6 ms·
> Boeing has maintained that simulator training is not necessary for the 737 Max and regulators do not require it, but many airlines bought the multimillion-dol
by droithomme 7y ago
> Boeing has maintained that simulator training is not necessary for the 737 Max and regulators do not require it, but many airlines bought the multimillion-dollar machines to give their pilots more practice.
Boeing is only arguing this because if they say simulator training is necessary, then the plane must be recertified. Their executive MBA analyst and stock watcher types under no circumstances will tolerate recertification, therefore regardless of facts, their position must be that simulator training is not necessary. Even though it obviously is. Key point to observing this and everything else about this debacle is that Boeing has no concern whatsoever for safety, professionalism or lives, and is only interested in their own profit, executive bonuses, and stock dividend gains and will do absolutely anything to protect those, even though it inevitably is going to lead to another crash and more deaths. At which point they will again start by doing everything they can to blame the pilot and the culture of whatever country he hails from, as well as paying shills to post nonsense and attack pilots, engineers and others who question their narrative publicly.
- MaxBarraclough 7y agoBut that's only half the story. The other half is that the FAA -- which is meant to be the counterweight to those perverse incentives -- is no longer credible. (I've made this point before [0] but it bears repeating here.) [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19888207 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19888207
- SilasX 7y agoThat’s not making the point; that’s just asserting it.
- virtual_void 7y agoI’m confused as to the difference. No snark intended. I’m likely missing something.
- febeling 7y agoI think the parent poster misses the reason with the point being made. I miss it too.
- jplayer01 7y agohttps://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/make_a_point https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/make_a_point "(idiomatic) To argue or promote an idea." It isn't enough to just say a statement when you want to make a point. It's usually expected, especially here on HN, to put some effort into demonstrating why you believe that statement is true, something which his linked comment doesn't do. It doesn't need to be anything elaborate, even references to other comments mentioning things FAA has done would be more than enough to make the point, which gives people something factual or "real" to respond to or look into. I don't think there's anything wrong with his statement per se. You don't always need to write a treatise whenever you want to join a discussion or throw in your two cents. Just that when he says he's made the point before, it'd be more helpful to link to something more substantial than the same statement in a different place.
- SilasX 7y agoThank you, confirming this is what I meant (except this is better than I could have said it myself).
- zhte415 7y agoHere. I make a point for you .. >
- navigatesol 7y ago>Their executive MBA analyst and stock watcher types under no circumstances will tolerate recertification Do you have a shred of evidence for this, or are you simply spewing contempt towards a post-secondary degree you happen to dislike? >as well as paying shills to post nonsense and attack pilots, engineers and others who question their narrative publicly. The CEO of Boeing is an engineer. I guess that means he's off the hook?
- craftinator 7y agoLook at how the CEO has handled this mess. It is not the work of someone approaching the problem as an engineer. He is approaching it as a politician, with much heart felt meaningless responses, blame deflection, ignorance of undesireable facts. An engineer's approach would be to identify the problem through logical, rational thought, generate a few choice viable solutions, test each solution for effectiveness, and implement the best combination of them. And I'd say it is common knowledge by this point that Boeing is ruled by their shareholders' bottom line more than any other metric. So yes, Boeing attempted a business move to counteract the success of Airbuss's new plane by speeding through the design of the Max. Recertification would take too long, losing them market share, so they rode the line as close as they could to avoid recertification and minimize cost. The rushed design meant failures were more likely, the lack of recertification meant the pilots in the cockpit didn't have knowledge to properly deal with these failures, and now we have a lot of dead people. There's not much gray area to this story.
- CorvusCrypto 7y agoI was definitely one who thought it should be so simple to follow a standard stab trim runaway and made several comments to it too. But the more it drags on the more I'm learning from the data that the procedure to correct is just bullshit. Boeing is now in unsaveable waters for this situation and all doubt is being removed. I still am upset that any airline was able to in good faith say "nah we don't want all the safety options not worth it" but here it doesn't seem it would have helped much the more data comes out.
- 7y ago
- skookumchuck 7y agoOr maybe the problem is the re-certification requirement needs to be adjusted if it is causing safety issues.
- pyrale 7y agoLikewise, VW cheating their emission tests mean that we should remove emission tests, as companies are forced to disloyalty by this regulation. Enron and the 2008 crisis also put in question the need for banking regulation.
- WrtCdEvrydy 7y agoMake stealing from working class people a crime punishable by death... starting with the C-Level suite. There's no need for further regulation.
- arcticbull 7y agoThere's this niche philosophy that punishment should fit the crime.
- ceejayoz 7y agoIn the 737 MAX case, the crime is that several hundred people died from these poor decisions.
- skookumchuck 7y agoThe trouble with making this a crime is then you strongly incentivize people to deny, delay, obfuscate, etc., when what you really want is full cooperation. The full cooperation "no fault" approach has led to aviation being incredibly safe. "Anything you say can and will be used against you" means you will never get to the truth of what caused an accident, and it will be much less likely to ever get fixed. Furthermore, if you criminalize mistakes, you'll have a hard time getting top quality people to work in the industry.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- achandlerwhite 7y ago> Their executive MBA analyst and stock watcher types under no circumstances will tolerate recertification Don't forget that it's also what their customers wanted.
- salawat 7y agoNo, that's what Airlines wanted. As an Engineering firm, your job is to tell the customer, "I'm sorry, I cannot give you approval to do that." The idea being that you, the Engineering Authority, are bound by professional ethics, and a commitment to the public interest.and equipped with the specialized knowledge required to determine the outcomes of a design before it is actually rolled out. It is never justifiable to make an unsafe bridge. Airplanes are no different. No matter the size of the money bag.