I think every company operating Boeing aircraft should have reviewed their stance on Boeing directives in light of MCAS and the aftermath by now. If they did not that is a failure of sorts as well.

> I think every company operating Boeing aircraft should have reviewed their stance on Boeing directives in light of MCAS and the aftermath by now. If they did not that is a failure of sorts as well.

Actual question: would an airline have the engineering competence to second-guess an airplane manufacturer's engineering guidance? They operate airplanes but don't build them, and I'd assume they'd out of necessity need to trust the manufacturer's judgement.

They certainly have a responsibility towards their passengers that goes beyond their relationship with Boeing. Passengers trust airlines with their lives, with Boeing they have 'just' a business relationship.

Airlines have every reason to be skeptical of their supplier even if they do not have the engineering competence to second guess them. They could for instance look through their past communications with the manufacturer and see for themselves which advisories they agree with because for instance they are obviously not safety critical, this would then allow them hire specialists to evaluate the remainder for a second opinion.

Agreed. Among multiple organizations that large and complex, the buck can be passed infinitely. There's the lowly worker who installed the flawed part - the safest target, of course - who can pass it to the worker who made it, who can pass it to engineer, to their manager, back to the engineer who the manager relied on after all, the CAD software developer, to the materials supplier, to the machine tool manufacturer, the HVAC contractor who made the manufacturing facility too humid ...

For almost any act, we rely on other people. That doesn't absolve us of our personal responsibility.

There were no passengers on the accident aircraft.

That was in a general case, but in this specific case to satisfy you we can postulate that those on the ground would like to be able to get through their day without having their trajectories intersect with disintegrating aircraft or parts thereof.

perhaps it would behoove a company that routinely has the safety of millions of people a year in their hands to consult 3rd party experts to ensure that those people aren't maimed or killed.

But I'm just some guy with no incentive to endanger human life if I think it will save money so what do I know

Maybe the airline doesn’t but their insurance company should, if not directly than indirectly.

That's not how it works. Insurers don't have the resources or technical competence to second guess aircraft manufacturer maintenance guidelines.

When it’s your hundreds of millions of dollars on the line, you go find experts who have the competence needed to do a proper risk analysis.

I would say no. UPS bought the planes from Boeing. Boeing built them, Boeing identified the flaw, Boeing notified it's customers, and said it wasn't an issue.

Frankly I put it squarely on Boeing.

> UPS bought the planes from Boeing

No, UPS bought the plane from Thai Airways International.

> Boeing built them

No, McDonnell Douglas built the plane in question; Boeing hadn't merged with MD at the time this aircraft was manufactured.

The other elements are probably true, but this was not a Boeing aircraft.

They can hire people (or companies) who can give them that guidance, yes.

If my elevator manufacturer sent me a note about my elevator wire, but says I have to not do anything, because it is probably nothing my number 1 question would be:

Why did you need to tell me about the wire then?

The answer is an attempt to transfer the liability to me. The liability for a thing they think could happen, but didn't tell me about.

That's a very astute observation, I had not clued in to this and I'll be looking for that pattern from now on. Thank you.

It is, unfortunately, a thing. And, far more common than most realize. Responsibility hot potatoe sucks.

I think in light of MCAS every company operating Boeing aircraft should have reviewed their stance on operating Boeing aircraft.

And the worst thing is I don't think even after mcas things have substantially improved there. I've seen more spin and damage control than actual safety focus. They could have launched a huge company program and management reorganization to really turn this mindset around.

I think the biggest issue that Boeing is too big to fail. They'll never fall because the government needs them for all their warplanes.

And what’s more, the FAA is currently moving away from DERs and to ODAs, which is the program that enables Boeing’s flavor of self- oversight

https://avbrief.com/faa-wants-to-phase-out-ders/

Laws that limit liability promote “cost of doing business“ mentality as if lives are acceptable losses.

This is how you get mentally and morally weak bean counters running companies instead of engineers with a conscience. It’s an engineering company and yet it’s run like a bank that just so happens to have an engineering branch.

Lives have ALWAYS been acceptable losses vs money, it’s just a matter of how much money.

$5mln? $100mln? Old school, $50?

This is exactly why laws need to exist to ensure that human lives are prioritized by companies to a reasonable extent. Companies can often make a lot of money if they can get away with doing things that kill their customers, and we've repeatedly seen them do exactly that. In order to protect the public, corporate greed needs to be constrained by laws and legal consequences just like they're used to help to constrain the greed of muggers and thieves.

In the US we've done a pretty poor job of doing that and it's resulted in countless lives lost and every living person and animal on earth being poisoned. It's long past time our government and its legal system took their responsibility to public safety more seriously.

> out of an abundance of caution

I’m sorry, but this phrase has worn out its welcome.

How? I'm not particularly attached to it, but it seems to continue to be a commonly used expression and this is the first time I've seen someone raise an objection to its use.

Because the phrase and mindset leads to the wrong lessons and actions.

In aviation, there is little room for error. It’s also the case that resources and time are limited. So there are multiple constraints.

We both agree that Boeing is the big problem. I’d also say its a problem of the FAA and the aviation industry.

But UPS? Why would they be taking action “out of an abundance of caution”?

The worst you can say for UPS is they could have sought a second opinion out of “an abundance of caution”, and recommendations of next actions and how.

Keep in mind UPS core competency isn’t aerospace and aeronautical engineering.

Would they even be able to assess the risk of changing said bearings en masse?

The actual lesson here is that most of the advisories and self-certifying from Boeing over the past 30 years need to be reconsidered; most likely redone, by independent third parties and also an FAA with a mandate to be fully independent.

Care to say why?

Seems like a perfectly fine phrase to me.