Boeing in 'safety cover-up' - Documentary on Al Jazeera

[Gutter Airways]

Just watched an interesting Documentary on Al Jazeera's 'People & Power' show, the episode was titled 'On a Wing and a Prayer'.

Details here: http://english.aljazeera.net/video/americas/2010/12/2010121516520679770.html

The show brings into question the airworthiness of 737NGs manufactured between 1996 - 2004, based on the proposals that were put forth by Boeing to the FAA regarding the manufacturing process to be used in the manufacturing of key structural parts. The certification of a higher gross weight was based upon this new manufacturing process.

The documentary shows that the actual manufacturing process used didn't coincide with the proposal that was presented to the FAA, and upon which the aircraft was certified - hence bringing into question the structural integrity of the aircraft. It also implicates Boeing and the FAA of a cover-up regarding the issue.

Former Boeing employees who take part in this documentary, and who are now suing the company, cite recent 737NG accidents in Amsterdam, Jamaica, and Colombia, in which the aircraft broke up identically in contact with the ground as further evidence to their concerns.

Worth a watch if you can find it on the net.

[Lonewolf_50]

Just out of curiosity, how much discussion did the show have regarding the operational factors of the three accidents in question?

One can design a very robust aircraft and it is still subject to certain fundamental laws, like gravity, sink rate, etc regardless of how "perfectly" design criterion are adhered to.

May view the entire link later. If whistle blowers in Boeing are only finding their voice in Al Jazeera, I wonder why other media organs didn't scoop this.

Any ideas on that?

[zerozero]

Had to dig a little for proper link.

On a wing and a prayer - PEOPLE AND POWER - Al Jazeera English (http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/peopleandpower/2010/12/20101214104637901849.html)

[akerosid]

Quote:
"Former Boeing employees who take part in this documentary, and who are now suing the company, cite recent 737NG accidents in Amsterdam, Jamaica, and Colombia, in which the aircraft broke up identically in contact with the ground as further evidence to their concerns.":

Yes, but doesn't this actually work very much to the credit of the 737 and its design? The Colombian accident (I'm assuming the Aires accident involving an ex-U2 737-700) resulted in no casulties, as indeed did the AA 737. The Turkish accident - which I think is widely accepted to have been caused by the crew, not any inherent fault in the aircraft - killed nine; it broke (as will any aircraft landed hard in a field), but it could have been a lot worse.

[captplaystation]

As a confirmed member of the Boeing camp in any Boeing vs Airbus discussion, I am gob-smacked by this.

Silly me , trusting Uncle Sam anymore than Alphonse Obvious I guess, but if what is reported in zerozero's link is true this is indeed fairly scandalous.

Makes one wonder about accidents like Kenya Airways /Ethiopian, indeed any unexplained incident involving an NG falling out of the sky, past & future, although both of these quoted above did indeed appear to be pilot disorientation, and happened at low altitude, greatly reducing the possibility of hull rupture as a cause.
Having flown the airframe concerned in the second accident, it does give a certain "frisson" to think there exists a slight possibility it just came apart.

Makes the recent falsifying of the safety standards of seats debacle a bit of a damp squid doesn't it? a bit in the same vein I guess, but several times more serious.

[Sunfish]

Remind me when Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas, and McD managers made a reverse takeover of Boeing management?

[zerozero]

I just finished watching the whole documentary.

Mixed feelings.

I'll give the producers the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their claims of falsified records; shoddy manufacturing; govt cover up; etc...

Certainly wouldn't be the first time.

But I had a problem with the way they were grasping at straws trying to draw a connection between the aforementioned "claims" and those three specific accidents.

First of all, all three of those accidents were the result of pilot error, not airframe failure. But they tried to imply that the airframe failure = the age of the airframes + the phase of flight. And they showed that old video of a remote controlled B707 crashed into the floor of the Mojave Desert and seemed to say, "SEE? That airframe didn't break up in three identical pieces."

The investigation *probably* has some merit to it, but the documentary engages in some specious speculation.

:8

[Semaphore Sam]

Excellent Question:

"If whistle blowers in Boeing are only finding their voice in Al Jazeera, I wonder why other media organs didn't scoop this. Any ideas on that?"

Should this question be addressed to al Jazeera, or our 'media'? Maybe it's cheaper to investigate Lady Gaga's mode of dress, rather than a sustained, in-depth look at this issue? And, were Western 'media' to actually investigate, would anyone watch? Maybe western media need multiple Assanges? Sam

[411A]

...but the documentary engages in some specious speculation.

Quite likely, considering the source.

One might then ask...why did the AirFrance A330 break up over the Atlantic ocean, and few bits have been found.

AirBus advocates in glass houses should refrain from throwing ... stones.:}

[Sunfish]

The documents relied on by AL Jazeera are damning. I don't think Boeing can laugh this off. What does this say about Boeing management from the top down?

Don't tell me that Boeing has now joined Exxon, BP and similar companies with gold plated procedure manuals but a corporate culture of non compliance for profitability reasons.

Watch for Boeing to hang a middle manager out to dry over this matter, for "not following procedures", while piously proclaiming that safety is their first priority.

[Mike-Bracknell]

Makes the recent falsifying of the safety standards of seats debacle a bit of a damp squid doesn't it?

Damp squib. A squib is a firework - squid are generally damp
:ok:

[jcjeant]

Hello,

First of all, all three of those accidents were the result of pilot error, not airframe failure. But they tried to imply that the airframe failure = the age of the airframes + the phase of flight

The point is not really why those planes go to ground and crash (pilot errors .. malfunction of some equipements .. etc ..) but instead what was the result when they make contact with the ground.
As the document want to show .. they broked in 3 parts ... almost same place for the 3 aircrafts shows in the document.

[rh200]

The point is not really why those planes go to ground and crash (pilot errors .. malfunction of some equipements .. etc ..) but instead what was the result when they make contact with the ground.

A good point, but the question is was it out of the ordinary. Though not an expert on these things I would imagine each and every design has its weak points. As long as its above the design criteria thats fine. Hence an airframe under circumstances that are roughly the same should react the same. This would depend on loading etc etc.

So the real question is how did the airframes hold up. And of course did Boeing mislead, I would think theres going to be a lot of Legal jargon etc that no one will agree on.

[Bally Heck]

Quite likely, considering the source.

One might then ask...why did the AirFrance A330 break up over the Atlantic ocean, and few bits have been found.

AirBus advocates in glass houses should refrain from throwing ... stones.

Well. Erm. That's a tricky one. forty one million square miles of ocean and few bits have been found. Must be the French.

Can't imagine that happening to a Lockheed 1011.

[jcjeant]

Hi,

Though not an expert on these things I would imagine each and every design has its weak points. As long as its above the design criteria thats fine.I agree .. but again the point is they want show in the document that the rupture points (or the weak points) are located where the alleged bad manufactured and assembled parts are.
So it's not design weak points .. it's defectives parts.

[lomapaseo]

So it's not design weak points .. it's defectives parts.

I doubt that you know that

You would have no idea what the design strength in any axis is, let alone the expected prang separation points for any design.

You may think that you know only based on inferences in a news story.

Every aircraft and engine has a historic separation point in a survivable prang. They are certainly not the same between aircraft models for the same general impact conditions.

The only thing that maters is that some prangs are survivable within certain G loadings, how they break is immaterial.

This issue, as relayed from the news is a compliance issue and nothing more should be read from the incidents then what is written in the recommendations from the accident investigation

[Sciolistes]

Some of the story doesn't really make much sense. Consistent pattern of break ups on impact does not suggest ad hoc bashing, cutting and general bodging to make structurally crucial parts fit. Also, the implication that the computer design process is at fault seems somewhat weak considering that process was developed for the 777 to achieve Early ETOPS out of the box. So far I have no reason to believe that any incidents are related to this issue.

No doubt there were QA failures, as there are in any organisation from time to time. The question for me is was Boeing's response appropriate and is there a significant risk?

[Semaphore Sam]

Quote:
...but the documentary engages in some specious speculation.

Quite likely, considering the source.
One might then ask...why did the AirFrance A330 break up over the Atlantic ocean, and few bits have been found.

Not sure which 'source' you are 'considering', whistleblowers or Jazeera. But, the Airbus 330 accident has, as evidence, only 'a few bits'. The evidence in the 737 situation should be very obvious, one way or the other. Just measure the parts used, against the proper specs...AND investigate the paperwork. Should be a slam-dunk, one way or the other. Then, 411A, you can cast your aspersions properly, at either Boeing, OR the Whistleblowers and Jazeera. Right now, a bit too soon. Sam

[jcjeant]

Hi,

Quote:
...but the documentary engages in some specious speculation.

Quite likely, considering the source.

Well ... if the postman give you a letter with a order to pay more income tax .. would you blame the postman or your government ?
Jazeera is maybe not a real friend of US interests ..
But are those two US women against US interests ?
Is this Jazeera who pushed them to investigate (make their job) and testimony ... following the legal path and after going public and lost their job in the process ?
Jazeera is just like the postman .... the messenger.

[firstfloor]

Well, you can always rely on big business and politics to ride roughshod over little people. It seems to be an example of a problem too big to fix so it gets buried instead. It’s human nature really. I won’t tell anyone if you don’t. Or, if you tell anyone I’ll chop you into little pieces. Poor show Boeing.

Some people used to say “If it ain’t Boeing I’m not going.”
They might now be thinking “I’ll make a fuss if it ain’t Airbus.”

