nick76 Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 35 minutes ago, DJBOB said: It's an imperfect process with a large MOE but would be foolish to discount the general picture. I don’t think we should discount it but for many reasons it has become less reliable materially than of decades gone by and it’s not telling anymore than it’s close which we know anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted March 21 Author Share Posted March 21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick76 Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 14 hours ago, DJBOB said: The outliers push the average, but this would be the case in years favoring the Democrats. Again - the overall picture remains bleak but squint and you'll see it moving to the logical conclusion that it will be a very, very tight race. even more polls and now even the economist/you gov has gone from +2 Trump to +1 Biden and now Biden overall is leading 45-44. It just makes a mockery of it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick76 Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick76 Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 21 Moderator Share Posted March 21 16 hours ago, Genie said: It’s a massive failure of the engineering / manufacturing, the system should not let it progress if not done. As I mentioned previously, in automotive the process would be controlled by systems. Basic FMEA. The effect of the failure would be a 10, so a very good control is needed to get the likelihood of it happening to a 1. If they genuinely are relying on a human doing a visual check for such critical joints I might start driving to Spain. The process, whether controlled by systems or by humans is essentially the same. If someone inputs that they have done the task and then a supervisor inputs that they have checked, the system says “ok”. In terms of FMECA/FMEA and supporting FTA and hazard analysis it would (in aerospace) be something like this: A top level catastrophic hazard of “loss of structural integrity”. Below that, all possible contributing hazards, from bird strikes, to fatigue, to engine break up and debris penetrating the structure, and (for doors and panels) failure or loss of fastenings. In terms of this door panel it was (or should have been) held in place by 4 bolts, plus n rivets. Failure/loss of (say) 1 bolt would have been determined at the design stage not to cause loss of the door, maybe also 2 bolts, ditto, so the engineering and design mandates 4 bolts to make the hazard of loss of door ALARP. In addition, build/ maintenance processes would clearly require the 4 bolts to be fitted correctly and to be of the required quality and integrity and strength. Boeing’s license to build and certify aircraft, as granted by the FAA, would be predicated on production processes which would include SQEP fitters, inspectors, QC, QA etc and build instructions and records being clear, correct and unambiguous. Tool control, parts control…all kinds. Those are and were almost certainly all in place. The difficulty arises because 2 people (at least) failed to do what they were required to do, and very possibly more than two people. We don’t know why they didn’t. That’s what needs resolving. Its likely that part of the reason they didn’t is the too linked/non independent oversight of Boeing which the FAA is supposed to have, but which US Politics has at best allowed to wither and at worst has actively enabled/ encouraged in the name of US Corporate interest. This has led to Boeing becoming lax in managing safety, as recent incidents have shown. So on one level it’s a US Government creeping failure and on another it’s disgruntled/ tired / rushed technicians failing to do their job. It’s not a pattern failure like defective batch of bolts, it’s not a design or engineering failure, like specifying low quality components or not requiring enough bolts to hold the panel in place. It’s a manufacturing/ maintenance failure caused by willful or accidental personnel (fitter) error, compounded by a second personnel error (inspection). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 (edited) 15 minutes ago, blandy said: The process, whether controlled by systems or by humans is essentially the same. If someone inputs that they have done the task and then a supervisor inputs that they have checked, the system says “ok”. The system should not allow the human to declare if it has been done. The computer waits for the operator to use their tool on the fixing. The tool is connected to the computer. If the computer detects it has been done, the correct number of turns to indicate it is fully home and the correct torque to indicate it is fully tightened the assembly process can continue. If not then it cannot continue. This is how it works in automotive for any joints declared as “significant” or “critical”. I’d assume fastening a door in place in a plane has the highest level of severity. I’d also assume companies like Boeing have proper controls like I see in the automotive world. As I mentioned before, the joint could have been done up absolutely perfect by the fitter/technician but has failed for another reason (such as the engineer assigning an incorrect torque, material, plating, hardness etc). There was a high profile case in the US & Canada where the motors were coming away from steering gears. They were bolted together perfectly, but still dropping off a couple of years down the line. The issue was that the fixings that bolted the motor to the housing did not have a thick enough layer of corrosion protection (zinc plating). Markets which used salt on the roads in the winter saw a number of these failures. Salt got into the gap between the 2 parts and ate away and the fixings eventually causing them to crack. It was nothing to do with cutting corners or penny pinching, or that the person putting the parts together wasn’t doing his/her job properly. It’s just an engineering miss. Edited March 21 by Genie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 21 Moderator Share Posted March 21 3 minutes ago, Genie said: The system should not allow the human to declare if it has been done. The computer waits for the operator to use their tool on the fixing. The tool is connected to the computer. If the computer detects it has been done, the correct number of turns to indicate it is fully home and the correct torque to indicate it is fully tightened the assembly process can continue. If not then it cannot continue. This is how it works in automotive for any joints declared as “significant” or “critical”. I’d assume fastening a door in place in a plane has the highest level of severity. I’d also assume companies like Boeing have proper controls like I see in the automotive world. As I mentioned before, the joint could have been done up absolutely perfect by the fitter/technician but has failed for another reason (such as the engineer assigning an incorrect torque, material, plating, hardness etc). There was a high profile case in the US & Canada where the motors were coming away from steering gears. They were bolted together perfectly, but still dropping off a couple of years down the line. The issue was that the fixings that bolted the motor to the housing did not have a thick enough layer of corrosion protection (zinc plating). Markets which used salt on the roads in the winter saw a number of these failures. Salt got into the gap between the 2 parts and ate away and the fixings eventually causing them to crack. It was nothing to do with cutting corners or penny pinching, or that the person putting the parts together wasn’t doing his/her job properly. It’s just an engineering miss. My experience is military aircraft manufacturing not civil, but anyway I’m unaware of the fitting of bolts being monitored in the way you describe for whole aircraft. I don’t think in this case incorrect torque specification, or component failure, or incorrect or inadequate bolt specification or quality is (from what we know) a credible cause of the door failure. If the parts had failed, given this incident occurred months ago, there would have been aircraft grounded until the bolts in all of them had been replaced. For a few years (admittedly a long while ago now) I ran a team whose whole job was monitoring and investigating all failures (including human error) across several different aircraft build programmes, mainly Typhoon, and for all sorts of reasons this one absolutely shouts “human error” ( based on available reporting and the absence of any mention of component failure). If it had been component related a whole ton of stuff would have happened by now and been reported, given the scrutiny on Boeing following the crashes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rds1983 Posted March 21 VT Supporter Share Posted March 21 1 hour ago, nick76 said: I dont want Trump to win, but I'm also not comfortable with the fact that he's likely to lose because he has raised less money. Elect the best candidate/party for the job, not the one who is best at fundraising/lobbying. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 21 Moderator Share Posted March 21 39 minutes ago, Rds1983 said: I dont want Trump to win, but I'm also not comfortable with the fact that he's likely to lose because he has raised less money. Elect the best candidate/party for the job, not the one who is best at fundraising/lobbying. The only way to disprove the first sentence in this election is for Trump to win. It also assumes Trump will lose I get where you are coming from and yes election spending limits would be more democratic but in this election for sure, there will not be a direct correlation between spending and votes unless the funding figures dramatically change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 1 hour ago, Rds1983 said: I dont want Trump to win, but I'm also not comfortable with the fact that he's likely to lose because he has raised less money. Elect the best candidate/party for the job, not the one who is best at fundraising/lobbying. I think much like the bond dealers, people are likely giving less because so much of what they have been giving has been used on other stuff like paying for legal cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick76 Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 1 hour ago, Rds1983 said: I dont want Trump to win, but I'm also not comfortable with the fact that he's likely to lose because he has raised less money. Elect the best candidate/party for the job, not the one who is best at fundraising/lobbying. Yeah but in America for example, money wins elections and has done for decades. You have to pump in money into the right places which does have a massive impact. More money does give you a massive advantage….I love West Wing tv series and watched it a number of times and it shows within that how focused and big deal money is vital in any race, distributed well in states and how much you have (yes I know only a show but the consultants to the writer(s) helped give a real view of that period of elections). The elect best candidate/party for the job has never been the main factor for decades unfortunately and will likely be no different this time. In a perfect world I agree but in reality it’s about money and a few major issue like abortion etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick76 Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 8 minutes ago, colhint said: I think much like the bond dealers, people are likely giving less because so much of what they have been giving has been used on other stuff like paying for legal cases. Trump’s PAC paid an average $230,000 per day in legal fees during the month of February Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post limpid Posted March 21 Administrator Popular Post Share Posted March 21 5 minutes ago, nick76 said: The elect best candidate/party for the job has never been the main factor for decades unfortunately and will likely be no different this time. In a perfect world I agree but in reality it’s about money and a few major issue like abortion etc. In normal times, the USA gets to choose between a right wing nutter and a slightly less right wing nutter. Toss of a coin. It means a little more when one candidate's stated and demonstrated position is to suspend the constitution. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick76 Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 And so it begins… Pre-steps to seizing are beginning to happen… 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 8 hours ago, Rds1983 said: I dont want Trump to win, but I'm also not comfortable with the fact that he's likely to lose because he has raised less money. Elect the best candidate/party for the job, not the one who is best at fundraising/lobbying. The USA is not a democracy and more like a plutocracy, which they call a republic, this was deliberate by the founders because they didn't want the mob to tyrannise property-owners. Obama spent more than $400m dollars getting elected. Clinton spent $565 million. Trump spent $322m which included $66m of his own money. When Chomsky says there's no difference between the parties, it's dufficult to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 (edited) So Congressman Ken Buck of Colorado (republican) will vacate his seat today. He didn't tell MAGA-Mike, and Lauren Boebert was set to take over his seat at the end of this term. Now that Ken Buck (not MAGA) left early Lauren will either have to leave her current seat in Colorado to join the special election for the now vacant 'safer seat', or stay in her seat and likely get voted out next time around. Ken Buck has literally played 4d chess with MAGA. This risks the republican majority in congress. Ken was tired of the idiocy from MGT, Boebert and the rest of the clown gang, so he leaves the ship very much on fire. Well done Ken. Now Ukraine might get some aid. Boebert was set to leave her seat (3rd district) to the safer seat of Ken Buck, so either she runs in the special election in Ken's seat, or she risks losing her own seat in the 3rd district as people there are frankly tired of her theatrics. Brilliant. Edited March 22 by magnkarl 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 Quote Donald Trump appears to be scrambling for funds to pay a $464m (£365m) fraud fine. Could the stock market ride to his rescue? Trump Media, which runs the social media platform Truth Social, is poised to become a publicly listed company, with shareholders of Digital World Acquisition Corp set to vote on Friday on whether to acquire it. Mr Trump would have a stake of at least 58% in the merged company, worth more than $3bn at Digital World's current share prices. Digital World, or DWAC (pronounced D-whack), is what is known as a SPAC, or a shell business created expressly to buy another firm and take it public. It's an astonishing potential windfall for Mr Trump in exchange for a business whose own auditor warned last year it was at risk of failure. This would be annoying. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68609007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted March 22 Administrator Share Posted March 22 42 minutes ago, Genie said: This would be annoying. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68609007 He's being sued by the other founders which means he won't get them to agree to let him sell shares before IPO plus six months. Also the SEC will investigate (if they aren't already) as this particular financial instrument (blank cheque company / SPAC) expects that the target of the acquisition is kept anonymous to isolate from insider trading. These instruments often lead to extensive legal action after IPO and they have fallen out of favour at least in part because of this. Also, if Trump attempts to sell a chunk of his holding, the price will fall sharply so he'd never realise near this value. See Tesla share price when Musk sells shares. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJBOB Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 What's interesting about this is this not only shoots past the Biden to Trump voters theory - but also postulates that not only will people switch from Biden to Trump, but also then vote for a Democratic Senator as well. Can it happen? Crazier things have happened, but exceedingly difficult to try and reconcile two disparate points. Of course - the simplest explanation is usually the most reasonable one - Americans are just dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts