8 ms·

> How did this pass Boeing QA? https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/safety/146074-boeing-internal-whistleblower-re-max-door.html https://www.airlinepilotforums.c

by krona 3y ago

> How did this pass Boeing QA? https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/safety/146074-boeing-internal-whistleblower-re-max-door.html https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/safety/146074-boeing-inte...

jbverschoor 3y ago
Just comment out the tests and they pass
- belter 3y ago
  Instead of Software Development becoming more like Aeronautical Engineering, every day, Aeronautical Engineering becomes more like Software Development...
  - renewiltord 3y ago
    Well, to be clear, I don't usually put people in danger. There's a lot these engineers could learn from software engineers: who are really the highest performance at engineering as a craft. One base rule: Above all, kill no one.
    - matheweis 3y ago
      I think that software engineers put people in danger more often than they would like to believe; have a look at the UK Postal Service scandal for a great example of a seemingly innocuous bit of software absolutely destroying numerous lives.
      - gary_0 3y ago
        https://xkcd.com/2030/ https://xkcd.com/2030/
      - renewiltord 3y ago
        Indeed. And yet immediately outmatched by the number of lives destroyed by motor vehicles (probably per day).
      - lucianbr 3y ago
        Neither the software nor the software engineers were the ones who destroyed people's lives. That's on managers of the software company, managers of the postal service, prosecutors and judges who all conspired to hide the truth and condemn innocent people. I believe software engineers actually testified that the software had bugs, and the prosecutors hid that particular testimony.
  - wmidwestranger 3y ago
    Almost every software engineering book: Halting on an error is often best, as is raising the error after catching it, unless you're certain it should be subdued or aware, expect the issue, and have limited risk. Every dev project: Hold up, couldn't this raise an exception? That's bad!
- jiggawatts 3y ago
  I’m trying to convince a group of devs that catching (and ignoring) every exception is not actually a solution to their crash bugs.
  - jbverschoor 3y ago
    Ya know.. you can also just do that and then change the requirements: > In a revision to the Flight Crew Operations Manual, issued on January 15, 2024, Boeing confirmed that the door functioned as designed. Problem solved for the current level in the hierarchy.
    - jiggawatts 3y ago
      The same group I’m talking about did exactly that: they got an exemption for any security issues from the CISO. Literally turning a blind eye, but officially, so that’s okay!
function_seven 3y ago
Great link! I like how that comment is from an anonymous source, but now that the NTSB preliminary report is out, it seems thoroughly corroborated to me. The dates of certain events and the reason for the door's removal—er, "opening"—both match the comment in your link. Thanks.
koyote 3y ago
So were the bolts missing because the Spirit team did not know they had to be put back (i.e. it was not recorded as a task that needed to be done) or was that simply just another mistake in the long line of mistakes they've made? Reading through that post gave me nightmares of dealing with outsourcing software teams where you send them a small issue to fix and their fix breaks 3 existing items.
- fcsp 3y ago
  As things stand, it seems the anon insider report from 3 weeks back was legitimate and accurate, and holds answers to your question: https://leehamnews.com/2024/01/15/unplanned-removal-installation-inspection-procedure-at-boeing/#comment-509962 https://leehamnews.com/2024/01/15/unplanned-removal-installa...
  - koyote 3y ago
    I read that but could not work out which of my two statements are true. Might just be bad reading comprehension on my side...
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - fcsp 3y ago
      From my understanding, both Boeing and Spirit have been employing very shoddy practices, but at that point in the production line it's Boeing who is responsible for QA
- treflop 3y ago
  I took it to mean that someone forgot but the mistake would have been caught if the removal was documented in the authoritative record system, since that kicks off an automatic workflow where QA is notified and must sign off. But they didn’t for whatever reason so two mistakes stacked.
- runarb 3y ago
  > were the bolts missing because the Spirit team did not know they had to be put back It would be interesting to know what ultimately happened to the bolts if they indeed were removed. When I disassemble something, I do as I was taught in my mechanical class in high school, and always keep all parts I take of in the same box. If I am left with some extra bolts when finished, that would be a worrisome sign.
Rapzid 3y ago
It's crazy their supplier is delivering so many must-fix defects they have to have a warranty team on site to help fix them. Crazier that Boeing just let that get more and more out of hand instead of making Spirit get their shit together on their end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIAfCupuZ3w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIAfCupuZ3w Edit: Also that entire culture and dynamic between Boeing and Spirit on the production floor seems very toxic and driven by misaligned incentives. There should be zero place for bickering, aggressiveness, and finger pointing in that SAT channel. If something needs to be fixed Spirit needs to fix it with a smile. If Boeing and Spirit need to review who is responsible for what, and what needs fixing and doesn't, that should happen in review in a different setting. The production crews need to be able to execute on their processes and focus on the quality of the product without having timeline and budget concerns seeping into their day-to-day.
- peteradio 3y ago
  Spirit has no competition. How do you threaten the supplier who owns your production when you have no other options?
  - bzax 3y ago
    It sure would be great if they just owned the supplier outright and could align incentives that way.
  - Rapzid 3y ago
    That you Dave Calhoun? I guess your replacement will figure it out and let us know. Seriously though, that's a problem people getting paid sh* tons of money are supposed to be on top of.
  - mlindner 3y ago
    These sorts of what I like to call "reverse monopolies" are all over the place in US industry now. So many companies dumped out pieces of themselves to a single company that then supplies for all of them, removing the ability of those companies to actually compete with each other by differentiation.
  - 3y ago

by krona 3y ago

> How did this pass Boeing QA? https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/safety/146074-boeing-internal-whistleblower-re-max-door.html https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/safety/146074-boeing-inte...

