Boeing's New Plan: Replace Human Inspectors With Technology (usatoday.com) 143
"Boeing is pushing ahead on a plan to cut about 900 inspectors, replacing their jobs with technology improvements at its Seattle area factories, despite being under fire for software flaws in the 737 Max and quality issues in its other aircraft," reports USA Today.
"The union has raised an outcry, calling it a 'bad decision' that will 'eliminate the second set of eyes on thousands of work packages' in its newsletter to members." Some 451 inspectors will be transferred to other jobs this year, and about the same number next year, out of a total of about 3,000 at its commercial aircraft operations in the Seattle area, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local 751, has told its members.... When it comes to paring its inspection staff on the West Coast, Boeing says the "QA Transformation Plan" won't undermine safety. Substituting technology gains, it says, will increase quality and effect only "stable" procedures, those in which there is a low probability of mistakes.
For instance, Boeing says when it is bringing out a new aircraft with wings made out of composites, there is equipment now that can do the inspections more thoroughly than humans. Once the inspection equipment has verified that it can do the job -- with humans overseeing the process -- traditional inspectors can be redeployed to other tasks. "As we identify and reduce second-layer inspections for stable processes, quality assurance professionals will be redeployed and take on new roles such as leading and supporting efforts to prevent defects and rework," Boeing said in a statement. It adds that it is working to try to convince regulators and others that the changes "will not jeopardize our quality, but will, in fact, lead to higher levels."
So far, the Federal Aviation Administration hasn't given the plan a ringing endorsement... And skeptics are emerging. Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate who lost a niece when the Ethiopian Airlines jet crashed and who believes the 737 Max design is fatally flawed, is leery of substituting machines for people when it comes to quality. "They still haven't learned the lesson that risky automation does not replicate experienced human intelligence," he said. "There is no comparison. There is all kinds of human intuition that can't be translated into computer code."
"The union has raised an outcry, calling it a 'bad decision' that will 'eliminate the second set of eyes on thousands of work packages' in its newsletter to members." Some 451 inspectors will be transferred to other jobs this year, and about the same number next year, out of a total of about 3,000 at its commercial aircraft operations in the Seattle area, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local 751, has told its members.... When it comes to paring its inspection staff on the West Coast, Boeing says the "QA Transformation Plan" won't undermine safety. Substituting technology gains, it says, will increase quality and effect only "stable" procedures, those in which there is a low probability of mistakes.
For instance, Boeing says when it is bringing out a new aircraft with wings made out of composites, there is equipment now that can do the inspections more thoroughly than humans. Once the inspection equipment has verified that it can do the job -- with humans overseeing the process -- traditional inspectors can be redeployed to other tasks. "As we identify and reduce second-layer inspections for stable processes, quality assurance professionals will be redeployed and take on new roles such as leading and supporting efforts to prevent defects and rework," Boeing said in a statement. It adds that it is working to try to convince regulators and others that the changes "will not jeopardize our quality, but will, in fact, lead to higher levels."
So far, the Federal Aviation Administration hasn't given the plan a ringing endorsement... And skeptics are emerging. Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate who lost a niece when the Ethiopian Airlines jet crashed and who believes the 737 Max design is fatally flawed, is leery of substituting machines for people when it comes to quality. "They still haven't learned the lesson that risky automation does not replicate experienced human intelligence," he said. "There is no comparison. There is all kinds of human intuition that can't be translated into computer code."
Tech is used in tech to automate inspections (Score:3, Insightful)
Really depends. Welding is almost always better inspected by tech. Scratching that itch just right, human
Re:Tech is used in tech to automate inspections (Score:4, Interesting)
Tech still lacks the imagination "what could possibly go wrong".
Even if you have a weld that checks out perfectly on X-rays you may discover that it isn't good from other perspectives. You may be able to weld two materials that aren't having similar properties, but it may be a stress point between the two materials where they join. This might be fine if you never expose it to varying temperatures, but as soon as there are temperature variations the material may buckle, bend or crack.
Re: (Score:3)
That is true, but you often have to ask what are human inspector doing RIGHT NOW in the normal case.
If human inspectors aren't going above and beyond their regulation inspection, then human inspectors aren't actually doing a better job and computer inspection is probably good enough.
