Boeing in 'safety cover-up' - Documentary on Al Jazeera
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So are they going to ground all 737 NG planes to inspect this problem .
The so-called video is a farce and a half.
You Eurolanders will believe anything, it would appear....
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Quincy
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im not a pilot. Just a passenger that has a fear of flying. My wife and I are going to Mexico on Alaska airlines, leaving on Christmas Eve. This report has me freaking out just a little bit.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to me that if the parts are being made the old fashioned way instead of CNC, that isn't quite the end of the world.
The Al Jazeera pictures of broken/crashed 737s are irrelevant. They didn't crash because of the source of airframe parts. They crashed for other operational reasons. The damage sustained was not inappropriate.
The area I might be concerned about is fatigue life if there are a lot of holes with inadequate edge clearance. The maintenance folks will know when fatigue is beginning to get into a gray area 9 times out of 10.
I have an Aero Engineering friend who is a DER and used to work for a different manufacturer of airframes. One of his primary jobs was to evaluate non-standard parts for usability or repair. I would imagine that Boeing has people in similar capacity.
Boeing has been building aircraft for quite a few years and their workforce is not inexperienced. They know how to build aircraft correctly and how to fit parts correctly if it is possible to do so without compromising the job. If they don't think that a particular part is up to the task, I would hope they have enough character and management support to say no.
I am not saying that everything is hunky-dory in Boeing land and I wouldn't be surprised if they have a closet full of rejected parts that are written off as the cost of doing business. But at the end of the day, I think that the engineers and accountants have evaluated the situation and decided that the present course is not unreasonable.
The Al Jazeera pictures of broken/crashed 737s are irrelevant. They didn't crash because of the source of airframe parts. They crashed for other operational reasons. The damage sustained was not inappropriate.
The area I might be concerned about is fatigue life if there are a lot of holes with inadequate edge clearance. The maintenance folks will know when fatigue is beginning to get into a gray area 9 times out of 10.
I have an Aero Engineering friend who is a DER and used to work for a different manufacturer of airframes. One of his primary jobs was to evaluate non-standard parts for usability or repair. I would imagine that Boeing has people in similar capacity.
Boeing has been building aircraft for quite a few years and their workforce is not inexperienced. They know how to build aircraft correctly and how to fit parts correctly if it is possible to do so without compromising the job. If they don't think that a particular part is up to the task, I would hope they have enough character and management support to say no.
I am not saying that everything is hunky-dory in Boeing land and I wouldn't be surprised if they have a closet full of rejected parts that are written off as the cost of doing business. But at the end of the day, I think that the engineers and accountants have evaluated the situation and decided that the present course is not unreasonable.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Seattle, Washington, USA
Age: 46
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A, all I can do is laugh at your comment. Still haven't watched the video yet I see. And now I know that I'm european since I didn't deny the facts presented in the video- that's good to know!
No one could be more biased in Boeing's favor than me, but facts are facts and I can't deny them even if the documentary that presents the facts is by Al Jazzera. BTW, after I watched the video black CIA helicopters did fly over my house. It was pretty cool.
The point of the video is that the whistleblowers witnesses first hand that there were assembly mechanics who did not have the character and management support to say no. Boeing is an old company, but that doesn't mean that they never hire new people.
The occurence of the mechanics filling gaps and PAINTING OVER THEM! to hide where the non-conforming parts did not fit was the most alarming to me. The real question is how many time did that happen and did Quality Assurance catch it? Afterall it is possible that QA caught that shim and paint cover-up job that the whistleblower cited. It is possible that QA inspectors caught all these problems and refused to sign off until rework was done. We don't know what happened.
The fact that the Wichita line was an environment where a supervisor told a mechanic that she must use the bad parts so they didn't get behind schedule and where other mechnics covered up non-conforming parts- that is scary.
To the concerned flyer: As shown in the video there are Structural Repair reports that mechanics file with the FAA when they discover a trend of consistent issues with a particular airframe (this is where FAA airworthiness directives come from). This is reassuring because it indicates that these non-conforming parts ARE being discovered and fixed during routine C and D checks/inspections that are carried out at airline maintenance facilities every 14 months.
The problems that mechanics were finding were premature corrosion (on airplanes only 8 years old) and when found it they replaced the part.
Corrosion and wear issues that would lead to mechanical failures are apparently linear in progression so its not like it fails all at once someday... there are tell-tale indications of problems coming down the line.
Now that I think about it, if the fuselage frames are so out of whack that it would be unsafe they might not be able to even get the skin riveted on in production.
Also, when the Aloha 737 lost its top Boeing had been calling Aloha for months and months telling them that they needed to install the new skin and fasteners that Boeing had shipped them because the airplane had reached and exceeded its cycle limit (lots of takeoffs and landing in Hawaii service). That kit from Boeing was sitting in their hangar.
The comfortaing thing about the Aloha accident is just how robust and overbuilt the 737 is! That was an old 737-200, yet even though the skin ripped off and the airplane depressurized the fuselage frames and load bearing structure remained intact allowing a safe landing!
I personally wouldn't hesitate to get on an Alaska 737 right now.
Until I find out more about this issue I might not fly on one that does not undergo heavy maintenance checks as directed by the FAA and ICAO (Europe, Austrailia, and the rest of the world other than places like Africa, and South America etc.- as far as I know)
No one could be more biased in Boeing's favor than me, but facts are facts and I can't deny them even if the documentary that presents the facts is by Al Jazzera. BTW, after I watched the video black CIA helicopters did fly over my house. It was pretty cool.
Machinbird: Boeing has been building aircraft for quite a few years and their workforce is not inexperienced. They know how to build aircraft correctly and how to fit parts correctly if it is possible to do so without compromising the job. If they don't think that a particular part is up to the task, I would hope they have enough character and management support to say no.
The occurence of the mechanics filling gaps and PAINTING OVER THEM! to hide where the non-conforming parts did not fit was the most alarming to me. The real question is how many time did that happen and did Quality Assurance catch it? Afterall it is possible that QA caught that shim and paint cover-up job that the whistleblower cited. It is possible that QA inspectors caught all these problems and refused to sign off until rework was done. We don't know what happened.
The fact that the Wichita line was an environment where a supervisor told a mechanic that she must use the bad parts so they didn't get behind schedule and where other mechnics covered up non-conforming parts- that is scary.
To the concerned flyer: As shown in the video there are Structural Repair reports that mechanics file with the FAA when they discover a trend of consistent issues with a particular airframe (this is where FAA airworthiness directives come from). This is reassuring because it indicates that these non-conforming parts ARE being discovered and fixed during routine C and D checks/inspections that are carried out at airline maintenance facilities every 14 months.
The problems that mechanics were finding were premature corrosion (on airplanes only 8 years old) and when found it they replaced the part.
Corrosion and wear issues that would lead to mechanical failures are apparently linear in progression so its not like it fails all at once someday... there are tell-tale indications of problems coming down the line.
Now that I think about it, if the fuselage frames are so out of whack that it would be unsafe they might not be able to even get the skin riveted on in production.
Also, when the Aloha 737 lost its top Boeing had been calling Aloha for months and months telling them that they needed to install the new skin and fasteners that Boeing had shipped them because the airplane had reached and exceeded its cycle limit (lots of takeoffs and landing in Hawaii service). That kit from Boeing was sitting in their hangar.
The comfortaing thing about the Aloha accident is just how robust and overbuilt the 737 is! That was an old 737-200, yet even though the skin ripped off and the airplane depressurized the fuselage frames and load bearing structure remained intact allowing a safe landing!
I personally wouldn't hesitate to get on an Alaska 737 right now.
Until I find out more about this issue I might not fly on one that does not undergo heavy maintenance checks as directed by the FAA and ICAO (Europe, Austrailia, and the rest of the world other than places like Africa, and South America etc.- as far as I know)
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW, after I watched the video black CIA helicopters did fly over my house. It was pretty cool.
It would also appear that you have not been around jet airplanes all that long, Boeing models especially.
Back in the early days of the original 707's (especially the intercontinental models with JT4 engines...and yes I personally flew these as a Captain, after they had been sold by TWA and PanAmerican), corrosion and skin cracks aplenty were found, and promptly corrected, mostly by reskinning, although as an interim measure, external straps and patches were used, quite successfully.
All this consternation is simply nothing especially new (except for the younger crowd, who apparently doesn't know any better
) so I wouldn't worry yourself toooo much.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
If it's in the terms of reference established between Boeing and the FAA that the NG is assembled with the assistance:
Of hammer blows
Crowbar
Hoists for deform parts to help line up them
A re-drilling holes to line up the parts
I think that there is no need to worry ...
BTW .. my game "Meccano" is better
If it's in the terms of reference established between Boeing and the FAA that the NG is assembled with the assistance:
Of hammer blows
Crowbar
Hoists for deform parts to help line up them
A re-drilling holes to line up the parts
I think that there is no need to worry ...
BTW .. my game "Meccano" is better
Just wondering
For all these duff parts, shoddy assembly etc has there being any incidents reported to the NTSB where these parts or practices were a factor in a plane being being pulled from service?
20driver
20driver
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Seattle, Washington, USA
Age: 46
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A, you are right. I have no aviation mechanic experience other than working at BFGoodrich Aerospace years ago as a "Mechanic's Assistant" where the most complicated thing I did was repair corroded 727F floor panels, climb in fuel tanks and paint dynatrol corrosion inhibiter (must be where the brain damage came from)! I also assembled new Boeing wing sections years ago.
But niether of those positions taught me anything about how long it takes an airliner to corrode or what is a normal or abnormal time frame for corrosion and cracking to occur. Without having that actual knowledge, the idea of 8 year old airplanes corroding seemed alarming to me.
How old were those 707s when the cracking and corrosion were found?
I'd like to think that 50 years later we have better corrosion inhibiting technology, but aluminum is aluminum and green paint is still just green paint- so I guess nothing has changed in that department!
Is 8 years not ridiculously premature for corrosion to occur? I really have no idea. If it WAS normal I don't think that the airlines would have submitted a report to the FAA to report these abnormal occurences of premature corrosion...?
But niether of those positions taught me anything about how long it takes an airliner to corrode or what is a normal or abnormal time frame for corrosion and cracking to occur. Without having that actual knowledge, the idea of 8 year old airplanes corroding seemed alarming to me.
How old were those 707s when the cracking and corrosion were found?
I'd like to think that 50 years later we have better corrosion inhibiting technology, but aluminum is aluminum and green paint is still just green paint- so I guess nothing has changed in that department!
Is 8 years not ridiculously premature for corrosion to occur? I really have no idea. If it WAS normal I don't think that the airlines would have submitted a report to the FAA to report these abnormal occurences of premature corrosion...?
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Amsterdam
Age: 70
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You Eurolanders will believe anything, it would appear..
Slam it down hard enough and it will break. Boeing or not.
[IMG]The problems that mechanics were finding were premature corrosion (on airplanes only 8 years old) and when found it they replaced the part.[/IMG]
We have a large fleet of NG's, some of them have been in for D-check, i don't think that any of them would have been put back in service if they were to break up mid air.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A, you are right.
How old were those 707s when the cracking and corrosion were found?
Both TWA and PanAmerican applied the necessary maintenance (straps, patches, then reskinning) prior to those aircraft passing on to other operators (us) who continued to patch/repair/re-skin, as required...this is certainly nothing new.
Now we have CPCP inspections...a superb remedy for the conditions found on older airframes.
The video?
Pure horsepucky....but, it will suck in the uninformed, make no mistake.
Jeez Louise...the Eurolanders will believe anything.
411A, if you read my last post you will see that (IMHO) I don't expect this issue to cause aircraft to start having any major problems while airborne. Any problems that arise are quite far more likely to become visible to maintenance before they become that serious. So I would agree that calls for grounding are an over the top reaction.
What I take umbrage with is Boeing behaving like a backyard boat builder when it comes to accepting and using, incorrectly made, ill-fitting major aircraft parts - instead of chucking them in the rejects bin and crawling all over their supplier like a bad rash.
Constant denials by everybody that nothing shoddy happened here and ignoring all proof that it did, while trying to destroy anybody who can prove it did, is....well you know what it is!
Admittance of a huge breakdown in correct practices and visible, huge overhaul of them is what is needed. But I guess even that might be too damaging to the Boeing reputation. I wonder if there is any chance that they might secretly fix by getting the supplier to do the job correctly - wouldn't that be amazing!
Quote: "The video?
Pure horsepucky....but, it will suck in the uninformed, make no mistake.
Jeez Louise...the Eurolanders will believe anything."
Just tell us all one thing 411A, how exactly do you want to describe the ex-Boeing and FAA people in the video?
Again - "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
What I take umbrage with is Boeing behaving like a backyard boat builder when it comes to accepting and using, incorrectly made, ill-fitting major aircraft parts - instead of chucking them in the rejects bin and crawling all over their supplier like a bad rash.
Constant denials by everybody that nothing shoddy happened here and ignoring all proof that it did, while trying to destroy anybody who can prove it did, is....well you know what it is!
Admittance of a huge breakdown in correct practices and visible, huge overhaul of them is what is needed. But I guess even that might be too damaging to the Boeing reputation. I wonder if there is any chance that they might secretly fix by getting the supplier to do the job correctly - wouldn't that be amazing!
Quote: "The video?
Pure horsepucky....but, it will suck in the uninformed, make no mistake.
Jeez Louise...the Eurolanders will believe anything."
Just tell us all one thing 411A, how exactly do you want to describe the ex-Boeing and FAA people in the video?
Again - "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Just tell us all one thing 411A, how exactly do you want to describe the ex-Boeing and FAA people in the video?
Disgruntled prior employees and FAA types with a hidden agenda.
No more, no less.
Eurolanders will believe anything, it seems.
Those Eurolander types had better keep to prompt runway snow removal..oh wait...they can't do that, either.
Except in Finland.
LHR is so far behind with snow removal, it is simply ...unbelieveable.
Eurolanders are a joke and a half, with their misguided 'opinions'.
Or facts...A330 aircraft with deficient pitot probes that can't generate enough
heat to keep the airspeed indicating properly.
Using...Euroland manufactured parts.
Par for the course, except in a very few countries who have their priorities straight.
Just tell us all one thing 411A, how exactly do you want to describe the ex-Boeing and FAA people in the video?
Disgruntled prior employees and FAA types with a hidden agenda.
No more, no less.
Eurolanders will believe anything, it seems.
Those Eurolander types had better keep to prompt runway snow removal..oh wait...they can't do that, either.
Except in Finland.
LHR is so far behind with snow removal, it is simply ...unbelieveable.
Eurolanders are a joke and a half, with their misguided 'opinions'.
Or facts...A330 aircraft with deficient pitot probes that can't generate enough
heat to keep the airspeed indicating properly.
Using...Euroland manufactured parts.
Par for the course, except in a very few countries who have their priorities straight.
411A, why don’t you quit sitting on the fence and tell us exactly how you really feel about anyone who wasn’t born in the good old U.S. of A?
Sorry to tell you but, factually, on this matter you are coming across as being a tad bitter and abusive now. Grossly insulting as well obviously, but we all know that you major in that and personally I wouldn’t have you any other way.
But when you start throwing your own kind to the wolves with callous disregard just to protect a system that is broken by any measure, I am a bit taken aback.
Just out of interest, did you ever actually watch this video with these “disgruntled” sacked Boeing people in it?
I mainly ask because, considering what they have been through, these people could not have appeared less disgruntled if they tried.
Saddened, somewhat stunned, disbelieving of what they had been put through by the company they had been proud to work for, yes, but not disgruntled.
And FAA types with a hidden agenda? Really? Oh well that explains that then. And all this talk of shoddy parts? Just figments of their imaginations obviously.
Oh well, thanks for explaining all that to us naive “Eurolanders”. What a bunch of fools we are to go thinking there could be anything to this. Obviously, being what we are, now we will believe everything you say.
Ho hum, let’s put that one to bed so and get back to picking holes in Airbus and don’t anyone mention the 787 multi-national kitplane and its problems. OK?
(Remember I love Boeing aircraft and I have been lucky enough to fly 757s and 767s for a hell of a lot of years now. These were produced in the “good old days” when all Boeing aircraft were mainly a U.S. product and built to a certain standard of quality as well as price.
The latest Boeing product: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...87global11.htm
Now am I mistaken or doesn’t that just look exactly like the production method of a certain “Euroland” manufacturer?
Isn’t it just amazing, and sometimes very sad, how time changes things so dramatically as we get older.)
Sorry to tell you but, factually, on this matter you are coming across as being a tad bitter and abusive now. Grossly insulting as well obviously, but we all know that you major in that and personally I wouldn’t have you any other way.
But when you start throwing your own kind to the wolves with callous disregard just to protect a system that is broken by any measure, I am a bit taken aback.
Just out of interest, did you ever actually watch this video with these “disgruntled” sacked Boeing people in it?
I mainly ask because, considering what they have been through, these people could not have appeared less disgruntled if they tried.
Saddened, somewhat stunned, disbelieving of what they had been put through by the company they had been proud to work for, yes, but not disgruntled.
And FAA types with a hidden agenda? Really? Oh well that explains that then. And all this talk of shoddy parts? Just figments of their imaginations obviously.
Oh well, thanks for explaining all that to us naive “Eurolanders”. What a bunch of fools we are to go thinking there could be anything to this. Obviously, being what we are, now we will believe everything you say.
Ho hum, let’s put that one to bed so and get back to picking holes in Airbus and don’t anyone mention the 787 multi-national kitplane and its problems. OK?
(Remember I love Boeing aircraft and I have been lucky enough to fly 757s and 767s for a hell of a lot of years now. These were produced in the “good old days” when all Boeing aircraft were mainly a U.S. product and built to a certain standard of quality as well as price.
The latest Boeing product: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...87global11.htm
Now am I mistaken or doesn’t that just look exactly like the production method of a certain “Euroland” manufacturer?
Isn’t it just amazing, and sometimes very sad, how time changes things so dramatically as we get older.)
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And all this talk of shoddy parts?
Now, if we want to talk about 'shoddy' parts, let us look at the poor quality pitot probes that were fitted to many Airbus types...you remember the ones, manufactured by Thales.
Replaced with properly functioning USA manufactured probes.
Going further, please cite one accident to Boeing 737NG aircraft that has occured, as a direct result of these so-called 'shoddy' Boeing parts.
Whereas, let us remember the AirFrance A330 that rests at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, the one with the faulty Thales pitot probes....with all aboard quite dead.
I will repeat, you folks in Euroland will believe any sort of tall tale, it appears.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All manufacturers and all suppliers are subject to parts problems. To imply nationality is a major influence on quality of product, especially where those products are certified by one of the major authorities and then cross-approved by the others, is a bit much.
As a completely non scientific survey, I just reviewed the FAA's "new" AD listing (all ADs in the last 60 days)
Boeing has 8 FAA ADs issued or revised in the last 60 days.
Airbus has 9.
I don't consider that a statistically significant variation, and certainly would not conclude anything about OEM or supplier relative quality from it.
As a completely non scientific survey, I just reviewed the FAA's "new" AD listing (all ADs in the last 60 days)
Boeing has 8 FAA ADs issued or revised in the last 60 days.
Airbus has 9.
I don't consider that a statistically significant variation, and certainly would not conclude anything about OEM or supplier relative quality from it.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad to see there is one piece of my last post you have taken to heart: "get back to picking holes in Airbus"
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Seem's the Eurolanders are not happy with the new Goodrich "pitot" fridges ...
CBC News - World - Airbus gives new warning on speed sensors
Seem's Goodrich is a american manufacturer .....
http://www.goodrich.com/Goodrich/Ent...-of-Innovation
Maybe they outsource in China ?
Seem's the Eurolanders are not happy with the new Goodrich "pitot" fridges ...
CBC News - World - Airbus gives new warning on speed sensors
r facts...A330 aircraft with deficient pitot probes that can't generate enough
heat to keep the airspeed indicating properly.
Using...Euroland manufactured parts.
heat to keep the airspeed indicating properly.
Using...Euroland manufactured parts.
http://www.goodrich.com/Goodrich/Ent...-of-Innovation
Maybe they outsource in China ?