This reminds me so much of a client I had a while back. Safety inspector found one possible violation and what followed was a scream fest with cussing on the floor. Suddenly a lot more violations were found.
Edit: just in case there is any confusion. If you happen to be running a factory or a construction site the correct response to a a safety inspector telling you about a violation is “you are right, I am sorry, we will come up with a plan to make sure this isnt going to happen moving forward”. The incorrect response is pissing the hell out of the safety inspector. However, if you hate the place feel free to get your revenge.
I’m going to take a leap of faith and say you don’t work in aviation…
Step one… define safety in the context of the airplane.
Step two… measure it.
So yea. If safety is never defined it cannot be measured. But is the sentiment you are attempting to express is that measurable safety guidelines have not been defined for these massively complicated and long-running commercial aircraft?
Maybe I am misunderstanding because at first glance your comment comes across as nonsensical, please elaborate.
Safety cannot be measured because it’s a feeling. One person feels safe climbing a mountain without a rope and the next person is petrified. Safety is just word to describe a concept. It’s different to the wavelength of light or force or charge. These things are based on fundamental properties of the universe that can be measured and are repeatable.
A reasonable approximation might be to consider the likelihood of an adverse event given a use case over time. We could say that an accident every million hours is our definition of safe but that is completely arbitrary in the way that the physical laws and constants are not.
One accident per million hours is a direct measurement of safety, not “completely arbitrary”. The idea that the threshold in aviation regulations are “arbitrary” because it’s not based on a physical law or constant is like saying the temperature we use as “too hot for prolonged contact” is arbitrary. If you exceed it you’re likely to get burned, and if you exceed the safety thresholds in aviation regulations you’ll be less safe in an airplane than other types of transportation that we as a society find acceptable.
In engineering safety is not “just a feeling”.
Your arguments are so absurd I’m certain you’re just trolling for a reaction with brain dead comments like this.
It’s a measurement on an arbitrary scale. Nothing I’ve said is news to anyone who designs safety critical systems. I’m certainly not saying that safety isn’t important or that we can’t assess it. What I’m saying is that placing a number on that assessment will always stray into the realm of politics in a way that physics and mathematics never does. It lulls ignorant people into the belief that something is safe or not safe. They feel safe because they’ve been told it is safe or vice versa. Physics doesn’t care if you feel safe.
It’s notable that contemporary safety standards such as ISO 26262 generally avoid numerical assessments, for the reasons outlined above.
First Incidents per hour is not arbitrary. These numbers compare very well to daily activities such as walking, driving, bathing, eating, swimming so that non specialists have a good idea of how much risk an activity carries by comparing it to an activity they’re familiar with.
Secondly ISO 26262 produces ASILs as its output which are qualitative, but still based on probably assessments in terms of chance of incidence per hour. The reason for qualitative instead of quantitative assessments of the more general SILs (based on IEC61508, the parent of ISO 26262) is that qualitative is cheaper than quantitative and the automotive industry is full of corner cutting.
Third, aircraft use QUANTITATIVE risk assessments based on ARP476, so risk can be directly measured and mathematicaly compared to any other activity. When people say “flying is safer than driving” it’s not arbitrary, it’s based on real math. The same math the FAA is using to find safety issues in the Boeing production line.
Fourth
I’m certainly not saying that safety isn’t important or that we can’t assess it.
lol yep, this describes my outlook as well. I can play the game, and I’m actually decent at it, but the game is absolutely, categorically awful, and it’d be great for humanity at large if we could all stop playing it.
Why? I think there’s a decent chance they don’t survive this - at least their commercial airplanes. I won’t fly on a Boeing any time soon, if ever. It will take years to get back to a safety culture and there are tons of shit planes manufactured in the past several years that will be in service for decades.
If I was a pilot, I wouldn’t want to fly one either. They just had another incident where a pilot says the gauges went blank and he lost control. If a pilot union starts pushing back, it’s game over.
