Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
basspaul
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 01, 2020 8:13 pm

I'll try to steer us back on topic.

Per the article, this sounds like a situation where 2 discrepant parts were cleared individually. Each discrepancy was "OK", but not the combined impact.

Now I purposely put OK in quotes above because, obviously, these parts were not. My reasoning: when a material review board (or whatever Boeing calls it internally) accepts a discrepant part, this part should not have an impact on the next higher assembly, if it does, the higher assemblies need to have corrective actions until the impact of the discrepancy is fully absorbed. This does not seem to have happened in this case.

I also have a feeling that it might have been customer service that found the issue as operators are made aware of accepted discrepancies as it may impact in service maintenance (think of ordering a spare part that won't fit because the part you're trying to replace was "off" but completely acceptable for use). Someone in customer service may have connected the dots in this case and raised an alarm.

Boeing (and others are surely taking notes) needs to find out why the big picture was missed by their material review boards.

In this day of outsourced or partnered production, this situation, I fear, will become more common. I hope this particular situation serves as a wakeup call, but the board of directors in aerospace companies probably don't read this forum before making decisions.
 
trex8
Posts: 5584
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 01, 2020 8:28 pm

Correct me if I'm wrong but the issue is where the barrels connect to the bulkhead. The bulkhead supplier changed in the last 2 years. If all the problem aircraft are fairly recent ones, could the new bulkhead be sufficiently "off" to be more of an issue than previously?

https://www.flightglobal.com/eads-to-bu ... 75.article
http://www.aernnova.com/en/spanish-aern ... tion-line/
 
MoreMiles
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 pm

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 01, 2020 9:09 pm

8 787s. Is it just the 3 airlines which are affected? SQ, AC and UA?

With SQ, it would mean 787-10... And with AC it is either 787-8/9
Can these planes be repaired? Or are they going to be grounded permanently?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27225
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 01, 2020 9:10 pm

trex8 wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but the issue is where the barrels connect to the bulkhead.


Actually I believe it is the join between Sections 47 and 48, but the aft pressure bulkhead is at the end of Section 47.
 
tomcat
Posts: 598
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 01, 2020 9:22 pm

Stitch wrote:
Max Q wrote:
Hope it’s confined to those 8 airframes, the article states it is but then goes on to say they have to look at the rest of the in service fleet.


The article said Boeing looked at the rest of the in-service fleet and identified only eight airfames with these two issues.


787SIN wrote:
Strange, something by the way the article describes it would surely trigger an emergency AD if there is an immediate risk to flight safety. But nothing on the FAA website as of yet.


It only affects eight frames and the eight frames have been identified and pulled from service. So I am guessing no need for an AD. Also, this may not be an immediate flight-safety risk as while the structure does meet Limit Load, an airframe in commercial service should never get close to Limit Load.


Actually, re-reading the article, I'm taking back part of what I wrote earlier. Those 8 airframes are not the end of the story. Boeing is still evaluating the effect of the improper shimming alone. It may lead to undesirable fatigue damages to the point that more frequent inspections or even a repair might be required:
The Boeing spokesman said its engineers "are analyzing data on the in-service fleet to determine if action is required, potentially including more frequent inspection or rework


From a static point of view the frames with improper shimming can sustain the limit loads so there isn't any immediate concern but in the longer term they are at risk to develop unexpected fatigue cracks. There are obviously more the 8 frames with improper shimming.
Last edited by tomcat on Tue Sep 01, 2020 9:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1240
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 01, 2020 9:22 pm

basspaul wrote:
I'll try to steer us back on topic.

Per the article, this sounds like a situation where 2 discrepant parts were cleared individually. Each discrepancy was "OK", but not the combined impact.

Now I purposely put OK in quotes above because, obviously, these parts were not. My reasoning: when a material review board (or whatever Boeing calls it internally) accepts a discrepant part, this part should not have an impact on the next higher assembly, if it does, the higher assemblies need to have corrective actions until the impact of the discrepancy is fully absorbed. This does not seem to have happened in this case.

I also have a feeling that it might have been customer service that found the issue as operators are made aware of accepted discrepancies as it may impact in service maintenance (think of ordering a spare part that won't fit because the part you're trying to replace was "off" but completely acceptable for use). Someone in customer service may have connected the dots in this case and raised an alarm.

Boeing (and others are surely taking notes) needs to find out why the big picture was missed by their material review boards.

In this day of outsourced or partnered production, this situation, I fear, will become more common. I hope this particular situation serves as a wakeup call, but the board of directors in aerospace companies probably don't read this forum before making decisions.


