Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by hubie on Sunday May 12, @06:49PM   Printer-friendly

Boeing faces new US investigation into 'missed' 787 inspections

Boeing faces new US investigation into 'missed' 787 inspections

FAA examining whether employees may have falsified records after firm said it might not have properly carried out checks

Boeing faces a new investigation after the planemaker told US regulators it might have failed to properly carry out some quality inspections on its 787 Dreamliner planes.

The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said it was "investigating whether Boeing completed the inspections and whether company employees may have falsified aircraft records".

[....] The Boeing executive overseeing the 787 programme, Scott Stocker, wrote in an internal memo, seen by the Guardian, that the problem was reported by an employee and was an instance of "misconduct," but not "an immediate safety of flight issue".

The memo said the company concluded that "several people had been violating company policies by not performing a required test, but recording the work as having been completed".

[....] Stocker said the company would "celebrate" the employee who spoke up.

Can it ever be a management failure that a thing like this can happen?

Another Boeing Mechanical Mishap

Seems that Boeing is having no end of woe on its aircraft.

A FedEx cargo aircraft made a heart-stopping emergency landing at Istanbul Airport Wednesday after its front landing gear malfunctioned.

The Boeing 767 cargo plane was on its way from Paris's Charles de Gaulle Airport to Istanbul when pilots realized the front landing gear failed, according to state-run Anadolu Agency.

A screenshot from Turkish TV shows the cargo plane landing at Istanbul Airport on Wednesday. No casualties were reported.

https://www.newsweek.com/fedex-boeing-plane-emergency-landing-malfunction-1898330

Well, the President of the USA flies Boeing...

https://www.popsci.com/air-force-one-history-next-generation/

Methinks they need their old engineers and maintenance mechanics back. This kind of stuff is hard to cover over with creative writing.


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

This discussion was created by hubie (1068) for logged-in users only. Log in and try again!
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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 12, @06:57PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 12, @06:57PM (#1356686)

    I think it's out of warranty by now

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 12, @10:34PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 12, @10:34PM (#1356716)

      Looks like a maintenance issue to me. Unless it was a stress crack. The landing gear is no place for minimalist design, as are the brakes.

      Be interesting what failed. Control actuator? Stress crack? Lubrication?

      • (Score: 2) by aafcac on Sunday May 12, @11:54PM

        by aafcac (17646) on Sunday May 12, @11:54PM (#1356726)

        Considering that more parts means more potential failures, minimalism is more or less what I want in things like that. The question is whether or not they have all the correct bits there with an appropriate amount of redundancy and overengineering to handle the job properly.

    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Monday May 13, @12:18PM

      by VLM (445) on Monday May 13, @12:18PM (#1356807)

      Not necessarily, they are still making them and there's 101 on backorder as of this March according to one of their financial pages. You do realize those are thinly reskinned KC-46 tankers, right? According to their financial reports they are shipping a little less than one new one per week so figure if no new orders, right now they probably have "about 96" on backorder right now as of this posting.

      It seems wild to me that the air force replaced the KC-135 with a reskin of a civilian product that first flew in 1981 but here we are. They're quite popular and have many export orders.

      Yes I do know they have been making them for 43 continuous-ish years. No they are not all identical since 1981 but there is a conceptual continuity of design.

      They pivoted them into air freight some time ago.

      Another way to look at old planes is if this is #1 off the assembly line from 1981 that's 43 years of chances to slap on 3rd party parts of "questionable" heritage. Odds are anything "consumable" has been replaced at least once. Hard to say if the "brake failure" was something consumable that was replaced last week with a questionable part like a brake pad or antilock bypass valve, or some structural member that's old enough to vote.

      I am not a Boeing stockholder although I've read their financial stuff and put my money elsewhere. Not a bad stock, really. I think the press is shitting on them because they're not spending enough money on ads. Remember when Toyota pulled back on ad spend a decade ago and the media shit all over them for a year or two about unintended acceleration and once they bought more advertising the "bad news" all disappeared? Yeah, legacy media is just a blackmail / shakedown racket. Organized crime, just not very organized. You'll see a shitload of expensive commercials on CNBC from Boeing and this whole problem will just blow over.

  • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by crafoo on Sunday May 12, @07:20PM (6 children)

    by crafoo (6639) on Sunday May 12, @07:20PM (#1356689)

    "Can it ever be a management failure that a thing like this can happen?"

    one of the ways management can fail is the culture, the daily office atmosphere, and even how people are encouraged/discouraged to talk to each other. The values that are promoted in the workplace.

    if you instill a very feminine, individualistic environment in which people who employ duplicitous tactics, subterfuge and emotional attacks through proxies get rewarded, you end up with a company like the modern Boeing. People lying on reports, breaking laws. and yes I actually do believe this is mostly a result of femininized men and women in the workplace.

    • (Score: 2) by rpnx on Sunday May 12, @08:46PM

      by rpnx (13892) on Sunday May 12, @08:46PM (#1356702) Journal

      I agree. This is a cultural problem. You need to reward performance, skills, and knowledge, not popularity. Flowers and roses do not make planes fly.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday May 12, @11:33PM (2 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 12, @11:33PM (#1356724) Journal

      if you instill a very feminine, individualistic environment in which people who employ duplicitous tactics, subterfuge and emotional attacks through proxies get rewarded, you end up with a company like the modern Boeing.

      It's also a very alpha male environment for the same reasons. Powerful leaders who see integrity, initiative, and risk taking as threats create these ecosystems around themselves.

      People lying on reports, breaking laws. and yes I actually do believe this is mostly a result of femininized men and women in the workplace.

      I think it's the result of a system with two states: one where people are almost all cooperative and one where they almost all aren't. A mixed system can't work: cooperative behavior can't mix well with deceptive behavior. One or the other will come to dominate the culture. Cooperating and its absence can happen in systems with any degree of masculinity or femininity.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Monday May 13, @06:22AM (1 child)

        by Beryllium Sphere (r) (5062) on Monday May 13, @06:22AM (#1356773)

        To whatever extent "masculine" and "feminine" are useful measuring sticks, judge for yourselves how to characterize this.
        https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/01/boeing-boeing/#mrsa [pluralistic.net]

        • (Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Tuesday May 14, @01:30AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 14, @01:30AM (#1356871) Journal
          Hmmm:

          Another quality manager, Cynthia Kitchens, filed an ethics complaint against manager Elton Wright who responded to her persistent reporting of defects on the line by shoving her against a wall and shouting that Boeing was "a good ol’ boys’ club and you need to get on board." Kitchens was fired in 2016. She had cancer at the time.

          Awful lot of bullying for a very feminine environment, just saying.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday May 13, @10:48AM

      by Thexalon (636) on Monday May 13, @10:48AM (#1356792)

      According to the experimental literature on the subject (brief summary [psychologytoday.com]), men on average lie more than women, and their lies tend to be more self-serving rather than trying to smooth things over. So I have no idea what you're talking about.

      And from personal experience, I've encountered plenty of male liars and backstabbers in business over my mumblety-mumble years of working in the real world. It has nothing to do with "feminized workplaces", and everything to do with it being much easier to lie than make reality match the desired reality for the business. Probably the most common lie is downplaying a risk, because it's very easy to claim that something that hasn't happened yet won't happen even if there's a large risk of it happening.

      There are some professions that do a bit less lying than others. Those are the ones where lying can get you sued and/or have your career destroyed. But there are fewer of those than you might think.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 2) by Username on Monday May 13, @01:46PM

      by Username (4557) on Monday May 13, @01:46PM (#1356811)

      I think it's because management is having the installer inspecting their own work instead of having an inspector. They already think they did the job right the first time, looking at it again the same mistake will be overlooked.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 12, @07:27PM (8 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 12, @07:27PM (#1356691)

    I worked in the university auto shop, checking fluids, changing oil. Every vehicle had a 20-50-point inspection to be performed every time it came in. I learned well before my university days: don't put my name on something that I didn't do.

    I was never very fast at that job. No matter how I thought about and pre-arranged parts, tools, needed supplies, no matter the order in which I did things, making a circle around the vehicle and hitting everything in turn, I could just never get all of the work done in the allotted time. (I wondered how the average mechanic would adjust their working methodology to accommodate all the tasks. What did I miss last time, and how could I arrange for that next time.)

    This actually pissed off co-workers, and the boss didn't seem especially happy either -- but didn't make it known that he was unhappy. The work was getting done. It was proper. It was just slower than their internal billing system accounted for. Clearly the boss made that known to the coworkers, though.