[RAT 5]

I've not seen the program, but, surely, in instances such as these some investigative journalist will be camped on the steps of the FAA & EU Ops offices asking for a response. Has this happened? The FAA can not pretend these allogations have not been made and hide their head in the sand. Congress will demand the truth. So what has been the response from Boeing & FAA; what is congress doing; what are customers doing; is Boeing going to change its manufacturing process (although this might accept guilt); there must be some 3 year strip down checks going on and what have they found in the sustpect areas? many questions; what answers?

[barit1]

Doesn't this NG allegation remind you of the "9/11 truthers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories)" story about the WTC collapse sequence resembling a controlled demolition? :rolleyes:

[RunSick]

Just as a recommendation, refrain to give opinion unless you have seen the report.

It seems to be a true issue with the NG. And as another poster said, why would two people risk their jobs and even being sued by Boeing if it wasn't true?

Let's see what happens.

[Iron Duke]

It is my belief that Boeing aircraft are more heavily constructed than the certification requirements dictate ...
It is also within the boundaries of good manufacturing practice that when a hull is exposed to excessive "G" (crash) that there is a regularity to the fractures ... that would be considered at the design stage, similar to the expected deformity of a car after impact.

[jcjeant]

Hi,

It is my belief that Boeing aircraft are more heavily constructed than the certification requirements dictate ...
It is also within the boundaries of good manufacturing practice that when a hull is exposed to excessive "G" (crash) that there is a regularity to the fractures ... that would be considered at the design stage, similar to the expected deformity of a car after impact.Interesting comment .. but nothing to do with the documentary points.
I suppose you don't seen the documentary for post such comment.

[DA50driver]

I just watched the "documentary", and I didn't see anything that convinced me that the airplanes break apart due to a design or construction flaw.

I have absolutely no background in the field except from breaking a lot of stuff in my younger years. (cars, bicycles, toys, my dad's unbreakable watch which i proved was an inaccurate statement etc).

An airplane is not built for off road excursions.

[jcjeant]

Hi,

It is my belief that Boeing aircraft are more heavily constructed than the certification requirements dictate ...
It is also within the boundaries of good manufacturing practice that when a hull is exposed to excessive "G" (crash) that there is a regularity to the fractures ... that would be considered at the design stage, similar to the expected deformity of a car after impact.As commented before I find your comment interesting and after reread .. more interesting than at the first reading.
Indeed if "that would be considered at the design stage, similar to the expected deformity of a car after impact."
The logic is :
One can ask why put in first place passengers in a aera knowed as a "fracture aera" and so a very dangerous place (lethal in many cases) to be in case of "road excursion"
Are the people in a car seated in the deformation aeras ?

[lomapaseo]

Are the people in a car seated in the deformation aeras ?

depends on which side is up when the car gets hit. Same as in airplanes.

Most survivors in an aircrash come from the areas arround the break zones. It's sometimes even worse if you are sitting next to a heavily built up area like a door jam or cockpit. Things like G-loads on your aorta and all that.

The engineering tries to keep it as simple as surviving a specified G level in a specified direction, after that you take your chances in a prang. Personally if it's survivable at all I would prefer a three piece breakup of the fuselage to give me a chance of getting out of one of the breaks before the fireball.

So all we have here is a compliance issue and how far and how deep does it go? Not for us mere obeservers to judge from afar.

[Gutter Airways]

You have to be careful with what is presented to you in a Documentary, but as others have mentioned, the paper trail alone here is pretty incriminating.

For those that haven't seen the Documentary, here are some points of interest:

1) The FAA safety guy in charge of the investigation into the issue states that there was no tangible evidence to back claims that the parts in question were at risk of early failure. When asked if he had accessed Boeing's own database, where recurring problems experienced by operators are stored and tracked, he says no. The database shows a pattern of premature corrosion in airframes with the Duccomun manufactured parts.

2) The FAA ultimately gave Boeing the all clear. Under cross examination in a pre-court hearing to the present lawsuit by the former Boeing employees, the FAA's Chief safety guy admits that the final declaration, which was supposed to be written by him was actually written verbatim by Boeings lawyers. Boeing admit they had presented a declaration to him, but that he had made substantial changes to it, making it his own.

3) As part of the Air Accident Investigation into the runway overrun in Jamaica, Boeing state in their own report that the NTSB cleared the Duccomun parts from having had any bearing in the incident. The NTSB when questioned about this, deny that they had come to such a conclusion, saying they were still looking into the issue. Boeing when later questioned as to why they had reported this, refused to comment.

[willfly380]

check out this link....Boeing Whistleblowers Uncover Possibility Of 'Catastrophic' Event In Al Jazeera Exclusive (VIDEO) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/16/boeing-whistleblowers-unc_n_797515.html?ref=fb&src=sp)

[four engine jock]

I watched it. Makes you wonder a few things. How much truth in it we well never know!!

[Red max]

Its appalling the way that aircraft manufacturers are aware of certain flaws within their aircraft yet they dismiss it and point the finger and blame the accidents being caused by pilot errors , The American eagle 4184 ATR72 accident is one of those , where the manufacturer were aware of their design flaws yet their report blamed it on pilot error , if it wasn't for the NTSB they would have probably left it without rectifying it.

[Huck]

if it wasn't for the NTSB they would have probably left it without rectifying it.

ALPA had alot to do with it as well.

[alexpdx]

The allegations were initially reported in the Washington Post back in 2006:
Boeing Parts and Rules Bent, Whistle-Blowers Say - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/16/AR2006041600803.html)

I don't particularly agree with AlJazeera suggesting these components were responsible for any airframe breaking up, but the allegations of the whistle-blowers are far from baseless.

Doesn't this NG allegation remind you of the "9/11 truthers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories)" story about the WTC collapse sequence resembling a controlled demolition?Not in the least.

[contractor25]

Acoording to the report on the Turkish 737 at AMS, it was at or very close to the stall when it hit the deck, high angle of attack, tail hit first, the rest rotates around the first contact point, resulting in fwd fuselage slamming into the deck and breaking the fuselage in pieces.

I may stand corrected but I believe the other 2 aircraft named had already touched down ans subsequently evrything went pearshaped. It means to me that the circumstances are completely different, even though at first sight the end result might look similar.

One thing not to forget on the 737 as opposed to the airbus is that the 737 only has a bulk cargo, it's not containerised. it means the baggage can freely move over a larger area for example. Now add in a few G's at impact and an overload is easily created.

What is more important than actual structural failure on impact is that at 3 mentioned accidents that there was no post impact fire.

3 employees out of 100,000 complaining.....sensation?

[John Boeman]

Quote: "3 employees out of 100,000 complaining.....sensation?"

Am I the only one that finds this statement incredible?

Have you not seen what happens to people who “put their heads above the parapet” in the world we live in today? They usually get their heads blown clean off! That tended to happen even before the current “economic climate”. Now it’s a guaranteed certainty.

Is this: “The truth is that Boeing has a lot to lose. The situation is doubly interesting due to the settlement agreement the U.S. Government maintains with Boeing from the end of the Darleen Druyun/Michael Sears/Original Tanker Deal. In order not to lose the ability to bid on more contracts Boeing had to promise to keep themselves clean and ethical. The current issue is that they have not been doing that. There are in addition to Mr. Eastman's situation, several whistleblower cases and even criminal investigations and cases ongoing at the current time against Boeing, besides Mr. Eastman's case.” from here: Boeing whistleblower Gerald Eastman: Corruption in corporate America - by G. Florence Scott - Page 2 - Helium (http://www.helium.com/items/1105437-boeing-whistleblower-gerald-eastman?page=2) just more hot air, that’s what the current Boeing management would have you believe.

All these people who do complain have one thing in common, they love Boeing and are appalled by what they seen been done to it most probably in the pursuit of their bonus by purely greed driven management.

This “old story” has to be a textbook case in what happens to whistleblowers.
The Last Inspector - Boeing Fraud & FAA Fraud Risking Safety (http://www.thelastinspector.com/)

I love Boeing aeroplanes and I am lucky enough to fly them to make my living.

The trouble is that I believe this guy, and I believe that the way this company if being run now when it comes to build quality, would shock the hell out of the company founders.

[StratMatt777]

" 3 employees out of 100,000 complaining.....sensation? "

I just HAD to quote that too. Did you even watch the video?
Same question for the 9/11 analogy... Did you even watch the video?

It would be very difficult to find anyone who is more biased in Boeing's favor than me! When I was 14 I was calling Airbus, "Die-by-wire" and refused to fly on one in 1997 when an A320 substituted for the 757 we expected. I'm not that crazy anymore, but this documentary is a MAJOR concern due to the FACTS (that people who didn't watch teh video didn't see).

This documentary is terribly done- not because it is Al Jazzera, but because ALL media over-hypes everything. During the 3 minute intro I was lauging at how stupid it was because they were calling the Turkish stall accident and AA Jamaica over-run "Almost Identical"... and then the announcer claimed that the FAA approved the 737NG to fly heavier, higher and faster IN RESPONSE to Boeing starting to use CNC and exceptionally tight fitting tolerances.
Obviously the reason the NG flies heavier, higher and faster is due to the completely redesigned laminar flow wing with increased area and less drag- plus the higher thrust engines.

Wasn't I surprised when they got to the facts?! This is very alarming and it does make you wonder about the collusion between the FAA and industry (like Colgan) and also the Department of Justice protecting Boeing by issuing false statements supposedly from the NTSB about the NGs being completely safe. A statement which the NTSB categorically denied!

I think I know why these 73s broke up in the same way- and it has nothing to do with these bad fuselage frames or the bad doublers around the exit doors.