That's exactly the challenge here - the review board would have been reviewing the next higher assembly as designed. The next higher assembly under all possible forms of acceptable defects is a gigantic can of worms, so I would opine it is not practical to assess that in the case of the first defect.

What needed to get caught was during the fuselage joint, the review board needed to be aware of the existing defect on the component assembly could have an effect on the shimming. That first defect would have been documented, but is it normal practice during a review board to look up the full production history of included components to analyze any or all existing non-conformances that were accepted or repaired.

I agree there is a lesson to be learned from this how to ensure there is a realistic process for identifying interactions like these. I don't know what that method is.
 
basspaul
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Wed Sep 02, 2020 4:45 pm

iamlucky13 wrote:
I agree there is a lesson to be learned from this how to ensure there is a realistic process for identifying interactions like these. I don't know what that method is.


Unfortunately there is no real method to this, you need to always consider the bigger picture when addressing non-conformities. The only method I could see that would apply is to do the same impact analysis as if you were introducing an engineering change.

MRB members can not be people with little experience. Heck, with my almost 25 years of experience, I would not feel comfortable if I would be starting a MRB position.

Also, the authorities should do random audits on MRB activities to keep companies on their toes.

Without getting into specifics, I know of an authority that was investigating an incident (no injuries) and the airframer was not able to tell the authority what the part number of the part that failed was actually installed on the aircraft. Turned out the MRB had a problem with some/many "cowboys" stretching the limit of what they were permitted to allow. Almost caused the type cert to be pulled. The MRB rules were greatly revisited at this company and the powers of the MRB were curtailed. This lead to more non-conformities needing to be addressed by engineering directly. Last I heard, this was still the case.

At another company I was at, there was a rule that if the MRB saw repetitive non-conformities, they had to stop accepting them and raise engineering change requests. I was on the receiving end of these requests.

All this needs resources made available, it ain't cheap, but cheaper than people getting hurt.
 
B787register
Posts: 174
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:39 am

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Mon Sep 07, 2020 9:16 pm

Has anyone figured out which registrations. Fron what i know apparently its Singapore x 1 United x1 and Air Canada x 6
David C
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24584
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Mon Sep 07, 2020 9:59 pm

Looks like a broad set of future inspections is being considered.

WSJ: Production Problems Spur Broad FAA Review of Boeing Dreamliner Lapses is not currently paywalled and says:

The memo, a routine update or summary of safety issues pending in the FAA’s Seattle office that oversees Boeing design and manufacturing issues, says such a safety directive could cover as many as about 900 of the roughly 1,000 Dreamliners delivered since 2011.

The final language depends on the outcome of continuing reviews by Boeing and the agency, as well as decisions by more-senior FAA officials. The extent of the review reflects that the agency’s concerns are significant.

Boeing has told regulators a defect resulting from the quality lapse doesn’t pose an immediate safety threat to Boeing’s flagship fleet of Dreamliners, people familiar with the matter said. The wide-body jets have an excellent safety record and are frequently used on international routes. Regulators aren’t preparing immediate action and haven’t publicly signaled what steps they might take.

It goes into more about the origin of one of the two problems that when combined led to the grounding of eight planes:

As Boeing engineers comb through records to identity planes with possible flaws, the FAA already has learned what prompted one of the defects: The plane maker didn’t test how it produces shims, or material that fills gaps between barrel-shaped sections of the jets’ fuselages, to ensure they meet requirements, according to the FAA memo. The shims are produced at Boeing’s Dreamliner factory in North Charleston, S.C.

Boeing’s process to generate shims was “not validated prior to implementation into the production process” and lacked a quality check to verify the final product “meets the engineering requirements,” according to the FAA memo. “Boeing has acknowledged a process that produces nonconforming products” and is working to change that, the memo adds.

Now we know why Jon O is working on Labor Day! :-)

B787register wrote:
Has anyone figured out which registrations. Fron what i know apparently its Singapore x 1 United x1 and Air Canada x 6

WSJ says UA, AC, NH, SQ, UX, DY and EY all have planes that have been grounded. This is the first time I saw some of these airlines named.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Antarius
Posts: 2492
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Mon Sep 07, 2020 10:22 pm

Revelation wrote:
Looks like a broad set of future inspections is being considered.

WSJ: Production Problems Spur Broad FAA Review of Boeing Dreamliner Lapses is not currently paywalled and says:

The memo, a routine update or summary of safety issues pending in the FAA’s Seattle office that oversees Boeing design and manufacturing issues, says such a safety directive could cover as many as about 900 of the roughly 1,000 Dreamliners delivered since 2011.

The final language depends on the outcome of continuing reviews by Boeing and the agency, as well as decisions by more-senior FAA officials. The extent of the review reflects that the agency’s concerns are significant.

Boeing has told regulators a defect resulting from the quality lapse doesn’t pose an immediate safety threat to Boeing’s flagship fleet of Dreamliners, people familiar with the matter said. The wide-body jets have an excellent safety record and are frequently used on international routes. Regulators aren’t preparing immediate action and haven’t publicly signaled what steps they might take.

It goes into more about the origin of one of the two problems that when combined led to the grounding of eight planes:

As Boeing engineers comb through records to identity planes with possible flaws, the FAA already has learned what prompted one of the defects: The plane maker didn’t test how it produces shims, or material that fills gaps between barrel-shaped sections of the jets’ fuselages, to ensure they meet requirements, according to the FAA memo. The shims are produced at Boeing’s Dreamliner factory in North Charleston, S.C.

Boeing’s process to generate shims was “not validated prior to implementation into the production process” and lacked a quality check to verify the final product “meets the engineering requirements,” according to the FAA memo. “Boeing has acknowledged a process that produces nonconforming products” and is working to change that, the memo adds.

Now we know why Jon O is working on Labor Day! :-)

B787register wrote:
Has anyone figured out which registrations. Fron what i know apparently its Singapore x 1 United x1 and Air Canada x 6

WSJ says UA, AC, NH, SQ, UX, DY and EY all have planes that have been grounded. This is the first time I saw some of these airlines named.


Definitely looks like the FAA is going to take a deeper look. Seems that Boeing found issues with their process and reported it, but it is more serious than first thought.

Not sure where my post went. I had posted a CNBC article about the WSJ one a little bit ago.
2020: SFO DFW IAH HOU CLT MEX BIS MIA GUA ORD DTW LGA BOS LHR DUB BFS BHD STN OAK PHL ISP JFK SJC DEN SJU LAS TXL GDL
 
2175301
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 08, 2020 12:11 am

I suspect that all that will be required for the other aircraft is to inspect and repair as needed at or before a "C" or "D" check, or perhaps before "X" hours or cycles.

It does not seem to be an immediate issue that could cause major unanticipated failure.

There are many such issues with these kind of inspection/repair criteria out there for multiple aircraft MFR's.

Have a great day,
 
eamondzhang
Posts: 1830
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:23 am

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 08, 2020 4:09 am

MoreMiles wrote:
8 787s. Is it just the 3 airlines which are affected? SQ, AC and UA?

With SQ, it would mean 787-10... And with AC it is either 787-8/9
Can these planes be repaired? Or are they going to be grounded permanently?

Plus NH's JA901A.

Michael
 
SurlyBonds
Posts: 395
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:24 am

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 08, 2020 5:04 am

Were these frames built in North Charleston or Seattle/Everett?
 
User avatar
Momo1435
Posts: 1165
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:33 pm

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:43 am

SurlyBonds wrote:
Were these frames built in North Charleston or Seattle/Everett?

The issues were found in the production of the fuselages in their North Charleston fuselage production facility. Both assembly lines in North Charleston and Everett received these faulty fuselages.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8412
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 08, 2020 10:55 am

Momo1435 wrote:
SurlyBonds wrote:
Were these frames built in North Charleston or Seattle/Everett?

The issues were found in the production of the fuselages in their North Charleston fuselage production facility. Both assembly lines in North Charleston and Everett received these faulty fuselages.


Are we sure these issues are with just Charleston built structural components because they supplied only a small portion compared to external suppliers.
If the issue is with excessive shimming, it could be from either plant.
Most change work happened at Everett, not sure who would be the leader in shimming.
I think it has less to do with plant, and more to do with "Just Shim It" practice.
All posts are just opinions.
 
billsalton92
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 08, 2020 12:11 pm

B787register wrote:
Has anyone figured out which registrations. Fron what i know apparently its Singapore x 1 United x1 and Air Canada x 6


AC is C-FVNF fin 859
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3261
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 08, 2020 12:20 pm

SurlyBonds wrote:
Were these frames built in North Charleston or Seattle/Everett?


Yes, all (non conformal) sections 47 and 48 are produced in Charleston, and also joined in CHS.
For all produced 787's.

See : https://www.facebook.com/AirwaysLive/po ... 164101705/
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
B787register
Posts: 174
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:39 am

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 08, 2020 12:25 pm

Thanka.
Thus far we appear to have
JA901A
C-FVNF
Only six to find...
David C
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24584
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 08, 2020 1:20 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Are we sure these issues are with just Charleston built structural components because they supplied only a small portion compared to external suppliers.
If the issue is with excessive shimming, it could be from either plant.
Most change work happened at Everett, not sure who would be the leader in shimming.
I think it has less to do with plant, and more to do with "Just Shim It" practice.

