3 ms·

The root problem seems to be FAA not having qualified engineers to thoroughly test the planes Boeing makes. Boeing pays better, so it hires the best engineers.

by eruci 8y ago

The root problem seems to be FAA not having qualified engineers to thoroughly test the planes Boeing makes. Boeing pays better, so it hires the best engineers. FAA pays less so it gets second-grade engineers. And we all pay by flying in unsafe planes.

cabaalis 8y ago
Following your line of reasoning, wouldn't the supposedly better engineers build more safe planes, relegating the poor dunces to only validating the designs from their intellectual superiors? In your hypothetical, they aren't paying more for safety dodgers.
- eruci 8y ago
  Building a plane is a more challenging task than testing it. As a developer, I can say the same about writing software. Yet, my software is not likely to kill people and comes with no warranties whatsoever. In this scenario, we should make sure the test engineers are even more competent than design engineers. We can't rely on designers to thoroughly test what they build.
- BFLpL0QNek 8y ago
  Even smart engineers ultimately have a product manager who makes the call. Many times before I've been on projects where the team said we should not do something in a particular way only for a product manager or their superior to say no, we'll do this as it aligns with company goals or "we'll come back and fix it later". Then you either have to put up and do it or you'll be strategically moved elsewhere or be managed out of the job.
supernova87a 8y ago
This has been a 50 year problem in the making, and whether it's for better or worse should be more carefully studied. Through WW2 and the proliferating age of defense contractors, the government (mostly defense department, but also civilian agencies) stood almost on equal footing with contractors in their ability to design, scope, and evaluate big projects. You would see scientists and in-house advisers at these departments able to expertly evaluate proposals/designs by contractors with sufficient background knowledge and tools to do so. They even worked closely with contractors to lay out the requirements and designs for systems, or products. But, through the decades, a couple factors eroded this equal footing of the government / regulatory experts: -- Shrinking of government budgets for (or unwillingness of the public to stomach) the ranks of Washington "bureaucrats" who represented this expert class of people (what harm is there in cutting "fat" from public servants who don't seem to produce anything tangible?) -- More attractive pay, career potential, prestige, etc. of working in the private sector -- Political distaste for being seen as working too closely with contractors So what happened is that gradually but surely, government lost the tools to do these things themselves, and by sheer need to still have things approved, shifted the work onto industry. What can you do when industry comes to you with new complicated designs for things, and you have no one who can assess (and no budget to pay for assessments of) whether those designs are safe? You ask the person proposing to critique themselves, and in many cases, they seem to know more than you anyway. Of course, what in part probably led to our current situation. As a society, my question is, how do we make it possible to choose to do these things in the way that produces the right outcome? For a start, I think we need to stop asking everyone to make uninformed votes about things we don't understand, yet rely on every day.
- burfog 8y ago
  Most government agencies are incapable of having a good workforce. There are strict rules for hiring, paying, and firing. These rules involve all sorts of political nonsense unrelated to job performance, such as veteran status and seniority. The high-performing workers will go where they will be appreciated and rewarded, and where they won't be surrounded by useless and awful people. Absent a politically impossible change to the way the government handles employment, trimming the ranks is the only way to get rid of the harmful parasites that infest the typical government agency.

by eruci 8y ago

cabaalis 8y ago

Following your line of reasoning, wouldn't the supposedly better engineers build more safe planes, relegating the poor dunces to only validating the designs from their intellectual superiors? In your hypothetical, they aren't paying more for safety dodgers.

eruci 8y ago
Building a plane is a more challenging task than testing it. As a developer, I can say the same about writing software. Yet, my software is not likely to kill people and comes with no warranties whatsoever. In this scenario, we should make sure the test engineers are even more competent than design engineers. We can't rely on designers to thoroughly test what they build.
BFLpL0QNek 8y ago
Even smart engineers ultimately have a product manager who makes the call. Many times before I've been on projects where the team said we should not do something in a particular way only for a product manager or their superior to say no, we'll do this as it aligns with company goals or "we'll come back and fix it later". Then you either have to put up and do it or you'll be strategically moved elsewhere or be managed out of the job.

supernova87a 8y ago

This has been a 50 year problem in the making, and whether it's for better or worse should be more carefully studied. Through WW2 and the proliferating age of defense contractors, the government (mostly defense department, but also civilian agencies) stood almost on equal footing with contractors in their ability to design, scope, and evaluate big projects. You would see scientists and in-house advisers at these departments able to expertly evaluate proposals/designs by contractors with sufficient background knowledge and tools to do so. They even worked closely with contractors to lay out the requirements and designs for systems, or products. But, through the decades, a couple factors eroded this equal footing of the government / regulatory experts: -- Shrinking of government budgets for (or unwillingness of the public to stomach) the ranks of Washington "bureaucrats" who represented this expert class of people (what harm is there in cutting "fat" from public servants who don't seem to produce anything tangible?) -- More attractive pay, career potential, prestige, etc. of working in the private sector -- Political distaste for being seen as working too closely with contractors So what happened is that gradually but surely, government lost the tools to do these things themselves, and by sheer need to still have things approved, shifted the work onto industry. What can you do when industry comes to you with new complicated designs for things, and you have no one who can assess (and no budget to pay for assessments of) whether those designs are safe? You ask the person proposing to critique themselves, and in many cases, they seem to know more than you anyway. Of course, what in part probably led to our current situation. As a society, my question is, how do we make it possible to choose to do these things in the way that produces the right outcome? For a start, I think we need to stop asking everyone to make uninformed votes about things we don't understand, yet rely on every day.

burfog 8y ago
Most government agencies are incapable of having a good workforce. There are strict rules for hiring, paying, and firing. These rules involve all sorts of political nonsense unrelated to job performance, such as veteran status and seniority. The high-performing workers will go where they will be appreciated and rewarded, and where they won't be surrounded by useless and awful people. Absent a politically impossible change to the way the government handles employment, trimming the ranks is the only way to get rid of the harmful parasites that infest the typical government agency.