World Politics

[ChrisE]

Monday Morning Quarterbacking?

Uh, that we've known about the risks of this sort of thing for DECADES is not an overstatement. That there are preventative measures that could have been taken and should have been taken is known by experts (at least two) you associate with on this forum.

If you are referring to me, I am not an "expert" in offshore drilling by a long shot. I work in the engineering of onshore facilities. I have never stepped foot on an oil rig, and before a couple of weeks ago BOP meant Baytown Olefins Plant (Exxon's chem plant in their Baytown complex) to me.

The info that there was only one BOP mechanism is public knowledge, and it doesn't take an expert to ask why that is.

I remember growing up and having to wash tar off my feet when my parents would take us to Galveston in the 70's. I cannot remember the last time since then I have noticed consistent tar/oil on the beaches in Texas. The industry has obviously done alot to prevent minor leaks and seapages over the last 40 years. That was due to learning over those years, probably spurred by a combo of regulations and innovation by the companies to capture more of their product and yes, protect the environment.

When a system is put in place in an industry it does not automatically have all mechanisms in place to thwart all possible scenarios. Nobody is that smart. Think of the o-ring issue on Challenger in 86, it's the same concept. It took a catastrophe before somebody said "Oh shyt, maybe we should...". You get my drift.

 

[patricknd]

If you are referring to me, I am not an "expert" in offshore drilling by a long shot. I work in the engineering of onshore facilities. I have never stepped foot on an oil rig, and before a couple of weeks ago BOP meant Baytown Olefins Plant (Exxon's chem plant in their Baytown complex) to me.

The info that there was only one BOP mechanism is public knowledge, and it doesn't take an expert to ask why that is.

I remember growing up and having to wash tar off my feet when my parents would take us to Galveston in the 70's. I cannot remember the last time since then I have noticed consistent tar/oil on the beaches in Texas. The industry has obviously done alot to prevent minor leaks and seapages over the last 40 years. That was due to learning over those years, probably spurred by a combo of regulations and innovation by the companies to capture more of their product and yes, protect the environment.

When a system is put in place in an industry it does not automatically have all mechanisms in place to thwart all possible scenarios. Nobody is that smart. Think of the o-ring issue on Challenger in 86, it's the same concept. It took a catastrophe before somebody said "Oh shyt, maybe we should...". You get my drift.

are you at exxon baytown? that's where my brother works.

 

[Anonymous]

Much better than to listen to scott's. take on oil spills.

"Damn, I didn't know that could happen, who'da thunk it?"

Since you know what should have/could have been done in the gulf it seems logical to me to hear your take on all the other dangers out there and what should/could be done on the regulatory side.

Just so you know, my posts regarding regulations over the last few days were not specific to the oil spill. When I question regulations I don't mean for the elimination of them. Those positions were assigned to me by others. My point was that shit happens sometimes that nothing can be done about. But to immediately jump to the 'business is evil/bad/greedy and this could/should/might have been prevented' just shows a bias that underlies your total trust in govt and total distrust of anything else.

So again, since your vision seems to be quite good looking in the rearview mirror please point us toward the next catastrope so it can be avoided (with new regs because only people in govt care).

 

[Anonymous]

Great stuff, bravura performance, tour de force, something that Boris Pasternak would gladly take credit for.

Don't edit yourself under pressure from shortsighted fools.

I really can't emphasize enough how good that was. Thanks.

You guys really should get a room.

 

[Anonymous]

She has the face only a son could love!



I thought it was clear that I unconditionally surrendered when you showed the picuture of your moms? Knockout blow there.





It sounds like you're an expert somewhere in the oil business.

I'm not. Anyway, the proof of what you say is in the pudding, and that pudding seems like it's going to be served up for quite some time.

Scott has accused me of Monday morning quarterbacking but he's a very illogical person. As a non expert in this field the risks to human life and to the environment seem pretty widely known. 1) People dying and 2) Environmental devastation.

Dear Scott, have these risks not come to fruition before?

