5 ms·

Would that be what’s best for everyone? If you’re being serious, I genuinely wonder if you realize the consequences of this drastic a decision.

dylan604 3y ago
The MAX fleet has been grounded multiple times now. Why would this be any different? The grounding after the door flew off was way shorter than the MCAS grounding. The consequences of continuing to fly this aircraft is likely to continue to find issues of varying severity. It's like playing Russian roulette with 2 bullets loaded.
- lazide 3y ago
  Because zero people are dead from this issue, it’s relatively easy to inspect for, and isn’t a design problem- unlike the max problems?
  - TylerE 3y ago
    Only due to a bloody miracle. If people had been in the two nearest seats they were getting sucked straight out. That those seats were coincidentally empty doesn't lessen the seriousness of the event.
    - lazide 3y ago
      I mean, it literally does? If 2 people has died, it would have been a more serious event. By definition, no?
      - dylan604 3y ago
        No. It was a serious event even without casualties. If people had died, it would have been tragic, fatal, or any other adjective. If it wasn't serious, we wouldn't still be discussing it.
        lazide 3y ago
        And I never said it wasn’t serious, did I?
        dylan604 3y ago
        great, so now we're in a "serious" != "more serious" round of pedantic discourse. nope for me
      - lupusreal 3y ago
        Yours is exactly the kind of attitude that gets people killed in workplaces. I slip on a puddle, but I'm young and nimble so I catch myself. No harm done to me, not a serious incident right? I don't report the puddle. Then another guy comes alone, he's older, his reflexes aren't so good. He bounces his head off the concrete and dies. This is why all workplace safety policies tell you to treat near misses like the real thing. The only difference between them is circumstantial luck.
        westhanover 3y ago
        That person is a psychopath. The only good thing is that in a competent safety focused org someone like him would be fired instantly.
        lazide 3y ago
        Beautiful. And what exactly led you to that insightful psychoanalysis? Especially since I’m not saying it isn’t serious. Just pointing out that 0 < 2 < 189. Which is quite literally true, is it not?
        dylan604 3y ago
        any number > 0 when counting deaths because of a company's malfeasance, incompetence, or any other word to describe it is serious. since you seem to like superlatives, any number > 0 is the most serious thing. your product killed 1 person in a failure or 189 in a failure is no less damning. even if your product's failure nearly killed some number > 0 is a serious thing.
        lazide 3y ago
        So now you’re saying it wasn’t serious because there was no one killed? I’m very confused here. I thought it was serious, just less serious than those that actually killed people, because it does show system issues at Boeing related to actually doing safe changes to their planes. Which is a scary operational problem, but at least not a major plane design problem. Which will kill someone (or a lot of someones!) eventually. And got called a psychopath for it, apparently? Which doesn’t seem very polite.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    > unlike the max problems? what do you mean unlike the MAX problems? do you think this is a different model aircraft. The MCAS related crashes with 300+ casualties was an earlier version of the MAX. The door flying off was still a MAX. So at this point, we should be well past viewing incidents on a per incident basis, and now just see each one as yet another example of the failure/lack of Boeing's prowess on designing a safe airplane.
    - lazide 3y ago
      MCAS was a design problem, and one inherent from the start. That the FAA (kinda, due to the weird industry setup) approved. This was an ops problem. The common element is Boeing, not the model of plane.
      - dylan604 3y ago
        If you really want to separate them out like that, but that seems pointless. The rot within Boeing seems to have culminated with the fiasco that is the MAX. It was executive decisions and the example that showed for the middle management to follow that allowed all of the issues to happen. Whether it was the lackadaisical nature of how many bolts were installed to the cover up/conspiracy of trying to hide the flight characteristics with MCAS to avoid re-certifying pilots, it's all stems from the same rot
      - TylerE 3y ago
        The common elements are Boeing and the model of the plane.
        lazide 3y ago
        The model of the plane is what they are currently producing at scale. What do you want to bet if that changed (and on other models) they have similar problems with those too? Notably, this type of ops issue (managers pushing for high velocity - paperwork and quality of work be damned) is inevitable when output numbers must go up or stay the same even in the face of other pressures increasing. We’ve all been there for sure - too many bugs coming in, so mark them ‘can’t reproduce’ the first pass through, or if we can’t figure out what is going on in the first couple minutes. Or put a hack into production to fix it now, with an actual real fix ‘on the backlog’ indefinitely. Or playing whack a mole with problems instead of investigating root causes. It’s a burnout/realism problem. Very tempting in ops/QA for the business - and then when something breaks, or a customer gets angry because they’re getting blown off, blame the engineer/tech/QA person and fire them instead of fix the actual cause, which is unrealistic workloads, or bad process, or management prioritization failures, etc.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
