Lucian, I’m a retired scientist from NIST—the National Institute of Standards and Technology—with 26 years of experience in metrology; i.e., the “Science of measurement.” Central to that is the calibration of gauges, instruments, and the traceability that is part of that process. Traceability is the contiguous line of measurements and do…
Lucian, I’m a retired scientist from NIST—the National Institute of Standards and Technology—with 26 years of experience in metrology; i.e., the “Science of measurement.” Central to that is the calibration of gauges, instruments, and the traceability that is part of that process. Traceability is the contiguous line of measurements and documentation to prove that a given process or instrument is “within spec,” meaning that it will measure a certain quantity within specified limits.
Torque wrenches, for example, would be one of the most basic, obvious examples of that traceability process. It’s straightforward and doesn’t require any significant amount of science or technology to back it up. But, what it does require is the quality-control systems to ensure the instruments are always within specification. And if they’re not…well, door plug failures might be a good example of what can happen.
This is a perfect example of why “unfettered capitalism” and Trumpian cries to “Deconstruct the Administrative State!” are so threatening. Who else is going to do this stuff than boring government entities with no allegiance to any particular company? That is precisely NIST’s charter; the government organization 99% of the public has never heard of, in spite of the fact that NIST has at least five Nobel laureates on staff or emeritus. Celebrity culture never caught up with NIST, unfortunately.
Think about that the next time you board a flight. Who do you want responsible for the tools and measurement systems used to verify the integrity of the aircraft you’re on; a private-equity-funded corporation? Or objective, neutral government experts in measurement science and instrument calibration?
Thank you David Walker for this crisp lucid presentation about NIST--new to me, but it is essential to any rational responsible business structure---which does not include the current breed of venture capitalists. The only way to make more money is to hire fewer people, do things more quickly, and make things more cheaply or out of cheaper material...... and siphon off all the money you can, by hook or crook.....
To be clear, Boeing’s problems are more in the realm of robust (or not) quality-control (QC) systems than the measurement science that NIST specializes in, but central to any QC involving instruments and specifications is an unbroken chain back to NIST as the lead government agency for any uncertainty statement (that is, a measured quantity is X +/- Y). Another way to think of this concept is that a number (X) is meaningless without an uncertainty estimate (Y). Even a lowly torque wrench might give nominally the correct value…plus or minus what? 1%? 10% 100%? Who checks it? How often? Is it documented?
Also, NIST is *not* a regulatory agency; that would be the FAA, primarily, in this case. Some people are pointing the finger at the FAA saying it’s their fault. While they’re involved, for sure, isn’t it up to Congress to give the FAA the tools, including funding, to do their jobs? And don’t even start with me about the years-long “problem” of too few air-traffic controllers, which started with Reagan’s firing them all in 1981. If Congress wanted to solve these problems they most certainly could, but half of them are more interested in tax cuts than funding public safety.
There is no excuse for lax test and measurement standards. I have spent most of my life designing and building "stuff". From crude to ultra precision. A + 7 .5" Deltronic plug gage is
0.5007. with no variation in a set over decades, forever. Inspection of measuring instruments is a routine part of the manufacturing process. Private equity is the bane of our existence. Boeing will ultimately loose out to Airbus because they shave time and accuracy insread of $$$ to win contracts. Will Alaskan, Southwest and United stick with Boeing and keep their fingers crossed, or will they chose safety that will protect their bottom line better?
Deconstruction of the Administrative State...that was a key mantra of one Steve Bannon, who, along with a few other cohorts, ran the Trump administration while he golfed or changed his Depends.
A Trump victory will allow these fiends back in the White House!
Sad memories of the Challenger space shuttle disaster and faulty engineering of the O rings Boeing used to be a premier engineering company until the short term profit people took over. Look how thy have ruined healthcare
Do you remember where you were when the news came in that the Challenger had exploded? I sure do, right down to the room, the lighting, the people around me, the stunned silence. It still haunts me. And, just like Boeing today, it wasn’t so much faulty engineering as it was a failure of safety protocols that should’ve scrubbed the launch in sub-freezing temperatures that day. In other words, same old, same old: Bad executive management with a culture of ignoring the technical experts.
