4 ms·
About illegal reuse of potential defective parts and potentially dangerous metal shavings. Neither of which are related to this incident.
by Someone1234 3y ago
About illegal reuse of potential defective parts and potentially dangerous metal shavings. Neither of which are related to this incident.
- alias_neo 3y ago> About illegal reuse of potential defective parts and potentially dangerous metal shavings I'm no expert, but I'd expect a history of (criminal) negligence would be relevant in a legal proceeding about potential negligence, if only for precedent.
- Someone1234 3y agoThe lawsuit has already started on the door incident, and his testimony even if he was alive isn't relevant. The door was a process problem + screw-up, 2016 parts was potentially criminally illegal (and on purpose). Plus in civil court, where the standards are lower, they could bring in his interviews to the FAA/BBC anyway (they won't, because relevance). I feel like a bunch of people online have irrationally decided these two things are directly connected, and are now massaging the facts to meet that narrative. Aside from Boeing, there isn't a lot of reason to connect these two things. But people want to ignore the facts to make this sound like a sexy movie script. Two things happened. They happened around the same time. Even if he was alive today, it is unlikely the two would intersect outside of [bad] Boeing PR.
- underlipton 3y agoI'm not sure why that matters. The public concern with Boeing isn't about a single incident, but that there is a culture of corporate recklessness that has resulted in multiple incidents (and might result in more in the future). The notion that they'd kill a whistleblower absolutely speaks to that.