Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
jayunited
Posts: 3028
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

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

Sat Aug 29, 2020 10:11 pm

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.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27310
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Sat Aug 29, 2020 10:30 pm

Oilman wrote:
Can you please elaborate? I also read up thread that you can’t fasten CFRP to aluminum. How do both materials coexist in the same airframe? Is there some intermediary material?


As the article notes, there are naturally-occurring gaps in the CFRP structures. It's probably a side-effect from the tape-layering process used to build them up or from changes when the structures are cured in the autoclave under extreme heat and pressure. So the shims are used to fill these gaps and transfer aerodynamic loads along the required structural paths.

You can fasten CFRP to aluminum. In aerospace, this is usually via riveting or bolting, but other methods include adhesives clinching or welding.
 
Bradin
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:12 am

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

Sat Aug 29, 2020 10:42 pm

petertenthije wrote:
Bradin wrote:
The fact we are even talking about it here on A.net is an indicator that that specific QA process at Boeing works.

The fact that we are talking about it means that, while this specific QA inspection worked, the overall QA process is lacking.


If "this specific" QA inspect work, then how is the overall QA process lacking? It's saying that something is true, but the outcome is false.
 
tomcat
Posts: 612
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

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

Sun Aug 30, 2020 12:10 am

Stitch wrote:
Oilman wrote:
Can you please elaborate? I also read up thread that you can’t fasten CFRP to aluminum. How do both materials coexist in the same airframe? Is there some intermediary material?


As the article notes, there are naturally-occurring gaps in the CFRP structures. It's probably a side-effect from the tape-layering process used to build them up or from changes when the structures are cured in the autoclave under extreme heat and pressure. So the shims are used to fill these gaps and transfer aerodynamic loads along the required structural paths.

You can fasten CFRP to aluminum. In aerospace, this is usually via riveting or bolting, but other methods include adhesives clinching or welding.


To elaborate further:
- for any part made of any material it is always necessary to account for a certain manufacturing tolerance around its nominal dimensions. Some manufacturing processes lead to tighter tolerances than other processes but they are never perfect.
- due to these tolerances, gaps are always planned between the parts of an assembly. Beyond a certain threshold, these gaps need to be filled with shims (which by the way, also have a manufacturing tolerance) to avoid bending the parts upon assembly (Airbus got this wrong on the A380 wing rib feet and this lead to early cracks in the rib feet).
- aluminum parts may be assembled on CFRP parts provided that some precautions are taken to avoid galvanic corrosion. There are also significant differences between the respective thermal expansion coefficients of the aluminum and the CFRP which can be difficult to deal with in structural assemblies exposed to (potentially) significant temperature variations in flight. Indeed, a third material (typically titanium) is sometimes used in the intermediary part between a CFRP part and an aluminum part.
- given the structural nature of the 787 fuselage barrels joints, I believe that the plates joining the barrels are made of titanium. Titanium is not subject to galvanic corrosion when assembled to CFRP and has a thermal expansion coefficient closer to the CFRP one than the aluminum.
 
md11sdf
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 10:11 am

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

Sun Aug 30, 2020 1:23 am

DALCE wrote:
747classic wrote:
According the article all affected parts are joined at the Boeing Charleston plant.


what a surprise.....
Would that happen to be because the Charleston Division is non-union? I was a Teamster for 13 years, unions are nothing but cesspools of corruption!!
LOUISVILLE KENTUCKY: Where your camera looks just like a stinger missile to the Airport Police!!
 
trex8
Posts: 5597
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

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

Sun Aug 30, 2020 1:57 am

md11sdf wrote:
DALCE wrote:
747classic wrote:
According the article all affected parts are joined at the Boeing Charleston plant.


what a surprise.....
Would that happen to be because the Charleston Division is non-union? I was a Teamster for 13 years, unions are nothing but cesspools of corruption!!

Alenia Vought consortium got @25% of the 787 fuselage contract and Vought built their US factory in Charleston. Voughts operation got screwed it up so much Boeing had to take it over. Thats how Boeing ended up in Charleston and then it became a logical starting point for an actual final assembly line as well and the rest is history.
https://www.flightglobal.com/pictures-a ... 60.article

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/ ... Production

ttps://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124696971307105465
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

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

Sun Aug 30, 2020 10:41 am

Now can such a fault be fixed or will Boeing have to deliver 8 787 for free as replacements. I have no Idea how to work with composites so I hope someone can enlighten me.
 
tomcat
Posts: 612
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

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

Sun Aug 30, 2020 11:19 am

FluidFlow wrote:
Now can such a fault be fixed or will Boeing have to deliver 8 787 for free as replacements. I have no Idea how to work with composites so I hope someone can enlighten me.


The Air Current article has the following quote:
a repair is "in the ballpark of two weeks" per plane


There are 2 defects: the incorrect shimming and the undesirable steps ("ridges" in the article) on the inner surface of the skin of the barrel(s).

Correcting any of these issues will require to gain access to the area just behind the aft pressure bulkhead where both barrels meet. Then the plates splicing the barrels will need to be removed in the faulty area in order to replace the shims with shims manufactured with the suitable gage (thickness). Then the plates can be re-assembled. I don't know if they will need to rework the inner skin to get rid of the said steps. It seems that the issue they are facing is the combination of both defects so correcting just one of them might be sufficient to achieve the desired durability of the joint.

On the Air Current picture you can see the splice plates protruding from the fuselage section visible in the foreground. These are the bronze color components all around the white pressure bulkhead. They are seemingly already assembled on the barrel and ready to receive the aft barrel. You can even see the array of holes on the splice plates that will later house the fasteners joining the barrel to the splice plates.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13347
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

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

Sun Aug 30, 2020 11:20 am

Max Q wrote:
A widespread 787 grounding would be disastrous right now, it’s efficiency, versatility and performance has been invaluable for operating what limited passenger service there is and it’s widely used on cargo flights creating precious revenue

Or, as a counterpoint, if such a thing were to happen again, NOW would be the best time, as:
(1) the capacity wouldn't be missed, (2) most airlines have plenty of parked widebodies that could substitute while a fix is being made, and (3) the ones who don't could temporarily source other widebody substitutes from the myriad of airlines who do.


md11sdf wrote:
unions are nothing but cesspools of corruption!!

Seems like an objective assessment. :roll:
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
curlowl
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2020 6:48 am

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

Sun Aug 30, 2020 11:59 am

Wow, I got type 2 diabetes just by reading the Boeing sugarcoating that's going on this thread.

md11sdf wrote:
unions are nothing but cesspools of corruption!!


Greetings from the Swiss-German "cesspool" of people being paid a living wage for the past 120 years. (:
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

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

Sun Aug 30, 2020 3:15 pm

tomcat wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
Now can such a fault be fixed or will Boeing have to deliver 8 787 for free as replacements. I have no Idea how to work with composites so I hope someone can enlighten me.


The Air Current article has the following quote:
a repair is "in the ballpark of two weeks" per plane


There are 2 defects: the incorrect shimming and the undesirable steps ("ridges" in the article) on the inner surface of the skin of the barrel(s).

Correcting any of these issues will require to gain access to the area just behind the aft pressure bulkhead where both barrels meet. Then the plates splicing the barrels will need to be removed in the faulty area in order to replace the shims with shims manufactured with the suitable gage (thickness). Then the plates can be re-assembled. I don't know if they will need to rework the inner skin to get rid of the said steps. It seems that the issue they are facing is the combination of both defects so correcting just one of them might be sufficient to achieve the desired durability of the joint.

On the Air Current picture you can see the splice plates protruding from the fuselage section visible in the foreground. These are the bronze color components all around the white pressure bulkhead. They are seemingly already assembled on the barrel and ready to receive the aft barrel. You can even see the array of holes on the splice plates that will later house the fasteners joining the barrel to the splice plates.


Thank you for the details. Sorry the article does not work for me so I could not read it. But good that it is a fixable problem so just annoying but the current environment helps at least and the capacity is not missing.
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4386
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

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

Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:47 pm

DALCE wrote:
747classic wrote:
According the article all affected parts are joined at the Boeing Charleston plant.


what a surprise.....


I look forwards to the usual suspects trying to claim that this is just union scare tactics. :lol:

LAX772LR wrote:
Or, as a counterpoint, if such a thing were to happen again, NOW would be the best time, as:
(1) the capacity wouldn't be missed, (2) most airlines have plenty of parked widebodies that could substitute while a fix is being made, and (3) the ones who don't could temporarily source other widebody substitutes from the myriad of airlines who do.


:checkmark: As far as the airlines go, this is the best possible time for something like this to happen.
First to fly the 787-9
 
Antarius
Posts: 2733
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

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

Sun Aug 30, 2020 5:00 pm

curlowl wrote:
Wow, I got type 2 diabetes just by reading the Boeing sugarcoating that's going on this thread.


You mean it didn't line up with the standard a.net refrain so you panicked?

Let's see, boeing finds issue, it's a problem. Doesn't find issue and someone else does, its a problem. No one finds an issue, there must be a cover-up, therefore there is a problem.

How is it sugarcoating to say manufacturer finds issue, manufacturer will fix issue? Without an agenda, it isn't.
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
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 863
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

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

Sun Aug 30, 2020 5:15 pm

Antarius wrote:
curlowl wrote:
Wow, I got type 2 diabetes just by reading the Boeing sugarcoating that's going on this thread.


You mean it didn't line up with the standard a.net refrain so you panicked?

Let's see, boeing finds issue, it's a problem. Doesn't find issue and someone else does, its a problem. No one finds an issue, there must be a cover-up, therefore there is a problem.

How is it sugarcoating to say manufacturer finds issue, manufacturer will fix issue? Without an agenda, it isn't.

