4 ms·

> so poor regulation could possibly be implicated Can you work out the logical connection for someone who wouldn't understand it?

karlgkk 2y ago
There is incredible amounts of regulation around plane, maintenance. From specification of parts, to maintenance schedules, even all the way down to purity and composition of the materials. This regulation is used to make sure that all airlines that operate in the US adhere to the strict and narrow requirements from the manufacturers and the safety testing done. Whether or not you or other people ideologically agree with heavy regulations around this stuff is a whole separate conversation. Considering the complexity of this industry, I’d say that overall they’ve done a pretty good job. That aside, whenever a major incident like this happens, it almost always means those regulations were incorrect, violated, or didn’t cover a specific scenario (increasingly rare). There will be extensive reviews, that will take months, if not years, to determine how to prevent something like this from happening again. Sometimes it’s regulation, sometimes it’s updates to pilot guidelines and training. Sometimes it’s something else.
- fallingknife 2y ago
  What I'm not quite convinced of is that it is the regulation that keeps the airlines following the manufacturers' specifications. I see what happens to stock prices when these companies screw up and they lose a lot more money to that than they ever to do fines from regulators. Are the regulations actually doing much here or are they just repeating what the airlines would do anyway because they have a massive incentive not to crash even if the regulations didn't exist?
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    I would think the whole Boeing saga would disabuse you of that notion. Boeing put the bean counters in charge because it made their stock price go up. Of course, it goes up until the corners you cut to juice short term profitability cause something catastrophic to happen, like the multiple 787-max crashes, the door plug blowout, etc. By the time the bad stuff happens, the original decision makers are usually drinking pina coladas on a beach somewhere (or, in the case of former Boeing CEO James McNerney, cashing royalty checks from his book about his stellar management style and what a smart guy he is).
    - dmix 2y ago
      Boeing's many businesses doesn't operate under much competition. Largely thanks to the gov propping it up regardless of whether it deliver quality because national security and jobs or something.
    - listenallyall 2y ago
      This kind of snark in the comments is always a bit weird. His pension alone is worth upwards of $40 or $50 million, plus he got paid over $20 million in 2013 and 14. He isn't particularly famous or well-known. Do you think his book royalties are even one percent of his net worth?
      - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
        It always amazes me how people can pick out a detail that at least to me seems to be clearly made as sarcasm and highlight that as the thing that bothers them. So more literally: 1. No, I don't think the book royalties made a lick of difference to McNerney's net worth - in fact, he probably doesn't get any royalties, as it was just a fawning biography, not an autobiography. Instead, the fact that he made did make millions as CEO juicing the stock price, while actually putting in place the root causes for Boeing's subsequent downfall, is what I meant by "the original decision makers are usually drinking pina coladas on a beach somewhere". 2. I brought up the book because it's the height of irony for his biography being about what a great manager he is. The title of the book is "You Can't Order Change: Lessons from Jim McNerney's Turnaround at Boeing". Yeah, turnaround all right, just not in the direction intended by the author.
        listenallyall 2y ago
        It always amazes me that someone creates a "throwaway" account then continues to use it forever. The issue with your snark is that adding it undermines the first half of the comment which is a reasonable point. Yes short-term focus on boosting stock price is often detrimental to a century-old company and one whose products often last 40+ years - and especially when failure of those products offen results in mass casualties. So just write that. Talking about pina coladas on the beach and book royalties just makes you sound arrogant and "holier-than-thou" and reads like you're making an personality judgment about one individual, rather than the industry leaders as a whole. > clearly made as sarcasm It's not clearly sarcasm to readers. It sounds like a personal axe to grind which, as stated, undermines your overall point
- sokoloff 2y ago
  > whenever a major incident like this happens, it almost always means those regulations were incorrect, violated, or didn’t cover a specific scenario Having an aircraft (with no emergency declared) landing with a 40° crosswind at 23 knots, gusting 33 knots, with patchy snow, and active snow removal ops ongoing, lose control on the runway is probably not a favorite to be a maintenance omission or a regulatory dodge.
- sepositus 2y ago
  Thanks. This seems like any change would take months, if not years, to play out. That's why I wasn't quite following the logic of _recent_ cuts having such an immediate impact.
- kortilla 2y ago
  None of that maintenance regulation went away with the cuts and even if airlines started to cut corners on maintenance under the assumption they could get away with it, it’s not going to show up 2 days later. Implicating the recent cuts for this crash makes absolutely no sense.
  - nozzlegear 2y ago
    > even if airlines started to cut corners on maintenance under the assumption they could get away with it, it’s not going to show up 2 days later. When would it show up?
    - baby_souffle 2y ago
      Depends a lot on the part of the plane. Some things need to be inspected every few dozen flight hours and serviced after a few hundred. Some parts of a plane are only seen a few times in the air frame’s lifetime unless there’s a very urgent flaw discovered.
Jetrel 2y ago
They've fired a bunch of government employees who work in e.g. air traffic control, inspections, etc. This is likely not a case of some hand-wringing villain at the airline declaring "haha, we're finally free of that pesky regulation, now we can skip all the safety checks!" Rather, we're seeing "the people in charge of all the procedures" (Govt employees, not airline employees) being grossly understaffed. It's a bit like "inbox zero"; you have a list of SOPs you want to observe, and you want absolute inbox-zero for completely every single procedure, to the letter, for something like flight control, spaceflight, etc. If you cut staff, and still demand the same throughput, then the simple reality is balls are going to get dropped in the juggling - and at worst, if you refuse to accept that you don't have staff on hand to do it, and threaten to punish people who fail to keep up the same output with less staff, people are going to start lying about it. And that - that, is the nightmare scenario. That creates what the Russians call "Vranyo": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz59GWeTIik https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz59GWeTIik

