Killing that guy should fix this.
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?
Two bullet wounds to the back of the head is perfectly normal. Happens all the time.
Did you just make that up?
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.
The first shot went through his face, and exited at his left cheek. The coroner’s staff concluded that the second shot hit an artery.
Not quite the back of the head.
Sorry I don’t have Wikipedia memorized
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.
Wonder how many C-level execs get in trouble? /s
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.
That has got to be a depressing job. I can’t imagine the pain of being involved in starliner and SLS.
I ran the calculations, but I got a divide by zero error
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…
Competitors… You mean Airbus, the EU sponsored counterpart to Boeing? And literally no one else?
There’s almost no competition in the airliner space - both Boeing and Airbus are also state subsidised to a certain extent. Their mere existence is a strategic asset.
Either of them failing would have large global consequences… At worst, Boeing might no longer be able to hire their own FCC inspectors… At worst.
Even the smaller competitors like Bombardier would have an interest in this, even if they are not the manufacturers of similar sized aircraft, a loss of faith in the aviation industry hurts everyone too. Plus suppliers etc.
As for the investigators (I know you meant FAA, not FCC), we have a similar issue in medical devices - you need seriously well educated experts to perform the investigations, and it is hard to find any without industry experience which wouldn’t look good on paper. The solution is to try as hard as you can to not have ex-employees audit their ex-bosses, but it isn’t always possible so we accept some overlap. It doesn’t mean these people don’t take their job seriously.
Bombardier is 75% owned by Airbus now. There are hardly any competitors left, even small ones
I viewed this – y2u.be/URoVKPVDKPU
The vid showed that Boeing seemed to have questionable quality control. The focus was maximizing profit. Boeing outsourced the ✈'s parts to different firms but seemed to have a loose grasp on the whole thing. As the main firm, Boeing must have keenly supervised the crucial things. It’s a key part of quality control.
Also, some knowledgeable Boeing folks left Boeing. Brain drain.
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.
They are audited by FAA “compliance officers” who conveniently are employees of the company they are auditing. No conflict of interest at all
Base pay $25,000
Performance related bonus per quarter:
0 issues found: $25,000
1+ issues found: $0
I would imagine you can find safety flaws in anything because safety isn’t a thing we can measure.
I’m sorry, idk why but this comment is so funny. Like I’m laughing irl but I can’t explain to anyone why.
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.
How do you think safety is verified?
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.
Is this you?
safety isn’t a thing we can measure.
That is the biggest load of bullshit I’ve heard in a while. Safety can ALWAYS be measured. Hell, that’s OSHA’s entire purpose!
“safety isn’t a thing we can measure” says a guy who knows nothing about measuring risk and assumes it means no one in the world does either.
I take a lot of risks but never with yo mama. I always take my time with her.
