Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787: Boeing Reorganises Quality Control Process  
User currently offlineNycbjr From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 447 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 6 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6478 times:

Looks like Jon has a story posted on Flightglobal about a change in the quality control process of the 787

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...y-control-system-to-speed-787.html

excerpt

According to program sources, a system of "super mechanics" who hold all the necessary certifications to self-check work to appropriate airworthiness standards is being abandoned in favour of a traditional quality-assurance system. The sources say over the past year of assembly the self-certification process had become an impediment to progress rather than an enabler of efficiency.

Looks like Boeing is falling back to old processes.. this could be a good thing...

[Edited 2008-03-25 09:31:19]

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9105 posts, RR: 75
Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6365 times:



Quoting Nycbjr (Thread starter):
Looks like Boeing is falling back to old processes.. this could be a good thing...

Wonder what flow on effect this will have on Boeing obtaining a production certificate for the 787, quality control processes are a fundamental part of that.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10038 posts, RR: 96
Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6215 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Zeke (Reply 1):
Wonder what flow on effect this will have on Boeing obtaining a production certificate for the 787, quality control processes are a fundamental part of that.

Presumably it will improve things.

Implicit in the change is that the "self-check" system has delivered nothing but problems......

We took some steps down this route too, and pulled back some...... you really have to cherry pick the applications.
Its one of those things that looks great on an MBA thesis (mine didn't include it mind you...  Wink )

Regards


User currently offlineFAEDC3 From Ecuador, joined Jun 2007, 156 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6207 times:

I thought that the self check procedure was designed to speed up the Certification Process on the aircraft, going back to the regular quality control procedure means that the Certification Process would take the "normal " timeframe for a commercial airliner?

If that is so, then it'll take longer than planned right? the original self check thing was designed to be a lot quicker that usual, I willingly stand to be corrected on this.

[Edited 2008-03-25 10:29:03]

User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6193 posts, RR: 34
Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5998 times:



Quoting FAEDC3 (Reply 3):
If that is so, then it'll take longer than planned right? the original self check thing was designed to be a lot quicker that usual, I willingly stand to be corrected on this.

One of the "problems" with the "traditional" quality control system is that there is always a backlog of inspections for QC inspectors to sign off on. So unless the number of QC inspectors are substantially increased... and short term there may be a problem finding enough qualified bodies (which also increases costs), there is going to be a slow down in production.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5879 times:

FLIGHT has a bad habit of reposting 'old' stories from its blogs in the magazine section as 'new'. The story was posted in Jon's blog a few days ago.

User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5421 times:



Quoting FAEDC3 (Reply 3):
I thought that the self check procedure was designed to speed up the Certification Process on the aircraft, going back to the regular quality control procedure means that the Certification Process would take the "normal " timeframe for a commercial airliner?

Self-check (in theory) speeds up the production, but doesn't really have much to do with the type certificate. Since Boeing isn't anywhere close to full rate production yet, I'm not sure how much overall delay this would impose. I have a tough tie believing that QC is the bottleneck at the moment.

Tom.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (6 years 6 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5399 times:

This was reported last week. And discussed.  Wink


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineNycbjr From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 447 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5306 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
This was reported last week. And discussed. Wink

You know I totally thought this was.. but its a new article so figured there might be some new info in there for the A nutters...

maybe I'm just desperate to here some news on the 787! hehe..

cheers


User currently offlineFAEDC3 From Ecuador, joined Jun 2007, 156 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5173 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 6):
Self-check (in theory) speeds up the production, but doesn't really have much to do with the type certificate. Since Boeing isn't anywhere close to full rate production yet, I'm not sure how much overall delay this would impose. I have a tough tie believing that QC is the bottleneck at the moment.

Understood, it makes sense... thanks!  Smile

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
This was reported last week. And discussed.



Quoting Nycbjr (Reply 8):
You know I totally thought this was.. but its a new article so figured there might be some new info in there for the A nutters...

So I was not having a Deja vu!! good to know that I was not the only one thinking that this discussion already happen....


User currently offlinePanAm1971 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 397 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 18 hours ago) and read 4156 times:

I hate to sound like an old man-because I'm not! Wink-but things are the way they are for a reason. After nearly a century of aviation, systems have been developed that are tried and proved. Why do some people have to try and reinvent the wheel? Sigh.

User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10038 posts, RR: 96
Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months 18 hours ago) and read 4136 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting PanAm1971 (Reply 10):
Why do some people have to try and reinvent the wheel? Sigh.

To be fair, if we didn't, there'd never be any progress. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, as they say.

Regards


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12568 posts, RR: 46
Reply 12, posted (6 years 6 months 18 hours ago) and read 3999 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting PanAm1971 (Reply 10):
After nearly a century of aviation, systems have been developed that are tried and proved. Why do some people have to try and reinvent the wheel? Sigh.

It's called progress. Otherwise we'd all still be flying round in Connies, DC-6s, etc.

On the other hand....  cloudnine 



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinePanAm1971 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 397 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 6 months 18 hours ago) and read 3970 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 11):
To be fair, if we didn't, there'd never be any progress. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, as they say.

Regards

Of course. I understand. But quality control seems to be... an area where you might not want to... tinker. Especially, if the previous system had been working well. IMHO, with the new materials being used, this was biting off more than they could chew.


User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (6 years 6 months 11 hours ago) and read 2809 times:

Boeing discovered a tad late that some suppliers didn't have adequate capabilities and processes to run non-destructive inspection and quality assurance at their sub-tier level. As it turned out, some even didn't have the required equipment. I used to think that 'risk-sharing' was devised to offload risk, but it seems Boeing rather managed to acquire risk. Well, at least they managed something that way and they did so at remarkably low cost.  sarcastic 

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
787/Boeing Sales Presentation & Information posted Thu Sep 6 2007 15:49:41 by Strandedinbgm
787: Boeing Says Visual Inspections Enough posted Mon Sep 3 2007 04:25:48 by BoomBoom
787: Boeing Admits Supplier Problems posted Wed Oct 25 2006 15:10:52 by RedFlyer
Boeing Testing 787 Flight Control On AA 772ER posted Tue May 16 2006 01:22:12 by Atmx2000
FI - Boeing Reiterates 787 Plan posted Wed Mar 12 2008 00:46:34 by Astuteman
Flightblogger: Boeing Considers Suspending 787-3 posted Wed Feb 20 2008 20:26:22 by IAD787
How To Hack Into A Boeing 787 posted Tue Feb 19 2008 12:41:01 by WepaMan
Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787 posted Wed Feb 6 2008 10:43:29 by Kappel
Boeing Beefs Up 787 Program posted Sat Feb 2 2008 05:29:05 by Zeke
Boeing To Expand 787 Mod Line In San Antonio posted Wed Jan 23 2008 14:20:43 by TUIflyer