The first wasn't the slightest. He had testified a decade earlier and had both personal problems and several recent deaths in the family, including at least one suicide.
Don't muddy the waters of a serious issue with this conspiracy garbage that doesn't withstand the slightest scrutiny.
Unless you've ever been a QM (Quality Manager), and a damn good one to boot, you wouldn't understand. We're a bit like Internal Affairs. We know where all the skeletons are. We take notes. To a point, as long as there is hope something'll actually get remedied, it doesn't have to go much further than that.
Prove mens rea though, and we tend to be that perfect combination of places, names, who was involved, what they said, and where to find the evidence, because we were the ones who put it there. Just in case.
A QA/QM with a conscience, notes, and evidence is an exec's absolute worst nightmare from the legal liability perspective. Criminal charges that pierce the corporate veil need names. If you were going to merc someone, they'd be the ones to merc.
It was a second retaliation case against Boeing from this one person. I don't know what you think he would have testified now that would have been done previously.
> Boeing concedes those manufacturing changes were made, but a spokesman for the company, Paul Lewis, said there was “no impact on durability or safe longevity of the airframe.”
>
> Mr. Lewis said Boeing had done extensive testing on the Dreamliner and “determined that this is not an immediate safety of flight issue.”
I'd guess that Boeing's PR department no longer thinks Congress and/or the public will believe statements like "trust us, it's fine."
What does the PR playbook say to do in situations like this?
I hope the answer is: share the engineering data and analyses, and make a public argument for why Boeing's is right and the whiste-blower is mistaken.
I fear the answer will be something that's less likely to ultimately save lives.
I agree that no one should just accept it, but credible people including ex Boeing execs don't dismiss the possibility..
> Discussing Swampy’s death and the whistleblower lawsuit he left behind, the longtime former Boeing executive told me, “I don’t think one can be cynical enough when it comes to these guys.” Did that mean he thought Boeing assassinated Swampy? “It’s a top-secret military contractor, remember; there are spies everywhere,” he replied. More importantly, he added, “there is a principle in American law that there is no such thing as an accidental death during the commission of a felony. Let’s say you rob a bank and while traveling at high speed in the getaway you run down a pedestrian and kill them. That’s second-degree murder at the very least.” [1]
It's not just a lazy narrative. It's a profitable one. That narrative could help save their ass. I wouldn't be surprised if legions of paid "social media analysts" are barfing this out 24/7 on the grams and the twits.
Think about it. What's going to have a better impact on your disgruntled workforce: 1) the idea that someone ratted out big Ma B, got sidelined, got sad, then killed themselves? or 2) the idea that rats get murdered? I don't know about you, but with 2 I'd be definitely be thinking twice before calling the FAA or anyone else.
For me personally, it's not about acceptance, it's that I'm on the economic treadmill of modern times and I'm too busy just trying to keep my own affairs in check.
What can I honestly do, go protest about it somewhere and lose my job because I'm not at work?
The money men have owned our asses a long time ago and they call the shots.They keep us busy so we can't make change.
I wish more than anything those accountable are sent to prison for the rest of their lives, but I know there is slim to nil chance of it.
> What can I honestly do, go protest about it somewhere and lose my job because I'm not at work?
What you can do is when these topics are brought up in "polite company", don't take the non-confrontationalist side that has won over the majority of the public. I've got a few great quotes by other HN users I've collected over time on this topic:
"The only actions the public supports are those working within the system. There is no amount of (theoretical or not) fuck-up that warrants putting the fear of god into the heart of someone.
Someone could very well be an existential threat and the most extreme action people find morally acceptable is writing some mildly mannered stuff on a cardboard... but only when and where the government approves"
"Meanwhile, if you actually riot, or do anything destructive, you get slapped with a criminal conviction for the rest of your life. And still probably achieve nothing in the long run. Not to mention ever increasing removal of liberty by bills exactly like this and the current strike rhetoric being pushed."
Openly supporting this idea is something any of us can do. Many of us already agree, but are afraid of admitting so out of fear of being ostracized.
I mean where did any of it really get Julian Assange and how did his actions change America?
Maybe is there were 100 of him it would actually have changed something but as it stands right now, the dude sacrificed a lot for seemingly very little.
Given this, and everything else happening in the US, I genuinely don’t understand why a proper coup hasn’t occurred yet. The complacency is astounding.
Oh boy, composites! That brings me back. Time for another story, from the lands of not-necessarily-big-B-but-could-very-well-be, told by someone who has no idea whatsoever what he's doing.
New product, new structures. Composites! Leadership says that Flight Science needs to sim every single top level assembly permutation - that's a hundred some different airframes, in a few dozen flight regimes each. Now, if you paid money for a decent CAD/CAM package, those big packages have prefabs for all sorts of things when it comes to composites - you don't need to sim from nothing. This being the beloved military industrial complex[1], no one wants to pay money for anything, so sim from nothing it was. Poor bastards in Flight Science spend seven hundred hours simming every single flyable configuration.
Why did I care? I was keeping a thumb in this pie because I planned to integrate with their sim runs, keeping my team from needing to drawn graphs manually every time they updated. Hook up the data to a graphing doohickey, key in the right aircraft / configurations, and never need to draw graphs again. Anyway.
A week goes by, I send an email. Nothing. A month goes by, I drop by their hallway with sandwiches to get the lowdown. After the "SIM EVERYTHING" directive, a dozen or so major changes and additional flyable configurations got railroaded into engineering release. So they ran out of time to sim anything before the heat death of the universe. Now, hold on a second, I said. The military needs operational limits and maintenance schedules - how do you know how many flight cycles, say, this widget here can take before it breaks? Whelp. The Overlords got on the horn with the military procurement dudes and they basically ballparked a number - say, 20 flight hours, for this one carbon component - that it would need to be inspected and serviced. They did this for everything, dreaming up a LORA out of thin air. But these components had only been through, at best, a partial model run, and since everything was changing twice weekly, some of those part configurations never saw one single pixel side of a stress-strain analysis. The military procurement guy waived absolutely everything; I want to emphasize this, because this sort of thing, it's much harder to get away with in civilian, pax-carrying aircraft.
Something to be emphasized here is that composites don't deform, they don't absorb energy as they fail. They fail, everywhere, all at once - the nonlocality of it can be a little scary. What this means is that the margins are razor thin. Remember that little part with the 20 hours? Weeeeellllllll turns out that got halved by saltwater/spray, then halved again for extreme cold, and halved because extreme 3-axis vibration . . und so weiter, und so weiter. Our little part didn't make it through one single climbout. Even more fun, since everything else was so close to its limits, when that little part went, everything it was attached to got whomped, and 20% of those other parts failed. To draw a big picture: imagine an aircraft that takes off, then before it gets a few thousand feet it . . sort of self-disassembles. The ones that do manage to make it back - keeping enough lifting surface and controls to wing around - are totalled - the airframe's thrashed, with so many loose fasteners inside it sounded like a pair of maracas. It's sort of impressive that it's even possible to build something so fragile it springs itself into bits. It's like a prank plane.
And I never did get that flight sim data to make my team's life any easier. The sim runs were never allowed to get to completion, and no sim, no data, no graph widget. So the graphs got drawn just like they always did; that is, from the imagination of one of the senior flight ops guys. "Just draw this curve . . up . . up . . and ooooooover . . . and then it comes back down again. Science!"
Alright, what's the lesson here? What's the take...
You weren't working on the F-35 by any chance, were you? Because that could be the start of an explanation as to why the development program went sideways. :-)
26 comments
[ 25.8 ms ] story [ 1546 ms ] threadDon't muddy the waters of a serious issue with this conspiracy garbage that doesn't withstand the slightest scrutiny.
[1]https://www.npr.org/2024/03/12/1238033573/boeing-whistleblow...
Prove mens rea though, and we tend to be that perfect combination of places, names, who was involved, what they said, and where to find the evidence, because we were the ones who put it there. Just in case.
A QA/QM with a conscience, notes, and evidence is an exec's absolute worst nightmare from the legal liability perspective. Criminal charges that pierce the corporate veil need names. If you were going to merc someone, they'd be the ones to merc.
I'd guess that Boeing's PR department no longer thinks Congress and/or the public will believe statements like "trust us, it's fine."
What does the PR playbook say to do in situations like this?
I hope the answer is: share the engineering data and analyses, and make a public argument for why Boeing's is right and the whiste-blower is mistaken.
I fear the answer will be something that's less likely to ultimately save lives.
Saying “there is no immediate safety of flight issue” kinda dodges the question.
Perfect PR language
It still served a purpose of true.
> Discussing Swampy’s death and the whistleblower lawsuit he left behind, the longtime former Boeing executive told me, “I don’t think one can be cynical enough when it comes to these guys.” Did that mean he thought Boeing assassinated Swampy? “It’s a top-secret military contractor, remember; there are spies everywhere,” he replied. More importantly, he added, “there is a principle in American law that there is no such thing as an accidental death during the commission of a felony. Let’s say you rob a bank and while traveling at high speed in the getaway you run down a pedestrian and kill them. That’s second-degree murder at the very least.” [1]
There needs to be an investigation.
[1] https://prospect.org/infrastructure/transportation/2024-03-2...
Think about it. What's going to have a better impact on your disgruntled workforce: 1) the idea that someone ratted out big Ma B, got sidelined, got sad, then killed themselves? or 2) the idea that rats get murdered? I don't know about you, but with 2 I'd be definitely be thinking twice before calling the FAA or anyone else.
What can I honestly do, go protest about it somewhere and lose my job because I'm not at work?
The money men have owned our asses a long time ago and they call the shots.They keep us busy so we can't make change.
I wish more than anything those accountable are sent to prison for the rest of their lives, but I know there is slim to nil chance of it.
What you can do is when these topics are brought up in "polite company", don't take the non-confrontationalist side that has won over the majority of the public. I've got a few great quotes by other HN users I've collected over time on this topic:
"The only actions the public supports are those working within the system. There is no amount of (theoretical or not) fuck-up that warrants putting the fear of god into the heart of someone.
Someone could very well be an existential threat and the most extreme action people find morally acceptable is writing some mildly mannered stuff on a cardboard... but only when and where the government approves"
"Meanwhile, if you actually riot, or do anything destructive, you get slapped with a criminal conviction for the rest of your life. And still probably achieve nothing in the long run. Not to mention ever increasing removal of liberty by bills exactly like this and the current strike rhetoric being pushed."
Openly supporting this idea is something any of us can do. Many of us already agree, but are afraid of admitting so out of fear of being ostracized.
Maybe is there were 100 of him it would actually have changed something but as it stands right now, the dude sacrificed a lot for seemingly very little.
New product, new structures. Composites! Leadership says that Flight Science needs to sim every single top level assembly permutation - that's a hundred some different airframes, in a few dozen flight regimes each. Now, if you paid money for a decent CAD/CAM package, those big packages have prefabs for all sorts of things when it comes to composites - you don't need to sim from nothing. This being the beloved military industrial complex[1], no one wants to pay money for anything, so sim from nothing it was. Poor bastards in Flight Science spend seven hundred hours simming every single flyable configuration.
Why did I care? I was keeping a thumb in this pie because I planned to integrate with their sim runs, keeping my team from needing to drawn graphs manually every time they updated. Hook up the data to a graphing doohickey, key in the right aircraft / configurations, and never need to draw graphs again. Anyway.
A week goes by, I send an email. Nothing. A month goes by, I drop by their hallway with sandwiches to get the lowdown. After the "SIM EVERYTHING" directive, a dozen or so major changes and additional flyable configurations got railroaded into engineering release. So they ran out of time to sim anything before the heat death of the universe. Now, hold on a second, I said. The military needs operational limits and maintenance schedules - how do you know how many flight cycles, say, this widget here can take before it breaks? Whelp. The Overlords got on the horn with the military procurement dudes and they basically ballparked a number - say, 20 flight hours, for this one carbon component - that it would need to be inspected and serviced. They did this for everything, dreaming up a LORA out of thin air. But these components had only been through, at best, a partial model run, and since everything was changing twice weekly, some of those part configurations never saw one single pixel side of a stress-strain analysis. The military procurement guy waived absolutely everything; I want to emphasize this, because this sort of thing, it's much harder to get away with in civilian, pax-carrying aircraft.
Something to be emphasized here is that composites don't deform, they don't absorb energy as they fail. They fail, everywhere, all at once - the nonlocality of it can be a little scary. What this means is that the margins are razor thin. Remember that little part with the 20 hours? Weeeeellllllll turns out that got halved by saltwater/spray, then halved again for extreme cold, and halved because extreme 3-axis vibration . . und so weiter, und so weiter. Our little part didn't make it through one single climbout. Even more fun, since everything else was so close to its limits, when that little part went, everything it was attached to got whomped, and 20% of those other parts failed. To draw a big picture: imagine an aircraft that takes off, then before it gets a few thousand feet it . . sort of self-disassembles. The ones that do manage to make it back - keeping enough lifting surface and controls to wing around - are totalled - the airframe's thrashed, with so many loose fasteners inside it sounded like a pair of maracas. It's sort of impressive that it's even possible to build something so fragile it springs itself into bits. It's like a prank plane.
And I never did get that flight sim data to make my team's life any easier. The sim runs were never allowed to get to completion, and no sim, no data, no graph widget. So the graphs got drawn just like they always did; that is, from the imagination of one of the senior flight ops guys. "Just draw this curve . . up . . up . . and ooooooover . . . and then it comes back down again. Science!"
Alright, what's the lesson here? What's the take...
Reminds me of the “front fell off” ship meme. And Boeings response here feels about as credible.