13 ms·

Boeing has designed planes that have an INCREDIBLE safety record, particularly when flying in US regulated airspace. Interesting that prison time is demanded h

Boeing has designed planes that have an INCREDIBLE safety record, particularly when flying in US regulated airspace. Interesting that prison time is demanded here when a much more simple explanation is that this was an oversight by the pilots in the sim who didn't fully understand the issue was MCAS related. Millions killed from opioid epidemics, thousands killed from violence and various preventable diseases, huge number of road fatalities do not result in prison time. The safety record of aviation in the US should be applauded.

atonse 7y ago
So you want to use their historical record as some kind of justification for their dismal record with the 737 MAX, as if one is related to the other? Cold comfort to the 300+ lives, and families destroyed. Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2tuKiiznsY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2tuKiiznsY This isn't just some "oops, these were badly trained pilots" – the whole premise of MCAS is seriously screwed up and smacks of non-engineers running the place.
- LifeLiverTransp 7y ago
  Sometimes a place can fall apart from the inside, knowledge rot eating away at a engineering culture, like termites at a house. In the end, its all still there- but not reliable. MCAS is ducttape. Ducttape applied, because the whole culture is by now incentivize screwed, pennywise optimizing instead of pound problem solving. A "carry on" is actually the hostile action in this situation. Sidenote: I like that you can not lie in modern society, because all data has copies and copies of copies.
- Gpetrium 7y ago
  What op seems to imply is that airplane incidents rates actually have a stronger track record as opposed to the opioid epidemic, road fatality, etc. And that if society believes that this individual/group should go to prison based on this mistake and in hindsight, without account for all the other factors that were a part of the decision making process, then society should start reconsidering the way it treats opioid, road fatality, etc. The mindset of "quick to imprison" can also run the risk of creating a society that is overly averse to risk taking, which can hinder technology and scientific advances. For example, it may take 10 times as long to get a new, more advanced traffic light implemented in your city because now everyone wants to make sure no stone was left unturned, otherwise someone will get into an accident and a staff/group will be imprisoned. Or a new software is implemented but 3 months later it is found that failure under very specific scenarios has caused over 50 deaths. There are millions of potential scenarios that may fall under similar conditions as exemplified above. Please note that this writing is not advocating for or against either views, it is simply shedding light on risks that should be considered.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    Has anybody argued that nobody else should be punished, ever? Otherwise "but there's drug addiction and car accidents! We shouldn't pass judgement on Boeing until everything else is perfect" is a really strange argument.
    - privateSFacct 7y ago
      The really strange argument is saying it is totally OK for people to willfully engage in activities that result in significant and ongoing fatality rates within the bounds of US law without punishment (slaps on the wrist for everything from willful pollution to opiods where the investigators were waved off) and then demand jail time for folks who have no fatalities within US law AND have an incredible safety record in their field, a record FAR FAR better then lots of other areas (drug distribution, medical malpractice, enviro health and safety etc). If you wanted to reduce auto accident rates, opiod deaths etc you'd put these folks in charge, not put the law enforcement lobby in charge (yes, they will arrest lots of low level offenders but will not systematically address the issues and do not chase the folks at the top).
  - privateSFacct 7y ago
    I'm making the point that for for US flying (with US levels of maintenance / pilot training etc) boeing and even the 737MAX has a safety record that is incredible. Not only that, it beats almost all other regulated modes of transit and even other regulated hazards (OSHA controlled worksites etc). As always, it could be better - but it's actually amazingly good already - these planes are incredible safe in a challenging environment (miles, landing cycles, tolerances etc). The demand for prison time here, when we have so many many areas where prison time can be MUCH more closely and immediately linked to bad actions (and goes unpunished) is misguided.