TylerE 3y ago
I'm deadly serious. Aviation, for a long time, administratively speaking, has been very buddy-buddy. Lots of self-attestation and self-certification. That works as long as you can trust the mfg to actually do it. Boeing has proven with the continuous series of failures of the 737 MAX program - from top to bottom - that they are not trustworthy in that regard. From here on out they can do everything on that airplane by not just the letter of the law, but the serif. They killed hundreds of people through greed and laziness. Simply put, fuck 'em. If they go under it's because they deserve to. Too big to fail is not a situation that should be allowed to exist. The long term resiliency of the system is worth short term pain. (Edit: And as dylan604 pointed out in a sibling comment, the 737 MAX fleet has already been grounded on mulitple occasions)
deciplex 3y ago
> I genuinely wonder if you realize the consequences of this drastic a decision. Well, among other things, an increase in the general public safety vis-à-vis commercial air travel. Plus, I suppose, some kind of material incentive for Boeing and other airliners to take quality control seriously. Seems like a win.
- DiggyJohnson 3y ago
  It's not at all obvious that forcing more auto travel and causing chaos in domestic air travel would result in a net benefit in safety (and otherwise) for the general public. I imagine its pretty nuanced. Only reason I see for it is a punitive incentive for Boeing. Anything else requires more of an argument, in my perspective.
  - deciplex 3y ago
    It's pretty obvious to me that not allowing dangerous aircraft in the sky benefits the public safety. I can only guess at what your objections are, because you're being awfully vague, but since I have to guess I guess that you're saying something along the lines of "people will use other forms of transport like driving which is more dangerous than even flying on a 737 MAX." I find this line of reasoning flawed because while you may be on to something in the very short term, in the long term grounding the fleet permanently will increase the incentive for Boeing et al to produce safer aircraft. Thus, grounding the fleet will save lives. So, we should do it. As to whether this "punishes" Boeing I have to confess that I absolutely, positively, do not give a shit if this counts as "punishment" and quite frankly the entire C-level of the company and any board members / stockholders that had a hand in degrading their QC to this degree, should be held criminally liable and punished as such. So that's where I stand on punitive incentives: they're a good thing.
lmm 3y ago
If there are no credible consequences for unsafe practices, they will continue. If Boeing believes their planes will never be grounded unless they kill hundreds of Americans, sooner or later they will kill hundreds of Americans. (We already know from the Max 8 that killing hundreds of foreigners isn't enough to get the FAA to ground an American plane, at least not until it happens multiple times). A poorly installed door plug may be a one-off mistake. Missing required documentation on the installation of that door plug is a more serious systemic issue. Failing to cooperate with a safety investigation is an even deeper rot. If that's not something that should result in aircraft grounding then what is? Genuine question - how bad does it have to get?
- datavirtue 3y ago
  We clearly have all our eggs in one basket when nearly everyone is hesitant to enact common sense measures like grounding every commercial Boeing plane in service--at least on a rotation. Air traffic would grind to a halt. I wouldn't want to be responsible for that either. Especially when it's the friends of all the grey-hairs at GE, Boeing, and every major airline that have to make the call.
  - TylerE 3y ago
    The max fleet had already been grounded multiple times, the world did not end.
    - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
      It was only for a few days, and it was extremely impactful. This was only the 737-MAX fleet that was grounded, which is primarily used for regional routes. The MAX is never used or configured for cargo at this moment. More importantly, this was only the MAX generation of the 737 fleet. Only ~15% of all 737s in service. I interpreted the poster as suggesting that we ground all Boeing commercial airplanes. If they just meant the 737 MAX fleet, I still think this would be unproductive now that the acute MCAS issue has been addressed, but it's not as ludicrous as grounding ~60% of the world's airplanes.
  - 3y ago
sobkas 3y ago
> Would that be what’s best for everyone? > If you’re being serious, I genuinely wonder if you realize the consequences of this drastic a decision. It would be best for everyone who isn't Boeing. But we all know that the second it would happen, Boeing would run crying to politicians they own how unfair this action is/how it endangers their market position/how it threatens national security.