Let's remember here, this is Boeing which just suffered the 737 MAX disaster. That whole process filled with a lot of human inspectors. Did the average inspector or regulator raise the flags and go above and beyond their assigne
Re: (Score:2)
Greed drove the last decision process, so how could greed impact an automated inspection process. Ohh, look the automated inspected plane's wing fell off, so who goes to prison, the computer apparently. Automate fine as long as the executive team and the board sign off for 'FULL' criminal and civil liability, else, fuck off. Somebody has to be liable for failure, a person.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Tech is used in tech to automate inspections (Score:1)
You've got to be kidding.
I work on hovercrafts. Everything is inspected by a human, even the parts still in the factory waiting to be used get inspected. We always trust everything will be 100% when the time comes to use a part.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Tech is used in tech to automate inspections (Score:2, Insightful)
No. Humans use tech as a diagnostic tool. It is still a human inspecting the welds on any critical component
Don't forget (Score:5, Funny)
to install a redundant sensor on the inspection machines. And to retrain the machines' operators...
Re: (Score:2)
I wish you didn't have cause to make that joke. :(
Re: (Score:1)
to install a redundant sensor on the inspection machines. And to retrain the machines' operators...
If the design is wrong, no matter how much inspection or who carried out the inspection, the plane will still be dangerous.
Re:Don't forget (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully they’ll pay for the added cost deluxe inspector package, which provides a list of flaws found - the standard inspector still finds the flaws but discards them without a report.
Re: Don't forget (Score:1)
This is funny, but at the same time what did the human inspectors do to prevent the existing issues?
Absolutely nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
if anything they would have needed more human, preferably 3rd party, inspection on the rollout and (lack of)retraining on the max.
they designed the max on purpose to skirt the requirements for longer retraining on the pilots. someone human should have said them that nope guys nope.
Re: Don't forget (Score:1)
Fox was guarding the hen house, of course it didn't say "no".
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Fox only says no to democrats.
Re: Don't forget (Score:2, Insightful)
A third party inspector would be far superior to in-house [union] inspectors, who are obviously rubber stamping bad decisions. Boeingâ(TM)s idea of QA is a checklist that a child can complete, which doesnâ(TM)t leave a lot of room for rigor or thought.
I say this as someone who used to work for Boeing and the poster youâ(TM)re responding to.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd probably think they need _more_, not less inspectors. Not to mention, inspectors can use the whistleblowing hotline (which Boeing inspectors did, indeed, use for the case of the sensors) whereas an algorithm... well... you tell me.
Re: (Score:3)
There were inspectors?
Re: (Score:2)
And don't forget the "disagree" indicator, but charge for it, and additional for an alarm.
Re: (Score:2)
to install a redundant sensor on the inspection machines. And to retrain the machines' operators...
It's the minimum they could do for a plane with the word "MAX" in its name ...
Piss poor judgement at Boeing (Score:5, Insightful)
Make a plane that crashes if one sensor fails.
Sell the 'tilt indicator" and warning light as a costed extra optional feature.
Somehow fail to notice the warning light is not working in every plane you deliver.
Hire Nikki Haley, the baby cages women, to your board of directors.
Replace your QA with machines.
Redeploy your QA inspectors 'to other jobs'... a euphemism for sacking your QA staff.
Gee what could go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you didn't read the part about how Boeing changed the way the kill switches operated and disabled all pilot control of the rear flight surfaces? Oh, and they didn't tell anyone or update the manuals.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing. Killing people doesn't move the the stock price the way it used to.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a complete troll. (Disclosure: I have a trivial amount of Boeing stock in a 401k.)
Boeing clearly did a miserable implementation of MCAS1.0, but the pilots first reaction to a stick shaker should be the “unreliable airspeed” memory procedure which would prevent MCAS from ever engaging. The AoA disagree indicator is not information that can’t be found elsewhere— good CRM should see communication between pilots about stick shaker on one control column only.
Boeing’s failu
Value for money (Score:2)
...traditional inspectors can be redeployed to other tasks.
Like unemployment? In every company I've ever worked, each task is worth a certain cost and demands an employee worth a certain amount of pay. People don't just get "transferred"... they eventually become less valuable, or even redundant.
It's clear what this plan really means.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean watching a video on an iPad?
Re: (Score:2)
...traditional inspectors can be redeployed to other tasks.
Like unemployment? In every company I've ever worked, each task is worth a certain cost and demands an employee worth a certain amount of pay. People don't just get "transferred"... they eventually become less valuable, or even redundant.
It's clear what this plan really means.
And let me guess, the robot inspectors will be designed and built by unsupervised and uncertified contractors?
Eliminating make-work? (Score:5, Informative)
This has zero to do with the 737-Max problems, which were an engineering (or management) problem.
My experience with unions in this sector is that they are all about creating/preserving unnecessary jobs. The most egregious example: I was working with a colleague to install an automation system in a plant. The plant workers had already installed the wiring to the items our system was going to control, but we wanted to check that each of the wires was actually connected, and to the correct device. So we're going from point to point in the plant, to send a signal along the wire to another colleague back at the computer system. Fine, only...consider the team we were travelling around the plant with, all jobs dictated by the union:
- The supervisor, who knew where all the devices were physically located (necessary).
- The guy who turned the screws to open the junction boxes, so we could access the wires (unnecessary)
- The guy who attached jumper cables to the wires (unnecessary)
- The guy who pushed the button to send the signal (unnecessary)
- The shift supervisor, who made sure we followed all the union rules (unnecessary)
That was my first experience with unions, but not the last...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Horseshit. In a system such as a plant where mistakes such as "Oops, wrong fucking wire", can result in explosions, leaks, spills, nuclear fucking meltdowns, etc., etc., etc.,..you have redundancy...humans to double-check humans....which the unions ensure happens.
Wow, what a shocker...'redundency'...something that Boeing knows alot about eliminating, apparently.
Re:Eliminating make-work? (Score:4, Informative)
I've seen the same thing at trade shows. You need to pay an electrician to plug a monitor into an electrical outlet, minimum billed time 15 minutes. To plug a monitor's cord into a wall socket. It has nothing to do with safety.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So lets instead watch some moron try and stick a nonpolararized plug into a polarized outlet...or other unsafe 'nonstandard' junction or hazardous setup.
Unless you're making your own components, or modifying plugs, you literally cannot create an unsafe condition except for overloading an extension cord. And people at trade shows aren't whipping out the ol' dremel tool and planing down the neutral so they can misconnect polarized plugs.
Re: (Score:2)
As evidence of the need for certified electricians to plug toasters in for you, consider all of the trade shows you attended with rampant electrical fires all over the place.
You hear it every day, don't you!?
No?
Well, maybe the AC is just a union shill, trying to protect his do-nothing, make-work of a job.
Re: (Score:3)
I have to agree with parent here. Of the 5 positions indicated, I would say for proper double custody at least three are required. One sounds redundant, as it seems like there are two apprentice positions; this is typically where union rules pad the payroll.
Back to the OT, the problem (and advantage) with using automation for inspections is you don’t have whistle-blowers. In theory you can have much more detailed inspections, but the testing protocol needs to be expanded, rather than just replacing
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that was when jobs were a social good and companies were supposed to have a social obligation, that was mainly because politicians though that everybody should have a job and they wanted to minimize poverty.
Can you give a specific timeframe when this capitalist utopia existed? I think I blinked and missed it.
Re: (Score:1)
The problem with the 737-MAX was trying to use an automated system (MCAS) in place of pilot training (having pilots have to re-train/re-certify as a new aircraft)
This is more of the same. Then as now, the motivation is money.
The Communists didn't always produce the best machines, but end-stage capitalism doesn't seem to be generating that great of a record either.
Re: (Score:2)
I, for one, welcome . . . (Score:1)
I, for one, welcome our new federal regulations overlords in response to corporate negligence for the sake of quarterly profits.
451? (Score:2)
Isn't that the temperature at which inspection reports start getting faked because they're inconvenient after folks forgot about the importance of them?
Technology is nice - but the demands of income gains mean SOMEONE outside the company still has to keep an eye on the important stuff, beyond the 'market deciding' it doesn't want to really pay for something anymore, and seeing what it can get away with.
Ryan Fenton
Amazing (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget, foisting off an inherently unstable hacked together museum piece of an airframe on the unsuspecting public because they were falling behind Airbus and were too cheap to pay for certification.
