3 ms·

> Note that despite what media headlines will make of this, it wasn't a Boeing issue in this case. One of their suppliers incorrectly installed a bearing on a c

> Note that despite what media headlines will make of this, it wasn't a Boeing issue in this case. One of their suppliers incorrectly installed a bearing on a component that could lead to moisture getting in and freezing. That component is used on the 737NG and 737Max. Seems like a Boeing issue to me.

diggan 2y ago
Parent sounds a bit like the software engineers who blame random FOSS libraries for the bugs that appear in their own projects using said FOSS libraries. In your project, you're ultimately responsible for what you ship, even if you're shipping airplanes.
- t0mas88 2y ago
  Technically yes, Boeing is responsible for the whole plane, but that's not what I meant. What I meant was that the media will make this an "OMG Boeing very bad!" story while it's quite routine for these things to happen. And in aviation components it's also a lot more nuanced than some developer blaming a FOSS component without warranty. A supplier of certified aviation components (like Collins in this case) also has a responsibility to deliver components that meet their certification standards. The FAA will go after them directly, not Boeing, if what they ship doesn't pass the certification standards it's sold as having.
  - diggan 2y ago
    > it's quite routine for these things to happen. NTSB routinely issues "Urgent Safety Recommendations"? According to the table at https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/safety-recommendations.aspx https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/safety-recommendat..., there wasn't any in 2023 at all, so doesn't sound very common, but maybe things have changed since then.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    I despise "OMGWTFBBQBOEINGBAD" sensationalist clickbait just as much if not more than you, it's an exemplary example of why journalism is a cancer upon humanity. But just like a broken clock is right twice a day, the sensationalism is right here. It's a Boeing problem. Worse, the 737 had (unrelated to this) rudder problems in the past that led to crashes. So: Yeah, fuck Boeing. I can't wait for them to go bankrupt so we can all go in and restructure the fucking thing from the ground up.
madaxe_again 2y ago
Indeed. If I am putting together a product and I rely on an assembly from a third party, it’s my responsibility to ensure that I have adequate QC processes in place to ensure that assemblies are made to spec before accepting them. To simply take a supplier’s word for it is negligent.
- sonotathrowaway 2y ago
  A long time ago I was in auto sales. I had a customer who worked at a factory that produced parts for many brands of automobile. That customer would only buy a Honda car, because they said they observed how absolutely strict Honda was regarding the quality of parts that they would purchase. Their quality control process for a random part was so meticulous that it gave them faith in the brand as a whole.
  - madaxe_again 2y ago
    I had a similar experience with BAE. The first time I saw they were charging the RAF £5,000 for a torch lightbulb my eyes practically fell out of their sockets - but then, a few years down the road, I found myself working with a QC department there, and their acceptance testing is extraordinary - everything gets the crap beaten out of it, thermal, endurance, vibration, radiation, you name it - and the survivors become aircraft and weapon parts.

diggan 2y ago

Parent sounds a bit like the software engineers who blame random FOSS libraries for the bugs that appear in their own projects using said FOSS libraries. In your project, you're ultimately responsible for what you ship, even if you're shipping airplanes.

t0mas88 2y ago
Technically yes, Boeing is responsible for the whole plane, but that's not what I meant. What I meant was that the media will make this an "OMG Boeing very bad!" story while it's quite routine for these things to happen. And in aviation components it's also a lot more nuanced than some developer blaming a FOSS component without warranty. A supplier of certified aviation components (like Collins in this case) also has a responsibility to deliver components that meet their certification standards. The FAA will go after them directly, not Boeing, if what they ship doesn't pass the certification standards it's sold as having.
- diggan 2y ago
  > it's quite routine for these things to happen. NTSB routinely issues "Urgent Safety Recommendations"? According to the table at https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/safety-recommendations.aspx https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/safety-recommendat..., there wasn't any in 2023 at all, so doesn't sound very common, but maybe things have changed since then.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  I despise "OMGWTFBBQBOEINGBAD" sensationalist clickbait just as much if not more than you, it's an exemplary example of why journalism is a cancer upon humanity. But just like a broken clock is right twice a day, the sensationalism is right here. It's a Boeing problem. Worse, the 737 had (unrelated to this) rudder problems in the past that led to crashes. So: Yeah, fuck Boeing. I can't wait for them to go bankrupt so we can all go in and restructure the fucking thing from the ground up.

madaxe_again 2y ago

Indeed. If I am putting together a product and I rely on an assembly from a third party, it’s my responsibility to ensure that I have adequate QC processes in place to ensure that assemblies are made to spec before accepting them. To simply take a supplier’s word for it is negligent.

sonotathrowaway 2y ago
A long time ago I was in auto sales. I had a customer who worked at a factory that produced parts for many brands of automobile. That customer would only buy a Honda car, because they said they observed how absolutely strict Honda was regarding the quality of parts that they would purchase. Their quality control process for a random part was so meticulous that it gave them faith in the brand as a whole.
- madaxe_again 2y ago
  I had a similar experience with BAE. The first time I saw they were charging the RAF £5,000 for a torch lightbulb my eyes practically fell out of their sockets - but then, a few years down the road, I found myself working with a QC department there, and their acceptance testing is extraordinary - everything gets the crap beaten out of it, thermal, endurance, vibration, radiation, you name it - and the survivors become aircraft and weapon parts.