Agreed, and nobody pointed out that the FAA has just issued an AD for 1000+ frames for the best selling narrowbody product from a giant European aircraft maker, with similar precautions. Must be fun for news outlets to bash Boeing even if its doing the right thing.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2705
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

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

Sun Aug 30, 2020 5:21 pm

B787register wrote:
I think this is rather more than a small oversight. To me small oversight is a coffee machine not working, however a part that could possibly cause the destruction of the airframe is a rather large boo boo


You act as if Boeing tried to hide it. They took them off the line and are investigating the issue. What more do you want?
 
B787register
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:39 am

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

Sun Aug 30, 2020 10:23 pm

I meant its a rather large issue, not something small. Yes a small number of airframes effected but something that MAY have caused a structural failure during flight.
David C
 
trex8
Posts: 5597
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

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

Sun Aug 30, 2020 11:59 pm

jeffrey0032j wrote:
Antarius wrote:
curlowl wrote:
Wow, I got type 2 diabetes just by reading the Boeing sugarcoating that's going on this thread.


You mean it didn't line up with the standard a.net refrain so you panicked?

Let's see, boeing finds issue, it's a problem. Doesn't find issue and someone else does, its a problem. No one finds an issue, there must be a cover-up, therefore there is a problem.

How is it sugarcoating to say manufacturer finds issue, manufacturer will fix issue? Without an agenda, it isn't.

Agreed, and nobody pointed out that the FAA has just issued an AD for 1000+ frames for the best selling narrowbody product from a giant European aircraft maker, with similar precautions. Must be fun for news outlets to bash Boeing even if its doing the right thing.

Then again no other OEM in recent history has had over 300 people die in a year due to crashes due to the same problem which they refused to acknowledge initially. Anything you say or do after that is going to be looked at in a different light.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1867
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

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

Mon Aug 31, 2020 12:43 am

Antarius wrote:
curlowl wrote:
Wow, I got type 2 diabetes just by reading the Boeing sugarcoating that's going on this thread.


You mean it didn't line up with the standard a.net refrain so you panicked?

Let's see, boeing finds issue, it's a problem. Doesn't find issue and someone else does, its a problem. No one finds an issue, there must be a cover-up, therefore there is a problem.

How is it sugarcoating to say manufacturer finds issue, manufacturer will fix issue? Without an agenda, it isn't.

Well, take that same story, replace Boeing with Airbus and see how a.net reacts... It ain't gonna be pretty.
 
Antarius
Posts: 2733
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

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

Mon Aug 31, 2020 12:53 am

WayexTDI wrote:
Antarius wrote:
curlowl wrote:
Wow, I got type 2 diabetes just by reading the Boeing sugarcoating that's going on this thread.


You mean it didn't line up with the standard a.net refrain so you panicked?

Let's see, boeing finds issue, it's a problem. Doesn't find issue and someone else does, its a problem. No one finds an issue, there must be a cover-up, therefore there is a problem.

How is it sugarcoating to say manufacturer finds issue, manufacturer will fix issue? Without an agenda, it isn't.

Well, take that same story, replace Boeing with Airbus and see how a.net reacts... It ain't gonna be pretty.


Maybe, but at the same time, there's an AD with 1200 a320s and it's been crickets for days. It's not a super serious AD, but this is also only 8 planes.

My point is not to start Airbus bashing either, that's equally pointless. But pointing out that the anti boeing sentiment permeating every single thread is tiresome.
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
 
9Patch
Posts: 620
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

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

Mon Aug 31, 2020 2:06 am

trex8 wrote:
jeffrey0032j wrote:
Antarius wrote:

You mean it didn't line up with the standard a.net refrain so you panicked?

Let's see, boeing finds issue, it's a problem. Doesn't find issue and someone else does, its a problem. No one finds an issue, there must be a cover-up, therefore there is a problem.

How is it sugarcoating to say manufacturer finds issue, manufacturer will fix issue? Without an agenda, it isn't.

Agreed, and nobody pointed out that the FAA has just issued an AD for 1000+ frames for the best selling narrowbody product from a giant European aircraft maker, with similar precautions. Must be fun for news outlets to bash Boeing even if its doing the right thing.

Then again no other OEM in recent history has had over 300 people die in a year due to crashes due to the same problem which they refused to acknowledge initially. Anything you say or do after that is going to be looked at in a different light.

Using that logic, can we bring up the bribery scandal every time Airbus wins an order?
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1263
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

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

Mon Aug 31, 2020 5:53 am

scbriml wrote:
Bradin wrote:
The fact we are even talking about it here on A.net is an indicator that that specific QA process at Boeing works.


Shouldn't Boeing's Q&A have found these issues at the time of manufacture, not years later?


Everything stated so far indicates they were identified at the time of manufacture. The real problem was not the ridges formed in the composite, or the shims, both of which were presumably over the design specification, but within an allowance determined by engineering.

The problem was the two of those together, which must not have been identified originally as a condition to inspect for. It seems that once it was realized that both conditions occasionally occurred on the same aircraft, although obviously at different stages in the process, they needed to figure out if the combination was a problem.

Stitch wrote:
Max Q wrote:
Another thing, why does this aircraft, a well refined design in production for years require shims ?

Properties of CFRP.


It's not unique to CFRP. Aluminum structures often require shims, too. There is some extra uncertainty in CFRP due to the changes that occur during cure, but even that is not an absolute indicator the CFRP will always be worse. I know of counterexamples, although that much is all that would be reasonable to say.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1865
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

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

Mon Aug 31, 2020 7:26 am

8 of 1000 is a rate of 0.008. Sounds negligible. A bit more concerning is the fact, that in these 8 aircraft the combination of two production issues is present:
Wrong shimming and not smooth enough inner surface.

Under the assumption, that these two issues are unrelated and that they occur more or less evenly distributed, I can calculate how often at least one of the two issues is present across the 1000 aircraft:
-> single occurence of issue = x
combined occurence of both issues = x * x = 0.008
x = sqrt(0.008) = 0.089

So about at least every thenth 787 flying around has built in one of the two issues! Why at least? Because if both issues would not be distributed evenly (as I assumed) the occurence rate of at least one of the issues would even be higher!
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
uta999
Posts: 938
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:10 am

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

Mon Aug 31, 2020 8:50 am

Are these calculations not thrown off by the fact all of the affected 787s were assembled in CHS, or are all models susceptible? Even the 788.

Moving all 787 production to CHS really does not seem to be a good idea.
Your computer just got better
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1865
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

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

Mon Aug 31, 2020 10:03 am

rheinwaldner wrote:
So about at least every thenth 787 flying around has built in one of the two issues!

I was wrong...

x = 0.089 -> occurence of one of the issues.

So the number of 787s with at least one the issues is x + x.

Means 2x = 0.18

Means that nearly every fifth 787 has built in one of the two issues. Which makes nearly 200 planes.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
snasteve
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2013 1:58 am

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

Mon Aug 31, 2020 10:22 am

md11sdf wrote:
DALCE wrote:
747classic wrote:
According the article all affected parts are joined at the Boeing Charleston plant.


what a surprise.....
Would that happen to be because the Charleston Division is non-union? I was a Teamster for 13 years, unions are nothing but cesspools of corruption!!


Surely you can’t mean that about every union? You would need some evidence to support this hypothesis. Although I can kind of see why that maybe the case over at the Teamsters.
 
tomcat
Posts: 612
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

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

Mon Aug 31, 2020 11:21 am

rheinwaldner wrote:
rheinwaldner wrote:
So about at least every thenth 787 flying around has built in one of the two issues!

I was wrong...

x = 0.089 -> occurence of one of the issues.

So the number of 787s with at least one the issues is x + x.

Means 2x = 0.18

Means that nearly every fifth 787 has built in one of the two issues. Which makes nearly 200 planes.


Admittedly, as long as both of these defects are not present in the same joint, it's not an issue for the structure of the aircraft which has been sized to account for such defects (within certain limits for each defect obviously). They just remain as acceptable manufacturing defects.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10883
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

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

Mon Aug 31, 2020 11:56 am

tomcat wrote:
rheinwaldner wrote:
rheinwaldner wrote:
So about at least every thenth 787 flying around has built in one of the two issues!

I was wrong...

x = 0.089 -> occurence of one of the issues.

So the number of 787s with at least one the issues is x + x.

Means 2x = 0.18

Means that nearly every fifth 787 has built in one of the two issues. Which makes nearly 200 planes.


Admittedly, as long as both of these defects are not present in the same joint, it's not an issue for the structure of the aircraft which has been sized to account for such defects (within certain limits for each defect obviously). They just remain as acceptable manufacturing defects.

Yes, aircraft are largely hand built. Most planes are flying around with at least one manufacturing “defect” but if it is within allowed tolerances nobody cares. Nobody is building perfectly reproducible fuselages no matter what material it is made from or who is doing it.
 
trex8
Posts: 5597
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

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

Mon Aug 31, 2020 2:00 pm

9Patch wrote:
trex8 wrote:
jeffrey0032j wrote:
Agreed, and nobody pointed out that the FAA has just issued an AD for 1000+ frames for the best selling narrowbody product from a giant European aircraft maker, with similar precautions. Must be fun for news outlets to bash Boeing even if its doing the right thing.

Then again no other OEM in recent history has had over 300 people die in a year due to crashes due to the same problem which they refused to acknowledge initially. Anything you say or do after that is going to be looked at in a different light.

Using that logic, can we bring up the bribery scandal every time Airbus wins an order?

Sure if you want to but I'm not sure how bribery directly affects manufacturing/safety issues. And while we are at it exactly how many Airbus officials have gone to jail for bribery? At least one Boeing CFO has?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24809
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Mon Aug 31, 2020 2:23 pm

9Patch wrote:
trex8 wrote:
jeffrey0032j wrote:
Agreed, and nobody pointed out that the FAA has just issued an AD for 1000+ frames for the best selling narrowbody product from a giant European aircraft maker, with similar precautions. Must be fun for news outlets to bash Boeing even if its doing the right thing.

Then again no other OEM in recent history has had over 300 people die in a year due to crashes due to the same problem which they refused to acknowledge initially. Anything you say or do after that is going to be looked at in a different light.

Using that logic, can we bring up the bribery scandal every time Airbus wins an order?

And the windscreeen is a part of the pressure vessel so we can now say 1000+ Airbus planes have a structural defect that wasn't caught by Airbus so their QA is deficient, yada yada.

trex8 wrote:
And while we are at it exactly how many Airbus officials have gone to jail for bribery? At least one Boeing CFO has?

Airbus paid EUR 4B fine to avoid such an outcome.
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
 
trex8
Posts: 5597
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

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

Mon Aug 31, 2020 3:44 pm

Revelation wrote:
9Patch wrote:
trex8 wrote:
Then again no other OEM in recent history has had over 300 people die in a year due to crashes due to the same problem which they refused to acknowledge initially. Anything you say or do after that is going to be looked at in a different light.

Using that logic, can we bring up the bribery scandal every time Airbus wins an order?

And the windscreeen is a part of the pressure vessel so we can now say 1000+ Airbus planes have a structural defect that wasn't caught by Airbus so their QA is deficient, yada yada.

trex8 wrote:
And while we are at it exactly how many Airbus officials have gone to jail for bribery? At least one Boeing CFO has?

Airbus paid EUR 4B fine to avoid such an outcome.

OT but as you brought $ up. The 4 billion was because they expected to suffer even more commercial losses if barred from future contracts. Boeing lost the 20+ billion tanker lease deal. Maybe they should have paid Uncle Sam a billion in fines and kept the deal. That would have had far more shareholder value one would think.
Back OT. The 787s were pulled from service and if I have read the ADs correctly, the Airbii need to have inspections after x000 hours. Quite a different magnitude of a problem I would have thought. Like my being told to get the pax airbag seat sensor fixed sometime on my Subaru (or not put someone in the seat) and my wifes Toyota driver airbag recall and being told not to drive at all.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27310
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Mon Aug 31, 2020 3:59 pm

trex8 wrote:
The 787s were pulled from service and if I have read the ADs correctly, the Airbii need to have inspections after x000 hours. Quite a different magnitude of a problem I would have thought.


It is also possible the 787's were pulled from service not because they were in imminent danger of falling out of the sky (based on delivery dates up-thread, some have been in service for upwards of a year or more), but because with fleet utilization so low, it was a "good" time to pull them rather than wait for a heavy maintenance period.
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 863
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

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

Mon Aug 31, 2020 4:50 pm

trex8 wrote:
9Patch wrote:
trex8 wrote:
Then again no other OEM in recent history has had over 300 people die in a year due to crashes due to the same problem which they refused to acknowledge initially. Anything you say or do after that is going to be looked at in a different light.

Using that logic, can we bring up the bribery scandal every time Airbus wins an order?

Sure if you want to but I'm not sure how bribery directly affects manufacturing/safety issues. And while we are at it exactly how many Airbus officials have gone to jail for bribery? At least one Boeing CFO has?

Bribery kills people without them flying and without anyone knowing. This is something that everyone overlooks because its so hard to quantify.

In summary, both manufacturers have dirt on them, and are as "unclean" as each other.
 
Antarius
Posts: 2733
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

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

Mon Aug 31, 2020 4:56 pm

uta999 wrote:
Are these calculations not thrown off by the fact all of the affected 787s were assembled in CHS, or are all models susceptible? Even the 788.

Moving all 787 production to CHS really does not seem to be a good idea.


Read the last line of the original article. This has nothing to do with WA or SC FAL lines. All 787 fueslages are joined in SC at a facility that was originally built or run by Vought.

After this work is done, the aircraft is transported to the Final Assembly Line in Charleston or Everett.
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
 
Antarius
Posts: 2733
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

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

Mon Aug 31, 2020 4:59 pm

trex8 wrote:
9Patch wrote:
trex8 wrote:
Then again no other OEM in recent history has had over 300 people die in a year due to crashes due to the same problem which they refused to acknowledge initially. Anything you say or do after that is going to be looked at in a different light.

Using that logic, can we bring up the bribery scandal every time Airbus wins an order?

Sure if you want to but I'm not sure how bribery directly affects manufacturing/safety issues. And while we are at it exactly how many Airbus officials have gone to jail for bribery? At least one Boeing CFO has?


We all know that Boeing fucked up on the MAX. We don't need to repeat that in every single thread. We have a thread for this.

The point about bribery is that Airbus isn't squeaky clean either. And if every order that Airbus won turned into a litany of comments about bribing, it would be equally useless and obnoxious.
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
 
9Patch
Posts: 620
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

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

Mon Aug 31, 2020 6:04 pm

trex8 wrote:
9Patch wrote:
trex8 wrote:
Then again no other OEM in recent history has had over 300 people die in a year due to crashes due to the same problem which they refused to acknowledge initially. Anything you say or do after that is going to be looked at in a different light.

Using that logic, can we bring up the bribery scandal every time Airbus wins an order?

Sure if you want to but I'm not sure how bribery directly affects manufacturing/safety issues. And while we are at it exactly how many Airbus officials have gone to jail for bribery? At least one Boeing CFO has?

It doesn't have anything to do with manufacturing issues.
It has to do with using bribery to sell airplanes, which Airbus did.
'Anything you say or do after that is going to be looked at in a different light.'
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1263
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

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

Mon Aug 31, 2020 6:24 pm

Polot wrote:
Yes, aircraft are largely hand built. Most planes are flying around with at least one manufacturing “defect” but if it is within allowed tolerances nobody cares. Nobody is building perfectly reproducible fuselages no matter what material it is made from or who is doing it.


Put some emphasis on "at least" one.

Most cars are driving around with at least one defect (Source: JD Power Dependability Survey - US average is 134 problems per 100 cars - hint, don't buy a Land Rover). However, car manufacturers do not inspect their products nearly as rigorously, so it's the customer who finds most of these defects, and they almost never get "grounded." I've heard that transitioning from automotive to aerospace or vice versus can be difficult due in part to the scale of difference between the mentalities surrounding QA and defects.

Being far more complex, I would bet most aircraft, regardless of manufacturer have numerous "defects." A defect in this context means anything that is not fully within the original design specifications. That does mean outside the allowed tolerance, but much of the aircraft is not truly at its limits at the specified tolerances.

Trim a part a little bit thicker than called for, as an example, even though the instinct may be to assume it is stronger than it needs to be and the only downside is a tiny bit of extra weight, and you have a non-conformance to your certified design. To deliver the aircraft, you either have to fix the non-conformance, or document via engineering analysis that it still fulfills the purpose of the design specification.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24809
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Mon Aug 31, 2020 6:52 pm

trex8 wrote:
OT but as you brought $ up. The 4 billion was because they expected to suffer even more commercial losses if barred from future contracts.

And you only pay the fine if you know there's a good chance you will be found guilty. This was a self-reported issue so Airbus knew what the initial evidence was, and had little reason to doubt that they'd be found guilty.

trex8 wrote:
Boeing lost the 20+ billion tanker lease deal. Maybe they should have paid Uncle Sam a billion in fines and kept the deal. That would have had far more shareholder value one would think.

The deal was facing strong opposition in Congress and was going nowhere long before the corruption issue had surfaced. There was no option for Boeing to ever "keep the deal", it never made it through Congress, and IMO never would have, regardless of the corruption issue.

trex8 wrote:
Back OT. The 787s were pulled from service and if I have read the ADs correctly, the Airbii need to have inspections after x000 hours. Quite a different magnitude of a problem I would have thought. Like my being told to get the pax airbag seat sensor fixed sometime on my Subaru (or not put someone in the seat) and my wifes Toyota driver airbag recall and being told not to drive at all.

Sure, but we're also talking about eight aircraft vs 1,208 in the US and presumably a similar number of non-US A320 family members, and a problem that will result in similar issues.

The EASA AD says:

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of windshield central frame lower node continuity fittings, possibly resulting in decompression of the aeroplane and injury to occupants.

Ref: https://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/EASA_AD_ ... 020-0005_1

It doesn't take an expert in probability theory to see how any one of these thousands of aircraft may end up on the long tail of the curve.

I'm still waiting for that post that will criticize Airbus's QA competence for letting this defect escape the factory, and I suspect I'll be waiting for quite a while.
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
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20585
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Mon Aug 31, 2020 8:02 pm

Discuss the topic, not other users. Thus is your warning.
Winter is coming.
 
B787register
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:39 am

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

Mon Aug 31, 2020 8:46 pm

Donwe know whoch registrations it is effecting
David C
 
User avatar
spinotter
Posts: 802
Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 1:37 am

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

Mon Aug 31, 2020 11:10 pm

curlowl wrote:
Wow, I got type 2 diabetes just by reading the Boeing sugarcoating that's going on this thread.

md11sdf wrote:
unions are nothing but cesspools of corruption!!


Greetings from the Swiss-German "cesspool" of people being paid a living wage for the past 120 years. (:


Union membership has fallen dramatically in the USA in recent decades, and the general attitude toward unions has soured. Part of the great unraveling, unfortunately. I hope that your unions and those in other countries remain to help guide America back to a better society when and if the time comes.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1913
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

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

Tue Sep 01, 2020 6:20 am

jeffrey0032j wrote:
Agreed, and nobody pointed out that the FAA has just issued an AD for 1000+ frames for the best selling narrowbody product from a giant European aircraft maker, with similar precautions. Must be fun for news outlets to bash Boeing even if its doing the right thing.


This is such weird logic, because an AD was issued for Airbus then it should not be reported that Boeing removed 8 787's from service. Is that because some people on here will get their feelings hurt?


Antarius wrote:
Maybe, but at the same time, there's an AD with 1200 a320s and it's been crickets for days. It's not a super serious AD, but this is also only 8 planes.


You said it yourself, that is not super serious apparently. But if you feel it needs attention then start a thread and see the reaction to it. If it doesn't garner the reaction you felt it warranted, maybe your assessment of the situation is wrong.


9Patch wrote:
Using that logic, can we bring up the bribery scandal every time Airbus wins an order?


Antarius wrote:
We all know that Boeing fucked up on the MAX. We don't need to repeat that in every single thread. We have a thread for this.

The point about bribery is that Airbus isn't squeaky clean either. And if every order that Airbus won turned into a litany of comments about bribing, it would be equally useless and obnoxious.


Well on a thread about the 787 we have had the A320 and now the Airbus bribery scandal brought up. Why? Because posters drew the similarity between the 737MAX, manufactured by Boeing and the 787, also manufactured by Boeing. You could argue the A320 AD has some relevance, but the bribery?


Antarius wrote:
You mean it didn't line up with the standard a.net refrain so you panicked?


Yeah, there isn't a standard refrain. There are 2 sides with more than enough ammo to show "bias" against their side. You will not win a fight if you are trying to play victim on here and feel the other side isn't playing nice. It just looks weak and everyone can expect to be called out if on a topic posts are not relevant or just point scoring for your favourite manufacturer. I expect to be called out if someone feels a post of mine has crossed the line. Finally, report a post if you really feel it has gone too far and the mods need to look at it.
 
Andyq400
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed May 02, 2018 8:38 am

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

Tue Sep 01, 2020 6:42 am

ANA -10 is affected according to Aviation Wire:

https://www.aviationwire.jp/archives/209860
 
ihmcallister
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 10:14 am

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

Tue Sep 01, 2020 7:05 am

PANAMsterdam wrote:
That can happen and i'm glad they found and fix(ed) it before something bad might have happened. Was the same case as the final 737-800 for KLM, took a while to fix the issues but eventually KLM got the last 738 ever produced and it's flying happily around Europe now.


Bit different with the KLM 737. The fuselage was rejected on the assembly line, and stored next to the wing set stored outside the factory until Spirit could manufacture a replacement. Because it was the second-last NG and Spirit had stopped building that model, it took a while to get a new fuselage ready and shipped across
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 863
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

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

Tue Sep 01, 2020 7:26 am

enzo011 wrote:
jeffrey0032j wrote:
Agreed, and nobody pointed out that the FAA has just issued an AD for 1000+ frames for the best selling narrowbody product from a giant European aircraft maker, with similar precautions. Must be fun for news outlets to bash Boeing even if its doing the right thing.


This is such weird logic, because an AD was issued for Airbus then it should not be reported that Boeing removed 8 787's from service. Is that because some people on here will get their feelings hurt?

Quite the opposite, nobody has suggested that this should not be reported. But if Boeing are to get this sort of attention for this type of issue, it is only fair for Airbus to be under the same sort of attention for what is a more widespread issue.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

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

Tue Sep 01, 2020 9:45 am

While talking malfeasance, Volkswagen got caught years and years after they intentionally programmed their Diesel engines to sense when under test and shift to 'best emissions' instead of 'best performance'. That took balls, but I wonder if they have figured out what to do with all those parking lots full of returns.

Way, way back (1980?) I was the Project Manager installing a cool stacker crane and rack system at Oldsmobile's emission testing lab in East Lansing, MI. It stored 76 cars in standard conditions before having the production emissions test done on them. Their lab people would go berserk with any disruption, running the car over an extension cord would jostle the gas in the car enough it would fail instead of pass.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2933
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

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

Tue Sep 01, 2020 12:53 pm

spinotter wrote:
curlowl wrote:
Wow, I got type 2 diabetes just by reading the Boeing sugarcoating that's going on this thread.

md11sdf wrote:
unions are nothing but cesspools of corruption!!


Greetings from the Swiss-German "cesspool" of people being paid a living wage for the past 120 years. (:


Union membership has fallen dramatically in the USA in recent decades, and the general attitude toward unions has soured. Part of the great unraveling, unfortunately. I hope that your unions and those in other countries remain to help guide America back to a better society when and if the time comes.

It is pretty much off-topic, but issue with unions in US is a lack of self-restraint and good faith.
Just a random example: Drunk driver runs red light, hits another car lightly injuring the driver and drives away. Union demands that the driver is allowed to continue on the job, and actually gets the guy back.
Minor detail: it was police union demands that police officer who did all that is allowed to continue with his job.... Guess how that affects my oppinion about unions?
Antarius wrote:
We all know that Boeing fucked up on the MAX. We don't need to repeat that in every single thread. We have a thread for this.

A proper question to ask is if MAX and 787 development situations are part of the same chain as this event.
As much as I am critical to Boeing (and I was told more than once that I hate Boeing by other a.net'ers ) I don't see the connection. Manufacturing problems do happen, and properly addressing them is a huge part of doing high-reliability business. Boeing is doing what should be done, as they did, for example, with the pickle fork cracks. Like it or hate it - life is not perfect. We can do our part by learning from these mistakes.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24809
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Tue Sep 01, 2020 2:51 pm

enzo011 wrote:
jeffrey0032j wrote:
Agreed, and nobody pointed out that the FAA has just issued an AD for 1000+ frames for the best selling narrowbody product from a giant European aircraft maker, with similar precautions. Must be fun for news outlets to bash Boeing even if its doing the right thing.

This is such weird logic, because an AD was issued for Airbus then it should not be reported that Boeing removed 8 787's from service. Is that because some people on here will get their feelings hurt?

Again, let us not discuss what other users may or may not be feeling, that only leads to flame wars.

The point about the Airbus AD was only raised in post #63, after we had many posts suggesting there was some generic broad issue with Boeing's QA. It shows something that should be obvious, that while the industry tries for perfection it will never be reached, there simply are issues that aren't foreseen during design and development phases. Boeing removed these aircraft from service before the problem ever arose in service. It's something we should see as a positive indication that Boeing is being proactive. No one was making the point that the Boeing issue should not be reported, they were making the point that such issues aren't unique to one vendor.
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
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1913
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

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

Tue Sep 01, 2020 4:49 pm

Revelation wrote:
Again, let us not discuss what other users may or may not be feeling, that only leads to flame wars.

The point about the Airbus AD was only raised in post #63, after we had many posts suggesting there was some generic broad issue with Boeing's QA. It shows something that should be obvious, that while the industry tries for perfection it will never be reached, there simply are issues that aren't foreseen during design and development phases. Boeing removed these aircraft from service before the problem ever arose in service. It's something we should see as a positive indication that Boeing is being proactive. No one was making the point that the Boeing issue should not be reported, they were making the point that such issues aren't unique to one vendor.



I can understand the link to the Airbus AD, both companies deal with production issues. But if posters feel aggrieved about the coverage they should get in touch with the media covering this or post a new thread on here. Complaining about the coverage on this topic, while they may have a point, doesn't do anything to further the conversation on the ADs both OEMs deal with. This became a discussion about coverage of ADs instead of the ADs themselves.

But the bribery and how it links to this story? :confused:


jeffrey0032j wrote:
Quite the opposite, nobody has suggested that this should not be reported. But if Boeing are to get this sort of attention for this type of issue, it is only fair for Airbus to be under the same sort of attention for what is a more widespread issue.


Fine, start a thread about the Airbus AD and see where the conversation leads. I am sure we will all be happy to discuss the 393 ADs Airbus has had with the A320. We can also then get to discuss the 643 ADs the Boeing 737 has had, or how about the 64 for the 787 or the 336 for the A330. Or maybe only discuss them in terms of the topic, both manufacturers receive ADs from the FAA and EASA from time to time, look at this recent one for Airbus. Back on topic of the 787....
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 863
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

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

Tue Sep 01, 2020 4:51 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Again, let us not discuss what other users may or may not be feeling, that only leads to flame wars.

The point about the Airbus AD was only raised in post #63, after we had many posts suggesting there was some generic broad issue with Boeing's QA. It shows something that should be obvious, that while the industry tries for perfection it will never be reached, there simply are issues that aren't foreseen during design and development phases. Boeing removed these aircraft from service before the problem ever arose in service. It's something we should see as a positive indication that Boeing is being proactive. No one was making the point that the Boeing issue should not be reported, they were making the point that such issues aren't unique to one vendor.



I can understand the link to the Airbus AD, both companies deal with production issues. But if posters feel aggrieved about the coverage they should get in touch with the media covering this or post a new thread on here. Complaining about the coverage on this topic, while they may have a point, doesn't do anything to further the conversation on the ADs both OEMs deal with. This became a discussion about coverage of ADs instead of the ADs themselves.

But the bribery and how it links to this story? :confused:


jeffrey0032j wrote:
Quite the opposite, nobody has suggested that this should not be reported. But if Boeing are to get this sort of attention for this type of issue, it is only fair for Airbus to be under the same sort of attention for what is a more widespread issue.


Fine, start a thread about the Airbus AD and see where the conversation leads. I am sure we will all be happy to discuss the 393 ADs Airbus has had with the A320. We can also then get to discuss the 643 ADs the Boeing 737 has had, or how about the 64 for the 787 or the 336 for the A330. Or maybe only discuss them in terms of the topic, both manufacturers receive ADs from the FAA and EASA from time to time, look at this recent one for Airbus. Back on topic of the 787....

Shall we agree then that the 737 Max should never be brought into a non 737 Max topic like this?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20585
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Tue Sep 01, 2020 5:06 pm

Folks, the topic is on self reported 787 manufacturing defects where stacked defects create an issue.

The following topics are off topic:
737MAX
A320 AD
Airbus bribery scandal


Unfortunately, these topics become too A vs. B. To allow civil discussion, please stay on topic.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.

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