That is a very condescending reponse. Auditing the procedures and documenting the problems is not panicking. Such methodical analysis is largely the opposite of panicking.
You are looking at a very superficial trailing indicator, the number of accidents.
While that's an important consideration, it is not very useful in terms of predicting future events.
Given that we now know that procedures are not being followed and records are not being kept, this tells us that the quality standards have slipped abysmally. That does not result in more accidents in the short term, but largely guarantees them in the longer term.
Boeing is equivalent to a software company with a great track record of not having security vulnerabilities who decides to get rid of the entire security team since nothing is happening and then patting themselves on the back quarter after quarter for all the money they save. Of course, we know the quality will be slipping and slipping and by the time the first vulnerability is exploited a few years later the codebase will be so riddled with holes that there might be no way to recover.
My argument, and I believe that of the article, is not about how the industry is handling this but instead how people and the press are handling this. Right now the industry, via regulations and internal pressures, is digging deep into Boeing and the entire culture that allowed this one thing to happen. I have not once argued this is a bad thing. I am continuing to argue that the level of reporting and public reactions deserve the title of 'panic' since they, to me, meet an irrational fear level given the safety track record of the industry as a whole. I encourage you to re-read my comment and tell me where I said the industry should ignore this. People and the press are panicking. The industry is reacting in a sane, well rehearsed and ultimately successful way.
Comments
That is a very condescending reponse. Auditing the procedures and documenting the problems is not panicking. Such methodical analysis is largely the opposite of panicking.
You are looking at a very superficial trailing indicator, the number of accidents.
While that's an important consideration, it is not very useful in terms of predicting future events.
Given that we now know that procedures are not being followed and records are not being kept, this tells us that the quality standards have slipped abysmally. That does not result in more accidents in the short term, but largely guarantees them in the longer term.
Boeing is equivalent to a software company with a great track record of not having security vulnerabilities who decides to get rid of the entire security team since nothing is happening and then patting themselves on the back quarter after quarter for all the money they save. Of course, we know the quality will be slipping and slipping and by the time the first vulnerability is exploited a few years later the codebase will be so riddled with holes that there might be no way to recover.
My argument, and I believe that of the article, is not about how the industry is handling this but instead how people and the press are handling this. Right now the industry, via regulations and internal pressures, is digging deep into Boeing and the entire culture that allowed this one thing to happen. I have not once argued this is a bad thing. I am continuing to argue that the level of reporting and public reactions deserve the title of 'panic' since they, to me, meet an irrational fear level given the safety track record of the industry as a whole. I encourage you to re-read my comment and tell me where I said the industry should ignore this. People and the press are panicking. The industry is reacting in a sane, well rehearsed and ultimately successful way.