Boeing at X-Roads?
Was the work done as a result of a Boeing work order, Yes/No Boeing issued a rejection back to Spirit, not a work order. Spirit did the work required to overcome the rejection and Boeing properly inspected that result. Spirit failed to follow their own door installation procedures and did not notify Boeing they had failed to do so. We know that Boeing inspects the doors because the door on the opposite side got a rejection for other hardware that was loose and Spirit corrected that. I expect there is documentation that the door/plug that departed was inspected and found to have all bolts properly installed before Spirit workers removed them.
Was there a Boeing QC system in place to ensure that bolts critical for the security of the door plug was properly installed. Yes/No Both. Lacking evidence to the contrary I believe Boeing had inspected the door and found it was installed correctly, so yes there is a Boeing system in place to ensure the bolts critical for the security of the door were properly installed. Spirit failed to report to Boeing that the door needed to be reinspected due to removal of the bolts.
Was Boeing responsible for the airworthiness of this aircraft when it was delivered to Alaska. Yes/No However, detecting what is essentially sabotage is also not a typical factory function. There can be other cases where Boeing QC signed off and someone came along later to do some damage intentional or accidental. One would not consider detecting unauthorized work after inspection a normal company function. Mostly aircraft workers do not do work that is not authorized and the authorization for removal of the bolts was from Spirit management.
Was there a Boeing QC system in place to ensure that bolts critical for the security of the door plug was properly installed. Yes/No Both. Lacking evidence to the contrary I believe Boeing had inspected the door and found it was installed correctly, so yes there is a Boeing system in place to ensure the bolts critical for the security of the door were properly installed. Spirit failed to report to Boeing that the door needed to be reinspected due to removal of the bolts.
Was Boeing responsible for the airworthiness of this aircraft when it was delivered to Alaska. Yes/
The whistleblower account suggests that Spirit management made efforts to minimize reporting to Boeing the extent of the work they did and Spirit did not have proper controls for this particular task. There is enough electronic trail to see that path back to Spirit, but it would take a fundamental distrust of a supplier of the largest single component to figure out why there was a delivery of a door seal and what that delivery would mean in the hands of Spirit.
There is a cartoon from Scott Adams about a reward system for finding software bugs, where one programmer, on hearing about the bonus, replies "I'm about to code myself a minivan."
With that in mind, it is difficult to craft a suitable system of control beyond finding and firing the people who touched the door/plug and any QA and QC people who oversaw the Spirit work order to replace the rivets. Had they refused to work without appropriate QA involvement and their boss retaliated, then fire that person.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 851
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, this should stir things up - even the report of it occuring, let alone an actual transaction.
Seattle Times reporting that Boeing is in talks to . . . . re-acquire . . . . . Spirit AeroSystems.
Seattle Times reporting that Boeing is in talks to . . . . re-acquire . . . . . Spirit AeroSystems.
Thread Starter
More piling on...
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/01/busin...act/index.html
Boeing has agreed to pay $51 million for violating exports controls of military technology, including employees in China downloading sensitive data from numerous defense aircraft and missiles.
....a suitable system of control beyond finding and firing the people who touched the door/plug and any QA and QC people who oversaw the Spirit work order to replace the rivets. Had they refused to work without appropriate QA involvement and their boss retaliated, then fire that person.
Paxing All Over The World
BlankBox I was about to post that. It is a failure of IT and the people managing the China plant. We see that the Military division can also make mistakes. If they spin-off that division, it will be noted.
Also, not sure if this has been mentioned in the list of Boeing failures: Reuters 2nd November 2023.
Boeing says 'cyber incident' hit parts business after ransom threat
Boeing attacked by Lockbit Cyber crime group but did not pay the ransom. On 20th November 2023 Reuters.
Boeing data published by Lockbit hacking gang
I have not seen a notice of what the $$ demand was - but would have been many millions.
Thus, another IT failure to add to the others. I saw a reference to another breach some years earlier - but I did not follow it up.
Also, not sure if this has been mentioned in the list of Boeing failures: Reuters 2nd November 2023.
Boeing says 'cyber incident' hit parts business after ransom threat
Boeing attacked by Lockbit Cyber crime group but did not pay the ransom. On 20th November 2023 Reuters.
Boeing data published by Lockbit hacking gang
I have not seen a notice of what the $$ demand was - but would have been many millions.
Thus, another IT failure to add to the others. I saw a reference to another breach some years earlier - but I did not follow it up.
Boeing May Face Criminal Probe
Russ Niles, AVweb - Boeing could face a criminal investigation because of the door plug failure on a 737 MAX in early January. According to CNN, the Justice Department is probing whether the myriad deficiencies discovered in the initial investigations after the mishap violate a deferred prosecution agreement Boeing signed three years ago after the crashes of two MAXes. The door issue happened just two days before the agreement’s term ended.
The deal cost Boeing $2.5 billion, most of which went to survivors of the victims of the crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia. The families fought that deal when it was struck and it was one of their lawyers who asked for the DOJ probe. The investigation is on a long list of legal and regulatory issues facing Boeing, including a 90-day deadline to come up with a plan to solve its production problems.
The deal cost Boeing $2.5 billion, most of which went to survivors of the victims of the crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia. The families fought that deal when it was struck and it was one of their lawyers who asked for the DOJ probe. The investigation is on a long list of legal and regulatory issues facing Boeing, including a 90-day deadline to come up with a plan to solve its production problems.
I would also add that Boeing Renton (narrow body aircraft - 737 exclusively for the last 20 years) and Boeing Everett (widebody aircraft) are very different, almost as if they were different companies. Yes, there is intermix and crossover, but the environments are very different. After spending most of my career working Everett aircraft, I was moved to the 757-737 for a few years and was quite frankly astounded at the differences.
A rapid production rate in Everett is 8.3 aircraft per month (777 for a few years) - Renton is around 2 aircraft per day. I don't want to say production is relaxed in Everett (it's not), but it's nothing like what goes on in Renton.
Yes, the MAX has been something of a cluster
, only a fool would assume the 777X will experience similar issues.
A rapid production rate in Everett is 8.3 aircraft per month (777 for a few years) - Renton is around 2 aircraft per day. I don't want to say production is relaxed in Everett (it's not), but it's nothing like what goes on in Renton.
Yes, the MAX has been something of a cluster
, only a fool would assume the 777X will experience similar issues.Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 851
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Russ Niles, AVweb - Boeing could face a criminal investigation because of the door plug failure on a 737 MAX in early January. According to CNN, the Justice Department is probing whether the myriad deficiencies discovered in the initial investigations after the mishap violate a deferred prosecution agreement Boeing signed three years ago after the crashes of two MAXes. The door issue happened just two days before the agreement’s term ended.
The deal cost Boeing $2.5 billion, most of which went to survivors of the victims of the crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia. The families fought that deal when it was struck and it was one of their lawyers who asked for the DOJ probe. The investigation is on a long list of legal and regulatory issues facing Boeing, including a 90-day deadline to come up with a plan to solve its production problems.
Actually Boeing faces another more serious potential problem with regard to the DPA. The validity of the DPA was challenged in the federal district court (trial court) by the families of persons killed in the two 737 MAX crashes. The district court had ruled that the families qualified in legal terms as "crime victims" for purposes of a federal statute which grants such crime victims the right to be heard and to give input to the court prior to any such DPA being accepted by the court and becoming the basis for resolution of the particular criminal case.
But that didn't happen - the crash victims' families were not heard and not allowed to give input. The trial court denied their motion to set the DPA aside on the grounds that their statutory rights had been entirely ignored. However an appeal was filed.
In mid-December, the appellate court ruled that the families' petition was "premature." It ruled that the appropriate time for challenging the DPA would arrive when the parties (the Justice Department and Boeing) make a motion to dismiss the charges under the DPA. (This SLF/attorney edited this post based on only today realizing the appeal had been dismissed as premature; the appellate court opinion does provide reason to believe the district court may rule more favorably on the families' challenge to the DPA the next time around. Which in turn could mean Boeing could be back in the criminal court defendant's chair.)
Russ Niles, AVweb - Boeing could face a criminal investigation because of the door plug failure on a 737 MAX in early January. According to CNN, the Justice Department is probing whether the myriad deficiencies discovered in the initial investigations after the mishap violate a deferred prosecution agreement Boeing signed three years ago after the crashes of two MAXes. The door issue happened just two days before the agreement’s term ended.
