Whomever 'they' are...grounding all B737NG's just is not going to happen.
The so-called video is a farce and a half.
You Eurolanders will believe anything, it would appear....:rolleyes:

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.

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.

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)

I hope you waved and smiled at the same time...:}

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:rolleyes:) so I wouldn't worry yourself toooo much.:}

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 :)

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

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...?

Sadly, that seems to be true.

Slam it down hard enough and it will break. Boeing or not.

http://airlineworld.files.wordpress....1/sas_md80.jpg

[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.

Thank you.
Eight years, on average.
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.:yuk:
Jeez Louise...the Eurolanders will believe anything.:hmm:

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! :rolleyes:


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."

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.

Have you been drinking 411A?

You do seem even more bitter and abusive than normal.

Negative...just factual.;)

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.)

Greatly overblown.

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.:ugh:

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.

Glad to see there is one piece of my last post you have taken to heart: "get back to picking holes in Airbus"
Really quite funny. :)

Considering that there are so many 'holes' from which to choose with Airbus types, it really is quite easy...:}

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 ?

Perhaps there is something wrong with the Airbus ADC system, or power source to the 'offending' probes.
OMG (shock/horror:ooh::ooh:) I wonder if shoddy workmanship in the Airbus systems is the cause?:rolleyes::yuk:

Boeing in 'safety cover-up'
 

@411A

I find your posts in this thread insulting, abusive and maybe even red neckish racist. Any debate has its rules as defined by the Topic of the thread starter - in this case "Boeing in 'safety cover-up'" Instead of discussing your position regarding the Topic in a rational, intelligent and succinct manner, you throw mud and try to drag a totally uninvolved party, namely Airbus Industries, into the debate. If you need advise and guidance as to how to conduct a civilised discussion, the WWW can be of great help in refining your etiquette.

As for my position on the Topic (yes, I watched the clip from the "terrorist's TV station), I find it inappropriate for Boeing lawyers to draw up responses (heavily deducted, revised or otherwise) on behalf of any investigative US authority. This is not arm's length but not even fingernail length. When connecting the dots, it comes as no great deal of surprise that both investigations were ordered to shut down. I am absolutely freightened by the corporate reach into all levels of government. The recent behavior of certain WA lawmakers is just an example of the company's power and reach.

Regards,

Jerry B.

I generally find that those who throw out mud (re: Boeing, as an example) simply cannot take criticism about...Airboos.
Poor darlings...:{

Al Jazzera... the voice of truth, justice, reason, and accuracy in media. or er the world according to Garp:confused:?

Think about it. Let's turn the time back and assume the three set of crewmembers involved in the three accidents operated their aircraft in a responsible manner and didn't crash their jets. At the end of the day, do you think this show whoud have still been aired?

The boys at Boeing have bigger problems with the 787. The Einsteins with their MBAs hanging on their office walls thought that outsourcing the parts would be the best method to control design and manufacturing costs of their new electric jet. Ooops... so much for those MBA degrees in Business Management boys and girls:ouch:. Keep up the good work:D as I'm sure the shareholders are really happy the direction that Boeing is going.

I don't care if it was Al Jazeera or Pinoccio that were reporting this.
If I see an on camera deposition of the FAA's Chief Safety and Technical Advisor, who has just lodged a sworn affidavit drafted by Boeing's legal council, stating that he has not seen sufficient data or information to determine that there was an unsafe condition, the alarm bells start screaming.
If I then hear and see the same FAA guy admitting on camera that he has never accessed the FAA's own Service Difficulties Reporting Database (or ordered somebody else to do so), it is difficult for me to see anything other than a cover-up.
Make up your own mind and watch the relevant section beginning at 43:40 of the linked video. On a wing and a prayer - PEOPLE AND POWER - Al Jazeera English

@411A

You will never drag me down to your level. All you do with posts like that is to expose your level of sophistication and thus lose any respect on here.

Regards,

Jerrry B.

jcjeant
This statement is a non sequitur to the referenced link. Yes Airbus/EASA required two Goodrich and one Thales BA type probe on Airbus aircraft in 2009 in reaction to the AF447 accident. The link you referenced states Airbus concern over common mode faults to the pitot probes causing identical but erroneous airspeed input to the flight control system. I would bet that this can still happen in the Goodrich-Thales combination as well as the Goodrich-Goodrich pair. Remember two identical but erroneous inputs can lead the computers astray in an Airbus.
Now gentlemen, please go back to your Boeing "dogfight".:*

I have no problem with individuals forming their own opinion about this. That is the nature of reading and viewing available information such as this video.

However, the video has a purpose which is to attract viewers and as such solicits and edits opinions to serve this purpose. OTOH, discussion of available facts in forums like this may bring out different opinions among experts.

I found so many inaccuracies and streches in the video that I lost faith in it as a source of unbiased facts and conclusions.

The evidence presented does not support a claim of an unsafe aircraft.

The so called SDR (service difficulty reports) are woefully inadequate to assess the nature, causes and effects of a problem. The most that I could ever decipher from reading these kind of reports is that they are more like "snags" indicating numerous "minor" discrepencies requiring follow up (repair etc.) up by the airline. In order to assess a safety problem against the regulations one needs to scan those very few reports in the required reporting data base to the FAA under "Continued Airworthiness" agreements.

We have already disputed as irrelevant the reports of fuselage breakups in a crash landing. As far as I can see no data has been presented about cracks in the fuselage requiring repairs emanating from a direct cause of this problem (corrosion is common)

Hi,

Again we must understand what this video teach us.
It teaches us that a specification has been reached between the manufacturer and the regulator for manufacture the B737 NG
This agreement allows the manufacturer to produce aircraft that meet the safety standards in force and provides the regulatory body to issue a certificate of compliance.
This video shows that Boeing has not respected this agreement and in more .. Boeing wants to hide this thing and that the regulator does not seem to care

Complete and utter rubbish...especially coming for the source that it did.
To repeat...the Eurolander nitwits will believe anything that is shoved under their (collective) noses, regardless of its source.
I'm beginning to think that the Marshal Plan was not all that successful, after all.:rolleyes:

411A,

C'mon, do tell. Do you have a portrait of John Wayne in your bedchamber?

Negative.
However...I do have an autographed photo of General (later, President) Eisenhower, that was provided by a close relative.
And, I personally met Howard Hughes at one time...does that count?:}
Howard arrived at the front door of our house, followed by...Donald Douglas..Senior.

First up, folk, please do keep to the reasonable boundaries of courtesy.

Do note that some (and 411A would be amongst the first to put his hand up) are adept at stirring the pot a little ... and others are equally adept at rising to the bait.

Now I don't claim to know more than a few folk by their usernames so I apologise if I have omitted some in the following comment by my ignorance - folk such as lomapaseo and mad (flt) scientist are experienced engineers with many years experience in aircraft OEM employment - their "oil on troubled waters" comments are commended to the readership.

With the caveat that I haven't seen the documentary (and don't intend to as most of this genre are a tad sensationalist, a bit short on other than superficial fact, are intended for the general viewing market and, generally, are a tad boring to Industry engineering folk), the reality is that

(a) any OEM (aircraft, automobile, washing machine, push bikes, pens and pencils, etc....) has problems with design/materials/manufacture to a greater or lesser extent. (FYI my background includes aircraft, truck, bus, building infrastructure OEM work)

(b) where the market, alone, is the arbiter, those whose products are significantly inferior .. fail.

(c) where there is prescribed regulatory oversight (such as aircraft), the output standard generally is fine and such problems as arise are addressed appropriately sooner or later. Those who are consistently recalcitrant risk the lifting of their TCs, significant financial or other regulatory penalty, etc...

(d) some of the previous comments indicate that the doco was concerned with such things as parts rework - fact of life in any area of manufacturing - if you were to be worried about this, you wouldn't get out of bed in the morning. Note that this doesn't mean that ALL defective parts are reworked .. however, it would be silly to scrap parts with minor defects which are amenable to rework while still retaining strength and reliability requirements.

(e) if we are to be worried about the effect on aircraft of flying into the ground .. then I would suggest that that is a bit on the conservative side. Aircraft are neither intended nor designed for such non-aerial activities. However, aircraft are designed to withstand a reasonable impact of a controlled nature (ie forced landing) with a reasonable probability of occupant survival. If, however, the impact is well outside these boundaries then it is reasonable to expect that the ground will win .. every time.

(f) if we are concerned with inappropriate practices within an OEM, such things do go on from time to time - I have no specific information regarding the present subject so I can only comment in a general way. That such things occur is unacceptable and, from my observations in a lengthy career in manufacturing and maintenance .. the naughty folk eventually get caught out and brought to account.

(g) whether we like it not, docos near invariably approach the subject with an editorial agenda. I have experience of at least one such animal relating to an aircraft/OEM vendetta and I can only observe that the doco was biassed to the point of being very unreasonable. To the public viewer, however, the material was presented as pure Gospel. Fortunately, the public viewer tends to forget all this in a short time frame, the advertisers are happy and we all get on with life.

(h) bringing irrelevant stuff into docos is standard fare .. especially if it is eye-catching - to wit, the controlled impact demonstration.

(i) drawing agenda-driven conclusions, likewise. It is far more exciting to conclude that there is a conspiracy .. rather than, perhaps, just a rational process which fixes a detected problem.

I could go on .. but, hopefully, you get the basic idea ...

Al Jazeera reports many things. If they report it, it must be true. :rolleyes:

john_tullamarine

Your post leaves me somewhat piqued.
I am flabbergasted as to how anybody can post an opinion on a topic without having watched the central and only supportive evidence that this topic is offering. :ugh: Don't get me wrong, but in the society where I grew up, that would mean automatic disqualification. To discredit any evidence prior to its review is WRONG!
To discredit it after review (if warranted) is OK!
More important, I have avoided in my posts to bite into the debate of whether there is a safety issue or not. What I have highlighted is that in this case, there appears to be an inappropriate relationship between the investigating and investigated parties (FAA/Department of Justice and Boeing). And, by the way, I don't refer to any Al Quaida footage - ah sorry, I meant Al Jazeera footage to substantiate the reasons for my anxiety. I refer to original footage of a video taped court affidavit. This footage is not Al Jazeera's. Of course, if one refuses to watch, one wouldn't and couldn't know, could one?
Same with the FAA investigator - if you don't look for evidence, you can say truthfully and under oath that you have seen no evidence - can't you?? The question is whether actively avoiding to look at any evidence makes it right??:confused:
I reserve my right to form an opinion on any poster's contribution on a post by post basis rather than the number of posts made, years of membership, past contributions, number of medals etc. etc.
Maybe, just maybe I have qualifications and experience that will dwarf some of the guys that are held in high esteem by the PPRUNE constabulary?? Then again, maybe not.;) I'd rather err on the side of caution.

Merry Christmas to ALL:O

Regards,

Jerry B.

Jerry B.

Your post leaves me somewhat piqued.

not intended and, for this, my apologies

how anybody can post an opinion on a topic without having watched the central and only supportive evidence that this topic is offering.

my comments related to the generic subject .. which comes up regularly in the Industry. Specifically, I caveated that comment was not directed at the specific doco

To discredit it after review (if warranted) is OK!

my purpose is not to discredit the doco .. rather to highlight some general observations on docos .. which, possibly, will have some application to the present item

whether there is a safety issue or not

any time that questions relating to design and manufacture arise there is an implied safety consideration. The important matter is for any allegations to be subject to competent audit which, in this sort of instance, is the Regulator. If we are talking about the principal NAAs then we have to start with the premise that the Regulator has a reasonable level of integrity

there appears to be an inappropriate relationship between the investigating and investigated parties

and that may be a relevant observation - I have no way of knowing - however, a TV doco is not the basis for necessary and adequate evidence. If the matter has proceeded to court then one would reasonably presume that folk in appropriate places have instituted audits of material considerations

I refer to original footage of a video taped court affidavit.

such (or similar) was presumed. However, an affidavit doesn't necessarily constitute irrefutable fact .. as most who have been through the divorce courts would opine ...

I reserve my right to form an opinion on any poster's contribution on a post by post basis

a perfectly proper consideration ..

Hi,

I actually find this ironic comment from you if I did not know that you have not watched the documentary.
Boeing receives deffectives parts from a subcontractor and those parts not fit for the plane manufacturing.
A service of Boeing is responsible for auditing the subcontractor
The report of this audit shows that the subcontractor fails to comply with the terms of reference for manufacturing.
This report is forwarded to the appropriate people in the direction of Boeing
The answer is "case closed" and nothing happens .... :eek:

folk such as lomapaseo and mad (flt) scientist
 

Yes you said it they are experienced "engineers". Well I guess where they come from, they get the license to ptactice from a different engineering body than we do here in the UK.

We, UK chartered engineers, swear an oath never to endanger life. Basically this means that you WALK AWAY from an enterprise that is taking serious with the safety of the public. Please note THE PUBLIC.

Calculated risks for enterprises such as the military has another set of rules. Nuclear installations are another example.

It is very clear to me that Boeing employs cheap people. To those who post on this site who have no understanding of what they opine on..HIYA..so glad you are nowhere near me or anything that I use day to day. May you burn in hell.

Engineers in the rest of the world outside the uk are usually persons who have a masters degree in engineering. In the UK most "engineers" are what would be called a mechanic or maintenance personnel in the rest of the world.

Simply two different things, don't confuse them please. Both lompasos and mad (flt) scientist (who has his background in the nick) posts speak for themselves, not only on this topic but all over this site.

By the way, not only boeing employs cheap people, so does airbus. It is what every business does if it can get away with it, mainly it is about saving every penny possible.

THE FAA
 

The FAA employees who sanctioned this crime should be behind bars in prison. The Dallas Fort Worth Kennel Club has more character.

Hmmm, looks like 'ole DERG has right and truly ploughed off into the deep end, and really does believe what he sees on that arab video-rag Al Jazeera.
And, from a so-called UK 'chartered engineer', no less...I would guess that the UK educational system is just simply not what it used to be.:uhoh: