Quote:
Originally Posted by SD1too
When the first Boeing 737 Max crashed in Indonesia you would have upheld the manufacturer's position. How could an accomplished company such as Boeing possibly be wrong? How could the fate of a single aeroplane be significant? When the second crash occurred you would still have defended Boeing for the same corporate and statistical reasons. Fortunately the rest of the world became suspicious. Even though only two flights out of probably hundreds were involved, the evidence was there that something was amiss and blaming the pilots didn't wash any more.
I hope that you can see the parallel here, though I think that your ego will continue to reign supreme.
Simon
|
Erm what? This is a rather disturbing analogy. Leaving aside the irrelevance (because the faulty Boeing components had specific but miscalculated parameters or variables misunderstood) and lives lost, it demonstrates to me that you do not understand the concept of erring on the side of caution, nor margins of error.
But since you have used it, I will direct the same analogy to your guidance on the belts. Boeing, currently are being investigated, and are likely to be held culpable for the deaths of all those on board, as well as the compensating companies who purchased the aircraft. So with this analogy, you are saying now is that you, the advice giver, WILL stand over all engines and labour involved, damaged by a snapped belt, if its change has been ignored after reading your guidance (obviously with the proviso, that the pulleys and tensioners have all been checked and spin freely).
A company can be wrong (as can an individual), however the difference is, these companies stand over their mistakes and compensate for them. Companies avoid these positions by building the margins of error to accommodate variables, ie different uses of materials or different driving styles and locations. Their position is not about making money, but rather about not losing it.
Sent from my SM-A600FN using Tapatalk