Re: (Score:2)
Because of the engine positioning, which is in turn due to the stubby landing gear, at high angle of attack as at initial climb to altitude, the engine cowlings produce unwanted lift on a long lever arm, risking a "divergent condition", that is, a stall that tends to go deeper instead of naturally returning to level as with an inherently stable airframe. A less than desirable characteristic for a passenger airliner, to say the least.
Boeing's new plan (Score:2)
Boeing's new plan: deflect
Inspecting (Score:3, Insightful)
Who inspects the inspector bots?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia, bots inspect bots inspect bots inspect botsstack overflow
That's no good. How easy is it to train turtles?
What could ***POSSIBLY GO WRONG*** ??? (Score:2)
Great. Now not only will we have so-called 'self driving cars' crashing into stationary objects and running people over when they fuck up, but we'll have planes exploding in mid-air because the so-called 'autonomous inspector' was only 95% as capable as a human inspector (and of course Boeings' legal department said it was an 'acceptable risk' because the 'risk/benefit ratio was low' and 'they have the money to pay off the wrongful dea
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess: The new 'automated inspector' will use AI software, right?
Of course. It is an image analysis application, and "AI" software is by far the best way to do that.
the so-called 'autonomous inspector' was only 95% as capable as a human inspector
According to Boeing, the software inspections are better than human inspectors.
This is unsurprising, since humans tend to be bad at dull repetitive tasks.
Re: (Score:1)
The inspectors are supposed to let the shoddy product through that barely meets requirements, but since they are human, there is a variable passing rate. In contrast, AI will let a consistently shoddy product go through.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like the medical imagery field, the perfect answer might be AI + Human - AI can see things human can't, and conversely.
Not sure if companies are going to try AI alone, but I'm pretty much certain that would be a really bad idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like the medical imagery field, the perfect answer might be AI + Human
Medical radiology is not done with AI+Human because the humans add any accuracy (they don't) but for liability reasons. The insurance companies want to be able to tell the jury that a human was in the loop.
I'm pretty much certain that would be a really bad idea.
That should be based on data, not your gut feelings.
There are plenty of additional measures that could make aircraft safer. But we don't do them all, because they are cost prohibitive. Paying 900 people to double check software that is already catching 99.9999% of problems is unlikely to be an efficien
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they'd say that. Just like marketing departments say so-called 'self driving cars' will be safer than human drivers.
Good if (Score:2)
Does it means that the managers are going to jail in case of failure, since there are no humans between them and the actual part that failed? Careful what you you wish for.
Re: (Score:2)
We do not currently jail human inspectors for incompetence, so this changes nothing.
If we are going to put people in prison for incompetence, we are going to need a lot more prisons.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure? I'm pretty sure that I've seen some cases where architects were jailed for incompetence resulting in death.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that I've seen some cases where architects were jailed for incompetence resulting in death.
Can you provide a citation?
Criminal negligence requires malice. You had to know you were doing it wrong. That is beyond mere incompetence.
Robot approval (Score:2)
Past the tools and metal shavings as that is a normal part of work.
The pattern of the structure found is correct to the plan.
No defects and mistakes detected.
Pass.
This can work... (Score:2)
Straight outta the movies. . . (Score:2)
. . . this worked so well in _Futureworld.
MCAS (Score:2)
Er (Score:1)
And get NTSB to ... (Score:2)
... interrogate the fucking robots?
"I don't know ... Ralph The Blader (XB3000, SP3) was supposed to activate the failure of the double-vote, Yes system on the angle of attack.
I KNOW! I have the number of the robot-maker.
Admission of ... (Score:2)
... guilt.
But (Score:2)
A couple of things (Score:2)
First: Boeing's current problems involve design flaws. Not QC problems. If they can't handle the validation/verification problems of the aircraft systems themselves, what makes them think that they can get the test equipment and software right?
Second: There are some jobs for which machine inspection are well suited. Structural inspection, which involves scanning huge assemblies using x-rays, acoustic, eddy current or visual inspection without getting tired or overlooking something work well. The types of f
It's as safe as a self-guiding dragon (Score:2)
Nice city you got there ...
This will not end well (Score:2)
Wasn't it over-reliance on automation (the attack-angle flight-control software being on even with autopilot off) that caused the problem with the Supermax planes to begin with?
This automation of QA will just make it easier to paper over any scew-ups, and will probably end with some major crash that could have been avoided if humans had been performing the inspection jobs that Boeing would rather have robots be doing.
Will not end well at all.