4 ms·

> If they weren't, Delta would say so, since it makes them look better. That they won't say means the parts were used in service. I tend to take that sort of c

> If they weren't, Delta would say so, since it makes them look better. That they won't say means the parts were used in service. I tend to take that sort of cynical view too, though there is a more generous explanation that could be¹ possible: they haven't absolutely finished checking yet, and don't want to say something that they later need to correct. That could look worse than being vague to start with. -- [1] caveat: I know little of their parts tracking systems, I don't know how likely it is that a more definitive answer cannot be given that quickly.

DSingularity 3y ago
So your lack of cynicism here is because you have knowledge of their internal processes and not because you are logically concluding companies would prefer to be vague over risking the need to backtrack later. I say this because I have 0 faith in corporations. I believe corporate decision making is guided by (a) what they can get away with and (b) what minimizes their downside.
- dspillett 3y ago
  I don't lack the cynicism. I just temper it with the knowledge that it is possible, however unlikely, that they aren't being completely disingenuous arseholes 100% of the time. Accepting a more generous explanation could be true doesn't mean I'm going to believe it actually is without further evidence!
  - registeredcorn 3y ago
    I'm pretty much on the same page as you with this! When it comes to aviation related issues, I tend to assume corporate reasoning to go something like: They make somewhat of a better effort to be sincere, not because they are somehow more trustworthy than in other fields, but rather because of the fear they have if they were caught in a lie. With something like software, it might suck, but they could generally pay a fine, or testify in front of congress and move on with their life. With something involving aviation, they could be culpable for the loss of human life, or have a permanent mark of being unsafe ala TWA. This isn't even to say that I would necessarily believe that the executives of these companies would care about the loss of human life, but merely that the risks associated with getting caught are so much higher that, even someone with an inability to feel empathy would understand how damaging it would be to their career - it would be in their best interest to pretend to have integrity.
borbulon 3y ago
Your generous explanation seems to run counter to the first part of the second quote, which is that none of Delta’s aircraft are currently flying with unapproved parts. Why would your explanation be true for the first quote and not the second, which is much more directly problematic if false? I suppose 1 could be true and 2 false, but that seems less likely
- dumbfounder 3y ago
  Approved could mean by their supplier right? So they might still be fake, but someone approved them.
- gabereiser 3y ago
  Often what is “approved” and “delivered” conflict. In this case, they approved a part, a genuine part, but got a fake part, unbeknownst to them at the time. One could say the fake part was not “approved”.
- wcarss 3y ago
  It's easier to verify what's currently in use than what has ever been in use. I know I'm not holding any radioactive monkey wrenches right now. To be sure I've never held one will require some investigation.
CountVonGuetzli 3y ago
Having seen the parts tracking system of a european helicopter manufacturer: They had the most insanely detailed parts tracking system (including certa for every part and sub-assembly and supplier) I have ever seen. I would be surprised if it takes them a lot of effort to figure out which planes are affected.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Yes and no. In case engine maintenance isnoutsourced, which it often is, the necessary information might not be available to Delta, or any other operator / airline, right away. That being said, this particular UK company caused the biggest civil aerospace scandal since the 737 MAX. I have zero tolerance for jeopardizing tracibility of parts due to negligence, what the UK company did is outright criminal. Unfortunately, there is nothing Delta and other Airlines coupd have done to prevent this from happening.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - me-vs-cat 3y ago
    > Unfortunately, there is nothing Delta and other Airlines could have done to prevent this from happening. You posit that the necessary information was not available to Delta, at least not immediately, due to outsourced engine maintenance. Why can't Delta require their contractor (which wasn't the supplier, AOG) to check that documentation meets requirements? Why can't Delta check the documentation themselves once it is available, prior to the engines needing later service as in this case?
    - hef19898 3y ago
      If it was the same supplier, AOG Technologies, there isn't reallyuch an airline or direct customer of AOGs could heve done. It was not a problem of absent documentation, because that is obviously rigorously checked by everyone in the chain. So Delta, and regulators, force suppliers to check all documentation for parts. Delta doesn't have to check their sub-tier suppliers documentation, since their tier one is a certified company (in Europe that would ne EASA Chapter 145 for maintenance). What Delta does, is auditing their tier 1s, those tier 1s audit their tier 1s (Delta's sub tier suppliers), and ao on and ao forth. AOG was audited and certified, which means their paper wirk, process discriptions and so on were compliant. And then AOG cheated, kind of like showing good parts for audit and supplying crap later. If AOG, or anyone else, is that criminal, the only way to catch them is by chance or an investigation after a part fails.
hinkley 3y ago
I know there’s a chain of custody for hardware parts on commercial airplanes. What I don’t know is if anyone/everyone has a fully digital version or if it’s still a literal paper trail. So if they knew how the counterfeits got into the system they could answer you if a particular part might be one of the suspect parts, but I don’t know if they can spit out a list of things to check in five seconds or if that’s two people working for a month. But I will speculate that for recalls they would have to be able to answer that relatively quickly. Where are all of the Batch ABC-123 bolts that we bought, because they were all heat treated incorrectly and embrittled. Not answering is the sort of thing that should make the FAA’s sphincters pucker at the speed of sound. I worked on CoC for software, and we knew we were trying to emulate the hardware chain but not exactly, so a lot of the finer details were out of my purview. With software the manifest can travel with the “part” at all times.
tremon 3y ago
I think the statements are in perfect agreement and the cynical conclusion is correct. > Delta would not say if the engines with the fraudulently documented parts had been on planes while they were in service Yes, we flew planes with dodgy parts. > None of Delta’s aircraft are currently flying with unapproved parts The dodgy parts have since been replaced on our planes... (note the "currently"). > the discovery hasn’t affected flight operations ...but we didn't ground our planes before taking out the dodgy parts, we used a regular maintenance window.

