Boeing in 'safety cover-up' - Documentary on Al Jazeera
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've not seen the program, but, surely, in instances such as these some investigative journalist will be camped on the steps of the FAA & EU Ops offices asking for a response. Has this happened? The FAA can not pretend these allogations have not been made and hide their head in the sand. Congress will demand the truth. So what has been the response from Boeing & FAA; what is congress doing; what are customers doing; is Boeing going to change its manufacturing process (although this might accept guilt); there must be some 3 year strip down checks going on and what have they found in the sustpect areas? many questions; what answers?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't this NG allegation remind you of the "9/11 truthers" story about the WTC collapse sequence resembling a controlled demolition? 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SI
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just as a recommendation, refrain to give opinion unless you have seen the report.
It seems to be a true issue with the NG. And as another poster said, why would two people risk their jobs and even being sued by Boeing if it wasn't true?
Let's see what happens.
It seems to be a true issue with the NG. And as another poster said, why would two people risk their jobs and even being sued by Boeing if it wasn't true?
Let's see what happens.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: U.K.
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is my belief that Boeing aircraft are more heavily constructed than the certification requirements dictate ...
It is also within the boundaries of good manufacturing practice that when a hull is exposed to excessive "G" (crash) that there is a regularity to the fractures ... that would be considered at the design stage, similar to the expected deformity of a car after impact.
It is also within the boundaries of good manufacturing practice that when a hull is exposed to excessive "G" (crash) that there is a regularity to the fractures ... that would be considered at the design stage, similar to the expected deformity of a car after impact.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Interesting comment .. but nothing to do with the documentary points.
I suppose you don't seen the documentary for post such comment.
It is my belief that Boeing aircraft are more heavily constructed than the certification requirements dictate ...
It is also within the boundaries of good manufacturing practice that when a hull is exposed to excessive "G" (crash) that there is a regularity to the fractures ... that would be considered at the design stage, similar to the expected deformity of a car after impact.
It is also within the boundaries of good manufacturing practice that when a hull is exposed to excessive "G" (crash) that there is a regularity to the fractures ... that would be considered at the design stage, similar to the expected deformity of a car after impact.
I suppose you don't seen the documentary for post such comment.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: A Marriott somewhere
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Break up of airplanes
I just watched the "documentary", and I didn't see anything that convinced me that the airplanes break apart due to a design or construction flaw.
I have absolutely no background in the field except from breaking a lot of stuff in my younger years. (cars, bicycles, toys, my dad's unbreakable watch which i proved was an inaccurate statement etc).
An airplane is not built for off road excursions.
I have absolutely no background in the field except from breaking a lot of stuff in my younger years. (cars, bicycles, toys, my dad's unbreakable watch which i proved was an inaccurate statement etc).
An airplane is not built for off road excursions.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
As commented before I find your comment interesting and after reread .. more interesting than at the first reading.
Indeed if "that would be considered at the design stage, similar to the expected deformity of a car after impact."
The logic is :
One can ask why put in first place passengers in a aera knowed as a "fracture aera" and so a very dangerous place (lethal in many cases) to be in case of "road excursion"
Are the people in a car seated in the deformation aeras ?
It is my belief that Boeing aircraft are more heavily constructed than the certification requirements dictate ...
It is also within the boundaries of good manufacturing practice that when a hull is exposed to excessive "G" (crash) that there is a regularity to the fractures ... that would be considered at the design stage, similar to the expected deformity of a car after impact.
It is also within the boundaries of good manufacturing practice that when a hull is exposed to excessive "G" (crash) that there is a regularity to the fractures ... that would be considered at the design stage, similar to the expected deformity of a car after impact.
Indeed if "that would be considered at the design stage, similar to the expected deformity of a car after impact."
The logic is :
One can ask why put in first place passengers in a aera knowed as a "fracture aera" and so a very dangerous place (lethal in many cases) to be in case of "road excursion"
Are the people in a car seated in the deformation aeras ?
Are the people in a car seated in the deformation aeras ?
Most survivors in an aircrash come from the areas arround the break zones. It's sometimes even worse if you are sitting next to a heavily built up area like a door jam or cockpit. Things like G-loads on your aorta and all that.
The engineering tries to keep it as simple as surviving a specified G level in a specified direction, after that you take your chances in a prang. Personally if it's survivable at all I would prefer a three piece breakup of the fuselage to give me a chance of getting out of one of the breaks before the fireball.
So all we have here is a compliance issue and how far and how deep does it go? Not for us mere obeservers to judge from afar.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The Future
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have to be careful with what is presented to you in a Documentary, but as others have mentioned, the paper trail alone here is pretty incriminating.
For those that haven't seen the Documentary, here are some points of interest:
1) The FAA safety guy in charge of the investigation into the issue states that there was no tangible evidence to back claims that the parts in question were at risk of early failure. When asked if he had accessed Boeing's own database, where recurring problems experienced by operators are stored and tracked, he says no. The database shows a pattern of premature corrosion in airframes with the Duccomun manufactured parts.
2) The FAA ultimately gave Boeing the all clear. Under cross examination in a pre-court hearing to the present lawsuit by the former Boeing employees, the FAA's Chief safety guy admits that the final declaration, which was supposed to be written by him was actually written verbatim by Boeings lawyers. Boeing admit they had presented a declaration to him, but that he had made substantial changes to it, making it his own.
3) As part of the Air Accident Investigation into the runway overrun in Jamaica, Boeing state in their own report that the NTSB cleared the Duccomun parts from having had any bearing in the incident. The NTSB when questioned about this, deny that they had come to such a conclusion, saying they were still looking into the issue. Boeing when later questioned as to why they had reported this, refused to comment.
For those that haven't seen the Documentary, here are some points of interest:
1) The FAA safety guy in charge of the investigation into the issue states that there was no tangible evidence to back claims that the parts in question were at risk of early failure. When asked if he had accessed Boeing's own database, where recurring problems experienced by operators are stored and tracked, he says no. The database shows a pattern of premature corrosion in airframes with the Duccomun manufactured parts.
2) The FAA ultimately gave Boeing the all clear. Under cross examination in a pre-court hearing to the present lawsuit by the former Boeing employees, the FAA's Chief safety guy admits that the final declaration, which was supposed to be written by him was actually written verbatim by Boeings lawyers. Boeing admit they had presented a declaration to him, but that he had made substantial changes to it, making it his own.
3) As part of the Air Accident Investigation into the runway overrun in Jamaica, Boeing state in their own report that the NTSB cleared the Duccomun parts from having had any bearing in the incident. The NTSB when questioned about this, deny that they had come to such a conclusion, saying they were still looking into the issue. Boeing when later questioned as to why they had reported this, refused to comment.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Mostly hotels
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B737 Controversy
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: 22
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its appalling the way that aircraft manufacturers are aware of certain flaws within their aircraft yet they dismiss it and point the finger and blame the accidents being caused by pilot errors , The American eagle 4184 ATR72 accident is one of those , where the manufacturer were aware of their design flaws yet their report blamed it on pilot error , if it wasn't for the NTSB they would have probably left it without rectifying it.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: pdx
Age: 52
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The allegations were initially reported in the Washington Post back in 2006:
Boeing Parts and Rules Bent, Whistle-Blowers Say - washingtonpost.com
I don't particularly agree with AlJazeera suggesting these components were responsible for any airframe breaking up, but the allegations of the whistle-blowers are far from baseless.
Not in the least.
Boeing Parts and Rules Bent, Whistle-Blowers Say - washingtonpost.com
I don't particularly agree with AlJazeera suggesting these components were responsible for any airframe breaking up, but the allegations of the whistle-blowers are far from baseless.
Doesn't this NG allegation remind you of the "9/11 truthers" story about the WTC collapse sequence resembling a controlled demolition?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: jordan
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Acoording to the report on the Turkish 737 at AMS, it was at or very close to the stall when it hit the deck, high angle of attack, tail hit first, the rest rotates around the first contact point, resulting in fwd fuselage slamming into the deck and breaking the fuselage in pieces.
I may stand corrected but I believe the other 2 aircraft named had already touched down ans subsequently evrything went pearshaped. It means to me that the circumstances are completely different, even though at first sight the end result might look similar.
One thing not to forget on the 737 as opposed to the airbus is that the 737 only has a bulk cargo, it's not containerised. it means the baggage can freely move over a larger area for example. Now add in a few G's at impact and an overload is easily created.
What is more important than actual structural failure on impact is that at 3 mentioned accidents that there was no post impact fire.
3 employees out of 100,000 complaining.....sensation?
I may stand corrected but I believe the other 2 aircraft named had already touched down ans subsequently evrything went pearshaped. It means to me that the circumstances are completely different, even though at first sight the end result might look similar.
One thing not to forget on the 737 as opposed to the airbus is that the 737 only has a bulk cargo, it's not containerised. it means the baggage can freely move over a larger area for example. Now add in a few G's at impact and an overload is easily created.
What is more important than actual structural failure on impact is that at 3 mentioned accidents that there was no post impact fire.
3 employees out of 100,000 complaining.....sensation?
Quote: "3 employees out of 100,000 complaining.....sensation?"
Am I the only one that finds this statement incredible?
Have you not seen what happens to people who “put their heads above the parapet” in the world we live in today? They usually get their heads blown clean off! That tended to happen even before the current “economic climate”. Now it’s a guaranteed certainty.
Is this: “The truth is that Boeing has a lot to lose. The situation is doubly interesting due to the settlement agreement the U.S. Government maintains with Boeing from the end of the Darleen Druyun/Michael Sears/Original Tanker Deal. In order not to lose the ability to bid on more contracts Boeing had to promise to keep themselves clean and ethical. The current issue is that they have not been doing that. There are in addition to Mr. Eastman's situation, several whistleblower cases and even criminal investigations and cases ongoing at the current time against Boeing, besides Mr. Eastman's case.” from here: Boeing whistleblower Gerald Eastman: Corruption in corporate America - by G. Florence Scott - Page 2 - Helium just more hot air, that’s what the current Boeing management would have you believe.
All these people who do complain have one thing in common, they love Boeing and are appalled by what they seen been done to it most probably in the pursuit of their bonus by purely greed driven management.
This “old story” has to be a textbook case in what happens to whistleblowers.
The Last Inspector - Boeing Fraud & FAA Fraud Risking Safety
I love Boeing aeroplanes and I am lucky enough to fly them to make my living.
The trouble is that I believe this guy, and I believe that the way this company if being run now when it comes to build quality, would shock the hell out of the company founders.
Am I the only one that finds this statement incredible?
Have you not seen what happens to people who “put their heads above the parapet” in the world we live in today? They usually get their heads blown clean off! That tended to happen even before the current “economic climate”. Now it’s a guaranteed certainty.
Is this: “The truth is that Boeing has a lot to lose. The situation is doubly interesting due to the settlement agreement the U.S. Government maintains with Boeing from the end of the Darleen Druyun/Michael Sears/Original Tanker Deal. In order not to lose the ability to bid on more contracts Boeing had to promise to keep themselves clean and ethical. The current issue is that they have not been doing that. There are in addition to Mr. Eastman's situation, several whistleblower cases and even criminal investigations and cases ongoing at the current time against Boeing, besides Mr. Eastman's case.” from here: Boeing whistleblower Gerald Eastman: Corruption in corporate America - by G. Florence Scott - Page 2 - Helium just more hot air, that’s what the current Boeing management would have you believe.
All these people who do complain have one thing in common, they love Boeing and are appalled by what they seen been done to it most probably in the pursuit of their bonus by purely greed driven management.
This “old story” has to be a textbook case in what happens to whistleblowers.
The Last Inspector - Boeing Fraud & FAA Fraud Risking Safety
I love Boeing aeroplanes and I am lucky enough to fly them to make my living.
The trouble is that I believe this guy, and I believe that the way this company if being run now when it comes to build quality, would shock the hell out of the company founders.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Seattle, Washington, USA
Age: 46
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" 3 employees out of 100,000 complaining.....sensation? "
I just HAD to quote that too. Did you even watch the video?
Same question for the 9/11 analogy... Did you even watch the video?
It would be very difficult to find anyone who is more biased in Boeing's favor than me! When I was 14 I was calling Airbus, "Die-by-wire" and refused to fly on one in 1997 when an A320 substituted for the 757 we expected. I'm not that crazy anymore, but this documentary is a MAJOR concern due to the FACTS (that people who didn't watch teh video didn't see).
This documentary is terribly done- not because it is Al Jazzera, but because ALL media over-hypes everything. During the 3 minute intro I was lauging at how stupid it was because they were calling the Turkish stall accident and AA Jamaica over-run "Almost Identical"... and then the announcer claimed that the FAA approved the 737NG to fly heavier, higher and faster IN RESPONSE to Boeing starting to use CNC and exceptionally tight fitting tolerances.
Obviously the reason the NG flies heavier, higher and faster is due to the completely redesigned laminar flow wing with increased area and less drag- plus the higher thrust engines.
Wasn't I surprised when they got to the facts?! This is very alarming and it does make you wonder about the collusion between the FAA and industry (like Colgan) and also the Department of Justice protecting Boeing by issuing false statements supposedly from the NTSB about the NGs being completely safe. A statement which the NTSB categorically denied!
I think I know why these 73s broke up in the same way- and it has nothing to do with these bad fuselage frames or the bad doublers around the exit doors.
You are all familiar with the center wing section that the wings attach to.
In this picture you can see the white panels covering the open ends of the center wing section/box Photos: Boeing 737-86N Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Notice that the CWS box structure does not extend as far downward as the fuselage (the box structure- not the flimsy parts under the box for mount the wing-to-body fairing). In a crash when the airplane comes down on its fuselage the front and rear fuselage sections hit the ground just before the CWS does. While those fuselage sections are impacting, the the wing-to-body fairing and the air conditioning PACKs are simultaneously impacting, but they just get smashed and take no load and the CWS continues its downward momentum.
The front and rear fuselage sections MUST break off.
These three crashes had nothing to do with the non-conforming parts, but everything else in the documentary (the other 55 minutes) is absolutely stunning and scary. Makes you wonder about how much damage that Brazilian 737-800 actually sustained from the Embraer that hit it and only damaged a winglet...
This is huge.
If you arent alarmed by this... maybe you should actually watch the video!
I just HAD to quote that too. Did you even watch the video?
Same question for the 9/11 analogy... Did you even watch the video?
It would be very difficult to find anyone who is more biased in Boeing's favor than me! When I was 14 I was calling Airbus, "Die-by-wire" and refused to fly on one in 1997 when an A320 substituted for the 757 we expected. I'm not that crazy anymore, but this documentary is a MAJOR concern due to the FACTS (that people who didn't watch teh video didn't see).
This documentary is terribly done- not because it is Al Jazzera, but because ALL media over-hypes everything. During the 3 minute intro I was lauging at how stupid it was because they were calling the Turkish stall accident and AA Jamaica over-run "Almost Identical"... and then the announcer claimed that the FAA approved the 737NG to fly heavier, higher and faster IN RESPONSE to Boeing starting to use CNC and exceptionally tight fitting tolerances.
Obviously the reason the NG flies heavier, higher and faster is due to the completely redesigned laminar flow wing with increased area and less drag- plus the higher thrust engines.
Wasn't I surprised when they got to the facts?! This is very alarming and it does make you wonder about the collusion between the FAA and industry (like Colgan) and also the Department of Justice protecting Boeing by issuing false statements supposedly from the NTSB about the NGs being completely safe. A statement which the NTSB categorically denied!
I think I know why these 73s broke up in the same way- and it has nothing to do with these bad fuselage frames or the bad doublers around the exit doors.
You are all familiar with the center wing section that the wings attach to.
In this picture you can see the white panels covering the open ends of the center wing section/box Photos: Boeing 737-86N Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Notice that the CWS box structure does not extend as far downward as the fuselage (the box structure- not the flimsy parts under the box for mount the wing-to-body fairing). In a crash when the airplane comes down on its fuselage the front and rear fuselage sections hit the ground just before the CWS does. While those fuselage sections are impacting, the the wing-to-body fairing and the air conditioning PACKs are simultaneously impacting, but they just get smashed and take no load and the CWS continues its downward momentum.
The front and rear fuselage sections MUST break off.
These three crashes had nothing to do with the non-conforming parts, but everything else in the documentary (the other 55 minutes) is absolutely stunning and scary. Makes you wonder about how much damage that Brazilian 737-800 actually sustained from the Embraer that hit it and only damaged a winglet...
This is huge.
If you arent alarmed by this... maybe you should actually watch the video!
I wonder how many people have watched the video.
I hadn't when I last posted. I was just going by what I knew of "The last Inspector".
I might be wrong but I think that many of us (the majority?) in the West assume that Al Jazeera must be something akin to the media arm of Al Qaeda. So there is a reluctance to even look at anything produced by them because it obviously will be anti-Western propaganda won’t it?
The title of the thread does not cover it. It should say Boeing, FAA, US government safety cover-up. Maybe the worst thing that has happened here is the way the agency that was supposed to protect whistleblowers appears to have done the opposite.
411A, all the people exposing the incredible, outrageous, (in the truest sense of those words) practices that have been going on at Boeing, are true blue, apple pie Americans - just like you!.
These are people that worked close to the heart of the 737 operation, joined by senior ex (and current?) FAA people.
They are the ones saying that the whole thing is rotten from the bottom to the top – not Al Jazeera.
As has been said, the fact is that it is just too big and too bad a problem to be dealt with. Isn’t it true that if a lie is repeated often enough, especially by the big guns, then it will eventually be taken for the truth? Deny there is a problem for long enough and hopefully it will go away.
Just watch the video. (The link is on post No.3)
Judge for yourself. As others have also said - you can ignore everything being reported about the previous crashes and the way the aircraft broke up - it is just as probable that they are not linked in any way to what is being exposed - but that is not what this is about!
It goes without saying that we all hope nothing catastrophic or even remotely as bad as the Aloha 737 accident ever happens to one of these 737s but again, that's not the point. What Boeing has allowed to happen in the production of these aircraft , is I believe (hope?), unprecedented and just totally un-American.
On the other hand, if you want to continue to live in a make-believe world where you think that your government (where ever you live) will always look after the interests of the electorate, don’t watch it.
“There are none so blind as those who will not see.”
I hadn't when I last posted. I was just going by what I knew of "The last Inspector".
I might be wrong but I think that many of us (the majority?) in the West assume that Al Jazeera must be something akin to the media arm of Al Qaeda. So there is a reluctance to even look at anything produced by them because it obviously will be anti-Western propaganda won’t it?
The title of the thread does not cover it. It should say Boeing, FAA, US government safety cover-up. Maybe the worst thing that has happened here is the way the agency that was supposed to protect whistleblowers appears to have done the opposite.
411A, all the people exposing the incredible, outrageous, (in the truest sense of those words) practices that have been going on at Boeing, are true blue, apple pie Americans - just like you!.
These are people that worked close to the heart of the 737 operation, joined by senior ex (and current?) FAA people.
They are the ones saying that the whole thing is rotten from the bottom to the top – not Al Jazeera.
As has been said, the fact is that it is just too big and too bad a problem to be dealt with. Isn’t it true that if a lie is repeated often enough, especially by the big guns, then it will eventually be taken for the truth? Deny there is a problem for long enough and hopefully it will go away.
Just watch the video. (The link is on post No.3)
Judge for yourself. As others have also said - you can ignore everything being reported about the previous crashes and the way the aircraft broke up - it is just as probable that they are not linked in any way to what is being exposed - but that is not what this is about!
It goes without saying that we all hope nothing catastrophic or even remotely as bad as the Aloha 737 accident ever happens to one of these 737s but again, that's not the point. What Boeing has allowed to happen in the production of these aircraft , is I believe (hope?), unprecedented and just totally un-American.
On the other hand, if you want to continue to live in a make-believe world where you think that your government (where ever you live) will always look after the interests of the electorate, don’t watch it.
“There are none so blind as those who will not see.”
