←back to thread

152 points lr0 | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.406s | source
Show context
oivey ◴[] No.42202104[source]
It is strange how much apologia there is for Boeing in this thread. Why does it have to be somehow the government’s fault or somehow reflective of the actual cost to make the dispensers? Why should Boeing get the benefit of the doubt, especially given their complete failures on their fixed price contracts (Starliner, Air Force One, KC-46 tanker)? They’re so unable to control costs they’re talking about never taking fixed price contracts ever again. Given those failures, it seems safe to assume they’re screwing taxpayers on their cost plus contracts.
replies(6): >>42202119 #>>42202209 #>>42202477 #>>42202746 #>>42203237 #>>42203437 #
pydry ◴[] No.42202209[source]
It's strange how much some people are assuming this is as a result of a mistake or incompetence instead of simple corruption.

"Whoops I made $600 from something that cost me $10"

replies(2): >>42202232 #>>42202415 #
mschuster91 ◴[] No.42202415[source]
> "Whoops I made $600 from something that cost me $10"

I've written about this here some time ago - you don't pay for the soap dispenser or trash bin itself, you pay for the paperwork showing that it is safe to install this trash bin, soap dispenser or whatnot into this specific model of aircraft or spacecraft, and you pay for the paperwork that details the entire life of every tiny little piece used to manufacture that component. For flight-critical parts, IIRC that goes as far as to documenting the specific lot of the iron ore that was used to make the metal sheets, so in the event of something cropping up where something got fucked up in the mine or the smelter, you can recall every single part that could be affected. And there's lots of testing (and associated waste) at each part of the step.

Anything that goes into an airplane or spacecraft has ridiculous rules attached to it... rules that were literally written in blood. Aerospace is amongst the safest ways of transportation because of decades of crashes and learning from each and every single one.

Your average Home Depot soap dispenser has none of that, if it breaks it breaks.

replies(11): >>42202509 #>>42202516 #>>42202526 #>>42202550 #>>42202561 #>>42202636 #>>42202702 #>>42202785 #>>42202950 #>>42203357 #>>42203418 #
1. metalman ◴[] No.42202702[source]
If there is to be any continuity to the process of aircraft saftey,that adheres to the pricipals learner from aircraft accident investigation, then there must be a lesson learned from the debaucle of $600 soap dispensers,and a way to do better.I think it quite likely that said dispenser and many other components can be 3D printed in metalurgicaly perfect titainium and then subject to NDT ,while saving weight and money. One of ? the most important lesson learned in aviation to date, is that weight is the enemy, the other is simplicity, : if its not there, it costs nothing, and cant break. To sum up, simplicate and add lightness. Any resistance to that is indicative of other problems.
replies(1): >>42202749 #
2. mschuster91 ◴[] No.42202749[source]
> I think it quite likely that said dispenser and many other components can be 3D printed in metalurgicaly perfect titainium and then subject to NDT ,while saving weight and money.

You'd still need to pay for the certification and audit trail paperwork, and in addition you'd take a part that has already been certified and replace it by a new one that would need to undergo the same certification requirement.

> weight is the enemy, the other is simplicity, : if its not there, it costs nothing, and cant break

Indeed but then you get crews taking their own soaps because they (think they) need to have soap aboard, store them wherever it is convenient for them, and the soap bar then gets loose and flies during the cockpit during a mission because no one thought about securing the soap as it isn't on any checklist.

That is also the reason why even brand new airplanes rolling off the factory line still have ashtrays in lavatories despite smoking being banned for decades now. They account for some dumbass thinking they do need to smoke and better they drop the cigarette in the ashtray (because that's what people do naturally) when the fire alarm goes off, than they dump it in the trash bin, causing the cigarette to set the trash alight and causing a bigger issue.

That is "fail-safe by design". Even if it adds 100 grams per plane to have that ashtray and a bit of work for the attendants to check if it needs to be cleaned out and for the pilots and maintenance crew a bit of work in the MEL check, it is still worth it over losing an aircraft due to a trash bin fire (and yes, that still happens, see the source for this quote!):

> As with just about everything on a plane, it's about safety. "They're there so if someone were to break the rules, they would dispose of the cigarette in the ashtray as opposed to, say, a trash bin full of flammables," says Robert Antolin, chief operating officer at App in the Air. [1]

[1] https://www.travelandleisure.com/why-airplanes-have-ashtrays...