Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
"Shoddy Workmanship" On The 787?  
User currently offlineczbbflier From Canada, joined Jul 2006, 980 posts, RR: 2
Posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 20304 times:

Oh, please don't shoot the messenger.

I found this article, 787 To Debut At Show, Despite Tail Issues, on the Aviation Week website that starts like this:

Quote:

Boeing is launching an inquiry into why shoddy workmanship in some 787 horizontal stabilizers was not detected until 25 units were complete, but says subsequent inspections will not delay delivery of the first aircraft.

The horizontal stabilizers of all completed 787s required checking for improperly installed shims that could have reduced the fatigue life of the units if left uncorrected. The event began when small gaps were found on one unit around the intersection of the Alenia-built stabilizer’s aft spar with the center box that forms the structural join between the two horizontal tails.

The gaps were “deeply embedded” in the structure, making them difficult to spot. As a result, they passed undetected into the final assembly, a fact that troubles Boeing 787 Vice President and General Manager Scott Fancher.

At least the quality control is top-notch.

Or is Guy Norris in Los Angeles at Aviation Week just being picky?

BTW- Yes, the 787 will be at Farnborough.

103 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineETStar From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 20182 times:

Quoting czbbflier (Thread starter):

At least the quality control is top-notch.

Is it? If top notch, why did it take 25 units built to discover it? Aren't some of these units already flying?

Quoting czbbflier (Thread starter):

Or is Guy Norris in Los Angeles at Aviation Week just being picky?

When it comes to anything related to safety, picky is just what you need. Would it be wiser to let this go, only to go back to it when an incident occurs?


User currently offline7673mech From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 736 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 20165 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Before you crucify Quality process at Boeing, one has to ask what is required of them when the parts arrive from Italy.
If the part come certified, it may not even be inspected again at Everett.
I would say it should be "Shoddy workmanship" @ a supplier.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31263 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 19909 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Do we really need another thread on this topic?

I swear, all we need is somebody to start saying Boeing is "in a pickle" and we'll have come full-circle.

[Edited 2010-07-06 20:11:01]

User currently offlineF9Animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 5116 posts, RR: 28
Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 19739 times:

This is yet another example of subcontracting. Boeing's execs have failed the company miserably. It is disgusting in how much trash these vendors have sent out. Boeing wanted to save a buck by outsourcing. The buck in savings has cost them billions. Will the execs and management learn from their mistakes? Highly doubt it. I think the CEO needs to be chopped, and continue the downward chopping of these guys.


I Am A Different Animal!!
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 19468 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
Do we really need another thread on this topic?

NO, let the airplane fly and leave all else to the certification folks. I totally agree with Stich, no more threads.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlinebabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 17779 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 13):
NO, let the airplane fly and leave all else to the certification folks. I totally agree with Stich, no more threads

We need even more threads to discuss these types of things.

There are obviously severe problems and very soon people might actually have to fly in it. Everyone should be aware that things haven't gone according to plan and things are still being sorted out.

It happens to all airliners and the 787 should not be given any special secret status on here.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31263 posts, RR: 85
Reply 7, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 17345 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting babybus (Reply 18):
It happens to all airliners and the 787 should not be given any special secret status on here.

It has nothing to with "secret status".

There was a thread on this exact same issue last week where these exact same arguments, opinions and views were discussed, argued, and hashed out.

All we're doing here is repeating ourselves.


User currently offlinejoecanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 30
Reply 8, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 17326 times:

I don't get what people are complaining about. Have any faulty planes been delivered to customers? Have any safety problems slipped past the quality control net?

The way I see it, this is proof that the certification process is working perfectly. "Trust but verify"...? That's exactly what Boeing did and how they caught the problem during the flight test program...which is exactly the kind of thing a flight test program is supposed to do.

If they didn't catch the problem until the planes were with the customers, then there is a real problem. As it is, Boeing is proving that their quality control is indeed capable of catching problems even in this advanced stage.

Boeing should be commended for analyzing the 787 to the degree that something like this is spotted before any potential harm is done.



What the...?
User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2903 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 17096 times:

Quoting joecanuck (Reply 21):
As it is, Boeing is proving that their quality control is indeed capable of catching problems even in this advanced stage.

Boeing should be commended for analyzing the 787 to the degree that something like this is spotted before any potential harm is done.

So, according to you all is nice and dandy, but yet, "Boeing is launching an inquiry into why shoddy workmanship in some 787 horizontal stabilizers was not detected until 25 units were complete" and "[the problems] passed undetected into the final assembly, a fact that troubles Boeing 787 Vice President and General Manager Scott Fancher. "



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlineshankly From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 1547 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 16607 times:

What are people expecting Boeing to do? Set up a Henry Ford style River Rouge facility with metal ores, oil and rubber in at one end and 787's out at the other?

There is not a manufacturing process that has ever existed that has not had to face quality control issues. What assures me is that Boeing are continually looking for them and are taking the time to probe deep into its airplane to find them. It is after all a flight test period we are in.

Those of us that are old and wise enough will remember a time when manufacturers actually lost airframes during the flight test period or who failed to properly risk assess design and subsequant product (DC-10?)

I tend to agree with those that see this issue as interesting news but not a damnation of either a very promising product or the Boeing company that builds it



L1011 - P F M
User currently offlineslz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 16141 times:

Quoting joecanuck (Reply 21):
I don't get what people are complaining about?
The way I see it, this is proof that the certification process is working perfectly.

The thing is, they didn't find out about the issue in flight testing, but rather during final assembly, but then you already know all this, since this is now the 4th time you've been told so, yet you keep ignoring this important fact.

It is extremely important to understand the structural fault was NOT spotted during a planned quality assessment on one of the planes used in the certification process, but rather the quality assessment happened because of serious assembly difficulties with one of the production shipsets.

As such, the structural fault was spotted by pure coincidence, after which Boeing began questioning the integrety of the 24 previously assembled planes and started a quality assessment of the entire fleet produced so far, which is still ongoing!So the question remains: what else has made it onto the planes that shouldn't be there, yet hasn't been discovered yet, because the fault is not as easy to spot during routine assembly?

[Edited 2010-07-07 04:58:05]

User currently offlinethrufru From Marshall Islands, joined Feb 2009, 224 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 16114 times:

This horse has been beaten to death. It's time to lock this thread.

User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 13, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 16124 times:

Quoting babybus (Reply 18):
There are obviously severe problems and very soon people might actually have to fly in it. Everyone should be aware that things haven't gone according to plan and things are still being sorted out.

Are you kidding me? Do you think the FAA Aircraft Cert. folks are just standing around waiting on the a.netters to alert them to the issues with any new airframe? Threads on this site are just that, threads on this site.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
All we're doing here is repeating ourselves.

  

Quoting joecanuck (Reply 21):
The way I see it, this is proof that the certification process is working perfectly

Couldn't agree more.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineslz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 15903 times:

Quoting thrufru (Reply 26):
This horse has been beaten to death. It's time to lock this thread.

i disagree.

it only proofs Boeing needs to be open on HOW they first discovered this problem, because right now, they remain silent on the exact conditions and the chain of events, hence the story will remain a hot issue allover the world.

The fact they've so far failed to explain the conditions in full, is indicative that it happened indeed all rather coincidental, and that they should thus consider themselves very lucky to have found it... not proud, but lucky!

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 27):
Couldn't agree more.

The fault was discovered on a production plane, not on one of the planes in the certification process, so the certification process is not what is being discussed here, but rather Boeing's quality control, which is crucial in guaranteeing that all production planes are up to certification standards when they come off the FAL...

The fact this fault (almost) made it through and Boeing isn't sure no other faults actually have, is proof the quality control isn't worth much at Boeing, and thus the 787 line is extremely vulnerable to delivering 787s way below certification standards!

