5 ms·
It’s is called Boeing but this failure is really McDonnell Douglas. Being back engineering leadership supremacy.
by newsclues 3y ago
It’s is called Boeing but this failure is really McDonnell Douglas.
Being back engineering leadership supremacy.
- HKH2 3y agoMeritocracy?
- bertil 3y agoMerit makes sense when you want to promote hard work, talent, and creativity—and we need all that. Engineering meritocracy is how we build bridges, go to space, and dig under mountains. Engineering supremacy in that context means that if engineering says no, it’s definite. What Boeing needs is QA supremacy: nobody wants them to be particularly creative, original, or unusually hard-working when doing audits; they need to be thorough and systematic. We need to make sure that their voice isn’t challenged.
- orwin 3y agoI'm pushing back a bit on that? QA needs to be challenged, like any part of a company. They also need to have the last word on any decision on stuff that has a potential to ruin lives.
- bertil 3y agoThat’s part of them being thorough.
- HKH2 3y agoMaybe your view of merit is too narrow, or mine is too broad. QA supremacy makes sense, but it relies on the merits of QA (that QA are competing to be the best) to avoid false positives/negatives rather than rubber stamping, no?
- newsclues 3y agoDifferent groups define the goals different. Sales/financial: make as much money as possible Engineering: make the best product possible Old Boeing was successful with the later group in charge, new Boeing (post MD merger) is the former.
- tiahura 3y agoWhat are you talking about? The last CEO was an engineer. MCAS was designed by engineers. The clearly over complicated door plug system was designed by engineers. It looks like the engineers are the problem and the MBAs get to clean it up.
- delfinom 3y agoMCAS was designed by engineers in response to a design problem. The MBAs elected to cover it up from the manual because that would hurt their sales goals of not needing pilot training. Yes, sales/marketing and management leeches have a lot of control over documentation that leaves the company. The best part is, it was the leeches that decided to make a fucking indicator light that told you the sensors for MCAS were unhappy, a PAID FUCKING ADDON. The last CEO was an engineer who got thrown under the bus for the 737 crashes while not being the CEO when it was designed. He was pissing too many leeches off internally so they threw him under the bus. I know two long time employees of Boeing that left after the last CEO was removed because roughly paraphrasing "Wow, this company is fucked, he was actually trying to fix the company"
- gmokki 3y agoYes. And the design problems was created by MBAs that decided that they want: 1) to keep the new engines that change how the plane flies 2) a convincing lie that passes minimal scrutiny that the plane flies the same - to avoid training pilots to a perfectly good new plane 3) after engineering came with the MCAS solution MBAs drove the cost down and removed redundancy - after all the whole feature was a secret so no one would demand redundancy
- g-b-r 3y ago[1] might explain it, if it were so. But the fault would be of the MBAs... Anyhow it was a management decision to not tell about the MCAS changes (not to mention what led to requiring it), management kind of does affect the engineering choices, and is it really over complicated to require 4 rivets? https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=213075 https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=213075