You are all familiar with the center wing section that the wings attach to.
In this picture you can see the white panels covering the open ends of the center wing section/box Photos: Boeing 737-86N Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Boeing-737-86N/1003851/L/&sid=31bff3c934e51dc3cf47fdfd624cc78c)

Notice that the CWS box structure does not extend as far downward as the fuselage (the box structure- not the flimsy parts under the box for mount the wing-to-body fairing). In a crash when the airplane comes down on its fuselage the front and rear fuselage sections hit the ground just before the CWS does. While those fuselage sections are impacting, the the wing-to-body fairing and the air conditioning PACKs are simultaneously impacting, but they just get smashed and take no load and the CWS continues its downward momentum.

The front and rear fuselage sections MUST break off.

These three crashes had nothing to do with the non-conforming parts, but everything else in the documentary (the other 55 minutes) is absolutely stunning and scary. Makes you wonder about how much damage that Brazilian 737-800 actually sustained from the Embraer that hit it and only damaged a winglet...

This is huge.

If you arent alarmed by this... maybe you should actually watch the video! :ok:

[John Boeman]

I wonder how many people have watched the video.

I hadn't when I last posted. I was just going by what I knew of "The last Inspector".

I might be wrong but I think that many of us (the majority?) in the West assume that Al Jazeera must be something akin to the media arm of Al Qaeda. So there is a reluctance to even look at anything produced by them because it obviously will be anti-Western propaganda won’t it?

The title of the thread does not cover it. It should say Boeing, FAA, US government safety cover-up. Maybe the worst thing that has happened here is the way the agency that was supposed to protect whistleblowers appears to have done the opposite.

411A, all the people exposing the incredible, outrageous, (in the truest sense of those words) practices that have been going on at Boeing, are true blue, apple pie Americans - just like you!.

These are people that worked close to the heart of the 737 operation, joined by senior ex (and current?) FAA people.

They are the ones saying that the whole thing is rotten from the bottom to the top – not Al Jazeera.

As has been said, the fact is that it is just too big and too bad a problem to be dealt with. Isn’t it true that if a lie is repeated often enough, especially by the big guns, then it will eventually be taken for the truth? Deny there is a problem for long enough and hopefully it will go away.

Just watch the video. (The link is on post No.3)
Judge for yourself. As others have also said - you can ignore everything being reported about the previous crashes and the way the aircraft broke up - it is just as probable that they are not linked in any way to what is being exposed - but that is not what this is about!

It goes without saying that we all hope nothing catastrophic or even remotely as bad as the Aloha 737 accident ever happens to one of these 737s but again, that's not the point. What Boeing has allowed to happen in the production of these aircraft , is I believe (hope?), unprecedented and just totally un-American.

On the other hand, if you want to continue to live in a make-believe world where you think that your government (where ever you live) will always look after the interests of the electorate, don’t watch it.

“There are none so blind as those who will not see.”

[Sam Asama]

Quite likely, considering the source.


411A...
An amazingly ignorant statement. Especially from a citizen of the country that gives us Fox News.

[woodsrow]

So are they going to ground all 737 NG planes to inspect this problem . Or will they wait till one breaks apart mid air?

[411A]

So are they going to ground all 737 NG planes to inspect this problem .

Whomever 'they' are...grounding all B737NG's just is not going to happen.
The so-called video is a farce and a half.
You Eurolanders will believe anything, it would appear....:rolleyes:

[woodsrow]

Im not a pilot. Just a passenger that has a fear of flying. My wife and I are going to Mexico on Alaska airlines, leaving on Christmas Eve. This report has me freaking out just a little bit.

[Machinbird]

Seems to me that if the parts are being made the old fashioned way instead of CNC, that isn't quite the end of the world.
The Al Jazeera pictures of broken/crashed 737s are irrelevant. They didn't crash because of the source of airframe parts. They crashed for other operational reasons. The damage sustained was not inappropriate.

The area I might be concerned about is fatigue life if there are a lot of holes with inadequate edge clearance. The maintenance folks will know when fatigue is beginning to get into a gray area 9 times out of 10.

I have an Aero Engineering friend who is a DER and used to work for a different manufacturer of airframes. One of his primary jobs was to evaluate non-standard parts for usability or repair. I would imagine that Boeing has people in similar capacity.

Boeing has been building aircraft for quite a few years and their workforce is not inexperienced. They know how to build aircraft correctly and how to fit parts correctly if it is possible to do so without compromising the job. If they don't think that a particular part is up to the task, I would hope they have enough character and management support to say no.
I am not saying that everything is hunky-dory in Boeing land and I wouldn't be surprised if they have a closet full of rejected parts that are written off as the cost of doing business. But at the end of the day, I think that the engineers and accountants have evaluated the situation and decided that the present course is not unreasonable.

[StratMatt777]

411A, all I can do is laugh at your comment. Still haven't watched the video yet I see. And now I know that I'm european since I didn't deny the facts presented in the video- that's good to know!

No one could be more biased in Boeing's favor than me, but facts are facts and I can't deny them even if the documentary that presents the facts is by Al Jazzera. BTW, after I watched the video black CIA helicopters did fly over my house. It was pretty cool.

Machinbird: Boeing has been building aircraft for quite a few years and their workforce is not inexperienced. They know how to build aircraft correctly and how to fit parts correctly if it is possible to do so without compromising the job. If they don't think that a particular part is up to the task, I would hope they have enough character and management support to say no.

The point of the video is that the whistleblowers witnesses first hand that there were assembly mechanics who did not have the character and management support to say no. Boeing is an old company, but that doesn't mean that they never hire new people.

The occurence of the mechanics filling gaps and PAINTING OVER THEM! to hide where the non-conforming parts did not fit was the most alarming to me. The real question is how many time did that happen and did Quality Assurance catch it? Afterall it is possible that QA caught that shim and paint cover-up job that the whistleblower cited. It is possible that QA inspectors caught all these problems and refused to sign off until rework was done. We don't know what happened.

The fact that the Wichita line was an environment where a supervisor told a mechanic that she must use the bad parts so they didn't get behind schedule and where other mechnics covered up non-conforming parts- that is scary.


To the concerned flyer: As shown in the video there are Structural Repair reports that mechanics file with the FAA when they discover a trend of consistent issues with a particular airframe (this is where FAA airworthiness directives come from). This is reassuring because it indicates that these non-conforming parts ARE being discovered and fixed during routine C and D checks/inspections that are carried out at airline maintenance facilities every 14 months.

The problems that mechanics were finding were premature corrosion (on airplanes only 8 years old) and when found it they replaced the part.

Corrosion and wear issues that would lead to mechanical failures are apparently linear in progression so its not like it fails all at once someday... there are tell-tale indications of problems coming down the line.

Now that I think about it, if the fuselage frames are so out of whack that it would be unsafe they might not be able to even get the skin riveted on in production.

Also, when the Aloha 737 lost its top Boeing had been calling Aloha for months and months telling them that they needed to install the new skin and fasteners that Boeing had shipped them because the airplane had reached and exceeded its cycle limit (lots of takeoffs and landing in Hawaii service). That kit from Boeing was sitting in their hangar.

The comfortaing thing about the Aloha accident is just how robust and overbuilt the 737 is! That was an old 737-200, yet even though the skin ripped off and the airplane depressurized the fuselage frames and load bearing structure remained intact allowing a safe landing!

I personally wouldn't hesitate to get on an Alaska 737 right now.
Until I find out more about this issue I might not fly on one that does not undergo heavy maintenance checks as directed by the FAA and ICAO (Europe, Austrailia, and the rest of the world other than places like Africa, and South America etc.- as far as I know)

[411A]

BTW, after I watched the video black CIA helicopters did fly over my house. It was pretty cool.


I hope you waved and smiled at the same time...:}

It would also appear that you have not been around jet airplanes all that long, Boeing models especially.
Back in the early days of the original 707's (especially the intercontinental models with JT4 engines...and yes I personally flew these as a Captain, after they had been sold by TWA and PanAmerican), corrosion and skin cracks aplenty were found, and promptly corrected, mostly by reskinning, although as an interim measure, external straps and patches were used, quite successfully.

All this consternation is simply nothing especially new (except for the younger crowd, who apparently doesn't know any better:rolleyes:) so I wouldn't worry yourself toooo much.:}

[jcjeant]

Hi,

If it's in the terms of reference established between Boeing and the FAA that the NG is assembled with the assistance:
Of hammer blows
Crowbar
Hoists for deform parts to help line up them
A re-drilling holes to line up the parts
I think that there is no need to worry ... :*
BTW .. my game "Meccano" is better :)

[20driver]

For all these duff parts, shoddy assembly etc has there being any incidents reported to the NTSB where these parts or practices were a factor in a plane being being pulled from service?

20driver

[StratMatt777]

411A, you are right. I have no aviation mechanic experience other than working at BFGoodrich Aerospace years ago as a "Mechanic's Assistant" where the most complicated thing I did was repair corroded 727F floor panels, climb in fuel tanks and paint dynatrol corrosion inhibiter (must be where the brain damage came from)! I also assembled new Boeing wing sections years ago.

But niether of those positions taught me anything about how long it takes an airliner to corrode or what is a normal or abnormal time frame for corrosion and cracking to occur. Without having that actual knowledge, the idea of 8 year old airplanes corroding seemed alarming to me.
How old were those 707s when the cracking and corrosion were found?

I'd like to think that 50 years later we have better corrosion inhibiting technology, but aluminum is aluminum and green paint is still just green paint- so I guess nothing has changed in that department!

Is 8 years not ridiculously premature for corrosion to occur? I really have no idea. If it WAS normal I don't think that the airlines would have submitted a report to the FAA to report these abnormal occurences of premature corrosion...?

[Capt. Inop]

You Eurolanders will believe anything, it would appear..

Sadly, that seems to be true.

Slam it down hard enough and it will break. Boeing or not.

http://airlineworld.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/sas_md80.jpg

The problems that mechanics were finding were premature corrosion (on airplanes only 8 years old) and when found it they replaced the part.

We have a large fleet of NG's, some of them have been in for D-check, i don't think that any of them would have been put back in service if they were to break up mid air.

[411A]

411A, you are right.
Thank you.
How old were those 707s when the cracking and corrosion were found?


Eight years, on average.
Both TWA and PanAmerican applied the necessary maintenance (straps, patches, then reskinning) prior to those aircraft passing on to other operators (us) who continued to patch/repair/re-skin, as required...this is certainly nothing new.
Now we have CPCP inspections...a superb remedy for the conditions found on older airframes.

The video?
Pure horsepucky....but, it will suck in the uninformed, make no mistake.:yuk:
Jeez Louise...the Eurolanders will believe anything.:hmm:

[John Boeman]

411A, if you read my last post you will see that (IMHO) I don't expect this issue to cause aircraft to start having any major problems while airborne. Any problems that arise are quite far more likely to become visible to maintenance before they become that serious. So I would agree that calls for grounding are an over the top reaction.

What I take umbrage with is Boeing behaving like a backyard boat builder when it comes to accepting and using, incorrectly made, ill-fitting major aircraft parts - instead of chucking them in the rejects bin and crawling all over their supplier like a bad rash.

Constant denials by everybody that nothing shoddy happened here and ignoring all proof that it did, while trying to destroy anybody who can prove it did, is....well you know what it is!

Admittance of a huge breakdown in correct practices and visible, huge overhaul of them is what is needed. But I guess even that might be too damaging to the Boeing reputation. I wonder if there is any chance that they might secretly fix by getting the supplier to do the job correctly - wouldn't that be amazing! :rolleyes:


Quote: "The video?
Pure horsepucky....but, it will suck in the uninformed, make no mistake.
Jeez Louise...the Eurolanders will believe anything."

Just tell us all one thing 411A, how exactly do you want to describe the ex-Boeing and FAA people in the video?

Again - "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

[411A]

Quote:
Just tell us all one thing 411A, how exactly do you want to describe the ex-Boeing and FAA people in the video?


Disgruntled prior employees and FAA types with a hidden agenda.
No more, no less.
Eurolanders will believe anything, it seems.

Those Eurolander types had better keep to prompt runway snow removal..oh wait...they can't do that, either.
Except in Finland.
LHR is so far behind with snow removal, it is simply ...unbelieveable.
Eurolanders are a joke and a half, with their misguided 'opinions'.

Or facts...A330 aircraft with deficient pitot probes that can't generate enough
heat to keep the airspeed indicating properly.
Using...Euroland manufactured parts.

Par for the course, except in a very few countries who have their priorities straight.

[L337]

Have you been drinking 411A?

You do seem even more bitter and abusive than normal.

[411A]

You do seem even more bitter and abusive than normal.
Negative...just factual.;)

[John Boeman]

411A, why don’t you quit sitting on the fence and tell us exactly how you really feel about anyone who wasn’t born in the good old U.S. of A?

Sorry to tell you but, factually, on this matter you are coming across as being a tad bitter and abusive now. Grossly insulting as well obviously, but we all know that you major in that and personally I wouldn’t have you any other way.

But when you start throwing your own kind to the wolves with callous disregard just to protect a system that is broken by any measure, I am a bit taken aback.

Just out of interest, did you ever actually watch this video with these “disgruntled” sacked Boeing people in it?

I mainly ask because, considering what they have been through, these people could not have appeared less disgruntled if they tried.

Saddened, somewhat stunned, disbelieving of what they had been put through by the company they had been proud to work for, yes, but not disgruntled.

And FAA types with a hidden agenda? Really? Oh well that explains that then. And all this talk of shoddy parts? Just figments of their imaginations obviously.

Oh well, thanks for explaining all that to us naive “Eurolanders”. What a bunch of fools we are to go thinking there could be anything to this. Obviously, being what we are, now we will believe everything you say.

Ho hum, let’s put that one to bed so and get back to picking holes in Airbus and don’t anyone mention the 787 multi-national kitplane and its problems. OK?

(Remember I love Boeing aircraft and I have been lucky enough to fly 757s and 767s for a hell of a lot of years now. These were produced in the “good old days” when all Boeing aircraft were mainly a U.S. product and built to a certain standard of quality as well as price.
The latest Boeing product: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002486348_787global11.htm
Now am I mistaken or doesn’t that just look exactly like the production method of a certain “Euroland” manufacturer?
Isn’t it just amazing, and sometimes very sad, how time changes things so dramatically as we get older.)

[411A]

And all this talk of shoddy parts?
Greatly overblown.

Now, if we want to talk about 'shoddy' parts, let us look at the poor quality pitot probes that were fitted to many Airbus types...you remember the ones, manufactured by Thales.
Replaced with properly functioning USA manufactured probes.

Going further, please cite one accident to Boeing 737NG aircraft that has occured, as a direct result of these so-called 'shoddy' Boeing parts.
Whereas, let us remember the AirFrance A330 that rests at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, the one with the faulty Thales pitot probes....with all aboard quite dead.
I will repeat, you folks in Euroland will believe any sort of tall tale, it appears.:ugh:

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

All manufacturers and all suppliers are subject to parts problems. To imply nationality is a major influence on quality of product, especially where those products are certified by one of the major authorities and then cross-approved by the others, is a bit much.

As a completely non scientific survey, I just reviewed the FAA's "new" AD listing (all ADs in the last 60 days)

Boeing has 8 FAA ADs issued or revised in the last 60 days.
Airbus has 9.

I don't consider that a statistically significant variation, and certainly would not conclude anything about OEM or supplier relative quality from it.

[John Boeman]

Glad to see there is one piece of my last post you have taken to heart: "get back to picking holes in Airbus"
Really quite funny. :)

[411A]

Glad to see there is one piece of my last post you have taken to heart: "get back to picking holes in Airbus"

Considering that there are so many 'holes' from which to choose with Airbus types, it really is quite easy...:}

[jcjeant]

Hi,

Seem's the Eurolanders are not happy with the new Goodrich "pitot" fridges ...

CBC News - World - Airbus gives new warning on speed sensors (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/12/21/airbus-sensor-warning.html#ixzz18lwhhsUv)

r facts...A330 aircraft with deficient pitot probes that can't generate enough
heat to keep the airspeed indicating properly.
Using...Euroland manufactured parts.Seem's Goodrich is a american manufacturer .....
http://www.goodrich.com/Goodrich/Enterprise/About-Goodrich/A-History-of-Innovation
Maybe they outsource in China ?

[411A]

Maybe they outsource in China ?
Perhaps there is something wrong with the Airbus ADC system, or power source to the 'offending' probes.
OMG (shock/horror:ooh::ooh:) I wonder if shoddy workmanship in the Airbus systems is the cause?:rolleyes::yuk:

[Jerry B.]

@411A

I find your posts in this thread insulting, abusive and maybe even red neckish racist. Any debate has its rules as defined by the Topic of the thread starter - in this case "Boeing in 'safety cover-up'" Instead of discussing your position regarding the Topic in a rational, intelligent and succinct manner, you throw mud and try to drag a totally uninvolved party, namely Airbus Industries, into the debate. If you need advise and guidance as to how to conduct a civilised discussion, the WWW can be of great help in refining your etiquette.

As for my position on the Topic (yes, I watched the clip from the "terrorist's TV station), I find it inappropriate for Boeing lawyers to draw up responses (heavily deducted, revised or otherwise) on behalf of any investigative US authority. This is not arm's length but not even fingernail length. When connecting the dots, it comes as no great deal of surprise that both investigations were ordered to shut down. I am absolutely freightened by the corporate reach into all levels of government. The recent behavior of certain WA lawmakers is just an example of the company's power and reach.

Regards,

Jerry B.

[411A]

I find your posts in this threat insulting, abusive and maybe even red neckish racist.
I generally find that those who throw out mud (re: Boeing, as an example) simply cannot take criticism about...Airboos.
Poor darlings...:{

[captjns]

Al Jazzera... the voice of truth, justice, reason, and accuracy in media. or er the world according to Garp:confused:?

Think about it. Let's turn the time back and assume the three set of crewmembers involved in the three accidents operated their aircraft in a responsible manner and didn't crash their jets. At the end of the day, do you think this show whoud have still been aired?

The boys at Boeing have bigger problems with the 787. The Einsteins with their MBAs hanging on their office walls thought that outsourcing the parts would be the best method to control design and manufacturing costs of their new electric jet. Ooops... so much for those MBA degrees in Business Management boys and girls:ouch:. Keep up the good work:D as I'm sure the shareholders are really happy the direction that Boeing is going.

[Jerry B.]

I don't care if it was Al Jazeera or Pinoccio that were reporting this.
If I see an on camera deposition of the FAA's Chief Safety and Technical Advisor, who has just lodged a sworn affidavit drafted by Boeing's legal council, stating that he has not seen sufficient data or information to determine that there was an unsafe condition, the alarm bells start screaming.
If I then hear and see the same FAA guy admitting on camera that he has never accessed the FAA's own Service Difficulties Reporting Database (or ordered somebody else to do so), it is difficult for me to see anything other than a cover-up.
Make up your own mind and watch the relevant section beginning at 43:40 of the linked video. On a wing and a prayer - PEOPLE AND POWER - Al Jazeera English (http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/peopleandpower/2010/12/20101214104637901849.html)

@411A

You will never drag me down to your level. All you do with posts like that is to expose your level of sophistication and thus lose any respect on here.

Regards,

Jerrry B.

[Machinbird]

jcjeant
Seem's the Eurolanders are not happy with the new Goodrich "pitot" fridges ...This statement is a non sequitur to the referenced link. Yes Airbus/EASA required two Goodrich and one Thales BA type probe on Airbus aircraft in 2009 in reaction to the AF447 accident. The link you referenced states Airbus concern over common mode faults to the pitot probes causing identical but erroneous airspeed input to the flight control system. I would bet that this can still happen in the Goodrich-Thales combination as well as the Goodrich-Goodrich pair. Remember two identical but erroneous inputs can lead the computers astray in an Airbus.
Now gentlemen, please go back to your Boeing "dogfight".:*

[lomapaseo]

I don't care if it was Al Jazeera or Pinoccio that were reporting this.
If I see an on camera deposition of the FAA's Chief Safety and Technical Advisor, who has just lodged a sworn affidavit drafted by Boeing's legal council, stating that he has not seen sufficient data or information to determine that there was an unsafe condition, the alarm bells start screaming.
If I then hear and see the same FAA guy admitting on camera that he has never accessed the FAA's own Service Difficulties Reporting Database (or ordered somebody else to do so), it is difficult for me to see anything other than a cover-up.
Make up your own mind and watch the relevant section beginning at 43:40 of the linked video. On a wing and a prayer - PEOPLE AND POWER - Al Jazeera English (http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/peopleandpower/2010/12/20101214104637901849.html)



I have no problem with individuals forming their own opinion about this. That is the nature of reading and viewing available information such as this video.

However, the video has a purpose which is to attract viewers and as such solicits and edits opinions to serve this purpose. OTOH, discussion of available facts in forums like this may bring out different opinions among experts.

I found so many inaccuracies and streches in the video that I lost faith in it as a source of unbiased facts and conclusions.

The evidence presented does not support a claim of an unsafe aircraft.

The so called SDR (service difficulty reports) are woefully inadequate to assess the nature, causes and effects of a problem. The most that I could ever decipher from reading these kind of reports is that they are more like "snags" indicating numerous "minor" discrepencies requiring follow up (repair etc.) up by the airline. In order to assess a safety problem against the regulations one needs to scan those very few reports in the required reporting data base to the FAA under "Continued Airworthiness" agreements.

We have already disputed as irrelevant the reports of fuselage breakups in a crash landing. As far as I can see no data has been presented about cracks in the fuselage requiring repairs emanating from a direct cause of this problem (corrosion is common)

[jcjeant]

Hi,

Again we must understand what this video teach us.
It teaches us that a specification has been reached between the manufacturer and the regulator for manufacture the B737 NG
This agreement allows the manufacturer to produce aircraft that meet the safety standards in force and provides the regulatory body to issue a certificate of compliance.
This video shows that Boeing has not respected this agreement and in more .. Boeing wants to hide this thing and that the regulator does not seem to care

[411A]

This video shows that Boeing has not respected this agreement and in more .. Boeing wants to hide this thing and that the regulator does not seem to care
Complete and utter rubbish...especially coming for the source that it did.
To repeat...the Eurolander nitwits will believe anything that is shoved under their (collective) noses, regardless of its source.
I'm beginning to think that the Marshal Plan was not all that successful, after all.:rolleyes:

[Neptunus Rex]

411A,

C'mon, do tell. Do you have a portrait of John Wayne in your bedchamber?

[411A]

C'mon, do tell. Do you have a portrait of John Wayne in your bedchamber?
Negative.
However...I do have an autographed photo of General (later, President) Eisenhower, that was provided by a close relative.
And, I personally met Howard Hughes at one time...does that count?:}
Howard arrived at the front door of our house, followed by...Donald Douglas..Senior.

[john_tullamarine]

First up, folk, please do keep to the reasonable boundaries of courtesy.

Do note that some (and 411A would be amongst the first to put his hand up) are adept at stirring the pot a little ... and others are equally adept at rising to the bait.

Now I don't claim to know more than a few folk by their usernames so I apologise if I have omitted some in the following comment by my ignorance - folk such as lomapaseo and mad (flt) scientist are experienced engineers with many years experience in aircraft OEM employment - their "oil on troubled waters" comments are commended to the readership.

With the caveat that I haven't seen the documentary (and don't intend to as most of this genre are a tad sensationalist, a bit short on other than superficial fact, are intended for the general viewing market and, generally, are a tad boring to Industry engineering folk), the reality is that

(a) any OEM (aircraft, automobile, washing machine, push bikes, pens and pencils, etc....) has problems with design/materials/manufacture to a greater or lesser extent. (FYI my background includes aircraft, truck, bus, building infrastructure OEM work)

(b) where the market, alone, is the arbiter, those whose products are significantly inferior .. fail.

(c) where there is prescribed regulatory oversight (such as aircraft), the output standard generally is fine and such problems as arise are addressed appropriately sooner or later. Those who are consistently recalcitrant risk the lifting of their TCs, significant financial or other regulatory penalty, etc...

(d) some of the previous comments indicate that the doco was concerned with such things as parts rework - fact of life in any area of manufacturing - if you were to be worried about this, you wouldn't get out of bed in the morning. Note that this doesn't mean that ALL defective parts are reworked .. however, it would be silly to scrap parts with minor defects which are amenable to rework while still retaining strength and reliability requirements.

(e) if we are to be worried about the effect on aircraft of flying into the ground .. then I would suggest that that is a bit on the conservative side. Aircraft are neither intended nor designed for such non-aerial activities. However, aircraft are designed to withstand a reasonable impact of a controlled nature (ie forced landing) with a reasonable probability of occupant survival. If, however, the impact is well outside these boundaries then it is reasonable to expect that the ground will win .. every time.

(f) if we are concerned with inappropriate practices within an OEM, such things do go on from time to time - I have no specific information regarding the present subject so I can only comment in a general way. That such things occur is unacceptable and, from my observations in a lengthy career in manufacturing and maintenance .. the naughty folk eventually get caught out and brought to account.

(g) whether we like it not, docos near invariably approach the subject with an editorial agenda. I have experience of at least one such animal relating to an aircraft/OEM vendetta and I can only observe that the doco was biassed to the point of being very unreasonable. To the public viewer, however, the material was presented as pure Gospel. Fortunately, the public viewer tends to forget all this in a short time frame, the advertisers are happy and we all get on with life.

(h) bringing irrelevant stuff into docos is standard fare .. especially if it is eye-catching - to wit, the controlled impact demonstration.

(i) drawing agenda-driven conclusions, likewise. It is far more exciting to conclude that there is a conspiracy .. rather than, perhaps, just a rational process which fixes a detected problem.

I could go on .. but, hopefully, you get the basic idea ...

[barit1]

Al Jazeera reports many things (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-anti-semitic-anti-gitmo-myth-born_523664.html). If they report it, it must be true. :rolleyes:

[Jerry B.]

john_tullamarine

Your post leaves me somewhat piqued.
I am flabbergasted as to how anybody can post an opinion on a topic without having watched the central and only supportive evidence that this topic is offering. :ugh: Don't get me wrong, but in the society where I grew up, that would mean automatic disqualification. To discredit any evidence prior to its review is WRONG!
To discredit it after review (if warranted) is OK!
More important, I have avoided in my posts to bite into the debate of whether there is a safety issue or not. What I have highlighted is that in this case, there appears to be an inappropriate relationship between the investigating and investigated parties (FAA/Department of Justice and Boeing). And, by the way, I don't refer to any Al Quaida footage - ah sorry, I meant Al Jazeera footage to substantiate the reasons for my anxiety. I refer to original footage of a video taped court affidavit. This footage is not Al Jazeera's. Of course, if one refuses to watch, one wouldn't and couldn't know, could one?
Same with the FAA investigator - if you don't look for evidence, you can say truthfully and under oath that you have seen no evidence - can't you?? The question is whether actively avoiding to look at any evidence makes it right??:confused:
I reserve my right to form an opinion on any poster's contribution on a post by post basis rather than the number of posts made, years of membership, past contributions, number of medals etc. etc.
Maybe, just maybe I have qualifications and experience that will dwarf some of the guys that are held in high esteem by the PPRUNE constabulary?? Then again, maybe not.;) I'd rather err on the side of caution.

Merry Christmas to ALL:O

Regards,

Jerry B.

[john_tullamarine]

Jerry B.

Your post leaves me somewhat piqued.

not intended and, for this, my apologies

how anybody can post an opinion on a topic without having watched the central and only supportive evidence that this topic is offering.

my comments related to the generic subject .. which comes up regularly in the Industry. Specifically, I caveated that comment was not directed at the specific doco

To discredit it after review (if warranted) is OK!

my purpose is not to discredit the doco .. rather to highlight some general observations on docos .. which, possibly, will have some application to the present item

whether there is a safety issue or not

any time that questions relating to design and manufacture arise there is an implied safety consideration. The important matter is for any allegations to be subject to competent audit which, in this sort of instance, is the Regulator. If we are talking about the principal NAAs then we have to start with the premise that the Regulator has a reasonable level of integrity

there appears to be an inappropriate relationship between the investigating and investigated parties

and that may be a relevant observation - I have no way of knowing - however, a TV doco is not the basis for necessary and adequate evidence. If the matter has proceeded to court then one would reasonably presume that folk in appropriate places have instituted audits of material considerations

I refer to original footage of a video taped court affidavit.

such (or similar) was presumed. However, an affidavit doesn't necessarily constitute irrefutable fact .. as most who have been through the divorce courts would opine ...

I reserve my right to form an opinion on any poster's contribution on a post by post basis

a perfectly proper consideration ..

[jcjeant]

Hi,

If the matter has proceeded to court then one would reasonably presume that folk in appropriate places have instituted audits of material considerations

I actually find this ironic comment from you if I did not know that you have not watched the documentary.
Boeing receives deffectives parts from a subcontractor and those parts not fit for the plane manufacturing.
A service of Boeing is responsible for auditing the subcontractor
The report of this audit shows that the subcontractor fails to comply with the terms of reference for manufacturing.
This report is forwarded to the appropriate people in the direction of Boeing
The answer is "case closed" and nothing happens .... :eek:

[DERG]

Yes you said it they are experienced "engineers". Well I guess where they come from, they get the license to ptactice from a different engineering body than we do here in the UK.

We, UK chartered engineers, swear an oath never to endanger life. Basically this means that you WALK AWAY from an enterprise that is taking serious with the safety of the public. Please note THE PUBLIC.

Calculated risks for enterprises such as the military has another set of rules. Nuclear installations are another example.

It is very clear to me that Boeing employs cheap people. To those who post on this site who have no understanding of what they opine on..HIYA..so glad you are nowhere near me or anything that I use day to day. May you burn in hell.

[Denti]

Engineers in the rest of the world outside the uk are usually persons who have a masters degree in engineering. In the UK most "engineers" are what would be called a mechanic or maintenance personnel in the rest of the world.

Simply two different things, don't confuse them please. Both lompasos and mad (flt) scientist (who has his background in the nick) posts speak for themselves, not only on this topic but all over this site.

By the way, not only boeing employs cheap people, so does airbus. It is what every business does if it can get away with it, mainly it is about saving every penny possible.

[DERG]

The FAA employees who sanctioned this crime should be behind bars in prison. The Dallas Fort Worth Kennel Club has more character.

[411A]

It is very clear to me that Boeing employs cheap people. To those who post on this site who have no understanding of what they opine on..HIYA..so glad you are nowhere near me or anything that I use day to day. May you burn in hell.

Hmmm, looks like 'ole DERG has right and truly ploughed off into the deep end, and really does believe what he sees on that arab video-rag Al Jazeera.
And, from a so-called UK 'chartered engineer', no less...I would guess that the UK educational system is just simply not what it used to be.:uhoh:

[DERG]

These days you have money to get educated. I passed a scholarship when I was 11. It kinda gave a voice to the blue collar guy of which I count myself as one. Blue collar folks generally care about folks more than money. We also have a habit of being very firm with MBAs and accountants.

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

Yes you said it they are experienced "engineers". Well I guess where they come from, they get the license to ptactice from a different engineering body than we do here in the UK.

We, UK chartered engineers, swear an oath never to endanger life. Basically this means that you WALK AWAY from an enterprise that is taking serious with the safety of the public. Please note THE PUBLIC.

Calculated risks for enterprises such as the military has another set of rules. Nuclear installations are another example.

It is very clear to me that Boeing employs cheap people. To those who post on this site who have no understanding of what they opine on..HIYA..so glad you are nowhere near me or anything that I use day to day. May you burn in hell.

Sir. I am in fact a UK Chartered Engineer and, for your information, there was no oath extracted from me of the form you suggest. And since all aviation is ultimately managed risk, no such absolute could be consistent with working in this industry, for any company on the planet.

I do however know that my Canadian Engineer colleagues do have an oathtaking ceremony and take it extremely seriously; the ring they all wear is by tradition (if not perhaps in fact) manufactured from metal reclaimed from a fatal bridge collapse in Quebec many years ago, to highlight on a daily basis the consequences of failure to do their duty.

I think you'll find that engineers the world over take their jobs seriously; I've never encountered a US DER, for example, who struck me as in any way cavalier as to his responsibilities. The same has applied to every engineer, of every nationality, in every company I've dealt with. I would say that we all, as engineers, have enough problems with the "common enemies" of bean-counters and project managers that we don't need to start throwing mud at each other.

[Golden Rivet]

I think he was talking about the oath he made at the Lodge...

[barit1]

From my few decades in the engine business, I can state that those engineers who aren't competent and dedicated and creative, and learning more every day, do not last long in the design business.

The ones who are merely marginal (but good communicators) might wind up in field service, where they have to live in the real world of engine operations. They then can convey that experience back to product improvements and newer generations of engines. (I'm not impugning all those in field service - most are first class and love their work.)

But the ones lacking in integrity or talent get recycled as shoe salesmen.

[DERG]

At 6ft 5ins tall and with a formidable personality I never had a problem motivating my men or my client or the customers' agents.. God was good to me that way. Now as far as the oath goes that all depends what college you attended and what institute oversaw the rigour of the course taken.

Things began to go downhill around 1992. Accountants and MBAs started to take decisions which at best could be described as dubious and often led to a long term headache very similar to the 737 debacle this thread is discussing.

The fact is that people cannot be led by money alone or by ego. Then again it all depends just where and who trained you as an engineer. Please don't confuse technicians, engineers and improvers. Never believe than one is better than another, all need each other.

I never slung mud...I used to take 'em inside a cupboard for a private chat..

[John Boeman]

Why are so many people honing in on the small part of this television programme that is just pure speculation?

As I have already said, I would think that most of us who operate jet aircraft, accept that the chances of any of these aircraft actually suffering a catastrophic failure caused by these parts being built as described before being picked up by maintenance, is pretty darned slim to say the least.

And I am sure that all that the hyping up of those three accidents and trying to connect them with the real problem is achieving, is to give ammunition to those who do not want to face the “elephant in the room”.

What appears not to be in question is that the parts supplier involved was not manufacturing these parts in the manner specified or to the tolerances required by Boeing.

What is stunning is that at the time this was brought to light, neither Boeing, the FAA nor the US government appeared to be willing to do anything about it, and instead sacked those who exposed the incredible shortcomings.

I have been part of this forum since it consisted of Danny sending out a daily email of the items that had been emailed in to him that day. I rarely choose to comment or get involved unless the subject being discussed is close to my heart or unless I know at least a little bit about it, (as might be indicated by my total number of posts). I also do my level best not to insult anybody regardless of what they write. It just isn’t worth it.

For this thread, I really think that the minimal requirement in order to make a post worth reading is to have watched the darned programme! So John Tullamarine, while I have every respect for your experience and what you do within this forum, with your admission that you hadn’t watched and didn’t intend to do so, I too found your contribution both astonishing and unhelpful in any respect.

I also thought that it was somewhat insulting to those of us who have watched it and made our comments accordingly. I am long enough in the tooth to not to be taken in by media hype about our industry thanks and my background does include three years spent studying mechanical engineering (admittedly a long time ago), so while I am no expert by a very long chalk, I am not entirely ignorant about what it is that is concerning these ex-Boeing and FAA people.

Having said all that, I really do hope that everyone reading had an enjoyable Christmas and that we all have a better year in 2011 than this last one.

[Caygill]

As I have already said, I would think that most of us who operate jet aircraft, accept that the chances of any of these aircraft actually suffering a catastrophic failure caused by these parts being built as described before being picked up by maintenance, is pretty darned slim to say the least. I would like to consider the following:
IF central structural components indeed were (had to be) assembled using force to fit, and/or modified by drilling new holes, one can assume there MIGHT occur some material fatigue prior to planned lifespan. This might be after 10 years or even 20 years, but the essential is that initial planning and calculations won't necessarily have the safety margins in terms of lifespan and structural strength.
IF these problems indeed were known as now exposed and simply shuffled under the mat, doesn't this lack of integrity and transparency in safety and company culture scare you at all? What else do we not know?Remind you about the Space Shuttle and the outcome of the accident investigations. The problems were found to be quite a bit bigger than the failing gasket or falling bit of foam. It was more a question about WHY it could happen in the first place, not so much about WHAT failed.

[barit1]

There are stories going back decades about compromises in manufacture.

The one I like was told of Lockheed Constellation manufacture. A KLM rep gigged a mis-driven 1/8" flush rivet in a skin panel, and insisted it be drilled out. The assembler knew that this would result in an oversize hole, requiring (per KLM spec) that the skin panel be replaced.

But Lockheed had their own rivet shop, and they made (under the table) 5/32" rivets with the same head profile as a 1/8" rivet. Indistinguishable from its 1/8" neighbors, once driven!

Problem solved. Of course there was no structural issue here, merely a visual one. :p

[PBL]

Some odd things being bandied about about UK engineering that require answering, I think.

We, UK chartered engineers, swear an oath never to endanger life.

The UK engineering Institutions have a code of conduct for members, no "oath". In order to be a Chartered Engineer, one must be a member of one of these Instutitions. Membership, though, does not suffice to become a Chartered Engineer. However, members must adhere to the code of conduct. The Code of Conduct for the IET may be found at Rules of Conduct - The IET (http://www.theiet.org/about/governance/rules-conduct/)

Now as far as the oath goes that all depends what college you attended and what institute oversaw the rigour of the course taken.


No, it doesn't. The code of conduct to which you ascribe by renewing your membership depends only on the Institution of which you are a member. No UK engineering Institution "oversees" the "rigour" of any courses. They have a list of UK degrees, possession of which qualify one for membership without further assessment. If you don't have a UK degree, or if your UK qualification is too old to be on the list, then individual assessment is required. For which, of course, one must pay handsomely.

Engineers in the rest of the world outside the uk are usually persons who have a masters degree in engineering. In the UK most "engineers" are what would be called a mechanic or maintenance personnel in the rest of the world.


Utter nonsense.

PBL

[glhcarl]

Barit1: The one I like was told of Lockheed Constellation manufacture. A KLM rep gigged a mis-driven 1/8" flush rivet in a skin panel, and insisted it be drilled out. The assembler knew that this would result in an oversize hole, requiring (per KLM spec) that the skin panel be replaced.

But Lockheed had their own rivet shop, and they made (under the table) 5/32" rivets with the same head profile as a 1/8" rivet. Indistinguishable from its 1/8" neighbors, once driven!

That's a great story, even though its authenticity can not be verified!

However, Lockheed does use rivets of its own design. An 1/8" rivet has a 3/32" rivet head, a 3/16" rivet has a 5/32" rivet head and so on. The smaller heads means less material is removed when counter sinking for better structural strength and the smaller heads help keep weight to a minimum.

Maybe it worked so will on the KLM Connie that Lockheed made it standard.

[barit1]

An 1/8" rivet has a 3/32" rivet head, a 3/16" rivet has a 5/32" rivet head and so on.

I think the head sizes must be 3/16" and 5/16", respectively, but I get your point.

[Robert Campbell]

It should be very simple to determine whether or not the parts at the separation points in all three aircraft are identical.

If not, why not?

[Terraplaneblues]

Around minute 37 of the video, when the 3 NG crashes were cited as evidence for the whistleblowers case is the point where the video became nonsense IMO.
The layout of the emergency light battery packs is such that when the fuselage breaks into 3 pieces following an impact, all 3 pieces still have emergency lights. Falling into 3 pieces is an expectation upon impact and not limited to the NG.

The parts that are discussed in the video are inspected during the life of the NG so the potential issues are covered.

[jcjeant]

Hi,

The parts that are discussed in the video are inspected during the life of the NG so the potential issues are covered.With such reasoning ... one may have to ask what good is a book of specifications or a quality control ... since in any ways .. if there is a construction defect ..it will be discovered during an inspection .. or more unfortunately after a crash ......

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

For the same reason as there are specs for every single thing on the aircraft, be they systems or structure, and also inspections and maintenance intervals for most of them.

Initial design specs are to get as good a component as you can get for a reasonable price, weight, etc. (Note - not the best part possible).

Inspections and maintenance are there to catch failures before they pose a threat with a reasonably high - but not certain - degree of success.

Setting the spec thresholds higher usually allows either fewer findings at inspection or longer inspection intervals, but by and large it's the inspection and maintenance intervals which assure safety, not the initial spec. With the acknowledged exception of items lifed for the aircraft design life by the initial spec, though those don't always end up lasting the life.

[Superpilot]

Around minute 37 of the video, when the 3 NG crashes were cited as evidence for the whistleblowers case is the point where the video became nonsense IMO

That's not very fair. All the program attempted to do is ask a question. "Is this evidence?". The questioned was asked because the whistleblowers claimed the planes broke up exactly where the dodgy parts were fitted.

All of the doubting arguments on this thread stink to the high heavens of blind ignorance. The documentary is what it is. If you have a problem with it, then quite simply you have a problem with the whistleblowers and the former FAA officials who are making the claims. I suspect a lot of doubting of this programme is down to nothing more than the fact that it was aired on Al-Jazeera. Wake up and smell the coffee guys, this channel has way more credit than all your networks put together even though 411's friends have tried many times to burn it to the ground.

[lomapaseo]

All of the doubting arguments on this thread stink to the high heavens of blind ignorance. The documentary is what it is. If you have a problem with it, then quite simply you have a problem with the whistleblowers and the former FAA officials who are making the claims

Count me in as blindly ignorant then.

I don't have a problem with individuals known facts or even their individual opinions.

I do have a problem with the linking of minute facts and extending them into a subject that they have little or faulted knowledge as if the sum total was still factual.

Thus, the inference that the reported facts represent a collective knowledege of experts is pure hogwash.

The TV story like many others is entertaining, and that's all it is.

[glhcarl]

I think the head sizes must be 3/16" and 5/16", respectively, but I get your point.

I don't understand your statement? The manfactured heads are smaller not bigger!

Lockheed standard (LS) rivets have a manufactured head one rivet size smaller than MS rivets.

When you install a 1/8" LS universal (protruding) head rivet you use a 3/32" rivet set (die).

When you install a 3/16" LS flush rivet, the countersink in the skin is the same depth and diameter as that for a 5/32" MS rivet.

The LS manfactured rivet heads are one rivet size smaller than there MS counterparts.

[barit1]

glhcarl:
Ah, I misread your statement. I though you were referring to the head major dimension, when in fact you meant the head size of the equivalent MS rivet shank. Mea culpa.

[411A]

I suspect a lot of doubting of this programme is down to nothing more than the fact that it was aired on Al-Jazeera. Wake up and smell the coffee guys, this channel has way more credit than all your networks put together....

Yes, and I'm expecting the tooth fairy tonight, along with the Easter bunny.
LOL....:p

[jcjeant]

Hi,

Finally I wonder if Wikileaks is Al-Jazeera in disguise .. ROFL

[barit1]

Superpilot - See the link in post #73. :D

[KAG]

On a wing and a prayer - PEOPLE AND POWER - Al Jazeera English (http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/peopleandpower/2010/12/20101214104637901849.html)
Really Scary....

[zondaracer]

Old news... next

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/436810-boeing-safety-cover-up-documentary-al-jazeera.html

[repariit]

The link in Post #1 did not work for me.

This one did get to the story: On a wing and a prayer - PEOPLE AND POWER - Al Jazeera English (http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/peopleandpower/2010/12/20101214104637901849.html)

The story overstates the effect of loss of some "chords" and "bear straps". Aloha 243 lost quite a few of them and landed safely: AirDisaster.Com: Accident Photo: Aloha 243 (http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/aloha243/photo.shtml)

[Storminnorm]

That really IS scary.
I can only hope that the matter HAS been looked into.
The allegations are VERY serious.
My only concern is that the article originates in Al Jazeera.
Is it true? Or just a form of scaremongering? I don't know
for certain.
I just hope that someone does.

[stepwilk]

Al Jazeera is a respectable news site. Just because it's Muslim doesn't mean it's incompetent.

But this story was widely discussed on PPRuNe at least a week ago.

[zondaracer]

The link in Post #1 did not work for me.

There is an extra http thrown in the first link

[Skywards747]

I don't watch Al-Jazeera. So I am interested to know whether they have ever done any investigative reporting on any of the middle eastern countries? Such as the horrific treatment of third world workers or safety concerns at ME airlines.

Or are they only going after exposures in non-arabic countries ?

[larssnowpharter]

My only concern is that the article originates in Al Jazeera.

Norm. Shame on you!

Al Jazeera is a very good source of news provided you balance it with a bit a common sense and moderation from other sources. As you should do for any news source.

I listen to it each day driving to and from work. The channel has some very good journalists and manages to identify and report on storeis that seem to elude many other news services. Good coverage of the Mid East where I live but also excellent stuff from elsewhere.

[zondaracer]

I just watched the documentary and laughed my head off. It sounded like a conspiracy theory.

[411A]

It sounded like a conspiracy theory.
Exactly.
IE: so much horsepucky.

[jcjeant]

Hi,

Of course it's a conspiracy .. you right :)

Conspiracy (crime) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28crime%29), an agreement between persons to break the law in the future, in some cases having committed an act to further that agreement

Conspiracy (crime) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28crime%29)

[repariit]

This rather bizarre case is still grinding along.

Here is some recent info: Boeing seeks info in whistleblower suit | Aviation | Wichita Eagle (http://www.kansas.com/2010/10/16/1544620/boeing-seeks-info-in-whistleblower.html)

Based on my experience, the cognizant Boeing personnel who would be involved with managing such issues would be Quality Control types with some technical competence rather than Purchasing types who deal with the administrative tasks. I believe when it is all unwound we will see that the QC system did address the safety and compliance issues satisfactorily, and that there is nothing more than the "normal" manufacturing specification compliance/enforcement that is involved here. It is entirely possible that these Purchasing people do not understand the issue, or have other reasons for investing ten years in what will turn out to be much about nothing.

It is very hard to imagine that plaintiff attorneys could be convinced to invest so much in such a case without learning that they are going to lose.

[glad rag]

FF to 45:50 and wonder.:yuk:

[kilomikedelta]

This rather bizarre case is still grinding along. Here is some recent info: Boeing seeks info in whistleblower suit | Aviation | Wichita Eagle Based on my experience, the cognizant Boeing personnel who would be involved with managing such issues would be Quality Control types with some technical competence rather than Purchasing types who deal with the administrative tasks. I believe when it is all unwound we will see that the QC system did address the safety and compliance issues satisfactorily, and that there is nothing more than the "normal" manufacturing specification compliance/enforcement that is involved here. It is entirely possible that these Purchasing people do not understand the issue, or have other reasons for investing ten years in what will turn out to be much about nothing. It is very hard to imagine that plaintiff attorneys could be convinced to invest so much in such a case without learning that they are going to lose. Boeings sales grunts will do what ever is necessary to maintain their jobs and their belief that they are God's gift to the corporate world. Boeings lawyers will do whatever is necessary to perpetuate billable hours to maintain their ascendancy in their firm's hierarchy. Their only interest is money in their pockets. Clients are their marks to milk.

[TZ350]

Ignoring the fact that Al Jazerra is involved, if one reads the Boeing Internal Audit Report ;

http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/Documents/2010/12/14/201012141183199738Boeing_Internal_report_-_August_21,_2000.pdf

there should be some serious questions about the Quality Control procedures
(or lack thereof) that allowed problems to escalate to this situation. Especially read pages 2 and 5 of the report , e.g. regarding tooling, the hammer forming of parts and other unacceptable practices. Fasteners require hole diameters to tolerance, hard to achieve with components manufactured under those circumstances.

Pretty unbelievable, what else gets hushed up ?

[John Boeman]

The Last Inspector - Boeing Fraud & FAA Fraud Risking Safety (http://www.thelastinspector.com/)

What is it with all these Americans with anti-Boeing agendas, that all seem to major in "horsepucky"?
And do notice that they are all solid American "malcontents" involved in these obviously totally unfounded speculations and accusations - as if Boeing would ever pull stunts like that so they could knock out aircraft faster and cheaper.

I mean we all know Michael O'Leary paid top dollar for his NGs!!

I reckon myself that they must be commie sleepers! There is no other sensible explanation.
:}

[glad rag]

I reckon myself that they must be commie sleepers! There is no other sensible explanation.Tut, play the ball not the man! :=


:E

[BARKINGMAD]

Doubters of the behaviour of Boeing/McDonnell-Douglas or whatever they´re calling themselves this year might like to obtain a copy of "Destination Disaster-The Rise and Fall of the DC-10" or carry out appropriate web research.

There they will discover evidence of the (alleged) falsification of factory records relating to modification of the DC10s cargo door latching systems, 1 airframe being the March 1974 THY disaster at Ermenonville out of Paris CDG killing hundreds.

Then go to bed and take your flight tomorrow, either as SLF or crew, safe in the knowledge that it could never happen again nor does big business behave in this apalling manner.

I seem to recall the early 747s were guilty of trying to fall apart at the junction of the fat bit at the front and the rest of the fuselage aft of frame#wotever.

Deja vu springs to mind as we try to pretend the "Titanic" will never happen again because we have the "procedures, quality systems, structures, supervisory processes etc" and a plethora of managementspeak bollox to prevent disaster.

Ultimately it´s the beancounters and the "bottom line" wallahs who reign supreme over safety. The NG issue sounds like the next episode of "The Tombstone Imperative", whether or not we can sleep easy with that thought!

[rottenray]

John writes:
The Last Inspector - Boeing Fraud & FAA Fraud Risking Safety (http://www.thelastinspector.com/)

What is it with all these Americans with anti-Boeing agendas, that all seem to major in "horsepucky"? One hardly knows what to make of that website. What with the quotes from Mary Schiavo and all...


Which aren't nearly as good as some of the things Mr. Gerald Eastman - this Gerald Eastman (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004334012_eastman08m.html) - himself has written:
When I was a mechanic or inspector on the 777, I would choose my passwords based on species of dinosaurs, silently voicing my belief that the 777, the plane that everyone was so excited about, as it was a "totally new airplane," was only a 767 that the engineers had put the design of in a Catia terminal, and pushed the "enlarge" key. Sure, a lot of new technology was introduced in areas on the 777, but the design was pretty much the same. Airbus copied this same ancient Boeing design in their A/Ps. It was nothing new and exciting like the B-2 was when I worked on it, or the Sonic Cruiser will be.It's on this page. (http://www.thelastinspector.com/19801.html) Then search for "6-5-07 quote:" and have fun.

As so often is the case, this is a missed diagnosis.

He's not a "whistle-blower," he's merely suffering priapism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priaprism).


Barking writes:
Doubters of the behaviour of Boeing/McDonnell-Douglas or whatever they´re calling themselves this year might like to obtain a copy of "Destination Disaster-The Rise and Fall of the DC-10" or carry out appropriate web research.It was purely and completely McDonnell-Douglas at that time. Boeing had not purchased them yet.

Also, even though the disaster does indicate that the frame in question should have had the upgrades in place to prevent the cargo door from opening, there is this:
Mohammed Mahmoudi, the baggage handler who had closed the door on Flight 981, noted that no particular amount of force was needed to close the locking handle. Investigators concluded that the system had already been fatigued in prior flights.

The fix that was implemented by McDonnell Douglas after the American Airlines flight 96 incident was the addition of a small window that allowed the baggage handlers to visually inspect the pins, confirming they were in the correct position, and placards were added to inform them of proper operation. This modification had been carried out on TC-JAV. However, Mahmoudi had not been advised as to what the indicator window was for. He had been told that as long as the door latch handle stowed correctly and the vent flap closed at the same time, the door was safe. Furthermore, the instructions regarding the indicator window were posted on the aircraft in English and Turkish, but the Algerian-born Mahmoudi, who could read and write three languages fluently, could not read either language.source: Turkish Airlines Flight 981 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ermenonville_air_disaster#Cause)


Cheers!

[jcjeant]

Hi,

From the same link above (The Wikipedia one) this is more on topic :)

The latch of the DC-10 is a study in human factors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_factors), interface design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interface_design) and engineering responsibility. The control cables for the rear control surfaces of the DC-10 are routed under the floor, so a failure of the hatch could lead to the collapse of the floor, and disruption of the controls. To make matters worse, Douglas chose a new latch design to seal the cargo hatch. If the hatch were to fail for any reason, there was a very high probability the plane would be lost. This possibility was first discovered in 1969 and actually occurred in 1970 in a ground test. Nevertheless, nothing was done to change the design, presumably because the cost for any such changes would have been borne as out-of-pocket expenses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-pocket_expenses) by the fuselage's sub-contractor, Convair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair). Although Convair had informed McDonnell Douglas of the potential problem, rectifying what the airline considered a small problem with a low probability of occurrence would have seriously disrupted delivery of the aircraft and cost sales so Convair's concerns were ignored. Dan Applegate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Applegate) was Director of Product Engineering at Convair at the time. His serious reservations about the integrity of the DC-10's cargo latching mechanism are considered a classic case in the field of engineering ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering_ethics).
After Flight 981, a complete re-design of the latching system was finally implemented. The latches themselves were re-designed to prevent them from moving into the wrong positions in the first place. The locking system was mechanically upgraded to prevent the handle from being able to be forced closed without the pins in place, and the vent door operation was changed to be operated by the pins, so that it would properly indicate that the pins were in the locked position, not that the handle was. Additionally, the FAA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAA) ordered further changes to all aircraft with outward-opening doors, including the DC-10, Lockheed L-1011 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-1011), and Boeing 747 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747), requiring that vents be cut into the cabin floor to allow pressures to equalize in the event of a blown-out door.
The name given to the crashed DC-10, "Ankara", is still used on an Airbus A340-300 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A340) (TC-JDL, MSN: 57) in Star Alliance Livery.

[rubik101]

Derg states: Yes you said it they are experienced "engineers". Well I guess where they come from, they get the license to ptactice from a different engineering body than we do here in the UK.

We, UK chartered engineers, swear an oath never to endanger life. Basically this means that you WALK AWAY from an enterprise that is taking serious with the safety of the public. Please note THE PUBLIC.

Calculated risks for enterprises such as the military has another set of rules. Nuclear installations are another example.

It is very clear to me that Boeing employs cheap people. To those who post on this site who have no understanding of what they opine on..HIYA..so glad you are nowhere near me or anything that I use day to day. May you burn in hell.

It is my considered opinion that this is not written by anyone with a UK Chartered Engineers Degree, for what he states is simply utter hogwash, drivel and a misrepresentation of the truth. The only oaths uttered at Imperial College during my brief visit there were from the cleaning lady.

Denti states in the following post: Engineers in the rest of the world outside the uk are usually persons who have a masters degree in engineering. In the UK most "engineers" are what would be called a mechanic or maintenance personnel in the rest of the world.

Simply two different things, don't confuse them please. Both lompasos and mad (flt) scientist (who has his background in the nick) posts speak for themselves, not only on this topic but all over this site.

By the way, not only boeing employs cheap people, so does airbus. It is what every business does if it can get away with it, mainly it is about saving every penny possible.

This poster is probably more at fault than his predecessor; not only has he made assumptions about something he cannot justify (cheap people) if there is such a breed but he has also manged to insult what is considered to be one of the finest Engineering Degrees in the world. He might be forgiven if he is confusing those with a degree with the the excellent training given at the Aircraft Apprentice Schools which produce such sought after 'engineers' all around the world.

Mechanincs work in garages mate. Which website did you get your 'degree' from I wonder?

[TimTate]

I am the producer of the documentary film which is the subject of this thread.

Should any contributors wish to ask any questions about the evidence we found or the process by which the film was produced I will be happy to do what I can to assist.

Tim Tate

[DERG]

May I ask if at any stage you felt intimidated in any way while you were working on this documentary?

A lot of intimidation goes on in the aircraft world and I would expect that you noticed a lot of negative reponses.

May I say that the people you interviewed were some of the bravest I have seen on any media programme.

[DERG]

Glad I dropped by.

[rubik101]

Imperial College website:

Aeronautics (http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/aeronautics)

Imperial College London still sits atop every page of the website so quite what is your point DERG? You think because the students refer to it as simply 'Imperial', means something significant?

So are you going to tell us on which course and the where and when you swore this 'oath' you refer to.

No, I thought not.

[DERG]

Sunderland Poly 1974. Advanced Social Engineering.