Substandard Italian workmanship renders first 787s unsafe

VOR-DME wrote:
\ I certainly hope this laziness does not extend to his piloting
activities, otherwise _bad things_ could happen!

No, nothing bad is ever going to happen there, simply because he
has no actual "piloting activities." Whenever he speaks of "piloting,"
he's actually talking about "flying" Microsoft Flight Simulator. So
nothing remotely like a real aircraft or passengers will ever be in any
danger.

Bob M.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

It is called a contract.

The contract defines what is to be delivered.

The Americans did that.

In the United States, law takes the place of morals. If it's legal, it's
considered moral. If it's illegal, it's considered immoral. Morality itself
has been discarded.

Babbling nonsense.

The same conditions apply the world over, i.e. a contractor is expected to
deliver according to the terms of the contract; nothing more, and nothing
less.

If the customer wants tighter tolerances on something, it is up to the
customer to specify those tolerances and pay for any increase in cost resulting
from those tighter tolerances.

The Japanese kept tighter tolerances at the same cost.

And you know this to be a fact how?

In the real world tighter tolerances mean increased cost.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
Tom P writes:

Factory workers make mistakes all the time. It's normal.

The number and magnitude of mistakes they make depend a great deal on
corporate and social culture.

I recall Akio Morita describing such a problem. Sony was building
Trinitrons in both Japan and the USA. In both countries, the tubes
had to meet the same tolerances. Nevertheless, the company found
that the Japanese tubes were always far closer to perfection than
the USA tubes.

Finally, management figure it out. The Japanese always tried to get
things perfect, no matter what the accepted tolerances were, whereas
the Americans didn't care whether it was perfect or not, as long as
it fell within the tolerances.

To fix this, Sony made the tolerances far tighter for the USA tubes.
Their quality then improved significantly.

All of which was stupidity on Sony's part.

All things have a tolerance and tighter tolerances increase costs.

If Sony needed tighter tolerance they should have originally specified
tighter tolerances instead of ****ing and moaning that stuff made to
their specified tolerance wasn't "good enough".

It was all about culture.

Wrong, it is all about getting the specifications to be what is really
needed in the first place.

That is basic engineering.

100% correct. Mxs couldn't have picked a better example, since I
have direct professional experience with the Trinitron design, having
worked very closely with Sony as a monitor supplier a number of
years back. Tightening tolerances beyond what is required for the
design to function to customer expectations and its published
specification is nonsense, and Sony is far too good at engineering to
do that. The story is nonsense, and I seriously doubt that Morita-san
ever said anything of the sort. I have personally tested numerous
Trinitron products from both the Japan and U.S. factories, and found
no significant differences between them. (Actually, since the production
of the Trinitron CRT was essentially 100% automated, there was
absolutely no reason to expect any such differences. They used the
same production equipment, programmed the same, etc., etc..)

So once again, our friend here is speaking of something regarding which
he appears to have precisely zero actual knowledge or experience.

Bob M.

Mxsmanic wrote:
My experience and training have shown significant cultural
differences that cannot be ignored.

And again - that "experience and training," relevant to this topic,
would be - what, exactly? And is it as extensive as your experience
and training in piloting?

Bob M.

In article ,
says...


You inadvertently illustrate the exact problem that Morita had with the USA
factory. The Americans didn't care about striving for perfection; all they
cared about was staying inside whatever tolerances were defined.

The Americans lacked pride in workmanship and strong professional ethics.
Apparently all they cared about was money.


Seems our in-house expert knows about as much of engineering as he does of
aviation. Quality conciousness IS striving to manufacture to the specified
tolerance. For a manufacturer to modify the tolerance, either more or less
stringent, would be an error and a detriment to quality.

All of the things we surround ourselves with in life, from the simplest to
the most complex are proof of the fact that engineers the world over
understand this principle. So, once again we have someone with no
experience, who doesn't imagine the amount of engineering that goes into a
simple can-opener, lecturing us on tolerances for Trinitron tubes. Perhaps
he should tell us, just to lend credibility to his tale, which tolerances
these were, and what values were changed for what reason and with what
result.

VOR-DME writes:

Seems our in-house expert knows about as much of engineering as he does of
aviation. Quality conciousness IS striving to manufacture to the specified
tolerance.

Then the Americans lacked that, although when I said QC it meant quality
control, which is essentially damage control.

For a manufacturer to modify the tolerance, either more or less
stringent, would be an error and a detriment to quality.

Physical devices tend to drift out of nominal specifications over time. The
tighter the tolerances, the longer they will last without drifting
unacceptably. Thus, a tighter tolerance generally ensures less maintenance
and/or a longer working lifetime. There is no ideal tolerance, but as any
engineer knows, tight manufacturing tolerances improve the quality of the
product by increasing the margin between the original manufacturing tolerance
and the tightest tolerance that will ensure proper operation (which can't
always be determined precisely).

Mxsmanic wrote:
VOR-DME writes:

Seems our in-house expert knows about as much of engineering as he does of
aviation. Quality conciousness IS striving to manufacture to the specified
tolerance.

Then the Americans lacked that, although when I said QC it meant quality
control, which is essentially damage control.

The purpose of quality control is to ensure product meets the stated
specifications, which is exactly what happened in your story.

For a manufacturer to modify the tolerance, either more or less
stringent, would be an error and a detriment to quality.

Physical devices tend to drift out of nominal specifications over time. The
tighter the tolerances, the longer they will last without drifting
unacceptably.

Some do, some don't, it depends on the device and parameter in question.

However it is up to the original designer of the total system to specify
the tolerances for the individual parts and provide those tolerances to
the makers of piece parts.

The burden on the piece part maker is to make them to the specifications
provided by the designer and the part maker has no obligation nor right to
second guess the original designer.

snip babbling nonsense


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

The purpose of quality control is to ensure product meets the stated
specifications, which is exactly what happened in your story.

Quality control often translates to inspection after the fact, which is late
and wasteful in the manufacturing cycle.

Some do, some don't, it depends on the device and parameter in question.

Well, digital devices usually work perfectly up to a point, and then fail
catastrophically. Most other devices show signs of wear and tear.
Unfortunately, this is very true of CRTs, which is one of their serious
drawbacks.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

The purpose of quality control is to ensure product meets the stated
specifications, which is exactly what happened in your story.

Quality control often translates to inspection after the fact, which is late
and wasteful in the manufacturing cycle.

Obviously you know nothing about manufacturing as your statement is
essentially babble.

Some do, some don't, it depends on the device and parameter in question.

Well, digital devices usually work perfectly up to a point, and then fail
catastrophically. Most other devices show signs of wear and tear.
Unfortunately, this is very true of CRTs, which is one of their serious
drawbacks.

All totally irrelevant to the discussion.

And FYI, digital devices also have tolerances for things like rise time
and slew rate to name just a couple.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jun 27, 11:22*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

often translates to inspection after the fact,

WRONG

If not, please provide proof / studies that the readership can make
their own judgement.

Let me guess, YOU WON'T.