6 ms·

Didn’t an email link with Boeing employees basically saying the exact same thing? “I’d never let my family fly on one” or something?

Nacdor 6y ago
Looks like it: https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-employees-wouldnt-let-families-fly-on-737-max-2020-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-employees-wouldnt-let... > 8 months before the first 737 Max crash, 2 Boeing employees talked about how they wouldn't let their families fly on the plane
- duck 6y ago
  I would imagine with a company of the size of Boeing you could find a larger group of folks that wouldn't allow their families to fly in any airplane.
  - hashmymustache 6y ago
    Sure but there’s a big difference between not wanting someone in your family to have surgery and not wanting them to go to a specific surgeon.
  - throwaway29102 6y ago
    What would you imagine the percentage is at companies whose primary business is producing airplanes?
    - jobigoud 6y ago
      I think he means we simply never heard about the employees that said the same thing about other planes because they didn't crash. These were highlighted after the fact.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  There is a funny anecdote, likely apocryphal, but still worth retelling because of the implied wisdom: When talking about the soon to be released Chinese passenger jet one of the principals of the company was overheard saying that he would never allow his family to board one of these aircraft, that's how bad they were. Some party bigwig overheard this and addressed the man: "I know 100% certain that this is going to be one of the best aircraft ever made in China. Because you and all your extended family will be on board the maiden flight."
  - salawat 6y ago
    Hmmmm. "This had better be the best thing ever, because since I heard that you expressed technical reservations you may be powerless to do anything about, and I have power over you, out of spite I'm going to put your entire family on a plane against your wishes, possibly regardless of your realistic capability to influence the outcome." There is no implied wisdom there besides "best not be the family of a principal in China who made the mistake of being too open with his opinion in front of the wrong people"; even if you were going for the old adage of the Greek architects and bridge builders being expected to "stand beneath their bridges" with their family when they were tested. You really lose the evocative power when you insert an authoritarian power with demonstrable disregard for human life into the equation. You lose the message in the quagmire of unsavory politics with a Western audience. Furthermore, you run the risk of unintended wisdom extraction, such as that sometimes, no matter how hard you want something to be good, you just can't marshal the people/knowledge/manpower to get it done well with what you have, within the time slotted. The capacity to recognize when this is the case is the entire reason for existence of the field of engineering in the first place, yet is also one of the least appreciated or safe aspects to actually express when you start making the outcome of an engineering project a matter of political import.other Other unintended nuggets of wisdom retractable from that parable includes "keep your Mouth in check around high-ranking Party members/Politburo/Das Kommisar." Sometimes it's better to just be direct about it. My two cents anyway. Again though, I've been around enough tainted engineering projects to recognize the perversity in the gesture. If I were that Party member, I'd be pushing my principal on why they felt way and what problems needed to be overcome without resorting to abusing my position to instill fear. After all, I would have no interest in losing my best and brightest, if the real problem was subcontractors not meeting QC targets, and no one being willing to call it out or escalate which is all that happens when you start throwing weight around as originally expressed.
- makomk 6y ago
  The interesting thing is that this didn't have anything to do with the quality of the plane at all - they were working on the simulator, and their messages were about how they wouldn't trust their family on planes trained using that simulator. As far as I know, the simulator in question was never used since the whole point of the whole mess was to ensure pilots trained on the existing 737 were allowed to fly the Max without any extra simulator training.
  - salawat 6y ago
    Actually, the entire point was to not release an accurate simulator, because to do so would invalidate the original marketing assertion that MAX was substantially different to fly, and would provide a trivially accessible platform from which to discover the flaws of MAX's implementation. Largely the same as your point, but takes into account that Boeing's success was being predicated on no one looking at the MAX too hard for too long.

Nacdor 6y ago

Looks like it: https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-employees-wouldnt-let-families-fly-on-737-max-2020-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-employees-wouldnt-let... > 8 months before the first 737 Max crash, 2 Boeing employees talked about how they wouldn't let their families fly on the plane

duck 6y ago
I would imagine with a company of the size of Boeing you could find a larger group of folks that wouldn't allow their families to fly in any airplane.
- hashmymustache 6y ago
  Sure but there’s a big difference between not wanting someone in your family to have surgery and not wanting them to go to a specific surgeon.
- throwaway29102 6y ago
  What would you imagine the percentage is at companies whose primary business is producing airplanes?
  - jobigoud 6y ago
    I think he means we simply never heard about the employees that said the same thing about other planes because they didn't crash. These were highlighted after the fact.
jacquesm 6y ago
There is a funny anecdote, likely apocryphal, but still worth retelling because of the implied wisdom: When talking about the soon to be released Chinese passenger jet one of the principals of the company was overheard saying that he would never allow his family to board one of these aircraft, that's how bad they were. Some party bigwig overheard this and addressed the man: "I know 100% certain that this is going to be one of the best aircraft ever made in China. Because you and all your extended family will be on board the maiden flight."
- salawat 6y ago
  Hmmmm. "This had better be the best thing ever, because since I heard that you expressed technical reservations you may be powerless to do anything about, and I have power over you, out of spite I'm going to put your entire family on a plane against your wishes, possibly regardless of your realistic capability to influence the outcome." There is no implied wisdom there besides "best not be the family of a principal in China who made the mistake of being too open with his opinion in front of the wrong people"; even if you were going for the old adage of the Greek architects and bridge builders being expected to "stand beneath their bridges" with their family when they were tested. You really lose the evocative power when you insert an authoritarian power with demonstrable disregard for human life into the equation. You lose the message in the quagmire of unsavory politics with a Western audience. Furthermore, you run the risk of unintended wisdom extraction, such as that sometimes, no matter how hard you want something to be good, you just can't marshal the people/knowledge/manpower to get it done well with what you have, within the time slotted. The capacity to recognize when this is the case is the entire reason for existence of the field of engineering in the first place, yet is also one of the least appreciated or safe aspects to actually express when you start making the outcome of an engineering project a matter of political import.other Other unintended nuggets of wisdom retractable from that parable includes "keep your Mouth in check around high-ranking Party members/Politburo/Das Kommisar." Sometimes it's better to just be direct about it. My two cents anyway. Again though, I've been around enough tainted engineering projects to recognize the perversity in the gesture. If I were that Party member, I'd be pushing my principal on why they felt way and what problems needed to be overcome without resorting to abusing my position to instill fear. After all, I would have no interest in losing my best and brightest, if the real problem was subcontractors not meeting QC targets, and no one being willing to call it out or escalate which is all that happens when you start throwing weight around as originally expressed.
makomk 6y ago
The interesting thing is that this didn't have anything to do with the quality of the plane at all - they were working on the simulator, and their messages were about how they wouldn't trust their family on planes trained using that simulator. As far as I know, the simulator in question was never used since the whole point of the whole mess was to ensure pilots trained on the existing 737 were allowed to fly the Max without any extra simulator training.
- salawat 6y ago
  Actually, the entire point was to not release an accurate simulator, because to do so would invalidate the original marketing assertion that MAX was substantially different to fly, and would provide a trivially accessible platform from which to discover the flaws of MAX's implementation. Largely the same as your point, but takes into account that Boeing's success was being predicated on no one looking at the MAX too hard for too long.