NTSB says Boeing is withholding key details about door plug on Alaska 737 MAX 9

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/06/1236277058/boeing-737-max-9-alaska-airlines-door-plug-removed-ntsb-commerce-cantwell-cruz

by everybodyknows • 2 years ago

544 298 2 years ago

npr.org

TylerE12• 2 years ago

Then they need to do the one thing that will get Boeing's attention: ground the fleet.

DiggyJohnson4• 2 years ago

Would that be what’s best for everyone?

If you’re being serious, I genuinely wonder if you realize the consequences of this drastic a decision.

TylerE12• 2 years ago

I'm deadly serious.

Aviation, for a long time, administratively speaking, has been very buddy-buddy. Lots of self-attestation and self-certification. That works as long as you can trust the mfg to actually do it. Boeing has proven with the continuous series of failures of the 737 MAX program - from top to bottom - that they are not trustworthy in that regard.

From here on out they can do everything on that airplane by not just the letter of the law, but the serif. They killed hundreds of people through greed and laziness. Simply put, fuck 'em. If they go under it's because they deserve to. Too big to fail is not a situation that should be allowed to exist. The long term resiliency of the system is worth short term pain.

(Edit: And as dylan604 pointed out in a sibling comment, the 737 MAX fleet has already been grounded on mulitple occasions)

dylan6049• 2 years ago

The MAX fleet has been grounded multiple times now. Why would this be any different? The grounding after the door flew off was way shorter than the MCAS grounding.

The consequences of continuing to fly this aircraft is likely to continue to find issues of varying severity. It's like playing Russian roulette with 2 bullets loaded.

deciplex4• 2 years ago

I genuinely wonder if you realize the consequences of this drastic a decision.

Well, among other things, an increase in the general public safety vis-à-vis commercial air travel. Plus, I suppose, some kind of material incentive for Boeing and other airliners to take quality control seriously.

Seems like a win.

lmm• 2 years ago

If there are no credible consequences for unsafe practices, they will continue. If Boeing believes their planes will never be grounded unless they kill hundreds of Americans, sooner or later they will kill hundreds of Americans. (We already know from the Max 8 that killing hundreds of foreigners isn't enough to get the FAA to ground an American plane, at least not until it happens multiple times).

A poorly installed door plug may be a one-off mistake. Missing required documentation on the installation of that door plug is a more serious systemic issue. Failing to cooperate with a safety investigation is an even deeper rot. If that's not something that should result in aircraft grounding then what is? Genuine question - how bad does it have to get?

sobkas6• 2 years ago

Would that be what’s best for everyone?
If you’re being serious, I genuinely wonder if you realize the consequences of this drastic a decision.

It would be best for everyone who isn't Boeing. But we all know that the second it would happen, Boeing would run crying to politicians they own how unfair this action is/how it endangers their market position/how it threatens national security.

JumpCrisscross6• 2 years ago

do the one thing that will get Boeing's attention: ground the fleet

Grounding planes to satisfy a desire for vengeance is petty and a bad precedent. Let the regulators make the fly/no-fly call. I’d prefer the politicians explore a break-up of Boeing’s commercial and military wings.

TylerE12• 2 years ago

It's not out of a desire for vengeance.

It's out of a desire for them to actually prove the aircraft is safe to fly and operates the way they've claimed it does.

A standard the 737 MAX has already flunked multiple times, with deadly cost.

Modern US Aviation is so incredibly safe it only makes the MAX more abhorrent.

WheatMillington• 2 years ago

I'd say doors flying off aircraft, while the manufacturer is unable to pinpoint the cause, is a clear indicator that the planes need to be grounded.

mschuster91• 2 years ago

Grounding planes to satisfy a desire for vengeance is petty and a bad precedent.

It's not vengeance. It is a legitimate fear that Boeing currently lacks the processes in design, development, self-certification, production and quality assurances to reliably produce airworthy aircraft, backed by a number of incidents in the last years - the Dreamliner battery fires, the deadly MCAS disasters (and how they came to be), the loose rudder control screws and now the door plug incident - as well as whistleblower reports alleging widespread QC issues.

lokar2• 2 years ago

No, fire every member of the board of directors and bar them from ever serving on the board of a public corporation again.

TylerE12• 2 years ago

I’d argue grounding is more serious as it inflicts pain on their customers as well.

stephenr2• 2 years ago

You're both thinking too small.

Force the members of the board to constantly fly on the affected models until questions are answered and fixes are delivered.

Call it "ultimate dogfooding".

mutant• 2 years ago

Why not both?

05• 2 years ago

NTSB cannot do that, it can only issue recommendations that could be acted on (or ignored) by the FAA.

Maybe Boeing execs are sure their FAA buddies are not going to do anything drastic like that anytime soon? It’s not like Boeing the main US military supplier can be allowed to fail right?

lulznews• 2 years ago

Asset seizure and jail time for execs are the only currencies of value .

JoshTko2• 2 years ago

Have a fee of 100% of net worth for any corporate board member and C-suite that engaged in intentional negligence resulting in public harm.

guardiangod2• 2 years ago

A Boeing spokesman disputed Homendy's account in an emailed statement to NPR. "Since the first moments following the Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 accident, we have worked proactively and transparently to fully support the NTSB's investigation," said Boeing's Connor Greenwood

By 'proactively and transparently' I assume Boeing means telling NTSB 'we don't know anything so we can't answer your questions lalala.'

"Early in the investigation, we provided the NTSB with names of Boeing employees, including door specialists, who we believed would have relevant information. We have now provided the full list of individuals on the 737 door team, in response to a recent request," Greenwood said.

Boeing throwing its employees under the bus- 'no we don't have any record of the work. Why don't you bother our plant crew instead. They would know everything because someone does, and it's not us Boeing.'

JumpCrisscross6• 2 years ago

throwing its employees under the bus

The NTSB is literally asking for names. That’s what Boeing is allegedly refusing to provide.

dylan6049• 2 years ago

From the GP: ">"Early in the investigation, we provided the NTSB with names of Boeing employees, including door specialists, who we believed would have relevant information. "

How is that Boeing refusing to provide employee names based on the quote in the comment you are replying. I'm assuming on good faith the GP's quote is from the TFA.

guardiangod2• 2 years ago

including door specialists, who we believed would have relevant information.

Yes, by telling the NTSB to ask the door specialists "which of you installed the door", instead of having proper documentation on who did exactly what work. If the workers can't answer the question, now Boeing can wash its hands clean and blame the workers.

I doubt the workers themselves keep track of which specific planes they worked on- and they shouldn't need to, this is project management.

skullone• 2 years ago

Oh my lord that all sounds so seriously bad. I can't even believe this. My grandpa used to assemble landing gears in the 80s for boeing and they kept records of the torque applied to every nut and bolt, in duplicate or triplicate (2 people in assembly would check, and 1 from QA). He would be rolling in his grave right now

dboreham• 2 years ago

The Boeing guy who posted the detailed history of the plane a few weeks ago[1] said something to the effect that they discussed things in a slack-like system rather than enter in the official records system because managers would get upset at KPIs not being met.

[1] https://leehamnews.com/2024/01/15/unplanned-removal-installa...

lamontcg• 2 years ago

I think the NTSB would probably love to interview to the crew who actually used the tools--even if nobody can figure out which exact team used the tools on this exact plane--they probably wouldn't so much as incriminate themselves as to paint a picture of incredibly shoddy quality control. Instead carefully parse that phrase "names of Boeing employees, including door specialists, who we believed would have relevant information" which are all likely management / project-management kinds of positions who are vetted by Boeing.

dclowd99013• 2 years ago

Did we read the same article? The article I read said the NTSB was seeking the singular person who failed to reinstall the door plug correctly and Boeing was not giving that person up.

I have no love for Boeing, but it sounded like they were trying to _prevent_ some poor line worker taking the fall.

xenadu023• 2 years ago

The NTSB does not have any prosecution power and their investigation docket + reports are, by law, not admissible as evidence in court.

The NTSB will not identify the person responsible even to Boeing, let alone anyone else.

