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.
Comment on How ordinary failure could have a seismic effect on an industrial giant
Womble@lemmy.world 3 months agoIf 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 your old could tell you not installing safety bolts where they are supposed to be would make things dangerous.
Creat@discuss.tchncs.de 3 months ago
deegeese@sopuli.xyz 3 months ago
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.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
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.
NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 3 months ago
*damning
damming is when you build a wall across a river
Womble@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Thanks, that was really necessary and greatly added to the conversation.
mbfalzar@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
Thanks, that was really necessary and greatly added to the conversation.
Womble@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Personally I think calling out smug pedantry is useful, but that’s just my opinion.
reddfugee@lemmy.world 3 months ago
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!)
FiskFisk33@startrek.website 3 months ago
this is what I feel too. It’s framed as helpful, but it is really unnecessary and often unwanted.