jbverschoor 3y ago

Just comment out the tests and they pass

belter 3y ago
Instead of Software Development becoming more like Aeronautical Engineering, every day, Aeronautical Engineering becomes more like Software Development...
- renewiltord 3y ago
  Well, to be clear, I don't usually put people in danger. There's a lot these engineers could learn from software engineers: who are really the highest performance at engineering as a craft. One base rule: Above all, kill no one.
  - matheweis 3y ago
    I think that software engineers put people in danger more often than they would like to believe; have a look at the UK Postal Service scandal for a great example of a seemingly innocuous bit of software absolutely destroying numerous lives.
    - gary_0 3y ago
      https://xkcd.com/2030/ https://xkcd.com/2030/
    - renewiltord 3y ago
      Indeed. And yet immediately outmatched by the number of lives destroyed by motor vehicles (probably per day).
    - lucianbr 3y ago
      Neither the software nor the software engineers were the ones who destroyed people's lives. That's on managers of the software company, managers of the postal service, prosecutors and judges who all conspired to hide the truth and condemn innocent people. I believe software engineers actually testified that the software had bugs, and the prosecutors hid that particular testimony.
- wmidwestranger 3y ago
  Almost every software engineering book: Halting on an error is often best, as is raising the error after catching it, unless you're certain it should be subdued or aware, expect the issue, and have limited risk. Every dev project: Hold up, couldn't this raise an exception? That's bad!
jiggawatts 3y ago
I’m trying to convince a group of devs that catching (and ignoring) every exception is not actually a solution to their crash bugs.
- jbverschoor 3y ago
  Ya know.. you can also just do that and then change the requirements: > In a revision to the Flight Crew Operations Manual, issued on January 15, 2024, Boeing confirmed that the door functioned as designed. Problem solved for the current level in the hierarchy.
  - jiggawatts 3y ago
    The same group I’m talking about did exactly that: they got an exemption for any security issues from the CISO. Literally turning a blind eye, but officially, so that’s okay!

function_seven 3y ago

Great link! I like how that comment is from an anonymous source, but now that the NTSB preliminary report is out, it seems thoroughly corroborated to me. The dates of certain events and the reason for the door's removal—er, "opening"—both match the comment in your link. Thanks.

koyote 3y ago

So were the bolts missing because the Spirit team did not know they had to be put back (i.e. it was not recorded as a task that needed to be done) or was that simply just another mistake in the long line of mistakes they've made? Reading through that post gave me nightmares of dealing with outsourcing software teams where you send them a small issue to fix and their fix breaks 3 existing items.

fcsp 3y ago
As things stand, it seems the anon insider report from 3 weeks back was legitimate and accurate, and holds answers to your question: https://leehamnews.com/2024/01/15/unplanned-removal-installation-inspection-procedure-at-boeing/#comment-509962 https://leehamnews.com/2024/01/15/unplanned-removal-installa...
- koyote 3y ago
  I read that but could not work out which of my two statements are true. Might just be bad reading comprehension on my side...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - fcsp 3y ago
    From my understanding, both Boeing and Spirit have been employing very shoddy practices, but at that point in the production line it's Boeing who is responsible for QA
treflop 3y ago
I took it to mean that someone forgot but the mistake would have been caught if the removal was documented in the authoritative record system, since that kicks off an automatic workflow where QA is notified and must sign off. But they didn’t for whatever reason so two mistakes stacked.
runarb 3y ago
> were the bolts missing because the Spirit team did not know they had to be put back It would be interesting to know what ultimately happened to the bolts if they indeed were removed. When I disassemble something, I do as I was taught in my mechanical class in high school, and always keep all parts I take of in the same box. If I am left with some extra bolts when finished, that would be a worrisome sign.

Rapzid 3y ago

It's crazy their supplier is delivering so many must-fix defects they have to have a warranty team on site to help fix them. Crazier that Boeing just let that get more and more out of hand instead of making Spirit get their shit together on their end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIAfCupuZ3w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIAfCupuZ3w Edit: Also that entire culture and dynamic between Boeing and Spirit on the production floor seems very toxic and driven by misaligned incentives. There should be zero place for bickering, aggressiveness, and finger pointing in that SAT channel. If something needs to be fixed Spirit needs to fix it with a smile. If Boeing and Spirit need to review who is responsible for what, and what needs fixing and doesn't, that should happen in review in a different setting. The production crews need to be able to execute on their processes and focus on the quality of the product without having timeline and budget concerns seeping into their day-to-day.

peteradio 3y ago
Spirit has no competition. How do you threaten the supplier who owns your production when you have no other options?
- bzax 3y ago
  It sure would be great if they just owned the supplier outright and could align incentives that way.
- Rapzid 3y ago
  That you Dave Calhoun? I guess your replacement will figure it out and let us know. Seriously though, that's a problem people getting paid sh* tons of money are supposed to be on top of.
- mlindner 3y ago
  These sorts of what I like to call "reverse monopolies" are all over the place in US industry now. So many companies dumped out pieces of themselves to a single company that then supplies for all of them, removing the ability of those companies to actually compete with each other by differentiation.
- 3y ago