this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024
54 points (92.2% liked)
Technology
59596 readers
5069 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Calling "missing bolts" on a aircraft an "ordinary failure" is the understatement of the year.
If you read the article it explains why the fact that it is an ordinary failure is a bad thing. Ordinary failures (like some one not installing some bolts) are not supposed to happen in high reliability systems like passenger aircraft. Failures tend to come through "extraordinary" failures where multiple factors line up in an over looked way in order to create an unexpected failure mode.
A 10 year old could tell you not installing safety bolts where they are supposed to be would make things dangerous. The fact that that is how a potentially lethal failure happened is damming.
*damning
damming is when you build a wall across a river
Thanks, that was really necessary and greatly added to the conversation.
Thanks, that was really necessary and greatly added to the conversation.
this is what I feel too. It's framed as helpful, but it is really unnecessary and often unwanted.
Personally I think calling out smug pedantry is useful, but that's just my opinion.
I didn’t read it as smug, in that case they would’ve provided the spelling correction without the explanation (reddit-style). Here I feel like they’re just being friendly to people for whom English is a second language.
I do appreciate your explanation, it is clear enough to make Admiral Cloudberg proud : ). (if you don’t get the reference, check out her Medium articles, they’re fantastic!)
This is still not an ordinary failure by your definition of it being a single point that failed. It's was like half a dozen "things" that went wrong for that plane to get into the air without those bolts. From not putting them in, to missing inspections, missing cross-checks. Sounds extraordinary to me. Which is the whole point of why it's a deeper issue, showing systematic problems at Boeing and it's partners, and the FAA not doing it's job, too.
Ordinary failure in that ordinary process went wrong as opposed to some black swan event like the bolts broke when struck by lightning.
They’re failing on the easy stuff, while air travel demands they get the hard stuff right 100% of the time.
Exactly. That's why there's redundancy in everything on airplanes. Most commercial airliners can land with one functioning engine and half (most) of the steering systems offline, but they'll make an emergency landing at a nearby airfield if just one of those fails. There's an automatic, digital, and practical override for pretty much everything.
There's a reason commercial flight is the safest method of transportation, and it's because of all that redundancy.
A door shouldn't just blow out, there's supposed to be checks and rechecks of all safety equipment.