There is no "taking the fall" for talking to the NTSB. If it were otherwise a great many investigations would be impossible. Besides which the whole point of having a certified aircraft manufacturing process is to avoid making issues any one person's responsibility because all humans make mistakes. Allowing one person's mistake to endanger an aircraft means the process has failed, not the individual.

FWIW Airline pilots and ATC also have an ASRS reporting system: Aviation Safety Reporting System. It is blameless as well. Everyone makes mistakes, period. If you punish every pilot or controller who makes a mistake naturally they will try to cover up all such mistakes and that leads to worst outcomes. All the big airlines follow the rules and do not punish pilots for issues reported via the system. At worst you will get sent for some training to address problem areas.

geoffeg• 2 years ago

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 want to admit that for some legal reason, maybe they don't have a lot of documentation they say they should have.

[1] https://twitter.com/David_Slotnick/status/176545419893241038...

laweijfmvo• 2 years 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• 2 years ago

And we don't know what we don't know, Senator.

singron• 2 years ago

She is the NTSB chair, not Boeing.

bigiain3• 2 years 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).

ethbr12• 2 years 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• 2 years 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.

bhk• 2 years ago

How 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?

hedora• 2 years ago

Easy solution: Find the common manager of everyone that could have screwed the door up, and hold them responsible.

ajross3• 2 years 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• 2 years 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.

quickthrower22• 2 years ago

Can they be subpoenaed? Then they will be forced to comply, or dump all the dirty laundry.

dclowd99013• 2 years ago

If this is true, this is pretty bad. An audit paper trail, at the very least, should be necessary.

DannyBee3• 2 years 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.

willvarfar2• 2 years ago

which of the two scenarios captures the most value for lawyers involved?

Log_out_• 2 years ago

Playing for time to restore faked documentation after the fact?

bambax• 2 years ago

This sounds like a case of Schrödinger's documentation: it may or may not exist. I think Boeing is still looking for it and doesn't want to admit they don't have it until they're absolutely, positively certain they don't.

Time is running out, and the situation doesn't make them look good, but it seems they're not ready to abandon hope just yet.

sidewndr464• 2 years ago

Just speaking from my experience here: I worked for a company that was comparable in role to Boeing. I was prohibited from retaining any documentation about my work that was not court ordered. Files, notes, emails, scribbles on a napkin all of it had to be destroyed.

marcosdumay2• 2 years ago

Step 3 on your first scenario takes years to happen. More than enough for rich people to cash out their gains and move away.

bboygravity• 2 years 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).

grecy• 2 years ago

So where are the severe consequences here?

Surely when lives are at stake there must be consequences for companies breaking the law...

deciplex4• 2 years ago

is that an earnest question or are you just trying to draw attention to the fact that that's not how any of this works?

in case of the former: that's not how any of this works

ChrisMarshallNY• 2 years ago

John Oliver absolutely roasted Boeing, in this week's main story: (Link won't be available until tomorrow).

makr17• 2 years ago

Watching that, I couldn't help but remember my father (who hasn't worked for Boeing since before I was born) saying in the mid-90s:

McDonnell Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing's money, which is a great trick if you can pull it off.

throwway120385• 2 years ago

Similarly all of the great software engineers I've worked with did a stint at Boeing that coincidentally ended when MD bought it.

MilStdJunkie• 2 years ago

When you're in the thick of it, it's sort of a "frog-in-pot" effect where you just notice that things are bad and have been for a whole, but when taking a few dozen big steps back and looking at the whole thing in its gross entirety, from 1990s to now . . that was awful.

And Oliver didn't even spit in the direction of the wall-to-wall screwball comedy of fail from the BDS side of things. They've not been having a great time, and to this day the discipline of performing on fixed-price contracts seems to elude them.

Phantom Works and BGS legit have the best claim to success, but BPW is, well, tiny - they do black research stuff. And BGS . . BGS is an enigma. One big financial success of that org is def due to how Boeing's structured internally. Howayyyyyyver . . there is a reasonably-high-probability BGS cycles refurb parts as new on the regular[1]. Also supplies the greater Boeing org with an excellent stage venue for Depreciation, the Amazing Accounting Dog. Amusing cash tricks had gotten them a loooooong way in the ZIRP era . . but those days are quite gone.

[1] Something Boeing gets fined for ever other year, and not just inside BGS, either.

miyuru• 2 years ago

its available on yt. uploaded 3 days ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-dJMqpGvjM

(don't know if its blocked in the US)

aledalgrande• 2 years ago

Blocked in Canada as well but a good VPN fixes it

voxadam• 2 years ago

While I agree that Oliver did a pretty good job skewering Boeing in the ~33 minutes allotted I'd argue that Peter Robinson does a better and more complete job in his 2021 book Flying Blind: The 737 MAX Tragedy and the Fall of Boeing.[0]

What I find most sad about what Boeing has become is that it was so predictable. I worked as an outside contractor at various Boeing locations in Washington and Oregon installing, maintaining, and training on the operation of CNC milling machines in the mid '90s and early 2000s. I was there before and and in the early days of the merger with McDonnell Douglas. In those days the pervasive sentiment among the machinists, engineers, and managers, many of whom had spent two and three decades working for the company was that the merger was going to get people killed. Sadly, those predictions came true even if it took longer than some may have expected.

[0] https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/646497/flying-blind...

nocsi• 2 years ago

“Merger”… functionally it was more like a SPAC. Boeing buys McDonnel Douglas with shares with a bonus of letting them control the board. Boeing just announced their acquisition of spirit aerosystems, same company responsible for the fuselage mishaps. Somehow I doubt they’re buying them for any of their aerospace expertise, but rather to go in and burn all their records.

The Boeing of old has been long gone since you were last there. It’s all run by MBAs now whose sole purpose is to minimize how much engineering can be done by the company.

Expect more deaths in the future. They seem very content continuing to solve systemic engineering problems with only business strategy.

rdtsc• 2 years ago

So at first NTSB asked "do you know who did it?", and Boeing said "no we don't". Then NTSB asked if they at least could get the list of the employee team who would have been responsible for performing that task and that's where the disagreement is, whether the names were provided or not.

Investigators have also been seeking the names of the 25 Boeing employees who are part of the team that opens and closes door plugs. But so far, Homendy says the plane-maker has not provided those names.
"Early in the investigation, we provided the NTSB with names of Boeing employees, including door specialists, who we believed would have relevant information. We have now provided the full list of individuals on the 737 door team, in response to a recent request," Greenwood said.

I wonder if NTSB is seeking to at least interview the whole team to see what they say. Would they even remember that long ago who did what? Or I guess they are after more evidence that this kind of stuff just happens routinely. Though I think it's seems quite clear it is.

Sakos• 2 years ago

I would guess they're more interested in the processes and structures involved that allowed something like the plug door falling off to happen. The best way to find the issues is to talk to the people who deal with these processes day to day, especially in regards to these door plugs and whatever documentation about the plane may be available.

masklinn2• 2 years ago

That would also be my guess, the NTSB is not generally interested in assigning blame to individuals, they’re interested in finding systemic and structural failures.

sidewndr464• 2 years ago

For an individual employee that usually falls into the bucket of "While I have no explicit memory of such an event. In the event that someone had instructed me to perform such a task I would have performed the task consistent with the training and procedures provided to me"

ajross3• 2 years ago

Would they even remember that long ago who did what?

The plane in question was manufactured last summer, IIRC.

toast03• 2 years ago

Yeah, I don't know what I did last summer. Especially at work, unless you've got logs to remind me.

And if Boeing had logs, they probably would have shared them.

testemailfordg2• 2 years ago

Why wouldn't they? It is a business secret that helps them to reduce cost and be competitive.

Animats2• 2 years ago

Because the NTSB's authority to investigate overrides US trade secret law.[1][2] The NTSB has unusually strong investigative authority, including:

(3) Require, by subpoena or otherwise, the production of evidence and witnesses;

(4) Enter any property where an accident subject to the NTSB's jurisdiction has occurred, or wreckage from any such accident is located, and take all actions necessary to conduct a complete investigation of the accident;

(5) Inspect, photograph, or copy any records or information (including medical records pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section), and correspondence regardless of the date of their creation or modification, for the purpose of investigating an accident;

(6) Take possession of wreckage, records or other information if it determines such possession is necessary for an investigation; and

(7) Question any person having knowledge relevant to a transportation accident.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/831.9

[2] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2021-title49/pdf/...

dgoodell• 2 years ago

It kinda seems like the NTSB doesn't really need Boeing's cooperation. Apparently they can just waltz into a factory where an accident occurred and talk to whoever they want and look at whatever records they want.

I wonder why they aren't doing that yet?

datavirtue3• 2 years ago

The schtick about blah blah blah "raises serious questions about quality and safety at Boeing" is downright ridiculous at this point. Almost condescending in that Boeing management literally has everyone by the balls.

We are far beyond the profound insight that something is deadly wrong at Boeing, and as a matter of national security upper management needs purged. Whoever is selecting CEOs has to go. Total house cleaning.

flaminHotSpeedo2• 2 years ago

Wait I'm confused... From the preliminary report we know that the door plug was removed by spirit to fix their damaged rivets, and it sounds like the NTSB had documentation to support that as of when they were writing the preliminary report. Quoting from that report:

Records show the rivets were replaced per engineering requirements on Non-Conformance (NC) Order 145-8987-RSHK-1296-002NC completed on September 19, 2023, by Spirit AeroSystems personnel.

So why is the NTSB looking for Boeing personnel?

toast03• 2 years ago

That paragraph continues ...

Photo documentation obtained from Boeing shows evidence of the left-hand MED plug closed with no retention hardware (bolts) in the three visible locations (the aft upper guide track is covered with insulation and cannot be seen in the photo). This image was attached to a text message between Boeing team members on September 19, 2023. These Boeing personnel were discussing interior restoration after the rivet rework was completed during second shift operations that day

I think number one, they're asking Boeing, because Boeing keeps the records. But also, because Boeing employees were working on the plane, and it was at a Boeing facility.

That there is no record of attaching the bolts is consistent with them not being attached, of course. But there's also no record of the plug being opened or closed, and yet it was.

flaminHotSpeedo2• 2 years ago

Right, I get that there's no record of the door plug being opened, which is ultimately on Boeing, but the repairs for the damaged rivets, which require opening the door plug, were performed by Spirit employees.

Fischgericht3• 2 years ago

It appears some here aren't fluent in WeaselSpeak.

NTSB wanted the names of the specific people who had removed the door plug.

Boeing then gave then the names of employees who may or may have not something to do with doors, for example, accounting, the chef and the janitor.

NTSB then said that no, they did not want that, they want the names of the specific employees who had removed/installed that specific door plug on that specific airplane.

And then Boeing replied: "Sure, here are the names of our 170.000 employees."

The End.

salawat3• 2 years ago

A&P mechanics are individually tracked, or if not, Boeing has bigger problems. Dicking around with NTSB is NOT good form.

irjustin3• 2 years ago

If what the grandparent comment says is true, I agree with Boeing. I HATE Boeing and what they've done to themselves. They had such a leg up on Airbus post A380 market, and squandered it with greed, but I digress.

What good does giving the names of individuals to the NTSB do?

I'm with NASA on this one: There's a process problem and the whole team should suffer not leaving individuals to hang and dry. Except perhaps the executives that allowed this to happen.

dclowd99013• 2 years ago

You’re making a lot of leaps here. Neither what NTSB said nor what Boeing said remotely insinuates what you said.

tgsovlerkhgsel2• 2 years ago

That sounds like it has some obvious ways for the NTSB to play along:

"Alright, sounds good. We've scheduled preliminary interviews with the 170000 employees. Here's the list of 5-minute appointment slots at our office. Please make sure your employees are on time, we expect the first batch of 28800 employees next week. We'll ask them a) whether they have anything to do with the door b) whether they want to report any other unethical practices, then schedule follow-up meetings as needed. No, we can't do this via Zoom."

Optionally one week later: "due to the concerning number of reports we've received during our preliminary interviews, the planes are grounded until we finished the interviews".

However, the article doesn't support your claim. They provided a list of everyone "on the door team", so probably a much smaller number, and they claim they can't figure out who did it because their documentation is incomplete. Which might be real, but also has an obvious solution: Ground all potentially affected planes until they're able to ensure their documentation is accurate.

Fischgericht3• 2 years ago

Well, the article somewhat supports my claim if you read between the lines (remote the WeaselSpeak).

But on a somewhat more serious note, my view on this is:

I run a small company. We produce small-business electronic devices.

If you would give me the serial number of one product produced 15 years ago, it would take me less than 2 minutes to query our database of work reports, showing which employee had produced it on what date and time, using which components, coming from which delivery lot.

It would also be impossible that someone "forgot to put that in". You have to log in. You have to scan the device to be built. You have to scan the parts. You have to scan the finished product. There is automated QA. And there is manual inspection. Repair means - scan and go to step 1. You can not delete records from this database, unless you are a system administrator, and if you are, there are offline backups.

And this is the minimum legal requirement in regards of product safety according to UL. For things that reside in homes on offices, not in the sky.

"The dog sadly has eaten our homework" should be technically and practically impossible. It can't be possible by a single entity to forget this, let alone possible for multiple different management layers departments (production, QA, Compliance Management, whatever) to all on this one day having had "bring your kid to work day", while all going out smoking pot while the kids are building the airplanes for that day :) - Either these work logs exist, or they have been intentionally (!) not produced, or they have intentionally be purged. There is no such thing as "can't find" in this regard.

To ground the planes may be good for aviation safety. But it also hurts the wrong people.

But what really needs to happen here is to someone go there, knock down the door, and ground the management until the work reports are produced, or management guilt be admitted.

It is shocking that the NTSB clearly does not have such powers, and that after more than two months of obvious stone-walling still have not been provided with any such powers. It should not even have come to the point of "If you won't provide the work reports, can we at least talk to the employees, pretty please?". They are supposed to be the regulatory authority.

Where is the A-Team when you need it?

drstewart2• 2 years ago

No, we can't do this via Zoom.

I think an important side note you bring up here is that remote work ISN'T really feasible in many cases, and being in person creates a huge difference in results.

Zigurd• 2 years ago

There was a deferred prosecution agreement with Boeing that expired shortly after the door blow out.

I saw a news item that said the DoJ was investigating whether Boeing's subsequent behavior violated the agreement.

It takes a bit of arrogance to stonewall the NTSB in light of such an agreement.

michael1999• 2 years ago

So they don't have process records for work on an airframe. Yikes. That is worse than I expected.

tomoyoirl• 2 years ago

Yes, but generally this seems to be close to the cause of why this became a problem (that is, bad documentation may be why the bolts were not replaced to begin with). The anonymous, ostensibly internal whistleblowycomplainers said this was a process-documentation problem a while ago, before the NTSB looked into this exact problem.

jvans3• 2 years ago

This is exactly what you should expect. Documentation is corporate frauds biggest enemy. If you are going to commit crimes and kill people, it's far better that you don't have records of incompetence even if lack of records is itself a display of incompetence.

Official logs of problems can give you insight into how deep rooted and severe the issues are. Lack of documentation means there are problems but allows them to hide the depth of them. E.g. we can't know how many other door plugs were shipped without bolts

gruez• 2 years ago

What type of fraud are you going to commit during airplane assembly?

anigbrowl3• 2 years ago

Boeing seems to think dealing with the NTSB is like dealing with the FAA. Would love to be a fly on the wall in their lobbyist's offices rn.

fransje262• 2 years ago

They've screwed around with them before. Passengers and aircrews died because of it.

https://imgur.com/a/5wcFx8M

mannyv• 2 years ago

I guess the question for Boeing is simple: is it better to be incompetent or negligent?

Boeing might believe that they have hit rock bottom...or their PR firm might believe that. There are miles more to go before they hit bottom.

I mean, if they can't produce complete records for any airplanes what happens?

And really, who are they protecting at this point? Their insurance won't cover negligence...but their customers won't accept incompetence.

shiroiushi3• 2 years ago

Their insurance won't cover negligence...but their customers won't accept incompetence.

Why wouldn't they? What choice do they have? It's not like they can call up Airbus and order some new planes to be delivered this year (or the next, or the next, ...).

dev1ycan2• 2 years ago

It's about a matter of time Boeing disappears, forcefully by the sole aspect of having every other country stop buying Boeing and buy Airbus only. American companies need to start learning that profit seeking has its limits when it comes to using a single sensor to recalibrate your plane or not installing bolts that make your plan doors fall off mid-flight.

In fact, I find it pretty crazy, at all, that the 737 Max, turned out to be just a 737 that had been rehashed to support a much stronger engine via some incredibly complex mechanism of balancing their plane, as if mechanical systems never failed before. Planes are hard enough as they are, let alone cheapening out on designing a new airframe because you think you can get away with this sensor garbage.

bevekspldnw• 2 years ago

Airbus can’t meet demand as it is, but it seems like a golden chance for an aircraft maker in Asia to enter the market more strongly.

shiroiushi3• 2 years ago

American companies need to start learning that profit seeking has its limits

It has no limits when there's no competition. That's the situation Boeing is in right now: Airbus already has more orders than it can handle. All the Boeing customers defecting to them would only mean they won't get any new planes for 10+ years.

the_duke• 2 years ago

Even if Airbus could suddenly double capacity over night, a duopoly already is quite bad for consumers (aka airlines). They certainly don't want to create a monopoly.

drstewart2• 2 years ago

American companies need to start learning that profit seeking has its limits

Why do only American companies need to learn this? And in the same response, explain why non-American companies haven't stopped buying Boeing, since it isn't for economic reasons (since they don't profit seek)

dev1ycan2• 2 years ago

China stopped buying Boeing, I think people want to label it as political but I think the only political aspect of it is them not openly calling out Boeing planes asjunk to not sour relationships further

_heimdall8• 2 years ago

Easy solution here is for every traveler to refuse to buy seats on a Boeing plane. If we honestly believe the company was at fault and has been negligent in their safety protocols, it seems like an easy answer to just not support their business.

r00fus• 2 years ago

Asking the consumer to help dethrone a government supported monopoly is a sick joke.

_heimdall8• 2 years ago

I'm not sure if Boeing would be considered a monopoly, Airbus also has a large market share. Why shouldn't consumers step in to avoid traveling if they don't consider it safe?

If it is safe enough to travel, we can all stop talking about Boeing and the news can let the story die.

xp845• 2 years ago

I think you may have mistyped “Hypothetical” as “Easy.” Given Boeing made about what, 60% of the full size jets domestically, and their only competitor is backlogged for a decade or so, for people to comply with that plan would also require that about 60% of air travel just be cancelled for the next 5-10 years. Which, coincidentally, would actually bankrupt all the airlines that we’d be asking at the same time to replace 50-100% of their working airplanes with very expensive new ones.

In summary, this isn’t something we can really seriously attempt. Btw i say this as someone very disappointed in Boeing, not as a defender of their bad decisions.

jvans3• 2 years ago

And Boeing of course knows this, and this is exactly why they're so brazenly ignoring NTSB requests.

ssivark• 2 years ago

The FAA grounding all planes Boeing planes (of this model) would be a more practical path to the same, executed through proxy collective action.

_heimdall8• 2 years ago

It's only hypothetical if people are willing to fly on Boeing planes anyway. The current level of air travel isn't necessary, neither are airlines. Sure the industry would be trashed, but if that's because passengers lost faith in both Boeing and airlines willing to keep them in the air then there really isn't anyone else to blame.

Why should we assume that air travel can't be meaningfully reduced and that passengers can't possibly decide to drive or stay closer to home?

KennyBlanken• 2 years ago

"too big to fail" strikes again.

It's almost like we shouldn't have allowed things to get to the point where the world's passenger jet liners are only built by two companies. The M-D merger never should have been allowed.

prmoustache• 2 years ago

for people to comply with that plan would also require that about 60% of air travel just be cancelled for the next 5-10 years. Which, coincidentally, would actually bankrupt all the airlines

You are saying this as if it was a bad thing.

_heimdall8• 2 years ago

I'm specifically referring to consumers here though, not oversight or regulation.

Consumers wouldn't be asking airlines to replace planes, they would simply be saying they're unwilling to fly on the planes airlines are offering.

Consumers don't have a concept of "too big to fail" - that's a government concern. We individually decide what we want to spend our money on, its as simple as that. If people were actually concerned with Boeing they'd stop flying on Boeing planes.

jvans3• 2 years ago

I would settle for major booking sites to provide a clear filter for Airbus. Not everyone will use it but it'll go a long way for those of us that do care

JumpCrisscross6• 2 years ago

Easy solution here is for every traveler to refuse to buy seats on a Boeing plane

Most travellers don’t care about this. (I’m a frequent traveller and have aerospace engineering and pilot training. I barely care about it from the perspective of a flier.)

The leverage is with the regulators and airlines. Calling your elected is orders of magnitudes more meaningful than complaining to the gate agent or silently re-booking. (And from what I’ve heard, barely anyone is calling.)

_heimdall8• 2 years ago

Given Boeing's market share the move would be to stay home rather then complaining to gate agents or re-booking.

Elected officials will do almost nothing here. Any government led solution will take years and be heavily managed to ensure the stability of the airline industry, meaning the government will do very little as any meaningful change will cause economic and political damage.

bowsamic• 2 years ago

Not sure, many booking websites have added a toggle specifically to opt out of those planes

michaelteter• 2 years ago

Philip Morris. Exxon(Mobile). Boeing.

Profits above all, and internal awareness of the greater unpaid costs... buried.

I know my list is incomplete, but you get the idea.

datadeft• 2 years ago

Boeing, Apple and few other companies are losing their way. They do not care about customers anymore and for few extra cents they do everything within their power, including endangering customer lives.

rsynnott3• 2 years ago

This is how all large companies have always worked. That's why the solution of hoping they'll be nice has rarely worked out. You want companies to behave themselves? You _regulate_ them.

(There actually _is_ a partial market solution; if a company engages in sufficiently objectionable behaviour, or is sufficiently poorly run, it is unpurchasable by a lot of funds. It's a relatively low bar, though; despite being so poorly run that it is apparently unable to build planes reliably at all anymore, Boeing has an ESG score of 40. Which is _bad_, and worse than any other major aircraft manufacturer, but is not sufficient to make it untouchable.)

kevincox• 2 years ago

I don't think it necessary is. This is companies prioritizing short-term over the long term.

In a world of cheap junk made by DNURES or some other six capital letter oversea retailer it seems that a strong brand name is more valuable than ever. But so many companies are throwing it away by making the same crap that those effectively no-name companies are. So why would I pay more for the same junk. But if they had a reputation of quality I would be happy to pay the premium.

For Boeing the equation is probably a lot different. But it is clear that there is little consideration for the long-term in the market.

berniedurfee2• 2 years ago

Correct.

Capitalism, by definition, has no conscience.

Regulation provides the layer (sometimes facade) of moral and ethical control.

The two forces are generally opposed, but, hopefully, balance out to keep our society and environment tenable.

sidewndr464• 2 years ago

Yeah, but iPhones don't fall from the sky with hundreds on board. I'm hardly a defender of Apple but I don't think it really matters here

JoshTko2• 2 years ago

Wait, how has Apple been endangering customer lives?

nektro• 2 years ago

its giving obstruction of justice vibes

dzdt2• 2 years 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-installa...

hef198982• 2 years ago

That 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• 2 years 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.3...

dzdt2• 2 years ago

Yeah 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.

onetimeuse92304• 2 years ago

It 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.

mdavid626• 2 years ago

Well, I’ll never fly with 737 MAX, that’s for sure.

buildsjets3• 2 years ago

If you have frequent flyer status at any airline, the higher status the better, make sure to let their customer service know. It appears that economic pressure will be the only way to eliminate these aircraft from public use, as the regulators are working with the manufacturer for ways to keep them in service indefinitely.

NTSB says Boeing is withholding key details about door plug on Alaska 737 MAX 9

Related Stories