Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 9 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Thursday January 25 2024, @05:34AM   Printer-friendly
from the 737-Max-Defects dept.

https://leehamnews.com/2024/01/15/unplanned-removal-installation-inspection-procedure-at-boeing/#comment-509962

[...] why did the left hand (LH) mid-exit door plug blow off of the 737-9 registered as N704AL? Simple- as has been covered in a number of articles and videos across aviation channels, there are 4 bolts that prevent the mid-exit door plug from sliding up off of the door stop fittings that take the actual pressurization loads in flight, and these 4 bolts were not installed when Boeing delivered the airplane, our own records reflect this.

As a result, this check job that should find minimal defects has in the past 365 calendar days recorded 392 nonconforming findings on 737 mid fuselage door installations (so both actual doors for the high density configs, and plugs like the one that blew out). That is a hideously high and very alarming number, and if our quality system on 737 was healthy, it would have stopped the line and driven the issue back to supplier after the first few instances.

The mid-exit doors on a 737-9 of both the regular and plug variety come from Spirit already installed in what is supposed to be the final configuration and in the Renton factory, there is a job for the doors team to verify this "final" install and rigging meets drawing requirements. In a healthy production system, this would be a "belt and suspenders" sort of check, but the 737 production system is quite far from healthy, its a rambling, shambling, disaster waiting to happen. As a result, this check job that should find minimal defects has in the past 365 calendar days recorded 392 nonconforming findings on 737 mid fuselage door installations (so both actual doors for the high density configs, and plugs like the one that blew out). That is a hideously high and very alarming number, and if our quality system on 737 was healthy, it would have stopped the line and driven the issue back to supplier after the first few instances. Obviously, this did not happen. Now, on the incident aircraft this check job was completed on 31 August 2023, and did turn up discrepancies, but on the RH side door, not the LH that actually failed. I could blame the team for missing certain details, but given the enormous volume of defects they were already finding and fixing, it was inevitable something would slip through- and on the incident aircraft something did. I know what you are thinking at this point, but grab some popcorn because there is a plot twist coming up. [....]


Original Submission

This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by sigterm on Thursday January 25 2024, @06:59AM (3 children)

    by sigterm (849) on Thursday January 25 2024, @06:59AM (#1341650)

    The whistleblower post is very detailed, and I'm inclined to believe it's genuine. Here are the important bits:

    1. Spirit delivers fuselages to Boeing with so many defects, they have to have their own people on-site to handle all the "nonconforming findings" (=defects).

    2. In this particular case, an issue with a door panel (the one that later blew out) reported by Boeing QA was reported as "fixed" by Spirit, but Boeing QA noticed that the main issue had not been dealt with (which may or may not be a federal crime).

    3. Spirit acknowledged the "error", but a discussion ensued about the replacement procedure for the door seal; the point of contention was whether the door panel had to be "removed", which mean registering a Removal in CMES (see below) thus triggering a subsequent QA, or whether it could just be "opened", in which case no QA was required.

    4. "Opening" versus "removing" this panel is a distinction without a difference, as this is not a regular door, but they settled on "opening" it to replace the seal. Of course, the panel was indeed fully removed and reinstalled with a new seal, a process which involves removing the door bolts, which someone then forgot to reinstall.

    5. Since the panel had only been "opened", no QA was done to check the installation. Result: The plane was returned to service sans the bolts, and the panel blew out in mid-flight.

    The whistleblower makes multiple references to entries in CMES (the authoritative records repository) and SAT (which he describes as basically a non-authoritative Slack channel that management really loves), so it should be an easy task to verify every detail of this story.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by AnonTechie on Thursday January 25 2024, @09:04AM (1 child)

      by AnonTechie (2275) on Thursday January 25 2024, @09:04AM (#1341656) Journal

      Boeing, not Spirit, mis-installed piece that blew off Alaska MAX 9 jet, industry source says !

      https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-not-spirit-mis-installed-piece-that-blew-off-alaska-max-9-jet/ [seattletimes.com]

      --
      Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by janrinok on Thursday January 25 2024, @12:19PM

        by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 25 2024, @12:19PM (#1341669) Journal

        That is true, but the door assembly is delivered as a complete item which Boeing then fitted. The responsibility for the door assembly rests with Spirit who signed it off as meeting all technical requirements. That is how I understand the source and subsequent links.

        It is, if you will, Boeing being held responsible for fitting a black box which had a loose circuit board inside it. Boeing are not expected to open every black box and check the internals. However Boeing are on the hook for having rather dubious fault tracking and agreeing to accept a description of the work which resulted in some checks after the work was completed having never been carried out.

        Either way, the reporting does not fill one with confidence.

        --
        I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
    • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday January 25 2024, @04:38PM

      by Freeman (732) on Thursday January 25 2024, @04:38PM (#1341695) Journal

      It sounds plausible, yet with the advent of ChatGPT. Don't believe everything you read on the internet rings more true than it used to be.

      --
      Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Username on Thursday January 25 2024, @11:05AM (5 children)

    by Username (4557) on Thursday January 25 2024, @11:05AM (#1341664)

    It's great their finding mistakes. No one is perfect. Something as complex as an airplane will always have a few thousand issues among the millions of parts in it. There is nothing wrong with that. The problem was the mistake was covered up by changing language to bypass inspection. Which leads me to believe someone felt the need to do it. Probably last straw type of deal.

    If a company tells you they have zero NCM or RMAs, they either don't have a process in place for it, or their lying to you.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 25 2024, @01:09PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 25 2024, @01:09PM (#1341671)

      So how many flights did the Alaska Airlines plane make before the plug blew out? The plane was fairly new, but not brand new. Seems to me that someone in the design/engineering office should be congratulated on designing a pressure door/plug that worked for many flights, even when mis-assembled without the safety bolts.

      The point of redundancy and defense-in-depth is exactly this--with a good design, it takes more than one mistake to cause a major failure. This has been the watch word of many different industries & regulators, where life is on the line.

      • (Score: 5, Touché) by janrinok on Thursday January 25 2024, @02:32PM

        by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 25 2024, @02:32PM (#1341676) Journal

        An aircraft's safety record is not good if it flies 'x' number of times before it kills somebody. Fortunately, in this case, there was no serious injury and the aircraft was recovered. Had it crashed we might still be wondering what caused the problem. I would rather congratulate those designers that make aircraft that never hit the news headlines.

        How often do aircraft crash? Usually only once....

        --
        I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by sigterm on Thursday January 25 2024, @04:36PM

      by sigterm (849) on Thursday January 25 2024, @04:36PM (#1341694)

      Something as complex as an airplane will always have a few thousand issues among the millions of parts in it. There is nothing wrong with that.

      This part of your post seems to imply that as mistakes do happen, the number of defects uncovered during QA is essentially irrelevant.

      This is a nonsensical contention, as every company that does QA on anything use these metrics as an indicator of whether their workers and/or processes are up to standards or not.

      As the whistleblower points out, the QA done on the fuselages by Boeing at the Renton facility should be a "belt and suspenders" kind of procedure, as the manufacturer (Spirit AeroSystems) is supposed follow extremely detailed specs and drawings to the letter, and also do their own QA prior to delivery.

      The fact that 737 fuselages now consistently arrive with such a huge number of serious defects that Spirit has decided it's necessary (read: cost-effective) to have on-site staff at Renton to deal with warranty work, speaks volumes.

    • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday January 25 2024, @04:43PM

      by Freeman (732) on Thursday January 25 2024, @04:43PM (#1341696) Journal

      It's even better, if they find the mistakes before being investigated due to a malfunction. "Oh, look at all these stupid things we've been doing." Isn't what you should be seeing.

      --
      Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
    • (Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Tuesday January 30 2024, @05:25AM

      by Beryllium Sphere (r) (5062) on Tuesday January 30 2024, @05:25AM (#1342356)

      There's a problem when the failure rate exceeds an organization's ability to detect and correct the errors. And there's certainly a problem when one of those defects takes off with passengers on board.

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by DadaDoofy on Thursday January 25 2024, @01:30PM (10 children)

    by DadaDoofy (23827) on Thursday January 25 2024, @01:30PM (#1341673)
    One of the hallmarks of authoritarianism is to restrict the free movement of people. Think of checkpoints every few miles where you have to "show your papers". Globalist want to restrict air travel by regular people like you and I (not them). Of course, the stated goal is to "save the planet". A shocking percentage of people in at least one EU country even support the idea of limiting people to just four flights during their entire lifetime.

    https://www.theblaze.com/news/41-of-french-support-lifetime-limit-of-4-flights-per-person-to-combat-climate-change-survey [theblaze.com]

    If this goal can't be accomplished through legislation, one alternative is to destroy the perception that flying is safe. It looks like this idea has been fully embraced in the US. At this stage of the investigation, we don't know whether DEI hiring played a direct role in this specific incident, but it's obvious the stage has been set for incidents to occur that create skepticism about the safety of air travel.

    https://nypost.com/2024/01/14/news/faas-diversity-push-includes-hiring-people-with-intellectual-and-psychiatric-disabilities/amp/ [nypost.com]
    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 25 2024, @01:36PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 25 2024, @01:36PM (#1341674)

      Crank alert...

    • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday January 25 2024, @02:45PM (5 children)

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 25 2024, @02:45PM (#1341677) Journal

      I don't think the the source for the link you provided is one that we would normally use - it does seem to have a 'certain political bias' shall we say?

      The actual survey did take place but it was a relatively small sample size, and of those who it states did vote to limit flights 72% were less than 35 years old. As flying away on holiday is not as common in France as perhaps elsewhere (there are much cheaper ways to travel within Europe) they also probably wouldn't be making a significant part of those who fly for business or other reasons. In addition, like elsewhere in the world, the younger group are not the wealthiest people around because of the difficult job situation and the cost of home purchase.

      --
      I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
      • (Score: 2) by DadaDoofy on Thursday January 25 2024, @04:12PM (4 children)

        by DadaDoofy (23827) on Thursday January 25 2024, @04:12PM (#1341690)

        Why bother attacking the source when you admit the information is true? Here, is this source less triggering?

        https://ecodiscussion.com/40-of-french-favor-lifetime-flight-limits-due-to-climate-change-poll/ [ecodiscussion.com]

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Freeman on Thursday January 25 2024, @04:56PM (2 children)

          by Freeman (732) on Thursday January 25 2024, @04:56PM (#1341697) Journal

          Reputability of a source matters. For example, if you quote the "National Enquirer" or some other disreputable source. Generally, I'm not going to be taking what you say seriously.

          --
          Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
          • (Score: 2) by DadaDoofy on Thursday January 25 2024, @09:25PM (1 child)

            by DadaDoofy (23827) on Thursday January 25 2024, @09:25PM (#1341732)

            Ok sure. But let me ask you this. If the National Enquirer, along with a dozen other publications you consider to be more reputable, report that the sun rose this morning, would you not take it seriously? That's essentially what happened here.

            • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday January 25 2024, @09:43PM

              by Freeman (732) on Thursday January 25 2024, @09:43PM (#1341736) Journal

              Considering that the Sun not rising in the morning would be kind of a big deal. I certainly wouldn't go looking for the National Enquirer's input. Just because they too have eyeballs in their heads, doesn't make them any less of a gossip rag. I certainly wouldn't go to the National Enquirer for any useful discourse on the situation.

              --
              Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday January 25 2024, @07:35PM

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 25 2024, @07:35PM (#1341711) Journal

          Because, as I pointed out, the survey indicated a small small sample, and that it was age related. Without a breakdown of the samples age groups and numbers the result is skewed.

          Secondly, it is not a survey company that I have heard of before. I don't know how reputable they are.

          --
          I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 25 2024, @06:40PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 25 2024, @06:40PM (#1341705)

      > ... restrict the free movement of people. [by air]

      I thought we'd established that the 9/11 NYC twin towers terrorists showed the way to do this? With all the security theater that was added after air travel resumed, going to airports was enough of a pain that I nearly quit flying completely. Others must have felt the same, air travel was low for years. Before that I flew multiple times/year, inside the US, to and inside Europe as well.

      No need for any new conspiracy theories, the 9/11 attacks already "won" in this respect.

    • (Score: 2) by Goghit on Sunday January 28 2024, @05:00AM

      by Goghit (6530) on Sunday January 28 2024, @05:00AM (#1342059)

      Free movement or build that wall. I wish you people would make up your minds.

(1)