Ethiopian plane crash
Discussion
98elise said:
Starfighter said:
That is the way six sigma training is scaled - Yellow, Green, Black. yellow belt is a 1 day introduction based on standard processes and the principles of variation. Green belts get a week doing work on data collection and statistical analysis. Black belts get in to full design if experiments.
Many courses I have seen advertised are attendance based not achievement. Six sigma became a bit of a buzzword some time back and was jumped on be the training organisations as the next money maker. Like any toolbox, you have to select the right tools or everything starts to look like a nail.
I have had my black belt for well over 10 years but it is not on my business card or email signature. I don’t use Facebook for business.
Its a poor choice of qualification grade though. It makes it sound like a bullsMany courses I have seen advertised are attendance based not achievement. Six sigma became a bit of a buzzword some time back and was jumped on be the training organisations as the next money maker. Like any toolbox, you have to select the right tools or everything starts to look like a nail.
I have had my black belt for well over 10 years but it is not on my business card or email signature. I don’t use Facebook for business.
t management fax from the off.Black belts are synonymous with martial arts, not weedy blokes in middle management
Regular looking guys wearing white pyjamas and chopping boards with their bare hands. Absolute choppers, if you will.
dvs_dave said:
WyrleyD said:
Not 737 related I know but 8 Boeing 787-10s have now been grounded due to structural problems where the tail section joins the main fuselage, it's a problem that could lead to structural failure under certain conditions, the aircraft in question are at United Airlines, Air Canada and Singapore Airlines and were "joined" together at the Charleston plant.
8 airframes out of a global fleet of approx. 1000. Hardly comparable to a systemic failure like MCAS.IforB said:
Oh dear.
Six Sigma is a perfectly fine way of looking at process improvement etc.
However, if there is one industry that shouldn't need it, it is the aviation industry. The whole point of our working practices is that continuous improvement and measuring what needs to be measured and acting upon it is what we do.
This tells me (as someone who has specialised in transformation and change within airlines and aircraft engineering for a number of years) that Boeing is not run by people with any understanding of what they need to be doing or what their culture should look like. They have cast around to look for something that they might understand.
Managers need Six Sigma. Professionals who also manage don't.
Six Sigma is a perfectly fine way of looking at process improvement etc.
However, if there is one industry that shouldn't need it, it is the aviation industry. The whole point of our working practices is that continuous improvement and measuring what needs to be measured and acting upon it is what we do.
This tells me (as someone who has specialised in transformation and change within airlines and aircraft engineering for a number of years) that Boeing is not run by people with any understanding of what they need to be doing or what their culture should look like. They have cast around to look for something that they might understand.
Managers need Six Sigma. Professionals who also manage don't.
It's more the 'Lean' bit I'd be worried about, particularly when it comes to removing non-value-added steps (often component checks / verification's) out of processes. Unless of course these steps are mandated by regulators or customers, in which case they become value-added.
I'm even more concerned with the growth of 'Agile' software development in Aviation. I only pray that this never reaches the avionics industry in any meaningful way, because the thought of having aircraft control software being developed in a similar way to iPhone chat apps makes me shudder.
Professor Barney said:
I'm even more concerned with the growth of 'Agile' software development in Aviation. I only pray that this never reaches the avionics industry in any meaningful way, because the thought of having aircraft control software being developed in a similar way to iPhone chat apps makes me shudder.
^^ Quite right ... I'm still on the "old school" Prince2 method, and deeply suspicious of "Agile" for any sizeable business software. I'm pretty sure it was developed for short-term play things. Munter said:
Oh man.
Hopefully the follow up question was along the lines of "And who's responsible for creating the culture in those departments where staff felt they could or should, make those decisions."
It's not about the specific decision that was taken. It's about the culture pushed down from above, and what that makes the employees do.
Anybody in Boeing should have the power to spot a genuine single point of failure in a safety critical system (say a single AoA sensor), and stop the planes leaving the ground. Who's responsible for nobody either trying to do that, or being listened to if they did.
You don't get to side step this by going "how can I know what everybody is doing". That's not how this works.
Yes, but you'd hardly expect these guys to stand up and say "it was my fault that 100s of passengers died" ... no, they're bound to say "the decision was made above/below/around me and I knew nothing".Hopefully the follow up question was along the lines of "And who's responsible for creating the culture in those departments where staff felt they could or should, make those decisions."
It's not about the specific decision that was taken. It's about the culture pushed down from above, and what that makes the employees do.
Anybody in Boeing should have the power to spot a genuine single point of failure in a safety critical system (say a single AoA sensor), and stop the planes leaving the ground. Who's responsible for nobody either trying to do that, or being listened to if they did.
You don't get to side step this by going "how can I know what everybody is doing". That's not how this works.
M4cruiser said:
Professor Barney said:
I'm even more concerned with the growth of 'Agile' software development in Aviation. I only pray that this never reaches the avionics industry in any meaningful way, because the thought of having aircraft control software being developed in a similar way to iPhone chat apps makes me shudder.
^^ Quite right ... I'm still on the "old school" Prince2 method, and deeply suspicious of "Agile" for any sizeable business software. I'm pretty sure it was developed for short-term play things. Agile software methodology just isn’t compatible with anything to do with safety critical system in aviation.
MB140 said:
M4cruiser said:
Professor Barney said:
I'm even more concerned with the growth of 'Agile' software development in Aviation. I only pray that this never reaches the avionics industry in any meaningful way, because the thought of having aircraft control software being developed in a similar way to iPhone chat apps makes me shudder.
^^ Quite right ... I'm still on the "old school" Prince2 method, and deeply suspicious of "Agile" for any sizeable business software. I'm pretty sure it was developed for short-term play things. Agile software methodology just isn’t compatible with anything to do with safety critical system in aviation.
Works for consumer applications where high failure rates are acceptable because failures do not have any lasting consequences.
Not something I'd use for an application running a POS (Point Of Sale) device... let alone anything that would potentially even possibly entertain the remote likelihood of endangering lives.
captain_cynic said:
MB140 said:
M4cruiser said:
Professor Barney said:
I'm even more concerned with the growth of 'Agile' software development in Aviation. I only pray that this never reaches the avionics industry in any meaningful way, because the thought of having aircraft control software being developed in a similar way to iPhone chat apps makes me shudder.
^^ Quite right ... I'm still on the "old school" Prince2 method, and deeply suspicious of "Agile" for any sizeable business software. I'm pretty sure it was developed for short-term play things. Agile software methodology just isn’t compatible with anything to do with safety critical system in aviation.
Works for consumer applications where high failure rates are acceptable because failures do not have any lasting consequences.
Not something I'd use for an application running a POS (Point Of Sale) device... let alone anything that would potentially even possibly entertain the remote likelihood of endangering lives.
Waterfall development is unfashionable, but for an aviation context, it is essential.
IforB said:
I third that.
Waterfall development is unfashionable, but for an aviation context, it is essential.
It'll come back to being fashionable for most things when people get cheesed off enough with the many things in their lives failing to work all the time and someone has the nuts to tell those with their bestickered Macbooks, scooters and cords that never finishing anything before moving onto the next brainwave is not a good idea.Waterfall development is unfashionable, but for an aviation context, it is essential.
IforB said:
captain_cynic said:
Yep, agile... move fast and break things.
Works for consumer applications where high failure rates are acceptable because failures do not have any lasting consequences.
Not something I'd use for an application running a POS (Point Of Sale) device... let alone anything that would potentially even possibly entertain the remote likelihood of endangering lives.
I third that. Works for consumer applications where high failure rates are acceptable because failures do not have any lasting consequences.
Not something I'd use for an application running a POS (Point Of Sale) device... let alone anything that would potentially even possibly entertain the remote likelihood of endangering lives.
Waterfall development is unfashionable, but for an aviation context, it is essential.
MartG said:
^^ Sounds like they haven't fixed it properly at all .
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-16...
"After test flights conducted in September, EASA is performing final document reviews ahead of a draft airworthiness directive it expects to issue next month, said Patrick Ky, executive director of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency."
"After test flights conducted in September, EASA is performing final document reviews ahead of a draft airworthiness directive it expects to issue next month, said Patrick Ky, executive director of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency."
Just watched this official Boeing video about the 777X's folding wingtip safety https://www.boeing.com/777x/reveal/video-777x-Fold...
It's dated 22 Nov 2017, exactly 6 months after the Max first entered entered service.
Loved this bit from the Chief head honcho 777X Project Engineer
"We focused on safety of the folding wingtip and so we approached it in the same way as with any of our control system designs. We think about the redundancy of the actual fold mechanism, the locking pins, the latches, we have a primary and secondary latch system. We have multiple layers of redundancy and layers of protection to ensure that the folding wingtips always remain extended in flight and only folds when it's commanded"
Shame these values weren't replicated on the MAX project.
It's dated 22 Nov 2017, exactly 6 months after the Max first entered entered service.
Loved this bit from the Chief head honcho 777X Project Engineer
"We focused on safety of the folding wingtip and so we approached it in the same way as with any of our control system designs. We think about the redundancy of the actual fold mechanism, the locking pins, the latches, we have a primary and secondary latch system. We have multiple layers of redundancy and layers of protection to ensure that the folding wingtips always remain extended in flight and only folds when it's commanded"
Shame these values weren't replicated on the MAX project.
mstrbkr said:
That’s a weird thing to say in a presentation when not being directly asked: “only folds when it’s commanded”. Yes, that’s about the base level of functionality I’d expect!
That's not solving the issue! With the MAX certain things only happened when they were commanded. But they were commanded by the software, not by the pilots, and the software didn't even tell the pilots.But one new appointment...VP in charge of software
https://www.theregister.com/2020/11/09/boeing_veep...
https://www.theregister.com/2020/11/09/boeing_veep...
Allegations from a whistleblower that Boeing and the FAA had pre planned and excessively coached the test pilots involved in the 737 Max recertification process.
A piss poor example of journalism and I find parts of the article poorly written and I’m not sure if there talking about the recertification flights at parts of the article. but if true I wonder if this will impact the 737 Max (cough cough 800) recertification.
737 Max: Boeing 'inappropriately coached' pilots in test after crashes
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-5537249...
A piss poor example of journalism and I find parts of the article poorly written and I’m not sure if there talking about the recertification flights at parts of the article. but if true I wonder if this will impact the 737 Max (cough cough 800) recertification.
737 Max: Boeing 'inappropriately coached' pilots in test after crashes
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-5537249...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff