Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway51104 | Hacker News Reader

How do you know it's related to Boeing's actions in any way? Why do you think there weren't any safety procedures, and again, how do you know it's Boeing's fault they weren't followed?

Do you think it's only Boeing itself doing aircraft service? It's not.

View on HN

It is Boeing’s aircraft. Absent a sophisticated act of intentional sabotage, Boeing is at least partially responsible. The physical design, manufacturing, assembly, qualification, maintenance plans, and maintenance training are all responsibilities of the prime contractor. If a damn door falls off in flight more than one of those definitely contributed. It isn’t only Boeing. The FAA is also reasonable for verifying and requiring Boeing do all the right things and they will share blame as well as likely one or more of the several groups that will have contributed to the failure.

If one door falls of the aircraft, it's most likely a service tech didn't do the job properly, not that there is a systematic issue. That'd require much more fallen doors.

What you mean to say throwaway51104 is that it is completely Boeing's fault and you work on minimal wage in a hired PR firm trying to defend them on social media.

There have been warnings for years that Boeing has lost the plot and abandoned their safety culture.

>If one door falls of the aircraft, it's most likely a service tech didn't do the job properly

More or less what both Boeings predecessor and the FAA took away last time such a thing occurred. Crew didnt close the door properly and a warning sign was installed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_96

>Injuries 11 (2 crew, 9 passengers)[1]

>That'd require much more fallen doors.

That happened last time that happened

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_981

>Fatalities 346

I think its fair to argue you dont have a very sensible perspective here. We tried the approach you proposed in the past and it didnt work.

> We tried the approach you proposed in the past and it didnt work.

You work at Boeing or aircraft safety regulator or something?

Can you elaborate on what exactly you've done?

No, bad case of language barrier. Thanks for asking for clarification, its an equally unpleasant misunderstanding as people feeling insulted by the use of the generic you.

Touché

This isnt my native language, might i ask you for your interpretation of that post? I didnt think i was being confrontational here, so i cant figure out how to interpret your post.

Pls be direct, any little bit helps.

As many others have pointed, the aircraft was too new for that door plug to have ever been inspected by maintenance.

There is no doubt that Boeing is guilty of either negligent assembly or of using wrong parts, such as inappropriate bolts.

The fact that any of these two has happened indicates bad procedures used during production at Boeing.

It could indicate a design problem, if for instance better bolts used in the past have been replaced with cheaper bolts.

> How do you know it's related to Boeing's actions in any way?

With all of their actions in recent memory, they currently have negative benefit of the doubt; problems and issues should be assumed, and if/when they occur, public blame and shame will generally start on them until proven otherwise.

That's the consequence of throwing caution to the wind and repeatedly trashing their own reputation for a few more short-term dollars.

What service would that be? They dont even look at those plugs until thousands of flight hours in. This was ten weeks old.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com