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 1st Jul 2019, 19:21
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vance, Belgium
Age: 61
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by capngrog
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.
Only guessing here.
But when details will be available, I wouldn't be surprised if the test scenario is something like:
- create a set of events prone to overload the CPU1 of the active FCC
- decrease thrust so that STS activates with a trim down command
- check that using the trim rocker buttons or the control column cutout switches doesn't stop the STS
- possibly, check that when the conditions that should stop STS motion are reached (course limitation), STS continues because the CPU is not ready to evaluate the closing parameters.

And concerning the set of events that overwhelms the CPU, I wouldn't be surprised if it was simply a continuous activation of MCAS (high AOA on one side) which is continuously inhibited by the new condition checks aimed at preventing a mistaken activation. It is certainly more processing time demanding than the original MCAS software.

Last edited by Luc Lion; 1st Jul 2019 at 20:57.
Luc Lion is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2019, 21:01
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: S.E.Asia
Posts: 1,902
Received 10 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by Luc Lion
Only guessing here.
But when details will be available, I wouldn't be surprised if the test scenario is something like:
- create a set of events prone to overload the CPU1 of the active FCC
- decrease thrust so that STS activates with a trim down command
- check that using the trim rocker buttons or the control column cutout switches doesn't stop the STS
- possibly, check that when the conditions that should stop STS motion are reached (course limitation), STS continues because the CPU is not ready to evaluate the closing parameters.
Try explaining that to the worlds tabloid media.

Boeings big problem now is not getting the Max certified.

It is convincing people they should fly on an aircraft that has been bodged up to continue flying half a century after design so the company can make a nice profit.

Why were the pilots expected to upgrade to the Max using just an Ipad?

To save money on conversion and simulators.

As a retired Reuters journalist I can assure you the Max will not be flying before Easter next year.

Selling it will be interesting.

Mike Flynn is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2019, 21:27
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vance, Belgium
Age: 61
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why would I try to convince tabloids or general public audience?
I am an IT engineer and a pilot.
I share with other pilots what I think is a reasonable guess.
If educated journalists want to read it and make their own educated guesses at what happened in this FAA simulator session ; fair enough.

Besides, I see commonalities between these 2 accidents and a bunch of others : Habsheim AirFrance 296, Athens Helios 522, Amsterdam Turkish Airlinek 1951, Adam Air flight 574 are just examples as there are many more.

Modern aircrafts are complex and in each of these accidents, the crew failed to understand that a system malfunctioned and failed to react appropriately, sometimes with lack of airmanship sometimes not.

Two possible explanations to this endless serie come to my mind:
1. pilots, on average, are rather stupid
2. Planemakers are making a bad job of explaining to pilots how these systems work. Possibly because they are convinced of 1.

The age of an airplane design is not a problem. I am happily flying regularly in an airplane that was designed in 1959.
​​

Last edited by Luc Lion; 1st Jul 2019 at 22:00.
Luc Lion is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2019, 21:56
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Tana
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ThreeThreeMike
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.
Mary Schiavo is the reason we have a proper aviation parts system in place. Before she raised the problem, airplane parts were manufactured and sold by anyone who was clever enough to buy a shed for storage and get a telephone line. As a result of her investigations, forged parts were found on Air Force One, no less. The meaningful changes she pioneered made aviation MUCH safer today than it was 20 years ago. The only people who don't like her are the people she made accountable for safety. And of course the 150 people she sent to jail for an average of 5 years. I wish there were more people like her in the aviation industry.
UltraFan is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2019, 03:52
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Been around the block
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Luc Lion
Why would I try to convince tabloids or general public audience?
I am an IT engineer and a pilot.
I share with other pilots what I think is a reasonable guess.
If educated journalists want to read it and make their own educated guesses at what happened in this FAA simulator session ; fair enough.

Besides, I see commonalities between these 2 accidents and a bunch of others : Habsheim AirFrance 296, Athens Helios 522, Amsterdam Turkish Airlinek 1951, Adam Air flight 574 are just examples as there are many more.

Modern aircrafts are complex and in each of these accidents, the crew failed to understand that a system malfunctioned and failed to react appropriately, sometimes with lack of airmanship sometimes not.

Two possible explanations to this endless serie come to my mind:
1. pilots, on average, are rather stupid
2. Planemakers are making a bad job of explaining to pilots how these systems work. Possibly because they are convinced of 1.

The age of an airplane design is not a problem. I am happily flying regularly in an airplane that was designed in 1959.
​​
so youíre a pilot and pilots are stupid. The airplane has faulty software and youíre a computer guy too. By your own logic, Iím surprised you can read and write.
4runner is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2019, 06:06
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vance, Belgium
Age: 61
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
4runner, I am not a professional pilot. And I am surprised that you can't recognise sarcasm when I suggest that pilot stupidness is a possible explanation for that category of accidents.
Luc Lion is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2019, 06:36
  #47 (permalink)  
568
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Castletown
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Luc Lion
4runner, I am not a professional pilot. And I am surprised that you can't recognise sarcasm when I suggest that pilot stupidness is a possible explanation for that category of accidents.
Please share with the forum what aircraft types you have?I would not be as quick on the draw to assume anything about aviation!
568 is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2019, 06:38
  #48 (permalink)  
568
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Castletown
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't think that the "MAX type" has been revoked.https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certification/

The Boeing 737 MAX Certification

The Boeing 737-8/9 Max design had minor changes to the 737 Next Generation (NG) design. For this reason, the FAA issued an Amended Type Certificate to the Max airplane, which was based on the Type Certificate of the 737NG. The FAA spent approximately five years certifying the Boeing 737 MAX. Boeing applied for certification in January 2012. The certification was completed in March 2017. Amended type certificates typically take 3-5 years to complete. By comparison, the certification of a new aircraft type can take between 5 and 9 years.
568 is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2019, 14:40
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Appears the lack of work did result in the fuel leak.
Boeing falsified records for 787 jet sold to Air Canada. It developed a fuel leak
‎Yesterday, ‎July ‎1, ‎2019, ‏‎11:20:40 PM Canadian Aviation News[img]res://ieframe.dll/feedarrowtrans.png[/img]News provided by CBC News – link to full story
Air Canada said only 1 plane affected and Boeing said ‘immediate corrective action was initiated’
Katie Nicholson ∑ CBC News ∑ Posted: Jun 28, 2019 Boeing staff falsified records for a 787 jet built for Air Canada which developed a fuel leak ten months into service in 2015.In a statement to CBC News, Boeing said it self-disclosed the problem to the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration after Air Canada notified them of the fuel leak.The records stated that manufacturing work had been completed when it had not.Boeing said an audit concluded it was an isolated event and “immediate corrective action was initiated for both the Boeing mechanic and the Boeing inspector involved.”Boeing is under increasing scrutiny in the U.S. and abroad following two deadly crashes that claimed 346 lives and the global grounding of its 737 Max jets. On the latest revelations related to falsifying records for the Air Canada jet, Mike Doiron of Moncton-based Doiron Aviation Consulting said: “Any falsification of those documents which could basically cover up a safety issue is a major problem.” In the aviation industry, these sorts of documents are crucial for ensuring the safety of aircraft and the passengers onboard, he said.
‘Never a good scenario’
Doiron said even small fuel leaks are dangerous.The temperature on the internal parts of an aircraft’s turbine engine can reach around 700 degrees. With such high temperatures, it doesn’t take much for a flammable liquid like fuel to be ignited if there is a leak around the engine, Doiron said. “It’s never, never a good scenario,” he said of the leak. Air Canada said it inspected the rest of its 787 jets and did not find any other fuel leak issues. “All of our aircraft are subject to regular and thorough inspections and we maintain them in full accordance with all manufacturer and regulatory directives,” Air Canada spokesperson Peter Fitzpatrick said in an email to CBC News. Mike Doiron of Moncton-based Doiron Aviation Consulting said the falsification of documents by Boeing employees is a ‘major problem’ that ‘could basically cover up a safety issue.’ (CBC)Air Canada introduced the 787 Dreamliner to its fleet five years ago. According to its corporate website, it has 35 787s in its fleet.WestJet also has two different Dreamliner models in its fleet which it introduced in February. It said it has full confidence in the safety of those aircraft.
Transport Canada evaluation
In 2015, Boeing paid the FAA $12 million US to settle ongoing investigations. As a part of the five-year agreement, Boeing agreed to work with the agency to address safety oversight issues within the company.That agreement details an “obscure program” that delegates some safety checks to Boeing itself, said Michael Laris, a Washington Post reporter who has looked into many of Boeing’s safety issues that prompted the agreement with the FAA.An Air Canada Boeing 787 Dreamliner jet arrives at Halifax Stanfield International Airport in 2014. After the leak was detected, Air Canada said it inspected the rest of its 787 jets and did not find any other fuel leak issues. (Andrew Vaughan/The Canadian Press)After the devastating 737 Max crashes, Laris said questions are being raised about the effectiveness of Boeing’s oversight program.“Just how much authority should be delegated to the company? Just how independent are the Boeing employees and their managers?”Laris started digging into that agreement, and the investigations that prompted it, hoping to learn more about how the 737 Max was approved to fly.The FAA said it closely monitors and evaluates Boeing’s performance under the 2015 settlement agreement but cannot discuss it.Boeing said it has introduced formal training for staff on personal accountability in the manufacturing process which emphasizes why it is important to comply with regulations.Transport Canada said the incident involving falsified documents fell under the jurisdiction of the FAA.Transport Canada said it is evaluating how all of this new information emerging about Boeing will impact ongoing aircraft safety validation efforts.
Longtimer is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2019, 14:25
  #50 (permalink)  
Aso
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Belgium
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
which was based on the Type Certificate of the 737NG
Which was based on the CG which was based on the classic...
Aso is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2019, 14:38
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,427
Received 111 Likes on 60 Posts
Originally Posted by Longtimer
Appears the lack of work did result in the fuel leak.
You have simply reproduced the article linked to in the OP's post. While the two things (falsified records and fuel leak) may be connected, the article doesn't do a very good job of demonstrating a causative link between them.

Aircraft can develop fuel leaks without falsification of tech records.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2019, 15:00
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by UltraFan
Mary Schiavo is the reason we have a proper aviation parts system in place. Before she raised the problem, airplane parts were manufactured and sold by anyone who was clever enough to buy a shed for storage and get a telephone line. As a result of her investigations, forged parts were found on Air Force One, no less. The meaningful changes she pioneered made aviation MUCH safer today than it was 20 years ago. The only people who don't like her are the people she made accountable for safety. And of course the 150 people she sent to jail for an average of 5 years. I wish there were more people like her in the aviation industry.
Mary Schiavo has been a divisive character, much maligned in the Industry. However she failed to make a balanced representation of the risks. In order to gain greater funding she had to exacerbate the scale of the problem, painting the whole of the Parts Industry with the same brush. I've worked in the Parts industry for 30 years, and yes there are Crooks and Criminals who will break the rules to try to make a fast buck, just like in every other industry. However it was never as easy as buying a shed and starting to copy parts. I agree that the changes she implemented have improved the safety, but I believe her contribution to the "Positive" impact has been exaggerated. In essence the main reason for greater control is with the Operators and Maintainers being more proactive, implementing overarching SMS systems, and awareness for the Supply Chain personnel. Vigilance is the key,
Astir 511 is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2019, 15:53
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Seattle
Posts: 707
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
And this is why Manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to self certify
This doesn't sound like a certification issue so much as a process compliance one. Someone skipped a manufacturing step involving the fuel system which resulted in a leak. And subsequent QA inspections didn't catch it. It's quite likely that the FAA reviewed Boeing's manufacturing and QA processes and signed off on them at one time. And they may have performed subsequent spot inspections. But QA is something that manufacturers do on their own.

