• PsychedSy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    7 months ago

    In aircraft, with unions, that always falls on the company. Management is too busy sucking the next level’s dick or too fucking stupid to do anything but shuffle problems. It’s special.

    • AlpacaChariot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I think unfortunately most people shy away from technical things including reading technical documentation. The answer to that problem is to have someone in the team on site who does read it and supervises all the people who can’t or won’t (i.e. an actual engineer). I can see how the profit motive drives companies to cut these people out but it should be seen as essential part of the process for safety reasons.

      In civil / structural engineering, quite a lot of UK legislation and codes of practice has been developed following government reports into engineering failures, such as:

      Loddon Bridge disaster --> Bragg report --> BS5975 code of practice for temporary works design

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loddon_Bridge_disaster

      West Gate Yara bridge collapse --> Merrison Report --> system of independent design checking and competency requirements

      https://www.istructe.org/resources/blog/learning-from-history-box-girder-bridges/

      I’m not an aerospace engineer but I’d like to think that something similar will happen in this case, although to be honest I’d be surprised if the legislation doesn’t exist already.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        In industrial engineering we do do that and we break it down into plain English. And sometimes they even make the operators actually fucking read what we wrote