It is one exact joint shwing the problem so it's not about production volume.
WSJ reports the issue is the shims themselves were not tested.

B787register wrote:
Thanka.
Thus far we appear to have
JA901A
C-FVNF
Only six to find...

WSJ reported airlines were UA, AC, NH, SQ, UX, DY and EY, if that helps.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Prin515
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2019 9:51 am

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 08, 2020 1:43 pm

jayunited wrote:
It looks like UA has one frame that has been grounded N16008.

That frame has not flown since August 24th and of all our 789/10s it is the only frame without a future routing. UA does have a couple 789s at XMN but those frames were schedule for heavy maintenance weeks before Boeing issued this grounding so I don't think any of our 789s are effected by this issue.



As said above, this bird still has not flown. On a side note I flew this bird to Paris last year.
 
PlaneHunter
Posts: 6538
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:17 am

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 08, 2020 3:00 pm

B787register wrote:
Thanka.
Thus far we appear to have
JA901A
C-FVNF
Only six to find...


N16008 has also been mentioned.

Based on movements and manufacture dates, another candidate could be 9V-SCI. Last service was on 24th August, same date as N16008. All other SQ 787s are still in service, except for 9V-SCA, but that one hasn't flown since July.

There are also two Etihad 789s which made their last flights on 24th August, plus an Air Europa 789 which had its last flight on 23th August. In DY's case, it's more difficult to determine a candidate as all those 787s were stored months ago.
Nothing's worse than flying the same reg twice!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24584
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 08, 2020 3:19 pm

SurlyBonds wrote:
Because (1) Boeing is reportedly considering moving the entire production line to North Charleston, and (2) South Carolina is known for being hostile to unions. If all of these frames were made in Charleston, that is compelling evidence that good union jobs also help produce a quality product, and that outsourcing labor to the lowest-cost location in unsafe and unwise.

We also have compelling evidence that Boeing's high cost union workers in KPAE and KRNT are leaving tools and rags inside the airframe, which really undermines your narrative.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Opus99
Posts: 1065
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 08, 2020 3:33 pm

https://twitter.com/dominicgates/status ... 43590?s=20

Its not over folks. At least we can say they are admitting the issues and not sweeping it under the rug. Now, i'm not praising for what a normal company ought to do but for Boeing it means they have a long way to go but we are getting somewhere
 
Spetsnaz55
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:38 am

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 08, 2020 3:33 pm

Dominic tweeted about a new issue with the horizontal stabilizers now found which are completed in Salt Lake City
 
asuflyer
Posts: 565
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 12:48 pm

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 08, 2020 3:42 pm

More problems disclosed today, involving improper spacing this time on the horizontal stabilizers.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/08/boeing- ... blems.html
 
Antarius
Posts: 2492
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 08, 2020 3:54 pm

asuflyer wrote:
More problems disclosed today, involving improper spacing this time on the horizontal stabilizers.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/08/boeing- ... blems.html


Oh good lord. This is getting ridiculous :shakehead:
2020: SFO DFW IAH HOU CLT MEX BIS MIA GUA ORD DTW LGA BOS LHR DUB BFS BHD STN OAK PHL ISP JFK SJC DEN SJU LAS TXL GDL
 
User avatar
VCVSpotter
Posts: 1232
Joined: Mon May 04, 2020 6:10 am

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 08, 2020 4:02 pm

billsalton92 wrote:
B787register wrote:
Has anyone figured out which registrations. Fron what i know apparently its Singapore x 1 United x1 and Air Canada x 6


AC is C-FVNF fin 859


This aircraft is currently at VCV. If it is indeed one of the affected aircraft, then I guess we know where the rework will take place. However, Air Canada often sends their 789s to VCV for regular maintenance (they did last year), so if the source of this info was speculation and not Air Canada (or someone who works there), I’d be cautious on assuming. It wouldn’t surprise me if VCV was where they’d fix these issues though, so <shrug>
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0

Just a normal teenager juggling AP classes and airplanes. No biggie • Love the 747 & 777-9 • Farewell KLM 747-400M
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27225
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 08, 2020 4:38 pm

SurlyBonds wrote:
Because (1) Boeing is reportedly considering moving the entire production line to North Charleston, and (2) South Carolina is known for being hostile to unions. If all of these frames were made in Charleston, that is compelling evidence that good union jobs also help produce a quality product, and that outsourcing labor to the lowest-cost location in unsafe and unwise.


Let the record show that the aft fuselage production facility was unionized under the IAM (same union as represents the Everett FAL workers) when owned by Vought and when taken over by Boeing. Subsequently, the employees voted to de-certify the union once Boeing took over. So at least part of that workforce was unionized and may very well still be unionized as a Right to Work state does not outlaw union membership, it just outlaws making it mandatory (as it is in Everett). So some of those workers may still be part of the IAM.
 
2175301
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 08, 2020 7:40 pm

SurlyBonds wrote:
Because (1) Boeing is reportedly considering moving the entire production line to North Charleston, and (2) South Carolina is known for being hostile to unions. If all of these frames were made in Charleston, that is compelling evidence that good union jobs also help produce a quality product, and that outsourcing labor to the lowest-cost location in unsafe and unwise.


Tools, rags, metal shavings left in aircraft in the 737 and 767 lines have delayed delivery, required rework and seriously upset customers and the FAA.

And the advantage of union workers is?...
 
B787register
Posts: 174
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:39 am

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:44 pm

Just been sent this
The affected planes haven’t been delivered to customers yet, and “We expect these inspections to affect the timing of 787 deliveries in the near term,” spokesman Peter Pedraza said in a statement.
David C
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24584
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 08, 2020 9:27 pm

B787register wrote:
Just been sent this
The affected planes haven’t been delivered to customers yet, and “We expect these inspections to affect the timing of 787 deliveries in the near term,” spokesman Peter Pedraza said in a statement.

Dominic Gates ( https://twitter.com/dominicgates/status ... 1948652544 ) says they've only delivered 13 while producing 50 or so since March. Thank god for small favors, I guess.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
tomcat
Posts: 598
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 08, 2020 9:39 pm

Revelation wrote:
B787register wrote:
Just been sent this
The affected planes haven’t been delivered to customers yet, and “We expect these inspections to affect the timing of 787 deliveries in the near term,” spokesman Peter Pedraza said in a statement.

Dominic Gates ( https://twitter.com/dominicgates/status ... 1948652544 ) says they've only delivered 13 while producing 50 or so since March. Thank god for small favors, I guess.


Who cares about the few short term deliveries if like the rear fuselage issue, the HTP issue will require the inspection (and repair?) of the 900 aircraft already delivered? The near term deliveries may only be the visible part of the iceberg.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24584
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 08, 2020 9:53 pm

tomcat wrote:
Revelation wrote:
B787register wrote:
Just been sent this
The affected planes haven’t been delivered to customers yet, and “We expect these inspections to affect the timing of 787 deliveries in the near term,” spokesman Peter Pedraza said in a statement.

Dominic Gates ( https://twitter.com/dominicgates/status ... 1948652544 ) says they've only delivered 13 while producing 50 or so since March. Thank god for small favors, I guess.

Who cares about the few short term deliveries if like the rear fuselage issue, the HTP issue will require the inspection (and repair?) of the 900 aircraft already delivered? The near term deliveries may only be the visible part of the iceberg.

I don't know, "The affected planes haven’t been delivered to customers yet" seems pretty unambiguous to me.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Noshow
Posts: 1663
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 08, 2020 9:54 pm

Weren't the first eight planes not said to be operating customer planes approaching their first scheduled heavy maintenance?
 
B787register
Posts: 174
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:39 am

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 08, 2020 10:01 pm

Exactly what i thought
David C
 
tomcat
Posts: 598
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 08, 2020 10:11 pm

Revelation wrote:
tomcat wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Dominic Gates ( https://twitter.com/dominicgates/status ... 1948652544 ) says they've only delivered 13 while producing 50 or so since March. Thank god for small favors, I guess.

Who cares about the few short term deliveries if like the rear fuselage issue, the HTP issue will require the inspection (and repair?) of the 900 aircraft already delivered? The near term deliveries may only be the visible part of the iceberg.

I don't know, "The affected planes haven’t been delivered to customers yet" seems pretty unambiguous to me.


Indeed but this sentence doesn't exclude this issue to also affect already delivered aircraft. It's just a statement about the aircraft that are about to be delivered.
On the other hand, the CNBC article posted upthread reads like this:
The Chicago-based manufacturer said the issues it found on some of the planes are on the carbon-composite fuselage, due to improper widths on some material that fits between segments, as well as on the horizontal stabilizer at the rear of the airplane.


In this quotes, I take that the HTP issue may be equally widespread as the rear fuselage issue.

My understanding is that Boeing doesn't have a good view yet on the extent of the affected aircraft (other than the ones that are in their factory and that they have inspected) so they provide a simple factual statement for now.
 
IAD787
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 1:54 am

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 08, 2020 10:31 pm

Former FlightBlogger turned Wall Street Journal Aerospace Beat Reporter turned Editor-in-chief of The Air Current.
 
User avatar
VCVSpotter
Posts: 1232
Joined: Mon May 04, 2020 6:10 am

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 08, 2020 11:21 pm

Further along in the article linked above, it states ‘Boeing [will] conduct its Airplane On Ground (AOG) operations at three sites, Newark, N.J., Abu Dhabi and Victorville, Calif. according to two people familiar with the company’s plans...Airplanes from Etihad Airways, Air Europa, Norwegian Air Shuttle and All Nippon Airways are also impacted by the grounding...’ So it looks like Air Canada 789 C-FVNF is indeed at VCV for repairs. Looks like VCV may get some interesting visitors soon.... AUH and EWR will service Etihad and United respectively. Air Europa, Norwegian, and ANA will likely come to VCV. Singapore Airlines (mentioned before in the thread as well as the article) will probably go to AUH, it’s closer than VCV for sure.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0

Just a normal teenager juggling AP classes and airplanes. No biggie • Love the 747 & 777-9 • Farewell KLM 747-400M
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24584
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 08, 2020 11:25 pm

Dominic Gates ( https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... cellations ) has updated his article to explain the HTP issue:

During fabrication in Salt Lake of the 787’s horizontal tail — known as the stabilizer — engineers discovered earlier this year that “certain components were clamped together during the build process with greater force than specified,” potentially leaving the structure with gaps between components wider than the five-thousandths of an inch that’s allowable in the specification, Boeing said.
...
This flaw, which Boeing said was identified during an internal audit conducted in February, “may lead to premature aging” of the horizontal tail structure.

Kowal said none of the affected 787s currently in service with airlines around the world “are within a window when they would experience this aging,” and so “this is not an immediate safety of flight issue.”

The fix procedure itself is relatively straight forward: undo the clamp, redo it with force less than or equal to the specified force, verify gap is not wider than spec. It's not clear how difficult it is to access the components or redo the clamping.

Yet the number of impacted planes is HUGE, pretty much all of them:

“Analysis is underway to determine if action is required on the in-service fleet,” she added. “Following an assessment of the manufacturing process, a total of 893 airplanes are believed to be affected.”

That’s the vast majority of the 982 Dreamliners Boeing has delivered.


So, a major PITA for Boeing and its customers.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Antarius
Posts: 2492
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Tue Sep 08, 2020 11:35 pm

Revelation wrote:
Dominic Gates ( https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... cellations ) has updated his article to explain the HTP issue:

During fabrication in Salt Lake of the 787’s horizontal tail — known as the stabilizer — engineers discovered earlier this year that “certain components were clamped together during the build process with greater force than specified,” potentially leaving the structure with gaps between components wider than the five-thousandths of an inch that’s allowable in the specification, Boeing said.
...
This flaw, which Boeing said was identified during an internal audit conducted in February, “may lead to premature aging” of the horizontal tail structure.

Kowal said none of the affected 787s currently in service with airlines around the world “are within a window when they would experience this aging,” and so “this is not an immediate safety of flight issue.”

The fix procedure itself is relatively straight forward: undo the clamp, redo it with force less than or equal to the specified force, verify gap is not wider than spec. It's not clear how difficult it is to access the components or redo the clamping.

Yet the number of impacted planes is HUGE, pretty much all of them:

“Analysis is underway to determine if action is required on the in-service fleet,” she added. “Following an assessment of the manufacturing process, a total of 893 airplanes are believed to be affected.”

That’s the vast majority of the 982 Dreamliners Boeing has delivered.


So, a major PITA for Boeing and its customers.


Bad news - lots of frames
Good news - not an immediate safety issue.
2020: SFO DFW IAH HOU CLT MEX BIS MIA GUA ORD DTW LGA BOS LHR DUB BFS BHD STN OAK PHL ISP JFK SJC DEN SJU LAS TXL GDL
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1240
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Wed Sep 09, 2020 1:25 am

Revelation wrote:
tomcat wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Dominic Gates ( https://twitter.com/dominicgates/status ... 1948652544 ) says they've only delivered 13 while producing 50 or so since March. Thank god for small favors, I guess.

Who cares about the few short term deliveries if like the rear fuselage issue, the HTP issue will require the inspection (and repair?) of the 900 aircraft already delivered? The near term deliveries may only be the visible part of the iceberg.

I don't know, "The affected planes haven’t been delivered to customers yet" seems pretty unambiguous to me.


I would read that as "the known affected planes." It is not clear to me if they have completed their full review and are certain the issue does not exist prior to a certain date, or may need to further review QA inspection data or even perform new inspections on previously built frames.

As someone who occasionally peruses the latest Airworthiness Directive list on the FAA website out of curiosity, however, this latest issue with the gaps in the horizontal stabilizer does not really raise my eyebrows. Phrases like "may lead to premature aging" are pretty common, and in fact relatively mild with respect to the issues discovered on at least a weekly basis by both of the two largest manufacturers.

Frankly, while I'm not surprised to see the media laser-focused on Boeing issues right now, I'm confused why Mr. Gates thought the specific issue reported today was worth an article. The stated consequence is really mild compared to the sorts of theoretical consequences frequently noted. He skipped one a few weeks ago involving engine bleed valves where the listed consequence could be as severe as dual engine shutdowns, and it was even a 737 issue, to boot (both Classic and NG).

Here's some other examples from the five most recent AD's on the FAA's website today, all published since Thursday. None of the five happened to be Boeing related, so I also added #8 for a recent Boeing example, but please do not read anything into two other manufacturer's leading the count this week, as that is definitely within the normal variation.

  • Chafing due to improper clearance between a fairing nut plate and the fuselage "could lead to crack initiation and propagation, possibly resulting in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage."
  • A cracked pinion due to residual stress from manufacturing "could result in failure of the pinion with detachment of parts inside the transmission that could cause its malfunction or jamming, ultimately resulting in loss of control of the helicopter."
  • "cracking in the foot coupling, which could affect the structural integrity of the airplane."
  • A report of slat jamming during landing has potential of "causing one or more slat surfaces to be no longer connected to either the slat wing tip brake or the slat PCU, possibly resulting in reduced control of the airplane."
  • Susceptibility of the battery in an Emergency Locator Transmitter to stray currents "which could result in damage to the airplane and injury to occupants."
  • Replacement of faulty cabin air compresser outlet check valves "which could expose the flight deck and passenger cabin to smoke and fumes, and lead to reduced crew performance or produce passenger discomfort...and could cause serious injury for an individual with a compromised respiratory system."

I assume it will be a few weeks before we see an AD published for the HTP issue disclosed today.
 
Opus99
Posts: 1065
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Wed Sep 09, 2020 6:06 am

Clearly the problem is not urgent if Dreamliners are flying over my house. But After all this, I don’t know what Boeing will do to improve quality control but they should spend all the money to do it
 
B787register
Posts: 174
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:39 am

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Wed Sep 09, 2020 6:18 am

This is way more serious than first though
David C
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Wed Sep 09, 2020 6:36 am

The last plane that Boeing released that did not have issues was the 777. At some point in time, the board and management have to sit down and reflect as to whether or not they are doing right by their customers.

The FAA that is sleeping on the job similarly keeps losing face with every issue that comes up.
 
Opus99
Posts: 1065
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Wed Sep 09, 2020 6:51 am

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
The last plane that Boeing released that did not have issues was the 777. At some point in time, the board and management have to sit down and reflect as to whether or not they are doing right by their customers.

The FAA that is sleeping on the job similarly keeps losing face with every issue that comes up.

I literally just thought about that yesterday! The last plane than actually worked very well was the 777. Every aircraft since then problem after problem
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Wed Sep 09, 2020 7:26 am

Opus99 wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
The last plane that Boeing released that did not have issues was the 777. At some point in time, the board and management have to sit down and reflect as to whether or not they are doing right by their customers.

The FAA that is sleeping on the job similarly keeps losing face with every issue that comes up.

I literally just thought about that yesterday! The last plane than actually worked very well was the 777. Every aircraft since then problem after problem
It is crazy when you think about it and it shows just how great of an engineering feat the 777 was.

What now worries me with the 787 issues is that some of these problems affect majority of the fleet, and that the issue went undetected for a decade or so. That planes can be delivered to customers with quality control being so dire as with the 8 that have been recalled, or issues can persist as long as a decade before the OEM picks up on it.

This, plus the removal of lightning protection without authorization shows that this company has a long ways to go. However, these are positives if it leads to more scrutiny of the products that they will develop going forward. The 777X has to be a clean break from how things have been done.
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1768
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Wed Sep 09, 2020 7:29 am

I get that a potentially large number of aircraft are affected. But it would be good to understand better the exact physics/engineering situation. Off from tolerances by how much? How much additional force does this cause to the parts in question? What's the amount of load those parts can take? If the force used to attach parts to each other was greater than specified, is there a possibility of cracked parts?

Also, which part of the stabiliser this was? It would be surprising that a major join forces where not measured and to the spec... very surprising.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1905
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Wed Sep 09, 2020 8:02 am

As Boeing engineers comb through records to identity planes with possible flaws, the FAA already has learned what prompted one of the defects: The plane maker didn’t test how it produces shims, or material that fills gaps between barrel-shaped sections of the jets’ fuselages, to ensure they meet requirements, according to the FAA memo. The shims are produced at Boeing’s Dreamliner factory in North Charleston, S.C.

Boeing’s process to generate shims was “not validated prior to implementation into the production process” and lacked a quality check to verify the final product “meets the engineering requirements,” according to the FAA memo. “Boeing has acknowledged a process that produces nonconforming products” and is working to change that, the memo adds.



Wait, there are untested components on the 787? I get that it may not be a problem, but there are items on the 787 they declined to test before using them in production. This seems very serious. What else have they neglected to test before using it in production?

Revelation wrote:
Dominic Gates ( https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... cellations ) has updated his article to explain the HTP issue:

During fabrication in Salt Lake of the 787’s horizontal tail — known as the stabilizer — engineers discovered earlier this year that “certain components were clamped together during the build process with greater force than specified,” potentially leaving the structure with gaps between components wider than the five-thousandths of an inch that’s allowable in the specification, Boeing said.
...
This flaw, which Boeing said was identified during an internal audit conducted in February, “may lead to premature aging” of the horizontal tail structure.

Kowal said none of the affected 787s currently in service with airlines around the world “are within a window when they would experience this aging,” and so “this is not an immediate safety of flight issue.”


The fix procedure itself is relatively straight forward: undo the clamp, redo it with force less than or equal to the specified force, verify gap is not wider than spec. It's not clear how difficult it is to access the components or redo the clamping.


I know Boeing is trying to downplay the seriousness of this, but if the silver lining is that the aircraft isn't old enough to be a immediate issue, well then I guess you have to cling to what you can.
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Wed Sep 09, 2020 8:27 am

enzo011 wrote:
As Boeing engineers comb through records to identity planes with possible flaws, the FAA already has learned what prompted one of the defects: The plane maker didn’t test how it produces shims, or material that fills gaps between barrel-shaped sections of the jets’ fuselages, to ensure they meet requirements, according to the FAA memo. The shims are produced at Boeing’s Dreamliner factory in North Charleston, S.C.

Boeing’s process to generate shims was “not validated prior to implementation into the production process” and lacked a quality check to verify the final product “meets the engineering requirements,” according to the FAA memo. “Boeing has acknowledged a process that produces nonconforming products” and is working to change that, the memo adds.



Wait, there are untested components on the 787? I get that it may not be a problem, but there are items on the 787 they declined to test before using them in production. This seems very serious. What else have they neglected to test before using it in production?

Revelation wrote:
Dominic Gates ( https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... cellations ) has updated his article to explain the HTP issue:

During fabrication in Salt Lake of the 787’s horizontal tail — known as the stabilizer — engineers discovered earlier this year that “certain components were clamped together during the build process with greater force than specified,” potentially leaving the structure with gaps between components wider than the five-thousandths of an inch that’s allowable in the specification, Boeing said.
...
This flaw, which Boeing said was identified during an internal audit conducted in February, “may lead to premature aging” of the horizontal tail structure.

Kowal said none of the affected 787s currently in service with airlines around the world “are within a window when they would experience this aging,” and so “this is not an immediate safety of flight issue.”


The fix procedure itself is relatively straight forward: undo the clamp, redo it with force less than or equal to the specified force, verify gap is not wider than spec. It's not clear how difficult it is to access the components or redo the clamping.


I know Boeing is trying to downplay the seriousness of this, but if the silver lining is that the aircraft isn't old enough to be a immediate issue, well then I guess you have to cling to what you can.

Reading through this makes for a chilling experience.

I cannot think of a factory, plant or lab that I have ever been to, where process was not the key area where attention to detail was paid. This is why you have an added layer to automation so that repetitive tasks are done in a standardized manner and in that automation, processes to ensure that set standards are met.

After that, you have quality control individuals to ensure that everything went according to plan before you deliver the plane to the customer for inspection because there is only so much that they can inspect i.e. mainly cabins and outside appearance before flight tests.

It is shocking to read. It looks like the 737 Max was simply a continuation of poor standards.
 
B787register
Posts: 174
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:39 am

Re: Boeing Removes 8 x 787 From Service over Structural Issues

Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:43 am

Apprently there multiple issues. The two in this topic and a third with the horizontal stabilizer on new aircraft not yet in service
David C

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos