Originally Posted by
waito
I'm not fully convinced of Sam S. worries regarding 787 fuselage tolerances. I speculate:
He probably was applying metal knowledge and did assume that composite fuselage stress works the same
They initially took it serious but too many experts contradicted him. Even two company engineers (not known what leadership level) came forward to defend it as safe in public.
I think too many people were tired of Sam S. stubborn sticking to the issue although proven wrong.
They then transferred him to the more conventional 777 - wait a minute - is the 777x still conventional, apart from the skin?
For the benefit for him I hope I'm wrong, but this needs to be looked at with open mind, what's the truth.
On the same day, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing on a somewhat more structured (no pun intended) subject. It heard three witnesses, each with qualifications most people would say make them "experts", on the subject of the final report of the FAA's Organization Designation Authorization Expert Review Panel. As anyone following the Boeing saga will know, the Panel was mandated by the Aircraft Certification, Safety and Accountability Act - the legislation which served as the vehicle for Congressional urges to "do something" after the MAX accidents as well as vehicle for arguably meaningful reforms.
Witnesses: Dr. Javier de Luis (lecturer at MIT Dep't of Aeronautics and Astronautics);
Dr. Tracy Dillinger (Manager for Safety Culture and Human Factors, NASA); and
Dr. Najmedin Meshkati (Professor, USC School of Engineering, Aviation Safety and Security Program).
link for Chair Sen. Maria Cantwell (D. Wash.) opening statement:
https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2024...safety-culture
It almost never fails to amaze me how a hearing before a legislative committe can be mistaken for, or viewed as, the equivalent of full fact discovery in civil litigation in federal district court. I mean, to cut this short without stomping on parts of it to make it fit together, there is no equivalent of obligation to produce all relevant information, and nothing equivalent to cross-examination (partisan rotation of questioning, no, that's not cross).
I won't prejudge the individual whistleblowers' stories on the merits of what they've said and are saying. I will, however, say that their respective recitations depend on their having first painted a picture in which they not only are doing the right thing in the specific situation, and doing it in reasonable ways, but every action taken by company management in response is malevolently directed against them. Sometimes that picture turns out to be true, correct and valid. But it is far from the default setting, and cannot be taken as the default merely by reciting "whistleblower". Perhaps too much paper chasing of billable hours has turned this SLF/attorney cynical (or even, jaundiced).
Whatever the actual facts pertaining to each individual's situation turn out to be, do their stories really add content of significance to what already is known about Boeing's drift away from engineering first and down to bean-counter depths? Is it really new, does it add information not already assimilated into the overall set of facts? I guess we'll find out. The Subcommittee chaired by Senator Blumenthal is for Permanent Investigations, part of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. If this were a dispute between two labor organizations over which one has jurisdiction of the work (the subject matter), I think Senate Commerce and its Aviation Subcomm would win, hands and gavels down. But then, over at Senate Commerce, Senator Cantwell and Senator Cruz were in charge of a hearing (see above) with less p.r. drama, just the Expert Texpert Choking Smokers Panel stuff. (name the Beatles song, 50 points)