7 ms·
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.
by 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 agoCan 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 agoI 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 agoIf 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 agoBut 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 agoThen Boeing management is responsible for not realizing the process was missing. Peoples lives were at stake here.
- dv_dt 3y agoThe process to do something undocumented could be to plan and write down what you are about to do, record the before during and after states file the documents. Alternately the process should be to do nothing until the system studies the action and defines the process. But even then you have a proofing run where you probably should have extra documentation. And arguably in a high safety environment- this would be preferred.
- ethbr1 3y agoBack upstream to the source of the problem, too much rework was already being required by the time the components got to the Boeing assembly plant (i.e. the Spirit techs onsite doing repairs). In an environment where process exceptions are the norm, people begin to deprioritize handling exceptions properly. Everything can't be critical or emergency all the time. And once that deprioritization happens, safety critical process exceptions begin being treated like all other exceptions. Because they're all exceptions, and there are so many. And eventually normalization of out of bounds situations via repeated team exposure leads to catastrophe. NASA lost two shuttles via the same organizational problem.
- dv_dt 3y agoThat’s all very true, but just a casual opinion, I think Boeing's process problem is more one driven by prioritization of profits with management corroding the safety culture vs nasa procedural breakdown missing risks because of routine complacency of many previous launches.
- avs733 3y agoso its worth clarifying something because 'plug door' is a confusing term as it relates to the bolts. The issue here isn't about trusting workers to do things, its about systems and processes to ensure they know what the right thing to do is and they know how to do it correctly. You CAN (and SHOULD) use things like checklists to ensure people do each job correctly. There are tens of thousands of 'jobs' in an assembly like this - no one knows/remembers exactly how to do each one correctly, nor should a system expect rely on them doing so. Here's how that happens without anyone doing something 'random' and following their instructions as they understand them: There are doors on an aircraft - you enter through them, they have inflatable slides attached. Then there are plugs - plugs that fill a space (this is one, there are a lot, basically any penetration of the pressure vessel). If there were a space where a door could be but isn't on this model, you need to plug it (hence, door plug or...plug door). In terms of assembly, maintenance, operation, etc. they have different functions and those functions have different documentation and traceability requirements. Doors are meant to be opened and closed - that is different from being removed (i.e., 'taking the door off its hinge'). That leaves us here: * Doors can be opened and closed (this does not require documentation because it is part of the normal function) * Doors can be removed, which is different from opened and closed (requires documentation because it is not part of its normal function, requires inspection after reinstallation) * Plugs cannot be opened and closed (opening and closing them is not part of their normal function so...to whit...doing so is impossible within the vocabulary/concept of documentation rules, they are not designed for regular use) * Plugs can only be REMOVED (documentation required, inspection required just like a door removal) Where does that leave the door plug? is undoing the bolts and pushing it up off the stop blocks opening it or is it removal? In the minds of Boeing and the FAA - that is removal. In the minds of line workers, opened a door. Suddenly, door plug and plug door become potentially different concepts. One is a plug for a door and is discussed and documented like a plug. The other is a door that serves the purpose of a plug...and is discussed and documented like a door. What seems to have happened is that workers opened the plug , which isn't 'possible' - meaning they 'removed' the plug and treated it like opening it. That meant it didn't trigger anything about a required set of procedures to do so, didn't trigger inspection, didn't trigger documentation, didn't trigger inspection, just got closed up and moved down the line. I've dealt with a lot of these...a personal favorite was a company I worked with having someone who couldn't read be responsible for recording each serial number he stamped on each federally tracked part in our factory. He relied on his memory of the last serial number he did the day before.
- sobkas 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. Why? We don't trust surgeons to remove correct limbs, why we should trust some contractors thrice removed from actual accountability? There are checklists for a reason.
- bhk 3y agoHow weaselly. > "If [it] was undocumented there would be no documentation to share..." So... Maybe documentation exists. Maybe not. Either way, maybe they did not share it. Shouldn't the reporting make it clear how much of a non-answer this is, or are they intentionally writing news reports laced with dry humor?
- TylerE 3y agoIt’s a big deal because aviation is one of those highly regulated industries where the documentation not existing is it self a crisis level event. Like VW emissions scandal bad. That’s if it never caused a single incident, which it obviously has.
- trogdor 3y agoI fly a 40-year-old Cessna. If someone replaced a light bulb in 1982, I have a record of it.
- sobkas 3y ago> I fly a 40-year-old Cessna. If someone replaced a light bulb in 1982, I have a record of it. How surprising that hobbyist act like hobbyist. When real money gets involved, all of sudden inconvenient things no longer are "critical" so no documentation is needed for them. What a coincidence...
- ryanwaggoner 3y agoIf you have a record of a light-bulb being replaced in 1982 in your 40-year-old Cessna, you have a record of time travel :)
- hedora 3y agoEasy solution: Find the common manager of everyone that could have screwed the door up, and hold them responsible.
- thinkingkong 3y ago[flagged]
- readyman 3y agoBut that manager worked so hard to be the person who gets to decide who to blame!
- _heimdall 3y agoWouldn't the be the CEO?
- chimpanzee 3y agoPresumably you’d want the lowest common manager within the power structure.
- hnlmorg 3y agoUnfortunately that's still the CEO. The problems with Boeing are company wide.
- rsynnott 3y agoThe current one's only been CEO for four years; the structural problems presumably are older. Like, they probably _should_ consider losing the CEO, but that in itself is not going to fix anything.
- hnlmorg 3y agoThe CEO has been on the board for much longer than 4 years though. And I agree that losing the CEO isn’t going to fix things. But putting leadership there that places safety above share value will. And the CEO is part of that leadership that needs to change.