Hacker News Reader

Comment by hipadev23 | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

I took a second to check your links, and as I guessed, at least two of those would be unfairly characterized as "apologists." The fact your bad faith, ad hom post is here at the top of HN is a pretty damning indictment of the current userbase's sobriety when it comes to engineering issues and precise reading of claims.

I don't think glossing "It makes no sense to call for heads to roll without even knowing the root cause" as a Boeing apologist makes sense?

Those claims that it was maintenance is a bit bizarre considering these were brand new craft, and that panel isn't exactly a wear item. (ofc, some wear with each pressurization cycle, but I digress)

It'd be different if it was an engine issue on a 20+ year old plane.

But still, this isn't anything like the prior MAX issue - and frankly could have just as easily happened to any manufacturer like Airbus.

I don't think it's worth bashing Boeing much about, I doubt they're too happy about it either.

> But still, this isn't anything like the prior MAX issue

Sure, other than being with a variant of the same model of plane built by the same manufacturer, this latest issue is nothing like the prior issue.

If you knew anything about the previous issue, you'd know they aren't much of anything alike.

The previous issue:

* Was primarily a software issue, not a hardware issue

* Was caused by the design of the craft, not an issue with construction

* Was known by Boeing in advance and ignored, not discovered later

So yes, the two issues aren't very much alike.

One major difference I recall back when working in the industry is that Airbus didn't rely on contract manufacturing like Boeing adopted after the McDonnell Douglas merger. Spirit was just Boeing Wichita until they divested the operation only to immediately contract work with the new owner at a discount.

The Boeing MDD merger was before my time. Airbus sure does rely on contract manufacture for everything from wings over fuselage sections to doors so. Often using the same suppliers Boeing does, the market for these tier 1 manufacturing suppliers is small.

None of what you posted were apologising for Boeing.

One was rightly pointing out that we should investigate first before jumping to any conclusions and the other two were pointing out that Alaskan had maintenance failures which is also true.

And is anything actually proven yet ?

One of the most disappointing things about this whole issue has been a kind of "fanboy"-ism that's been a bit shocking. Fanboy-ism is for the "We hate Apple", or the "Emacs is better than vi" level arguments.

There is no room for fanboy-ism in airliner design. It's a business that should be approached in a manner that is at once, sober and serious. If there are problems with this airliner, let's get them all on the table and start working through them one by one. I thought this is what the FAA and Boeing were meant to do? (Even in the face of monetary losses). But the mounting evidence of a rubber-stamp approval regime is concerning.

We really do need to have cooler more dispassionate heads take things back in hand here. I think a move away from the money-men, the fanboys, and the doomsday alarmists is overdue at this point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com