9 ms·

Seems like Boeing might not have the documentation the NTSB is requesting[1], even though they say they do keep that documentation. I wonder if Boeing doesn't w

• laweijfmvo 3y ago
  "That's correct, Senator. We don't know," Homendy replied. "And it's not for lack of trying." They straight up said, we don't know.
  • hnthrowaway0328 3y ago
    And we don't know what we don't know, Senator.
    • dylan604 3y ago
      Feel like a Cheney "known unknowns and unknown unknowns" meme would be fitting here.
      • maybelsyrup 3y ago
        > Feel like a Cheney Rumsfeld
        • dylan604 3y ago
          [flagged]
          • ethbr1 3y ago
            Rumsfeld cites NASA as the place he most likely picked it up from. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_unknown_unknowns#Origins https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_unknown_unknowns#O...
            • dylan604 3y ago
              because an evilBastard quotes someone else doesn't make them any less evilBastard
              • ethbr1 3y ago
                You seem to have a rather stark view of the world. I'd suggest possibly broadening it to include the possibility that people can be evil in some ways, good in others, stupid and smart, and capable and incapable. Even the simplest humans are complex creatures.
                • dylan604 3y ago
                  I guess that depends on what makes evilBastard evil. I don't care if evilBastard is a "great" dad. When you mastermind to commit what any rational person would call war crimes does not get white washed because they played ball with their kids on the weekends or donated a bunch of money to charity in an attempt to assuage guilt (if any were felt to begin with). In my list of people that to me qualify as evilBastard, the Bush Admin is way worse than theZuck.
                • fineIllregister 3y ago
                  Donald Rumsfeld is responsible for the deaths of one million innocent Iraqi civilians at the cost of 3 trillion American dollars for nothing except the enrichment of a few. I agree that every person is complicated, but any possible nuance here is completely overwhelmed by the amount of destruction. Donald Rumsfeld is absolutely evil. You might think you are smart for hedging, but if you think killing one million innocent lives just makes a person "complicated", you've lost the plot.
                  • jimbob45 3y ago
                    I have to wager that the Iraqi people probably prefer the current order of things. I would guess that they would keep things the way they are rather than bring back Saddam.
        • tiahura 3y ago
          McNamara
      • yen223 3y ago
        "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns" are concepts that came out from the project management world. It's not a thing that Rumsfeld invented.
      • anigbrowl 3y ago
        I always felt bad for Rumsfeld (not Cheney) being the target of so much mockery for that comment. I disliked him style and decisions as Secretary of Defense, but that was one of the smartest and most realistic things he said. It's amazing to me how many people derided it as meaningless garbage when it self-evidently true and provided a worthwhile insight into the complexities of strategic decision-making.
        • dudinax 3y ago
          He was lying about weapons of mass destruction. The context is that he'd previously said we had to invade Iraq because of the imminent threat of the weapons of mass destruction. So he's using a trivially true and non-interesting statement about "unknown unknowns" to evade questions about previous statements where he claimed to know something. In other words, it was garbage response. He deserves mockery, scorn and a criminal trial.
          • D13Fd 3y ago
            > to evade questions about previous statements where he claimed to know something. I’m not sure that’s quite accurate, although it’s not that far off either. The full context is here: https://web.archive.org/web/20160406235718/http://archive.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=2636 https://web.archive.org/web/20160406235718/http://archive.de... His “unknown unknowns” response was, to me, a basically fair if evasive response to whether there is any evidence of a direct link between Baghdad and terrorists as far as supplying WMDs. He essentially said “we don’t know what we don’t know.” To me the more damning answer is the follow up later in the conference, where he strongly implied that he has evidence but can’t disclose it. That just misled the public and is far worse than the “unknown unknowns” comment in my view.
            • dudinax 3y ago
              He'd already said for months previous that he knew Iraq had WMDs and were planning to supply terrorists.
  • singron 3y ago
    She is the NTSB chair, not Boeing.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • bigiain 3y ago
    Homendy is NTSB, not Boeing. As far as I can tell, Boeing has not admitted top not knowing, nor have they provided the documentation. I recall reading (probably a Twitter thread) a while back that showed entries in one Spirit Aero work logging system that showed the plug had been unbolted, and that there was no corresponding entry in the QA system that's required whenever a plug is removed. My gut feel its that someone was rule-bending, and they probably unbolted and slid the plug out of the way of the rivet holes they needed to fix, but didn't want to admit to "opening" the plug and having the QA audit records and self justified that they "didn't actually open it" when they unbolted and moved it (and failed to rebolt it when they put it back).
    • emeril 3y ago
      This thread seems pretty credible and seemingly consistent with what little official information is available see comments by "throwawayboeingN704AL"
      • tgsovlerkhgsel 3y ago
        I can't find any such comments (nor the user) unfortunately. What did they say?
        • mjcl 3y ago
          It's an anonymous comment posted here: https://leehamnews.com/2024/01/15/unplanned-removal-installation-inspection-procedure-at-boeing/#comment-509962 https://leehamnews.com/2024/01/15/unplanned-removal-installa... . It was posted before any official information was released and seems to track with information that was subsequently released.
          • bigiain 3y ago
            Thanks - that's exactly what I was remembering. (Terminology as described further upthread at that link: CMES is an official record system for the plane. SAT is described as "Like Slack" and not an official record of the plane and its maintenance) "finally we get to the damning entry which reads something along the lines of “coordinating with the doors team to determine if the door will have to be removed entirely, or just opened. If it is removed then a Removal will have to be written.” Note: a Removal is a type of record in CMES that requires formal sign off from QA that the airplane been restored to drawing requirements. If you have been paying attention to this situation closely, you may be able to spot the critical error: regardless of whether the door is simply opened or removed entirely, the 4 retaining bolts that keep it from sliding off of the door stops have to be pulled out. A removal should be written in either case for QA to verify install, but as it turns out, someone (exactly who will be a fun question for investigators) decides that the door only needs to be opened, and no formal Removal is generated in CMES (the reason for which is unclear, and a major process failure). Therefore, in the official build records of the airplane, a pressure seal that cannot be accessed without opening the door (and thereby removing retaining bolts) is documented as being replaced, but the door is never officially opened and thus no QA inspection is required. This entire sequence is documented in the SAT, and the nonconformance records in CMES address the damaged rivets and pressure seal, but at no point is the verification job reopened, or is any record of removed retention bolts created, despite it this being a physical impossibility."
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• ethbr1 3y ago
  Not sure if this was edited in later, but it's in the article: > Boeing also acknowledged the possibility that the documents the NTSB is seeking may not exist. > "If the door plug removal was undocumented there would be no documentation to share," Greenwood said in his statement. "We will continue to cooperate fully and transparently with the NTSB's investigation." In which case the NTSB will hopefully pin the blame on the lack of a functioning system of record that tracks such events.
  • jojobas 3y ago
    Can you really do that though? You have to trust your workers to not undo some random bolts here and there at some stage.
    • vajrabum 3y ago
      I worked on airplanes in the long ago. You have to trust that people document every bit of their work and get an inspector to sign off on it where required and get in process inspections sometimes too depending on the work. Nobody who does undocumented work on an airplane should be employed.
    • lightbritefight 3y ago
      If you have a culture in a highly regulated industry where workers can violate those regulations and you dont notice by intention or by inaction, then yes you can be held responsible.
    • AnotherGoodName 3y ago
      But what if there's absolutely no documented process involving those bolts at all? Its perfectly reasonable to ask what the process is and who is responsible. Boeing acknowledges they don't have an answer here. Is it because they never had a process for those bolts to begin with? You can't document following a process (or not following one) when there is no process at all.
      • wbl 3y ago
• ajross 3y ago
  That does seem most likely. The putative insider blog post about the production incident essentially said the same thing: the contractors/managers were exploiting a loophole to avoid recording the work in such a way that it would trigger a required review step (or somesuch, I forget the details). Not a big leap from there to "didn't get recorded at all", and from there to "lots of other stuff isn't recorded either". Boeing is in so, so much trouble here.
  • gopher_space 3y ago
    Their situation feels analogous to my memories of the initial offshoring boom in tech, when you could pitch plans that didn't factor time zone or QA into the budget and nobody cared.
• quickthrower2 3y ago
  Can they be subpoenaed? Then they will be forced to comply, or dump all the dirty laundry.
• dclowd9901 3y ago
  If this is true, this is pretty bad. An audit paper trail, at the very least, should be necessary.
• DannyBee 3y ago
  " I wonder if Boeing doesn't want to admit that for some legal reason, maybe they don't have a lot of documentation they say they should have. " This would be a bad legal strategy. Playing this through as a lawyer: 1. You will be asked to produce it in a lawsuit 2. It will come out it does not exist but should. 3. You will be absolutely and totally excoriated in the lawsuit, in the court of public opinion, and by your regulators. 4. You will prolong the news cycle of your malicious belligerence, and it may even spike higher when it comes out the docs don't exist but should. 5. You will be forced to settle the lawsuit at very high cost, and because you were totally belligerent, you will be regulated much harder, which has a higher-than-the-lawsuit cost most likely Meanwhile, admitting you are missing shit you should not be, because the contractors played games (or even if it is just you): 1. You will be forced to settle the lawsuit at high cost 2. You will be less excoriated because you owned up to your failure, and because you look more like a bumbling company instead of belligerent and malicious. 3. You will probably be regulated more, but probably less than you did in the first scenario because of #2 The net expected value of the first strategy is much lower than the second. They can't prevent themselves from losing or being excoriated, they can only try to make it have less cost.
  • willvarfar 3y ago
    which of the two scenarios captures the most value for lawyers involved?
    • otterley 3y ago
      Speaking as a lawyer, we’re not incentivized to advise a course of action whose primary purpose would be to line our own pockets. Doing so would cause us to lose trust in our clients and could possibly subject us to disciplinary action. We are expected to act in our clients’ best interest, not our own. I’m obviously not Boeing’s attorney, but given the industry they’re in and the amount of scrutiny they’re under, they don’t need their lawyers to fabricate situations that drive up their billables. They’re quite busy enough already.
      • willvarfar 3y ago
• bboygravity 3y ago
  Interesting to see how Boeing seems to be operating more and more like a US hedge fund (or any other criminal organization for that matter).