←back to thread

165 points starkparker | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.204s | source
Show context
thomascountz ◴[] No.44525985[source]
> We determined that the probable cause of this accident was the in-flight separation of the left MED plug due to Boeing’s failure to provide adequate training, guidance, and oversight necessary to ensure that manufacturing personnel could consistently and correctly comply with its parts removal process, which was intended to document and ensure that the securing bolts and hardware that were removed to facilitate rework during the manufacturing process were properly reinstalled.

A bit OT, but what a gorgeous whale of a sentence! As always, the literary prowess of NTSB writers does not disappoint.

replies(11): >>44526007 #>>44526135 #>>44526208 #>>44526228 #>>44526278 #>>44526384 #>>44526528 #>>44526546 #>>44526632 #>>44526688 #>>44535189 #
ryandrake ◴[] No.44526278[source]
Reading aviation-related NTSB final reports is kind of a hobby of mine, and I must say, the NTSB is generally a treasure! Sure, you can find issues with some of their investigations, roads they might not have probed down as far as they could, but their culture of root causing and transparently reporting should be emulated across the government. I really hope they don't fall victim to the casual, random destruction our current administration is inflicting on broad swaths of the government.
replies(2): >>44526377 #>>44526609 #
frumplestlatz ◴[] No.44526377[source]
The current aims of the executive branch are neither casual nor random, and I doubt the NTSB is in their crosshairs.

The goals are both obvious and specific; it’s a culture war being fought at the funding level.

replies(2): >>44526424 #>>44526630 #
postpawl ◴[] No.44526630[source]
A culture war on poor people who need Medicaid? That doesn’t seem like class war to you?
replies(2): >>44526795 #>>44527161 #
frumplestlatz ◴[] No.44527161[source]
Call it “ideological” instead of “culture” if you prefer. The goal is the same — defund the opposition.
replies(1): >>44527298 #
postpawl ◴[] No.44527298[source]
Why frame it as ideological though? That doesn't explain which agencies get protected and which get cut. The NTSB stays funded because rich people fly on planes too. But Medicaid gets cut because wealthy people don't need it.

Look at weather service cuts. They're gutting the National Weather Service while Trump's appointees have ties to companies like AccuWeather and Satellogic that would profit from privatizing weather data.

It's about class interests. Agencies that serve everyone or that rich people depend on stay funded. Programs that only help poor people get cut, or get privatized to benefit specific wealthy interests. Make the wealthy better off through tax cuts and new business opportunities, make poor people worse off through service cuts.

replies(1): >>44527737 #
frumplestlatz ◴[] No.44527737[source]
The cuts seem to be about defunding work around climate change.
replies(1): >>44527829 #
1. postpawl ◴[] No.44527829[source]
You're right that a lot of the NOAA cuts target climate research specifically. But think about who benefits from attacking climate science. Oil companies and existing wealth structures that profit from fossil fuels. Climate research threatens those business models, so gutting it protects those interests.

The cuts go way beyond climate though. They're cutting 107,000 federal jobs across agencies while defense spending increases 13%. Framing this as ideological makes it sound like an abstract battle of ideas, but it's not abstract at all. Real people are losing health insurance, real hospitals are closing, real communities are losing weather warnings. Meanwhile wealthy people get tax cuts and connected companies get business opportunities. It's about material interests, not ideology.