Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Newsweek Daily Beast Article - Is The Boeing 737 Unsafe?  
User currently offlineg38 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 229 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 25337 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Someone sent me this article on 737 being prone to problems. I responded by listing for them the number of aircraft that have been built and the number of hours flown compared to the number of accidents. The aircraft's record speaks for its self, that it is infact, one of the safest airliners ever built.

Still I though I would share this article and see what you all though. Personally I find myself rather annoyed by it.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...eet_morning&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet

85 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30633 posts, RR: 84
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 25305 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

My personal view is that if it was unsafe, regulators around the world wouldn't certify it for passenger operation.

User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 2997 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 25173 times:

You guys tell us.


How many 737NGs are flying?

How many have crashed due to a fault of the airplane (e.g. not a runway overrun because the pilot flared too long, or a crash due to spacial disorientation or lack of situational awareness)?


That should answer your own question.

Sensationalism, Sensationalism.........


User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1832 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 25026 times:

Clive Irving has a long habit of jumping on technical bits he doesn't understand or really want to understand if it would get in the way of him getting another sensationalistic headline. His stories aren't research. They're pick and choose former employees of this and that company or organization who will support his expert wannabe opinions.


Andy Goetsch
User currently onlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5331 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 24898 times:

The article contains a wide variety of errors, oversimplifications, and misstatements, while brushing off the fact that the 737's actual in-service safety record is quite good, particularly if you take dodgy operators out of the mix.

User currently offlineAWACSooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1883 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 24833 times:

Sure Boeing's are unsafe...and Airbus's tails snap off.

User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21476 posts, RR: 60
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 24822 times:

The 737 is one of the 5 least safe passenger aircraft families that Boeing currently produces!!  


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21476 posts, RR: 60
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 24787 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 4):
The article contains a wide variety of errors, oversimplifications, and misstatements, while brushing off the fact that the 737's actual in-service safety record is quite good, particularly if you take dodgy operators out of the mix.

That's an important point. Once an aircraft reaches 25 years old and goes through multiple owners to end up with a third tier carrier outside the developed world, you really can't fairly assess safety anymore, as there are too many other factors involved: does that airline have properly trained mechanics? pilots? proper inspections? use genuine replacement parts? etc...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 2997 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 24579 times:

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 5):
Sure Boeing's are unsafe...and Airbus's tails snap off.

My boss put it very succinctly. Nobody builds unsafe airplanes, not Boeing, not its competitors. Sometimes good airplanes have a bad day, but no current airplanes are unsafe.


User currently onlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2769 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 24406 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

What a joke of an article. If planes were dropping out of the sky like fly's i may give him credit. But this is just someone looking for a story where there is none. He listed what 5 events? There are 10,000 of em made. That though a little higher than Boeing would like is far from unsafe.
Blue



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently offlinemax550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1148 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 24354 times:

I thought the part at the end really shows how badly the author wants to make the 737 sound unsafe. It's just a list of incidents with a total of 1 fatality that were entirely unrelated to the problems pointed out in the article. Surprised he didn't bother to include the TK 738 at AMS and the ET 738 in Lebanon, among others.

Quote:
Take comfort: survivability rates are very high even in violent crashes during landing (as long as there’s no fire). But the newest models of the 737 Next Generation series have suffered shattered fuselages, which makes passenger evacuation difficult – for example, emergency slides are often unusable.

December 2009, Kingston, Jamaica: An American Airlines 737-800 splits open after running off the runway during a rainstorm. All 154 passengers survive, some with injuries.

August 2010, San Andrés Island, Colombia: An Aires Airlines 737-700 rips apart after landing in an electrical storm. One passenger dies, 30 injured.

July 2011, Georgetown, Guyana: A Caribbean Airlines 737-800 ruptures after running off the runway in a rainstorm; 163 passengers survive, some injured.


User currently offlineSuperCaravelle From Netherlands, joined Jan 2012, 233 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 23917 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
My personal view is that if it was unsafe, regulators around the world wouldn't certify it for passenger operation.

Not necessarily true in my opinion (should stress it's not my intention to divert the thread into a which aircraft is safe and which isn't debate) but yes for the case of the 737. The fact that a staggering number of 737's from three generations are flying around everyday with a minimum of incidents and accidents speaks for itself. This writer is just seeking for an article.

Quoting max550 (Reply 10):
July 2011, Georgetown, Guyana: A Caribbean Airlines 737-800 ruptures after running off the runway in a rainstorm; 163 passengers survive, some injured.

The way this is formulated tells you everything. One would expect a certain number of dead people after the statement "163 survive", otherwise he would've surely wrote "all survive"? Oh wait, they did all survive. The writer is intentionally ambiguous and shows his article has nothing to do with journalism (presenting facts, with probably an opinion afterwards, clearly separating facts an opinion), but everything to do with sensationalism (appeal to the audience first and foremost, in any way possible. Facts are not important).

Nothing to see here, move on.

[Edited 2012-03-19 11:34:40]

User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9511 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 23522 times:

He measures safety on very few parameters that have any meaning.

First he says that because the 737 has ADs, then it is not safe. All commercial airplanes have Airworthiness Directives. More common airplanes have more ADs because as the statistics play out, less common failures will happen and ADs will come from them as more Service Bulletins are created.

The article analyzes skin thickness and claims that Boeing used a thinner skin to save weight. On the 737NG, the skin is actually stronger than on the A320 which was a required enhancement when it was certified up to 41,000ft.

The article ignores structural problems and rapid decompressions on airplanes other than 737s.

The article comments on the 737 having the market to itself prior to the A320. That is completely wrong. Early on the DC9 was more popular than the 737 and the DC9/MD80 family was always what the 737 was intended to compete against until the 737NG.

There are many more problems with the article. I usually try to read into articles to see if there is any truth behind it, but on this article, despite trying to appear as a technical well researched document falls pretty flat on useful information. The only practical information is that airplane structure is complex and that at times it fails.

In general this article is all about being sensational. The FAA is by far and away more strict now than it ever has been before. Nothing that is certified today is unsafe. I think it is very unfortunate that a magazine like Newsweek actually published this.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 695 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 23255 times:

Newsweek's just a tabloid now. You can probably turn the page from this article and read about Snooki and the Hunger Games delightful teen actors. If you want a weekly newsmagazine that's not a tabloid, BusinessWeek (despite the coupling plane cover) and the Economist would seem to be better options.

[Edited 2012-03-19 11:51:19]

User currently offlineMountainFlyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 474 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 23019 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 12):
I think it is very unfortunate that a magazine like Newsweek actually published this.

  

Unfortunate, but not surprising.

I think someone should do a study on the public's fixation on the perceived dangers of flying. Why is it every time two planes clip wings at an airport, you hear about it on the national news? More people die on bicycles than airplanes, yet when was the last time you read an article about that? Perhaps it's because of the general mystery of flying, and one of the areas where you put your entire trust in the manufacturers, mechanics, pilots, etc., and have almost no control yourself of the situation. I don't know, but it is such an irrational fear. Most fears are irrational. Did you know that more people are killed by cows than sharks?



SA-227; B1900; Q200; Q400; CRJ-2,7,9; 717; 727-2; 737-3,4,5,7,8,9; 747-2; 757-2,3; 767-3,4; MD-90; A319, 320; DC-9; DC-1
User currently offlineSASMD82 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 726 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 22845 times:

With so many 737s flying around safely and with many more on order, I bet there is no real problem......

User currently offlineContnlEliteCMH From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1455 posts, RR: 44
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 22470 times:

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 13):
Newsweek's just a tabloid now.

And how! I generally disapprove of refusal to evaluate an article on its merits because of its author or its publisher, but as soon as I clicked on the link and saw Newsweek I immediately said "Oh. Newsweek." About 20 years ago I subscribed to this magazine for about a year, and read it thoroughly while riding the bus to/from my engineering college co-op job. Even then I thought it was tabloid-ish, but it had some decent articles and I liked the commentaries even though I agreed with virtually none of them.

Now... ugh. It's become the Discovery networks of magazines: no content pertaining to the name of the channel you're watching. Maybe the Discovery network and Newsweek can collaborate on a reality show entitled "Useless Media Producers."

This paragraph from the article is noteworthy:

There are two important safeguards that stand between safety and disaster: technology on the one hand and airline safety checks on the other. And the problem is that as the technology of fuselage design has evolved over several decades, the 737’s has not. As a result, the final responsibility for our safety has moved from Boeing to the maintenance and safety checks carried out by the airlines and supervised by the FAA. So far this final safety net has mostly worked—the flaws have been caught before they caused a fatal crash. But that’s no cause for complacency: an aging design with chronic problems remains our most frequently flown plane today.

The author implies that the final responsibility for our safety SHOULD be with Boeing, but it has been displaced to airlines who operate each airframe. This implication is simply incorrect and no amount of pie-in-the-sky fantasy about engineering can obviate the need for periodic inspections. Safe operation of a commercial airliner has *always* been shared by the OEM and the operator and both parties understand this relationship.

He is correct that the aging design has chronic problems that must be addressed. That's why there are AD's, which allow other operators to learn from the inspections of others and to take action to *avoid* problems, not remedy them. AD's are not evidence that the 737 is unsafe; rather, they show that the author's belief in OEM-as-ultimate-safety-guarantor is completely out of step with how the industry actually operates, and that the airplane can continue to be operated safely so long as the knowledge contained in AD's is acted upon properly.

The 737 is no Comet. THAT airplane had a fatal design flaw.

[Edited 2012-03-19 12:29:00]


Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2057 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 21688 times:

Al Jazeera did a similar story:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaWdEtANi-0

Obviously the 737 isn't unsafe, as is demonstrated thousands of times every day. Still, I wouldn't completely dismiss any concern. The pressure to safe costs which management exerts on engineering these days is staggering. At some point, this could become a potential threat to safety, and in this case it's best to find out about it early.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 2997 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 21413 times:

Better call Newsweek to get on another story. The 767 is unsafe too:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/...to-land-at-SFO/UPI-83401332175298/

Oh my gosh, the sky is falling.


User currently offlinejetpilot From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3130 posts, RR: 29
Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 20729 times:

If we knew everything about aircraft structures and could foresee how they would react in the real world then we wouldn't need inspections. But since we can't predict the future we have mandatory inspections to catch things such as corrosion and skin cracks.

It's interesting that the author states the fuselage was taken from the 727 but the 727 didn't share the same issue as the 737.


User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 2997 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 20518 times:

Quoting max550 (Reply 10):
Quote:
Take comfort: survivability rates are very high even in violent crashes during landing (as long as there’s no fire). But the newest models of the 737 Next Generation series have suffered shattered fuselages, which makes passenger evacuation difficult – for example, emergency slides are often unusable.

December 2009, Kingston, Jamaica: An American Airlines 737-800 splits open after running off the runway during a rainstorm. All 154 passengers survive, some with injuries.

August 2010, San Andrés Island, Colombia: An Aires Airlines 737-700 rips apart after landing in an electrical storm. One passenger dies, 30 injured.

July 2011, Georgetown, Guyana: A Caribbean Airlines 737-800 ruptures after running off the runway in a rainstorm; 163 passengers survive, some injured.

Shattered fuselages? What does he expect? The AA 737 ran off the end of the runway at relatively high speed. It didn't shatter. It broke and the 737 fuselage was so robust that everyone survived that tremendous force on the airplane.

That can happen when airplanes go to places they aren't designed to go at higher speeds. And as he points out, in these three spectacular events - none of which were the fault of the airplane design - the 737's structure protected the passenger such that only one was last out of over 400. A lesser built airplane would not have protected the passengers so well.

You run off the end of the runway, hop over a ditch and end up on the beach just short of concrete blocks. Everyone walks away with bruises. What kind of idiot would have the audacity to suggest the airplane is unsafe?


User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1832 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 19899 times:

Newsweek picked the story up, but Conde Nast (Esperanto for "overrated fluff") is the source.


Andy Goetsch
User currently offlinemax550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1148 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 19219 times:

Quoting jetpilot (Reply 19):
If we knew everything about aircraft structures and could foresee how they would react in the real world then we wouldn't need inspections. But since we can't predict the future we have mandatory inspections to catch things such as corrosion and skin cracks.

Exactly, and I believe WN was fined $7.5m or so for not performing required fuselage inspections which the author never mentions.

Quoting jetpilot (Reply 19):
It's interesting that the author states the fuselage was taken from the 727 but the 727 didn't share the same issue as the 737.

The last 2 paragraphs on page 3 say that the fuselage skin was thinned from the 727 because the engines were barely powerful enough. He also implies that aircraft fly more cycles now than they used to. I have no idea if either of those is true but that seems to be his reasoning for focusing on the 737 v. 727. True or not it fits with the rest of the article, a bunch of claims with very little evidence to back them up.

Then there are the two paragraphs about the aft pressure bulkhead. He's concluded it's a chronic problem based on one (or five, he's not clear) AD from 2001.

If I didn't know any better when I read the article I would have come to the conclusion that the 737 is extremely unsafe but incredibly lucky. The chronic skin problems and the aft pressure bulkhead problems have combined to cause a total of 3 incidents with one fatality over 31 years. It's a pretty flimsy case to base an article about how problematic an airframe is.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9511 posts, RR: 52
Reply 23, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 18798 times:

Quoting max550 (Reply 22):

The last 2 paragraphs on page 3 say that the fuselage skin was thinned from the 727 because the engines were barely powerful enough. He also implies that aircraft fly more cycles now than they used to. I have no idea if either of those is true but that seems to be his reasoning for focusing on the 737 v. 727. True or not it fits with the rest of the article, a bunch of claims with very little evidence to back them up.

If he is talking about skin thickness, then yes the original 737 had less skin thickness than the 727. The reason was that the 727 was certified to 42,000ft. The 737 was only certified to 37,000ft since it was intended for short haul operations with the average stage length of about 1 hour. Max certified altitude determines skin thickness as it is responsible for the pressure differential and fatigue loading. Boeing changed this with the 737NG as average stage length increased to about 2 hours and the additional altitude was useful for optimization of range/payload and flexible route planning.

It wasn't because of engines being barely powerful enough, but rather lower operating and max certified altitude.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19419 posts, RR: 58
Reply 24, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 18662 times:

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 18):

Oh my gosh, the sky is falling.

No no. It's just raining airliners.  


