Hacker News Reader

Comment by legitster | Hacker News Reader

To be fair, the problem this time was with QC - not with engineering.

I see a lot of comments trying to pin point the problem with a name. People: if in an airplane some pieces are taken off, they have to be labeled. In fact anything entering or leaving the airplane has to be noted, juat like in an op-room, to avoid for example forgetting tools (or loose bolts) somewhere. That is basic ABC 101 of working in an airplane.

Why this happened? Massive cost cuts ordered by management, which led to cut corners, or cut trainings, or both. If ing. Or MBA is irrelevant. If I have to guess, I would point to an MBA

This was actually a QA problem — a set of design issues starting at the front of the process. All QC can do is identify problems after they have occurred.

As the saying goes, “you can’t test quality into a product.”

I guess I am a bit confused. Someone was supposed to be checking the bolts before the plane left the facility and they didn't. That seems to be a QC process issue more than a QA issue.

But that also seems like splitting hairs. The problem is not one of engineering design, to OP's post.

How do we know that it was just 'someone was supposed to be checking the bolts before the plane left the facility and they didn't'. Because I'm not sure it's actually been fully revealed where the problem was. And despite the production issues, I'm of the opinion that the door-plug design should have been fail safe like the other doors where just pressure prevents them from being opened during flight. And another thing, passing the buck to QA doesn't let engineering off the hook since QC in this setting is a part of the engineering!

I disagree somewhat. It should not be possible for a plane to leave the factory without completing all QC checks. People are fallible, so a robust process is critical, and designing/confirming a robust QC process is a QA responsibility.

And these QC design people are engineers.

Right! It's engineers all the way down...

Well, it's supposed to be, anyway.

Sure, but "did the plane leave with all of the bolts it was supposed to" does not seem like a question that needs to be answered by someone with mechanical engineering degree. Let alone the responsibility of someone sitting in a cubicle in Everett.

Agreed, but "how do we design the process to ensure, structurally, we cannot kill our customers" starts to sound a bit more engineering-like, no?

Honestly, no. Pinning management and oversight issue on designers is a bad idea and unfair CYA.

If cars are leaving the factory without brakes on, you shouldn't start firing engineers for designing a car that's possible to build without brakes.

The person you're replying to was being sarcastic. But -- to be clear -- this was clearly a problem with the defect tracking process, not like individual QC contributors.

My question is, "was the defect tracking process influenced negatively by spending cuts?"

Shareholders are more than willing to reward the relevant executives for cutting spending, but they rarely hold the same people who made those cuts for issues stemming as a consequence of the aforementioned cuts.

I don’t think they were being sarcastic

Reply on news.ycombinator.com