Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Bad Parts Caused F-15’s Breakup In 2007  
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11929 posts, RR: 25
Posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 5289 times:

From Boeing defective part caused F-15’s breakup in 2007, Pentagon finds

Quote:

All 441 of the F-15 fighter interceptors were grounded after the jet breakup, and 182 were found to have major structural components that didn’t meet original manufacturing specifications, service officials told reporters in a January 2008 news conference.

Most of the F-15s grounded were cleared to return to flight by February 2008 after undergoing additional inspections as the investigation was begun.

“The cause of the accident was determined to be failure of the upper-right longeron,” according to the inspector general’s summary of the investigation.

The contract specification required the longeron to be 0.10 inches (0.25 centimeters) thick, according to the report.

“The investigation revealed that the Boeing-supplied longerons varied in thickness from 0.039 to 0.073,” the inspector general said.

Interesting to me how many people here were convinced the root cause had to be fatigue, but in fact it was that Boeing supplied nonconforming parts. Same people proceeded to say fatigue was the main reason we had to push forward with F-22 and F-35, etc.

Also interesting how Boeing is paying a mere $1M to the government even though the cost of the F15 plust the medical bills for the pilot far exceed $1M and how the issue was only disclosed via an inspector general's report to Congress.

Stinks to the high heavens, says I.


Inspiration, move me brightly!
11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 4992 times:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
Interesting to me how many people here were convinced the root cause had to be fatigue, but in fact it was that Boeing supplied nonconforming parts. Same people proceeded to say fatigue was the main reason we had to push forward with F-22 and F-35, etc.

Also interesting how Boeing is paying a mere $1M to the government even though the cost of the F15 plust the medical bills for the pilot far exceed $1M and how the issue was only disclosed via an inspector general's report to Congress.

Hey, don't jump to conclusions. Boeing did not "supply non-conforming parts". That MOANG F-15D that broke up was built by MD, not Boeing. Boeing found several things wrong with MD Military contracts after they aquired them in 1997. There were below spec parts found in the C-17, F/A-18A/B/C/D, and a few E/Fs, and of course the F-15A/B/C/D/E. The problem is Boeing did not find all of the substandard work and parts made by MD, and did not have time to correct them.

Yes, Boeing was finded, and paid the medical bills. That was because MD was now Boeing.

There was nothing hidden from anyone. All of this came out in the accident report, and the fine Boeing paid is public record.

Fatigue was an issue in the accident, but only because the parts were below specs to begin with and had been turning and burning for years to decades.


User currently offlinechecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 4914 times:

Why would this even be brought up now??? This is an old accident. You should have done some research. Boeing FOUND, after the accident and inspections started, fatigue issues in the aircraft...not just in the part you're talking about either.

*****Mod God...can you please lock this thread before we all have to start discussing an accident that occurred almost 6 years ago please!!!*****


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11929 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4705 times:

It's posted because it came up in the news feed of a reputable source, the Seattle Times.

Feel free to post your rebuttal/opinion, but IMHO no need to be so pissy about it.

I'm well aware that MD was the original producer of the aircraft, but indeed Boeing has rebranded it as a Boeing product. Feel free to go to boeing.com if you don't believe me.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3341 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4417 times:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
The contract specification required the longeron to be 0.10 inches (0.25 centimeters) thick, according to the report.

“The investigation revealed that the Boeing-supplied longerons varied in thickness from 0.039 to 0.073,” the inspector general said.

I just wonder how a component could be 27%-61% below specified thickness without the problem being noticed.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4299 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 3):
Feel free to post your rebuttal/opinion, but IMHO no need to be so pissy about it.

I'm well aware that MD was the original producer of the aircraft, but indeed Boeing has rebranded it as a Boeing product. Feel free to go to boeing.com if you don't believe me.

Yes, I know that. I was not getting puffy with you.

BTW, the accident airplane was an F-15C, not a F-15D like I wrote. Its tail number was 80-0034, making it a 27 year old airplane at the time of the inflight break-up and crash and some 17 years before Boeing aquired MD. This airplane was built by MD, and I am well awear Boeing has rebranded all MD products as Boeing products. Even the DC-8s and DC-9s are now called Boeings, as are the F-4.