karlgkk 2y ago

There is incredible amounts of regulation around plane, maintenance. From specification of parts, to maintenance schedules, even all the way down to purity and composition of the materials. This regulation is used to make sure that all airlines that operate in the US adhere to the strict and narrow requirements from the manufacturers and the safety testing done. Whether or not you or other people ideologically agree with heavy regulations around this stuff is a whole separate conversation. Considering the complexity of this industry, I’d say that overall they’ve done a pretty good job. That aside, whenever a major incident like this happens, it almost always means those regulations were incorrect, violated, or didn’t cover a specific scenario (increasingly rare). There will be extensive reviews, that will take months, if not years, to determine how to prevent something like this from happening again. Sometimes it’s regulation, sometimes it’s updates to pilot guidelines and training. Sometimes it’s something else.

fallingknife 2y ago
What I'm not quite convinced of is that it is the regulation that keeps the airlines following the manufacturers' specifications. I see what happens to stock prices when these companies screw up and they lose a lot more money to that than they ever to do fines from regulators. Are the regulations actually doing much here or are they just repeating what the airlines would do anyway because they have a massive incentive not to crash even if the regulations didn't exist?
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  I would think the whole Boeing saga would disabuse you of that notion. Boeing put the bean counters in charge because it made their stock price go up. Of course, it goes up until the corners you cut to juice short term profitability cause something catastrophic to happen, like the multiple 787-max crashes, the door plug blowout, etc. By the time the bad stuff happens, the original decision makers are usually drinking pina coladas on a beach somewhere (or, in the case of former Boeing CEO James McNerney, cashing royalty checks from his book about his stellar management style and what a smart guy he is).
  - dmix 2y ago
    Boeing's many businesses doesn't operate under much competition. Largely thanks to the gov propping it up regardless of whether it deliver quality because national security and jobs or something.
  - listenallyall 2y ago
    This kind of snark in the comments is always a bit weird. His pension alone is worth upwards of $40 or $50 million, plus he got paid over $20 million in 2013 and 14. He isn't particularly famous or well-known. Do you think his book royalties are even one percent of his net worth?
    - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
      It always amazes me how people can pick out a detail that at least to me seems to be clearly made as sarcasm and highlight that as the thing that bothers them. So more literally: 1. No, I don't think the book royalties made a lick of difference to McNerney's net worth - in fact, he probably doesn't get any royalties, as it was just a fawning biography, not an autobiography. Instead, the fact that he made did make millions as CEO juicing the stock price, while actually putting in place the root causes for Boeing's subsequent downfall, is what I meant by "the original decision makers are usually drinking pina coladas on a beach somewhere". 2. I brought up the book because it's the height of irony for his biography being about what a great manager he is. The title of the book is "You Can't Order Change: Lessons from Jim McNerney's Turnaround at Boeing". Yeah, turnaround all right, just not in the direction intended by the author.
      - listenallyall 2y ago
        It always amazes me that someone creates a "throwaway" account then continues to use it forever. The issue with your snark is that adding it undermines the first half of the comment which is a reasonable point. Yes short-term focus on boosting stock price is often detrimental to a century-old company and one whose products often last 40+ years - and especially when failure of those products offen results in mass casualties. So just write that. Talking about pina coladas on the beach and book royalties just makes you sound arrogant and "holier-than-thou" and reads like you're making an personality judgment about one individual, rather than the industry leaders as a whole. > clearly made as sarcasm It's not clearly sarcasm to readers. It sounds like a personal axe to grind which, as stated, undermines your overall point
sokoloff 2y ago
> whenever a major incident like this happens, it almost always means those regulations were incorrect, violated, or didn’t cover a specific scenario Having an aircraft (with no emergency declared) landing with a 40° crosswind at 23 knots, gusting 33 knots, with patchy snow, and active snow removal ops ongoing, lose control on the runway is probably not a favorite to be a maintenance omission or a regulatory dodge.
sepositus 2y ago
Thanks. This seems like any change would take months, if not years, to play out. That's why I wasn't quite following the logic of _recent_ cuts having such an immediate impact.
kortilla 2y ago
None of that maintenance regulation went away with the cuts and even if airlines started to cut corners on maintenance under the assumption they could get away with it, it’s not going to show up 2 days later. Implicating the recent cuts for this crash makes absolutely no sense.
- nozzlegear 2y ago
  > even if airlines started to cut corners on maintenance under the assumption they could get away with it, it’s not going to show up 2 days later. When would it show up?
  - baby_souffle 2y ago
    Depends a lot on the part of the plane. Some things need to be inspected every few dozen flight hours and serviced after a few hundred. Some parts of a plane are only seen a few times in the air frame’s lifetime unless there’s a very urgent flaw discovered.

Jetrel 2y ago

They've fired a bunch of government employees who work in e.g. air traffic control, inspections, etc. This is likely not a case of some hand-wringing villain at the airline declaring "haha, we're finally free of that pesky regulation, now we can skip all the safety checks!" Rather, we're seeing "the people in charge of all the procedures" (Govt employees, not airline employees) being grossly understaffed. It's a bit like "inbox zero"; you have a list of SOPs you want to observe, and you want absolute inbox-zero for completely every single procedure, to the letter, for something like flight control, spaceflight, etc. If you cut staff, and still demand the same throughput, then the simple reality is balls are going to get dropped in the juggling - and at worst, if you refuse to accept that you don't have staff on hand to do it, and threaten to punish people who fail to keep up the same output with less staff, people are going to start lying about it. And that - that, is the nightmare scenario. That creates what the Russians call "Vranyo": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz59GWeTIik https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz59GWeTIik