Maybe the FAA or EASA should call for individual certification of each plane from the FAL, until Boeing can reassure us they won't miss any other workmanship issues?

[Edited 2010-07-07 05:12:59]

User currently offlineczbbflier From Canada, joined Jul 2006, 980 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 15892 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
There was a thread on this exact same issue last week where these exact same arguments, opinions and views were discussed, argued, and hashed out.

My humblest apologies if there was a thread on this last week. I did not see it and when I did the search before posting the thread nothing of this sort came up. If I had known that there had been a thread, I would have added this article to that thread.

I am not a fan of A vs B threads but seeing that the article included a Boeing VP comment I felt it was worthy of discussion. I just wonder if saying "shoddy workmanship" is leaning at least a bit to the sensationalist.

I completely agree that there have been examples in the past where complete airframes were lost during the testing phase. Lord, please don't let us go there. Lessons were learned from those experiences, I hope. The design, assembly and certification process was, if I recall, roundly condemned with the hasty introduction of the DC-10. True, it turned out to be one beautiful, and safe, bird- but not until the -30 series. And admittedly, seeing a DC-10 cartwheel down a runway years later engulfed in flames did give me pause to consider flying on one.

Working for a DC-10 operator, I was told our marketing people knew that some people did make the choice not to fly with us because we used DC-10s. The company took great pains to point out that they were -30 series and not the trouble-prone -10 series aircraft.

As for the Comet, this raises another concern. What will happen to the 787 reputation after its first (inevitable) crash? Will the pundits immediately claim that the carbon fibre design or assembly model was a total failure and contributed to the incident? How is Boeing going to counter the bad press? Worse, what happens if the carbon fibre design, or the sub-contractor model of assembly is actually found to be a contributing factor by the accident investigators? What will become of the 787, an aircraft that nobody, out of hysteria, or possibly well-guided prudence, will then want to fly?


User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2903 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 15849 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 27):
Quoting joecanuck (Reply 21):
The way I see it, this is proof that the certification process is working perfectly

Couldn't agree more.

It has been said before, but apparently it needs repeating: the finding of this problem had nothing (nothing) to do with any flight test or any certification whatsoever. It was found at the FAL because things just didn't fit together. You can draw many conclusions from this, but not that the certification process is working perfectly (or horribly): it just has nothing to do with it.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 17, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 15611 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 30):
It has been said before, but apparently it needs repeating: the finding of this problem had nothing (nothing) to do with any flight test or any certification whatsoever. It was found at the FAL because things just didn't fit together.

Pardon me for bundling the entire process up in the phrase "certifcation". Thanks for the correction.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineA380900 From France, joined Dec 2003, 1117 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 13922 times:

Quoting slz396 (Reply 25):

It is extremely important to understand the structural fault was NOT spotted during a planned quality assessment on one of the planes used in the certification process, but rather the quality assessment happened because of serious assembly difficulties with one of the production shipsets.

Ok. Not what you would have understood from the thread before that.

As for repeating oneself, I don't really mind as I gladly read this one but did not feel like reading a much bigger thread. Also multiple threads across several weeks/months are warranted for a problem of this magnitude. It's not going away. Every significant news item/article about that warrant a new thread. I feel like the fact that it reflects negatively on Boeing lead many on the forum to want to look elsewhere, limit the number of thread etc...

This is a huge topic. It warrants many threads. Repeating oneself is a common occurrence on this forum. Since when has it been forbidden? Just how many arguments about the A380 have been beaten to death? Some people just don't want discourse that reflect badly on Boeing to be repeated...


User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2903 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 13824 times:

Quoting wingman (Reply 33):
I'm just glad they found this defect during production and didn't let a critical part slip through QC like Airbus did with that Thales pitot tube, leading to the deaths of over 200 people.

So you do know for sure the reason for AF447's crash, don't you? Congratulations, 'cause nobody else seems to know.

On the other hand, it has been clearly established that the reason for the deaths of the 204 people on board UA 585, CM 201, and US 427 was a defective design of the rudder system in the classic Boeing 737s. Just as it has been established that the defective design of the central fuel tank in the classic Boeing 747s led to the death of the 230 people aboard TWA 800.

Quoting wingman (Reply 33):
But back to the 330 death machine,

Are the 737 and the 747 death machines too?



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlineMingToo From Zimbabwe, joined Jun 2009, 464 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 13772 times:

The comparison with the pitot tubes is an interesting one. But is there not a difference there ? I'm not familiar with the contractual details of the supply of either the pitot tubes or the 787 stabilisers but I would think that ....

The pitot tubes are supplied by a supplier. That is, Thales has specified, designed, manufactured and tested them and then the aircraft manufacturer has purchased them.

However, in the case of Alenia, I don't believe that they specified or designed the stabilisers, they have just manufactured and tested (or not) them. They are more a subcontractor than a supplier.

The quality control in the case of a supplier is probably quite well established with the responsibility landing very much on the supplier to ensure that the parts meet the specification. In the case of a subcontractor, while it should be well defined, this is perhaps not such an established and well-known supply chain mechanism and the process of managing the responsibilities is not so polished.

The aircraft manufacturer and subcontractor probably need to work much more closely as the subcontractor may have far less experience in the specifics of the job. Checks that might be routine or obvious to an employee in the aircraft industry may not be so to an employee in a subcontractor that has the materials experience but not the 'domain specific' knowledge.

This is still a learning experience.


User currently offlinepliersinsight From United States of America, joined May 2008, 498 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 13541 times:

Quoting shankly (Reply 10):
What are people expecting Boeing to do? Set up a Henry Ford style River Rouge facility with metal ores, oil and rubber in at one end and 787's out at the other?

That would be the most awesome thing ever. Don't the Chinese factories that make most of our stuff do it that way?


User currently offlineManuCH From Switzerland, joined Jun 2005, 3012 posts, RR: 46
Reply 22, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 13455 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

A similar thread was locked not too long ago because it had turned into an A vs B flame war. A dozen of posts have already been deleted in this thread already, for the same reason.

We're leaving this one open for now, as it is an important issue, but please try to stick to the topic being discussed. Do not turn it into an A vs B war, or into an anti-Boeing thread - or it will be locked again. Thank you.



Never trust a statistic you didn't fake yourself
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 13211 times:

Fifteen years ago or so, when the 777 program was hot, my brothers friend was a test pilot on the 777. He got us a back door tour...(still unable to take pictures). I was so blown away by the enormous process of building airliners , I was in airplane heaven!..I realized that Boeing Jets were Americas best product and the day Boeing started to outsource their secrets, not only was Boeing screwed, but the country was screwed as Boeing was the last bastian of an organization that protected its proprietary secrets...Oh Well..."Stupid is as stupid does."   

User currently offlineslz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 13212 times:

Quoting ManuCH (Reply 23):
please try to stick to the topic being discussed. Do not turn it into an A vs B war, or into an anti-Boeing thread.


I fully agree with you, yet the thing is that if you analyse the event factually and in detail, it's fairly obvious one needs to conclude Boeing's quality control is extremely relaxed (to say the least), an observation which in itself is so shocking that simply stating this out loudly is already considered blasphemy by some here, after which they crawl over each other to be the first to start throwing mud at you and thus drag this topic down...

This topic is exceptional, not because it contains unfounded rumours or flamebait from the anti-Boeing crowd, but rather because accurare, factual and purely analytical remarks from several observers are considered too shocking to be allowed to be posted here by ardent Boeing supporters, despite the fact that even Boeing (internally) came to the same conclusion as we did here....


