4 ms·

Boeing has many problems, but this seems to be a case of everything working as intended. Boeing discovered an issue and reported it to the airlines, the FAA fol

Boeing has many problems, but this seems to be a case of everything working as intended. Boeing discovered an issue and reported it to the airlines, the FAA followed up with a directive mandating the inspection that Boeing already recommended. The issue in question hasn't caused any of the units inspected so far to actually fail to operate, but since it theoretically could they need to be fixed. If this happened on an Airbus plane it wouldn't have ended up on the front page.

dist-epoch 2y ago
Maybe because we didn't have 2 Airbus planes crash and doors blowing out of planes while they are flying because of criminal negligence on the part of Airbus.
- lolinder 2y ago
  Right, but that doesn't mean that now we need to go all sensational about every single instance of regular airplane safety procedure. Ever since the MAX crashes we periodically get these threads where a bunch of people who don't understand normal procedure speculate that a totally normal incident is actually more sinister. These are some of HN's least valuable threads, so I'd prefer to preempt it.
  - dist-epoch 2y ago
    And in all previous threads there were other HN people saying "trust Boeing, it's not a systemic thing, they are a honest company and will fix things, it's just how aviation got safe, one crash at a time"
    - bilbo0s 2y ago
      Again, in fairness, the user you’re responding to did say in another comment that these threads were a bunch of low effort comments by people with no understanding. Might explain the comments you saw.
alistairSH 2y ago
Did Boeing discover the problem? It reads more like the problem occurred in the field (on operational aircraft), was reported to Boeing, then Boeing reported the issue to the FAA.
- lolinder 2y ago
  You're right, the article doesn't specify. Either way, for an issue that occurs a long time after delivery this sounds like totally normal procedure.
  - hughesjj 2y ago
    Absent any context, normal. In the context of Boeing actually fixing problems instead of sweeping them under the rug, it's abnormal to follow the prescribed procedure. In the context of planes needing fixes like this so long after delivery, also abnormal.
tifik 2y ago
> If this happened on an Airbus plane it wouldn't have ended up on the front page. Perhaps, but I think its a good thing that boeing is under more scrutiny and is getting more shit than their competition would for the same. Not much more general public can do.
- lolinder 2y ago
  Whether or not it's a good thing in the abstract, these HN threads are always disaster zones. People who are actually informed don't bother to show up, so it's just a bunch of low-effort complaints about Boeing that bear no relation to the article.
  - KingOfCoders 2y ago
    How is your day Mr. Calhoun? I see you find time doing PR on HN. Splendid!
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - bilbo0s 2y ago
    To be fair, how is that different from comments on any other HN thread?
cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago
Yeah. HN is really insufferable about this stuff. Just as prone as everyone else to being pandered to with politically driven clickbait, but acts like it’s God’s gift to Earth because…computers? Anyone that remotely cares about aviation can tell you that completely routine Boeing-related “news” now routinely makes its way to the HN front page, not because it’s notable, but because everyone wants to post their recycled rants about “MBAs” because they had a bad day at work or whatever.
- scrollaway 2y ago
  What do you mean HN is insufferable? As i write this there isn’t a single comment speaking unreasonably against Boeing in this thread. The story making the front page is a result of a few people clicking a vote button, not preaching a mission statement.
- KingOfCoders 2y ago
  "God’s gift to Earth" Exactly, I also wonder why I spend my time here commenting if everyone else is an idiot ... hmm. </ironyoff>
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
allie1 2y ago
For good reason. Airbus hasn't be plagued by manufacturing defects like Boeing has .
- black_13 2y ago
  [dead]
KingOfCoders 2y ago
"Boeing discovered an issue" No. The right way would be: "Boeing discovered an issue in design or quality" But this is not what happened.
bmitc 2y ago
> this seems to be a case of everything working as intended Not in the context of everything else that's happened. > If this happened on an Airbus plane it wouldn't have ended up on the front page. Has Airbus been discovered to have decades long cost cutting, cutting corners, negligence, bribes, passenger deaths, incompetence, and criminal activity?
- lolinder 2y ago
  By all means, let's talk about patterns and data. Let's share articles that analyze Boeing failures over time, that do proper statistical analysis. But let's not make a big deal out of totally normal safety procedures or get fixated on every random anecdote. I'm not defending Boeing re: everything, I'd just like to see us rise above uninformed internet brigading and have a useful conversation that isn't primarily driven by cognitive biases.
  - bmitc 2y ago
    I'm less concerned that a procesure was technically followed, this time, and more concerned that Boeing has seemingly endless problems with their planes from the simple to leading to passenger death.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      Agreed, so let's talk about data, not otherwise-normal anecdotes.
sofixa 2y ago
> If this happened on an Airbus plane it wouldn't have ended up on the front page. Because Airbus weren't shown, publicly, on multiple occasions, to be a bunch of incompetent fools failing to do basic manufacturing things well. Do you need a reminder that Boeing and their supplier Spirit failed at basics such as tracking who did what work, drilling holes, remembering to put back bolts they took out, tracking their work in the required systems, etc. There is zero trust in Boeing doing the right thing, and every little detail of their operation needs to be under intense scrutiny to insure their incompetence and cost cutting do not kill any more people. Why did they change the adhesive on the oxygen masks? Did they test it enough?
- lolinder 2y ago
  I'm not opposed to scrutiny, I'm opposed to uninformed speculation and sensationalizing of totally normal safety operations. If we were talking about patterns and stats that would be one thing, but this kind of pile-on after every Boeing anecdote isn't data-driven and isn't meaningful. It's just confirmation bias, and I prefer to see better on HN.
  - thejazzman 2y ago
    I think you're both right.
OJFord 2y ago
I agree normal correct unsurprising process etc., but I suppose the reason it's more interesting/newsworthy than if it were Airbus is just because it comes after all the other issues, so 'oh, another issue' becomes part of the story even if it's being handled correctly and could as well have happened to another company. It happens for example with car recalls too, there's a high profile issue that affects a lot of them or sounds particularly bad; then if there's a smaller more mundane issue they also have to recall a few for it gets attention it wouldn't have otherwise.

dist-epoch 2y ago

Maybe because we didn't have 2 Airbus planes crash and doors blowing out of planes while they are flying because of criminal negligence on the part of Airbus.

lolinder 2y ago
Right, but that doesn't mean that now we need to go all sensational about every single instance of regular airplane safety procedure. Ever since the MAX crashes we periodically get these threads where a bunch of people who don't understand normal procedure speculate that a totally normal incident is actually more sinister. These are some of HN's least valuable threads, so I'd prefer to preempt it.
- dist-epoch 2y ago
  And in all previous threads there were other HN people saying "trust Boeing, it's not a systemic thing, they are a honest company and will fix things, it's just how aviation got safe, one crash at a time"
  - bilbo0s 2y ago
    Again, in fairness, the user you’re responding to did say in another comment that these threads were a bunch of low effort comments by people with no understanding. Might explain the comments you saw.

alistairSH 2y ago

Did Boeing discover the problem? It reads more like the problem occurred in the field (on operational aircraft), was reported to Boeing, then Boeing reported the issue to the FAA.

lolinder 2y ago
You're right, the article doesn't specify. Either way, for an issue that occurs a long time after delivery this sounds like totally normal procedure.
- hughesjj 2y ago
  Absent any context, normal. In the context of Boeing actually fixing problems instead of sweeping them under the rug, it's abnormal to follow the prescribed procedure. In the context of planes needing fixes like this so long after delivery, also abnormal.

tifik 2y ago

> If this happened on an Airbus plane it wouldn't have ended up on the front page. Perhaps, but I think its a good thing that boeing is under more scrutiny and is getting more shit than their competition would for the same. Not much more general public can do.

