4 ms·

Whose interest do you think was served by inadequate battery testing? I'm pretty sure Boeing isn't laughing all the way to the bank right now.

by tlb 14y ago

justinsteele 14y ago
Boeing's calculation of a battery reliability threshold would be related to cost of manufacturing vs cost of potential lawsuits related to failures. If they are highly unlikely to fail, and the cost of manufacturing them to an even higher spec is more than the accepted risk, they will not do it. Since the FAA cares less about Boeing's profits and more about the public's safety (hopefully), they would likely have a higher threshold.
- HeyLaughingBoy 14y ago
  Safety (ability to cause harm) and reliability (potential to not meet requirements) thresholds are different animals. I work in a regulated industry (medical) and I can assure you that I have never seen a Safety threshold that was in any way related to manufacturing or any other cost. The thresholds are always set according to how much harm can be caused and the likelihood of a harmful event. Reliability, on the other hand, has tradeoffs relating to costs. However, in this case, an unreliable subsystem can have a clear safety impact, so its reliability directly feeds into the Hazard calculations. In other words, Safety concerns would dominate. I hope that actually conveys what I'm trying to say. A bit rushed right now :-)
ceejayoz 14y ago
Maybe they thought they could get away with it, and the magnitude of the problem comes as a surprise?
pfortuny 14y ago
Short-term PR and benefits: these are much more important than they may seem to be. And also do not forget "keeping my job for these last two years". After all, "we know we do the battery thing right at Boeing, so there can be nothing wrong with them." Imagine employee A delaying the trials of the "most modern aircraft in the world" because some batteries are "malfunctioning", HE SAYS SO AND IS STILL WORKING FOR US? It is not just Boeing having a conflict of interests, it is its employees as well.
fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
I haven't accused them of malice, though there may have been malice at some level. But, malice isn't needed for Boeing to have something like this occur. Hubris and a lack of objectivity on the engineering team's part can do it. So can merely getting into too big of a rush.
Uchikoma 14y ago
So you disagree that this is a classical example of conflicting interests?
EliRivers 14y ago
Is there, however, an individual or small group inside Boeing who got a nice bonus, a pay rise and/or promotions from it?

Whose interest do you think was served by inadequate battery testing? I'm pretty sure Boeing isn't laughing all the way to the bank right now.

by tlb 14y ago

Whose interest do you think was served by inadequate battery testing? I'm pretty sure Boeing isn't laughing all the way to the bank right now.

justinsteele 14y ago

Boeing's calculation of a battery reliability threshold would be related to cost of manufacturing vs cost of potential lawsuits related to failures. If they are highly unlikely to fail, and the cost of manufacturing them to an even higher spec is more than the accepted risk, they will not do it. Since the FAA cares less about Boeing's profits and more about the public's safety (hopefully), they would likely have a higher threshold.

HeyLaughingBoy 14y ago
Safety (ability to cause harm) and reliability (potential to not meet requirements) thresholds are different animals. I work in a regulated industry (medical) and I can assure you that I have never seen a Safety threshold that was in any way related to manufacturing or any other cost. The thresholds are always set according to how much harm can be caused and the likelihood of a harmful event. Reliability, on the other hand, has tradeoffs relating to costs. However, in this case, an unreliable subsystem can have a clear safety impact, so its reliability directly feeds into the Hazard calculations. In other words, Safety concerns would dominate. I hope that actually conveys what I'm trying to say. A bit rushed right now :-)

ceejayoz 14y ago

Maybe they thought they could get away with it, and the magnitude of the problem comes as a surprise?

pfortuny 14y ago

Short-term PR and benefits: these are much more important than they may seem to be. And also do not forget "keeping my job for these last two years". After all, "we know we do the battery thing right at Boeing, so there can be nothing wrong with them." Imagine employee A delaying the trials of the "most modern aircraft in the world" because some batteries are "malfunctioning", HE SAYS SO AND IS STILL WORKING FOR US? It is not just Boeing having a conflict of interests, it is its employees as well.

fnordfnordfnord 14y ago

I haven't accused them of malice, though there may have been malice at some level. But, malice isn't needed for Boeing to have something like this occur. Hubris and a lack of objectivity on the engineering team's part can do it. So can merely getting into too big of a rush.

Uchikoma 14y ago

So you disagree that this is a classical example of conflicting interests?

EliRivers 14y ago

Is there, however, an individual or small group inside Boeing who got a nice bonus, a pay rise and/or promotions from it?