Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Boeing falsified records for 787 jet sold to Air Canada. It developed a fuel leak

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Boeing falsified records for 787 jet sold to Air Canada. It developed a fuel leak

Old 29th Jun 2019, 02:40
  #21 (permalink)  
epc
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: US
Posts: 20
Originally Posted by Sunamer View Post


who else would have the intimate knowledge of the systems tho? If the aircraft crashes and it is proven it was manufacturer's fault, who pays in court? The manufacturer. So, it is an incentive for them to try to be as thorough as possible, while still pushing the envelop to stay competitive.
On the other hand the people in the govt does not care if the govt gets sued for incorrectly done certification, because the govt uses YOUR money to pay for any lawsuit and any compensatory damages will come from the taxes.
The purpose of regulations is to make sure the product (food, drugs, airplanes, etc) is safe for public. It is never about the profit / loss of a manufacturer. If you think the payout from a liability is an incentive for a manufacturer to adhere to regulations, then what will a manufacturer do, if the accountant calculates the cost of regulatory compliance (in dollars terms, because that's all you are considering) is higher than the payout?
epc is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2019, 02:43
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 146
Originally Posted by epc View Post
The purpose of regulations is to make sure the product (food, drugs, airplanes, etc) is safe for public. It is never about the profit / loss of a manufacturer. If you think the payout from a liability is an incentive for a manufacturer to adhere to regulations, then what will a manufacturer do, if the accountant calculates the cost of regulatory compliance (in dollars terms, because that's all you are considering) is higher than the payout?
PRECISELY!!!
Old Dogs is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2019, 02:54
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 450
DOJ probe expands beyond Boeing 737 MAX, includes 787 Dreamliner

Federal prosecutors have subpoenaed records from Boeing relating to the production of the 787 Dreamliner in South Carolina, where there have been allegations of shoddy work, according to two sources familiar with the investigation.

The subpoena was issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ), the sources said. DOJ is also conducting a criminal investigation into the certification and design of the 737 MAX after two deadly crashes of that jetliner.

The 787 subpoena significantly widens the scope of the DOJ’s scrutiny of safety issues at Boeing.

The two sources who revealed the subpoena spoke on condition of anonymity because of the confidential nature of the inquiries.

A third source said a handful of subpoenas were issued in early June to individual employees at Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner production plant in North Charleston, South Carolina.

DOJ spokesman Peter Carr, in Washington, D.C., declined to comment Friday. A Boeing spokesman said, “We don’t comment on legal matters.”

It wasn’t clear if the subpoena served on the company was issued by the same prosecutors overseeing the 737 MAX investigation. But the third source, also speaking on condition of anonymity because of the confidentiality of the inquiries, said the subpoenas to employees at the South Carolina plant came from the “same group” of prosecutors involved in the 737 MAX investigation, including DOJ trial attorneys Cory Jacobs and Carol Sipperly in the Fraud Section.

Boeing divides its Dreamliner production between the South Carolina assembly plant, which rolled out its first plane in 2012, and the sprawling Everett facility where it has built jets for decades. The 737 MAX is built in Renton.

Federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C., have been looking into the development of the 737 MAX, including a new flight-safety control system known as MCAS, after one crash on Oct. 29 off Indonesia and another in Ethiopia on March 10. Those disasters killed 346 people and led to worldwide grounding of the plane.

The grand-jury investigation into the MAX has been cloaked in secrecy, but some of the Justice Department’s activities have become known as prosecutors issued subpoenas for documents. The Department of Transportation’s Inspector General and the FBI are working with the DOJ.

A Seattle Times story in March detailed how Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) managers pushed its engineers to delegate more of the certification process for the 737 MAX to Boeing itself. The Times story also detailed flaws in an original safety analysis that Boeing delivered to the FAA.

Allegations relating to the 787 Dreamliner have centered on shoddy work and cutting corners at the company’s South Carolina plant.

While there are differences in the 737 and 787 matters, prosecutors are likely looking into whether broad cultural problems run throughout the company, according to the third source and a person in South Carolina, who also spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the matter.

That could include pressure to sign off on faulty work to avoid delays in delivering planes to customers, the source said.

The New York Times reported in April that the North Charleston plant has been plagued by production issues and weak oversight that threatened to compromise safety.

