[fantyoon]

Its worth noting that this article is based entirely on an anonymous comment made below another article. They also link a Tweet alleging that "[..] other usually credible, usually careful folks positing same idea.", but no links are provided to that.

[tyingq]

Albeit a long comment which seems to have correct insider jargon, plausible numbers and scenarios, etc. Agreed it's getting more credence than I would expect, but it wasn't a lazy offhand comment.

[ufmace]

That's true, but where else would you expect to get such information?

No real whistleblower is going to publish their name, rank, and serial number etc. The corporate PR department sure isn't ever going to tell you such things. Investigative journalism and reporters who can be trusted to verify sources and preserve their anonymity is all but dead these days. The Government might publish something that isn't a total white-wash in 5 years. Or they might not. Who can tell?

[gorbachev]

No, but if it's in the records like the anonymous whistleblower said, those records could've also been leaked, and there would be hard proof.

It's academic anyway, though, because the FAA will have those records and then the information will be either verified or debunked.

[mihaaly]

I will never believe such until Boeing management announce it in an international press conference at their HQ!

;)

[nunez]

jonnyc is a hardcore airline enthusiast (i think they might actually be ex-American Airlines) and is extremely active on flyertalk. i trust them when they said that several sources confirm this anon comment.

[fallingmeat]

Came here to upvote this idea. Many of you probably relate to the under-informed or less experienced junior engineer who gets dramatic at times. Did this person see something they thought was a non-conformance but actually standard operating?

[bertil]

I’ve been that junior engineer more than once (and not always junior), and I’ve had to deal with it more than once. The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding is that there are at least four distinct significant mechanical issues; three have led to major emergencies on board.

The second element is that this particular junior engineer has seen enough to know not to share his name. Naivety goes both ways, and the rhetorical engineer tends to leave identifiable information if they don’t think getting caught is a problem. This one does. He’s asked internally, and the answer wasn’t reassuring. I’ve been on the receiving end of “What do you think we should do about this?” and hard trade-offs; if the manager knows what they are doing and they are not pushing bad stories, the junior engineer learns something.

The last element is that this is not new: very senior engineers complaining about penny-pushing MBAs ruining the company and “that won’t stop until someone gets hurt” are as old as the merger with McDonnel-Douglas.

Would I trust the technical details and the recommendation of that particular engineer? Lord No: I know nothing about airplanes. But I know what a dysfunctional operation sounds like, and that sounds like the bassoon—but there’s the strings, the brass, and the percussions playing the same tune.

[happytoexplain]

Whether this whistle-blower is well-informed or not is an interesting question, but it is overshadowed by the fact that we even have to ask. The fact that the public still doesn't know what happened or is happening is unacceptable, to put it lightly. Boeing has been given a chance - now they should be raided top-to-bottom by 3rd party agents, whether that be federal or private, and be placed under existential threat until we are satisfied with the investigation and resulting consequences.

[bertil]

That is very true, with the caveat that FAA and NHTSA aren’t the fastest at putting out a report —by design, thankfully: I want that thing vetted. It’s been three weeks. That would be better if we knew much more in the next week or two. If not, we shouldn’t be too patient either.