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).
(Terminology as described further upthread at that link: CMES is an official record system for the plane. SAT is described as "Like Slack" and not an official record of the plane and its maintenance)
"finally we get to the damning entry which reads something along the lines of “coordinating with the doors team to determine if the door will have to be removed entirely, or just opened. If it is removed then a Removal will have to be written.” Note: a Removal is a type of record in CMES that requires formal sign off from QA that the airplane been restored to drawing requirements.
If you have been paying attention to this situation closely, you may be able to spot the critical error: regardless of whether the door is simply opened or removed entirely, the 4 retaining bolts that keep it from sliding off of the door stops have to be pulled out. A removal should be written in either case for QA to verify install, but as it turns out, someone (exactly who will be a fun question for investigators) decides that the door only needs to be opened, and no formal Removal is generated in CMES (the reason for which is unclear, and a major process failure). Therefore, in the official build records of the airplane, a pressure seal that cannot be accessed without opening the door (and thereby removing retaining bolts) is documented as being replaced, but the door is never officially opened and thus no QA inspection is required.
This entire sequence is documented in the SAT, and the nonconformance records in CMES address the damaged rivets and pressure seal, but at no point is the verification job reopened, or is any record of removed retention bolts created, despite it this being a physical impossibility."
I wonder if the system recording the actions could have knowledge of these types of dependencies between actions, so it could refuse to record a log which is physically impossible (replaced a seal that — due to a plug not being opened — you cannot physically access).
It's not clear to me - was the seal replacement documented in CMES?
Is there not some dependency tree such that a cascade of sign-offs are required when one thing is changed? Clearly, changing the seal has dependencies which should automatically be flagged.
I always felt bad for Rumsfeld (not Cheney) being the target of so much mockery for that comment. I disliked him style and decisions as Secretary of Defense, but that was one of the smartest and most realistic things he said. It's amazing to me how many people derided it as meaningless garbage when it self-evidently true and provided a worthwhile insight into the complexities of strategic decision-making.
The context is that he'd previously said we had to invade Iraq because of the imminent threat of the weapons of mass destruction.
So he's using a trivially true and non-interesting statement about "unknown unknowns" to evade questions about previous statements where he claimed to know something.
In other words, it was garbage response. He deserves mockery, scorn and a criminal trial.
His “unknown unknowns” response was, to me, a basically fair if evasive response to whether there is any evidence of a direct link between Baghdad and terrorists as far as supplying WMDs. He essentially said “we don’t know what we don’t know.”
To me the more damning answer is the follow up later in the conference, where he strongly implied that he has evidence but can’t disclose it. That just misled the public and is far worse than the “unknown unknowns” comment in my view.
You seem to have a rather stark view of the world.
I'd suggest possibly broadening it to include the possibility that people can be evil in some ways, good in others, stupid and smart, and capable and incapable.
Donald Rumsfeld is responsible for the deaths of one million innocent Iraqi civilians at the cost of 3 trillion American dollars for nothing except the enrichment of a few. I agree that every person is complicated, but any possible nuance here is completely overwhelmed by the amount of destruction. Donald Rumsfeld is absolutely evil.
You might think you are smart for hedging, but if you think killing one million innocent lives just makes a person "complicated", you've lost the plot.
On what basis are you holding Donald Rumsfeld responsible for the invasion?
If it's all on him, then wouldn't that absolve a lot of other powerful people around him, who were also pushing for it, and at least one of whom was his superior in the chain of command?
Nothing about that has anything to do with whether something he said was insightful or not. It’s possible for evil people to say smart things and for good people to say bullshit things.
It wasn't insightful (and nowhere did I say that Dondald Rumsfeld was incapable of saying something insightful). We knew then what he was trying to claim we didn't know. Even Dick Cheney said on the record (during the first Iraq War) that a full invasion would be a Vietnam style quagmire.
Rumsfeld said a smart-sounding thing he got from somewhere else, but it was just a lie. He knew the WMD claim was made up because he helped manufacture it. Iraq's non-involvement in 9/11 and our inability to accomplish regime change were "known knowns" prior to the invasion.
I have to wager that the Iraqi people probably prefer the current order of things. I would guess that they would keep things the way they are rather than bring back Saddam.
I guess that depends on what makes evilBastard evil. I don't care if evilBastard is a "great" dad. When you mastermind to commit what any rational person would call war crimes does not get white washed because they played ball with their kids on the weekends or donated a bunch of money to charity in an attempt to assuage guilt (if any were felt to begin with).
In my list of people that to me qualify as evilBastard, the Bush Admin is way worse than theZuck.
This is just frothing at the mouth. I also think Rumsfeld was a war criminal, but that has nothing to do with the epistemology of this remark. I doesn't become less true just because someone you dislike says it, that's a genetic fallacy.
who's saying the quote is less true because of the person quoting it? i claimed that the speaker is an evilBastard while stating that just because evilBastard is not any less reprehensible because they quoted a smart person.
They straight up said, we don't know.