Boeing in 'safety cover-up' - Documentary on Al Jazeera
 

Just watched an interesting Documentary on Al Jazeera's 'People & Power' show, the episode was titled 'On a Wing and a Prayer'.

Details here: http://english.aljazeera.net/video/a...520679770.html

The show brings into question the airworthiness of 737NGs manufactured between 1996 - 2004, based on the proposals that were put forth by Boeing to the FAA regarding the manufacturing process to be used in the manufacturing of key structural parts. The certification of a higher gross weight was based upon this new manufacturing process.

The documentary shows that the actual manufacturing process used didn't coincide with the proposal that was presented to the FAA, and upon which the aircraft was certified - hence bringing into question the structural integrity of the aircraft. It also implicates Boeing and the FAA of a cover-up regarding the issue.

Former Boeing employees who take part in this documentary, and who are now suing the company, cite recent 737NG accidents in Amsterdam, Jamaica, and Colombia, in which the aircraft broke up identically in contact with the ground as further evidence to their concerns.

Worth a watch if you can find it on the net.

Just out of curiosity, how much discussion did the show have regarding the operational factors of the three accidents in question?

One can design a very robust aircraft and it is still subject to certain fundamental laws, like gravity, sink rate, etc regardless of how "perfectly" design criterion are adhered to.

May view the entire link later. If whistle blowers in Boeing are only finding their voice in Al Jazeera, I wonder why other media organs didn't scoop this.

Any ideas on that?

Had to dig a little for proper link.

On a wing and a prayer - PEOPLE AND POWER - Al Jazeera English

Quote:
"Former Boeing employees who take part in this documentary, and who are now suing the company, cite recent 737NG accidents in Amsterdam, Jamaica, and Colombia, in which the aircraft broke up identically in contact with the ground as further evidence to their concerns.":

Yes, but doesn't this actually work very much to the credit of the 737 and its design? The Colombian accident (I'm assuming the Aires accident involving an ex-U2 737-700) resulted in no casulties, as indeed did the AA 737. The Turkish accident - which I think is widely accepted to have been caused by the crew, not any inherent fault in the aircraft - killed nine; it broke (as will any aircraft landed hard in a field), but it could have been a lot worse.

As a confirmed member of the Boeing camp in any Boeing vs Airbus discussion, I am gob-smacked by this.

Silly me , trusting Uncle Sam anymore than Alphonse Obvious I guess, but if what is reported in zerozero's link is true this is indeed fairly scandalous.

Makes one wonder about accidents like Kenya Airways /Ethiopian, indeed any unexplained incident involving an NG falling out of the sky, past & future, although both of these quoted above did indeed appear to be pilot disorientation, and happened at low altitude, greatly reducing the possibility of hull rupture as a cause.
Having flown the airframe concerned in the second accident, it does give a certain "frisson" to think there exists a slight possibility it just came apart.

Makes the recent falsifying of the safety standards of seats debacle a bit of a damp squid doesn't it? a bit in the same vein I guess, but several times more serious.

Remind me when Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas, and McD managers made a reverse takeover of Boeing management?

I just finished watching the whole documentary.

Mixed feelings.

I'll give the producers the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their claims of falsified records; shoddy manufacturing; govt cover up; etc...

Certainly wouldn't be the first time.

But I had a problem with the way they were grasping at straws trying to draw a connection between the aforementioned "claims" and those three specific accidents.

First of all, all three of those accidents were the result of pilot error, not airframe failure. But they tried to imply that the airframe failure = the age of the airframes + the phase of flight. And they showed that old video of a remote controlled B707 crashed into the floor of the Mojave Desert and seemed to say, "SEE? That airframe didn't break up in three identical pieces."

The investigation *probably* has some merit to it, but the documentary engages in some specious speculation.

:8

Excellent Question:

"If whistle blowers in Boeing are only finding their voice in Al Jazeera, I wonder why other media organs didn't scoop this. Any ideas on that?"

Should this question be addressed to al Jazeera, or our 'media'? Maybe it's cheaper to investigate Lady Gaga's mode of dress, rather than a sustained, in-depth look at this issue? And, were Western 'media' to actually investigate, would anyone watch? Maybe western media need multiple Assanges? Sam

Quite likely, considering the source.

One might then ask...why did the AirFrance A330 break up over the Atlantic ocean, and few bits have been found.

AirBus advocates in glass houses should refrain from throwing ... stones.:}

The documents relied on by AL Jazeera are damning. I don't think Boeing can laugh this off. What does this say about Boeing management from the top down?

Don't tell me that Boeing has now joined Exxon, BP and similar companies with gold plated procedure manuals but a corporate culture of non compliance for profitability reasons.

Watch for Boeing to hang a middle manager out to dry over this matter, for "not following procedures", while piously proclaiming that safety is their first priority.

Damp squib. A squib is a firework - squid are generally damp
:ok:

Hello,

The point is not really why those planes go to ground and crash (pilot errors .. malfunction of some equipements .. etc ..) but instead what was the result when they make contact with the ground.
As the document want to show .. they broked in 3 parts ... almost same place for the 3 aircrafts shows in the document.

A good point, but the question is was it out of the ordinary. Though not an expert on these things I would imagine each and every design has its weak points. As long as its above the design criteria thats fine. Hence an airframe under circumstances that are roughly the same should react the same. This would depend on loading etc etc.

So the real question is how did the airframes hold up. And of course did Boeing mislead, I would think theres going to be a lot of Legal jargon etc that no one will agree on.

Well. Erm. That's a tricky one. forty one million square miles of ocean and few bits have been found. Must be the French.

Can't imagine that happening to a Lockheed 1011.

Hi,

I agree .. but again the point is they want show in the document that the rupture points (or the weak points) are located where the alleged bad manufactured and assembled parts are.
So it's not design weak points .. it's defectives parts.

I doubt that you know that

You would have no idea what the design strength in any axis is, let alone the expected prang separation points for any design.

You may think that you know only based on inferences in a news story.

Every aircraft and engine has a historic separation point in a survivable prang. They are certainly not the same between aircraft models for the same general impact conditions.

The only thing that maters is that some prangs are survivable within certain G loadings, how they break is immaterial.

This issue, as relayed from the news is a compliance issue and nothing more should be read from the incidents then what is written in the recommendations from the accident investigation

Some of the story doesn't really make much sense. Consistent pattern of break ups on impact does not suggest ad hoc bashing, cutting and general bodging to make structurally crucial parts fit. Also, the implication that the computer design process is at fault seems somewhat weak considering that process was developed for the 777 to achieve Early ETOPS out of the box. So far I have no reason to believe that any incidents are related to this issue.

No doubt there were QA failures, as there are in any organisation from time to time. The question for me is was Boeing's response appropriate and is there a significant risk?

Quote:
...but the documentary engages in some specious speculation.

Quite likely, considering the source.
One might then ask...why did the AirFrance A330 break up over the Atlantic ocean, and few bits have been found.

Not sure which 'source' you are 'considering', whistleblowers or Jazeera. But, the Airbus 330 accident has, as evidence, only 'a few bits'. The evidence in the 737 situation should be very obvious, one way or the other. Just measure the parts used, against the proper specs...AND investigate the paperwork. Should be a slam-dunk, one way or the other. Then, 411A, you can cast your aspersions properly, at either Boeing, OR the Whistleblowers and Jazeera. Right now, a bit too soon. Sam

Hi,

Well ... if the postman give you a letter with a order to pay more income tax .. would you blame the postman or your government ?
Jazeera is maybe not a real friend of US interests ..
But are those two US women against US interests ?
Is this Jazeera who pushed them to investigate (make their job) and testimony ... following the legal path and after going public and lost their job in the process ?
Jazeera is just like the postman .... the messenger.

Well, you can always rely on big business and politics to ride roughshod over little people. It seems to be an example of a problem too big to fix so it gets buried instead. It’s human nature really. I won’t tell anyone if you don’t. Or, if you tell anyone I’ll chop you into little pieces. Poor show Boeing.

Some people used to say “If it ain’t Boeing I’m not going.”
They might now be thinking “I’ll make a fuss if it ain’t Airbus.”

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?

Doesn't this NG allegation remind you of the "9/11 truthers" story about the WTC collapse sequence resembling a controlled demolition? :rolleyes:

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 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.

Hi,

Interesting comment .. but nothing to do with the documentary points.
I suppose you don't seen the documentary for post such comment.

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.

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 ?

depends on which side is up when the car gets hit. Same as in airplanes.

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.

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.

B737 Controversy
 

check out this link....Boeing Whistleblowers Uncover Possibility Of 'Catastrophic' Event In Al Jazeera Exclusive (VIDEO)

I watched it. Makes you wonder a few things. How much truth in it we well never know!!

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.

ALPA had alot to do with it as well.

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.

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?

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.

" 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! :ok:

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.”

411A...
An amazingly ignorant statement. Especially from a citizen of the country that gives us Fox News.

So are they going to ground all 737 NG planes to inspect this problem . Or will they wait till one breaks apart mid air?