4 ms·

> This transparency is good, don't punish them for it. There's no guarantee whatsoever that other plane manufacturers don't run into similar problems and don't

> This transparency is good, don't punish them for it. There's no guarantee whatsoever that other plane manufacturers don't run into similar problems and don't announce them. Make no mistake, there is no real transparency here. There is no sudden "culture shift". Boeing is under a magnifying glass and no-one is going to stick their neck out and say: "Well, geez this is such a small mistake I'm going to ignore it". Because if planes start falling from the sky (again) you want your ass covered. There is currently just very little incentive for anyone (employees, managers, FAA, etc.) to led things slide.

colechristensen 3y ago
>"Well, geez this is such a small mistake I'm going to ignore it" There are "mistakes" you ignore when you're building an aircraft but you don't call them mistakes, because they aren't. You have tolerances for everything. To be "correct" a dimension is specified, must be no bigger than this, no smaller than that. And that's it. You're either in the spec or not. If you're not there's no ignoring, parts were delivered out of spec. There isn't some secondary "out of spec but only a little". Subcontractors (like Spirit), the prime contractor (Boeing), and everyone responsible for verifying (FAA, perhaps others) all share culpability for things going quite wrong. Hopefully the NTSB still has it's head on straight and the coming scathing reports will attract attention in Congress to light a fire under the FAA's ass to do its job, preferably with some direct legislation for things the FAA must do. (i.e. no more manufacturers doing self-verifications)
drstewart 3y ago
>no real transparency >There is currently just very little incentive for anyone (employees, managers, FAA, etc.) to led things slide. What is "real" transparency?
- jbm 3y ago
  I think this is a good question and the kind I wish I thought of. Not the GP but I think in this case, "real" transparency refers to a culture in which there is no attempt to hide issues like this (internally at least); they should be caught and should be immediately handled without positive or negative impacts to one's career. As such, this would not be "real" transparency. The issues being raised appear to be only being done under duress (perhaps as an attempt to show that something is being done) and may easily vanish when media attention passes. The issues themselves seem relatively simple and should have been discovered a long time ago. As such, the implication made by the fact that /they weren't/ is that Boeing and Spirit have informal internal policies that discourage the discovery of these problems.

colechristensen 3y ago

>"Well, geez this is such a small mistake I'm going to ignore it" There are "mistakes" you ignore when you're building an aircraft but you don't call them mistakes, because they aren't. You have tolerances for everything. To be "correct" a dimension is specified, must be no bigger than this, no smaller than that. And that's it. You're either in the spec or not. If you're not there's no ignoring, parts were delivered out of spec. There isn't some secondary "out of spec but only a little". Subcontractors (like Spirit), the prime contractor (Boeing), and everyone responsible for verifying (FAA, perhaps others) all share culpability for things going quite wrong. Hopefully the NTSB still has it's head on straight and the coming scathing reports will attract attention in Congress to light a fire under the FAA's ass to do its job, preferably with some direct legislation for things the FAA must do. (i.e. no more manufacturers doing self-verifications)

drstewart 3y ago

>no real transparency >There is currently just very little incentive for anyone (employees, managers, FAA, etc.) to led things slide. What is "real" transparency?

jbm 3y ago
I think this is a good question and the kind I wish I thought of. Not the GP but I think in this case, "real" transparency refers to a culture in which there is no attempt to hide issues like this (internally at least); they should be caught and should be immediately handled without positive or negative impacts to one's career. As such, this would not be "real" transparency. The issues being raised appear to be only being done under duress (perhaps as an attempt to show that something is being done) and may easily vanish when media attention passes. The issues themselves seem relatively simple and should have been discovered a long time ago. As such, the implication made by the fact that /they weren't/ is that Boeing and Spirit have informal internal policies that discourage the discovery of these problems.