25 bikerthai : We need someone who is familiar with Quality Assurance to explain what is industry standard for flowing QA down to suppliers. From my limited experien
26 ManuCH : That's the key: if someone feels offended and thinks that an accurate remark is too anti-Boeing, he should use the Suggest Deletion button to bring i
27 Post contains links pnwtraveler : That is not true. Boeing has clearly said how they discovered the issue, how many inspections are done and at what stage. Go to Flightblogger and see
28 slz396 : They did? All I see from Boeing is this: The defect was found in Everett during a routine inspection. which BTW doesn't match with what Alenia has sa
29 BMI727 : The industry maxim is "trust, but verify." Boeing trusted, the subcontractor screwed up, and now they've verified. There was a problem, and it was ca
30 slz396 : The problem is that we don't know just HOW Boeing detected the fault. If it was indeed during a random QA like Boeing wants to give the impression, a
31 Post contains images bikerthai : From my reading, the statement is saying that the PROBLEM occurred during the assembly. It did not say that the problem was found during the assembly
32 BMI727 : Where are you getting this? One article says "in Everett during a routine inspection" while the other said "passed undetected into final assembly", w
33 bikerthai : Typically for new design, inspections are done much more frequently - even every airplane and at frequent intervals. As fewer and few issues arise, t
34 pnwtraveler : Being disappointed by an answer is one thing. Reacting extremely and out of proportion is another. If this level of angst was exhibited everytime som
35 Stitch : I'd like to ask the experts around here how large, exactly, is "large"? I doubt these pieces were out of tolerance by meters... We appear to be workin
36 tdscanuck : People have been flying in it for six months, and continue to do so. That's *normal*. Anyone who things that nothing unexpected happens during a new
37 slz396 : Yes, you are right, the comment from Alenia in the Fi article linked to above is indeed as you read it, which is why I've corrected my post in the me
38 slz396 : it is Boeing's job to QA the partner's QA so to say and since they only just started producing the 787, it means doing QA of the parts produced by Al
39 MingToo : Indeed. As BP have discovered.
40 Antoniemey : Of course it's ultimately Boeing's responsibility. That doesn't, however, mean that this being found on frame #25 means that Boeing's efforts to ensu
41 Post contains images bikerthai : But Boeing still owns the design (an assumption on my part), thus is ultimately responsible. A little more involved but that's how ISO Qualification
42 rottenray : Yes, it is. "Shoddy" to most people means obviously flawed, or obviously work done in haste with no regard for quality. That "X" number of assemblies
43 PITingres : False, wrong, and misguided. Boeing may participate in setting up Alenia's QA program. They may set standards, validate the subcontractor's QA progra
44 TSS : As I understand it, the problem was improperly installed shims and over-torqued fasteners. My guess is that there was no visible clue that there was
45 Post contains images astuteman : You not been on one of the Nuclear Submarines then? Seriously, I know what you mean. That complexity (whoever the airframer is) is why I come here, d
46 pnwtraveler : Are you about to fly on this airplane tomorrow? IIRC you vowed in the other post to never fly on the aircraft. Is a family member flying on this plan
47 Post contains images bikerthai : I thought the I-Phone was America's best product - albeit it is made in China. Even the I-Phone have initial glitches . . . But seriously, the impact
48 Post contains images astuteman : Not something you can say for USS Virginia Rgds
49 kanban : The most frequent errors in manufacturing involve process specifications... failing to read them (mechanics), failure to note them on manufacturing p
50 joecanuck : Please try to make civil responses and refrain from personal attacks. I have ignored nothing. Is the 787 in flight testing? Have any been delivered t
51 Post contains images soon7x7 : Funny you should mention that, I almost had the opportunity to enjoy one underway out of Groton years back. Many compaines here on Long Island still
52 bikerthai : It's all part of doing business. Why else would Airbus build A320 in china? But one try to keep the crown jewels within the family. Design/build pack
