Profits 1st, Safety 2nd?

Message boards : Politics : Profits 1st, Safety 2nd?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 . . . 30 · Next

AuthorMessage
moomin
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Oct 17
Posts: 6204
Credit: 38,420
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 2003982 - Posted: 23 Jul 2019, 21:25:12 UTC - in response to Message 2003980.  

Oh. There it is:) Thanks.
With a link to this article.
https://www.wingsoverquebec.com/?p=8649
ID: 2003982 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 2003984 - Posted: 23 Jul 2019, 21:29:09 UTC - in response to Message 2003973.  

WOW - a 286. Little surprise then that it is getting overloaded....
...
There are a lot of lessons to be gained from this episode - not the least "think of the consequences before not after".

Possibly chosen because it may be more fault tolerant in a higher cosmic ray environment such as high altitude flight.
ID: 2003984 · Report as offensive
rob smith Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 22160
Credit: 416,307,556
RAC: 380
United Kingdom
Message 2003988 - Posted: 23 Jul 2019, 21:49:37 UTC

At the time of the design of the FCC it was not quite the cutting edge, and it "did the job pretty well". And indeed has done so for a good many years.
They would probably choose one of the hardened version over the retail or commercial versions - the penalty being lower clock speeds. The hardened versions of the newer chips are actually far more fault tolerant than the equivalent 286. (Some insiders suggest that the commercial/industrial versions of the current chips are more radiation resistant than the radiation hardened 286, but there is little proof either way.

Boeing's issue was they didn't want to have to design a new board for the FCC as that would need to be fully qualified to today's standards which are different to those the existing FCC was qualified. (Note "different", not tighter nor slacker, but different - in that some parts tighter and some are slacker, and some worded differently....)
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 2003988 · Report as offensive
moomin
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Oct 17
Posts: 6204
Credit: 38,420
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 2003998 - Posted: 23 Jul 2019, 22:45:20 UTC

We have a word for that what Boeing are, "Dumsnål", Stupidly stingy.
Designing a new FCC or upgrade it with new hardware means that Boeing have to completely redo the certification.
Modifying the software is apparently not enough but Boeing thought so.
ID: 2003998 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 2004010 - Posted: 24 Jul 2019, 1:04:14 UTC - in response to Message 2003998.  

We have a word for that what Boeing are, "Dumsnål", Stupidly stingy.
Designing a new FCC or upgrade it with new hardware means that Boeing have to completely redo the certification.
Modifying the software is apparently not enough but Boeing thought so.
Its legal, remember a corporation is a fiduciary duty.
ID: 2004010 · Report as offensive
rob smith Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 22160
Credit: 416,307,556
RAC: 380
United Kingdom
Message 2004011 - Posted: 24 Jul 2019, 1:15:07 UTC

While fiduciary duty is one of the requirements, there are others including obeying the rest of the law - and not causing death directly, indirectly, intentionally, or unintentionally is one of them. Failing to comply with the latter is, sadly, not unknown - lots quote Ford, but think about the various medical scandals, failures to comply with building codes etc. many of which have resulted in companies "having their pants sued off". Indeed I believe claiming fiduciary duty in not an accepted defence in law.
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 2004011 · Report as offensive
moomin
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Oct 17
Posts: 6204
Credit: 38,420
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 2004017 - Posted: 24 Jul 2019, 2:06:56 UTC

Fiduciary Duty?
I'll see my lawyer about this as soon as he graduates from Shyster law school.
ID: 2004017 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 2004028 - Posted: 24 Jul 2019, 4:27:29 UTC - in response to Message 2004011.  

Indeed I believe claiming fiduciary duty in not an accepted defence in law.
You either get sued by shareholders for spending too much money on safety or you get piddly administrative fines for not having enough safety and then perhaps get sued by the shareholders for not disclosing the risk. In every case you get sued by someone.
ID: 2004028 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11360
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 2004032 - Posted: 24 Jul 2019, 5:30:56 UTC - in response to Message 2004028.  

In every case you get sued by someone.

No, you can get sued by all parties.
The mad hatter's tea party perhaps?
ID: 2004032 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20147
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2004112 - Posted: 24 Jul 2019, 20:13:32 UTC - in response to Message 2003958.  
Last modified: 24 Jul 2019, 20:15:40 UTC

Is this an indication of what I assume to be the callously cold cruel calculations of the 'Boeing Bean-counters'?

And now Marketing follows up the rear?


