3 ms·

Imagine you work as an aerospace engineer. Imagine having to couch/overthink everything your say in communication so that it can't be taken out of context later

Imagine you work as an aerospace engineer. Imagine having to couch/overthink everything your say in communication so that it can't be taken out of context later. You literally have yearly training on how you have to communicate and in hugely impacts how people work because one dumb one off comment in email can financially end the company when an accident occurs. and that's before you get to the fact that you have to defer how your IT systems work to the lawyers from the big overseas insurance company that covers your company/products. It's a major pain to get them to sign off on collaboration systems because they are such a discovery risk not because you are hidings, but because of how people communicate especially around issues. As far as discovery goes with aerospace, if your engineers anywhere acknowledged any problems, you are hit. How can you have a good product/continuous improvement when you can't acknowledge issues in writing?

whatshisface 2y ago
I'd be surprised if you could find a single aerospace engineer with more than five years of experience who hadn't learned to couch everything they say in a way that made it difficult to misinterpret or change by taking out of context.
lxgr 2y ago
> You literally have yearly training on how you have to communicate and in hugely impacts how people work because one dumb one off comment in email can financially end the company when an accident occurs. Wow, that's a very sad contrast to the blameless failure analysis culture of aviation accidents/incidents I've heard so much about (and actually see as a model for what we should strive for in software). I can't even begin to imagine what kind of organizational chilling effect this must have on the way problems are discussed.
benhurmarcel 2y ago
I am exactly in that line of work and that's not my experience. All our written communication is kept basically forever in case of investigation, and yet people don't second guess everything they write. At the same time I've never seen anyone knowingly defend anything unsafe or illegal anyway. And my experience is that the "blameless" culture is very present.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  I call BS. You don't think your annual mandated training on speech and communication has in any way impacted discussions? Seriously? Does your company let people from the factory floor reach out (continuous improvement style) via electronic communication for every idea/improvement/thought? If you don't think the insurance company approved annual communication training doesn't change what/how things are reported from the factory floor you should go walk the floor and talk to people.
  - benhurmarcel 2y ago
    We don’t have such annual training on communication. We do have annual trainings (including on ethics and safety typically), but none related to speech or an insurance company. The only recurring instruction we receive about speech is to “speak up” if we see anything wrong. You’re probably thinking of a particular company that I don’t have experience with, but it’s not applicable to the whole industry.
_bkyr 2y ago
Imagine your parents get on a plane and it crashes due to a malfunction. Then imagine five years later the maker of such plane had communications where an employee said "i think something is wrong with x. we should pause work on x" and their manager said "no, the tests with x are within range. you should continue". Then the relatives of people in the crash sue. I'm not saying who is at fault or who is liable (that's for a judge to decide) but you don't think that communication should be in court? Do you really know the depths that capitalism will go to to make a dollar off of you and everyone you know?
- rileymat2 2y ago
  Isn't there a third option? Where those statements are available to the plaintiff to evaluate for evidence of, but the underlying communication is not allowed to be presented to the jury because it is prejudicial until it is established that the x had a real foreseeable issue?

whatshisface 2y ago

I'd be surprised if you could find a single aerospace engineer with more than five years of experience who hadn't learned to couch everything they say in a way that made it difficult to misinterpret or change by taking out of context.

lxgr 2y ago

> You literally have yearly training on how you have to communicate and in hugely impacts how people work because one dumb one off comment in email can financially end the company when an accident occurs. Wow, that's a very sad contrast to the blameless failure analysis culture of aviation accidents/incidents I've heard so much about (and actually see as a model for what we should strive for in software). I can't even begin to imagine what kind of organizational chilling effect this must have on the way problems are discussed.

benhurmarcel 2y ago

I am exactly in that line of work and that's not my experience. All our written communication is kept basically forever in case of investigation, and yet people don't second guess everything they write. At the same time I've never seen anyone knowingly defend anything unsafe or illegal anyway. And my experience is that the "blameless" culture is very present.

_DeadFred_ 2y ago
I call BS. You don't think your annual mandated training on speech and communication has in any way impacted discussions? Seriously? Does your company let people from the factory floor reach out (continuous improvement style) via electronic communication for every idea/improvement/thought? If you don't think the insurance company approved annual communication training doesn't change what/how things are reported from the factory floor you should go walk the floor and talk to people.
- benhurmarcel 2y ago
  We don’t have such annual training on communication. We do have annual trainings (including on ethics and safety typically), but none related to speech or an insurance company. The only recurring instruction we receive about speech is to “speak up” if we see anything wrong. You’re probably thinking of a particular company that I don’t have experience with, but it’s not applicable to the whole industry.

_bkyr 2y ago

Imagine your parents get on a plane and it crashes due to a malfunction. Then imagine five years later the maker of such plane had communications where an employee said "i think something is wrong with x. we should pause work on x" and their manager said "no, the tests with x are within range. you should continue". Then the relatives of people in the crash sue. I'm not saying who is at fault or who is liable (that's for a judge to decide) but you don't think that communication should be in court? Do you really know the depths that capitalism will go to to make a dollar off of you and everyone you know?

rileymat2 2y ago
Isn't there a third option? Where those statements are available to the plaintiff to evaluate for evidence of, but the underlying communication is not allowed to be presented to the jury because it is prejudicial until it is established that the x had a real foreseeable issue?