    - situationista 7y ago
      If it were safe to fly the Max in the US, and the problem were the pilots, it would be in the air now. It isn't, as the problem is clearly with the plane. It was likely just a matter of time before another Max fell out of the sky somewhere in the US, Europe or elsewhere.
- privateSFacct 7y ago
  There record is not dismal with the 737MAX. If you look at where fault lies part lies with boeing and part lies elsewhere in the safety chain. In contrast to many other areas - the evidence of ill intent is relatively weak here. Even without prison Boeing is facing major financial impacts as a result of this issue (as it should). It's looking like evidence from the airlines that proper maintenance was done may have been faked. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-15/pictures-raise-specter-of-fake-evidence-in-737-max-crash-probe https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-15/pictures-... We know lots of maintenance issues unaddressed and repeated warnings by the plane itself that there were sensor issues were not properly addressed. We know response was not ideal on pilot side which overlaps with some training and other items around stab trim cutoff and/or automation dependency. These factors are partly why there have been no accidents in 737MAX in US despite lots of flying. Yes - boeing should design a totally safe plane. Part of that is going to be designing plans to accommodate a wider range of pilot skill (what they are calling "future pilot populations") and to better accommodate maintenance and ground handling training assumptions to allow for greater risk of problems there. This is already being implemented. Ironically, one element may be to REDUCE the reliance on pilots as a key flight safety control and then increase automation and redundancy in the automation.
  - thatswrong0 7y ago
    > the evidence of ill intent is relatively weak here Most people are referring to negligence, not ill intent. "Let's make more money and rush this thing out! (Even though this could kill people)", not "Let's deliberately design a system to kill people". Regardless, one sensor failing should not induce a plane to fly itself into the ground, despite the best efforts of the pilots to recover (and despite the fact they were not necessarily the best trained pilots). 2 / ~400 complete hull losses of brand new jets is completely unacceptable. That is dismal. Don't try to downplay it.
    - privateSFacct 7y ago
      These were not the "best efforts" to recover - stab trim cutout is a memory item. Absolutely - Boeing is going to be designing much safer planes in future to accommodate different pilot populations. That is clear and necessary. This will make us all safer. Boeing obviously screwed up with a primarily US based mentality. This system was PARTICULARLY fragile in the face of poor maintenance and reliance on automation - which boeing was unreasonably dependent given a US centric view. Look into history of comets and concorde if you want to look at hull loss rates (note - both stopped flying forever when safety issues became clear). I predict almost no chance that the max will be taken out of flying forever.
bobobooey 7y ago
MCAS is a terrible software solution to an engineering problem. On top of that, no sufficient training for the pilots to cover up there awful solution. There's deaths caused by Boeing's greed and lack of competition against Airbus' new planes.
anigbrowl 7y ago
Impressive spin but not enough to overcome the documentary evidence of deception. Lots of people go to prison for violence and I am heartily in favor of people like pharmaceutical executives joining them.
willvarfar 7y ago
A lot of insiders say the safe, old Boeing went out the window with the McDonnell Douglas merger in '97. It kinda turned into a reverse-merger, where MD bosses took over Boeing and heavily influenced the management style and practices thereafter. Some of the commentary https://newrepublic.com/article/154944/boeing-737-max-investigation-indonesia-lion-air-ethiopian-airlines-managerial-revolution https://newrepublic.com/article/154944/boeing-737-max-invest...
philjohn 7y ago
They also denied there was a problem with thrust reversers until Niki Lauda forced the issue and they were found to have obfuscated. There are serious questions to be answered about the corporate governance.

