How Did a Boeing Jet End Up with a Big Hole? | Hacker News Reader

How Did a Boeing Jet End Up with a Big Hole?

nytimes.com

12 pointssaewitz7 comments

I know talking about the mechanics of the page is discouraged, but I can't resist pointing out that those animated mechanical diagrams are very informative and easy to understand.

Normally I hate anything moving on a page, but these are great.

I really like that they did some animations to show how it all works, people have been arguing over how the latches work for weeks.

A lot of talk about the loss of engineering culture at Boeing. Years ago I was doing a research project on data interoperability and learned that each jet Boeing produces relies on over 200 different software programs. That probably isn't surprising, until I clarify that I literally mean each jet. As in every single jet assembled has its own unique software stack. It may have been the most challenging data interoperability problem I ever heard of, and I did hundreds of interviews across dozens of industries.

So yeah, lots of places to hide laziness.... And near impossible to have cross domain programmatic checks.

From what I understand its because each piece of software needs a formal design process and certifications, so if you were to make one piece of software that spans 5 aircraft, for each change to each aircraft's code in that software you have to re-certify it 5 times and not just once.

Theres also major differences in architecture of avionics, how tooling works, which vendors supply what between all the different aircraft. Remember, Boeing tried this idea of commonality between product lines in the 757/767 project and the approach has since fallen out of favor.

Yeah I wasn't very clear in my comment that I don't mean to judge the unique software stack for each aircraft as a result of the broken culture, or even dysfunctional (though as an outsider I did find it surprising). My point was more so that the technical challenge of maintaining accountability through heuristic checks is pretty infeasible, so the impacts of a broken culture of accountability are much harder to contain.

Some businesses can get away with operating with a culture lacking personal ownership and accountability for much longer when it's harder to hide cut corners, because it's easier to encode business rules to enforce accountability.

So to me, what makes Boeing's case so news worthy is of course the stakes being so high, and also the fact that the engineering culture that was sacrificed wasn't just a nice to have, it was essential, and no amount of MBA business rules can make up for it.

Discussed here as well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39102021

boeing has replaced the enginneers and "engineering and safety quality first" by MBA whose motto is "MOAR MONEY"

another example of short-term benefits, making shareholder happy and MBA getting nice bonuses, ending up with destroyed planes, killed people, and a reputation in the gutter.

another one to add to the already thousand-lines long list of MBA and short-term stupid people only interested by money achievements.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com