Another story has come out in the UK press today referring to potential faulty oxygen systems on the 787.

The article also goes onto reference using 'lost' or 'old' parts in production.

Interesting read.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50293927

it is absolutely mind-boggling, how much more dirt is gonna come up?

From the bbc article:

In 2016, he tells the BBC, he uncovered problems with emergency oxygen systems. These are supposed to keep passengers and crew alive if the cabin pressurisation fails for any reason at altitude. Breathing masks are meant to drop down from the ceiling, which then supply oxygen from a gas cylinder.

Mr Barnett says that when he was decommissioning systems which had suffered minor cosmetic damage, he found that some of the oxygen bottles were not discharging when they were meant to. He subsequently arranged for a controlled test to be carried out by Boeing's own research and development unit. This test, which used oxygen systems that were "straight out of stock" and undamaged, was designed to mimic the way in which they would be deployed aboard an aircraft, using exactly the same electric current as a trigger. He says 300 systems were tested - and 75 of them did not deploy properly, a failure rate of 25%.

Mr Barnett says his attempts to have the matter looked at further were stonewalled by Boeing managers.

He claims that under-pressure workers even fitted sub-standard parts from scrap bins to aircraft on the production line, in at least one case with the knowledge of a senior manager. He says this was done to save time, because "Boeing South Carolina is strictly driven by schedule and cost".

Of course the whistle blower will be slammed and discredited by some on here but I sense there is no smoke without fire

This all adds up to a company that is not the great company it once was

Interested wrote:

Of course the whistle blower will be slammed and discredited by some on here but I sense there is no smoke without fire

This all adds up to a company that is not the great company it once was

Wrong choice of words there me thinks when talking about a faulty oxygen system on a plane you would hope for no smoke or fire.

Lentini2001 wrote:

Interested wrote:

Of course the whistle blower will be slammed and discredited by some on here but I sense there is no smoke without fire

This all adds up to a company that is not the great company it once was

Wrong choice of words there me thinks when talking about a faulty oxygen system on a plane you would hope for no smoke or fire.

I did wonder as I wrote it

Won't ever happen though - fingers crossed!!

And even it does any deaths that occur will just be caused by a string of unfortunate errors all lining up together anyway. Will be plentyof stuff to divert away from this issue

What (can) do the regulators do?

Could they select an aircraft at random that is going down for checks - then pull it and do a test on all O2 masks?

Is that perhaps something that they should be doing on all aircraft* when they are going down for scheduled checks anyway? Failure of O2 masks is by definition a dormant problem.


*from any and all OEMs.


[Its quite obvious at this point that Boeing's word isn't worth s__t. I'd extend that to any large multinational - I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them, so the FAA not investigating because "The FAA, however, said it could not substantiate that claim, because Boeing had indicated it was working on the issue at the time." is a(nother) complete dereliction of duty. My mistrust would extend to Airbus and engine OEMs. The regulators are not there to take them on their word - verify everything.]

Ha. Same old story about whistleblowers. Large corporations generally write very in-depth [protective] guidance policies on whistleblowing -and somewhat encourage whistleblowers to come forward- only to slam them, shut them up, and discredit them once they open their mouths and Pandora's boxes get opened. So sad, but so common!

But please folks, don't think it's only happening to Boeing. It happens all over the world, in any field, and in any large organization or corporation. Once someone decides to walk the treacherous path of whistleblowing they have to realize they are opening the proverbial can of worms, and sadly they never know where this is going to lead them. History unfortunately teaches us that most large companies and corporations do not welcome openness and generally will crush [legally certainly, but not only...] anyone who dares to go against them.

If the system is tested at delivery and there is a failure would not the issue be addressed?
Not to be dismissive as I am saddened by how an iconic company who's reputation as such was built over decades has been sullied so quickly, but "whistleblowers" are in the news here in the states and with good reason. Perhaps a little grandstanding?

25% is pretty lousy for new units, however, even if a faulty unit is installed during initial cabin fitting, the system is drop-tested more than once before final delivery and acceptance of the aircraft, then is periodically tested once in service as part of the airline's approved maintenance program. It's not like receiving inspection is the final hurdle for this unit, emergency equipment is a big deal and has testing programs in place accordingly. I don't see this being an operational concern.

Boeing and the airlines just need to clearly communicate with the OEM of the O2 Container Assemblies about the bad-from-stock issues for review and rectification (most likely an improved solenoid or release mechanism).

Boeing needs to get their act together. Even though such problems have already been discussed in the 787 production issues thread, this, on the other hand, is a life-endangering practice that really is disturbing.

William Boeing must be spinning in his grave as to all the controversies going on @ Boeing.

Boeing is really in a mess.

Does the 787 not use the standard oxygen generator design that is in use by every other airliner? I've never come across one of those that doesn't work and it is a pretty simple design so wondering why Boeing would reinvent the wheel with the 787.

dopplerd wrote:

Does the 787 not use the standard oxygen generator design that is in use by every other airliner? I've never come across one of those that doesn't work and it is a pretty simple design so wondering why Boeing would reinvent the wheel with the 787.

No. The 787 versions are very specific and special. They were chosen just for the 787 to increase costs to the program. No other unit, new or otherwise in the entire industry, has ever had any failures.


787 selection was big news nearly 15 years ago...

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/ ... tem-Outfit

A350 selection in 2008...

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/ ... rew-Oxygen


But everyone can have one now....

https://www.rockwellcollins.com/Product ... ystem.aspx

dopplerd wrote:

Does the 787 not use the standard oxygen generator design that is in use by every other airliner? I've never come across one of those that doesn't work and it is a pretty simple design so wondering why Boeing would reinvent the wheel with the 787.

Most airliners generate cabin air via compressed bleed air and an ACM (Air Cycle Machine), which uses more bleed air to cool the other bleed air!

The 787 is bleedless, so the compressed air used for the cabin is from electric compressors and the ACM is also run off electrically compressed air.


Now I don't believe that is quite the problem here - as its more to do with distribution of air to passengers via overhead bottles. [Or I'm misinterpreting what you mean by "oxygen generator"!]

Oxygen bottles? Don't aircraft usually use oxygen generators using a chemical reaction to generate oxygen for the passengers with a oxygen storage for the pilots and one or two bottles in the cabin accessible by the flight crew?

Not a major issue IMO, easily solved, if required.
Somebody brought it up: good,
QA does an audit & set deadline for corrective action: good.
Boeing corrects: good.
Business as usual, it seems.

mrbots wrote:

Oxygen bottles? Don't aircraft usually use oxygen generators using a chemical reaction to generate oxygen for the passengers with a oxygen storage for the pilots and one or two bottles in the cabin accessible by the flight crew?

On the 787 the cabin and crew O2 system is gaseous. There are bottles in each passenger service unit (PSU), flight attendant station, lavs and crew rest. There are several size bottles available based on operator requirements.

BravoOne wrote:

mrbots wrote:

Oxygen bottles? Don't aircraft usually use oxygen generators using a chemical reaction to generate oxygen for the passengers with a oxygen storage for the pilots and one or two bottles in the cabin accessible by the flight crew?

On the 787 the cabin and crew O2 system is gaseous. There are bottles in each passenger service unit (PSU), flight attendant station, lavs and crew rest. There are several size bottles available based on operator requirements.

Very interesting, thanks for the info.

I always thought they used the generators because tanks were too heavy and because oxygen is rather explosive.

It constantly sickens me how these whistleblowers are constantly dismissed, attacked and maligned.

hsuthe19 wrote:

William Boeing must be spinning in his grave as to all the controversies going on @ Boeing.

Boeing is really in a mess.

It's blatantly clear that Boeing took every shortcut they possibly could with the 737Max development and it seems to be a similar situation with Quality Control at the Charleston assembly line.

I feel very sorry for all the retired Boeing employees and engineers who designed and assembled amazing products and who are now seeing the reputation for excellence which they built up over many years being flushed down the toilet. That must be so incredibly depressing for them to see.

zkojq wrote:

It constantly sickens me how these whistleblowers are constantly dismissed, attacked and maligned.

hsuthe19 wrote:

William Boeing must be spinning in his grave as to all the controversies going on @ Boeing.

Boeing is really in a mess.

It's blatantly clear that Boeing took every shortcut they possibly could with the 737Max development and it seems to be a similar situation with Quality Control at the Charleston assembly line.

I feel very sorry for all the retired Boeing employees and engineers who designed and assembled amazing products and who are now seeing the reputation for excellence which they built up over many years being flushed down the toilet. That must be so incredibly depressing for them to see.

Interesting as I know of several retired Boeing Inspectors that have asked to take temporary postions out at Mose Lake and participate in the return to service program for the MAX. T&C are extremely favorable!

Chemical O2 generators are not used because the heat could damage the composite structure

Amiga500 wrote:

dopplerd wrote:

Does the 787 not use the standard oxygen generator design that is in use by every other airliner? I've never come across one of those that doesn't work and it is a pretty simple design so wondering why Boeing would reinvent the wheel with the 787.

Most airliners generate cabin air via compressed bleed air and an ACM (Air Cycle Machine), which uses more bleed air to cool the other bleed air!

The 787 is bleedless, so the compressed air used for the cabin is from electric compressors and the ACM is also run off electrically compressed air.


Now I don't believe that is quite the problem here - as its more to do with distribution of air to passengers via overhead bottles. [Or I'm misinterpreting what you mean by "oxygen generator"!]

This has nothing to due with bleed air or the 787 electric compressors. The Oxygen generator I'm referring to is a canister in most airliners' overhead emergency cabin oxygen systems. These canisters contain two chemicals that when combined produce oxygen as a chemical reaction byproduct, hence "oxygen generator." They are self contained and very reliable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_oxygen_generator

As others have mentioned the 787 uses a compressed oxygen cylinder to provide the oxygen to the passengers and this is the system unique to the 787 and is the alleged unreliable system.

mrbots wrote:

Oxygen bottles? Don't aircraft usually use oxygen generators using a chemical reaction to generate oxygen for the passengers with a oxygen storage for the pilots and one or two bottles in the cabin accessible by the flight crew?

Chemical oxygen generators are the normal fit on most airliners. But these units have a short generation time and are designed to provide oxygen while the aircraft descends to 10000ft.
But some long haul aircraft fly over places where this is not possible, like the Himalayas and Greenland. Then you either have a gaseous system. or carry extra portable bottles, or fly around the obstacles.
The British Airways B744 and B777 are both fitted with loads of oxygen bottles in the fwd freight hold for this reason. When the B763 (with chemical generators) flew over Greenland on its way to Denver?, it carried cabin trollies full of extra portable oxygen bottles.

dopplerd wrote:

This has nothing to due with bleed air or the 787 electric compressors. The Oxygen generator I'm referring to is a canister in most airliners' overhead emergency cabin oxygen systems. These canisters contain two chemicals that when combined produce oxygen as a chemical reaction byproduct, hence "oxygen generator." They are self contained and very reliable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_oxygen_generator

As others have mentioned the 787 uses a compressed oxygen cylinder to provide the oxygen to the passengers and this is the system unique to the 787 and is the alleged unreliable system.

Ahh, OK.

Learn something every day!

Hmmm... First, in almost all cases what the Whistle blower reports as a technical issue is true. However, at least within the nuclear power industry - where they have specific confidential program and designated people to talk to - or can report directly to the NRC which the NRC feeds to the same confidential program for investigation: at least half of the reported technical issues were in fact resolved adequately and the Whistle-blower did not know that the concerns had been adequately addressed.

Given that the system has to be successfully tested prior to delivery... I suspect that this is one of the later cases where the Whistle-blower did not know that the main identified issue was properly addressed. Otherwise, a lot of the final production tests would have failed.

The reuse of parts issue is separate - and unfortunately occurs a lot around the world in many companies. The question is what kind of inspection is performed before reuse. Cosmetic damage is not a major issue. Major functional/structural issues are. I believe there may be more meat to his report on this issue than on the O2 system.

Have a great day,

You can assemble an aircraft or any large systems with a write-up list in order to keep things moving. That’s what this sounds like to me.

From what others have explained, the system is tested and certified before delivery and deficiencies addressed. It’s not tested during initial assembly.

My initial reaction is to throw Boeing under an airplane, but I'm also conscious at the fact that the Boeing 787 is one of the most heavily integrated/outsourced planes out there.

My question is now: "Who makes the oxygen bottles?" and "What is the testing procedure to test and recharge installed bottles?"

Boeing South Carolina

Lot's of stories from that plant that something is wrong with quality control. Boeing can't afford any more of these stories from there. So is Boeing an easy target now? Or hasn't the problem being solved yet?

There's a whole spectrum of possibilities here. I have personally worked with people who cannot grasp that compromises are needed to get product out the door; I'm not talking about shoddy or unreliable design, I'm talking about "we have to have the most perfectly elegant and ultimately reliable solution, because one that is merely good enough is unacceptable to me." The person I have in mind is still convinced that the sky should have fallen, years after the product's lifetime has effectively ended (successfully). At the other end this could be something real, needing a fix, that some manager at Boeing has tried to quash. I strongly suspect that even if there was a real issue, it's been quietly addressed by now or the airlines who fly the plane are going to have a conniption.

I advise waiting to see what the real story is before jumping all over Boeing, or dismissing the report as just another disgruntled employee.

edited to add: One very likely scenario is that a guy with a reputation for complaining about good-enough solutions came across a real issue, and got blown off because "oh it's just X whinging again." Having a crying-wolf team member is a very real problem.