Do you believe that there are people in this world who have more awareness of the possibilities of these risks being realized than you?A couple of those people are here on this thread telling you that comparitively inexpensive things could have been done that would either have prevented this catastrophe or minimized it by many orders of magnitude.

If private companies aren't willing to take it upon themselves to implement widely known safety measures, do you think it's a bad thing for a government to compel them to do so or face civil and/or criminal penalties?

To say that these grave dangers have been known for decades is not an overstatement.

Where does this unfounded Monday morning quarterbacking accusation arise from because I can find no logical point of origin?

Hey, are the dangers known in the mining industry, or the nuclear industry and if I criticize the lack of regs in those areas are you going to accuse me of MMQ?

Sure. Any bets to something similar happening again in the future? I mean, even after new stricter regs are imposed?

Gee Buck, it's hard to be an expert at everything, so yes, I'll defer to others for the safeguards. One question though, in a regulated world, why does this stuff keep happening?

If private companies are not willing to comply with safety measure to protect people/property/environment then they are corrupt and should be punished. But I think there should be some recognition that accidents and the unforseen can happen and unless (in this case) you are advocating the cessation of oil exploration then we will likely have spills in the future (and mine collapes, fires at refineries, etc.).

So tell us your regulatory criticisms in the nuclear and mining industries. I'm curious to hear how your ideas will eliminate/reduce dangers/risk in those industries.

 

[buckwheat]

If you are referring to me, I am not an "expert" in offshore drilling by a long shot. I work in the engineering of onshore facilities. I have never stepped foot on an oil rig, and before a couple of weeks ago BOP meant Baytown Olefins Plant (Exxon's chem plant in their Baytown complex) to me.

The info that there was only one BOP mechanism is public knowledge, and it doesn't take an expert to ask why that is.

I remember growing up and having to wash tar off my feet when my parents would take us to Galveston in the 70's. I cannot remember the last time since then I have noticed consistent tar/oil on the beaches in Texas. The industry has obviously done alot to prevent minor leaks and seapages over the last 40 years. That was due to learning over those years, probably spurred by a combo of regulations and innovation by the companies to capture more of their product and yes, protect the environment.

When a system is put in place in an industry it does not automatically have all mechanisms in place to thwart all possible scenarios. Nobody is that smart. Think of the o-ring issue on Challenger in 86, it's the same concept. It took a catastrophe before somebody said "Oh shyt, maybe we should...". You get my drift.

You're more of an expert than the vast majority of this forum, correct?

The Challenger disaster is a very bad example to support your point. Just as in this case, public relations interfered with science and the actual known probabilities of a disaster occurring.

The Challenger information is widely available as is the fact that the Space Shuttle program was and is a gigantic boondoggle.

Bottom line is that the Challenger disaster was forseen by more than a few in NASA who were ignored in favor of PR considerations. Read the Challenger report particularly Feynman's contributions which themselves were frowned upon by others on the panel.

 

[Anonymous]

If you are referring to me, I am not an "expert" in offshore drilling by a long shot. I work in the engineering of onshore facilities. I have never stepped foot on an oil rig, and before a couple of weeks ago BOP meant Baytown Olefins Plant (Exxon's chem plant in their Baytown complex) to me.

The info that there was only one BOP mechanism is public knowledge, and it doesn't take an expert to ask why that is.

I remember growing up and having to wash tar off my feet when my parents would take us to Galveston in the 70's. I cannot remember the last time since then I have noticed consistent tar/oil on the beaches in Texas. The industry has obviously done alot to prevent minor leaks and seapages over the last 40 years. That was due to learning over those years, probably spurred by a combo of regulations and innovation by the companies to capture more of their product and yes, protect the environment.

When a system is put in place in an industry it does not automatically have all mechanisms in place to thwart all possible scenarios. Nobody is that smart. Think of the o-ring issue on Challenger in 86, it's the same concept. It took a catastrophe before somebody said "Oh shyt, maybe we should...". You get my drift.

This, I think is the folly of some of the comments over the last couple of days. Things happen and only in the aftermath can someone say, with clarity, what should have been done. This is what makes me smile with Buckwheats comments... It's as if this kind of stuff (accidents) should be outlawed or regulated away. I mean, how can that be done? And to turn it around, if regs were being followed then is it not the fault (at least in part) of the regulators/regulations themselves?

Good post.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Sure. Any bets to something similar happening again in the future? I mean, even after new stricter regs are imposed?

Gee Buck, it's hard to be an expert at everything, so yes, I'll defer to others for the safeguards. One question though, in a regulated world, why does this stuff keep happening?

Umm, I'm gonna go with, the regulations that were in place were not stringent enough. Are you trying to say that if the regulations that were in place couldn't prevent the accident then they should just be eliminated? I am asking the question because you have been complaining about your point of view being misinterpreted in the past, so I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, although to me that seems to be what you are intimating.
Corporations will always try to get by with as few safeguards as possible because those things cost money and hurt the "bottom line". In this case since they are self insured as ChrisE pointed out, making them spend a few odd millions for more redundant safety would have helped their bottom line quite a bit, don't you think? Even leaving out the massive damage to the environment.
Coal mining companies and companies that work with asbestos would happily send their workers out to work with no "expensive" safeguards, as long as they could find workers willing to take the risk and they don't get sued to often. Most others are the same, they look at risk versus cost and would just as soon pay a band of lawyers X million than shell out 1.2 times X on greater safety. It has been proven over and over again.

 

[buckwheat]

This, I think is the folly of some of the comments over the last couple of days. Things happen and only in the aftermath can someone say, with clarity, what should have been done. This is what makes me smile with Buckwheats comments... It's as if this kind of stuff (accidents) should be outlawed or regulated away. I mean, how can that be done? And to turn it around, if regs were being followed then is it not the fault (at least in part) of the regulators/regulations themselves?

Good post.

Bad post.

You're a victim of Groupthink.

Do some research instead of relying on your existing prejudices and gut.

You're a very condescending person who likes to talk about things you know nothing about.

That I'm right about the Challenger will probably come as a gigantic shock to you based on the way you agree with ChrisE's post.

The risks and probabilities of the recent oil spill as well as the risks and probabilities of the Space Shuttle failure were widely known but not transmitted because of the political considerations of people such as yourself, within the beaurocracies of Large Corps and government agencies.

ChrisE's use of the space shuttle disaster was probably one of the worst examples he could have given to support his point.

I'm sure you'll argue this.

 

[buckwheat]

Umm, I'm gonna go with, the regulations that were in place were not stringent enough. Are you trying to say that if the regulations that were in place couldn't prevent the accident then they should just be eliminated? I am asking the question because you have been complaining about your point of view being misinterpreted in the past, so I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, although to me that seems to be what you are intimating.
Corporations will always try to get by with as few safeguards as possible because those things cost money and hurt the "bottom line". In this case since they are self insured as ChrisE pointed out, making them spend a few odd millions for more redundant safety would have helped their bottom line quite a bit, don't you think? Even leaving out the massive damage to the environment.
Coal mining companies and companies that work with asbestos would happily send their workers out to work with no "expensive" safeguards, as long as they could find workers willing to take the risk and they don't get sued to often. Most others are the same, they look at risk versus cost and would just as soon pay a band of lawyers X million than shell out 1.2 times X on greater safety. It has been proven over and over again.

Thanks Janus!

How many days after 9/11 did Christie Whitman say the air was safe to breathe at Ground Zero?

Ignore the stench, ignore the particles floating in the air. It's safe!

Oy veh!

 

[Anonymous]

Bad post.

You're a victim of Groupthink.

Do some research instead of relying on your existing prejudices and gut.

You're a very condescending person who likes to talk about things you know nothing about.

That I'm right about the Challenger will probably come as a gigantic shock to you based on the way you agree with ChrisE's post.

The risks and probabilities of the recent oil spill as well as the risks and probabilities of the Space Shuttle failure were widely known but not transmitted because of the political considerations of people such as yourself, within the beaurocracies of Large Corps and government agencies.

ChrisE's use of the space shuttle disaster was probably one of the worst examples he could have given to support his point.

I'm sure you'll argue this.

I actually understood Chris's point and bashing him over the use of the Challenger makes you look petty. Do you agree or disagree with his main point?

For the third time, tell us what widely know reg shortcomings exist in (any) industry so we can eliminate future catasrophic events.

 

[Anonymous]

Umm, I'm gonna go with, the regulations that were in place were not stringent enough. Are you trying to say that if the regulations that were in place couldn't prevent the accident then they should just be eliminated? I am asking the question because you have been complaining about your point of view being misinterpreted in the past, so I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, although to me that seems to be what you are intimating.
Corporations will always try to get by with as few safeguards as possible because those things cost money and hurt the "bottom line". In this case since they are self insured as ChrisE pointed out, making them spend a few odd millions for more redundant safety would have helped their bottom line quite a bit, don't you think? Even leaving out the massive damage to the environment.
Coal mining companies and companies that work with asbestos would happily send their workers out to work with no "expensive" safeguards, as long as they could find workers willing to take the risk and they don't get sued to often. Most others are the same, they look at risk versus cost and would just as soon pay a band of lawyers X million than shell out 1.2 times X on greater safety. It has been proven over and over again.

No, are you saying that all potential for this kind of thing can be eliminated with regs, and if so what would they look like? I mean, we can eliminate this from happening by outlawing drilling.

My point is;

1. Bad things can happen even when people have good intentions.

2. Regs are necessary because some people who run business will not do the right thing.

3. Regs don't solve all problems.

4. Business isn't always the bad guy.

5. There are always people like Buck who are crazy good at pointing fingers after the fact.

 

[Anonymous]

No, are you saying that all potential for this kind of thing can be eliminated with regs, and if so what would they look like? I mean, we can eliminate this from happening by outlawing drilling.

My point is;

1. Bad things can happen even when people have good intentions.

2. Regs are necessary because some people who run business will not do the right thing.

3. Regs don't solve all problems.

4. Business isn't always the bad guy.

5. There are always people like Buck who are crazy good at pointing fingers after the fact.

Maybe you too need to realize that government isn't always the bad guy either. I liked the quote from Obama yesterday:"When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us."

The idea that government is "other" is convenient only if you have no representatives for whom you voted or agree in any government office. Otherwise, you are just spewing the rhetoric of partisan bickering meant only to corral voters in a specific direction for the next election.

Business is not always the bad guy, and it is not always the good guy. The same holds true for government...but you guys love the guy who used to work with a trained monkey and his less than stellar comment regarding the 9 most terrifying words.

 

[ChrisE]

That I'm right about the Challenger will probably come as a gigantic shock to you based on the way you agree with ChrisE's post.

The risks and probabilities of the recent oil spill as well as the risks and probabilities of the Space Shuttle failure were widely known but not transmitted because of the political considerations of people such as yourself, within the beaurocracies of Large Corps and government agencies.

ChrisE's use of the space shuttle disaster was probably one of the worst examples he could have given to support his point.

I'm sure you'll argue this.

Look, I don't care to get into the nuts/bolts of the space shuttle issue. My broader point is that even when things are seen there are considerations taken into account other than "what's the utmost thing we can do to prevent x". That is not practicle and in a competitive marketplace you will go under if you design a Ferrari when the customer wants a Ford.

So, I'm not gonna zero in and debate what was/wasn't done with the space shuttle. All I know is that it happened, and things led up to that that were probably defendable real time. Hindsight is 20/20, which is why I brought up the space shuttle (I'm kicking myself for that btw). But, that is where you learn and do things in design, and politically, to keep it from happening again.

It is easy to pick and choose after the fact that somebody should have done something different. I make decisions every day that will come under scrutiny if things go bad. It is part of the business and we are human, and I can either worry about it or not. I tend not to worry about it, and my decision at the time is the best I can do. A plant may blow up tomorrow, and it is totally possible that it is nobody's fault within the industry practices at the time. Maybe you should think about that.

Engineering is based upon probability that calculated material and equipment will function as they are intended to, and safety factors in design of a particular system are taken into account for any deficiencies. I said earlier it is mind-boggling that the BOP wasn't redundant. At the same time I can totally understand how the people the designed these systems didn't see a problem.

 

[buckwheat]

Look, I don't care to get into the nuts/bolts of the space shuttle issue. My broader point is that even when things are seen there are considerations taken into account other than "what's the utmost thing we can do to prevent x". That is not practicle and in a competitive marketplace you will go under if you design a Ferrari when the customer wants a Ford.

So, I'm not gonna zero in and debate what was/wasn't done with the space shuttle. All I know is that it happened, and things led up to that that were probably defendable real time. Hindsight is 20/20, which is why I brought up the space shuttle (I'm kicking myself for that btw). But, that is where you learn and do things in design, and politically, to keep it from happening again.

It is easy to pick and choose after the fact that somebody should have done something different. I make decisions every day that will come under scrutiny if things go bad. It is part of the business and we are human, and I can either worry about it or not. I tend not to worry about it, and my decision at the time is the best I can do. A plant may blow up tomorrow, and it is totally possible that it is nobody's fault within the industry practices at the time. Maybe you should think about that.

Engineering is based upon probability that calculated material and equipment will function as they are intended to, and safety factors in design of a particular system are taken into account for any deficiencies. I said earlier it is mind-boggling that the BOP wasn't redundant. At the same time I can totally understand how the people the designed these systems didn't see a problem.

Chris,

Your picking the Challenger just proves the opposite point you were trying to prove.



What is that?

That the actual dangers and risks were known by the very people who were supposed to be paying attention to risk assessment.

The whole lesson of Challenger is that these things were known before the accident and were in fact easily preventable if not for organizational politics.

It's not a case of Monday morning Quarterbacking!!!!!

In both cases, BP and NASA, they went ahead, and not only did they proceed, they were aware of the exact risks and in the case of NASA, they intentionally misrepresented the risks, that ultimately led to the subsequent catastrophe.

It remains to be seen if people inside BP recommended redundant systems and were over ruled due to "cost" considerations.

I won't even respond to Scott's pettyness remark because it's just as nonsensical as the rest of his posts.

 

[buckwheat]

Look, I don't care to get into the nuts/bolts of the space shuttle issue..

You brought it up. BTW, thanks for proving my argument.

My broader point is that even when things are seen there are considerations taken into account other than "what's the utmost thing we can do to prevent x". .

Your broader point than what? Preventing disasters that kill 20 people and potentially ruin ecosystems and economies?

That is not practicle and in a competitive marketplace you will go under if you design a Ferrari when the customer wants a Ford. .

Not practicle to spend the extra half million, million, five million, 10 million, 50 million, to implement equipment and procedures that can save billions in destruction? OK.

So, I'm not gonna zero in and debate what was/wasn't done with the space shuttle..

Yeah, what, are you going to rebut the obvious? You'll look more ridiculous than you already do.

All I know is that it happened, and things led up to that that were probably defendable real time...

The whole conclusion of the Challenger commission was that the decisions weren't defendable in real time.

Hindsight is 20/20, ..

But the Challenger commission showed the decision makers had foresight and changed and distorted it to go ahead with their plans.

which is why I brought up the space shuttle..

Because you don't understand that the conclusions reached destroy your position.

(I'm kicking myself for that btw)...

Is facing the truth that painful.

But, that is where you learn and do things in design, and politically, to keep it from happening again.

But the commission proved that it didn't have to happen in the first place.

It is easy to pick and choose after the fact that somebody should have done something different..

Again, they knew before the fact.

I make decisions every day that will come under scrutiny if things go bad. ..

If you have an engineer telling you that there is a good possibility of a potential problem, and you choose to ignore that expert advice, and then distort it, you should be in prison if an accident happens.

(continued)

 

[buckwheat]

(continued)

It is easy to pick and choose after the fact that somebody should have done something different..

Yes that's true. What you're apparently not recognizing is the type of thing the Challenger Commission uncovered, the risks taken were widely known and largely preventable before the fact.

I make decisions every day that will come under scrutiny if things go bad...

Have people died? Did an expert tell you that you probably shouldn't give the go ahead?

It is part of the business and we are human, and I can either worry about it or not. I tend not to worry about it, and my decision at the time is the best I can do.

Hopefully your best is in line with what is generally considered to be the best.

A plant may blow up tomorrow, and it is totally possible that it is nobody's fault within the industry practices at the time....

That's possible. What do you think about the recent mine accident? Clearly wasn't within industry practices, was it? That mine had been cited for safety violations more than a few times. Is is possible that someone knew there were potentially catastrophic accidents in the future for that mine? It was foreseeable by any sentient being, no?

Maybe you should think about that.

I have. Maybe you should think about the fact that more times than not, these accidents have been conclusively proven to be preventable.

Engineering is based upon probability that calculated material and equipment will function as they are intended to, and safety factors in design of a particular system are taken into account for any deficiencies.

So you'd agree that the Managers who changed the probabilities that the NASA engineers gave them would be criminally liable?

I said earlier it is mind-boggling that the BOP wasn't redundant..

I agree.

At the same time I can totally understand how the people the designed these systems didn't see a problem.

Not knowing what happened I'll venture an opinion. The designers saw a problem. The ultimate decision makers most likely disregarded those concerns.

 

[ChrisE]

Again, I choose not to debate this technically with you and you miss my overall point. Things are different now because of an event. This is human nature, and many space shuttle missions happened while that info was known. I am not defending any decision made by those in charge, and I don't know the facts on the ground of the every day operation of a space shuttle in 1986. I was not there, though apparently you were.

The reason I wish I wouldn't have brought this up because it was a toss aside line to prove how measures are implemented after an occurance. I could have easily mentioned any other industrial accident, but for some reason I chose to bring up this event to show how mankind reacts after a cotastrophe, and how it also acts beforehand. Do you think those in charge at NASA said "you know, fuk it. Launch the bytch". That is way off base, unfair, and a cheap shot. Same thing with the BP management.

This has caused you to go off on a tangent trying to prove my original intent for stating this is bogus. You are trying to pick an argument with me while not understanding where I am coming from. Enjoy this post because I will not describe where I am coming from, with any reference to Challenger, from this point on. This is my last post on this.

In closing, many decisions are made that are "risky" every day in a multitude of dangerous industries, and you and I don't have a clue when they happen. That is because 99.9% of the time nothing happens. It's easy to sit and point fingers when that one time happens, and since I understand how these thing happen, and understand how decisions are made under what circumstances in technical industry, I will refuse to do that. YMMV, obviously.

 

[buckwheat]

Damn, I was timed out and my response deleted. Here goes again.

Again, I choose not to debate this technically with you.

How can you debate it with me? A comprehensive government report was issued coming to the opposite conclusion of your argument.

and you miss my overall point..

You don't have a point. The point is that the Challenger accident was foreseeable and was in fact by engineers who properly assessed the risks and were not listened to.

Things are different now because of an event...

Evidently not. Accidents are still happening that can be easily foreseen in advance. Take the recent mine explosion.

This is human nature, and many space shuttle missions happened while that info was known....

Self preservation is also human nature with covering your a$$ falling under that.

I am not defending any decision made by those in charge,...

That's exactly what you're doing.

and I don't know the facts on the ground of the every day operation of a space shuttle in 1986. I was not there, though apparently you were.

Nice try wiseguy? Is smart aleck nonsense all you got. That's a rhetorical question.

I read the report and the expert testimony surrounding it. You brought it up and it backfired.

The reason I wish I wouldn't have brought this up because it was a toss aside line to prove how measures are implemented after an occurance.

And you wound up proving the exact opposite of what you intended.

I could have easily mentioned any other industrial accident, but for some reason I chose to bring up this event to show how mankind reacts after a cotastrophe, and how it also acts beforehand..

Then you should have brought up another accident that illustrates your point. Unfortunately for you, very few illustrate your point and almost all strengthen mine.

And what you've shown and what was pointed out in the Challenger report was that NASA acted irresponsibly at best if not criminally according some on the panel.

Do you think those in charge at NASA said "you know, fuk it. Launch the bytch". That is way off base, unfair, and a cheap shot. Same thing with the BP management.

Well, please tell me why the shuttle program was continued and another tragedy occurred? The science that was conducted by these missions could have been done more easily, safely, cheaply and effectively by other means.

The shuttle was pretty much a failure and an enormous waste of money, not to mention the lives that were lost and I'm not minimizing them.

People were killed, huge amounts of money were wasted, and NASA wasn't being straight with the American people, and you think I'm taking off base, cheap shots which are unfair?

What's your interest in this?

This has caused you to go off on a tangent trying to prove my original intent for stating this is bogus. ..

Tangent? I'm directly on point. Was this accident preventable and foreseeable and might more stringent government oversight have prevented it. What could possibly be more on point?

You are trying to pick an argument with me while not understanding where I am coming from. Enjoy this post because I will not describe where I am coming from, with any reference to Challenger, from this point on. This is my last post on this. ..

Bro, you're so concerned with winning an argument, you don't even know where you're coming from anymore. Thanks for the Challenger thing though. Right on point for this argument.

In closing, many decisions are made that are "risky" every day in a multitude of dangerous industries, and you and I don't have a clue when they happen.

The whole point in risk assessment is to minimize those risks, like in the situation of a worst case scenario. We're supposed to reduce the unknowns.

That is because 99.9% of the time nothing happens. It's easy to sit and point fingers when that one time happens,..

And because previous O Ring erosion didn't cause an accident, you don't adjust those probability numbers downward. That's what was done by NASA.

and since I understand how these thing happen, and understand how decisions are made under what circumstances in technical industry, I will refuse to do that. YMMV, obviously..

Reports such as the Challenger commission report are disseminated to shine a light on faulty practices.

With thinking such as yours going on, it's clear that we need much more transparency because apparently you find these accidents to be acceptable.

Well apparently people such as yourself must be subject to more transparency because evidently you don't understand the risks themselves and the fact that they're not acceptable.

For your sake, please don't continue the debate. You're looking foolish.

 

[ChrisE]

blah, blah, blah, as HJ would say.

If your point is that the Challenger should have been prevented, then I cannot argue that point. The facts fell where they did.

I concede that the o-ring issue was known beforehand and should have been taken into consideration. I am hesitant to blame the manager instead of the culture. And, in a roundabout way it is what this argument about the oil spill started on with Scot.....regulation to force an activity in a business that is after the bottom line. Capitalistic business is inherently averse to anything that makes it do something that doesn't add to the bottom line or in NASAs case public image. It's not all that different.

Realize I am saying that most accidents in any industry can be prevented IF somebody contains ultimate knowledge and is unfazed by any influence, then maybe we can find common ground. That is where we differ....you take the absolutist position that black/white, right/wrong is totally clear and always should hold sway and is known beforehand in the decision making process, and thus accidents shouldn't happen. Alot of times it is not black/white like you wish. Probability, economic, business culture, and political considerations do unfortunately factor into decision making sometimes. And, I am not even talking about the material/equipment failure aspect. We are talking about humans here, not machines. If your goal is perfection, then you will be looking for a long time. I consider myself a good engineer but I am capable of mistakes. Hopefully sometime in the future I will not be your pinata on an internet forum.....

All knowledge about a particular widget is unknown beforehand. It just doesn't work that way. You can disect this post in 20 different ways, but that is just the way it is.

 

[Hugh Januss]

You two are once again spending a lot of energy arguing for what are not conflicting points of view. Although I agree with most of what he is saying I have to lay most of the blame (this time) on Buckwheat, if only because he is being the most argumentative in this case. Buck is saying that with more regulation this accident didn't have to happen and Chris is saying that this accident has already happened so nothing we can do about it, but more regulation would be good because without it corps. will always do the expedient thing. Even Scott is now waffling and saying (some) regulation is a good thing.
We are all in agreement here...........next problem.