    One day I went up to the coworker and asked, "Where's the jack on this model? I can't find it anywhere." He blew up on me, "I GUARANTEE you the jack is there! You don't need to check every, single, thing! This is a waste of time, and things are taking too long, just move on with it!" -- and so I moved on and ignored the jack, assuming he's right and I just don't know where to look for it. I mean, who takes a jack out of a vehicle, anyway? He's right, it's there -- wherever it is. (I don't think I checked the air in the spare tire, either, but eh.. I had only been kicking them to ensure there was enough air to keep the rim off the ground, as opposed to *checking* the air pressure.) (Funny for the *co*-worker to be pissed off that I'm doing my job slowly...?)

    ---

    About two weeks later, we were called in by the boss for a meeting: a vehicle had a flat tire while it was out in the wilderness, out away from cell phone towers. The tire was fine. However, they didn't have a jack. They waited about six hours for someone to happen by to help them out. This isn't just a fault of our department, the car-wash shop is supposed to be checking for these things too.

    Neither I nor the co-worker said anything, -- nothing really needs to be said. However... skipping steps is just part of the job.

    So are the errors associated with saving time and money. (Was the total savings greater than the six hours of 2-4 researchers' lives, pay, and project? and the administrative tasks of following up with this wtf? Who knows. That's not part of the job.)

    That 120-point inspection, on the extended inspection, might get the easiest 20-30 points inspected. :-) How does *that* make you feel about taking your car to JiffyLube?

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 12, @10:17PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 12, @10:17PM (#1356712)

      I hope your post gets printed out and anonymously posted in break rooms all across corporate America.

      Even though Executive-class people pride themselves on communication skills learned at accredited University, there are some things that subordinates simply cannot talk about to superiors. This is probably the biggest.

      It's not about pay. It's about Pride of Workmanship. And whether or not the Corporation is aligned with such things.

      I remember a fine wine marketed as "we will sell no wine before its' time". How about we think about our product that way as well and stop delivering junk to our customer?

      We had a metaphor for this: "Killing the goose that laid the golden eggs." It takes time to do a job. Takes more to do it right. A lot more if you have to learn how to do it right.

      I'll sign off as AC. It's talk like this that got me canned. Apparently, this goes against what they were taught at University.

      • (Score: 4, Touché) by mhajicek on Sunday May 12, @11:27PM (1 child)

        by mhajicek (51) on Sunday May 12, @11:27PM (#1356721)

        If you don't have time to do it right the first time, how are you going to have time to do it over?

        --
        The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by krishnoid on Sunday May 12, @11:22PM (1 child)

      by krishnoid (1156) on Sunday May 12, @11:22PM (#1356720)

      Well, it's not going to kill anyone [newyorker.com] if all the points aren't covered, but it will instill a mindset of cutting corners and deprioritizing doing what you commit to, and a culture within the workforce of self-enforcing that mindset. If you say 30-point and do 30 point coverage, then its better in some ways, for your existing and new mechanics, than saying 120-point and doing 40 points.

      When I had a fence replaced, doing a little research ahead of time, paying attention, and asking questions (along with taking a few photos of the project in progress) -- solely out of my own curiosity in the building process -- was enough to get some of the workers to do a couple extra doublechecking and reinforcing steps.

      I think that they felt some increased accountability, but I also suspect that the builders that took pride in their workmanship, instinctively demonstrated it in front of someone who showed interest, respect, and appreciation for them and their work. In the mechanics case, I might have asked to see the checklist and ask a few questions so I could follow along. A workman that doesn't like you watching or asking questions on something they do every day, I suspect you can find someone else who is fine with you demonstrating a vested interest in the work done on your car, particularly in the YouTube age of detailed repair videos.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 13, @02:35AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 13, @02:35AM (#1356748)
        Your link doesn't seem so related though (seems to be about medical people saving people). Even if doctors make small mistakes, the body can often fix itself if the mistakes aren't big.

        AFAIK most airliners don't self repair. Even stuff like self sealing fuel tanks, aren't really self repairing - someone still has to repair/replace them.

        But yes it's probably better to have a culture where it's not the norm to cut corners. However if the 30 point coverage is seen as a way to cut corners then that might not work so well either...
    • (Score: 2) by aafcac on Sunday May 12, @11:57PM

      by aafcac (17646) on Sunday May 12, @11:57PM (#1356727)

      It's not just that, there's a tendency of bosses to push for things that make themselves look good right now at the expense of things that might look good later. In some cases that can lead to all sorts of absurdities where a little thing now is exchanged for a much bigger thing later on.

    • (Score: 2) by boltronics on Monday May 13, @02:47AM

      by boltronics (580) on Monday May 13, @02:47AM (#1356750) Homepage Journal

      And then there is the other end of the spectrum, where inspections go well beyond what is expected or desired.

      Here is a recent video from Gamers Nexus where Asus attempted to charge for a tiny, unimportant scratch that the user hadn't even noticed:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pMrssIrKcY [youtube.com]

      It's funny how it works out that consumer-grade disposable tech gets scrutinized to such a degree (so they can charge for every little thing regardless of something being an actual problem), but something as important as a vehicle check can be rushed through.

      --
      It's GNU/Linux dammit!
    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday May 14, @09:04AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 14, @09:04AM (#1356915) Journal

      The "for want of a nail" in modern times.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Sunday May 12, @10:02PM (8 children)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane (4757) on Sunday May 12, @10:02PM (#1356709)

    Boeing is a for-profit that was let loose. For-profits that aren't regulated invariably end up putting profit over everything else. No surprise, that's what they do.

    But here's the thing: the FAA was supposed to regulate them. Heavily. Thoroughly. And they didn't! They elected to let Boeing regulate itself, which was a criminally reckless decision to make, and someone high-up at the FAA should be doing time in the slammer for this.

    Why has this not happened yet? The FAA is guilty as hell here, just as much as Boeing is.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by krishnoid on Sunday May 12, @11:48PM (1 child)

      by krishnoid (1156) on Sunday May 12, @11:48PM (#1356725)

      The regulation was in place, it's just way worse [youtu.be] than any of us thought. A little from column insufficient expertise, and a little from column letting the wolf regulate the henhouse.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 15, @02:24AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 15, @02:24AM (#1356985)

        It's not really a huge deal or flaw that Boeing's own people are checking and certifying their own stuff.

        This happens in civil (and other) engineering. Civil engineers working for private companies sign off on their company's stuff if they think it's good enough.

        What should happen is that if bad stuff happens (dam/bridge breaks and people die) those certifying that it's good enough are held accountable. If it turns out they are responsible and/or guilty of negligence then they should be punished accordingly.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_and_licensure_in_engineering [wikipedia.org]

        If you know you are likely to be punished if stuff failed and you don't think the dam/bridge/plane is OK. You might ignore the "be the team player", "do you want to keep your job?" etc and not sign off.

        Boeing did something not too different from building a plane which has a fly by wire module with no redundancies AND somehow that was certified as OK. And when stuff failed many people tried to blame the airlines and the pilots. Who went to prison or was punished for certifying that such a design was acceptable? I just see stuff like "wire fraud".

        https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/a-lack-of-redundancies-on-737-max-system-has-baffled-even-those-who-worked-on-the-jet/ [seattletimes.com]

        even some of the people who have worked on Boeing’s new 737 MAX airplane were baffled to learn that the company had designed an automated safety system that abandoned the principles of component redundancy, ultimately entrusting the automated decision-making to just one sensor — a type of sensor that was known to fail. Boeing’s rival, Airbus, has typically depended on three such sensors.

        “A single point of failure is an absolute no-no,” said one former Boeing engineer who worked on the MAX, who requested anonymity to speak frankly about the program in an interview with The Seattle Times. “That is just a huge system engineering oversight. To just have missed it, I can’t imagine how.”

        Imagine if Boeing didn't cheap out and the 737 Max had extra sensors, and mechanisms to detect failed stuff and prevent the plane from flying in such scenarios.

        Then the airline or maintenance org would have to intentionally not fix the sensors and bypass the safeties. If the plane crashed when that happened, how many would blame Boeing?

        Or if there was a freak incident e.g. super lightning powerful enough to cause multiple failures, I'd put more of the blame on the freak incident than on Boeing. After all it might destroy other stuff too if not just the redundant MCAS modules.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 13, @12:00AM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 13, @12:00AM (#1356728)

      It is because certain politicians have been cutting off budgets for regulators at the knees for years. They aren't able to do away with the regulations, so they defund them as much as they can. It's been the same thing with the IRS [brookings.edu]. Auditing complicated tax returns from rich people takes skill and attention, so they've been trying really hard to cut the funding for auditors. Same thing with the FDA [uconn.edu]. SEC enforcement [planadviser.com] too. And EPA enforcement is always on the line as well.

      The FAA isn't as guilty here as you might think because they had their heavy hand removed a long time ago. It is the ODA program [jacobin.com] set up to "save money" or "create efficiency" or something to that effect. I'm sure the intent was a noble one (and the $26M Boeing spent in lobbying for it might have put a small thumb on the scales as well). And even when their fraudulent conduct led to hundred of deaths, certain politicians shoved through a secret immunity deal [levernews.com] followed by egregious forum shopping to get the favorable ruling to shield Boeing management from prosecution (very coincidentally put in place the day criminal charges would have been filed), so not only was there no criminal culpability, but all they needed to do was admit to their fraud and then institute some "ethics reforms" and pay a pittance of their annual revenue as a fine.

      You want someone in the slammer? Follow those money trails.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 13, @02:08AM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 13, @02:08AM (#1356746)

        It is because certain politicians have been cutting off budgets for regulators at the knees for years.

        Bull Shit. All my life I've watched over and over people being lazy, not doing their jobs, and crying they need more $.

        The problem is there's no oversight of the regulators. There may be some on paper, but in reality it's "atta-boy, keep up the good work".

        They're all a brotherhood. There isn't even a secret handshake- it's understood that you don't mess with other govt. agencies. It's laziness and corruption.

        The fix: full disclosure, fully open to citizen overwatch groups.

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 13, @05:29AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 13, @05:29AM (#1356762)

          When they explicitly say that is what they are doing, then put forth budgets that actually do that, that is much more compelling evidence than the old "lazy government worker" canard thrown out by talk radio "experts." If your memory fails you, internet searches can help. How about Dodd-Frank enforcement [investmentnews.com]? Antitrust [washingtonpost.com]? More recent antitrust [newrepublic.com]? You must not have been paying attention to the state of funding for the IRS over the last decade [propublica.org] or so, and the current effort [apnews.com] to still prevent equipment modernization and adequate staffing. Or for enforcing mining safety regulations [wvtf.org] or enforcing mining companies to clean up after themselves [appvoices.org]. These examples are easy to find because to their credit these politicians are very upfront about siding with rich people and corporations, but some people are ok voting for policies that actively hurt themselves.

          Sometimes the politicians even put it in the name of the law [congress.gov].

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 14, @02:14AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 14, @02:14AM (#1356874) Journal

            How about Dodd-Frank enforcement?

            I detect a theme here - lack of care about the quality of the regulations and the regulators. Dodd-Frank is just a shitshow. There's negative value in providing funding to its enforcement. For a glaring example of how bad this was, this was the founding law for the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection [soylentnews.org], an attempt to create a powerful organization unaccountable to US democracy.

            You must not have been paying attention to the state of funding for the IRS over the last decade [propublica.org] or so, and the current effort [apnews.com] to still prevent equipment modernization and adequate staffing.

            Not much point to complaining when abuses of the IRS are ignored. For a glaring example [soylentnews.org], the IRS was used as a political weapon to target foes of Obama's administration. That's solidly in the span of time when their resources were taken away. Selective enforcement of regulation is a common problem.

            As to the law "To prohibit the use of Federal funds to hire armed Federal regulatory enforcement officers in certain agencies." How about this bit of trivial: how many federal agencies have forces with law enforcement powers? For example, this paper studies [ojp.gov] 94 agencies with law enforcement components. Even the National Science Foundation had 9 law enforcement officers in 2020; the Peace Corps had 5; and the Library of Congress has 2 (all parts of Offices of Inspector General).

            And given that the law applies explicitly to the IRS, Department of Labor, and the EPA, it doesn't sound that bad.

            I must admit that it is ironic that those conservative forces are defunding the police.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday May 13, @11:24AM

          by Thexalon (636) on Monday May 13, @11:24AM (#1356796)

          Not BS.

          There have been very deliberate efforts to make large cuts to the funding of the IRS [propublica.org], EPA [eenews.net], and most relevant to this discussion the FAA [bloomberg.com].

          Are there lazy people working for the government? Almost definitely, because there's no such thing as an organization of any kind without slackers. But that doesn't eliminate the relationship between how much money they get, how many people they employ, and how much work is accomplished.

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Monday May 13, @06:13AM

      by Beryllium Sphere (r) (5062) on Monday May 13, @06:13AM (#1356767)

      The designated engineer system worked for generations. Boeing's rot seems to have taken the FAA by surprise.

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 12, @10:57PM (5 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 12, @10:57PM (#1356717) Journal

    I watched the video of the Istanbul landing. I don't know what those fire trucks were pumping under the plane. Initially, I assumed it was AFFF, or A triple F, or Aqueus Film Forming Fluid, like we used in the Navy. But, the stuff behaved more like a powder, than a foam. The foam tends to build up in a heap, then slowly settles down (by "slowly" I mean 3 to 5 minutes, depending on temperature, more than anything) What I saw looked like a dry chemical scooting along the pavement, with no heaping or mounding taking place.

    This link https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/fedex-boeing-cargo-jet-incident-istanbul-1.7198457 [www.cbc.ca] specifically mentions foam, but it don't look like the foam that I know.

    Anyone have any inside dope on the stuff?

    Also, my training was, you aim high with the foam, and allow it to fall downward, allowing it to form a film on everything in sight. These guys were shooting their foam along the ground. I would have thought that after the initial shots of foam coated the landing gear, there would be no ignition sources on the ground. I would have wanted to spray foam upward, along the fuselage, especially near the tops of the landing gear assemblies.

    The only explanation I can think of for not spraying higher, is that AFFF is very corrosive, and hard to clean away. So - the firefighters were more concerned with preventing corrosion damage, then ensuring that no fire broke out?

    I knonw, I'm just an old sailor, aviation is different. Except, fire is fire, no matter where you find it. Fuel + air + ignition source, and you have an inferno on your hands. I want any potential fuel source smothered in foam, to prevent it mixing with oxygen.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by aafcac on Monday May 13, @12:04AM (1 child)

      by aafcac (17646) on Monday May 13, @12:04AM (#1356729)

      That's a good question. I'm not sure what it is, but there's a significant issue with foams in this sort of situation. They can hide people that get run over like happened with that crash in Oakland where people were run over by the firetrucks when the drivers couldn't see the ground. Presumably with the navy, at least on carriers, there are is a more or less zero chance of people being run over in that situation and they can just choose to use a foam and not have to worry about that.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 13, @10:01AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 13, @10:01AM (#1356787)

        Heard the same story from a captain in the fire service, for a major airport in Europe: fire truck running over a passenger, not visible through the foam.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 13, @12:25AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 13, @12:25AM (#1356732)

      I didn't see the video showing the fire response, but if it was yellow, blue, or purple, then it was probably one of the dry chemical suppressants [oshkoshairport.com] airports use.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 13, @04:12AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 13, @04:12AM (#1356756)

      Dry powder is the only thing that can suppress a magnesium fire. Normally there's very little jet fuel anywhere near the nose gear, lots of magnesium though

  • (Score: 5, Funny) by VanessaE on Monday May 13, @12:48AM

    Boeing woes? Don't you mean Woeings? 😛

  • (Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Monday May 13, @06:17AM (1 child)

    by Beryllium Sphere (r) (5062) on Monday May 13, @06:17AM (#1356770)

    Falsifying an inspection report is whitewashed if you call it "misconduct" or "violation of company policy".

    It is, unless I totally misread the statute, a crime.

    • (Score: 2) by aafcac on Tuesday May 14, @04:00AM

      by aafcac (17646) on Tuesday May 14, @04:00AM (#1356887)

      Presumably it would be fraud even if it's not a violation of any specific statutes.

  • (Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 13, @08:39PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 13, @08:39PM (#1356842) Journal

    https://www.livetube.tv/news/breaking-safair-212-preparing-emergency-landing-in-johannesburg-front-gear-issue [livetube.tv]

    https://www.ewn.co.za/2024/04/22/watch-pilots-hailed-heroes-after-flysafair-plane-loses-wheel-during-take-off [ewn.co.za]

    WATCH: Pilots hailed heroes after FlySafair plane loses wheel during take-off
    The pilots made a safe landing in Johannesburg.

    The pilots and crew onboard a FlySafair flight from Johannesburg to Cape Town were praised for their quick-thinking, smooth emergency landing over the weekend.

    Flight FA212 from Johannesburg to Cape Town was forced to return to OR Tambo after losing its rear wheel.

    A conspiracy theorist might believe people are conspiring to make Boeing look bad.

  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday May 14, @09:15AM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 14, @09:15AM (#1356916) Journal

    Methinks they need their old engineers and maintenance mechanics back. This kind of stuff is hard to cover over with creative writing.

    Careful there, necromancy isn't a dark magic for nothing.
    I think they call them "incantations" and "rituals" rather then "procedure manual", but it asks for an even higher procedural care than jet maintenance.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(1)