dylan604 3y ago

The MAX fleet has been grounded multiple times now. Why would this be any different? The grounding after the door flew off was way shorter than the MCAS grounding. The consequences of continuing to fly this aircraft is likely to continue to find issues of varying severity. It's like playing Russian roulette with 2 bullets loaded.

lazide 3y ago
Because zero people are dead from this issue, it’s relatively easy to inspect for, and isn’t a design problem- unlike the max problems?
- TylerE 3y ago
  Only due to a bloody miracle. If people had been in the two nearest seats they were getting sucked straight out. That those seats were coincidentally empty doesn't lessen the seriousness of the event.
  - lazide 3y ago
    I mean, it literally does? If 2 people has died, it would have been a more serious event. By definition, no?
    - dylan604 3y ago
      No. It was a serious event even without casualties. If people had died, it would have been tragic, fatal, or any other adjective. If it wasn't serious, we wouldn't still be discussing it.
      - lazide 3y ago
        And I never said it wasn’t serious, did I?
        dylan604 3y ago
        great, so now we're in a "serious" != "more serious" round of pedantic discourse. nope for me
    - lupusreal 3y ago
      Yours is exactly the kind of attitude that gets people killed in workplaces. I slip on a puddle, but I'm young and nimble so I catch myself. No harm done to me, not a serious incident right? I don't report the puddle. Then another guy comes alone, he's older, his reflexes aren't so good. He bounces his head off the concrete and dies. This is why all workplace safety policies tell you to treat near misses like the real thing. The only difference between them is circumstantial luck.
      - westhanover 3y ago
        That person is a psychopath. The only good thing is that in a competent safety focused org someone like him would be fired instantly.
        lazide 3y ago
        Beautiful. And what exactly led you to that insightful psychoanalysis? Especially since I’m not saying it isn’t serious. Just pointing out that 0 < 2 < 189. Which is quite literally true, is it not?
        dylan604 3y ago
        any number > 0 when counting deaths because of a company's malfeasance, incompetence, or any other word to describe it is serious. since you seem to like superlatives, any number > 0 is the most serious thing. your product killed 1 person in a failure or 189 in a failure is no less damning. even if your product's failure nearly killed some number > 0 is a serious thing.
        lazide 3y ago
        So now you’re saying it wasn’t serious because there was no one killed? I’m very confused here. I thought it was serious, just less serious than those that actually killed people, because it does show system issues at Boeing related to actually doing safe changes to their planes. Which is a scary operational problem, but at least not a major plane design problem. Which will kill someone (or a lot of someones!) eventually. And got called a psychopath for it, apparently? Which doesn’t seem very polite.
- dylan604 3y ago
  > unlike the max problems? what do you mean unlike the MAX problems? do you think this is a different model aircraft. The MCAS related crashes with 300+ casualties was an earlier version of the MAX. The door flying off was still a MAX. So at this point, we should be well past viewing incidents on a per incident basis, and now just see each one as yet another example of the failure/lack of Boeing's prowess on designing a safe airplane.
  - lazide 3y ago
    MCAS was a design problem, and one inherent from the start. That the FAA (kinda, due to the weird industry setup) approved. This was an ops problem. The common element is Boeing, not the model of plane.
    - dylan604 3y ago
      If you really want to separate them out like that, but that seems pointless. The rot within Boeing seems to have culminated with the fiasco that is the MAX. It was executive decisions and the example that showed for the middle management to follow that allowed all of the issues to happen. Whether it was the lackadaisical nature of how many bolts were installed to the cover up/conspiracy of trying to hide the flight characteristics with MCAS to avoid re-certifying pilots, it's all stems from the same rot
    - TylerE 3y ago
      The common elements are Boeing and the model of the plane.
      - lazide 3y ago
        The model of the plane is what they are currently producing at scale. What do you want to bet if that changed (and on other models) they have similar problems with those too? Notably, this type of ops issue (managers pushing for high velocity - paperwork and quality of work be damned) is inevitable when output numbers must go up or stay the same even in the face of other pressures increasing. We’ve all been there for sure - too many bugs coming in, so mark them ‘can’t reproduce’ the first pass through, or if we can’t figure out what is going on in the first couple minutes. Or put a hack into production to fix it now, with an actual real fix ‘on the backlog’ indefinitely. Or playing whack a mole with problems instead of investigating root causes. It’s a burnout/realism problem. Very tempting in ops/QA for the business - and then when something breaks, or a customer gets angry because they’re getting blown off, blame the engineer/tech/QA person and fire them instead of fix the actual cause, which is unrealistic workloads, or bad process, or management prioritization failures, etc.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

TylerE 3y ago

I'm deadly serious. Aviation, for a long time, administratively speaking, has been very buddy-buddy. Lots of self-attestation and self-certification. That works as long as you can trust the mfg to actually do it. Boeing has proven with the continuous series of failures of the 737 MAX program - from top to bottom - that they are not trustworthy in that regard. From here on out they can do everything on that airplane by not just the letter of the law, but the serif. They killed hundreds of people through greed and laziness. Simply put, fuck 'em. If they go under it's because they deserve to. Too big to fail is not a situation that should be allowed to exist. The long term resiliency of the system is worth short term pain. (Edit: And as dylan604 pointed out in a sibling comment, the 737 MAX fleet has already been grounded on mulitple occasions)

deciplex 3y ago

> I genuinely wonder if you realize the consequences of this drastic a decision. Well, among other things, an increase in the general public safety vis-à-vis commercial air travel. Plus, I suppose, some kind of material incentive for Boeing and other airliners to take quality control seriously. Seems like a win.

DiggyJohnson 3y ago
It's not at all obvious that forcing more auto travel and causing chaos in domestic air travel would result in a net benefit in safety (and otherwise) for the general public. I imagine its pretty nuanced. Only reason I see for it is a punitive incentive for Boeing. Anything else requires more of an argument, in my perspective.
- deciplex 3y ago
  It's pretty obvious to me that not allowing dangerous aircraft in the sky benefits the public safety. I can only guess at what your objections are, because you're being awfully vague, but since I have to guess I guess that you're saying something along the lines of "people will use other forms of transport like driving which is more dangerous than even flying on a 737 MAX." I find this line of reasoning flawed because while you may be on to something in the very short term, in the long term grounding the fleet permanently will increase the incentive for Boeing et al to produce safer aircraft. Thus, grounding the fleet will save lives. So, we should do it. As to whether this "punishes" Boeing I have to confess that I absolutely, positively, do not give a shit if this counts as "punishment" and quite frankly the entire C-level of the company and any board members / stockholders that had a hand in degrading their QC to this degree, should be held criminally liable and punished as such. So that's where I stand on punitive incentives: they're a good thing.

lmm 3y ago

If there are no credible consequences for unsafe practices, they will continue. If Boeing believes their planes will never be grounded unless they kill hundreds of Americans, sooner or later they will kill hundreds of Americans. (We already know from the Max 8 that killing hundreds of foreigners isn't enough to get the FAA to ground an American plane, at least not until it happens multiple times). A poorly installed door plug may be a one-off mistake. Missing required documentation on the installation of that door plug is a more serious systemic issue. Failing to cooperate with a safety investigation is an even deeper rot. If that's not something that should result in aircraft grounding then what is? Genuine question - how bad does it have to get?

datavirtue 3y ago
We clearly have all our eggs in one basket when nearly everyone is hesitant to enact common sense measures like grounding every commercial Boeing plane in service--at least on a rotation. Air traffic would grind to a halt. I wouldn't want to be responsible for that either. Especially when it's the friends of all the grey-hairs at GE, Boeing, and every major airline that have to make the call.
- TylerE 3y ago
  The max fleet had already been grounded multiple times, the world did not end.
  - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
    It was only for a few days, and it was extremely impactful. This was only the 737-MAX fleet that was grounded, which is primarily used for regional routes. The MAX is never used or configured for cargo at this moment. More importantly, this was only the MAX generation of the 737 fleet. Only ~15% of all 737s in service. I interpreted the poster as suggesting that we ground all Boeing commercial airplanes. If they just meant the 737 MAX fleet, I still think this would be unproductive now that the acute MCAS issue has been addressed, but it's not as ludicrous as grounding ~60% of the world's airplanes.
- 3y ago

sobkas 3y ago

> Would that be what’s best for everyone? > If you’re being serious, I genuinely wonder if you realize the consequences of this drastic a decision. It would be best for everyone who isn't Boeing. But we all know that the second it would happen, Boeing would run crying to politicians they own how unfair this action is/how it endangers their market position/how it threatens national security.