Air Force finds another problem with Boeing’s KC-46 tanker

[OldnGrounded]

I don't think this has been discussed here yet.

The U.S. Air Force has indefinitely barred the Boeing-built KC-46 from carrying cargo and passengers, the trade publication Defense News reported Wednesday.The decision followed an incident in which the cargo locks on the bottom of the floor of the aircraft became unlocked during a recent flight, creating concerns that airmen could potentially be hurt or even killed by heavy equipment that suddenly bursts free during a flight, Defense One reported.An Air Force spokesman said that “until we find a viable solution with Boeing to remedy this problem, we can’t jeopardize the safety of our aircrew and this aircraft.” The Air Force issued a Category 1 deficiency report on the problem, signifying a serious technical issue that could endanger the aircrew and aircraft or have other major effects, Defense One reported.

More

[ATC Watcher]

Am looking in dismay at the bad news cycle surrounding Boeing , where basically every type they build is being described as having major flaws, I am starting to wonder if this is indeed the failures of a Major old manufacturing company, or just the result of the way 21st century news are being made and delivered. Basically are those flaws something new, or were they always there but did not make world breaking news before?

[OldnGrounded]

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

Basically are those flaws something new, or were they always there but did not make world breaking news before?

Probably some of each. Certainly, the number and types of problems being reported from Everett, Renton and Charleston are not consistent with what we would have expected in years past. At the same time, the 24-hour digital news cycle, with its intense competition for page views and clicks, makes the reports much more visible to a much wider audience.

It's also likely the case that the Seattle Times, which is uniquely positioned to produce in-depth reporting on B, finds itself driven by the particular market forces of this period to take advantage of that position.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

the failures of a Major old manufacturing company

I would be very surprised if the cargo locks are manufactured by Boeing.

[BDAttitude]

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

I would be very surprised if the cargo locks are manufactured by Boeing.

The fact that they have recourse against a Tier 1 supplier doesn't mean that they are not respnsible as OEM.

[PPRuNe Towers]

The extended and very painful story of the KC-46a can be seen in all its glory over on the Mil Forum.

Rob

[WHBM]

A desperation by Chicago to minimise all costs and maximise the price, to suit Wall Street.

[Rick777]

Yet another example of a company run by bean counters instead of engineers. Sad that Boeing used to be a great complany.

[Dave Therhino]

The biggest concern with the cargo coming loose is not people getting injured directly from shifting cargo, but rather it is having the cg shift due to the cargo all moving aft on rotation and resultant loss of control, like the 747 accident at Bagram AFB.

[krismiler]

Problem with narrow body - B737 MAX MCAS
Problem with wide body - B777X Door blow out
Problem with defence division - KC 46 Cargo locks

One could be misfortune, two could be coincidence, three looks like carelessness.

[Jet Jockey A4]

Isn't the Army also refusing to accept the Apache helicopter because of issues.

[Longtimer]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...ty-fix-452550/

Boeing anticipates delivering 34 AH-64 Apache attack helicopters this year, nearly 30% less than planned, due to the US Army's refusing delivery of aircraft in February after a critical safety issue was found.

[BRE]

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

Am looking in dismay at the bad news cycle surrounding Boeing , where basically every type they build is being described as having major flaws, I am starting to wonder if this is indeed the failures of a Major old manufacturing company, or just the result of the way 21st century news are being made and delivered. Basically are those flaws something new, or were they always there but did not make world breaking news before?

The 747-800 has been spared major blunders so far, hasn't it, in spite of being developed cuncurrently with the MAX and the 777X.

[Spooky 2]

Originally Posted by BRE

The 747-800 has been spared major blunders so far, hasn't it, in spite of being developed cuncurrently with the MAX and the 777X.

First of all there is no such airplane as a 747-800. (747-8) I know this naming is confusing so I'll cut you some slack. I do believe there is/was issues with tail vibrations that caused the fuel in the horizontal fuel tank to be made unavailable. Not sure if this is a permanent solution or just an interim fix. (12,490 Liters), This applies to the Intercontinental version only.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Spooky 2

First of all there is no such airplane as a 747-800. (747-8) I know this naming is confusing so I'll cut you some slack.

It's even more confusing than you might think - there may not be a 747-800, but Lufthansa's aircraft are 747-830s, Cathay's are 747-867Fs, etc.

Only the last 20 or so aircraft built are actually certificated as 747-8 or -8F, i.e. without the traditional Boeing customer suffix.

[UltraFan]

USAF is now looking at all those A330MRTT flying around the world without a hitch and thinking, DAMN, we should've chosen that. Or maybe thinking, we should be picking our equipment instead of those DC appropiation committees. To which I completely agree!

[UltraFan]

Originally Posted by BRE

The 747-800 has been spared major blunders so far, hasn't it, in spite of being developed cuncurrently with the MAX and the 777X.

Yep. Except for longeron cracks due to fuselage stretching. And wing flutter that required a new wing. And inboard aileron flutter. And structural flutter. And the fact that the development that was planned to cost $500mil cost ten times that. Oh, and nobody wanted to buy it. Other than that, it's a winner!

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by UltraFan

Yep. Except for longeron cracks due to fuselage stretching. And wing flutter that required a new wing. And inboard aileron flutter. And structural flutter. And the fact that the development that was planned to cost $500mil cost ten times that. Oh, and nobody wanted to buy it. Other than that, it's a winner!

I don't normally respond to trolls, but Ultra, you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Spooky, there was a flutter issue related to stab fuel that prevented it being used at EIS of the passenger version - naturally resulting in a reduction of max range. The fix was identified and certified about 2 years after EIS and I believe all passenger aircraft have now been modified. Stab fuel is not used on 747 freighters (it's usually deactivated when a freighter conversion is performed and purpose built freighters never get it), so the problem didn't affect the freighter.

DR, the TCDS only says 747-8 and 747-8F.

[Weapons Grade]

You can thank Sen. "Uncle" Ted Stevens (RIP)

Originally Posted by UltraFan

USAF is now looking at all those A330MRTT flying around the world without a hitch and thinking, DAMN, we should've chosen that. Or maybe thinking, we should be picking our equipment instead of those DC appropiation committees. To which I completely agree!

I do seem to recall that at the time of letting the KC-46 contract, there was a great deal of angst that the Airbus bid had been the winning bid, until "Uncle" Ted Stevens (R. AK), who at the time was the chairman of the US Senate Transportation Committee required both Boeing and Airbus to re-submit their bids. Surprise! Surprise! Boeing got the contract, and the US taxpayer got stung with a modified B767 and a huge and unnecessary increased bill.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by tdracer

DR, the TCDS only says 747-8 and 747-8F.

No, the TCDS also lists the variant applicable to each MSN: