Paul Saccani wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:59:20 +1000, Ned
aioe.org> wrote:
> >> Blimey Saccas - brevity is not your forte is it?
>
> It can be. But not when trying to do justice to a complex issue
No Paul it was not a complex issue at all! Sure some of the many nuts and bolts
you have introduced along the way make it appear complex.
But from a product quality management and/or risk management perspective it was
always dead simple. There was an enduring problem over some twenty years or more
with B-737 rudders which Boeing management continued to deny were faulty or else
blamed on dead pilots and other causes rather than admit their product was
deficient.
IOW as I initially claimed - they dragged the chain......until they were forced
kicking and screaming into the last redesign. And then had the gall to proclaim
to the world it was an "enhancement". IIRC this is still on
Boeing.com
In fact the whole sorry B-737 rudder saga is featured in management case studies
in US universities as a shining example of what *NOT* to do when your product is
defective!
Unfortunately it appears that the engineering complexity trees have blinded you
to the realities of the product management forest.
>
>> My point was simple and succinct - Boeing dragged the chain on rectifying the
>> flaw in their B-737 rudder system resulting in hundreds of passengers
>> unnecessarily going to their deaths in crashes.
>
> I agree, simple and succinct.
>
> Unlike an attempt at its refutation. A vast number of simple,
> incorrect assertions simply can't be addressed by simplistic counter
> assertions.
>
No vast numbers of simple, incorrect assertions at all Paul! Nada, Zilch. Zip.
My simple assertion was that Boeing dragged the chain - you deny it.
You are attempting to put up yet another smokescreen to support Boeing with
excursions into trivia.
My position is dead simple and supported by the facts as they happened - Boeing
were *NOT* the ever willing good guys you seem so keen to paint them to be.
Everybody in the whole wide world knows it. And so, truth be known, in your
heart so do you. But you choose to disagree purely for the sport of disagreeing.
Somewhat amusing to see you selectively calling on Jim Hall quotes to prop up
your pro-Boeing case - made in the mid 90s after he'd been fooled by Boeing's
assurances they'd fixed the rudder problem.
However I note you conveniently omitted what Hall said in 2000 when it became
clear to the NTSB and the world that Boeing certainly had not done that at all.
Quote "...the Boeing 737 rudder control system has numerous potential failure
modes that represent an *unacceptable* *risk* to the travelling public.
The ETEB found dozens of single failures and jams and latent failures in the 737
rudder system, in addition to the single point of failure we identified in our
accident report, that can result in the loss of control of the airplane.
Although the failure mechanism that we believed led to the crashes of
United Airlines flight 585 in 1991 and USAir flight 427 in 1994, and the
near loss-of-control of Eastwind Airlines flight 517 in 1996, appears to
have been eliminated through a redesigned rudder power control unit, the
results of the ETEB echo our findings that failure modes still exist in
the Boeing 737 rudder system."
IIRC Hall subsequently expressed dissatisfaction with the pace of the redesign
and implementation ie Boeing dragging the chain again!
I've been puzzled by your continuing and absurd dogged refusal to recognize the
realities of all of this but I couldn't express it better than this fellow
yesterday "I really can't understand why anyone who isn't stupid would want to
persist in making an obviously absurd argument. If you think I am
saying you are stupid, you have got it the wrong way around. I think
you are intelligent, so your motivation escapes my understanding."
Unless of course, disagreement, not to be a disagreeable person, but purely for
disagreements sake is your motivating factor.
Cheers
Ned