Production ran years behind schedule, due to manufacturing and supplier problems, before the plane entered service in 2011.

The newspaper, citing a review of hundreds of pages of internal emails, corporate documents and federal records, as well as interviews with current and former employees, described a culture that often valued production speed over quality. Confronting manufacturing delays at the plant, Boeing pushed its workforce to quickly turn out Dreamliners, at times ignoring issues raised by employees, the newspaper reported.

The Dreamliner, introduced in 2007 and billed as Boeing’s most important new plane in a generation, featured lightweight carbon-fiber fuselage and advanced technology.

Initially assembled just in Everett, it was popular with airlines, prompting Boeing to break ground on a second Dreamliner plant in 2009 in South Carolina, which has the lowest percentage of union members of any state in the country.

Last year the Everett plant produced 55% of the 145 Dreamliners that Boeing delivered, while the South Carolina factory delivered the rest. The biggest 787, the -10 model, is assembled only in South Carolina.

The entire fleet was grounded in January 2013 after two battery-overheating incidents: a battery fire on an empty 787 parked at the gate at Boston airport, then a smoldering battery on a flight in Japan that forced an emergency landing. The FAA lifted the grounding in April 2013 after Boeing modified the jets with beefed-up batteries, containment boxes and venting tubes.

In the 737 MAX investigation, prosecutors appear to be getting information from someone with inside knowledge of the plane’s development based on the questions they are asking, the third source said.
Longtimer is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2019, 06:41
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Asia
Age: 58
Posts: 126
Originally Posted by Speed of Sound View Post


That makes as much (or as little) sense as saying that banks and financial institutions should regulate themselves as they have the most intimate knowledge of their systems.


No it's not really the same. While some areas of banking especially in derivatives can be quite complex, most financial auditors have the same level of skills as the bankers. Unethical banking activities are easily managed with robust procedures, a strong back office, and reviews of management. Banks self-regulate all the time. That is how banking risk is managed, and those processes can be externally audited.

In the same way proper oversight of self-certification can occur with rigorous auditing of the self-certification procedures and documentation, combined with technical testing. It is feasible if it is properly overseen. One very effective way is to require full time auditors to work inside Boeing but are independent of Boeing. Shipping has been doing that for a long long time and bank in the US are doing it. Just because self-certification may have failed in this instance it doesn't mean that self-certification is a failure. It's just been poorly implemented. External certification can be just as fallible.
bud leon is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2019, 08:28
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Northern Territory Australia
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by Speed of Sound View Post


That is a fair point. Someone not completing a job and a supervisor signing it off as having been done, is something that could happen in any workplace. It is only really a Boeing thing if Boeing either encouraged it or knew about it and took no action.

There is plenty to criticise Boeing for at the moment without going after spurious claims.
“Immediate corrective action was initiated for both the Boeing mechanic and the Boeing inspector involved.”

I think one can deduce that this might not have been a “spurious claims”
Whatever was at the root of the issue reported may not be made public but the word “falsified” is perhaps the only word which is contentious.
Gove N.T. is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2019, 11:33
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 595
Originally Posted by Gove N.T. View Post

I think one can deduce that this might not have been a “spurious claims”
I wasn’t calling the individual incident a ‘spurious claim’, I was calling the implication that this kind of incident is both widespread and systemic at Boeing as spurious, as there is no evidence for it.
Speed of Sound is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2019, 19:48
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: 8th floor
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by Speed of Sound View Post
there is no evidence for it.
I kept hearing that that too on MAX thread, when people suggested the stabilizer trim thumb switches might not work under some circumstances.

Although there has been circumstantial evidence that it may have happened on the accident flights, other people were very vocal contesting that claim, along the lines of: "there is no evidence that those switches can fail to work properly, the MAX issues have been under thorough investigation for months, if there was anything to suggest that those switches could fail to work we would have heard about it by now".

Ironically, just a couple of days after those claims of "lack of evidence", evidence came out that it may have indeed been possible, since such a condition was discovered in a simulator test performed by FAA pilots.

Reality seems to have a particular habit of soon proving wrong people that claim large amounts of smoke is not evidence of a fire. And there has been a lot of smoke in the last decade about Boeing trying to deliver aircraft as fast as possible, and disregarding quality issues because of that. Now that there is concrete evidence about a bit of fire, it's not unreasonable to assume that most of the smoke may have been caused by fire as well.

MemberBerry is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2019, 20:55
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Paisley, Florida USA
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by MemberBerry View Post
I kept hearing that that too on MAX thread, when people suggested the stabilizer trim thumb switches might not work under some circumstances.

Although there has been circumstantial evidence that it may have happened on the accident flights, other people were very vocal contesting that claim, along the lines of: "there is no evidence that those switches can fail to work properly, the MAX issues have been under thorough investigation for months, if there was anything to suggest that those switches could fail to work we would have heard about it by now".

Ironically, just a couple of days after those claims of "lack of evidence", evidence came out that it may have indeed been possible, since such a condition was discovered in a simulator test performed by FAA pilots.

Reality seems to have a particular habit of soon proving wrong people that claim large amounts of smoke is not evidence of a fire. And there has been a lot of smoke in the last decade about Boeing trying to deliver aircraft as fast as possible, and disregarding quality issues because of that. Now that there is concrete evidence about a bit of fire, it's not unreasonable to assume that most of the smoke may have been caused by fire as well.
I must have missed something in the latest FAA findings regarding the Boeing 737MAX. The reports of these findings seem to be unclear on the precise cause of a recently discovered problem with the MAX, but reports range from the trim switches not moving the stabilizer fast enough to the FAA test Pilots finding that the Boeing procedures did no allow sufficiently rapid recovery from the runaway trim condition. In none of these reports have I found any reference to the trim switches themselves failing to operate. On the other hand, the fact that the electric trim SYSTEM will not work in alleviating severe out of trim conditions under high aerodynamic loads has been well documented.

Cheers,
Grog
capngrog is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2019, 20:58
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow...
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by MemberBerry View Post
I
Ironically, just a couple of days after those claims of "lack of evidence", evidence came out that it may have indeed been possible, since such a condition was discovered in a simulator test performed by FAA pilots.
Let's be fair here. The "evidence" you cite involved upgraded software/firmware that had not yet been certified for flight, much less installed on the accident aircraft, during a test that intentionally created a malfunction that was unrelated to MCAS. Until there are further details to the specifics of the test and the particular failure mode, there still is no evidence that there were any problems with the Main Electric Trim system on the accident aircraft. As you note, after many months of perhaps one of the most intense investigations in modern aviation history, not a single authority has suggested such a problem or called for any redesign work associated with this system.
yoko1 is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2019, 21:00
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow...
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by capngrog View Post
On the other hand, the fact that the electric trim SYSTEM will not work in alleviating severe out of trim conditions under high aerodynamic loads has been well documented.
Close, but not quite. The problem you are referring to involves the manual trim system (the trim wheel that the pilot manual crank), not the Main Electric Trim system (actuated by the yoke trim switches).
yoko1 is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2019, 21:09
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,306
Originally Posted by capngrog View Post
On the other hand, the fact that the electric trim SYSTEM will not work in alleviating severe out of trim conditions under high aerodynamic loads has been well documented.
Do you mean that electric trim will not (by design) get you into a severe out-of-trim condition ?

I don't recall any evidence that (assuming it's enabled) it won't get you back into trim from extreme AND configuration - only that it may be impossible to apply manual (wheel) trim under certain circumstances.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 29th Jun 2019, 21:45
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Paisley, Florida USA
Posts: 140
yoko and Dave;

I may have been mistaken in that above statement, but somewhere in the deep recesses of the remnants of my memory, I thought I had read that under extreme circumstances, the electric trim jackscrew motor could stall due to high aerodynamic forces. As I age, I've noticed a tendency to remember things that didn't occur and forget things that did.

Cheers,
Grog
capngrog is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2019, 22:06
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Tana
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by Longtimer View Post
DOJ probe expands beyond Boeing 737 MAX, includes 787 Dreamliner
Good morning, DOJ! After two decades of ignoring numerous whistleblowers and "FAA inspection of the site found no abnormalities"'s, DOJ is finally waking up to the numerous problems in the aviation industry.

I remember Mary Schiavo's interview where she openly said: "If you want to be a whistleblower in the aviation industry, make sure you have another profession, because you will never work in aviation again". And that coming from no less than Inspector General of DOT. She then published a book "Flying blind, flying safe", an amazing expose that should have been taken into consideration with immediate action but it wasn't. Moreover, some Robert Pool, Jr. from CBS criticized her saying "her fundamental mistake is to argue that the FAA should pursue safety literally at all cost."

Look what came to bite them in the APU exhaust 20 years later.
UltraFan is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2019, 12:22
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: 8th floor
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by capngrog View Post
I must have missed something in the latest FAA findings regarding the Boeing 737MAX. The reports of these findings seem to be unclear on the precise cause of a recently discovered problem with the MAX, but reports range from the trim switches not moving the stabilizer fast enough to the FAA test Pilots finding that the Boeing procedures did no allow sufficiently rapid recovery from the runaway trim condition. In none of these reports have I found any reference to the trim switches themselves failing to operate. On the other hand, the fact that the electric trim SYSTEM will not work in alleviating severe out of trim conditions under high aerodynamic loads has been well documented.

Cheers,
Grog
I didn't mean to imply that the actual switches were broken, just that the commands may not have had expected result. By "fail to work" I meant "fail to work as designed". It is possible that they worked intermittently for example. Which could result in "not moving the stabilizer fast enough".
MemberBerry is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2019, 12:22
  #35 (permalink)  
Aso
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Belgium
Posts: 32
Watch this and you hear all the stuff you don't wanna hear....https://www.aljazeera.com/investigations/boeing787/
Aso is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2019, 13:49
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 51
Originally Posted by Aso View Post
Watch this and you hear all the stuff you don't wanna hear....https://www.aljazeera.com/investigations/boeing787/
Well I just watched that and found myself shaking my head at some of the information divulged. To think my step daughter is flying on one of these 787's to Mexico soon is slightly worrying but in the grand scheme of things, I'm probably overthinking it.
nonfrequentflyer_NCL is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2019, 21:04
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Dallas
Posts: 101
Originally Posted by UltraFan View Post

I remember Mary Schiavo's interview where she openly said: "If you want to be a whistleblower in the aviation industry, make sure you have another profession, because you will never work in aviation again". And that coming from no less than Inspector General of DOT. She then published a book "Flying blind, flying safe", an amazing expose that should have been taken into consideration with immediate action but it wasn't. Moreover, some Robert Pool, Jr. from CBS criticized her saying "her fundamental mistake is to argue that the FAA should pursue safety literally at all cost."
Considering Mary Schiavo as a competent and knowledgeable source is something very few in the aircraft manufacturing and airline world engage in. It's not just because of her adversarial positions.

Since her departure from the Department of Transportation, she has used hyperbole and exaggeration to keep her face in front of cameras and sell books, while doing very little to make meaningful change.
ThreeThreeMike is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2019, 04:51
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: back out to Grasse
Posts: 171
I am well aware of the corporate ethos that allows: "Ship it, and let the customers identify the problems after operations begin. We can do a fix when we have a better idea of the impact." The ship date of units are driven mostly by sales and marketing types who are watching the competition and their "window of opportunity", Since it takes a long time to bring a product to market, the delivery slots are virtually cast in concrete. It was extremely unlikely in my profession that this slot driven ethos was going to result in loss of life, but may cost a shed load of money or the demise of the program.

I hope I am wrong but knowing something of work force ethos, I am sceptical.

IG

Last edited by Imagegear; 1st Jul 2019 at 14:55.
Imagegear is online now  
Old 1st Jul 2019, 08:26
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Northern Territory Australia
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by ThreeThreeMike View Post
Considering Mary Schiavo as a competent and knowledgeable source is something very few in the aircraft manufacturing and airline world engage in. It's not just because of her adversarial positions.

Since her departure from the Department of Transportation, she has used hyperbole and exaggeration to keep her face in front of cameras and sell books, while doing very little to make meaningful change.
Has history proved her to be right in many ways including her criticism of the FAA ?. In order to be honest about “Safety is our number 1 concern” the public needed someone who is not afraid to take on vested interests which perhaps don’t fully subscribe to their words.
Gove N.T. is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2019, 08:36
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: London
Posts: 31
Originally Posted by aterpster View Post
Who else would certify their complex aircraft?

well, if the americans don't want to fund their FAA there is always the CAAC, which is happy to act to protect consumers. see max grounding.

point being: step up right or someone else will do it.
krautland is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.