Boeing (and all manufacturers historically) gamble with people’s lives. They become aware of issues in many cases and won’t fix them unless issued an air worthiness directive by the FAA (NTSB has no authority to force a manufacturer to implement fixes even if they identify them and report them).
It is costly to ground entire fleets to implement fixes or in some cases reengineer entire parts - so they practice tombstone mentality - where they only act if enough lawsuits force them to (going to cost more than voluntary fixes) address the issue.
It is common practice to blame things on pilot error and to instead ask pilots to remember more things during training instead of implementing actual fixes that don’t require pilots to face the situation in the first place. But if you look at the things that cause issues, a lot of times the procedures to address them properly are complex and not easy to remember. Add to that the stress of an actual emergency and the chances of acting exactly as you expect a pilot to act drop even further. But hey, as long as your life is less worthy than the fix - the show will go on.
Replies (12)
Never thought of fact that physical fixes may be swapped with increasingly complex procedures! Sneaky
“Meh, add it to the manual”
“Didn’t they know?! It’s right here on page 2747 section Z paragraph 34b, diagram 3…”
😂
Yeah, makes sense now that you pointed it out
I’m exaggerating of course but imagine the costs of actually fixing a problem and re-training everyone on updated procedures … they don’t want to pony up that kind of $ when settling some lawsuits is cheaper
The confusing thing is that planes don't necessarily need to change often. So once they have a fix and a rock solid design, it isn't like they need to worry much about it again for a while. At least not in my absolutely useless opinion on aircraft lol Everything is short sighted now. Almost no one seems to be thinking beyond today.
And I can similarly rant about modern consumer vehicles.
Yeah, it's a solid claim. Could imagine such an argument in a court case defending pilot error
Yeah… issues usually arise in new technologies being introduced, new models etc… the older the plane the safer it likely is, kind of contrary to what one might believe. Older models have had to go through fixed and adjustments whereas new stuff is untested - and we are the test subjects.
"A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one." -Fight Club
Exactly. This is one reason I don't buy vehicle models with recent changes. I tend to stick with models that are at least ten years old, and specific vehicles that are five years old. Other dipshits can be the test dummies. It's served me well so far. I rarely deal with anything outside normal maintenance or wear.
By model I mean model line. Many vehicles seem to have design cycles where not much changes for that block of time (to maximize profits on the R&D).
It actually isn't counterintuitive when you understand some basic engineering principles related to design and testing. But I agree most people think in reverse.
