y ago
  Somewhat hilariously it's also often claimed that CEO's are not allowed to lie due to then being liable for misinforming shareholders.
  - Judgmentality 8y ago
    Are you saying it's okay to commit fraud?
    - bitreality 8y ago
ncmncm 8y ago
A Japanese executive would accept responsibility honestly and commit seppuku. I don't expect him to kill himself, but honesty seems the least we should expect in its place. Dishonesty is what caused it, and dishonesty continues dragging it out. He should be pelted with rotten fruit whenever he show his face in public until he comes clean.
ssss11 8y ago
I’m appalled by this point of view. Perhaps this is a weakness of capitalism.. primary responsibility should be to those who perished, not the shareholders.
- bitreality 8y ago
  From Boeing's standpoint, it's actually even worse than this. The families of the people who perished pose a risk to their business. The company doesn't want these people drawing attention to the incident, and they want to minimize any legal recourse. It's about finding a balance, pay them a reasonably small amount to get them to shut up and go away. Capitalism, baby!
  - OneWordSoln 8y ago
    >> Capitalism, baby! I know what you are saying and fully agree but would like to put a finer point on it: the problem is with unfettered capitalism, especially after 100 years or more of the lawyers writing the laws for the wealthy, who own the vast majority of the corps. What we need is a balance between the entrepreneurial spirit of capitalism and governments that enforce corporate responsibility to its human workers and our communal environment. The corps have very effectively massaged the legal systems of the world into removing almost all notions of corporate responsibility. And here we are.
    - newsgremlin 8y ago
      Corporations can't win big if they aren't exploiting some workforce somewhere. Whether it's keeping their skilled employees quiet on the shady business and anti-consumer practices through the veiled threat of job stability and thus their lifestyle, or the ones on the other side of the globe slaving away constantly to meet demands of their products or raw materials at the prices they dictate and not by the labour put into making the product.
    - AsyncAwait 8y ago
      > would like to put a finer point on it: the problem is with unfettered capitalism Sure, but then I'd like for people to also realize that the problem is with authoritarian communism. Sadly, only capitalism seems to get a break.
siruncledrew 8y ago
I know it's about litigation and looking out for themselves, but Boeing had to have been apprised of the reports and findings from multiple agencies about the circumstances of the crash prior to this announcement. Surely, some granule of awareness had to sink in for Boeing and the CEO to realize "Damn, we fucked up." One way or another, the public is going to realize Boeing seriously fucked up, whether they will admit it or not. The total dollar amount of the damage is still going to be settled in court, but there's no escaping the fact that Boeing's actions had an impact in this catastrophe. Boeing would have to be incredibly oblivious to hold a position that they had nothing to do with this. But that's not how this whole show goes. CEOs are like robots that only act happy or serious. Go into a press conference and act all remorseful for the public, but don't ever offer a genuine apology or own up to the company's actions. Then when all the legal dust clears, the CEO can give a later update about how he is "shocked and appalled" that a verdict could possibly blame Boeing. What a joke.
Chris_Chambers 8y ago
Why is ncmncm’s interesting response to this flagged? HN is officially pozzed.
dredmorbius 8y ago
"Sharehlder value" as sole or even primary obligation is a myth. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2311&context=facpub https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

potiuper 8y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_Design_Approval https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_Design_Approval

pauljurczak 8y ago

Yep, it is full of bullshit corporate PR and crisis management. This story has just begun. FAA and Boeing hopefully will be held responsible. I don't hold my breath to see criminal charges for Boeing management, but this time, I wouldn't be completely surprised, if it happens.

markdown 8y ago
> I don't hold my breath to see criminal charges for Boeing management, but this time, I wouldn't be completely surprised, if it happens. I'd be very surprised if it did happen. "Lucky" for Boeing, it was mostly brown people in a third world country that died. Had it instead been two American planes that went down, Boeing and their executives would be in significantly deeper shit.
- saiya-jin 8y ago
  I don't get the downvotes, the real world out there is still very much racist in many aspects and places, and lives are not treated as equal but depending on nationality, color and situation. Things are improving, but it will take a lot more time to actually arrive there, even if we consider only western democracies. Back to the topic - I am not surprised by this kind of empty bullshit talks from CEO, what else to expect from massive PR team? Each word was carefully considered together with big team of lawyers too. For me the outcomes are clear: - be very suspicious about anything coming from Boeing, their reputation is properly damaged (Airbus doesn't get a free pass, but their products didn't kill 300 people recently and they didn't try to shift blame everywhere else but themselves although things are crystal clear now) - FAA lost any credibility, period. Globally no other national agency should trust its evaluations, since its obviously susceptible to external pressures and failed at its core mission, directly in the media spotlights, globally, just few weeks ago. Gaining back the trust would be a lengthy process of measurable changes that led to their failure to act, and monitoring the results of this for quite some time.

