Earlier this year, a Boeing aircraft’s door plug fell out in flight – all because crucial bolts were missing. The incident shows why simple failures like this are often a sign of larger problems, says John Downer.

  • 0x0@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    Calling “missing bolts” on a aircraft an “ordinary failure” is the understatement of the year.

    • Womble@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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.

        • Womble@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          4 months ago

          Thanks, that was really necessary and greatly added to the conversation.

          • Womble@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            4 months ago

            Personally I think calling out smug pedantry is useful, but that’s just my opinion.

            • reddfugee@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 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!)

      • Creat@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

        • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 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.

  • MTK@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Weird word choice, I get the point but they are presenting it all wrong by calling it ordinary or simple.