Corporate evil

[Xann]

Iceland's banned Christmas 2018 advert.

 

 

[A'Villan]

I find the Bilderberg Group to be a bit suspicious.

[Xann]

A film Nestle really doesn't want you to watch.

Turn on the captions for English subs.

[villakram]

4 hours ago, Xann said:

A film Nestle really doesn't want you to watch.

Turn on the captions for English subs.

 

Alternate working link for those of us in the US, where cooperations are people and in Michigan where the fine Nestle cooperation has a sweetheart deal to essentially print money selling bottled water they purchase access to at a disgustingly low rate.

[OutByEaster?]

Really good documentary on the BBC about Dupont and C8, a chemical in Teflon and Scotch-guard that causes cancers and some other horrible conditions - the effect that it had on the local population after Dupont dumped it into the local rivers and air and the way they covered it up and carried on for forty years.

They settled for $670m.

 

[Xann]

Quote

 

Improved regulation needed as pesticides found to affect genes in bees

Scientists are urging for improved regulation on pesticides after finding that they affect genes in bumblebees, according to research led by Queen Mary University of London in collaboration with Imperial College London.

For the first time, researchers applied a biomedically inspired approach to examine potential changes in the 12,000 genes that make up bumblebee workers and queens after pesticide exposure.

The study, published in Molecular Ecology, shows that genes which may be involved in a broad range of biological processes are affected.

They also found that queens and workers respond differently to pesticide exposure and that one pesticide they tested had much stronger effects than the other did.

Other recent studies, including previous work by the authors, have revealed that exposure even to low doses of these neurotoxic pesticides is detrimental to colony function and survival as it impairs bee behaviours including the ability to obtain pollen and nectar from flowers and the ability to locate their nests.

This new approach provides high-resolution information about what is happening at a molecular level inside the bodies of the bumblebees.

Some of these changes in gene activity may represent the mechanisms that link intoxification to impaired behaviour.

 

Queen Mary University

[peterms]

The Boeing crashes raise some big questions about the company's conduct.

Some tweets I saw a few days ago and didn't bookmark, apparently from someone with knowledge of the background, said something on these lines:

Airlines need better fuel economy.  Airbus and Boeing developed engines to provide that, with Airbus getting there first, meaning a competitive advantage.  The Boeing engines didn't suit the existing frame and had to be mounted differently, changing the weight balance and flying characteristics.  Software was developed to address this, basically changing the nose direction downward if a sensor showed the flight angle required it.  This overrode both auto and manual controls.  But pilots were not advised of this or trained on it (again a cost saving measure, to present the new engine as not requiring expensive retraining), and a linked safety system was not fitted but was offered as a paid extra - presumably airlines wern't told how critical it was.  So on both flights that crashed, this software started to force the nose down, when the pilots corrected it, the system reasserted itself again, and the pilots didn't know what was happening or how to stop it.  There may also be issues about regulatory capture, with the FAA having delegated to Boeing the approval of some safety features on its own planes.

I gather the FBI are now involved in the investigation.

Article here that covers some of this ground. 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/boeing-737-max-8-scandal-grows-doomed-lion-air-flight-should-never-have-flown?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning

Quote

Should Boeing and the world’s air safety regulators have moved faster to question the safety of the 737 MAX-8 after the crash of Lion Air Flight 610 last October and grounded the world’s fleets of the new model, as they later did?

Had they done so, that would probably have prevented the second catastrophic crash in Ethiopia that killed 157 people because of striking similarities between the two events.

These acute questions arise after two new reports have switched attention back to that first crash in Indonesia that killed 189 people.

Reuters reported Wednesday that three sources revealed to them snatches of conversation between the Lion Air pilots recorded on the cockpit voice recorder.

It was already known that for a large part of the 11-minute flight following takeoff from Jakarta the pilots were engaged in a losing struggle to regain control of the airplane from a rogue computer-directed action that was forcing down the nose of the airplane. Eventually it entered a terrifying dive into the Java Sea.

According to the Reuters account, the captain asked the copilot to go through the quick reference flight manual for help in identifying what was happening. Reportedly neither realized that their command of the flight was being overridden by the computers.

Boeing subsequently admitted that the manual did not include any reference to the existence of the malfunctioning system, Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, MCAS, nor had the pilots been made aware of it during training to prepare them for switching to the new model 737 from the previous model.

The pilots basically pulled the plug on the rogue system by reverting to manual control, flipping two switches to cut off the computerized flight management system and giving back to them control of the horizontal stabilizer–the main control surface in the tail that was forcing down the nose.

With the computers disengaged the pilots were able safely to hand-fly the airplane to its destination, Jakarta.

These two accounts now bring renewed focus on what happened to that airplane as it sat in Jakarta overnight before its fatal flight.

Lion Air has said that the pilots reported the incident and that the aircraft’s systems were fully checked and it was cleared to fly.

Not only is that now in question but it puts the airline itself and its maintenance practices at the center of the crash investigation. It is already established that the system forcing down the nose, MCAS, was doing so because it was receiving false readings from a sensor in the nose of the MAX-8–a sensor designed to detect if the airplane is nosing up into an aerodynamic stall.

If the fault in that airplane on that day had been traced to the sensor it could not have left the gate before the sensor was replaced and the new sensor checked. The fact that the flight was allowed to leave the gate will be a key part of the investigation now under way, and the outcome could be very damning for Lion Air.

Experts on flight control systems are debating why Boeing decided not to disclose the presence of a few lines of code buried deep in the airplane’s avionics software.

MCAS was not an update; it was a patch to fix a problem that first showed up in Boeing’s wind tunnel tests to show how the MAX-8 behaved in some of the outer edges of the flight envelope.

A pilot with long experience of developing new systems told The Daily Beast that the specific problem that showed up in the wind tunnel, a risk of an aerodynamic stall during a steep turn, would occur very rarely, if at all, during normal airline operations.

Nonetheless Boeing recognized that it was a risk introduced with the MAX-8 that had not been present in earlier 737 models and that it had to be addressed. What seems not to have been anticipated is that a false reading in a single sensor could trigger the MCAS and have a fatal result.

The possibility of a single-point failure is in itself of great concern–all critical control systems are supposed to have at least one backup system.

The sequence of failures in the Lion Air MAX-8 was identified within a week of the disaster, when it was also disclosed that Boeing had not included MCAS in the flight manual.

The Ethiopian crash suggests that many pilots flying the new model 737 remained unaware of how to deal with a repeat of the Lion Air sequence of events–though the revelation about the third pilot who saved the earlier flight indicates that others did. And so the fate of passengers was left to chance for five months, until another 157 people died.

 

[OutByEaster?]

The BBC's documentary on The Secrets of Silicon Valley include the not entirely surprising fact that Apple are contesting a $6.8bn tax bill in the US. Thankfully, they've offered to settle and pay $57m. 

 

[blandy]

16 hours ago, peterms said:

The Boeing crashes raise some big questions about the company's conduct.

Yes.

Going on what the article says, and with some knowledge of aircraft safety, it would appear that there are (as is almost always the case) multiple factors here. The article doesn't "order" them, so I'll have a go.

Firstly, the root cause: The article says "The possibility of a single-point failure is in itself of great concern–all critical control systems are supposed to have at least one backup system". Assuming the overall content of the article is right, then this is the core issue. It is a design failing, compounded by a safety case failing. Any function which if it fails can can cause a catastrophic hazard (e.g. loss of life) needs to be mitigated such that the probability of occurrence is reduced to highly improbable (typically in the order of 1 x 10-7 per flying hour or less). This typically achieved via (depending on the system performing the function) duplex, or triplex, or 4 channel architecture, maybe using dissimilar components, DAL class A software, high integrity and reliability components.... plus procedure, training, regular testing and checks, built in test...etc. etc. So a design incorporating single sensor which if it fails could lead to a catastrophic event is verboten and should be picked up by the safety analysis done by Boeing engineers and by independent oversight. There are all kinds of rules and standards on this.

Everything else is secondary to this. Compounding the original problem with the design. I think, based on what you've posted, that the notion raised of overcoming a handling issue via (in this case) software, is not in itself "wrong" or at fault. It's a legitimate step to take. Whether it was implemented optimally, I guess we'll find out. Whether the core need for it was found and understood is also another thing to be investigated.