atonse 7y ago

So you want to use their historical record as some kind of justification for their dismal record with the 737 MAX, as if one is related to the other? Cold comfort to the 300+ lives, and families destroyed. Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2tuKiiznsY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2tuKiiznsY This isn't just some "oops, these were badly trained pilots" – the whole premise of MCAS is seriously screwed up and smacks of non-engineers running the place.

LifeLiverTransp 7y ago
Sometimes a place can fall apart from the inside, knowledge rot eating away at a engineering culture, like termites at a house. In the end, its all still there- but not reliable. MCAS is ducttape. Ducttape applied, because the whole culture is by now incentivize screwed, pennywise optimizing instead of pound problem solving. A "carry on" is actually the hostile action in this situation. Sidenote: I like that you can not lie in modern society, because all data has copies and copies of copies.
Gpetrium 7y ago
What op seems to imply is that airplane incidents rates actually have a stronger track record as opposed to the opioid epidemic, road fatality, etc. And that if society believes that this individual/group should go to prison based on this mistake and in hindsight, without account for all the other factors that were a part of the decision making process, then society should start reconsidering the way it treats opioid, road fatality, etc. The mindset of "quick to imprison" can also run the risk of creating a society that is overly averse to risk taking, which can hinder technology and scientific advances. For example, it may take 10 times as long to get a new, more advanced traffic light implemented in your city because now everyone wants to make sure no stone was left unturned, otherwise someone will get into an accident and a staff/group will be imprisoned. Or a new software is implemented but 3 months later it is found that failure under very specific scenarios has caused over 50 deaths. There are millions of potential scenarios that may fall under similar conditions as exemplified above. Please note that this writing is not advocating for or against either views, it is simply shedding light on risks that should be considered.
- luckylion 7y ago
  Has anybody argued that nobody else should be punished, ever? Otherwise "but there's drug addiction and car accidents! We shouldn't pass judgement on Boeing until everything else is perfect" is a really strange argument.
  - privateSFacct 7y ago
    The really strange argument is saying it is totally OK for people to willfully engage in activities that result in significant and ongoing fatality rates within the bounds of US law without punishment (slaps on the wrist for everything from willful pollution to opiods where the investigators were waved off) and then demand jail time for folks who have no fatalities within US law AND have an incredible safety record in their field, a record FAR FAR better then lots of other areas (drug distribution, medical malpractice, enviro health and safety etc). If you wanted to reduce auto accident rates, opiod deaths etc you'd put these folks in charge, not put the law enforcement lobby in charge (yes, they will arrest lots of low level offenders but will not systematically address the issues and do not chase the folks at the top).
- privateSFacct 7y ago
  I'm making the point that for for US flying (with US levels of maintenance / pilot training etc) boeing and even the 737MAX has a safety record that is incredible. Not only that, it beats almost all other regulated modes of transit and even other regulated hazards (OSHA controlled worksites etc). As always, it could be better - but it's actually amazingly good already - these planes are incredible safe in a challenging environment (miles, landing cycles, tolerances etc). The demand for prison time here, when we have so many many areas where prison time can be MUCH more closely and immediately linked to bad actions (and goes unpunished) is misguided.
  - situationista 7y ago
    If it were safe to fly the Max in the US, and the problem were the pilots, it would be in the air now. It isn't, as the problem is clearly with the plane. It was likely just a matter of time before another Max fell out of the sky somewhere in the US, Europe or elsewhere.
privateSFacct 7y ago
There record is not dismal with the 737MAX. If you look at where fault lies part lies with boeing and part lies elsewhere in the safety chain. In contrast to many other areas - the evidence of ill intent is relatively weak here. Even without prison Boeing is facing major financial impacts as a result of this issue (as it should). It's looking like evidence from the airlines that proper maintenance was done may have been faked. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-15/pictures-raise-specter-of-fake-evidence-in-737-max-crash-probe https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-15/pictures-... We know lots of maintenance issues unaddressed and repeated warnings by the plane itself that there were sensor issues were not properly addressed. We know response was not ideal on pilot side which overlaps with some training and other items around stab trim cutoff and/or automation dependency. These factors are partly why there have been no accidents in 737MAX in US despite lots of flying. Yes - boeing should design a totally safe plane. Part of that is going to be designing plans to accommodate a wider range of pilot skill (what they are calling "future pilot populations") and to better accommodate maintenance and ground handling training assumptions to allow for greater risk of problems there. This is already being implemented. Ironically, one element may be to REDUCE the reliance on pilots as a key flight safety control and then increase automation and redundancy in the automation.
- thatswrong0 7y ago
  > the evidence of ill intent is relatively weak here Most people are referring to negligence, not ill intent. "Let's make more money and rush this thing out! (Even though this could kill people)", not "Let's deliberately design a system to kill people". Regardless, one sensor failing should not induce a plane to fly itself into the ground, despite the best efforts of the pilots to recover (and despite the fact they were not necessarily the best trained pilots). 2 / ~400 complete hull losses of brand new jets is completely unacceptable. That is dismal. Don't try to downplay it.
  - privateSFacct 7y ago
    These were not the "best efforts" to recover - stab trim cutout is a memory item. Absolutely - Boeing is going to be designing much safer planes in future to accommodate different pilot populations. That is clear and necessary. This will make us all safer. Boeing obviously screwed up with a primarily US based mentality. This system was PARTICULARLY fragile in the face of poor maintenance and reliance on automation - which boeing was unreasonably dependent given a US centric view. Look into history of comets and concorde if you want to look at hull loss rates (note - both stopped flying forever when safety issues became clear). I predict almost no chance that the max will be taken out of flying forever.

bobobooey 7y ago

MCAS is a terrible software solution to an engineering problem. On top of that, no sufficient training for the pilots to cover up there awful solution. There's deaths caused by Boeing's greed and lack of competition against Airbus' new planes.

anigbrowl 7y ago

Impressive spin but not enough to overcome the documentary evidence of deception. Lots of people go to prison for violence and I am heartily in favor of people like pharmaceutical executives joining them.

willvarfar 7y ago

A lot of insiders say the safe, old Boeing went out the window with the McDonnell Douglas merger in '97. It kinda turned into a reverse-merger, where MD bosses took over Boeing and heavily influenced the management style and practices thereafter. Some of the commentary https://newrepublic.com/article/154944/boeing-737-max-investigation-indonesia-lion-air-ethiopian-airlines-managerial-revolution https://newrepublic.com/article/154944/boeing-737-max-invest...

philjohn 7y ago

They also denied there was a problem with thrust reversers until Niki Lauda forced the issue and they were found to have obfuscated. There are serious questions to be answered about the corporate governance.