Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   FAA to launch comprehensive review of Boeing 787 with special focus on electrical systems, because its electrical systems are apparently so advanced that it cracks windshields and leaks fluids   (foxnews.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, FAA, Boeing, critical system, All Nippon Airways, Japan Airlines, windshields, leaks, Logan International  
•       •       •

882 clicks; posted to Business » on 11 Jan 2013 at 3:21 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



47 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-01-11 03:11:24 PM  
So, 787 trifecta?
 
2013-01-11 03:30:14 PM  
How hard is it to build a non-fall-apartable airplane these days?
 
2013-01-11 03:37:08 PM  

Contrabulous Flabtraption: How hard is it to build a non-fall-apartable airplane these days?


Read the article below about how they built and designed the thing. Apparently it really is a miracle that it works at all.

Also subby, new types of batteries used combined with a fire from said new battery definitely demands a review by an outside entity to ensure those batteries will work as intended. Given that Country A designed the battery and Country B manufactured them and Country C designed the wiring and Country D put the wiring in....yes a comprehensive review is more than warranted.
 
2013-01-11 03:41:41 PM  

Contrabulous Flabtraption: How hard is it to build a non-fall-apartable airplane these days?


They quit building those about the time McDonnell Douglas went under.

/Over engineered flying tanks
 
2013-01-11 03:53:04 PM  

kalor: Contrabulous Flabtraption: How hard is it to build a non-fall-apartable airplane these days?

Read the article below about how they built and designed the thing. Apparently it really is a miracle that it works at all.

Also subby, new types of batteries used combined with a fire from said new battery definitely demands a review by an outside entity to ensure those batteries will work as intended. Given that Country A designed the battery and Country B manufactured them and Country C designed the wiring and Country D put the wiring in....yes a comprehensive review is more than warranted.


It's almost like outsourcing key design, engineering, manufacture, and assembly operations to different coutries is a retarded idea.

Especially if your company's survival depends on them.
 
2013-01-11 04:27:18 PM  

buzzcut73: Contrabulous Flabtraption: How hard is it to build a non-fall-apartable airplane these days?

They quit building those about the time McDonnell Douglas went under.

/Over engineered flying tanks


Didn't the DC-10/MD-11 get a reputation for killing people?  The engine falling off and severing the hydraulics in Chicago or the exploding rear engine leading to the Sioux City crash come to mind.
 
2013-01-11 04:39:18 PM  

Rapmaster2000: buzzcut73: Contrabulous Flabtraption: How hard is it to build a non-fall-apartable airplane these days?

They quit building those about the time McDonnell Douglas went under.

/Over engineered flying tanks

Didn't the DC-10/MD-11 get a reputation for killing people?  The engine falling off and severing the hydraulics in Chicago or the exploding rear engine leading to the Sioux City crash come to mind.


Not to mention the rear cargo door.
 
2013-01-11 04:40:01 PM  
Airbus must be loving this to distract from the A380's issues.
 
2013-01-11 05:09:00 PM  
Let's see. First, Boeing made sure to make the fuselage and wings more flexible. Then, they're surprised when windows crack?
 
2013-01-11 05:33:28 PM  
Japan Airlines AND All-Nippon?

Maybe Boeing shouldn't have hired this guy:

profile.ak.fbcdn.net

To staff their services operation in Tokyo.
/I'm the puppy that just wizzed on your 787's APU . . .
 
2013-01-11 05:34:00 PM  

AngryDragon: It's almost like outsourcing key design, engineering, manufacture, and assembly operations to different coutries is a retarded idea.


Airbus has been pretty good at it, so has EADS, Nissan, GM, Ford, Mercedes, Hyundai, etc

Lockheed and Boeing...not so much.
 
2013-01-11 05:34:46 PM  

AngryDragon: kalor: Contrabulous Flabtraption: How hard is it to build a non-fall-apartable airplane these days?

Read the article below about how they built and designed the thing. Apparently it really is a miracle that it works at all.

Also subby, new types of batteries used combined with a fire from said new battery definitely demands a review by an outside entity to ensure those batteries will work as intended. Given that Country A designed the battery and Country B manufactured them and Country C designed the wiring and Country D put the wiring in....yes a comprehensive review is more than warranted.

It's almost like outsourcing key design, engineering, manufacture, and assembly operations to different coutries is a retarded idea.


That's why they outsourced it in the first place.  They figured if 25 different companies have a vested interest in the plane then there are 25 different potential customers.  Sales and Marketing probably came up with the idea.  The fact that doing it that way also help screw their American labor was just icing on the cake.
 
2013-01-11 05:48:49 PM  

Contrabulous Flabtraption: How hard is it to build a non-fall-apartable airplane these days?


Yes.
Maybe aircraft don't have to have seven billion parts when three billion parts will suffice.
Occam's airplane, right?
 
2013-01-11 06:02:25 PM  

simplicimus: So, 787 trifecta?


i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-11 06:08:11 PM  

WelldeadLink: simplicimus: So, 787 trifecta?

[i.imgur.com image 640x426]


Curse you, DiGiorno Red Baron!
 
2013-01-11 06:32:09 PM  

WelldeadLink: simplicimus: So, 787 trifecta?

[i.imgur.com image 640x426]


Fokkered!
 
2013-01-11 06:34:22 PM  
Is Boeing having parts made by Lucas and British Leyland?
 
2013-01-11 07:46:55 PM  

Hagbardr: Is Boeing having parts made by Lucas and British Leyland?


As someone who purchases "outsourced" parts for a living I will say that quality control is more of a magical Utopian ideal than a reality in certain countries.

/One time we had a butt ton of farked up diodes and the factory did an audit at our distributor's request and there was a dude in China who's job was to look at the diodes under X-ray to make sure the leads actually connected to the diode part of the component and he was passing 100% of the diodes cause they paid him commission to pass things. Quality control was paid commission for the amount of items it passed.... (industry standard is something like 95-8% or less of items should pass or your standards are too lenient).
//Also everyone in China is named Tony or Yvonne.
///At least when they sign their names in English on the Certificates of Conformance (see above for how retarded the electronics industry is)
 
2013-01-11 08:19:51 PM  
I like Subby sarcasm.
 
2013-01-11 08:26:20 PM  

dj_spanmaster: Let's see. First, Boeing made sure to make the fuselage and wings more flexible. Then, they're surprised when windows crack?


I know right? It's so obvious and simple! LOL
 
2013-01-11 08:57:26 PM  
So the quality of your product is commiserate to the quality of your labor? While you may get away with that for shoes and clothing, stuff that can explode and kill high amounts of people probably won't be very popular.
 
2013-01-11 09:10:13 PM  

Rapmaster2000: buzzcut73: Contrabulous Flabtraption: How hard is it to build a non-fall-apartable airplane these days?

They quit building those about the time McDonnell Douglas went under.

/Over engineered flying tanks

Didn't the DC-10/MD-11 get a reputation for killing people?  The engine falling off and severing the hydraulics in Chicago or the exploding rear engine leading to the Sioux City crash come to mind.


Or the cockpit fire burning so hot that liquid metal was dripping on the pilot seat, as on SwissAir 111.
 
2013-01-11 09:33:03 PM  
Seriously - Globalization has very, very deep QC issues. Thanks to China, I can spend two grand on a modern television and have it fail in a year thanks to bad capacitors. The last time I bought electronics and had a cap fail? Never. Tell that to 80s me and my head would explode.

If you're not on top of the quality of your suppliers and the quality of the parts themselves, you're building something that will never work right, period. The above Farker who referenced Leyland and Lucas is spot on; British Leyland, besides being a hot mess in management, design, and everywhere else, never upgraded the 1940s machine tooling used in their factories in the 70s. Tolerance became something that was a joke, which helped kill off the British Car and Motorcycle industry.

This decade, the big buzzword seems to be grossly profiting on things while putting everyone else's nuts to the fire. I had problems with Airbus' QC issues with their instrumentation and computing (which resulted in several spectacular aerobatics and deaths); I'm saddened that Boeing has cut corners and created something that doesn't inspire confidence (to me) to get on board and fly.

The equation is really simple - without the Customer, the Company doesn't exist. Cutting corners to create a sub-par product that might actually kill people? Why do it at all?
 
2013-01-11 10:15:21 PM  

Znuh: Seriously - Globalization has very, very deep QC issues. Thanks to China, I can spend two grand on a modern television and have it fail in a year thanks to bad capacitors. The last time I bought electronics and had a cap fail? Never. Tell that to 80s me and my head would explode.

If you're not on top of the quality of your suppliers and the quality of the parts themselves, you're building something that will never work right, period. The above Farker who referenced Leyland and Lucas is spot on; British Leyland, besides being a hot mess in management, design, and everywhere else, never upgraded the 1940s machine tooling used in their factories in the 70s. Tolerance became something that was a joke, which helped kill off the British Car and Motorcycle industry.

This decade, the big buzzword seems to be grossly profiting on things while putting everyone else's nuts to the fire. I had problems with Airbus' QC issues with their instrumentation and computing (which resulted in several spectacular aerobatics and deaths); I'm saddened that Boeing has cut corners and created something that doesn't inspire confidence (to me) to get on board and fly.

The equation is really simple - without the Customer, the Company doesn't exist. Cutting corners to create a sub-par product that might actually kill people? Why do it at all?


You get what you pay for in electronics (That would be the vendor not the consumer. If you're the consumer you can get counterfeit parts and have no clue if the manufacturer* gets a bunch of crap and doesn't care.


*Manufacturer = whatever random subcontractor in China/Thailand/Taiwan/Singapore that actually built the damn thing for the licensing corporation that gets its name slapped on it.

/aluminum caps cost fractions of a penny in bulk and this is a good thing for some reason
 
2013-01-11 10:30:39 PM  
Why do people keep blaming Boeing for the fact that some asshole forgot to attach the gas cap properly?
 
2013-01-11 10:33:50 PM  

buzzcut73: Contrabulous Flabtraption: How hard is it to build a non-fall-apartable airplane these days?

They quit building those about the time McDonnell Douglas went under.

/Over engineered flying tanks


I can only assume you are trolling .... the MD-80 is the reason I avoid American Airlines like the clap.

The DC-10 was OK, to be fair, but nothing special.

The DC-3 was an iconic piece of engineering.
 
2013-01-11 10:36:04 PM  

TommyDeuce: Japan Airlines AND All-Nippon?

Maybe Boeing shouldn't have hired this guy:

[profile.ak.fbcdn.net image 160x160]

To staff their services operation in Tokyo.
/I'm the puppy that just wizzed on your 787's APU . . .


upload.wikimedia.org

/ never offset the wing
 
2013-01-11 10:45:26 PM  

Flab: Rapmaster2000: buzzcut73: Contrabulous Flabtraption: How hard is it to build a non-fall-apartable airplane these days?

They quit building those about the time McDonnell Douglas went under.

/Over engineered flying tanks

Didn't the DC-10/MD-11 get a reputation for killing people?  The engine falling off and severing the hydraulics in Chicago or the exploding rear engine leading to the Sioux City crash come to mind.

Or the cockpit fire burning so hot that liquid metal was dripping on the pilot seat, as on SwissAir 111.


MD-11 also had a really sensitive CG range.  FedEx has crashed a bunch of them on landing.
 
2013-01-11 11:32:48 PM  

JohnAnnArbor: Didn't the DC-10/MD-11 get a reputation for killing people? The engine falling off and severing the hydraulics in Chicago or the exploding rear engine leading to the Sioux City crash come to mind.

Not to mention the rear cargo door.


As I recall, this is really what doomed the DC-10 in the public's mind. There were several notable accidents involving the outward-opening rear cargo door that was secured by an easily breakable locking arm.

I believe they made at least some minor improvements in the MD-11; still, I was shocked to see one in the air the other day. KLM is flying passengers between AMS-SFO with one.
 
2013-01-11 11:52:10 PM  

ImpendingCynic: JohnAnnArbor: Didn't the DC-10/MD-11 get a reputation for killing people? The engine falling off and severing the hydraulics in Chicago or the exploding rear engine leading to the Sioux City crash come to mind.

Not to mention the rear cargo door.

As I recall, this is really what doomed the DC-10 in the public's mind. There were several notable accidents involving the outward-opening rear cargo door that was secured by an easily breakable locking arm.

I believe they made at least some minor improvements in the MD-11; still, I was shocked to see one in the air the other day. KLM is flying passengers between AMS-SFO with one.


I'll concede the rear cargo door issue, but they got that fixed. FedEx still uses the MD-10 and 11 (The MD-10 is a DC-10 with new upgraded glass cockpit) quite extensively, and yes, KLM still flies a few passenger models (along with a few charter operators).

The Chicago incident was awful, but not so much the plane's fault as it was the airline's fault for using a forklift to mount an engine rather than using the approved procedure.

As far as the MD-11 issues on landing, it isn't a CG issue to much as an issue with the horizontal stabalizer being a bit too small for the plane...they reduced the size to save drag, but it now requires higher landing speeds. When the plane is heavy (as would be the case in a cargo configuration), the high speed can cause a bounced landing, which is what happened both times FDX have wrecked planes on landing. They landed hard, bounced, tried to force the issue instead of firewalling the throttles and going around, and ended up collapsing the left main gear (they should really look into that left gear BTW..I think it's been that one that's collapsed and caused the plane to roll both times).

ANYWAY, what I meant when I was saying that is the OLD DC planes were tanks. Same goes for Boeing. The trade off now has been to make sure they meet regs, but save as much weight as possible, so newer airliners are not nearly as bulletproof as the old designs, and tend to have more teething problems when they finally do start flying around.
 
2013-01-12 12:19:22 AM  

Znuh: I had problems with Airbus' QC issues with their instrumentation and computing (which resulted in several spectacular aerobatics and deaths)


Please elaborate, i.e. enumerate the incidents to which you are referring.

I think you'll find that, much as with the rumour that Pulp Fiction is incredibly violent, you're putting a lot of weight on a small number of incidents, or attributing to the fly-by-wire system things which were in fact pilot error, or to be more precise, inadequate pilot training.

Compare the safety record of contemporary vintages of the Boeing 737 family and Airbus A320 family.

The 737 is the global short to medium haul commercial workhorse, and I fly on them dozens of times a year on average; it has an excellent safety record, and is my 2nd favourite narrow body for passenger comfort. The one time I have been on a commercial flight that required an emergency landing, it was on a 737, and at no point was anyone's safety at risk.

The A320's safety record, however, is even better, and I have to give it the edge in passenger comfort.

However much traditionalist pilots may dislike it, the Airbus fly by wire system does, at net, save lives. It can react faster than a human pilot, and takes a lot of workload off the human pilot, which has subtle indirect benefits such as keeping pilots fresh for when their skills are important, such as take-offs, landings and emergencies.
 
2013-01-12 12:26:03 AM  

JohnAnnArbor: Airbus must be loving this to distract from the A380's issues.


AIrbus is building something no one has built before, Boeing is building something they've built before, a few times. One has a bit of an excuse.
 
2013-01-12 12:52:00 AM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Why do people keep blaming Boeing for the fact that some asshole forgot to attach the gas cap properly?


That asshole either works for Boeing, one of its subcontractors or for one of its subcontractors' subcontractors; essentially, they're paying that asshole enough to attach the gas cap but not enough to attach it properly.

THAT is why people are blaming Boeing for their China-quality aeroplanes.
 
2013-01-12 01:01:19 AM  

ParaHandy: Znuh: I had problems with Airbus' QC issues with their instrumentation and computing (which resulted in several spectacular aerobatics and deaths)

Please elaborate, i.e. enumerate the incidents to which you are referring.

I think you'll find that, much as with the rumour that Pulp Fiction is incredibly violent, you're putting a lot of weight on a small number of incidents, or attributing to the fly-by-wire system things which were in fact pilot error, or to be more precise, inadequate pilot training.

Compare the safety record of contemporary vintages of the Boeing 737 family and Airbus A320 family.

The 737 is the global short to medium haul commercial workhorse, and I fly on them dozens of times a year on average; it has an excellent safety record, and is my 2nd favourite narrow body for passenger comfort. The one time I have been on a commercial flight that required an emergency landing, it was on a 737, and at no point was anyone's safety at risk.

The A320's safety record, however, is even better, and I have to give it the edge in passenger comfort.

However much traditionalist pilots may dislike it, the Airbus fly by wire system does, at net, save lives. It can react faster than a human pilot, and takes a lot of workload off the human pilot, which has subtle indirect benefits such as keeping pilots fresh for when their skills are important, such as take-offs, landings and emergencies.


Here's a good example of the Computer having the final word, killing the test pilot and three passengers who wanted a different rate of descent on an Airbus A320:

http://youtu.be/-kHa3WNerjU

'Expert' systems are only as good as the dictionaries they rely on for different circumstances. Unlike an actual living human who can adapt to a set of circumstances quickly, if it's not programmed in the box (and an aberrant condition arises), you're left with that video there.

I'm of the opinion that the Human should have the final decision.

Then there was the Iberian crash:

However, according to first released findings of the Bilbao accident investigation, the 'activity' of this safety feature was a contributing factor in the event: the alpha-protection contradicted the desired pilots action. During the final approach to runway 30, the Ground Proximity Warning System "sink rate" warning was triggered and the crew applied TOGA-power (Take-Off/Go-Around power) to abort the landing. (http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/others/Bilbao.html)

That added to the Nose gear issues, or you could go with sudden altitude loss:

Many passengers travelling that day were so traumatised by the incident they are no longer able to fly, he added.
He said he believed the captain of the flight, a former "top gun pilot from the US Navy", had not flown since.
"He has told me that when the plane went out of control, the computer would not give him back control of the plane and he said it was in a dive," Wisner told ABC Radio. "All he could see was the ocean. He has never been as frightened as he was at that point despite all his prior military aircraft training."
(http://forums.jetphotos.net/showthread.php?t=51406)

So, yep. That.
 
2013-01-12 02:47:26 AM  

dj_spanmaster: Let's see. First, Boeing made sure to make the fuselage and wings more flexible. Then, they're surprised when windows crack?


This is where I (as someone who does complicated things for a living) go off on a rant about "no, really, the professional engineers who spent person-centuries and cpu-eons designing this plane didn't overlook some 'correlation' that only looks that way because you lack knowledge of the subject."
 
2013-01-12 02:50:01 AM  

Znuh: ParaHandy: Znuh: I had problems with Airbus' QC issues with their instrumentation and computing (which resulted in several spectacular aerobatics and deaths)

Please elaborate, i.e. enumerate the incidents to which you are referring.

I think you'll find that, much as with the rumour that Pulp Fiction is incredibly violent, you're putting a lot of weight on a small number of incidents, or attributing to the fly-by-wire system things which were in fact pilot error, or to be more precise, inadequate pilot training.

Compare the safety record of contemporary vintages of the Boeing 737 family and Airbus A320 family.

The 737 is the global short to medium haul commercial workhorse, and I fly on them dozens of times a year on average; it has an excellent safety record, and is my 2nd favourite narrow body for passenger comfort. The one time I have been on a commercial flight that required an emergency landing, it was on a 737, and at no point was anyone's safety at risk.

The A320's safety record, however, is even better, and I have to give it the edge in passenger comfort.

However much traditionalist pilots may dislike it, the Airbus fly by wire system does, at net, save lives. It can react faster than a human pilot, and takes a lot of workload off the human pilot, which has subtle indirect benefits such as keeping pilots fresh for when their skills are important, such as take-offs, landings and emergencies.

Here's a good example of the Computer having the final word, killing the test pilot and three passengers who wanted a different rate of descent on an Airbus A320:

http://youtu.be/-kHa3WNerjU

'Expert' systems are only as good as the dictionaries they rely on for different circumstances. Unlike an actual living human who can adapt to a set of circumstances quickly, if it's not programmed in the box (and an aberrant condition arises), you're left with that video there.

I'm of the opinion that the Human should have the final decision.

Then there was the Iberian cras ...


To the 3 incidents you mention:

AF 296 - the system was not designed for airshow stunts, which involve fundamentally unsafe conditions. Pilot should have shut the system down and gone to full manual control before attempting this manouevre.

Iberia 1456 - flight parameters too optimistic for the weather conditions.

JBU 292 - all products break. Pilots handled situation. Flight envelope software and landing parameter systems helped. This is the world working the way it should.

A total of 3 hull loss incidents in your list, with over 200 people on board, yet only four deaths. I think you're proving my point for me.


There is a problem with the computer assistance in the Airbus, and it's that it makes the pilots complacent, and airlines do not provide enough training for how to fly the plane when the computer cannot. This is a valid human factors concern, and requires training to address.

However, the fact remains the systems save lives, and in the hands of a knowledgeable pilot can enhance his abilities in an emergency .... the famous US 1549 river landing was an Airbus. Go ask Capt. Sully what a highly talented and experienced pilot looks for in a commercial aircraft.

/ I've never heard a Greyhound driver dissing ABS
 
2013-01-12 02:54:50 AM  

Znuh: The equation is really simple - without the Customer, the Company doesn't exist. Cutting corners to create a sub-par product that might actually kill people? Why do it at all?


But they do do it, and they get away with it, too. Capitalism is like a game of Cut-Corners Hot Potato that relies on making sure whoever is taking on the risk doesn't know just how risky it is.
 
2013-01-12 03:00:58 AM  

James F. Campbell: Znuh: The equation is really simple - without the Customer, the Company doesn't exist. Cutting corners to create a sub-par product that might actually kill people? Why do it at all?

But they do do it, and they get away with it, too. Capitalism is like a game of Cut-Corners Hot Potato that relies on making sure whoever is taking on the risk doesn't know just how risky it is.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-12 03:11:04 AM  

kalor: Contrabulous Flabtraption: How hard is it to build a non-fall-apartable airplane these days?

Read the article below about how they built and designed the thing. Apparently it really is a miracle that it works at all.

Also subby, new types of batteries used combined with a fire from said new battery definitely demands a review by an outside entity to ensure those batteries will work as intended. Given that Country A designed the battery and Country B manufactured them and Country C designed the wiring and Country D put the wiring in....yes a comprehensive review is more than warranted.


Imagine the cost savings and avoided delays if they put a single American company to work where they could share construction data easily in the same facility and timezone ad avoid these issues.

If you put people to work you get a middle-class taxpayer contributing more thn they Consuelo from government.
 
2013-01-12 03:12:03 AM  

lohphat:
If you put people to work you get a middle-class taxpayer contributing more than they consume from government.


Farking autocorrect.
 
2013-01-12 05:05:39 AM  
there is the old joke about a u.s. company buying parts from a japanese supplier for the first time. the buyer specifies over and over again he will only take a 5% failed inspection rate on the parts. the parts are delivered and a note is left with the shipment. "the 5% of failed units have been marked and separated. if you would like more or less failed units in the future we will oblige".
 
2013-01-12 01:34:05 PM  

starlost: there is the old joke about a u.s. company buying parts from a japanese supplier for the first time. the buyer specifies over and over again he will only take a 5% failed inspection rate on the parts. the parts are delivered and a note is left with the shipment. "the 5% of failed units have been marked and separated. if you would like more or less failed units in the future we will oblige".


I'm a former design engineer.  Bilingual design engineer.  Japanese-English bilingual design engineer.  And for some reason this joke just didn't hit my funny bone.  I think it's because it's so far removed from reality that my brain can't make any sort of connection, even a humorous one.
 
2013-01-12 05:11:25 PM  
dragonchild
america thinks no one can make a product as good as they can. the buyer thinks the supplier is going to have to bust his hump to get only 5% fails while the supplier is wondering why the american wants defective parts.
old joke from the 80's-90's when many foreign products were starting to be considered as good or better by some americans as american made.
 
2013-01-12 06:26:06 PM  

starlost: old joke from the 80's-90's when many foreign products were starting to be considered as good or better by some americans as american made.


Ah.  Before my time, then.  How things change.

American-made hasn't been considered all that for quite a while now.  Quite frankly, no one in manufacturing has thought of America as #1 at anything since the early 1990s, if not earlier.
 
2013-01-12 09:02:16 PM  

dragonchild: starlost: old joke from the 80's-90's when many foreign products were starting to be considered as good or better by some americans as american made.

Ah.  Before my time, then.  How things change.

American-made hasn't been considered all that for quite a while now.  Quite frankly, no one in manufacturing has thought of America as #1 at anything since the early 1990s, if not earlier.


You really, really, I mean really really don't know what the fark you are talking about.

really...
 
2013-01-12 09:12:46 PM  

dforkus: You really, really, I mean really really don't know what the fark you are talking about.


Perhaps I should've clarified.  The rest of the world used to be in awe of American manufacturing.  That was a long time ago.

Americans still think they're #1, sure, but a lot of countries are in love with themselves, so that's a wash.  Then again, the other thing about Americans is that they're vaguely aware that the rest of the world exists at all, which begs the question what they think they're #1 compared to.
 
2013-01-14 09:57:44 AM  

erik-k: dj_spanmaster: Let's see. First, Boeing made sure to make the fuselage and wings more flexible. Then, they're surprised when windows crack?

This is where I (as someone who does complicated things for a living) go off on a rant about "no, really, the professional engineers who spent person-centuries and cpu-eons designing this plane didn't overlook some 'correlation' that only looks that way because you lack knowledge of the subject."


Rant away. I do similar work.
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report