The "option" for a linked safety system is likely to found to be another misjudgement  - you would expect it to be, however funded, mandatory.

Training, again, a key factor. That pilots, seemingly aware of the issue could address the problem and prevent disaster suggests that (obviously) the design fault should have been rectified before any further flights were permitted AND that the fault should have been fixed AND that notices should have been sent out AND that training of all crew should have been implemented, and only then should flights have been permitted to recommence.

Delegation to Boeing of some safety approval authority is not in itself a failing. Boeing (if what you say is right) seeming to fall short of the required rigour before exercising that approval authority is a failing. Boeing is no less intrinsically capable of discharging that authority than some civil servants (experts) in the FAA. Even if you consider the worst aspect of human behaviour in this area - a suspicion that "well perhaps the delegated signatories would have been felt financial pressure to turn a blind eye, or act one way, rather than another, FAA administrators would not have been immune to any similar (hypothetical) pressures. There is also, I am confident a very strict legal personal liability on any delegated authority as individuals, to perform that role iaw a strict set of rules. There is no wriggle room permitted at all. Punishment would be very severe.

Sorry, that's just a skim answer, but it's long enough...

[peterms]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

There is no wriggle room permitted at all. Punishment would be very severe.

The suggestion is that corners may have been cut to present cost savings, in which case there should be some kind of record of discussions or decisions which the FBI would uncover.

Another article says that Boeing supply aircraft with inadequate safety precautions, aiming to offer them at extra cost.

Quote

...Boeing charges extra, for example, for a backup fire extinguisher in the cargo hold. Past incidents have shown that a single extinguishing system may not be enough to put out flames that spread rapidly through the plane. Regulators in Japan require airlines there to install backup fire extinguishing systems, but the F.A.A. does not.

“There are so many things that should not be optional, and many airlines want the cheapest airplane you can get,” said Mark H. Goodrich, an aviation lawyer and former engineering test pilot. “And Boeing is able to say, ‘Hey, it was available.’”

But what Boeing doesn’t say, he added, is that it has become “a great profit center” for the manufacturer.

Both Boeing and its airline customers have taken pains to keep these options, and prices, out of the public eye. Airlines frequently redact details of the features they opt to pay for — or exclude — from their filings with financial regulators. Boeing declined to disclose the full menu of safety features it offers as options on the 737 Max, or how much they cost...

 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

The suggestion is that corners may have been cut to present cost savings, in which case there should be some kind of record of discussions or decisions which the FBI would uncover.

Another article says that Boeing supply aircraft with inadequate safety precautions, aiming to offer them at extra cost.

 

"Regulators in Japan require airlines there to install backup fire extinguishing systems, but the F.A.A. does not."....what Boeing doesn’t say, he added, is that it has become “a great profit center” for the manufacturer..."

From that, it (the first bit in bold) tends to support what I said about delegating FAA responsibility not being a cure - if them's the rules, the Boeing delegated authority would be abiding (in that aspect) by the exact FAA mandate. The second bit in bold doesn't stand up - they'd make additional money on selling the back up system - so not selling them does not contribute additional profit, it will slightly reduce it.

It's more complex than the articles imply. There are good reasons to not detail what options are included or excluded from airline accounts. Financial regulators regulate finance, not safety, and they're not remotely qualified to audit safety.

"There are so many things that should not be optional" - Exactly, also, as I said.

to me, based only on what you've posted, it looks like regulatory, engineering design, training, airline etc. ..as I said..multiple factors caused/contributed to the crashes. It's almost always the case. Profit margins will be way down the list, if at all a factor, I'd guess, based on what you've posted.

[Xela]

Is the FBI, NTSB or FAA really going to hang Boeing out to dry? 

[OutByEaster?]

5 minutes ago, Xela said:

Is the FBI, NTSB or FAA really going to hang Boeing out to dry? 

Never in a million years.

Boeing is a key US defence supplier and part of the corporate structure that's intrinsically linked with the function of US government - between 2000 and 2014 the US Government pushed $64bn dollars into Boeing to protect it from competition - it's not going to now allow one its own bodies to interfere with the company at any level. 