Boeing 737 Max ordered by Ryanair undergoes name change

Decision fuels speculation that troubled plane will be rebranded once it is given all clear to fly

A Boeing 737 Max due to be delivered to Ryanair has had the name Max dropped from the livery, further fuelling speculation that the manufacturer and airlines will seek to rebrand the troubled plane once it is given the all clear to fly again...




How cheap is that?!

And now with added legalized Marketing misrepresentation of what real people will be flying?...


All in our only one world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2004112 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19014
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 2004199 - Posted: 25 Jul 2019, 8:05:05 UTC

ID: 2004199 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20147
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2004217 - Posted: 25 Jul 2019, 13:40:46 UTC - in response to Message 2004199.  
Last modified: 25 Jul 2019, 13:42:17 UTC

Indications that 737Max production may be halted until the problems are solved. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49108807

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/business/boeing-earnings-737-max.html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage

Thanks for that.

From the New York Times:

“This is a defining moment for Boeing and we remain focused on our enduring values of safety, quality, and integrity in all that we do, as we work to safely return the 737 Max to service,” Mr. Muilenburg said in a statement.


To me, somehow that quote rings fatally hollow... Unless so for some very unsavory assumed meaning of 'enduring values of safety, quality, and integrity' where peoples' lives are hanging in the air on those words...


Also, still not seen any meaningful apology or any admission of fault from Boeing...


All in our only one world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2004217 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19014
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 2004225 - Posted: 25 Jul 2019, 15:01:50 UTC - in response to Message 2004217.  

To me, somehow that quote rings fatally hollow... Unless so for some very unsavory assumed meaning of 'enduring values of safety, quality, and integrity' where peoples' lives are hanging in the air on those words...


You are quite right there. Washington Post = Long before the Max disasters, Boeing had a history of failing to fix safety problems
ID: 2004225 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20147
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2004433 - Posted: 26 Jul 2019, 22:16:01 UTC - in response to Message 2004225.  

To me, somehow that quote rings fatally hollow... Unless so for some very unsavory assumed meaning of 'enduring values of safety, quality, and integrity' where peoples' lives are hanging in the air on those words...


You are quite right there. Washington Post = Long before the Max disasters, Boeing had a history of failing to fix safety problems

Thanks for that.

There's also a good summary of the story so far with:

Aviation Explained - Boeing 737 MAX crisis: a timeline (Part I)

Aviation Explained - Boeing 737 MAX crisis: Ethiopian Airlines Crash (Part II)


To me and for my personal view, that all looks like a sorry saga of fatal rush and greed... The excuse of 'commercial pressure' simply doesn't work.

So where were the FAA to keep safety alive amongst the crass failings?

To my mind, the management set the atmosphere of compromised or even of trashed safety to game whatever bureaucratic systems... Hence all in the management chain hold a heavy responsibility for the lives lost...


All in our only one world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2004433 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20147
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2004434 - Posted: 26 Jul 2019, 22:22:04 UTC
Last modified: 26 Jul 2019, 22:23:15 UTC

A little more detail and to my personal view, the story gets yet still damnably worse...


Boeing says its 737 Max just needs a quick software fix. Aviation experts disagree

... In FAA simulator tests last month, test pilots experienced a “catastrophic failure,” in which they were unable to regain control of the plane...



No second chance with that one if there is no Big Red Button to press on a simulator to make your escape... So how did Boeing have the [insert whatever excuse or malfeasance here] 'whatever' to believe they can try that out on real people?!

Such a system should never have made it anywhere near the FAA let alone with any intent to fly that on real aircraft!!!


Is Boeing for real?

All in our only one very real world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2004434 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 2004459 - Posted: 27 Jul 2019, 1:04:01 UTC - in response to Message 2004433.  

So where were the FAA to keep safety alive amongst the crass failings?
Assuming, when people signed sworn affidavits of safety, they weren't lying. Tell me that isn't reasonable and if you disagree then tell me how government and courts can function.
ID: 2004459 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20147
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2004727 - Posted: 29 Jul 2019, 9:40:16 UTC
Last modified: 29 Jul 2019, 9:43:47 UTC

Yet another damning investigative report?


Work on production line of Boeing 737 Max ‘not adequately funded’

... Adam Dickson worked at Boeing for 30 years and led a team of engineers who worked on the 737 Max. He said they were under constant pressure to keep costs down.

"Certainly what I saw was a lack of sufficient resources to do the job in its entirety," he says. "The culture was very cost centred, incredibly pressurised. Engineers were given targets to get certain amount of cost out of the aeroplane."

Mr Dickson said engineers were under pressure to downplay new features on the 737 Max. ... by classifying them as minor rather than major changes, Boeing would face less scrutiny from the US regulator, the Federal Aviation Administration.

"The goal was to show that those differences were so similar to the previous design that it would not require a major design classification in the certification process. There was a lot of interest and pressure on the certification and analysis engineers in particular, to look at any changes to the Max as minor changes."...




To me, (depending on how greedy, pressurised, ruthless,) that again sounds like a management enforced culture leading to disaster. With any passengers and crew merely a 'collateral damage' 'risk'?...

All in our only one world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2004727 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20147
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2006182 - Posted: 7 Aug 2019, 16:29:46 UTC - in response to Message 2004434.  
Last modified: 7 Aug 2019, 16:30:31 UTC

A little more detail and to my personal view, the story gets yet still damnably worse...


Boeing says its 737 Max just needs a quick software fix. Aviation experts disagree

... In FAA simulator tests last month, test pilots experienced a “catastrophic failure,” in which they were unable to regain control of the plane...



No second chance with that one if there is no Big Red Button to press on a simulator to make your escape... So how did Boeing have the [insert whatever excuse or malfeasance here] 'whatever' to believe they can try that out on real people?!

Such a system should never have made it anywhere near the FAA let alone with any intent to fly that on real aircraft!!!


Is Boeing for real?

The further detail for that yet gets yet worse!

In total disbelief! Gobsmacked!!


Read for yourselves... A short summary is given in:


Another rewrite for 737 Max software as cosmic bit-flipping tests glitch out systems – report

... During tests intended to check for malfunctions of the 737 Max's redesigned flight control software, the pilots still managed to lose control of a simulated aircraft during ground exercises...

... Astonishingly, until the 737 Max crashes, the aircraft was flying with no redundancy at all for the flight control computers. If the active one failed or suffered inversion of critical bits in memory, there was no standby unit ready to cut in and continue. The Seattle Times reported that this has now been redesigned...



The longer version with greater detail is given by:

Newly stringent FAA tests spur a fundamental software redesign of Boeing’s 737 MAX flight controls

While conducting newly stringent tests on the Boeing 737 MAX flight control system, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in June uncovered a potential flaw that now has spurred Boeing to make a fundamental software-design change...

... It has specifically rejected Boeing’s assumption that the plane’s pilots can be relied upon as the backstop safeguard in scenarios such as the uncommanded movement of the horizontal tail involved in both the Indonesian and Ethiopian crashes. That notion was ruled out by FAA pilots in June when, during testing of the effect of a glitch in the computer hardware, one out of three pilots in a simulation failed to save the aircraft...

... In other words, the new system will detect not only any disagreement between the sensors but also check for any processing error in interpreting the information from the sensors. “This is a really good solution,” said Lemme, adding that “it should have been designed this way” from the beginning of the flight control system in the 1980s.

This raises the separate question of why the potential microprocessor fault discovered in June wasn’t caught in the original System Safety Analysis when the MAX was certified...




"Astonishingly" indeed! How did that come to be?!!!...

And why so very much far far too long and too late?


All in our only one very real world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2006182 · Report as offensive
rob smith Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 22160
Credit: 416,307,556
RAC: 380
United Kingdom
Message 2006189 - Posted: 7 Aug 2019, 17:41:55 UTC

Looking at the newspaper summaries it would appear that at least some of the more fundamental software changes need to be rolled onto the rest of the B737 "tribe" of aircraft. I say this on the basis that once a "significant flaw in a safety system" (my words) is uncovered on one member of a family of products, and a fix developed, that fix should be rolled onto the rest of the family where that system is used. This comment presupposes that the flight control philosophy is as common across the B737 as is implied by these reports.
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 2006189 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20147
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2006495 - Posted: 9 Aug 2019, 15:43:59 UTC - in response to Message 2006189.  

Looking at the newspaper summaries it would appear that at least some of the more fundamental software changes need to be rolled onto the rest of the B737 "tribe" of aircraft. I say this on the basis that once a "significant flaw in a safety system" (my words) is uncovered on one member of a family of products, and a fix developed, that fix should be rolled onto the rest of the family where that system is used. This comment presupposes that the flight control philosophy is as common across the B737 as is implied by these reports.

I certainly ain't flying anything Boeing for a year or two (at least)...!

If they pushed through zero redundancy on the 737 MAX flight control computer, all with added lame excuses, indeed what other deadly 'silliness' has been pushed through onto their aircraft?...


All in our only one world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2006495 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 . . . 30 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Profits 1st, Safety 2nd?


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.