Lucian, I’m a retired scientist from NIST—the National Institute of Standards and Technology—with 26 years of experience in metrology; i.e., the “Science of measurement.” Central to that is the calibration of gauges, instruments, and the traceability that is part of that process. Traceability is the contiguous line of measurements and documentation to prove that a given process or instrument is “within spec,” meaning that it will measure a certain quantity within specified limits.
Torque wrenches, for example, would be one of the most basic, obvious examples of that traceability process. It’s straightforward and doesn’t require any significant amount of science or technology to back it up. But, what it does require is the quality-control systems to ensure the instruments are always within specification. And if they’re not…well, door plug failures might be a good example of what can happen.
This is a perfect example of why “unfettered capitalism” and Trumpian cries to “Deconstruct the Administrative State!” are so threatening. Who else is going to do this stuff than boring government entities with no allegiance to any particular company? That is precisely NIST’s charter; the government organization 99% of the public has never heard of, in spite of the fact that NIST has at least five Nobel laureates on staff or emeritus. Celebrity culture never caught up with NIST, unfortunately.
Think about that the next time you board a flight. Who do you want responsible for the tools and measurement systems used to verify the integrity of the aircraft you’re on; a private-equity-funded corporation? Or objective, neutral government experts in measurement science and instrument calibration?
Thank you David Walker for this crisp lucid presentation about NIST--new to me, but it is essential to any rational responsible business structure---which does not include the current breed of venture capitalists. The only way to make more money is to hire fewer people, do things more quickly, and make things more cheaply or out of cheaper material...... and siphon off all the money you can, by hook or crook.....
To be clear, Boeing’s problems are more in the realm of robust (or not) quality-control (QC) systems than the measurement science that NIST specializes in, but central to any QC involving instruments and specifications is an unbroken chain back to NIST as the lead government agency for any uncertainty statement (that is, a measured quantity is X +/- Y). Another way to think of this concept is that a number (X) is meaningless without an uncertainty estimate (Y). Even a lowly torque wrench might give nominally the correct value…plus or minus what? 1%? 10% 100%? Who checks it? How often? Is it documented?
Also, NIST is *not* a regulatory agency; that would be the FAA, primarily, in this case. Some people are pointing the finger at the FAA saying it’s their fault. While they’re involved, for sure, isn’t it up to Congress to give the FAA the tools, including funding, to do their jobs? And don’t even start with me about the years-long “problem” of too few air-traffic controllers, which started with Reagan’s firing them all in 1981. If Congress wanted to solve these problems they most certainly could, but half of them are more interested in tax cuts than funding public safety.
There is no excuse for lax test and measurement standards. I have spent most of my life designing and building "stuff". From crude to ultra precision. A + 7 .5" Deltronic plug gage is
0.5007. with no variation in a set over decades, forever. Inspection of measuring instruments is a routine part of the manufacturing process. Private equity is the bane of our existence. Boeing will ultimately loose out to Airbus because they shave time and accuracy insread of $$$ to win contracts. Will Alaskan, Southwest and United stick with Boeing and keep their fingers crossed, or will they chose safety that will protect their bottom line better?
I have always had the utmost respect for you guys. When I was with USGS long ago, it was "Science in the Public Interest". We took that seriously.
Deconstruction of the Administrative State...that was a key mantra of one Steve Bannon, who, along with a few other cohorts, ran the Trump administration while he golfed or changed his Depends.
A Trump victory will allow these fiends back in the White House!
Sad memories of the Challenger space shuttle disaster and faulty engineering of the O rings Boeing used to be a premier engineering company until the short term profit people took over. Look how thy have ruined healthcare
Do you remember where you were when the news came in that the Challenger had exploded? I sure do, right down to the room, the lighting, the people around me, the stunned silence. It still haunts me. And, just like Boeing today, it wasn’t so much faulty engineering as it was a failure of safety protocols that should’ve scrubbed the launch in sub-freezing temperatures that day. In other words, same old, same old: Bad executive management with a culture of ignoring the technical experts.
I remember it well. My late engineer father would have said we told you and you wouldn’t listen his experience working for bean counters.