On of my issues with so called whistle blowers is when the "discover" something they usually fail to use the processes in place to capture and correct the issue. How did this guy run 300 tests in a lab without QA being involved, second since Boeing production is on a JIT flow system, where did 300 units excess to production come from. And who were the higher uppers he supposedly reported the results to, were they even in the quality line? or ???. Boeing like many companies has lots of want-to-be experts and management conspiracy theorists... I had several who worked for me over the years.. and most of the time their panic was totally unwarranted and due to not seeing the whole process. only one time was there an actual issue which I discovered had been caught and was already being resolved.

Also he talks about taking parts from scrap bins... there are no open scrap bins in Boeing production lines. parts rejected go from the investigation crib where the determination was made into a locked orange bin that is taken offsite and verified that the contents were rendered unusable before recycling the metal. no component re-enters the production site.
while there are always a group of "want to believe the worst" out there, they are generally ignorant of the procedures and processes used too ensure product safety.

I see that the BBC says the guy was a QA manager, if he didn't;t know the proper procedures and processes, then there may be some element of truth to not getting the attention deserved. not only that but he could have stopped the line himself. (I almost did once, until I found the proper drawing deviation notice). Also Boeing does not take damaged systems and salvage components even those with cosmetic damage.. they are returned to the supplier for credit. .. if in fact he was doing this is extremely suspect.

Further there are some assemblies that become less than efficient when disassembled... and I've seen false QA issues raised as a result.

knew a similar QA wonk he independently decides that the seat belts on a first officer seat needed a g rated test because he KNEW the vendor testing was insufficient, so climbed into the seat on the inspection table, strapped himself in and then threw himself forward to see if the inertial reels worked..... they did and he and the seat crashed to the floor where he received a concussion.. and early retirement.

Boeing has clearly become profit centric. Screw the product get the profit. Yet when you have Airbus breathing down you neck your product has to shine and it certainly isn't shinning at the moment.

goosebayguy wrote:

Boeing has clearly become profit centric. Screw the product get the profit. Yet when you have Airbus breathing down you neck your product has to shine and it certainly isn't shinning at the moment.

contrary to what people think Boeing has always been 'profit centric', although it does frequently support humanitarian efforts and not just for tax write-offs, it will always be 'profit centric'.

hsuthe19 wrote:

William Boeing must be spinning in his grave as to all the controversies going on @ Boeing.

Boeing is really in a mess.

As you probably know, William Boeing left the company he once founded deeply disappointed as a result of breaking up of his "United Aircraft and Transport Corporation" into "Boeing Airplane Company" and "United Aircraft Company" - a predecessor of United Technologies. So is very used to spinning is his grave...

Hmmmm......

Funny how they're saying that this is only an issue at Boeing South Carolina.

'Nuff said.

dopplerd wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

dopplerd wrote:

Does the 787 not use the standard oxygen generator design that is in use by every other airliner? I've never come across one of those that doesn't work and it is a pretty simple design so wondering why Boeing would reinvent the wheel with the 787.

Most airliners generate cabin air via compressed bleed air and an ACM (Air Cycle Machine), which uses more bleed air to cool the other bleed air!

The 787 is bleedless, so the compressed air used for the cabin is from electric compressors and the ACM is also run off electrically compressed air.


Now I don't believe that is quite the problem here - as its more to do with distribution of air to passengers via overhead bottles. [Or I'm misinterpreting what you mean by "oxygen generator"!]

This has nothing to due with bleed air or the 787 electric compressors. The Oxygen generator I'm referring to is a canister in most airliners' overhead emergency cabin oxygen systems. These canisters contain two chemicals that when combined produce oxygen as a chemical reaction byproduct, hence "oxygen generator." They are self contained and very reliable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_oxygen_generator

As others have mentioned the 787 uses a compressed oxygen cylinder to provide the oxygen to the passengers and this is the system unique to the 787 and is the alleged unreliable system.

Its not unique to the 787. The A350 uses them as well. I posted the link above.

zkojq wrote:

It constantly sickens me how these whistleblowers are constantly dismissed, attacked and maligned.

Why are so many quick to rush to the defense of the same? Because based on what is known, the devise is not exclusive to the 787 therefore everyone else must be experiencing the same problem and hiding it as well. Boeing doesn't make them, Rockwell-Collins does. He should complain about them.

wjcandee wrote:

Hmmmm......

Funny how they're saying that this is only an issue at Boeing South Carolina.

'Nuff said.

Yep. Its what happens when you don't bow to the unions. Clearly, without paying union dues you are inferior at your job.

The O2 mask panel doors get stuck from time to time. Sometimes because they are forgotten in maintenance mode. That's why there is a little hole in them, the cabin crew should have a tool at their stations to insert in the hole and open the panels.
When deployed, cabin crew are supposed to go around and check that all pax have their masks on.

So airnetters, if masks don t deploy at your seat, just rip the panel open. They are quite tough but not impossible

Why are so many quick to rush to the defense of the same? Because based on what is known, the devise is not exclusive to the 787 therefore everyone else must be experiencing the same problem and hiding it as well. Boeing doesn't make them, Rockwell-Collins does. He should complain about them.

Um...whistleblowers are people identifying issues within their organization. Also, Boeing is ultimately responsible for selecting the parts. A Boeing employee identified issues with parts Boeing is including in their products. This is pretty standard.

I assume Boeing has compliance policies that would track this stuff if escalated internally.

DL717 wrote:

dopplerd wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

Most airliners generate cabin air via compressed bleed air and an ACM (Air Cycle Machine), which uses more bleed air to cool the other bleed air!

The 787 is bleedless, so the compressed air used for the cabin is from electric compressors and the ACM is also run off electrically compressed air.


Now I don't believe that is quite the problem here - as its more to do with distribution of air to passengers via overhead bottles. [Or I'm misinterpreting what you mean by "oxygen generator"!]

This has nothing to due with bleed air or the 787 electric compressors. The Oxygen generator I'm referring to is a canister in most airliners' overhead emergency cabin oxygen systems. These canisters contain two chemicals that when combined produce oxygen as a chemical reaction byproduct, hence "oxygen generator." They are self contained and very reliable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_oxygen_generator

As others have mentioned the 787 uses a compressed oxygen cylinder to provide the oxygen to the passengers and this is the system unique to the 787 and is the alleged unreliable system.

Its not unique to the 787. The A350 uses them as well. I posted the link above.

zkojq wrote:

It constantly sickens me how these whistleblowers are constantly dismissed, attacked and maligned.

Why are so many quick to rush to the defense of the same? Because based on what is known, the devise is not exclusive to the 787 therefore everyone else must be experiencing the same problem and hiding it as well. Boeing doesn't make them, Rockwell-Collins does. He should complain about them.

wjcandee wrote:

Hmmmm......

Funny how they're saying that this is only an issue at Boeing South Carolina.

'Nuff said.

Yep. Its what happens when you don't bow to the unions. Clearly, without paying union dues you are inferior at your job.

The fact that you're trying to deflect from the safety issue to the whistleblower's motives proves my point.

DL717 wrote:

Its not unique to the 787. The A350 uses them as well. I posted the link above.

The link you posted - https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/ ... rew-Oxygen - tells that A350 uses "a unique system designed for the A350 XWB." Whether it is worse or better, we can't know. We only know it is from the same company.

prebennorholm wrote:

DL717 wrote:

Its not unique to the 787. The A350 uses them as well. I posted the link above.

The link you posted - https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/ ... rew-Oxygen - tells that A350 uses "a unique system designed for the A350 XWB." Whether it is worse or better, we can't know. We only know it is from the same company.

It’s the “Pulse Oxygen” product that is used on both planes. The A350 uses a mix of the Pulse Product and older canister types. The 787 uses all Pulse. It’s the same unit, it’s just used in two different ways.

delimit wrote:

Why are so many quick to rush to the defense of the same? Because based on what is known, the devise is not exclusive to the 787 therefore everyone else must be experiencing the same problem and hiding it as well. Boeing doesn't make them, Rockwell-Collins does. He should complain about them.

Um...whistleblowers are people identifying issues within their organization. Also, Boeing is ultimately responsible for selecting the parts. A Boeing employee identified issues with parts Boeing is including in their products. This is pretty standard.

I assume Boeing has compliance policies that would track this stuff if escalated internally.

Boeing does select their suppliers, but Collins Aerospace is a tier 1 supplier and is owned by UTC. For the 787 program this is a partner, not a supplier. They likely have the patent on the oxygen bottles and Boeing can’t change sourcing.

Any issues with the bottle supplies are likely to show up in three ways over a long period.

1.) Supplier quality rejection by Boeing.

2.) Production delays due to quality rejection.

3.) Supply Chain delays due to product and process overhaul at the supplier.

In other words, Boeing could be at one of many stages with handling this supplier. With it being 2019 and this guys account being older. I would guess that quality issues are past and any remaining issues exist in the form of delivery delays of redesigned oxygen bottles. Maybe where a lot of the schedule adherence talk we see in the news.