Connect with us

Sci-Tech

How Boeing Favored Speed Over Quality for the 737 Max

Published

on


In February last year, a new Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 Max plane was on one of its first flights when an automated stabilizing system appeared to malfunction, forcing the pilots to make an emergency landing soon after they took off.

Less than two months later, an Alaska Airlines 737 Max plane with eight hours of total flight time was briefly grounded until mechanics resolved a problem with a fire detection system. And in November, an engine on a just-delivered United Airlines 737 Max failed at 37,000 feet.

These incidents, which the airlines disclosed to the Federal Aviation Administration, were not widely reported. There were no indications that anyone was in danger, and it was not clear who was ultimately responsible for those problems. But since Jan. 5, when a panel on a two-month-old Alaska Airlines 737 Max 9 jet blew off in midair, episodes like these have taken on new resonance, raising further questions about the quality of the planes Boeing is producing.

“There’s a lot of areas where things don’t seem to be put together right in the first place,” said Joe Jacobsen, an engineer and aviation safety expert who spent more than a decade at Boeing and more than 25 years at the F.A.A.

“The theme is shortcuts everywhere — not doing the job right,” he added.

Such reports, and interviews with aviation safety experts and more than two dozen current and former Boeing employees, paint a worrying picture about a company long considered to be at the pinnacle of American engineering. They suggest that Boeing is struggling to improve quality years after two crashes of Max 8 planes in 2018 and 2019 killed nearly 350 people.

Some of the crucial layers of redundancies that are supposed to ensure that Boeing’s planes are safe appear to be strained, the people said. The experience level of Boeing’s work force has dropped since the start of the pandemic. The inspection process intended to provide a vital check on work done by its mechanics has been weakened over the years. And some suppliers have struggled to adhere to quality standards while producing parts at the pace Boeing wanted them.

Under pressure to show regulators, airlines and passengers that the company is taking its latest crisis seriously, Boeing announced sweeping changes to its leadership on Monday. The chief executive, Dave Calhoun, will leave at the end of the year, and Stan Deal, the head of the commercial planes division, which makes the 737 Max, retired immediately. The company’s chairman, Larry Kellner, stepped down from that position and will not seek re-election to the board.

When he took the top job in January 2020, Mr. Calhoun said he was determined to improve the company’s safety culture. It added directors with engineering and safety expertise and created a safety committee on its board. Boeing said that it had increased the number of quality inspectors for commercial planes by 20 percent since 2019 and that inspections per plane had also risen.

After the Max 8 crashes, Boeing and its regulators focused most on the cause of those accidents: flawed design and software. Yet some current and former employees say problems with manufacturing quality were also apparent to them at the time and should have been to executives and regulators as well.

After the Jan. 5 mishap, a six-week F.A.A. audit of Boeing’s 737 Max production documented dozens of lapses in Boeing’s quality-control practices. The agency has given the company three months, or until about late May, to address quality-control issues.

Federal officials have traced the panel blowout to Boeing’s factory in Renton, Wash., where the 737 Max is assembled. According to the National Transportation Safety Board, the panel was removed but appeared to have been reinstalled without bolts that secured it in place. That panel is known as a “door plug” and is used to cover the gap left by an unneeded emergency exit.

Current and former Boeing employees said the incident reflected longstanding problems. Several said employees often faced intense pressure to meet production deadlines, sometimes leading to questionable practices that they feared could compromise quality and safety.

Davin Fischer, a former mechanic in Renton, who also spoke to the Seattle TV station KIRO 7, said he noticed a cultural shift starting around 2017, when the company introduced the Max.

“They were trying to get the plane rate up and then just kept crunching, crunching and crunching to go faster, faster, faster,” he said.

The Max was introduced in response to a new fuel-efficient plane from the European manufacturer Airbus. Boeing increased production from about 42 Max jets a month in early 2017 to about 52 the next year. That pace collapsed to virtually zero soon after the second crash, in Ethiopia, when regulators around the world grounded the plane. Flights aboard the Max resumed in late 2020, and the company began to increase production again to avoid falling further behind Airbus.

Now, some Boeing executives admit that they made mistakes.

“For years, we prioritized the movement of the airplane through the factory over getting it done right, and that’s got to change,” Brian West, the company’s chief financial officer, said at an investor conference last week.

Mr. Calhoun has also acknowledged that Boeing must improve but has defended the company’s approach to production. “Over the last several years, we’ve taken close care not to push the system too fast, and we have never hesitated to slow down, to halt production or to stop deliveries to take the time we need to get things right,” he said in January.

Current and former Boeing employees, most of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to reporters and feared retaliation, offered examples of how quality has suffered over the years. Many said they still respected the company and its employees and wanted Boeing to succeed.

One quality manager in Washington State who left Boeing last year said workers assembling planes would sometimes try to install parts that had not been logged or inspected, an attempt to save time by circumventing quality procedures intended to weed out defective or substandard components.

In one case, the employee said, a worker sent parts from a receiving area straight to the factory floor before a required inspection.

A worker currently at Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner factory in North Charleston, S.C., described seeing numerous problems on planes being assembled, including wires being routed incorrectly, raising the risk that they could rub against one another, resulting in damage.

Employees would also sometimes go “inspector shopping” to find someone who would approve work, the worker said.

Some of the concerns echoed accusations of quality lapses by several whistle-blowers at Boeing’s South Carolina factory who spoke to The Times in 2019.

Several current and former employees in South Carolina and in Washington State said mechanics building planes were allowed in some instances to sign off on their own work. Such “self-verification” removes a crucial layer of quality control, they said.

Boeing said in a statement on Wednesday that it had eliminated self-inspections in South Carolina in 2021 and that the practice accounted for less than 10 percent of inspections at other sites. The company inspects each plane before delivery to make sure that wire bundles are appropriately spaced, the statement said, and it does not allow inspector shopping.

Another factor at play in recent years has been that Boeing’s workers have less experience than they did before the pandemic.

When the pandemic took hold in early 2020, air travel plummeted, and many aviation executives believed it would take years for passengers to return in large numbers. Boeing began to cut jobs and encouraged workers to take buyouts or retire early. It ultimately lost about 19,000 employees companywide — including some with decades of experience.

In late 2022, Boeing lost veteran engineers who retired to lock in bigger monthly pension payments, which were tied to interest rates, according to the union that represents them, the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace. More than 1,700 union members left the company that year, up from around 1,000 the year before. The members who left had been at the company for more than 23 years on average.

“We warned Boeing that it was going to lose a mountain of expertise, and we proposed some workarounds, but the company blew us off,” Ray Goforth, executive director of the union, said in a statement, adding that he thought the company used the retirements as an opportunity to cut costs by replacing veteran workers with “lower-paid entry-level engineers and technical workers.”

Boeing now employs 171,000 people, including in its commercial plane, defense, services and other divisions. That figure is up about 20 percent from the end of 2020. But many new workers are less seasoned, current and former employees said.

One Boeing employee who conducted quality inspections in Washington State until last year said the company did not always provide new employees with sufficient training, sometimes leaving them to learn crucial skills from more experienced colleagues.

Boeing said that since Jan. 5, employees had asked for more training and that it was working on meeting those needs, including by adding training on the factory floor this month.

District 751 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers union, which represents more than 30,000 Boeing employees, said the average tenure of its members had dropped sharply in recent years. The proportion of its members who have less than six years of experience has roughly doubled to 50 percent from 25 percent before the pandemic.

After the Jan. 5 incident, Boeing announced changes to improve quality, including adding inspections at its factory in Renton and at the plant in Wichita, Kan., owned by a supplier, Spirit AeroSystems, that makes the bodies of Max planes.

Boeing recently said it would no longer accept Max bodies from Spirit that still needed substantial work. It previously tolerated flaws that could be fixed later in the interest of keeping production on schedule.

Addressing its problems could take Boeing time, aviation experts said, frustrating airlines that need new planes.

Some carriers said recently that they were rejiggering their growth plans because they expected fewer planes from Boeing. Airlines may try to buy more from Airbus.

“They need to go slow to go fast,” Scott Kirby, the chief executive of United Airlines, told investors this month, referring to Boeing. “I think they’re doing that.”



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sci-Tech

Silicon Valley shaken as open-source AI models Llama 3.1 and Mistral Large 2 match industry leaders

Published

on


Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More


Open-source artificial intelligence has reached a watershed moment, challenging the long-held dominance of proprietary systems and promising to reshape the AI landscape.

This week, two significant developments have propelled open-source AI models to the forefront of technological capability, potentially democratizing access to cutting-edge AI tools.

On Tuesday, Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive of Meta, unveiled Llama 3.1, declaring it had achieved “frontier-level” status.

This bold claim suggests that Meta’s freely available AI now rivals the most advanced systems from industry leaders like OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic.

Just a day later, Mistral, an emerging French AI lab, released Mistral Large 2, a model that reportedly matches or surpasses existing top-tier systems, particularly in multilingual applications.

These back-to-back releases mark a pivotal shift in the AI world. For years, tech giants have jealously guarded their most powerful AI models, citing concerns over safety, potential misuse, and competitive advantage.

This week’s developments have shattered that paradigm, igniting debates about equity, innovation, and the ethical implications of democratizing such transformative technology.

Industry experts are hailing this week’s developments as a potential turning point in AI history, comparable to pivotal moments that have sparked technological revolutions in the past.

The sudden availability of frontier-level open-source models is expected to dramatically accelerate AI development globally, potentially reshaping entire industries and altering the balance of power in the tech world.

This rapid democratization of cutting-edge AI capabilities could usher in a new era of innovation and competition, with far-reaching consequences for businesses, researchers, and society at large.

Open-source challengers shake up the AI status quo

The implications of this week’s announcements are far-reaching. Smaller companies and individual developers can now access sophisticated AI capabilities without the hefty price tags or vendor lock-in associated with proprietary systems. This democratization could fuel an unprecedented wave of innovation, as diverse minds from around the globe contribute to and build upon these powerful tools.

However, the widespread availability of advanced AI also raises new challenges. Organizations must now grapple with how to differentiate themselves in a world where cutting-edge AI capabilities are becoming commoditized. The onus falls on business leaders and technical decision-makers to rapidly develop strategies that leverage these open technologies while adding unique value.

The geopolitical ramifications of this shift are equally significant. As AI becomes increasingly central to national competitiveness, the proliferation of open-source models could alter the global balance of power in technology. Countries and regions that effectively harness these openly available resources may gain significant advantages in AI development and application.

A double-edged sword: The thrilling and terrifying dawn of AI for all

Despite the excitement, skeptics urge caution in accepting claims of parity with top proprietary models at face value.

The AI field is known for its rapid advancements and shifting benchmarks, making “frontier-level” a moving target. Moreover, raw model capability is just one factor in AI system effectiveness; data quality, fine-tuning, and application-specific optimizations play crucial roles in real-world performance.

The abrupt open-sourcing of frontier-level AI also intensifies ongoing debates about AI safety and ethics. While transparency can aid in identifying and addressing biases or vulnerabilities, it may also lower barriers for malicious actors seeking to exploit these powerful tools. The AI community now faces the urgent challenge of striking a delicate balance between openness and responsible development.

For policymakers, this week’s developments underscore the critical need for adaptive regulatory frameworks that can keep pace with technological advancements while ensuring public safety and ethical use of AI. The tech industry may need to rapidly reevaluate business models and competitive strategies in a landscape where cutting-edge AI capabilities have suddenly become widely accessible.

Navigating the new frontier: Collaboration, ethics, and the future of AI

As the dust settles on this landmark week, the true impact of these milestones will be determined by how effectively the global community harnesses the potential of open-source AI while mitigating its risks.

The sudden democratization of frontier-level AI has the potential to accelerate innovation, reshape industries, and fundamentally alter our relationship with artificial intelligence.

In this new era, collaboration and ethical considerations will be paramount. The open-source AI revolution promises to unlock unprecedented possibilities, but it also demands a heightened sense of responsibility from developers, businesses, and society as a whole.

As we navigate this transformative period, one thing is clear: the future of AI is becoming more open, more accessible, and more participatory than ever before, and the pace of change is accelerating rapidly.



Source link
Continue Reading

Sci-Tech

ISPs are fighting to raise the price of low-income broadband

Published

on


A new government program is trying to encourage Internet service providers (ISPs) to offer lower rates for lower income customers by distributing federal funds through states. The only problem is the ISPs don’t want to offer the proposed rates.

 obtained a letter sent to US Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo signed by more than 30 broadband industry trade groups like ACA Connects and the Fiber Broadband Association as well as several state based organizations. The letter raises “both a sense of alarm and urgency” about their ability to participate in the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program. The newly formed BEAD program provides over $42 billion in federal funds to “expand high-speed internet access by funding planning, infrastructure, deployment and adoption programs” in states across the country, according to the (NTIA).

The money first goes to the NTIA and then it’s distributed to states after they obtain approval from the NTIA by presenting a low-cost broadband Internet option. The ISP industries’ letter claims a fixed rate of $30 per month for high speed Internet access is “completely unmoored from the economic realities of deploying and operating networks in the highest-cost, hardest-to-reach areas.”

The letter urges the NTIA to revise the low-cost service option rate proposed or approved so far. have completed all of the BEAD program’s phases.

Americans pay an average of $89 a month for Internet access. New Jersey has the highest average bill at $126 per month, according to a survey conducted by . A 2021 study from the found that 57 percent of households with an annual salary of $30,000 or less have a broadband connection.



Source link

Continue Reading

Sci-Tech

These transparent earbuds by Nothing made my AirPods look and sound boring

Published

on


A hand holding the Nothing Ear (a) earbuds

Nina Raemont/ZDNET

ZDNET’s key takeaways 

  • For $99, the new Nothing Ear (a) earbuds offer clear sound and a thoughtful design. 
  • Their affordability, comfort, and long battery life make them a great option for budget-conscious shoppers.
  • Unfortunately, its middling noise-canceling tech doesn’t protect you from external noises. 

Most of the audio tech on the market right now errs on the side of aesthetic caution. I’ve tested plenty of earbuds this year, and something I’ve noticed is that many manufacturers sacrifice style for functionality, opting for blacks, grays, and enough matte finishes to fit inside a therapist’s office — much to my chagrin. In the words of the late, great Andre Leon Talley, “it’s a famine of beauty” over here.  

Also: Why I ditched my AirPods Pro for Nothing’s new transparent earbuds (and don’t regret it)

So when Nothing sent me its new earbuds, I was excited to finally see a cool, fresh, and exciting design, and they’re worthy of a callout. I’ve been testing the new Nothing Ear (a) earbuds since launch, taking them on a ten-mile run, working deskside, and commuting on the subway with them in my ears. One question that informed my initial testing was: Despite their stylish design, how does the audio tech stack up to similarly-priced competitors?

View at Amazon

The Nothing Ear (a) advances on the specs from the brand’s Ear (1) earbuds from 2021. The new buds offer plenty of upgrades like improved active noise cancellation, transparency mode, longer battery life, Bluetooth multipoint, minimized latency for gaming, and pinch controls.

Also: The best earbuds of 2024: Expert tested and reviewed

Nothing plays with solid color and transparent accents and puts the two at the forefront of its product design. You can’t help but obsess over the brand’s unique visual appeal: a stripped-down design that reveals the inner workings of the technology cast against bold colors. The clear design of both the earbud case and the earbuds itself offers users an inside look into the tech’s internal components and an appreciation for what is often obscured. 

Nothing Ear (a) on a table

Nina Raemont/ZDNET

The earbuds come with three ear tip sizes in the box and are available in three colors: black, white, and yellow. I tried these buds in yellow, which is the first non-neutral color in Nothing’s earbud lineup. The color feels daring and bright and is just as much a fashion accessory as it is a tech accessory. 

Other competitive earbuds can’t say the same: I looked at my list of best earbuds to see if there was any color diversity and found that every top earbuds I’ve included are either black, a muted white, or white, from Sony’s WF-1000XM5 and JBL’s Tour Pro 2, to Bose’s QuietComfort Ultra and Apple’s AirPods Pro. These earbuds, on the other hand, are like the AirPods Pro’s funkier younger sister who went to art school, buys gifts for friends through the MOMA Store, and can explain the difference between white and orange wine to you. 

The case is lightweight and compact, so it won’t be obstructive or heavy in your pocket. The earbuds themselves are comfortable and easy to wear, with an extra tactile ear tip that keeps the buds attached to your ear canal as you move around. Nothing also equipped these buds with Bluetooth multipoint and in-ear detection when you wear these, two nice touches that inexpensive earbuds occasionally lack. 

Also: The best earbuds I’ve ever listened to are not by Bose or Sony

I ran for five hours and worked and commuted with these earbuds for a week straight and still have a battery life of 80%. Needless to say, these earbuds won’t die easily on you. 

Nothing Ear (a) held up to a mirror

Nina Raemont/ZDNET

One of my favorite design choices with the Ear (a) is that the controls are dictated by pinches instead of taps and swipes, similar to the AirPods Pro 2. Most earbuds that I’ve tested with the same form factor have touch controls on the top of the ear stem where the bud meets the stem. I always run with earbuds in, and when my ears get too sweaty, and my earbuds begin to slip out, I accidentally touch and activate the touch controls when I’m attempting to press the bud back into my ears.

Also: The best earbuds under $100

Nothing eliminated this problem for me, as the touch controls are at the bottom of the stem, far away from accidental touches. Despite needing a pinch to activate the controls, they are reliable and responsive. The pinch controls allow you to play and pause music, skip tracks, and toggle between ANC and transparency mode.

Speaking of ANC, this feature is where the Ear (a) buds begin to show their affordable price. I turned on the ANC while I worked in the office, and I could still hear my colleagues’ computer notification pings and conversations around me. For $109, I wasn’t expecting mind-blowing ANC, and that’s certainly not what I got. The earbuds will drown out some noise, but you’ll have to pay a higher price for premium ANC.

Review: Nothing Ear Stick: Earbuds, but make it fashion

When it comes to the actual audio quality, however, these earbuds produce a balanced, clear, and bright sound. While listening to Moses Sumney and Shabaka’s Insecurities, the harp and flute whistles in the upper midrange shimmered in my ears without being too harsh. Bass-heavy songs can get an extra boost by tweaking the Bass Enhance algorithm in the Nothing app. While listening to Kaytranada’s What You Need, I toggled between the five levels of bass enhancement to boost the lower frequencies. This feature created a noticeably different sound with deeper, richer bass. 

ZDNET’s buying advice 

The Nothing Ear (a) are best for people who want a relatively affordable pair of earbuds with thoughtful functions and a unique design.

If you want earbuds with more effective noise-canceling for a similar price, consider the JLab JBuds ANC 3 for their strong noise-canceling and snug fit. If you like Nothing’s unique and charming design choices but want better sound, more effective ANC, and more premium features, try the Nothing Ear.





Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2024 World Daily Info. Powered by Columba Ventures Co. Ltd.