25 Post contains links UTAH744 : See the posting I made last year. UTAH744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 160 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted Wed Jan 26 2011 17:20:10 yo
26 max550 : That sounds much more plausible. Naturally no mention of that in the article. Here's the exact quote from the article: One of the most respected auth
27 dave2 : The 737 is a safe plane. I have flown in them many times. The only problem I remember had to do with the servo drive was suspect in a few crashes. Boe
28 Post contains images bikerthai : Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good. Haven't seen .036 skin on an airplane. Have seen .040 skin on an airplane though. All in context of cour
29 flashmeister : The choice of images should tell you everything you need to know about this "piece of journalism". If they were serious about approaching this topic o
30 Cubsrule : And, if a 25 year old aircraft is well-maintained by a reputable operator or operators for that time period, it can be as reliable as or more reliabl
31 BCEaglesCO757 : Wow. This article was obviously done with no research or knowledge regarding aviation and aeronautics. Though a very reliable car.......I bet the auth
32 penguins : It seems like someone needs a story. I guess sales are down.
33 solarflyer22 : I don't think if you look at the fatigue failures per cycle (on ave) vs. other airframes it would be any higher. I guess the only question in my mind
34 context : I suppose someone was looking to tease out the exact point at which reporting ended and libel began...
35 Post contains images Tigerguy : Well, I flew on a 737 on Saturday. Either I'm posting from the dead, or there's some other explanation...
36 BlueSky1976 : I don't know why people would even bother reading this crap... Clearly, someone at Newsweek needed a "filler" article due to lack of other "news" to r
37 ghifty : This is awful. As a noobie aviation enthusiast, someone who understand basic statistics (normality of samples, etc.), and as an editor-in-chief of a s
38 vegas005 : I have flown the 737 numerous times and I too believe it is a safe plane. My only issue is it seems to ride "rough"; my most turbulent flights have al
39 CM : Riding "rough" is predominantly a byproduct of low wing loading. To a much lesser degree, wing stiffness plays a role as well. The 737NG has lower wi
40 Post contains links Daysleeper : Wondered how long it would be before an American media outlet had the guts to say this as questions have been asked about the 737’s safety outside o
41 faro : In all good faith, someone should indicate to Mr Irving the presence of the this thread; never too late to learn from one's mistakes... Faro
42 Burkhard : An aircraft is as safe as the schedule for inspections requires the necessary steps and these instructions are followed. From this event we have learn
43 soon7x7 : WN is a type specific airline. It only flies 737's and none exercises them more than WN. Southwest also happens to be one of the safest and most succe
44 dc9northwest : "The 737 is VERY unsafe. That's why Russia, Brazil, Australia, Mexico, China, Japan, the EU and the US banned it. In fact, the 737 is to blame for Hur
45 AA777 : Isn't it THE best selling jet ever? The other thing is check out its perfomance in heavy cross winds vs. the 320's.... I'm not a fan of all that oscil
46 max550 : Or the AQ 732's. Why weren't they falling out of the sky for the 20 years AQ continued operating them? There are questions and it's good to keep look
47 Daysleeper : I’m not sure what incidents your referring too, but the preliminary findings for Flight 812 indicate faulty manufacturing.
48 bikerthai : Max550's point exactly. The fault was in the manufacturing, not a design flaw. If you want assign blame to that incident, blame that on the inspectio
49 max550 : Which would be discovered through more frequent and more rigorous inspections. Just like the cracks on the A380 have been found and are being dealt w
50 Daysleeper : Indeed, the problem highlighted in the video I linked too is that the design of the NG is dependant on parts being manufactured by CNC allowing for m
51 tdscanuck : It is extremely unlikely that a line inspector has enough stress and engineering knowledge to determine if the issue is dangerous. All they can tell
52 Daysleeper : Line inspectors / QA staff did indeed point out that parts which were out of specification and had false records were being used in production. It wa
53 max550 : Valid points and an article exposing that would be totally valid. The article we're discussing is, for the most part, about something entirely differ
54 Daysleeper : The video highlights problems with the manufacture of 737 fuselage components from 1996 to 2004. And although the frame involved in the incident at Y
55 Roseflyer : As Tom mentioned there is a much more in depth process for dealing with such problems. Also, I think it would not be the audit team who would decide
56 Roseflyer : How do you know that re-drilling holes and having to rework parts is unsafe?
57 max550 : We're talking about 2 different things here. Sorry for the misunderstanding. The video you linked makes valid points and appears well researched. The
58 Daysleeper : I didn’t say it was, I just said that it’s a co-incidence that there is a 737 with a hole in its roof that also has rivet holes that didn’t pro
59 Roseflyer : I explained the process for how to deal with the problem of parts not matching the drawings. Whether it was a falsified document or a cutting tool ou
60 Eagleboy : Love it!
61 HiFlyerAS : As someone that flies on 737 Classic and NG aircraft on a regular basis I was somewhat concerned after reading the article. I could tell that it was n
62 Roseflyer : You said earlier: I never saw any indisputable evidence that there were dangerous or deadly parts being fitted on 737s. I saw evidence that parts not
63 Daysleeper : Perhaps what *SHOULD* have happened, but going on the evidence in this case it isn’t what actually happened.
64 Post contains images soon7x7 : Driving cars is considerably more risky than a flight on a 737, yet we all don't give it a second thought...much less a first...so whats all the hubbu
65 tdscanuck : There's no defense *for AHF Ducommon*...if Boeing looked at the parts and determined they met requirements (a very different thing than meets spec) t
66 Daysleeper : The design stipulated that the parts needed to be manufactured by CNC to ensure they met tolerance, and more importantly the standard to which they w
67 dynamicsguy : The story you linked to was already discussed to death at the time. The program made plenty of assertions which weren't supported by the evidence whi
68 Post contains images bikerthai : Designers rarely if ever specify that a part have to be CNC. We provide a required tolerance, and it's up to the supplier to decide what processes th
69 Daysleeper : Can you provide links to those threads? - Or proof that the assertations made by the Boeing staff featured in the video are false? Edit If thats was
70 tdscanuck : 1) The design didn't stipulate they had to be CNC (see other replies). 2) All OEM's have a production certificate that includes a non-conformance pro
71 Daysleeper : What I believe isn’t relevant, I’m simply going on the evidence provided by Boeings own staff and industry experts which participated in the repo
72 bikerthai : Now you are getting into the nitty gritty of business models. At the beginning of a program, there is not enough airplanes delivered to warrant spend
73 Roseflyer : Drawings specify inspection requirements based on what process is used. For example, for forgings inspect per document X, for castings inspect for do
74 Post contains links dynamicsguy : AlJazeera: 'investigation' On Boeing Due Wed The program's website had a copy of the draft audit report. The worst it said was that there was a "quali
75 tdscanuck : Because a build-to-print supplier has no idea what the requirements are. They only know what the drawing says. If they build parts that don't match t
76 Post contains links coolum : http://www.kansas.com/2010/10/16/154...g-seeks-info-in-whistleblower.html Some more background info regarding the boeing whistleblower video.
77 Daysleeper : This is incorrect. Under PMA federal regulation requires details on how a part is manufactured and stipulates that subsequent part be manufactured th
78 nomadd22 : Nonsense. Strength is obviously part of the specification. Micromaniging the manufacturing process would destroy any chances the vendor had to make i
79 tdscanuck : A supplier is prefectly free to change manufactuing methods at any time provided the end part meets the drawing requirements. Unless the drawing actu
80 bikerthai : Haven't read much in terms of regulations but I have read a few process specs. Typically regulations can be quite broad even when they seem very spec
81 Daysleeper : That’s great in theory. But the principal complaint in this report, and the very reason that Boeings own QA staff went to the FAA was because these
82 bikerthai : Bad example. If the bolt is incorrectly heat treated, then it would not meet all spec and requirements because for the most part the heat treat proce
83 Roseflyer : I am not incorrect and also have no idea why you are quoting PMA requirements because we are talking parts certified in the type design. PMA is for a
84 bikerthai : Just because you don't specify what type of machining process is used on our drawings, it doesn't mean that there are no processes out there that the
85 dynamicsguy : Why do you believe there was a failure in the internal QA procedures? The program presents evidence that parts were being rejected, which suggests th
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...
Boeing 737/757 On Medium-haul Routes..so What? posted Wed Jan 18 2012 10:01:51 by Sevensixtyseven
Transaero Imperial Boeing 737-500 Destinations posted Tue Dec 27 2011 02:20:58 by rafvc10
Boeing 737-300 Off Rwy, Gears Collapsed In Yogyakarta posted Tue Dec 20 2011 10:13:55 by Gonzalo
Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?) posted Sun Nov 27 2011 23:13:57 by kaitak744
Swapa Ratifies Boeing 737-800 TA posted Wed Dec 1 2010 11:52:24 by Vmcavmcg
Boeing 737-900ER Probably Not Up To Par After 2015 posted Mon Aug 23 2010 04:52:23 by keesje
Questions About Boeing 737 Sky Interior posted Fri Aug 13 2010 20:24:22 by Blueman87
Southwest Airlines Orders 25 Boeing 737 Jets posted Thu Jul 29 2010 17:02:39 by aeropiggot
SWA's Last Boeing 737-200: Is She Still At DAL? posted Tue Apr 27 2010 21:20:59 by MrSkyGuy
Boeing 737 Vs. 757 Emergency Exit Doors posted Mon Mar 22 2010 02:23:11 by zippyjet
Why Is The Boeing 747-8i Selling So Poorly? posted Fri Jun 18 2010 16:57:40 by keesje
Is The Boeing 727-22 A 727-200? posted Thu Jul 19 2007 00:04:18 by DeltaAVL
This Is The Boeing Week Thread! posted Sun Jul 1 2007 08:13:53 by RootsAir
Why Is The Boeing 720 Weaker And Lighter? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 16:57:56 by Duke
Is The Dash-8 An Unsafe Airplane? posted Fri Jun 9 2006 14:26:11 by CPHGuard
The Boeing 737-100 Thread posted Mon Apr 18 2005 15:50:50 by UK_Dispatcher
Who Is The Boeing 777-200LR Launch Customer? posted Wed Feb 16 2005 09:49:23 by Chris7217
How Legit Is The Boeing 7E7? posted Wed Jun 9 2004 00:55:32 by AVPOH77
The Boeing 737, And Flight Time posted Thu Sep 18 2003 04:57:37 by Cancidas
When Is The Boeing 7E7 Supposed To Be In Service? posted Thu Aug 21 2003 22:11:50 by Chicago757