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

[TeachMe]

Title says it all

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/boe...leak-1.5193550

Apologies if posted already. Source CBC, June 28 2019

TME

[roybert]

And this is why Manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to self certify

[aterpster]

Originally Posted by roybert

And this is why Manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to self certify

Who else would certify their complex aircraft?

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by TeachMe

Title says it all

The title refers to two separate events. While they may be connected, the article doesn't do a very good job of demonstrating a link between them.

Aircraft can develop fuel leaks without falsification of tech records.

[Cheltman]

The question is did the company knowingly falsify that some corrective action had been done when it had not. I doubt it, but if proven should be difficult discussion
If however its a system error that caused the release without the work being done then the process and the approval of people involved need a review. The FAA should ensure that the system is in place. The company ensures that it is being followed on a daily basis.

And fuel leaks are not that unusual!

[Sunamer]

Originally Posted by TeachMe

Title says it all

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/boe...leak-1.5193550

Apologies if posted already. Source CBC, June 28 2019

TME

The biggest mistake is to read the title and assume that something in that article corraborates that title. Journalism is almost nonexistent nowadays, and the art of journalism was sold for the art of creating click-bait titles that lead nowhere. However they do generate clicks and ad revenue, this is the biz model we stuck with...

[Sunamer]

Originally Posted by roybert

And this is why Manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to self certify

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.

[Speed of Sound]

Originally Posted by Sunamer

who else would have the intimate knowledge of the systems tho?

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.

[BDAttitude]

This is more about morale on the shop floor than about certification business. No good though.

[capngrog]

Originally Posted by Sunamer

The biggest mistake is to read the title and assume that something in that article corraborates that title. Journalism is almost nonexistent nowadays, and the art of journalism was sold for the art of creating click-bait titles that lead nowhere. However they do generate clicks and ad revenue, this is the biz model we stuck with...

I agree. I'm not sure I understand this sentence, which seems to be the heart of the article: "The records stated that manufacturing work had been completed when it had not." Does this mean that "work" was never completed, or that "work" was not completed on the date recorded? The article never did describe the "work" that caused the fuel leak or how the faulty documentation covered up the improperly performed "work". Does anyone on this forum have information on the Air Canada 787 fuel leak?

Cheers,
Grog

[Speed of Sound]

Originally Posted by BDAttitude

This is more about morale on the shop floor than about certification business. No good though.

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.

[roybert]

Originally Posted by aterpster

Who else would certify their complex aircraft?

aterpster I understand your point but at the same time who says that the complex aircraft that Boeing and Airbus are creating are safe in the first place. As in all things as the systems become more complex the people who use and approve them need to develop and advance in their understanding of the systems and programs. This would or should be true with the individuals doing the certification of these aircraft and pilots. In my current position I can't design a process and then approve it as being acceptable so why should Manufacturers be permitted to do this.
Roybert

[pax2908]

Originally Posted by aterpster

Who else would certify their complex aircraft?

Customers should be told when the Regulator could not be bothered to go into details.

[slack]

right on the money Sunamer. I have never seen a media report, either print or TV present a story correctly. As you say anything to sell. Mostly sleeze balls starting with cnn.

[slack]

Pax 2908 Absolutely correct. Was a boeing fan big time. Flew 37 and 67. Now I see boeing for what they are just another money grubbing big corp. Happily retired . Not enough money in the world to bring me back. Just keep the pension check coming. LOL

[FlightlessParrot]

Originally Posted by slack

right on the money Sunamer. I have never seen a media report, either print or TV present a story correctly. As you say anything to sell. Mostly sleeze balls starting with cnn.

Another wonder of the modern age brought to you by unregulated capitalism. It is universally agreed on Pprune that journalism has been corrupted by the search for profit; why should aircraft manufacturing be different?

[KRUSTY 34]

Originally Posted by Sunamer

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.

Well, I guess Boeing’s abomination they called MCAS was a shining example of the integrity of that “intimate knowledge”!

[BlankBox]

Originally Posted by KRUSTY 34

Well, I guess Boeing’s abomination they called MCAS was a shining example of the integrity of that “intimate knowledge”!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...d=premium-asia

...this doesn't help...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-e...-idUSKCN1TT360

...Boeing "things" heating up?

[Sqwak7700]

Another wonder of the modern age brought to you by unregulated capitalism.

Why are you blaming Capitalism? Government protectionism and suppression of competition is not Capitalism.

If Capitalism where allowed to flourish there would be 5 or 6 major manufacturers out there competing for airline’s business, one upping each other to build the best airliner.

Instead, we get a bloated, heavily regulated and protected company that is “too big to fail” and operates accordingly.

You want to blame something, blame government interventionists and their ever increasing size.

[Old Dogs]

Originally Posted by Speed of Sound

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.

Exactly!! 🙄