 

[Anonymous]

Chris,

Your picking the Challenger just proves the opposite point you were trying to prove.



What is that?

That the actual dangers and risks were known by the very people who were supposed to be paying attention to risk assessment.

The whole lesson of Challenger is that these things were known before the accident and were in fact easily preventable if not for organizational politics.

It's not a case of Monday morning Quarterbacking!!!!!

In both cases, BP and NASA, they went ahead, and not only did they proceed, they were aware of the exact risks and in the case of NASA, they intentionally misrepresented the risks, that ultimately led to the subsequent catastrophe.

It remains to be seen if people inside BP recommended redundant systems and were over ruled due to "cost" considerations.

I won't even respond to Scott's pettyness remark because it's just as nonsensical as the rest of his posts.

Nonsensical? That's downright rude. My feeling are now hurt

 

[Anonymous]

You two are once again spending a lot of energy arguing for what are not conflicting points of view. Although I agree with most of what he is saying I have to lay most of the blame (this time) on Buckwheat, if only because he is being the most argumentative in this case. Buck is saying that with more regulation this accident didn't have to happen and Chris is saying that this accident has already happened so nothing we can do about it, but more regulation would be good because without it corps. will always do the expedient thing. Even Scott is now waffling and saying (some) regulation is a good thing.We are all in agreement here...........next problem.

Oh for eff's sake. When did I ever say zero regs was the ticket?

Perceptions are in fact reality.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Nonsensical? That's downright rude. My feeling are now hurt

Some days you're the pitcher and some days you're the catcher.
BTW. I am at my shop at this moment, finishing up some stuff and enjoying a delicious Ommegang Abbey Ale. MMMmmmm.

 

[Anonymous]

Damn, I was timed out and my response deleted. Here goes again.



How can you debate it with me? A comprehensive government report was issued coming to the opposite conclusion of your argument.




You don't have a point. The point is that the Challenger accident was foreseeable and was in fact by engineers who properly assessed the risks and were not listened to.



Evidently not. Accidents are still happening that can be easily foreseen in advance. Take the recent mine explosion.




Self preservation is also human nature with covering your a$$ falling under that.



That's exactly what you're doing.



Nice try wiseguy? Is smart aleck nonsense all you got. That's a rhetorical question.

I read the report and the expert testimony surrounding it. You brought it up and it backfired.





And you wound up proving the exact opposite of what you intended.



Then you should have brought up another accident that illustrates your point. Unfortunately for you, very few illustrate your point and almost all strengthen mine.

And what you've shown and what was pointed out in the Challenger report was that NASA acted irresponsibly at best if not criminally according some on the panel.




Well, please tell me why the shuttle program was continued and another tragedy occurred? The science that was conducted by these missions could have been done more easily, safely, cheaply and effectively by other means.

The shuttle was pretty much a failure and an enormous waste of money, not to mention the lives that were lost and I'm not minimizing them.

People were killed, huge amounts of money were wasted, and NASA wasn't being straight with the American people, and you think I'm taking off base, cheap shots which are unfair?

What's your interest in this?






Tangent? I'm directly on point. Was this accident preventable and foreseeable and might more stringent government oversight have prevented it. What could possibly be more on point?




Bro, you're so concerned with winning an argument, you don't even know where you're coming from anymore. Thanks for the Challenger thing though. Right on point for this argument.





The whole point in risk assessment is to minimize those risks, like in the situation of a worst case scenario. We're supposed to reduce the unknowns.



And because previous O Ring erosion didn't cause an accident, you don't adjust those probability numbers downward. That's what was done by NASA.



Reports such as the Challenger commission report are disseminated to shine a light on faulty practices.

With thinking such as yours going on, it's clear that we need much more transparency because apparently you find these accidents to be acceptable.

Well apparently people such as yourself must be subject to more transparency because evidently you don't understand the risks themselves and the fact that they're not acceptable.

For your sake, please don't continue the debate. You're looking foolish.

Buck, I was called hopeless earlier. I hereby pass that moniker on to you as you so richly deserve it. Unbelievable... really.