[OutByEaster?]

There's a interesting thing here about corporate socialism that talks a bit about Boeing.

http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/UncleSamsFavoriteCorporations.pd

Quote

A small number of companies have obtained large subsidies at all levels of government. Eleven parent companies among the 50 largest recipients of federal grants and allocated tax credits are also among the top 50 recipients of state and local subsidies. Six of the 50 largest recipients of federal loans, loan guarantees and bailout assistance are also on that state/local list. Five companies appear on both federal lists and the state/local list: Boeing, Ford Motor, General Electric, General Motors and JPMorgan Chase.

 

[peterms]

6 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Never in a million years.

Boeing is a key US defence supplier and part of the corporate structure that's intrinsically linked with the function of US government - between 2000 and 2014 the US Government pushed $64bn dollars into Boeing to protect it from competition - it's not going to now allow one its own bodies to interfere with the company at any level. 

It's also apparently one of the firms most deeply embedded with both Democrats and Republicans, and Trump has just appointed as Defence Secretary someone who worked there for 30 years.  Obama did likewise.

A special relationship

Quote

As a top economic adviser to President Bill Clinton, Dorothy Robyn was charged with advancing America's aerospace industry.

Part of the job was not choosing sides between companies. But there was one exception: Boeing.

"It was the one company for which I could be an out-and-out advocate," Robyn said Thursday. In competitions between American companies, the administration as a rule remained neutral. But Boeing's commercial airplane division employed tens of thousands of Americans and its prime competition, Airbus, was in Europe.

"In the engines business, you can't choose between GE and Pratt & Whitney. With Boeing, that's it. They're ours. It is the only sector where we have a de facto national champion and you can be an out-and-out advocate for it."

For Boeing's 102-year history, dating to the start of the First World War, the company and the country have relied upon one another, together creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, outfitting the United States with top military aircraft and supplying planes worldwide to allow the growth of passenger air travel and to boost US exports.

Now, however, with Boeing and US regulators facing criticism for appearing slow to react to the crash of a Boeing 737 Max 8 jet in Ethiopia, Boeing's intermingled interests with the US government are coming under new scrutiny.

There is much to examine.

For decades, US presidents have advocated for the company's interests and for the past 30 years they have done so while flying primarily on the two Boeing VC-25As that serve as Air Force One when the president is on them.

President Barack Obama hired members of the Boeing board to serve as his chief of staff and commerce secretary. Against Republican opposition, he fiercely defended the federal Export-Import Bank, which has subsidised so many airline sales to foreign airline carriers by offering loan guarantees that conservative critics have derided it as "Boeing's Bank."

"I have to say that, given the number of planes that I've been selling around the world, I expect a gold watch upon my retirement," Obama said at a Boeing plant in 2012.

 

[bickster]

I believe Boing has donated record amounts to the GOP in the last week or so. Sure I saw some tweets to that effect in the last few days

[blandy]

12 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Never in a million years.

Boeing is a key US defence supplier and part of the corporate structure that's intrinsically linked with the function of US government - between 2000 and 2014 the US Government pushed $64bn dollars into Boeing to protect it from competition - it's not going to now allow one its own bodies to interfere with the company at any level. 

The US is very, very protective and protectionist towards its tech. companies. France, by the way, is the same.

The only aspect that will differ is that if Boeing is found responsible or partly responsible for these crashes, government favour won’t save them from the legal repercussions. Protectionist as it is, the US is also not averse to massive corporate penalties.

[peterms]

2 hours ago, bickster said:

I believe Boing has donated record amounts to the GOP in the last week or so. Sure I saw some tweets to that effect in the last few days

Is that their West Bromwich subsidiary?

[bickster]

1 minute ago, peterms said:

Is that their West Bromwich subsidiary?

It's either that or the sound they make when the nose drops

[OutByEaster?]

4 hours ago, blandy said:

The only aspect that will differ is that if Boeing is found responsible or partly responsible for these crashes, government favour won’t save them from the legal repercussions. 

It can't save them from there repercussions, but it can have a big influence on the "being found responsible" bit. I'm sure there's much that can be done in a creative sense to ensure that the core business remains unaffected.