BTW, the $1M fine is actually Boeing providing $1M worth of parts for the F-15 to the USAF, and that agreement was reached just recently. The accident happened on 2 Nov. 2007.


User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3433 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4285 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
BTW, the $1M fine is actually Boeing providing $1M worth of parts for the F-15 to the USAF, and that agreement was reached just recently. The accident happened on 2 Nov. 2007.

Make me wonder why they bothered. The IG probably spent more than that investigating... What did it cost USAF to requalify all those F-15 pilots after the grounding?

[Edited 2013-01-13 12:23:24]


Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1554 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4261 times:

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 6):
Make me wonder why they bothered. The IG probably spent more than that investigating... What did it cost USAF to requalify all those F-15 pilots after the grounding?

One word: safety. The safety of the pilots cannot be taken lightly. What if the investigation revealed that the entire Eagle fleet needed to be permanently grounded and prematurely retired due to structural issues? You have to find the root causes of an accident in order to determine a course of action.


User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3433 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4230 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 7):
One word: safety. The safety of the pilots cannot be taken lightly. What if the investigation revealed that the entire Eagle fleet needed to be permanently grounded and prematurely retired due to structural issues? You have to find the root causes of an accident in order to determine a course of action.

The safety investigation was over and done with in 2008. This article refers to the legal determination of fault. $1M is of essentially no consequence to Boeing particularly if they can barter parts for it... What's $1M in F-15 parts, a couple of h-stabs?



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3433 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4225 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

From the Executive Summary of the accident investigation, dated 8 Jan 2008:

Boeing Finite Element Model (FEM) analysis demonstrates failure of the longeron in the CFS 377 bulkhead leads to catastrophic failure of the remaining forward fuselage structure. Dimensional analysis of the MA longeron in the 377 CFS area indicated the crack initiated in a thin section of the web measuring 0.039 to 0.073 inches. The blueprint thickness requirement for the web is a minimum of 0.090 inches. The MA web thickness did not meet blueprint specifications

The safety investigation established early on what happened... the lawyers took 5 years to figure out whose fault it was...

[Edited 2013-01-13 14:10:05]


Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineNathanH From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 56 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3606 times:

Quoting art (Reply 4):

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
The contract specification required the longeron to be 0.10 inches (0.25 centimeters) thick, according to the report.

“The investigation revealed that the Boeing-supplied longerons varied in thickness from 0.039 to 0.073,” the inspector general said.

I just wonder how a component could be 27%-61% below specified thickness without the problem being noticed.

You are talking about thousandths of inches here that they use special tools to check tolerances on. It isn't necessarily obvious to the naked eye that a part is too thin.


User currently offlinewb556 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2011, 29 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3489 times:

Quoting checksixx (Reply 2):

I'm sorry but your post sounds rather pompous. No one is forcing you to even read this thread let alone engage in any form of active discussion. The wonderful thing about free will is that you can choose to ignore things that don't interest you. This forum is not here solely for your amusement and I actually found this interesting, I was unaware of this incident at the time that it occurred.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Boeing Bad Parts Caused F-15’s Breakup In 2007
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
TWA Boeing 707 In Viet Nam August 1967 posted Sun Dec 4 2011 21:52:56 by gegtim
Boeing Workers Arrested In Drug Ring At PA Plant posted Fri Sep 30 2011 08:59:24 by acidradio
Large Part Of Russian MiG-29s In Bad State posted Fri Feb 6 2009 05:08:40 by Levent
Role Of Military Planes Declines In Boeing's Defen posted Mon Apr 7 2008 05:59:11 by Stitch
Former Boeing Engineer Charged In Selling Shuttle Info To China.... posted Mon Feb 11 2008 11:06:36 by OA260
Another USAF/Boeing Contract In Trouble posted Fri Dec 28 2007 07:56:51 by TropicBird
Boeing Has Lock On $8b In Military Contracts posted Wed Aug 16 2006 23:26:11 by RAPCON
Royal Air Force Boeing E-3D In PIE What Reg Is It? posted Sat Apr 1 2006 15:59:04 by Pauara
Any Info? Boeing Globemaster In Hong Kong posted Fri Mar 25 2005 13:07:28 by CAptaintim
Boeing Says In Talks With UAE On 767 Tankers Sale posted Tue Feb 15 2005 10:01:00 by Keesje

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format