I'm not sure if Boeing is going the same route we are, but blue collar people - the ones building and assembling airplanes - are treated like replaceable cogs. They aren't taught the actual meaning or point of quality/quality management systems. It's mostly warm bodies. When I ask people if they've read the specs that cover the processes they're doing, they stare at me. It's maddening. You're performing a complex process solely on OJT? Fucking lunacy.
Gotta say, I'm a blue collar who also builds sensitive machinery, have been doing so for six years now.
There is a VERY sharp divide in how well I consider myself to have mastered certain aspects of the job.
Someone fucking kill me: I'm doing this job for the first time and I'm having to spend ages sifting through our processes that may not be documented in enough detail to do the job perfectly. The job is legally safe because I'm following the rules but god I don't like it. Takes about three times as long as a 'normal' task.
This is fine: I've done the job enough to know how everything goes together, what torque to use where, and if there's anything I should really be doing that isn't in the instructions, or if there's an instruction mismatch.
Mastery: I can not only do the job, I actually understand the explicit purpose and function of everything I'm putting together on an intimate level, and can use my knowledge of that purpose and function to make god damn sure that what I'm putting out is top quality. As probably the least sensitive example of this, this is stuff like knowing that the particular brand of no-mixing-needed paint we use can sometimes develop a sediment layer of its' pigments on the bottom that requires you to mix it with a stick for the paint to perform properly, and that you can tell when the paint is experiencing this issue because it'll be off-colour due to the lack of pigment; and if you don't resolve this issue the paint won't adhere to surfaces correctly and is liable to flake off.
I've been doing this for six years and there are only a handful of aspects of my job I consider myself to have complete mastery over. I don't think I'm the best worker out there, not by a long shot, but to me the idea that you can just lose and replace your workforce when dealing with complicated machinery is about as stupid as the notion that AI can replicate the human mind (It can't unless you abandon the von-neumann computer design).
What I do is similar, and our customers are in house so we have some latitude. We've got fairly loose standards about how we build most things, and usually more than one option - but the finished product has rigid requirements. We get to "equivalent or better" some things, but even knowing that is kind of fucky. Grade 8 hardware is better than grade 5, right? Except for safety critical shit. Then you need stress disposition to go to grade 8.
We've lost a lot of old peeps to golden handshakes and being mad at the company/union. In a few years my org lost an absurd number of years of experience. Think thousands.
Well, there's another side to this, of industrial ergonomics. The system assembled\built is supposed to be easily divisible with clear documents into simple non-ambiguous tasks which can be given to those blue-collar people. If the engineers designing it failed at that stage, you can't blame blue-collar people for not being able to grasp something above their pay grade. They should be shown a few pages with "screw that with this, grease with such amount of that" and that should be enough.
Ergonomics seems to be having its own dark ages as an area these days. Both in consumer and in industrial stuff.
I don't know about that, we have the same problem in civil engineering. At some point you just have to say that if someone can't read a drawing and do what it says they are not doing their job properly. If that means you need an engineer on site to read and interpret the drawing for people who can't or won't read then so be it.
As an engineer who documents things compulsively and spends a large amount of time ensuring my documentation is clear, nothing pisses me off more than when people refuse to read documentation. I am hired to perform technical tasks, not to read documents I already wrote for others. It's like people are illiterate or unwilling to spend any amount of time parsing data to find what is needed.
Yeah that's exactly how I feel about it as well. Concrete spec is the classic one, you write a spec saying what you want and ALWAYS get a TQ back saying "hey can we use this completely different type of concrete from the supplier?". Complete waste of time.
How close do you work with your users?
Very. I'm on the floor with them every day.
I'm so, so sorry. There should be buffer peeps that understand both sides at least a bit. What works in CAD doesn't always work in the shop, what the shop wants isn't always something that meets reqs. I've seen both fuck shit horribly.
If you ask for an intermediate you get a manager favorite that isn't useful. Corps are inherently inefficient. It's a shitty life.
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.
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
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.
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
Think about it this way. Nobody starts off knowing or having mastery of a task. Military aviation works on this principle. That a person should get an MOS out of boot, go to school to learn some basic background about the job (ideally), or to a training command to learn the hands on about the job and then school later. Taking an 18 year old who's never turned a wrench in their life and turning them into something of a subject matter expert in approximately 4 years.
But that's still 4 years to train that person with no prior experience. And experience is what keeps things running. The aviation industry as a whole is just hemorrhaging people. Experienced people are retiring every day and there's not enough new people coming in.
Back in the day my father used to do piece work machining for Eton and McDonnell Douglas. He's in 74 now. The median age of most of the guys I work with? 55. I'm on the maintainer side of things so I don't know about the manufacturing side. But what I do know is that even having an engineer on site doesn't always trump having experienced people to teach the job, supervise it, and fill in the disconnect between engineers and maintenance or builders.
So while I wholeheartedly agree that it is possibly and even expected that instructions should be made so that a novice can follow them, that's not the whole picture.
And there is a disconnect. Working from engineering drawings can be a nightmare. Some engineers have never walked the space they are making the drawings for. They don't know the problems that can crop up when they want someone to install wiring through a solid bulkhead or a wet sealed area like a lavatory. They ignore the fact that this wiring can't interfere with the hydraulic lines running from this bulkhead to this frame. These are problems I've run into and only experience has told me that hey, this isn't right, we shouldn't do that.
Yeah I don't disagree with what you're saying, we don't put fresh grads on jobs without adequate supervision on the design side either. On both sides of the "fence" you need the experience to produce a good product; the two jobs are different and should be complimentary.
The schemes I have worked on that have been the most successful have had the designer and contractor working together closely from an early stage to produce something that works well, drawing on the past experience of both to anticipate potential issues and design them out.
Personally it took me about 6 years before I felt I was good at design. Experience really does count.
I'm blue collar and deal with that sort of thing. In the last ten years it's actually gotten worse. It's like we're giving them tooling that's more "they can make it work" than something with an obvious interface. Things I think are pretty basic (give mechanics star knobs, not bolts) are just fucking ignored. Tooling should get out of the way of your job as much as possible, not require even more tools to manage it.
This isn't just putting shit together, though. Most assembly tasks aren't tight tolerance, but they always involve multiple specs that each person is supposed to at least know about. I haven't been through production training, but the production people I interact with scare me sometimes, and it's not their fault if the importance of quality isn't adequately explained.
But I made it clear I wasn't blaming them in the first post, so I'm not even sure where that came from.
Unskilled labor is a myth but Boeing leadership bought into it. You can codify a lot but eventually with too much churn even the knowledge of the docs, and automation gets lost. Let alone the knowledge to improve or maintain that code. In software the idea "code rots" is true for a reason.
mozz@mbin.grits.dev to 
I'm not sure if Boeing is going the same route we are, but blue collar people - the ones building and assembling airplanes - are treated like replaceable cogs. They aren't taught the actual meaning or point of quality/quality management systems. It's mostly warm bodies. When I ask people if they've read the specs that cover the processes they're doing, they stare at me. It's maddening. You're performing a complex process solely on OJT? Fucking lunacy.
Gotta say, I'm a blue collar who also builds sensitive machinery, have been doing so for six years now.
There is a VERY sharp divide in how well I consider myself to have mastered certain aspects of the job.
Someone fucking kill me: I'm doing this job for the first time and I'm having to spend ages sifting through our processes that may not be documented in enough detail to do the job perfectly. The job is legally safe because I'm following the rules but god I don't like it. Takes about three times as long as a 'normal' task.
This is fine: I've done the job enough to know how everything goes together, what torque to use where, and if there's anything I should really be doing that isn't in the instructions, or if there's an instruction mismatch.
Mastery: I can not only do the job, I actually understand the explicit purpose and function of everything I'm putting together on an intimate level, and can use my knowledge of that purpose and function to make god damn sure that what I'm putting out is top quality. As probably the least sensitive example of this, this is stuff like knowing that the particular brand of no-mixing-needed paint we use can sometimes develop a sediment layer of its' pigments on the bottom that requires you to mix it with a stick for the paint to perform properly, and that you can tell when the paint is experiencing this issue because it'll be off-colour due to the lack of pigment; and if you don't resolve this issue the paint won't adhere to surfaces correctly and is liable to flake off.
I've been doing this for six years and there are only a handful of aspects of my job I consider myself to have complete mastery over. I don't think I'm the best worker out there, not by a long shot, but to me the idea that you can just lose and replace your workforce when dealing with complicated machinery is about as stupid as the notion that AI can replicate the human mind (It can't unless you abandon the von-neumann computer design).
What I do is similar, and our customers are in house so we have some latitude. We've got fairly loose standards about how we build most things, and usually more than one option - but the finished product has rigid requirements. We get to "equivalent or better" some things, but even knowing that is kind of fucky. Grade 8 hardware is better than grade 5, right? Except for safety critical shit. Then you need stress disposition to go to grade 8.
We've lost a lot of old peeps to golden handshakes and being mad at the company/union. In a few years my org lost an absurd number of years of experience. Think thousands.
Well, there's another side to this, of industrial ergonomics. The system assembled\built is supposed to be easily divisible with clear documents into simple non-ambiguous tasks which can be given to those blue-collar people. If the engineers designing it failed at that stage, you can't blame blue-collar people for not being able to grasp something above their pay grade. They should be shown a few pages with "screw that with this, grease with such amount of that" and that should be enough.
Ergonomics seems to be having its own dark ages as an area these days. Both in consumer and in industrial stuff.
I don't know about that, we have the same problem in civil engineering. At some point you just have to say that if someone can't read a drawing and do what it says they are not doing their job properly. If that means you need an engineer on site to read and interpret the drawing for people who can't or won't read then so be it.
As an engineer who documents things compulsively and spends a large amount of time ensuring my documentation is clear, nothing pisses me off more than when people refuse to read documentation. I am hired to perform technical tasks, not to read documents I already wrote for others. It's like people are illiterate or unwilling to spend any amount of time parsing data to find what is needed.
Yeah that's exactly how I feel about it as well. Concrete spec is the classic one, you write a spec saying what you want and ALWAYS get a TQ back saying "hey can we use this completely different type of concrete from the supplier?". Complete waste of time.
How close do you work with your users?
Very. I'm on the floor with them every day.
I'm so, so sorry. There should be buffer peeps that understand both sides at least a bit. What works in CAD doesn't always work in the shop, what the shop wants isn't always something that meets reqs. I've seen both fuck shit horribly.
If you ask for an intermediate you get a manager favorite that isn't useful. Corps are inherently inefficient. It's a shitty life.
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.
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.
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
Think about it this way. Nobody starts off knowing or having mastery of a task. Military aviation works on this principle. That a person should get an MOS out of boot, go to school to learn some basic background about the job (ideally), or to a training command to learn the hands on about the job and then school later. Taking an 18 year old who's never turned a wrench in their life and turning them into something of a subject matter expert in approximately 4 years.
But that's still 4 years to train that person with no prior experience. And experience is what keeps things running. The aviation industry as a whole is just hemorrhaging people. Experienced people are retiring every day and there's not enough new people coming in.
Back in the day my father used to do piece work machining for Eton and McDonnell Douglas. He's in 74 now. The median age of most of the guys I work with? 55. I'm on the maintainer side of things so I don't know about the manufacturing side. But what I do know is that even having an engineer on site doesn't always trump having experienced people to teach the job, supervise it, and fill in the disconnect between engineers and maintenance or builders.
So while I wholeheartedly agree that it is possibly and even expected that instructions should be made so that a novice can follow them, that's not the whole picture.
And there is a disconnect. Working from engineering drawings can be a nightmare. Some engineers have never walked the space they are making the drawings for. They don't know the problems that can crop up when they want someone to install wiring through a solid bulkhead or a wet sealed area like a lavatory. They ignore the fact that this wiring can't interfere with the hydraulic lines running from this bulkhead to this frame. These are problems I've run into and only experience has told me that hey, this isn't right, we shouldn't do that.
Yeah I don't disagree with what you're saying, we don't put fresh grads on jobs without adequate supervision on the design side either. On both sides of the "fence" you need the experience to produce a good product; the two jobs are different and should be complimentary.
The schemes I have worked on that have been the most successful have had the designer and contractor working together closely from an early stage to produce something that works well, drawing on the past experience of both to anticipate potential issues and design them out.
Personally it took me about 6 years before I felt I was good at design. Experience really does count.
I'm blue collar and deal with that sort of thing. In the last ten years it's actually gotten worse. It's like we're giving them tooling that's more "they can make it work" than something with an obvious interface. Things I think are pretty basic (give mechanics star knobs, not bolts) are just fucking ignored. Tooling should get out of the way of your job as much as possible, not require even more tools to manage it.
This isn't just putting shit together, though. Most assembly tasks aren't tight tolerance, but they always involve multiple specs that each person is supposed to at least know about. I haven't been through production training, but the production people I interact with scare me sometimes, and it's not their fault if the importance of quality isn't adequately explained.
But I made it clear I wasn't blaming them in the first post, so I'm not even sure where that came from.
Unskilled labor is a myth but Boeing leadership bought into it. You can codify a lot but eventually with too much churn even the knowledge of the docs, and automation gets lost. Let alone the knowledge to improve or maintain that code. In software the idea "code rots" is true for a reason.