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.
Pretty sure this meme refers to when someone finds the slightest, most irrelevant technicality so they can say you’re wrong. You’re just straight up incorrect here in a way that’s directly applicable to the thread. There’s nothing wrong with that, everyone gets shit wrong.
Wonder how many C-level execs get in trouble? /s
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…
One would think so, but I haven’t heard a peep out of them.
Weird.
Well, they did already have a CEO resign over the 737-Max.
Is “dozens” a large amount?
Never-nudes: no
Safety flaws in aircraft production: yes
Aah, the famous hotel-key-card feeler gauge! 🥹
I’ve used my badge before, but not for production processes. It’s more of a ‘damn that gap is big’ thing.
Why do boening planes sound like Linux file permissions?
737 is a very unusual file permission. But IIRC it actually works as intended. The group that owns the file can’t read it but can write and execute, everyone else can. However I suspect you can probably figure out a way to drop the relevant group?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A six-week audit by the Federal Aviation Administration of Boeing’s production of the 737 Max jet found dozens of problems throughout the manufacturing process at the plane maker and one of its key suppliers, according to a slide presentation reviewed by The New York Times.
Last week, the agency announced that the audit had found “multiple instances” in which Boeing and the supplier, Spirit AeroSystems, failed to comply with quality-control requirements, though it did not provide specifics about the findings.
Since the Alaska Airlines episode, Boeing has come under intense scrutiny over its quality-control practices, and the findings add to the body of evidence about manufacturing lapses at the company.
At one point during the examination, the air-safety agency observed mechanics at Spirit using a hotel key card to check a door seal, according to a document that describes some of the findings.
Asked about the appropriateness of using a hotel key card or Dawn soap in those situations, a spokesman for Spirit, Joe Buccino, said the company was “reviewing all identified nonconformities for corrective action.”
The audit raised concerns about the Spirit technicians who carried out the work and found that the company “failed to determine the knowledge necessary for the operation of its processes.”
The original article contains 902 words, the summary contains 206 words. Saved 77%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
This looks like the full text without a paywall:
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://m.piped.video/watch?feature=shared&v=Q8oCilY4szc
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I would imagine you can find safety flaws in anything because safety isn’t a thing we can measure.
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.
“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.
I literally lost brain cells reading this.
deleted by creator
Amazing that you survived until you were able to post this crap on the internet
