Originally Posted by
MarineEngineer
There are none, because there is nothing wrong with the time-proven design. The issue is with Quality Control.
With all due respect, some points:
1. “Nothing” is an absolute term, aerospace is more about probabilities, … example: structures are not systems, which moves them to another ball park,
2. If design is at fault … we don’t know, … there are a number of open design questions…
3. If QC is at fault … we don’t know, … but we know both Spirit and Boeing have had serious QA/QC problems over the last few years… even O’Leary says it’s not right…
4. … most important …in aerospace there are a number of significant steps between design and QC… (you can’t compare aerospace in this respect to marine or automotive design & manufacture .. )…
5. theoretically speaking, based on the original definitions of Quality… you might say that if the whole integral process would run as it is meant to, you would not need QA/QC at all, it is like a “buffer” which theoretically should be empty… in line with that the term “quality escape” used by Calhoun sounds non-sensical to some, they would say from their viewpoint “it was so bad, not even QA/QC caught it” … that organisations may push activities into QA/QC that theoretically don’t belong there muddies the waters …blaming QX moves you away from fundamental causes…
we still need much more and much better information… would be interesting to have the docket filling up with checked factual information during the investigation…. hope to see that in my lifetime ;-)