3 ms·

Yes, I totally agree. You have correctly identified the true source of much 'professional' outrage at what Boeing has done here. The MCAS system was, at its co

Yes, I totally agree. You have correctly identified the true source of much 'professional' outrage at what Boeing has done here. The MCAS system was, at its core, about saving money. Boeing thought it could retain the same type rating with an automated system that would make the aircraft fly the same. It is an almost unforgivable and detestable course of action.

mcguire 7y ago
Is a "cost cutting measure" really a bad thing? Most employers, consumers and the aviation industry would regard saving money as a good thing. The way Boeing went about it is foolish, short-sighted, exceptionally dangerous, and very poor engineering.
- bradstewart 7y ago
  Exactly. MCAS was a "cost cutting measure" implemented without consideration for anything else--including safety. SpaceX's (almost) entire existence is centered on a cost cutting measure: reusing rockets. But they didn't approach it in a way that killed a bunch of people.
  - mcguire 7y ago
    Yet. SpaceX hasn't killed a bunch of people yet. If you look at the history of flight, the biggest periods of progress killed people left and right. I'm not sure space can't go forward without doing the same.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  There's cost-cutting, and there's risk-shifting. Unfortunately, accounting methods and markets don't distinguish between these, especially where benefits (or profits) are immediately evident, but costs are occult and obfuscated. This is a situation which appears frequently, repeatedly, and notoriously in technological contexts. I'm seeing it increasingly as a fundamental conflict and paradox of market economics. The issue can work in reverse as well: measures (practices, products, technologies, services) with immediately evident costs, but distant, obscure, or covert benefits, can be a very hard sell. Maintenance. Employee training. CO2 mitigation.

mcguire 7y ago

Is a "cost cutting measure" really a bad thing? Most employers, consumers and the aviation industry would regard saving money as a good thing. The way Boeing went about it is foolish, short-sighted, exceptionally dangerous, and very poor engineering.

bradstewart 7y ago
Exactly. MCAS was a "cost cutting measure" implemented without consideration for anything else--including safety. SpaceX's (almost) entire existence is centered on a cost cutting measure: reusing rockets. But they didn't approach it in a way that killed a bunch of people.
- mcguire 7y ago
  Yet. SpaceX hasn't killed a bunch of people yet. If you look at the history of flight, the biggest periods of progress killed people left and right. I'm not sure space can't go forward without doing the same.
dredmorbius 7y ago
There's cost-cutting, and there's risk-shifting. Unfortunately, accounting methods and markets don't distinguish between these, especially where benefits (or profits) are immediately evident, but costs are occult and obfuscated. This is a situation which appears frequently, repeatedly, and notoriously in technological contexts. I'm seeing it increasingly as a fundamental conflict and paradox of market economics. The issue can work in reverse as well: measures (practices, products, technologies, services) with immediately evident costs, but distant, obscure, or covert benefits, can be a very hard sell. Maintenance. Employee training. CO2 mitigation.