4 ms·
There is a huge amount of context in an early whistleblower report [1]. This reported before the FAA did the likelihood that the bolts were not reinstalled and
by dzdt 3y ago
There is a huge amount of context in an early whistleblower report [1]. This reported before the FAA did the likelihood that the bolts were not reinstalled and the problems with the documentation.
Per that whistleblower account, the door plug removal was not documented in the official records system ("CMES") but the required work was discussed in an unofficial system ("SAT") including whether or not an official record should be made. Boeing concluded the work could be done without an official record in CMES. Per the discussion on SAT, the official "removal" record was not needed if the operation was treated as an "opening" instead, despite the safety-critical bolts being removed in either case.
The FAA obviously will have problems with the entire system that lets factory workers do safety-critical work without official documentation, standards, or oversight. So they will want to talk to enough people to understand how that system is understood in practice on the factory floor and how it came to be.
Boeing it seems has tried to limit them to talking to people directly involved with the Alaska Air incident work. Hence the current heated pushback feom the FAA.
It may also be that Boeing is playing coy about the relevant discussion in SAT, or about the existence or nonexistence of policy distinguishing between door plug "opening" and "removal". In any case the FAA wants everything and Boeing has been trying to get away with less.
[1] https://leehamnews.com/2024/01/15/unplanned-removal-installation-inspection-procedure-at-boeing/#comment-509962 https://leehamnews.com/2024/01/15/unplanned-removal-installa...
- onetimeuse92304 3y agoIt is hard for me to understand WHY they spent so much time discussing the process and whether to record or not record it in CMES, but they could not be bothered to remember the truly important part -- to bolt the fucking thing properly. It is a bit as if people forgot what their job is about.
- hef19898 3y agoThat side process is like nothing I have ever seen: Such things can, and at every reasonable place I know are, tracked as non-conformities on the corresponding work order and reviewed and approved by quality. If no work instructions exist yet, a singlenuse on is created, checked and approved before the work is done. For having the idea in the first place of allowing some side discussions on whethe or not documentation is necessary should have someone get his ass kicked. And it should be a major audit finding, which it seems it is for the FAA. Boeing is in trouble, I'd say.
- pyrale 3y ago> That side process is like nothing I have ever seen There's been a story about Googlers avoiding chat history as much as possible when discussing topics that could cause trouble with discovery, and actively destroyed evidence or attempted to after they had inadvertently left history on. https://ia601707.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.cand.364454/gov.uscourts.cand.364454.385.0.pdf https://ia601707.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.cand.3...
- bigbillheck 3y ago> Googlers avoiding chat history Oh, so that's why they keep churning thru chat apps.
- dzdt 3y agoYeah I would have thought there would be a clear line -- something like "if you are touching the airplane with a tool there needs to be an official record associated" -- and no room for further discussion around it.
- hef19898 3y agoIm very broad terms, that's the way of doing things I know.