_sh 8y ago

Indeed, the whole press release brings to mind a couple of points from "Engineering a Safer World" which, if you're interested in this stuff, I can't recommend enough[0]. In the section "Questioning the Foundations of Traditional Safety Engineering": Old Assumption Most accidents are caused by operator error. Rewarding safe behaviour and punishing unsafe behaviours will eliminate or reduce accidents significantly. New Assumption Operator error is a product of the environment in which it occurs. To reduce operator "error" we must change the environment in which the operator works. And: Old Assumption Major accidents occur from the chance simultaneous occurrence of random events. New Assumption Systems will tend to migrate toward states of higher risk. Such migration is predictable and can be prevented by appropriate system design or detected during operations using leading indicators of increasing risk. In the press release we see both the "operator error" and "random events" hand-waving. Regardless of the fiduciary duty of this man, this is just not good enough. [0] Open Access PDF: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/engineering-safer-world https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/engineering-safer-world

acqq 8y ago
The same quotes in an easier to read format, and I agree with them: "Old Assumption - Most accidents are caused by operator error. Rewarding safe behaviour and punishing unsafe behaviours will eliminate or reduce accidents significantly. New Assumption - Operator error is a product of the environment in which it occurs. To reduce operator "error" we must change the environment in which the operator works. --- Old Assumption - Major accidents occur from the chance simultaneous occurrence of random events. New Assumption - Systems will tend to migrate toward states of higher risk. Such migration is predictable and can be prevented by appropriate system design or detected during operations using leading indicators of increasing risk." Just a day ago, user Gibbon1 also posted a link to a talk by the author of that book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBktiCyPLo4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBktiCyPLo4
- OneWordSoln 8y ago
  What a fantastic talk! Witty, well-paced and truly insightful. "Operator error is a symptom, not a cause." Ms. Leveson's book "Engineering a Safer World" has a free PDF download at http://sunnyday.mit.edu/safer-world.pdf http://sunnyday.mit.edu/safer-world.pdf

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Latteland 8y ago

Yeah, this is better than their initial "what, me worry" response. They should just own up to their screw up. They will owe giant fines and be sued. Their reputation is what is more important long term. Own up to the change.

sundvor 8y ago
I would trust them infinitely more if they could just say we fucked up, sorry, we'll fix it properly, then take a hard look in the mirror, and change.
- agumonkey 8y ago
  it's said to be business 101 in management classes ...

guatepejor 8y ago

These airplanes were not designed for third world lower IQ pilots. Boeing still has the thinking of the 80s and 90s when the pilot demographics (even in the third world) was quite different. The tasks of dumming down the controls and much more training is the new reality that Boeing must implement.

m0zg 8y ago
> third world lower IQ pilots Ewww. Not here, please.
- guatepejor 8y ago
  Why no free speech here? This is not Goolag. Or is it?
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  Just flag and move on. Don't give the trolls the attention they crave.

Simple_Guy 8y ago

You can't admit fault or imply so. The legal department will veto it.

enriquto 8y ago
> You can't admit fault or imply so. The legal department will veto it. They should do it anyway. After the Challenger and Columbia disasters, there were major public changes at NASA. If there are none at Boeing now, we have a huge problem (since the number of deaths is an order of magnitude larger!).

rdiddly 8y ago

Yeah in fact it narcissistically points out how much this hurts them, and how smart and heroic they are in their solving of the problem. Wow good thing they happened along to save the day, eh?

ekianjo 8y ago

Companies will usually not admit any kind of fault because it opens for door for trials and so on. You should not expect a press release like this to fall into self incrimination. Press releases are reviewed by groups of lawyers as well so they will edit the language carefully.

FabHK 8y ago

In a similar vein, I found Boing's statement about the software fix objectionable: “Our proposed software update incorporates additional limits and safeguards to the system and reduces crew workload,” ... reducing crew workload enough that the crew have a chance to figure out why the plane is trying to kill them? Nice move.

mattrp 8y ago

Unfortunately, there's nothing different he can say at this point. If he wrote it they way you and I would like it to be, he'd probably be facing shareholder lawsuits and SEC fines and none of that would lead to a productive outcome. And it wouldn't change the fact that 300 people are still dead. All we can do at this point is hope they don't rush the MAX fleet back into service before its really ready and that the Boeing board really inspects the company's culture to ensure the whole fiasco has a lasting impact. Almost a "never again" sort of approach. Boeing has been doing a tremendous amount of innovative stuff and pushing the envelope in way more areas - commercial flight, space, military - than ever before, but apparently at the expense of what got it to its dominant position in the first place -- uncompromising engineering excellence. I would agree with you that before we, as the passengers of their products, can move forward, a stronger statement needs to at least address the specifics of how this is going to change.

mattrp 8y ago
And not to diminish this one issue - but if this can happen to Boeing, imagine the risks that many other companies with less of a track record in engineering may be inadvertently taking with introductions/reliance on ML. We've focused a lot on the ethics of AI making life/death decisions but in this case, based on what we know today, the prime culprit seems to lie in the decisions of humans (i.e. not to put two devices in place, or three as many have suggested, the decision to place engine mass in a different area, the lack of UI in the cockpits, etc)