6 ms·

If the doors are manufactured wrong, what else could be wrong? Is it even possible to check everything, if they were wholly manufactured sloppily?

jl6 3y ago
Depends how deep they go on the root cause analysis. If the manufacturing flaw was in turn caused by management flaws, then yes, that’s an underlying issue that has the potential to taint everything above it.
- thrawa8387336 3y ago
  [flagged]
- rst 3y ago
  Well, looking at another part of the organization distant enough that top management (the C-suite) is pretty much all they have in common: They had massive quality problems on their space capsule (Starliner). (They launched the first test flight without having ever done an intgrated test of the software in expected mission time -- which led to the computers being so confused immediately after launch that it blew most of the thruster propellant. That led to an urgent hunt for software bugs elsewhere, with the capsule already in orbit -- which found another nasty bug which was even worse.) This is in addition to numerous other quality control issues on airliners -- several other well-publicized issues on the 737-MAX itself, bric-a-brac left in tanks on 767 tankers, quality control issues at the plant producing 787s. It really does look systemic.
  - zmgsabst 3y ago
    The KC-46A is also garbage, from their military division. I agree the problem is systemic. https://www.thedefensepost.com/2023/08/08/usaf-tanker-aircraft-problems/ https://www.thedefensepost.com/2023/08/08/usaf-tanker-aircra...
    - rst 3y ago
      Those are the 767 tankers I mentioned -- the KC-46A is a modified 767.
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
"Is it even possible to check everything" Yes. It is possible to check everything. We've been manufacturing now for centuries. There are absolutely techniques, methodologies, organizational structures, all to prevent this. That this is happening is purely cost cutting. Accountants balancing lives against pennies. Just like automakers would do calculations to determine the cost of installing seat belts against potential lawsuits. Nobody cares about lives, it was simply a calculation based on potential lawsuits. Notice, it is totally possible to check everything. There was never a problem with our ability to prevent deaths, it was just too expensive. Because lives are actually cheap. MOLOCH.
- XorNot 3y ago
  They're not balancing lives against pennies. They're just not thinking about it. That's the mistake you're making: you're implying a plan because a plan means there's control. But that's not how it works: someone said "hey it would be cheaper if we could just not do this" - someone probably said "well this double check is necessary because bad things could happen". They were dismissed with the twofer of "that check never finds any faults" or my personal favorite "that won't happen" (no justification given). No one in Boeing has a spreadsheet of expected aircraft crash rates versus dollars earned on manufacturing and turned the dial till they got a nice peak. They just plain didn't think about the potential consequences.
  - orwin 3y ago
    Exactly. They probably don't balance anything. Industrial tools manufacturers have the same issues. Sometimes it ends in breaking that hurt both people and the tool, but sometimes it's even more dumb: 'hey, this part is under a lot of friction, has to be replaced after each maintenance cycle, let's buy almost the same at half the cost, the maintenance will be 20% cheaper'. How it end up: the tool require faster maintenance cycle, and in the end, without taking into account maintenance technicians salaries, it ends up 30% more expensive (which isn't an issue for new tools, but quite a big one for tools under initial maintenance contracts)
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
davedx 3y ago
Don’t worry, I am sure the FAA will make sure Boeing sends them a very serious memo that the plane has been checked and can fly again this time.
- acdha 3y ago
  You don’t see any possibility that the unprecedented in modern times failure of the 737 MAX might have caused anyone in the FAA leadership or Congress to reconsider their relationship? Some might see the language in this memo as evidence of that.
  - MontagFTB 3y ago
    The DC-10 cargo door issue was unprecedented in its time, and the first failure was smoothed over with a phone call from the CEO to the FAA, instead of an airworthiness directive. The plane wasn’t grounded until the second incident killed all aboard. I am glad for the AD in this case, and hope the FAA casts as watchful an eye over Boeing that we are all hoping they will, but shortcuts have happened before.
    - acdha 3y ago
      Yes - I'd like to think that we've learned better but that was in the late 1970s and we are suspiciously around the time where the people who had direct experience would have retired or been on the way out, similar to how a lot anti-vax recruits were too young to have lived memory of just how many kids things like polio harmed. It sometimes seems like we need the engineering equivalent of what Germany does with Holocaust education to remind everyone of how past disasters were preventable, and usually caused by multiple people deciding not to act on early warning signs.
    - p_l 3y ago
      And the FAA director at the time was selected specifically as a person who would be more willing to play ball with the business, and had such marching orders from President. Similar thing happened during Bush Jr's administration.

jl6 3y ago

Depends how deep they go on the root cause analysis. If the manufacturing flaw was in turn caused by management flaws, then yes, that’s an underlying issue that has the potential to taint everything above it.

thrawa8387336 3y ago
[flagged]
rst 3y ago
Well, looking at another part of the organization distant enough that top management (the C-suite) is pretty much all they have in common: They had massive quality problems on their space capsule (Starliner). (They launched the first test flight without having ever done an intgrated test of the software in expected mission time -- which led to the computers being so confused immediately after launch that it blew most of the thruster propellant. That led to an urgent hunt for software bugs elsewhere, with the capsule already in orbit -- which found another nasty bug which was even worse.) This is in addition to numerous other quality control issues on airliners -- several other well-publicized issues on the 737-MAX itself, bric-a-brac left in tanks on 767 tankers, quality control issues at the plant producing 787s. It really does look systemic.
- zmgsabst 3y ago
  The KC-46A is also garbage, from their military division. I agree the problem is systemic. https://www.thedefensepost.com/2023/08/08/usaf-tanker-aircraft-problems/ https://www.thedefensepost.com/2023/08/08/usaf-tanker-aircra...
  - rst 3y ago
    Those are the 767 tankers I mentioned -- the KC-46A is a modified 767.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

"Is it even possible to check everything" Yes. It is possible to check everything. We've been manufacturing now for centuries. There are absolutely techniques, methodologies, organizational structures, all to prevent this. That this is happening is purely cost cutting. Accountants balancing lives against pennies. Just like automakers would do calculations to determine the cost of installing seat belts against potential lawsuits. Nobody cares about lives, it was simply a calculation based on potential lawsuits. Notice, it is totally possible to check everything. There was never a problem with our ability to prevent deaths, it was just too expensive. Because lives are actually cheap. MOLOCH.

XorNot 3y ago
They're not balancing lives against pennies. They're just not thinking about it. That's the mistake you're making: you're implying a plan because a plan means there's control. But that's not how it works: someone said "hey it would be cheaper if we could just not do this" - someone probably said "well this double check is necessary because bad things could happen". They were dismissed with the twofer of "that check never finds any faults" or my personal favorite "that won't happen" (no justification given). No one in Boeing has a spreadsheet of expected aircraft crash rates versus dollars earned on manufacturing and turned the dial till they got a nice peak. They just plain didn't think about the potential consequences.
- orwin 3y ago
  Exactly. They probably don't balance anything. Industrial tools manufacturers have the same issues. Sometimes it ends in breaking that hurt both people and the tool, but sometimes it's even more dumb: 'hey, this part is under a lot of friction, has to be replaced after each maintenance cycle, let's buy almost the same at half the cost, the maintenance will be 20% cheaper'. How it end up: the tool require faster maintenance cycle, and in the end, without taking into account maintenance technicians salaries, it ends up 30% more expensive (which isn't an issue for new tools, but quite a big one for tools under initial maintenance contracts)
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago

davedx 3y ago

Don’t worry, I am sure the FAA will make sure Boeing sends them a very serious memo that the plane has been checked and can fly again this time.

acdha 3y ago
You don’t see any possibility that the unprecedented in modern times failure of the 737 MAX might have caused anyone in the FAA leadership or Congress to reconsider their relationship? Some might see the language in this memo as evidence of that.
- MontagFTB 3y ago
  The DC-10 cargo door issue was unprecedented in its time, and the first failure was smoothed over with a phone call from the CEO to the FAA, instead of an airworthiness directive. The plane wasn’t grounded until the second incident killed all aboard. I am glad for the AD in this case, and hope the FAA casts as watchful an eye over Boeing that we are all hoping they will, but shortcuts have happened before.
  - acdha 3y ago
    Yes - I'd like to think that we've learned better but that was in the late 1970s and we are suspiciously around the time where the people who had direct experience would have retired or been on the way out, similar to how a lot anti-vax recruits were too young to have lived memory of just how many kids things like polio harmed. It sometimes seems like we need the engineering equivalent of what Germany does with Holocaust education to remind everyone of how past disasters were preventable, and usually caused by multiple people deciding not to act on early warning signs.
  - p_l 3y ago
    And the FAA director at the time was selected specifically as a person who would be more willing to play ball with the business, and had such marching orders from President. Similar thing happened during Bush Jr's administration.