The deal cost Boeing $2.5 billion, most of which went to survivors of the victims of the crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia. The families fought that deal when it was struck and it was one of their lawyers who asked for the DOJ probe. The investigation is on a long list of legal and regulatory issues facing Boeing, including a 90-day deadline to come up with a plan to solve its production problems.
Actually Boeing faces another more serious potential problem with regard to the DPA. The validity of the DPA was challenged in the federal district court (trial court) by the families of persons killed in the two 737 MAX crashes. The district court had ruled that the families qualified in legal terms as "crime victims" for purposes of a federal statute which grants such crime victims the right to be heard and to give input to the court prior to any such DPA being accepted by the court and becoming the basis for resolution of the particular criminal case.
But that didn't happen - the crash victims' families were not heard and not allowed to give input. The trial court denied their motion to set the DPA aside on the grounds that their statutory rights had been entirely ignored. However an appeal was filed.
In mid-December, the appellate court ruled that the families' petition was "premature." It ruled that the appropriate time for challenging the DPA would arrive when the parties (the Justice Department and Boeing) make a motion to dismiss the charges under the DPA. (This SLF/attorney edited this post based on only today realizing the appeal had been dismissed as premature; the appellate court opinion does provide reason to believe the district court may rule more favorably on the families' challenge to the DPA the next time around. Which in turn could mean Boeing could be back in the criminal court defendant's chair.)
Last edited by WillowRun 6-3; 2nd Mar 2024 at 13:28.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 851
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very apt assessment by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
This part of the appellate court opinion appears compelling enough to deserve its own post, especially on this particular thread. Again, as context, the legal effort by the families of crash victims to exercise their statutory rights under the CVRA - Crime Victims' Rights Act - is not over. Before the criminal case can be dismissed pursuant to the DPA, the CVRA rights of crash victims' families will have to be taken into account (as I understand the Fifth Circuit Order). And importantly, note that there evidently is a substantial and material question about whether Boeing has, in fact, complied with the mandatory terms of the DPA to begin with, or if its expected and required compliance blew out through an open door . . . so to speak. (If it has not fulfilled the compliance terms of the DPA, some outcome other dismissal would seem probable.)
"[T]he victims’ families 'should have been notified of the ongoing [DPA] discussions and should have been allowed to communicate meaningfully with the government . . . before a deal was struck.' ... That is particularly true if the deal, in ultimate outcome as approved by federal court, means no company, and no executive and no employee, ends up convicted of any crime, despite the Government and Boeing’s DPA agreement about criminal wrongdoing leading, the district court has found, to the deaths of 346 crash victims."
(Order, 23-10168, slip op. at 17-18, emphasis and quotations as in original, internal case citation omitted)
Citation to the Fifth Circuit Order, In Re Naoise Connolly Ryan, et al., No. 23-10168 (Dec. 15, 2023)
"[T]he victims’ families 'should have been notified of the ongoing [DPA] discussions and should have been allowed to communicate meaningfully with the government . . . before a deal was struck.' ... That is particularly true if the deal, in ultimate outcome as approved by federal court, means no company, and no executive and no employee, ends up convicted of any crime, despite the Government and Boeing’s DPA agreement about criminal wrongdoing leading, the district court has found, to the deaths of 346 crash victims."
(Order, 23-10168, slip op. at 17-18, emphasis and quotations as in original, internal case citation omitted)
Citation to the Fifth Circuit Order, In Re Naoise Connolly Ryan, et al., No. 23-10168 (Dec. 15, 2023)
Last edited by WillowRun 6-3; 3rd Mar 2024 at 01:32.
Faulty rivets close to the door plug needed to be fixed.
Plug needed to be removed for that repair.
Rivets were replaced.
Plug was reinserted.
Pictures were made by repair crew to show rivets fixed.
Those pictures do not show the bolts reinstalled.
All this happened in a Boeing facility in seattle.
I was under the assumption that all of this was done by Boeing personnel, but you suggest that It was a Spirit work crew that did all the above work?
Additionally:
Would checking the bolts have been part of a Boeing initial acceptance inspection, or would that only be part of Spirit's responsibility?
Would any repair by an external party that required the door to be removed require reinspection of that door by Boeing if that was the case?
I am not questioning your knowledge, just trying to figure out what happened.
I toured the Everett plant in October which was fascinating. The docent stated that Boeing was gearing up to begin production of the 737 in that plant. Speaking to the differing cultures between the WB (Everett) and NB (Renton) facilities, how do you forsee the outcome?
), then again back around 2010 before they moved us back to Everett. Even then it seemed like the city of Renton tolerated Boeing rather than embracing their presence of all those jobs 
. Wonder if that might again be part of the long-term game.They'll still be dependent on Spirit for the 737 fuselages (interesting article on the Seattle Times regarding Boeing looking at re-acquiring Spirit Boeing seeks to buy Spirit Aero, 19 years after selling Wichita plant | The Seattle Times ), and the engineering probably won't move, so I wouldn't expect huge differences or changes.
But time will tell...
The NTSB preliminary report states that the rivet repair work was performed by Spirit AeroSystems personnel on 9/19/23 (p. 16).
All a bit integrated, on the face of it Spirit work in Wichita, and Boeing in Renton, but it seems the product was shipped from Wichita to Renton, doubtless after inspection by Boeing, but in the Boeing plant after delivery there were Spirit employees working on it again. This is a classic for things to fall between the lines of responsibility.
Likewise it is not unknown for there to be complete QA checking, issues found, but the resulting fix is not then subject to the same rigorous QA that was originally done. especially where the schedule allows for a major QA check, but then a short time for any fixes, and doesn't schedule a complete check again.
Likewise it is not unknown for there to be complete QA checking, issues found, but the resulting fix is not then subject to the same rigorous QA that was originally done. especially where the schedule allows for a major QA check, but then a short time for any fixes, and doesn't schedule a complete check again.
Opportunity missed.
Not going to happen. Boeing corporate sees itself as a lot more than building passenger aircraft. The original move to Chicago was done, in part, to reassure other parts of the company (particularly the McD-D acquisitions) that they were not Puget Sound focused. Re-organize to give the commercial division more autonomy and responsibility? That will have to be an internal decision. When the latest bolts went missing, we heard from Calhoun pretty quickly. Not so much from the head of the commercial division (Stan Deal). Had corporate wanted to delegate responsibility, that would have been an excellent opportunity.
Opportunity missed.
Opportunity missed.
Paxing All Over The World
Many years ago my father (worked in corporate HR all his life after RAF WWII) said that it was a 'rule of thumb' that: The first generation starts the company. The second generation expand it well. The third - lose it. I saw this happen to a business in my extended family.
What we have with Boeing is the standard 'corporate outgrew itself and became complacent.' Like thousands before them, they thought that the bigger they got the better (and wealthier) they would become. Very few large corporates study history, then apply that to themselves when projecting into the future. Same goes for Dictators when they have the country under their thumb. They think that will not lose control and will pass it on to their sons. Nope.
As we know, Capitol Hill will not let Boeing die but, at some stage, they are going to be twisting arms.
What we have with Boeing is the standard 'corporate outgrew itself and became complacent.' Like thousands before them, they thought that the bigger they got the better (and wealthier) they would become. Very few large corporates study history, then apply that to themselves when projecting into the future. Same goes for Dictators when they have the country under their thumb. They think that will not lose control and will pass it on to their sons. Nope.
As we know, Capitol Hill will not let Boeing die but, at some stage, they are going to be twisting arms.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 851
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA Reports Audit findings
From FAA official website. (Links as on FAA website identified with [ ] brackets)
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)’s six-week audit of Boeing and Spirit AeroSystems, prompted by the January 5 incident involving a new, Boeing 737-9 MAX aircraft, found multiple instances where the companies allegedly failed to comply with manufacturing quality control requirements.
The FAA identified non-compliance issues in Boeing’s manufacturing process control, parts handling and storage, and product control. The FAA is providing these details to the public as an update to the agency’s [ongoing investigation].