53 BMI727 : And McDonnell Douglas with the MD-90 before that. Outsourcing isn't going anywhere. There will be growing pains and lessons to learn, but it will wor
54 bikerthai : I can see why this would seem to contradict if you don't already know that final assembly for the 787 IS in Everett. So the two quotes above would no
55 glideslope : Excellent points. Seems clear to me that Boeing has what they need in place for QA. There are always issues with subcontractors. This is no different
56 tdscanuck : There are no guarantees. In fact, I can pretty much guarantee that 787's delivered to customers will fail to meet the high standards type certified b
57 kanban : first in approving Alenia for self inspection, the entire production process was reviewed, tested and sampled to ensure the QA standards were met. th
58 UALWN : However, the NTSB mandated changes to the wiring going through the central fuel tank, right? Anyway, it's irrelevant to this discussion. That is corr
59 toproy : Boeing could have "discovered" the problem when checking the CVR and charred remains of an ill faithed 787. I understand the experts in the industry t
60 GSPSPOT : Although I have no "inside info", it seems that doing something in the manner of the 787, with suppliers (and proprietary information) all over the g
61 kanban : there are a lot of reasons this no longer works... starting with the plant size and finding all the qualified personnel... every time Boeing expands
62 tdscanuck : Let's suppose this actually is the problem...I'm not saying it is, but let's follow the line of reasoning. *How* would it be done? Forgetting the 787
63 ediCHC : How can you possibly reach that conclusion? When you consider the following statement... ...that suggests exactly the opposite, a failure of the cert
64 BMI727 : ...except that the article says that the mistake was found "during a routine inspection."
65 UALWN : A routine inspection that (given that Boeing decided to halt the flying of the test units and check all previous aircraft) had apparently not been pe
66 BMI727 : Again, you are inferring that this affects all or nearly all of the airframes when in fact we can safely assume only two were incorrectly installed.
67 joecanuck : I reached that conclusion quite easily, actually. I analysed the information and used logic to come to my conclusions. The problem was spotted and is
68 Post contains images PITingres : [incorrect and misleading statement snipped] One mustn't believe everything one reads on the Internet. One poster has a history of inflammatory, anti
69 kanban : there are at least five posts explaining the process from sources that spent years within the process.... the process worked... if anything Boeing is
70 BMI727 : I have a question for people who are familiar with the type of parts involved. How often do these parts get inspected? Had the issue not been caught i
71 kanban : from my knot hole the answer is yes... it might be caught when changing a unit with a spare that didn't fit or fair properly or for unrelated issues,
72 tdscanuck : At least twice during initial manufacture, again during assembly, any time that a mechanic is in the area for other maintenance, and during heavy mai
73 Post contains links slz396 : Well, some more news is coming out on just how widespread the 'isolated workmanship issue from Alenia' is. Despite Boeing initially trying very hard
74 BMI727 : Where did they ever say that? They found one issue and checked the rest. I don't ever recall them saying that it was ever just an isolated issue, jus
75 UALWN : All 24 planes are being checked now. Therefore, one would have to assume that they were not routinely checked before! Maybe most of them will pass th
76 UALWN : Again: if this was a routine test performed in all units at the final assembly line, why is Boeing rechecking all 24 aircraft? And why has the same p
77 slz396 : Oh I see, well, why even bother fixing it then, right? I mean, it clearly flew without accident, so let's just change the technical requirements to f
78 BMI727 : ...or Boeing could be double checking them all in an effort to cover all the bases in light of this new issue. Or the "routine check" could have been
79 Post contains links slz396 : In the eyes of some, the 787 program with its many technical issues and the refusal to take responsability for it, can't but make you think back nost
80 BMI727 : What new aircraft program hasn't had technical issues? If there were no technical issues it probably means that either a) there are technical issues