lolinder 2y ago
Whether or not it's a good thing in the abstract, these HN threads are always disaster zones. People who are actually informed don't bother to show up, so it's just a bunch of low-effort complaints about Boeing that bear no relation to the article.
- KingOfCoders 2y ago
  How is your day Mr. Calhoun? I see you find time doing PR on HN. Splendid!
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- bilbo0s 2y ago
  To be fair, how is that different from comments on any other HN thread?

cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago

Yeah. HN is really insufferable about this stuff. Just as prone as everyone else to being pandered to with politically driven clickbait, but acts like it’s God’s gift to Earth because…computers? Anyone that remotely cares about aviation can tell you that completely routine Boeing-related “news” now routinely makes its way to the HN front page, not because it’s notable, but because everyone wants to post their recycled rants about “MBAs” because they had a bad day at work or whatever.

scrollaway 2y ago
What do you mean HN is insufferable? As i write this there isn’t a single comment speaking unreasonably against Boeing in this thread. The story making the front page is a result of a few people clicking a vote button, not preaching a mission statement.
KingOfCoders 2y ago
"God’s gift to Earth" Exactly, I also wonder why I spend my time here commenting if everyone else is an idiot ... hmm. </ironyoff>
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

allie1 2y ago

For good reason. Airbus hasn't be plagued by manufacturing defects like Boeing has .

black_13 2y ago
[dead]

KingOfCoders 2y ago

"Boeing discovered an issue" No. The right way would be: "Boeing discovered an issue in design or quality" But this is not what happened.

bmitc 2y ago

> this seems to be a case of everything working as intended Not in the context of everything else that's happened. > If this happened on an Airbus plane it wouldn't have ended up on the front page. Has Airbus been discovered to have decades long cost cutting, cutting corners, negligence, bribes, passenger deaths, incompetence, and criminal activity?

lolinder 2y ago
By all means, let's talk about patterns and data. Let's share articles that analyze Boeing failures over time, that do proper statistical analysis. But let's not make a big deal out of totally normal safety procedures or get fixated on every random anecdote. I'm not defending Boeing re: everything, I'd just like to see us rise above uninformed internet brigading and have a useful conversation that isn't primarily driven by cognitive biases.
- bmitc 2y ago
  I'm less concerned that a procesure was technically followed, this time, and more concerned that Boeing has seemingly endless problems with their planes from the simple to leading to passenger death.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    Agreed, so let's talk about data, not otherwise-normal anecdotes.

sofixa 2y ago

> If this happened on an Airbus plane it wouldn't have ended up on the front page. Because Airbus weren't shown, publicly, on multiple occasions, to be a bunch of incompetent fools failing to do basic manufacturing things well. Do you need a reminder that Boeing and their supplier Spirit failed at basics such as tracking who did what work, drilling holes, remembering to put back bolts they took out, tracking their work in the required systems, etc. There is zero trust in Boeing doing the right thing, and every little detail of their operation needs to be under intense scrutiny to insure their incompetence and cost cutting do not kill any more people. Why did they change the adhesive on the oxygen masks? Did they test it enough?

lolinder 2y ago
I'm not opposed to scrutiny, I'm opposed to uninformed speculation and sensationalizing of totally normal safety operations. If we were talking about patterns and stats that would be one thing, but this kind of pile-on after every Boeing anecdote isn't data-driven and isn't meaningful. It's just confirmation bias, and I prefer to see better on HN.
- thejazzman 2y ago
  I think you're both right.

OJFord 2y ago

I agree normal correct unsurprising process etc., but I suppose the reason it's more interesting/newsworthy than if it were Airbus is just because it comes after all the other issues, so 'oh, another issue' becomes part of the story even if it's being handled correctly and could as well have happened to another company. It happens for example with car recalls too, there's a high profile issue that affects a lot of them or sounds particularly bad; then if there's a smaller more mundane issue they also have to recall a few for it gets attention it wouldn't have otherwise.