The CBC article doesn't make it clear whether Boeing's self disclosure was made independently of the leak being discovered or as a result of it. Either way, right now might be a good time to have scrutiny increased on the shop floor. 737 MAX production is taking a hit right now and it might be better to take this opportunity to slow everything down and find out what else may be slipping through the cracks.
EEngr is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2019, 16:30
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: London
Age: 42
Posts: 1,449
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why were the pilots expected to upgrade to the Max using just an Ipad?
To save money on conversion and simulators.
Wasn't one of the significant causes of the British Midland BD092 crash involving a new B737-400 at Kegworth, exactly this? The differences between the -300 and -400 had been a very quick presentation (OHP vs PDF nowadays) and then back to line flying? And when the key differences between the two aircraft manifested in such a way that the pilots misdiagnosed a problem that led to a fatal crash.
Skipness One Foxtrot is online now  
Old 3rd Jul 2019, 16:30
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by yoko1
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.
Let us indeed be fair here. The upgraded software/firmware that Boeing delivered to the FAA is by far the most important project that Boeing has undertaken in years, and its success may even be essential for the long-term viability of the company's commercial aircraft division (i.e. to salvage the MAX and the company's reputation). One might assume, therefore, that Boeing has spared absolutely no resources or personnel on developing this software fix (to contemplate otherwise would result in an even more frightening assessment of the competence of Boeing management).

This means, therefore, that even Boeing's best engineers, when provided with unlimited resources, could not develop a safe fix for the MAX on the first try.
sadtraveller is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2019, 17:34
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by sadtraveller
Let us indeed be fair here. The upgraded software/firmware that Boeing delivered to the FAA is by far the most important project that Boeing has undertaken in years, and its success may even be essential for the long-term viability of the company's commercial aircraft division (i.e. to salvage the MAX and the company's reputation). One might assume, therefore, that Boeing has spared absolutely no resources or personnel on developing this software fix (to contemplate otherwise would result in an even more frightening assessment of the competence of Boeing management).

This means, therefore, that even Boeing's best engineers, when provided with unlimited resources, could not develop a safe fix for the MAX on the first try.
It is more likely that the requirements were changed by the (now extremely cautious) FAA certification process that required a regression back to analysis and design and all the associated rework including new certification tests for all changes and all the associated formal documentation then regression certification testing of associated systems.

This will not be a simple C# program.
Ian W is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2019, 18:01
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Northern Territory Australia
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 568
Please share with the forum what aircraft types you have?I would not be as quick on the draw to assume anything about aviation!
I doubt Luc Lion is making any assumptions. He's made two possible suggestions of which the first is obviously sarcastic simply because we all know that to be a commercial pilot one has to have brains and common sense.
However,
perhaps his second suggestion may not be too far from the mark.
Gove N.T. is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2019, 18:09
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Northern Territory Australia
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ian W
It is more likely that the requirements were changed by the (now extremely cautious) FAA certification process that required a regression back to analysis and design and all the associated rework including new certification tests for all changes and all the associated formal documentation then regression certification testing of associated systems.

This will not be a simple C# program.
How often have we seen those in authority trying to cut corners in the pursuit of profit.
I wonder what happened to the wiser folk who cautioned against going the way the management has
Gove N.T. is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2019, 22:07
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Canada
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is it possible to discuss more about the possible documentation issues of this 787 here in a thread with 787 in the title, and leave the 737 MAX comments in a different thread, perhaps with 737 in the title?
k.h.p. is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2019, 01:14
  #60 (permalink)  
568
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Castletown
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Aso
Which was based on the CG which was based on the classic...
Yes indeed.Which didn't work for the MAX!
568 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.