Boeing isn’t going anywhere, they’re a major part of the US MIC and DoD contracts will keep em afloat. They clearly don’t care about civilian affairs, based on their QC as seen here, imo
737 is a very unusual file permission. But IIRC it actually works as intended. The group that owns the file can’t read it but can write and execute, everyone else can. However I suspect you can probably figure out a way to drop the relevant group?
Are these facilities not regularly audited by a 3rd party to maintain their ISO certifications? The stuff mentioned in the article (key card feeler gauge…WTF!?) would/should have been caught in any routine audit.
That’s absolutely insane…why is it not a requirement to have audits performed by a third party, or the FAA themselves? This is laughably ridiculous, especially for an industry that claims to be focused on safety and quality.
Dude. Regulatory agencies are corrupt as heck. There’s no incentive to be a good auditor and actually dig deep to find issues and lots of incentive to have no findings. They’re all buddies with the management.
We get AS9100 audits routinely. Also, for sub-tiers, we get customer audits.
The key card is fucking hilarious and I am going to give some friends some shit for that. But, no, every process isn’t fully audited constantly. Any employee in visual distance should have called that shit out, though. It’s not hard to get a feeler gauge stack or even a custom ground go/no go. Though would they know to check their feeler stack with a mic? Not likely if they think using a key card is reasonable.
What do you mean “a whistleblower in the middle of testifying against Boeing’s shoddy and unsafe construction practices decides to off himself in a hotel parking lot” isn’t normal?
No. Gary Webb, the reporter from the San Jose Mercury News who first broke the story of CIA involvement in the cocaine trade, was found dead with “two gunshot wounds to the head.” His death, in 2004, was ruled a suicide.
Pretty sure this meme refers to when someone finds the slightest, most irrelevant technicality so they can say you’re wrong. You’re just straight up incorrect here in a way that’s directly applicable to the thread. There’s nothing wrong with that, everyone gets shit wrong.
Ah, the meaning of my comment went straight over your head and you resort to throwing insults around.
I’ll spell it out then: The fact that the first shot merely went through his mouth, from one cheek to the other makes it entirely possible, even probable, that Gary Webb commited suicide. Even his ex-wife said so:
Webb’s ex-wife, Susan Bell, told reporters that she believed Webb had died by suicide.[72] “The way he was acting it would be hard for me to believe it was anything but suicide,” she said. According to Bell, Webb had been unhappy for some time over his inability to get a job at another major newspaper. He had sold his house the week before his death because he was unable to afford the mortgage.
Spreading unfounded, exaggerated conspiracy theories while not even getting the facts straight isn’t helping anyone but the perpetrators, especially when the CIA actually did commit some atrocious crimes that can be cited by stating facts instead of fiction.
The idea that someone trying to commit suicide would shoot themselves through the cheeks implies a truly staggering level of incompetence. The whole point of shooting yourself in the head is to have a quick and painless death. Shooting random holes in your body first is the opposite of that.
According to The Guardian he got $60M in stock and pension for being fired. Also it seems that stock price didn’t fall much after the crashes and the grounding. It is only after COVID hit that Boeing’s price plummeted. So it might be only by pure luck that he lost anything of value at all.
About 300 years at the salary of a doctor. I am sure he contributed as much to human happiness and well-being as 300 doctors working for a single year.
I don’t think this ends in beheadings, but there will (hopefully) be significant follow on effects. A threat to consumer confidence in flying is a risk to the entire industry, all Boeing’s competitors and the airlines will be screaming for the FAA to get the actions right here…
It’s funny I know someone who’s an exec at Boeing Space, which is practically a completely different company and 99% a gov contractor. Let’s just say the SLS hassss to work flawlessly because its got “Boeing” written all over its parts, luckily NASA is leading the project so it’ll probably go as planned.
Ah. Yeah musk is insane but his rockets are cheaper than the SLS will be. Hell Congress hasn’t even funded more than 1 or 2 launches because it is so expensive.
Add comment