Boeing admits to being overly optimistic!

[Ikara]

Hmmmmmmm.

Boeing admits to being overly optimistic in their figures so they dont have to do actual testing if the figures they present show low probability...until something goes wrong...Southwest is examining legal action against Boeing for the grounding of their fleet of 79 aircraft...


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703806304576244782850491122.html

JB

 

[samh004]

Not read the article but being optimistic on figures to avoid being tested is not good :-|

Strange to admit to it though.

 

[anat0l]

Not read the article but being optimistic on figures to avoid being tested is not good :-|

Strange to admit to it though.

If they did not admit it then if found out later otherwise the fallout will be huge. And being one of the key heavyweights in both US commerce and global aircraft manufacture ain't going to save them (or allow them to dictate the course of justice).

In any case, an admission does not alleviate the validity of undertaking legal action, although the repercussions may be different.

I suppose they could have denied it (since the claim may not be true, so this may be only an admission to "placate"), but I suppose these admissions don't come easy - they must have suspected that they could not give a good argument as to why their procedures would not be viewed as solid and this was just a "freak" accident.

...being overly optimistic in their figures so they dont have to do actual testing if the figures they present show low probability...

That in itself is horribly irresponsible as an engineer and further then as management. There may be more context around that statement than what is presented here, but taken as a summary statement I'd be horrified.

 

[oz_mark]

Not read the article but being optimistic on figures to avoid being tested is not good :-|

I think this is twisting the words around a bit. The effect of being optimistic was that they did not think it was time to inspect. They were not optimistic in order to avoid the test.

 

[anat0l]

I think this is twisting the words around a bit. The effect of being optimistic was that they did not think it was time to inspect. They were not optimistic in order to avoid the test.

The difference between the two aspects you give are subtle. In saying that, the latter becomes more "valid" only if there was no variation in the inspection frequency compared to historical procedures, however it still may underline a flaw in the process (not necessarily with the frequency of inspections, but with other aspects).

 

[oz_mark]

The difference between the two aspects you give are subtle. In saying that, the latter becomes more "valid" only if there was no variation in the inspection frequency compared to historical procedures, however it still may underline a flaw in the process (not necessarily with the frequency of inspections, but with other aspects).

Boeing calculated that the inspections would not be required until the aircraft had done 60,000 cycles. Following this incident they have required inspections on aircraft having exceeded 30,000 cycles as the aircraft were exhibiting signs of metal fatigue earlier than they had anticipated.

Now sure it was a serious miscalculation, but I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that the calculation was optimistic in order to avoid testing.