DSingularity 3y ago

So your lack of cynicism here is because you have knowledge of their internal processes and not because you are logically concluding companies would prefer to be vague over risking the need to backtrack later. I say this because I have 0 faith in corporations. I believe corporate decision making is guided by (a) what they can get away with and (b) what minimizes their downside.

dspillett 3y ago
I don't lack the cynicism. I just temper it with the knowledge that it is possible, however unlikely, that they aren't being completely disingenuous arseholes 100% of the time. Accepting a more generous explanation could be true doesn't mean I'm going to believe it actually is without further evidence!
- registeredcorn 3y ago
  I'm pretty much on the same page as you with this! When it comes to aviation related issues, I tend to assume corporate reasoning to go something like: They make somewhat of a better effort to be sincere, not because they are somehow more trustworthy than in other fields, but rather because of the fear they have if they were caught in a lie. With something like software, it might suck, but they could generally pay a fine, or testify in front of congress and move on with their life. With something involving aviation, they could be culpable for the loss of human life, or have a permanent mark of being unsafe ala TWA. This isn't even to say that I would necessarily believe that the executives of these companies would care about the loss of human life, but merely that the risks associated with getting caught are so much higher that, even someone with an inability to feel empathy would understand how damaging it would be to their career - it would be in their best interest to pretend to have integrity.

borbulon 3y ago

Your generous explanation seems to run counter to the first part of the second quote, which is that none of Delta’s aircraft are currently flying with unapproved parts. Why would your explanation be true for the first quote and not the second, which is much more directly problematic if false? I suppose 1 could be true and 2 false, but that seems less likely

dumbfounder 3y ago
Approved could mean by their supplier right? So they might still be fake, but someone approved them.
gabereiser 3y ago
Often what is “approved” and “delivered” conflict. In this case, they approved a part, a genuine part, but got a fake part, unbeknownst to them at the time. One could say the fake part was not “approved”.
wcarss 3y ago
It's easier to verify what's currently in use than what has ever been in use. I know I'm not holding any radioactive monkey wrenches right now. To be sure I've never held one will require some investigation.

CountVonGuetzli 3y ago

Having seen the parts tracking system of a european helicopter manufacturer: They had the most insanely detailed parts tracking system (including certa for every part and sub-assembly and supplier) I have ever seen. I would be surprised if it takes them a lot of effort to figure out which planes are affected.

hef19898 3y ago
Yes and no. In case engine maintenance isnoutsourced, which it often is, the necessary information might not be available to Delta, or any other operator / airline, right away. That being said, this particular UK company caused the biggest civil aerospace scandal since the 737 MAX. I have zero tolerance for jeopardizing tracibility of parts due to negligence, what the UK company did is outright criminal. Unfortunately, there is nothing Delta and other Airlines coupd have done to prevent this from happening.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- me-vs-cat 3y ago
  > Unfortunately, there is nothing Delta and other Airlines could have done to prevent this from happening. You posit that the necessary information was not available to Delta, at least not immediately, due to outsourced engine maintenance. Why can't Delta require their contractor (which wasn't the supplier, AOG) to check that documentation meets requirements? Why can't Delta check the documentation themselves once it is available, prior to the engines needing later service as in this case?
  - hef19898 3y ago
    If it was the same supplier, AOG Technologies, there isn't reallyuch an airline or direct customer of AOGs could heve done. It was not a problem of absent documentation, because that is obviously rigorously checked by everyone in the chain. So Delta, and regulators, force suppliers to check all documentation for parts. Delta doesn't have to check their sub-tier suppliers documentation, since their tier one is a certified company (in Europe that would ne EASA Chapter 145 for maintenance). What Delta does, is auditing their tier 1s, those tier 1s audit their tier 1s (Delta's sub tier suppliers), and ao on and ao forth. AOG was audited and certified, which means their paper wirk, process discriptions and so on were compliant. And then AOG cheated, kind of like showing good parts for audit and supplying crap later. If AOG, or anyone else, is that criminal, the only way to catch them is by chance or an investigation after a part fails.

hinkley 3y ago

I know there’s a chain of custody for hardware parts on commercial airplanes. What I don’t know is if anyone/everyone has a fully digital version or if it’s still a literal paper trail. So if they knew how the counterfeits got into the system they could answer you if a particular part might be one of the suspect parts, but I don’t know if they can spit out a list of things to check in five seconds or if that’s two people working for a month. But I will speculate that for recalls they would have to be able to answer that relatively quickly. Where are all of the Batch ABC-123 bolts that we bought, because they were all heat treated incorrectly and embrittled. Not answering is the sort of thing that should make the FAA’s sphincters pucker at the speed of sound. I worked on CoC for software, and we knew we were trying to emulate the hardware chain but not exactly, so a lot of the finer details were out of my purview. With software the manifest can travel with the “part” at all times.

tremon 3y ago

I think the statements are in perfect agreement and the cynical conclusion is correct. > Delta would not say if the engines with the fraudulently documented parts had been on planes while they were in service Yes, we flew planes with dodgy parts. > None of Delta’s aircraft are currently flying with unapproved parts The dodgy parts have since been replaced on our planes... (note the "currently"). > the discovery hasn’t affected flight operations ...but we didn't ground our planes before taking out the dodgy parts, we used a regular maintenance window.