Faulty B737 Slat Tracks: FAA Proposal to Fine Boeing $US 3.7m
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Antarctica
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Faulty B737 Slat Tracks: FAA Proposal to Fine Boeing $US 3.7m
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12291867
Mods: If this has already been covered in the multitude of threads and posts related to Boeing's apparent failures, then please feel free to delete. Otherwise, let's add this the unfortunately increasing list of Boeing's questionable self certifying practices.
Mods: If this has already been covered in the multitude of threads and posts related to Boeing's apparent failures, then please feel free to delete. Otherwise, let's add this the unfortunately increasing list of Boeing's questionable self certifying practices.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 76
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone beat you to it L.F.
MAX’s Return Delayed by FAA Reevaluation of 737 Safety Procedures
Post #4303
MAX’s Return Delayed by FAA Reevaluation of 737 Safety Procedures
Post #4303
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The agency said the weakened components could allow the slats "to depart and potentially strike the aircraft, resulting in injury to aircraft occupants and/or preventing continued safe flight and landing."
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: leftcoast
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But who in their right mind would put cad plating in contact with titanium especially with long known embrittlement issues.
Titanium is a poor heat conductor and a very poor friction surface under best of conditions - but great for friction welding !
https://www.finishing.com/38/92.shtml
Last edited by Grebe; 8th Dec 2019 at 04:57. Reason: added link on ti cad
It appears to me that the Boeing Executive management group has been operating without integrity for some time now.
Have they run a broom through it since the Max debacle or has there just been one or two sacrificial lambs?
Have they run a broom through it since the Max debacle or has there just been one or two sacrificial lambs?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For an entirely different reason having to do with a poor design of slat track and lever , on the first or second 767 flight, the LE slats jammed on on side. result was the landing at paine field was at a much higher speed than planned
now when you lose the whole leading edge device (especially an outboard slat) and the one on the other wing is still attached, that’s something completely different. Again, who am I to argue with FAA, but personally I would be more worried about uncontrollable roll.
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Tana
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at it from a slightly different angle, $3.7mil is small change not only for Boeing but even for any of its executives. Punishment for this kind of violations must be MUCH stricter. How about $3.7 billion for each "desgn flaw"?
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Seattle Area
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The failure of any given slat track has the potential to cause release of only the slat section attached by that track. Boeing has shown that the release of one slat section does not cause excessive asymetric lift. If multiple tracks were to fail due to a common cause such as overload of multiple non-conforming tracks from pulling high g's for example, that's another story.
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: leftcoast
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/c...9950025352.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal-..._embrittlement
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/...r/AC_43-4B.pdf
3.2.5 Titanium. Titanium is prone to cause severe corrosion of adjacent parts through galvanic corrosion. Titanium parts may be galvanically isolated from adjacent parts through barrier coatings or films. Frequent inspection for degradation of these barrier films and inspection for corrosion of adjacent parts is recommended. Contact with zinc and cadmium-plated parts can promote cracking of the titanium.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal-..._embrittlement
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/...r/AC_43-4B.pdf
3.2.5 Titanium. Titanium is prone to cause severe corrosion of adjacent parts through galvanic corrosion. Titanium parts may be galvanically isolated from adjacent parts through barrier coatings or films. Frequent inspection for degradation of these barrier films and inspection for corrosion of adjacent parts is recommended. Contact with zinc and cadmium-plated parts can promote cracking of the titanium.
I suspect that some fairly senior Boeing manager decided to just keep the production line going, keep moving the fifty-two airframes a month out the door, and "we'll fix them in a few weeks / months when the new parts come in". KPIs met, bonuses paid: what's a little falsifying of documents between friends?
Boeing fails the ethics test again
Why didn't the FAA suspend the authorisations of the responsible parties for say six or twelve months, and put them on a Final Warning: any repetition and they will never again hold an FAA delegation / authorisation?
FAA fails the spinelessness test again, I'm afraid
FAA: Boeing Knowingly Installed Faulty 737 Parts
233 sets of slat tracks made in mid-2018 were effected, the regulator revealed in a civil penalty letter sent to the OEM last week.Boeing faces a $4 million fine for failing to ensure a supplier was delivering airworthy 737 slat tracks and then not rejecting them once the issue came to light, causing the FAA to issue an airworthiness directive to ensure the defective parts were removed from in-service aircraft, the agency said.A civil penalty letter sent by FAA to Boeing Dec. 6 reveals that a plating process done by Southwest United Industries (SUI) introduced weakness, or hydrogen embrittlement, in 233 sets of slat tracks made in mid-2018. SUI informed slat track manufacturer Kenoca Industries, which told Spirit AeroSystems. Spirit contacted Boeing in September 2018, and recommended the OEM accept the parts “as-is,” the FAA letter said. Boeing rejected this and told Spirit to file a “notice of escapement,” or declaration by a supplier of a problem with its products.During its work, SUI followed the wrong part-marking procedure, which meant a required protective coating was not applied. This caused some of the markings to be “partially or completely obscured,” the FAA said.Despite the issues, the parts ended up on Boeing's 737 production lin in Renton, Wash., and some were apparently installed on 133 737NGs delivered from Aug. 16, 2018, to May 2, 2019—including at least one that went to a military customer. The rest may have ended up on 737 MAXs, Boeing determined.Boeing issued an alert service bulletin on June 4, telling operators to inspect their aircraft for the defective slat tracks. The FAA mandated the checks in a June 10 directive that said the parts could be on 133 NGs and 179 MAXs. The directive did not explain why Boeing could not positively identify which aircraft had the parts. The civil penalty letter said that SUI’s improper coatings made it "difficult to identify the affected parts.”Boeing said in a Dec. 6 statement that “all affected 737NGs have been inspected” and parts replaced where required. "Further, we will ensure that all inspections and any necessary part replacements are performed on all 737 MAXs before they return to service,” it added. “Boeing failed to maintain its quality system by failing to detect improperly marked slat tracks, installing improperly marked slat tracks in aircraft, and not managing supplier quality,” the FAA letter said. Boeing used parts “that should have been rejected and subsequently [certified] that the aircraft were airworthy,” it added.Neither the letter nor Boeing’s statement explain how the parts got into the 737’s production system once the manufacturer realized they did not conform. Boeing has not received any in-service reports of slat track failures linked to the production issue.
233 sets of slat tracks made in mid-2018 were effected, the regulator revealed in a civil penalty letter sent to the OEM last week.
