-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Boeing removed a feature that protects its 787 planes during lightning strikes as a cost-cutting measure, even after FAA experts objected
- Thread starter Trojita
- Start date
Ownage
Member
I love the Dreamliner and often fly on it. I wish that aircraft manufacturing would not be a race to the cheapest vendor with cheapest options. I'd happily pay another $50 per ticket for added comfort and safety features.
And pay maintenance and ground crew appropriately. They keep the planes in service. Happy mechanics mean safer flying.
And pay maintenance and ground crew appropriately. They keep the planes in service. Happy mechanics mean safer flying.
Last edited:
Nitty_Grimes
Made a crappy phPBB forum once ... once.
Well, it will only take one to be downed from a lightning strike to the wing for the FAA to suggest grounding the fleet. Then Boeing will be fucked with that and the MAX and by the sounds of it the 777X issues that are also coming to light.
Slings and Arrows
Banned
On a huge pile of money
I’m pretty sure their own engineers have objected to the outsourcing and cost-cutting measures.
BNN Bloomberg – Canada Business News, TSX Today and Interest Rates
Get the latest Canadian business news, TSX updates, interest rates and Bank of Canada coverage. Explore stock market investing and get expert financial insights on investment portfolio strategies.
www.bnnbloomberg.ca
Last edited:
YukiOnna
Member
The sad part is it'll take having a tragedy to get some action taken again
ArchdukeChocula
Member
I work with 2 former Boeing software engineers. They don't have good things to say about the company.I’m pretty sure their own engineers have objected to the outsourcing and cost-cutting measures.
BNN Bloomberg – Canada Business News, TSX Today and Interest Rates
Get the latest Canadian business news, TSX updates, interest rates and Bank of Canada coverage. Explore stock market investing and get expert financial insights on investment portfolio strategies.
D
Deleted member 1159
Unconfirmed Member
Working in a highly regulated industry, I got a lot of feelings about stories like these...on the one hand, I think stories like the 737 MAX absolutely blow up the libertarian utopia fantasy people have where free market capitalism can sort out these kinds of issues. Regulation is absolutely a must for certain industries when the stakes are life and death and the general public has no idea/understanding what some of this shit means. And industry getting to self-certify certain design changes is absolutely scandalously bad.
Also, I think the news media is ill-equipped to handle reporting on industry decisions when it comes to design changes and risk analysis. “Boeing removed a safety feature!” sounds real bad, but you really have to understand the whole story behind what that component does, how effective it is, how often planes get struck by lightning, the probability of that strike doing whatever that component was meant to mitigate, what the potential effect would be if that thing happened, how much that component costs, maybe that component was an artifact from some previous design that is no longer necessary because some other change mitigates the potential failure, etc. This is where experience and expertise really matter, and internet hot takes and armchair aviation experts won’t cut it when understanding this stuff.
The fact is Boeing planes are incredibly safe and the modern miracle of safe air travel is due in large part to Boeing. That the MAX has/had its issues is possibly indicative of a systemic issue in risk analysis, at least it certainly seemed to be the case when I read about the FMEA not categorizing a failure of the new anti-stall system as catastrophic, but I also think it’s possible that in a human process, something can still slip through the cracks, corporate pressure and cost cutting needs aside.
I still fly every couple weeks and don’t think twice about it
Also, I think the news media is ill-equipped to handle reporting on industry decisions when it comes to design changes and risk analysis. “Boeing removed a safety feature!” sounds real bad, but you really have to understand the whole story behind what that component does, how effective it is, how often planes get struck by lightning, the probability of that strike doing whatever that component was meant to mitigate, what the potential effect would be if that thing happened, how much that component costs, maybe that component was an artifact from some previous design that is no longer necessary because some other change mitigates the potential failure, etc. This is where experience and expertise really matter, and internet hot takes and armchair aviation experts won’t cut it when understanding this stuff.
The fact is Boeing planes are incredibly safe and the modern miracle of safe air travel is due in large part to Boeing. That the MAX has/had its issues is possibly indicative of a systemic issue in risk analysis, at least it certainly seemed to be the case when I read about the FMEA not categorizing a failure of the new anti-stall system as catastrophic, but I also think it’s possible that in a human process, something can still slip through the cracks, corporate pressure and cost cutting needs aside.
I still fly every couple weeks and don’t think twice about it
Last edited by a moderator:
lock2k
Banned
They sleep soundly and fly with Airbus.