81 joecanuck : Can you dig up a quote where Boeing said anything remotely similar to this? Please note how the structurally faulty parts were still strong enough to
82 slz396 : You do not want me to start quoting from the many Boeing press releases and interviews with Boeing executives on the past structural issues the 787 h
83 UALWN : Yes, maybe they are double-checking. Or maybe those were just random checks, and therefore all of them need to be checked now. But the last point you
84 BMI727 : To double check. As I already said: Besides, is it really that outlandish to think that Boeing just might be capable of doing something correctly?
85 UALWN : Of course not! But this is not the point. You keep saying that maybe all those 24 were checked and found to be OK. Then, why would they be rechecked?
86 BMI727 : Why can't a routine check be randomly performed on only some examples? I still fail to see the cause of this dissatisfaction with how Boeing is handl
87 slz396 : Indeed it isn't. The point is that Boeing clearly has a too relaxed approach to Quality Assurance processes, either by: -) having way too much faith
88 BMI727 : If you aren't going to put faith in your subcontractors, then what is the point of having subcontractors? Because they will be certified before they
89 UALWN : It can, but then maybe "routine check" is a misnomer. In any case, it would not be a "systematic check". Again, I'm not saying it is bad that Boeing
90 slz396 : The thing is Boeing has clearly taken outsourcing more than just one step too far by making their subcontractors complete risk sharing partners. It's
91 BMI727 : Hence the "routine inspections." Because there are no competent engineers who don't wear a Boeing badge? Really? Is that what you really think? So Al
92 slz396 : Clearly, routine inspections aren't enough, otherwise this discussion wouldn't take place.... Clearly, not enough, otherwise those faulty pieces woul
93 BMI727 : Many of those were design issues, not mistakes in production. What evidence is there to say that the EASA would not voice those concerns if they have
94 tdscanuck : What do you mean "even more quality issues"...they inspected for the issue we're talking about, found it, and are fixing it. It's the *same* issue. T
95 Post contains images bikerthai : Actually, Boeing's mistake was not that they took outsourcing too far. Their mistake might be they outsource to the wrong outfit. Would you agree tha
96 Post contains images bikerthai : At this point, maybe it's not wise to let everyone know that with some parts/processes (mostly the automated kind), the machinists and the machine per
97 UALWN : You are absolutely right. And I actually said the same in a post in between the ones you quoted and your reply:
98 mham001 : I didn't see you raising this kind of hysteria when every A380 was getting a custom wiring harness. Clearly, your experience in the manufacturing and
99 kanban : I'll probably get bleeped for this, However there seems to be a thread current of ignoring facts and continuing with fanciful assumptions and asserti
100 joecanuck : Actually, that quote supports my position. Boeing finds a problem. Boeing fixes problem. Boeing makes sure problem won't occur again. It reminds me o
101 UALWN : I think your interpretation is very plausible. It was most likely a "routine inspection" in the sense quoted above.
102 kanban : Part of the internal Boeing manufacturing operation is "self inspection" and this extends to when you see something that is not right or looks odd, r
103 Post contains images bikerthai : I second that . . . because I've experienced this type of "unrelated findings" from "routine inspection" before. (professionally wise of course) bike
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...
LAX Observation Deck Re-opens To Public posted Thu Jul 1 2010 22:45:39 by LAXintl
Dubai's DAE To Re-negociate Contracts posted Mon Jun 28 2010 09:41:30 by Breiz
RE: 3rd FA Jumpseat On Mesaba CRJ900 posted Wed Apr 21 2010 01:59:59 by CRJ900
Iberia Looks At Re-opening BCN Long-haul posted Wed Apr 7 2010 14:49:18 by mah4546
Question RE: AA LGA-YYZ posted Sat Apr 3 2010 19:02:41 by COEWRNJ
BHX's Petition To Re-establish India Route... posted Sat Mar 27 2010 05:35:54 by T8KE0FF
Easyjet: Re-engining A320/737 Not Good Enough. posted Mon Mar 22 2010 04:49:26 by keesje
Why Use The Term Re-engine On New Airframes? posted Mon Mar 22 2010 00:47:13 by oykie
SAS Eyes Re-engined A320/737 As MD-80 Replacement posted Fri Mar 19 2010 05:13:04 by oykie
A Contrarian View On Re-engining Narrow Bodies posted Tue Mar 16 2010 16:03:09 by olympic472