5 ms·

"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.
        dylan604 3y ago
        too bad we can't ask those million that are no longer living because of the decisions made during the Bush Admin
        3y ago
    - 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]

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.
        dylan604 3y ago
        too bad we can't ask those million that are no longer living because of the decisions made during the Bush Admin
        3y ago
  - 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]