Boeing alleged to use ill-fitting parts

[Jumbo744]

NEW YORK (Reuters) -

Three former Boeing Co. employees have alleged that the top U.S. planemaker installed improperly fitting parts in hundreds of Boeing 737 commercial jets, the Washington Post reported on Monday.
Boeing has denied the whistle-blowers' claims, contained in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Wichita, Kansas, insisting that no faulty parts could have slipped past Boeing controls and that there is no safety issue related to the parts, the newspaper said.


Boeing officials could not immediately be reached for comment.


The parts at issue, manufactured by Boeing supplier AHF Ducommun of Los Angeles -- a defendant in the lawsuit along with Boeing -- were made between 1994 and 2002, the whistle-blowers said.


They claim that Boeing allowed thousands of parts to be installed on the planes even though the aerospace company knew they did not meet specifications. Boeing also retaliated against people who raised questions about the parts, the whistle-blowers claim.


The whistle-blowers initially made the claims in 2002, the newspaper said. A review by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and the Pentagon, which bought some of the planes, found the charges had no merit.
But the Washington Post said it had reviewed the FAA's probe and found that the agency failed to visit any airplanes to inspect the 200 types of parts questioned by the whistle-blowers.


Ducommun declined to comment on the allegations, beyond referring to the FAA's previous findings the allegations had no merit, the Post said.

[lomapaseo]

So did the parts meet function? so what's the big deal other than non-qualified employees getting newpaper space?

[gwillie]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/16/AR2006041600803.html

[GotTheTshirt]

loma,

What do you mean " meet function" :confused:

Do you mean meet specification ? then no they dont and thats what its all about.:bored:

A bolt " meets function" if it hold the wing on.
It does not meet spec if it fails before ultimate load.
That what its all about.

Parts that do not meet spec are MUCH cheaper :}

[vapilot2004]

This story reminds me of the chief engineer for TTT Tech - a Vienna-based company that supplies pressurization controller chips for the A380.

The chief engineer, a Mr. Mangan, discovered critical flaws in the chips that according to him, could cause the outflow doors, which are about the size of a cabin window, to drive full open. There are 4 controllers, each operating their respective outflow doors via a lone servo, and are reportedly autonomous with no manual override on the A380. The design was part of the weight-saving program Airbus implemented on the super jumbo.

TTT Tech and Airbus have both released statements that they see no need to replace the chips and that the design is sound.

Meanwhile Mr. Mangan is facing serious criminal charges, has fled Vienna, was forced to sell his family home in Kansas to help pay his mounting legal fees and faces immediate arrest and subsequent prosecution should he step foot in the EU.

Link to article:

Daily Telegraph Whistleblower Article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2005/10/15/ccairb15.xml&menuId=242&sSheet=/money/2005/10/15/ixcoms.html)


Even if the Ducommun workers claims are found to have no merit - well, at least the aluminum chord parts for the 737 will be examined (again) more closely.

Insiders should be able to voice safety concerns without fear of being locked up for speaking up.

Thank G-d for whisteblower laws I say - we need more of 'em. :ok:

[cwatters]

From the washington post article..

Issue:
"..forced workers to drill holes for rivets closer to the edge of the piece than specified."

Response:
"Scrapping any bearstraps is stupid, since we've used over 300 with the same condition,"

Reminded me of the group think mentality behind the Challenger disaster... We've launched before at low temperatures so it will be ok again.

[rhovsquared]

Personally, I can't see how such a thing would help any airframe manufacturer be it Boeing, Airbus, Dassault, Gulfstream, Cessna, or Piper. because of stiff competion if there's a crash because of such dishonesty the consequences would be devastating...pax may refuse to fly therefore airlines would refuse to buy:hmm: save a few million here lose a few billion there.

[lomapaseo]

loma,
What do you mean " meet function" :confused:
Do you mean meet specification ? then no they dont and thats what its all about.:bored:
A bolt " meets function" if it hold the wing on.
It does not meet spec if it fails before ultimate load.
That what its all about.
Parts that do not meet spec are MUCH cheaper :}

To meet function, means that it meets the standards under the FARs regarding safety of flight between inspection periods. It has nothing to do with whether it was hammered into place as to looks or precise fit. Also it has little to do with life as long as it is inspectable and falls under the envelop of the manufacturers continued airworthiness.

From what I have read no real experts familiar with the Systems safety assessment 25.1309 nor the limitations sections under the Fars has publically commented. From what I can see the publicized information in the press and the responses has been the blind leading the blind.

[GotTheTshirt]

Loma,
lomapaseo So did the parts meet function?

These were your words.


Your reference to 25.1309 is very illuminating but irrelevant
This refers to systems and equipmqnt.

I case you missed it, the point was assembly of structure that did not comply with the drawing.
The problem was insufficient edge distance on a structure assembly.
Boeing manufacture production aircraft under a Type Certificate which delegates everything to Boeing.


Most Manufacture's repair drawings carry a statement " maintain minimum edge distance"
We have had repairs in the field where we have not been able to do this and have been forced to rework the repair.

Some of us "blind ones" do repairs in service under manufacturer's drawings so we are fairly conversant with the requirements.

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

There's nothing to say that the min ED required by the drawing(s) in question is actually the mininum necessary ED. It's routine to have a generic min ED which applies to ALL drawings by default. You then specify different min EDs where they have to be LARGER for structural reasons, but often will not specify a deviation to a lower value just because a part can withstand that, because no-one is going to review every single ED in the drawing set to see what the EXACT minimum is.
Then, when a problem is found in assembly/manufacture with a specific part, one will get requests from manufacturing to the designers to allow a specific deviation from the specified generic min ED. If, on review, the part can withstand a lower min ED, that deviation will usually be given. It usually takes much longer to incorporate such a deviation in the drawing set, so a number of parts will be built which do not meet the letter of the drawing set but which have an approved deviation and are perfectly safe.
If this is an approximation of this case then people are blowing up a normal and very safe practice into a storm in a teacup.

[GotTheTshirt]

Wasnt Boeing repair procedure part of the problem on the the JAL jumbo crash where the RPB repair failed ??:\

[glhcarl]

[quote=GotTheTshirt]What do you mean " meet function" :confused:

When buliding aircraft sometime mistakes happen, maybe there is short edge distance on a row of rivits or a part is slight out of contour. The standard procedure is for an inspector to write the problem up and submit it to an engineer. The engineer will determine the corrective action. In a lot of situtitions the real problem is that the installation just looks bad and trying to correct it will make things worse. The engineers standard fix in these cases is "meets form, fit and function".

[glhcarl]

Wasnt Boeing repair procedure part of the problem on the the JAL jumbo crash where the RPB repair failed ??:\
The Boeing repair procedure was correct, but a mechanic did not follow the proper procedure and left a row of rivets in single shear.

[glhcarl]

Loma,
I case you missed it, the point was assembly of structure that did not comply with the drawing.


If in fact the parts did not meet the drawing, a lot of people did not do their job. There was the person at the supplier that built the part, the supplier inspector that bought the part. The Boeing sourse inspector, assigned to all suppliers, the Boeing recieving inspector. The Boeing installer and the Boeing inspector on the production line. And last but not least the airline inspectors that are assigned to Boeing and watch over their aircraft as the go through the production cycle.

I really find the parts buyers story hard to believe. Not that there was short edge distance or that parts did not fit just right, but that there was never any oversight of this problem by Boeing.

[GotTheTshirt]

Carl,

Your synopsis is bascially correct and the fact that the whistle blowers were Boeing employe's means that they were also aware of these procedures.
Yes S*** happens and it if not unusual to get many Engineering Deviations during a production build however so long as they are approved by Engineering and properly documented thats fine.
Without the facts it appears that they had a deviation for this problem at some point but then subsequently did it without specific Engineerring approval.
If everything was so Kosher it would take half a day to confirm this so why are the FAA continuing to investigate.:confused:

There is one flaw in your procedures.
I have been an Airline Rep and I have worked with other airline reps at manufacturers. None of the airlines have ever had enough people to do the kind of parts inspection you are refering to. There are generally on one or two and that kind of inspection is not only impossible but should be unnecessary under a Production Certificate.
What would normally happen is once the mistake is rectified and the correct Engineering Dispositon effected the rep would then possibly review it.:)

[glhcarl]

Got (or is it Shirt)?

I can only tell you about how Lockheed worked, I spent 32 years on the L-1011 program (started as a structural assembler retired as the Resident Service Manager (on site techncal representative) with the RAF at Brize Norton.

We had airline representatives (inspectors) and we had a Lockheed department called Customer Inspection. These were Lockheed employees that were assigned to an airline and they along with the airline representatives had to sign off on each area of the aircarft when it was closed. If the installation batting and cabin sidewalls were being installed, the areas under and behind the batting and sidewalls (that would no longer be visible) had to be signed off by the customer. If there was something they didn't like I had to be corrected prior to closing the area.

I just can't see parts being as bad as the Washington Post makes them out to be, getting through all the layers of inspection and into service without be caught, by someone. Even the airlines, surly some of the effected 737 have been through D Checks. If the part fit and edge distance was bad they should have caught it?

I remember reading one of the "Squawks" (thats what the write ups were called, that a ANA airline representative wrote.

It read: Area inside #2 engine inlet at 7:00 o'clock position "ruff".

[GotTheTshirt]

Carl we may have met :)
I was an airline rep at Lockheed:}

The point that I thought was being made in the Boeing claim was the same procedure as Lockheed. Many sub assemblies are made off site and these can only be accepted on the papework with them. There was no inspection in house on parts that were already completed before arrival.

Also you may remember the hiatus over DC 10 cargo doors after the door blow out where paperwork with the aircraft showed that the door system had been modified when it fact it hadn't and this was not picked up by anyone.

PS Dave Colubus is still going :D