The audit is one of the immediate oversight actions the FAA took after a left mid-cabin door plug blew out of Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 on January 5 while in flight. At a meeting at FAA Headquarters in Washington, DC, last week, Administrator Mike Whitaker informed Boeing’s CEO and other senior leaders that the company must address the audit’s findings as part of its comprehensive corrective action plan to fix systemic quality-control issues. The plan must also address the findings from the [expert review panel] report that examined Boeing’s safety culture. The FAA has given Boeing 90 days to outline its action plan.
To hold Boeing accountable for its production quality issues, the FAA has halted production expansion of the Boeing 737 MAX, is exploring the use of a third party to conduct independent reviews of quality systems, and will continue its increased onsite presence at Boeing’s facility in Renton, Washington, and Spirit AeroSystems’ facility in Wichita, Kansas.
The FAA will thoroughly review all of Boeing’s corrective actions to determine if they fully address the FAA’s findings.
The FAA provided both companies with a summary of the audit findings.
Updates on Boeing 737-9 MAX Aircraft
Monday, March 4, 2024The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)’s six-week audit of Boeing and Spirit AeroSystems, prompted by the January 5 incident involving a new, Boeing 737-9 MAX aircraft, found multiple instances where the companies allegedly failed to comply with manufacturing quality control requirements.
The FAA identified non-compliance issues in Boeing’s manufacturing process control, parts handling and storage, and product control. The FAA is providing these details to the public as an update to the agency’s [ongoing investigation].
The audit is one of the immediate oversight actions the FAA took after a left mid-cabin door plug blew out of Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 on January 5 while in flight. At a meeting at FAA Headquarters in Washington, DC, last week, Administrator Mike Whitaker informed Boeing’s CEO and other senior leaders that the company must address the audit’s findings as part of its comprehensive corrective action plan to fix systemic quality-control issues. The plan must also address the findings from the [expert review panel] report that examined Boeing’s safety culture. The FAA has given Boeing 90 days to outline its action plan.
To hold Boeing accountable for its production quality issues, the FAA has halted production expansion of the Boeing 737 MAX, is exploring the use of a third party to conduct independent reviews of quality systems, and will continue its increased onsite presence at Boeing’s facility in Renton, Washington, and Spirit AeroSystems’ facility in Wichita, Kansas.
The FAA will thoroughly review all of Boeing’s corrective actions to determine if they fully address the FAA’s findings.
The FAA provided both companies with a summary of the audit findings.
Paxing All Over The World
multiple instances where the companies allegedly failed to comply ...
Boeing is not a good read right now
787 ---- more QA issues continue, now with engine anti-ice problems
777X delayed more than 2 years on - what is happening?
737 MAX-8 2 x fatal accidents/due MCAS flight stability augmentation system - 2 year Grounding to find a software fix -
Software that has had to be put in place to keep the new plane's handling characteristics 'safe' like flying the previous designs of the 737 family.
737 MAX-10 not yet signed off the ''drawing board'', or production models built. TUI Airways was expecting deliveries of the -10 in 2021 to replace the 757
737 MAX-9 plugged exit door egress issues - another Grounding for this version whilst QA is sorted out.
and in 2024
737 MAX engine issues - Carbon Fibre cowl, anti-ice bleed-air overheat problem which could lead to engine nacelle failure, loss of the engine, and worst case, up to the loss of the aircraft.
Boeing are working on a 'fix' which so far is not optimal.
I'm not a dramatic person, but with this latest revelation of the MAX's engines I doubt I will be flying on one.
787 ---- more QA issues continue, now with engine anti-ice problems
777X delayed more than 2 years on - what is happening?
737 MAX-8 2 x fatal accidents/due MCAS flight stability augmentation system - 2 year Grounding to find a software fix -
Software that has had to be put in place to keep the new plane's handling characteristics 'safe' like flying the previous designs of the 737 family.
737 MAX-10 not yet signed off the ''drawing board'', or production models built. TUI Airways was expecting deliveries of the -10 in 2021 to replace the 757
737 MAX-9 plugged exit door egress issues - another Grounding for this version whilst QA is sorted out.
and in 2024
737 MAX engine issues - Carbon Fibre cowl, anti-ice bleed-air overheat problem which could lead to engine nacelle failure, loss of the engine, and worst case, up to the loss of the aircraft.
Boeing are working on a 'fix' which so far is not optimal.
I'm not a dramatic person, but with this latest revelation of the MAX's engines I doubt I will be flying on one.