Boeing

[XFool]

Oops!

Boeing plane returns to airport in Japan after crack found in cockpit window

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/13/boeing-plane-returns-to-airport-in-japan-after-crack-found-in-cockpit-window

All Nippon Airways flight was en route to Toyama airport when crack found in window of Boeing 737-800

[Mike4]

Now here's a thing.

This Reuters report seems to suggest that aircraft assemblers unofficially remove that plug panel during aircraft construction in order to "install pieces of cabin equipment" then replace the panel. No-one approved this so no-one inspects the panel after re-installation, if true.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 024-01-13/

[scotia]

Now here's a thing.

This Reuters report seems to suggest that aircraft assemblers unofficially remove that plug panel during aircraft construction in order to "install pieces of cabin equipment" then replace the panel. No-one approved this so no-one inspects the panel after re-installation, if true.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 024-01-13/

And it appears that the panel bolts (or at least three out of four of them) were not in place after the reinstallation of the panel - from the initial findings of the US National Transportation Safety Board, as reported on the BBC news site today
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68220627

[Gerry557]

Wasn't the door plug removed for access to repair a previous issue with some rivets.

So the question is more around the paperwork and procedures. What work was recorded as having been done. Ie was the door signed as having been re- fitted or was the aircraft signed fit to fly with an open entry with work outstanding.

I have seen reports that removing the door requires paperwork but not just opening it, which is almost the same procedure. This is strange if that's actually true.

So there is potential for all the correct paperwork to have been actioned but the fitment of the bolts not carried out especially if it was a different person who "placed the door plug back in position" than that who did the removal or "opening"

I've also been told that things might have been done this way as a time saving feature. Whilst it's simple to amend the procedure it then begs the question how many other time saving features have been included that might cause similar issues.

[richfool]

Boeing whistleblower John Barnett found dead in US

Published 3 days ago
By Theo Leggett
Business correspondent, BBC News

A former Boeing employee known for raising concerns about the firm's production standards has been found dead in the US.

John Barnett worked for Boeing for more than 30 years before retiring in 2017.

In the days before his death, he had been giving evidence in a whistleblower lawsuit against the company.

Boeing said it was saddened to hear of Mr Barnett's passing. The Charleston County coroner confirmed his death to the BBC on Monday.

It said the 62-year-old had died from a "self-inflicted" wound on 9 March and police were investigating.

Mr Barnett had worked for the US plane giant for three decades, until his retirement in 2017 on health grounds.

From 2010, he was employed as a quality manager at the North Charleston plant. The facility builds the 787 Dreamliner, a state-of-the-art airliner used mainly on long-haul routes.

In 2019, Mr Barnett told the BBC that under-pressure workers had been deliberately fitting sub-standard parts to aircraft on the production line.

He also said he had uncovered serious problems with oxygen systems, which could mean one in four breathing masks would not work in an emergency.

He said soon after starting work in South Carolina he had become concerned that the push to get new aircraft built meant the assembly process was rushed and safety was compromised, something the company denied.

He later told the BBC that workers had failed to follow procedures intended to track components through the factory, allowing defective components to go missing.

He said in some cases, sub-standard parts had even been removed from scrap bins and fitted to planes that were being built to prevent delays on the production line.

He also claimed that tests on emergency oxygen systems due to be fitted to the 787 showed a failure rate of 25%, meaning that one in four could fail to deploy in a real-life emergency.
John Barnett was a former quality control manager at Boeing

Mr Barnett said he had alerted managers to his concerns, but no action had been taken.

Boeing denied his assertions. However, a 2017 review by the US regulator, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), did uphold some of Mr Barnett's concerns.

It established that the location of at least 53 "non-conforming" parts in the factory was unknown, and that they were considered lost. Boeing was ordered to take remedial action.

On the oxygen cylinders issue, the company said that in 2017 it had "identified some oxygen bottles received from the supplier that were not deploying properly". But it denied that any of them were actually fitted on aircraft.

After retiring, he embarked on a long-running legal action against the company.

He accused it of denigrating his character and hampering his career because of the issues he pointed out - charges rejected by Boeing.

At the time of his death, Mr Barnett had been in Charleston for legal interviews linked to that case.

Last week, he gave a formal deposition in which he was questioned by Boeing's lawyers, before being cross-examined by his own counsel.

He had been due to undergo further questioning on Saturday. When he did not appear, enquiries were made at his hotel.

He was subsequently found dead in his truck in the hotel car park.

Speaking to the BBC, his lawyer described his death as "tragic".

In a statement Boeing said: "We are saddened by Mr. Barnett's passing, and our thoughts are with his family and friends."

His death comes at a time when production standards at both Boeing and its key supplier Spirit Aerosystems are under intense scrutiny.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68534703

[bungeejumper]

It's just not Boeing's month, is it?

https://mustreadalaska.com/panel-torn-f ... dford-ore/

That's the underside of the wing you're looking at. Presumably where it meets the undercarriage?

BJ

[Lootman]

It's just not Boeing's month, is it?

https://mustreadalaska.com/panel-torn-f ... dford-ore/

That's the underside of the wing you're looking at. Presumably where it meets the undercarriage?

Is this kind of thing really happening more or is it that now every little issue gets reported like it is near disaster?

Nobody noticed this until after the plane had already landed.

[bungeejumper]

Is this kind of thing really happening more or is it that now every little issue gets reported like it is near disaster?

I don't know. Did you miss this story? (50 injured, one critically, when 787 began a nosedive before being pulled out. The pilot's seat had shot him forward into a collision with the controls.) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68580950 .

BJ

[jaizan]

Is this kind of thing really happening more or is it that now every little issue gets reported like it is near disaster?

A few years ago, Toyota had a problem with accelerator pedals.
For several years after, the media were reporting every minor Toyota issue, whilst ignoring recalls from other car makers, which were published on the same government websites.

I suspect Boeing are now subject to the same increased scrutiny by the media pack.

Admittedly this is partly deserved, if their quality control is so slack that they forget to fit the bolts to a door.

[bungeejumper]

A few years ago, Toyota had a problem with accelerator pedals.
For several years after, the media were reporting every minor Toyota issue, whilst ignoring recalls from other car makers, which were published on the same government websites.

Too right! And it was also one of the best things that ever happened to Toyota. It brought them up sharp on safety and quality issues (even though problems such as airbag failures were down to third-party quality issues - but hey, that ought to be the constructor's ultimate responsibility too. No point in trying to dodge the blame.......)

And yes, some of those brake/accelerator issues were down to stupid drivers letting their floormats slide under the pedals, thus jamming the works. But Toyota fixed that as well: the mats on my Toyota are effectively wing-nutted to the floor so that they can't possibly move.

And then there was the five year unconditional warranty, which was all but unheard-of at that time. (Hey, even Tesla only gives you four years today, or 50,000 miles.) The whole process signified a serious change of attitude, which swiftly sent Toyota back up to world number one (in vehicles sold). Are we going to see the same comprehensive sea-change from Boeing? I really hope so, but I'm not holding my breath just yet.

BJ

[Gerry557]

Boeing are headline news right now unfortunately. There have been lots of incidents that question the safety culture. People are refusing to fly including employees.

So yes it's a biggy. The media can't report incidents that don't happen.

Part of aviation culture was to be open and honest and do the right thing. Boeing forgot that aspect and the bean counters took control. This directly lead to to fatal crashes. "We don't need to tell pilots how it works, it's cheaper not to train them or the admin that should have been done afterwards."

Unfortunately those savings have come back to bite them many times greater. They are not allowed to increase production now until the safety aspects have been addressed which will all take time. Some think this might be the end of Boeing.

There were even issues like access to the paperwork and those that carried out the work on the door plug that fell out mid flight. Again this appears to be uncontrolled work being carried out and not recorded. The subsequent refit not done correctly by all appearances. I'll apologise if the investigation finds something different. This time they were lucky no major injuries but how many other similar instances is there to come?

That latest missing panel will be investigated too. Where is the rest of it, how did it happen, why did it happen. Of course it might not be a Boeing issue this time but right now muds sticking. Guilty until proven innocent.

[torata]

It's just not Boeing's month, is it?

https://mustreadalaska.com/panel-torn-f ... dford-ore/

That's the underside of the wing you're looking at. Presumably where it meets the undercarriage?

Is this kind of thing really happening more or is it that now every little issue gets reported like it is near disaster?

Nobody noticed this until after the plane had already landed.

I bookmarked the Professional Pilots' Rumour Network site recently, which surprised me as to the number of accidents and near misses that actually happen around the world, although most have no or only slight injuries.

torata

[bungeejumper]

Is this kind of thing really happening more or is it that now every little issue gets reported like it is near disaster?

Nobody noticed this until after the plane had already landed.

If a protective panel (50-100 kg, say?) falls off a plane in mid-flight, and nobody notices, I'd hesitate to call it a "little issue".

Call me picky, but modern planes are loaded with sensors, and I'd expect that the landing gear would be an area of particular interest to the pilot. It wouldn't be a little issue if it happened over someone's home, as happened with the 737 door plug.

BJ

[Lootman]

Is this kind of thing really happening more or is it that now every little issue gets reported like it is near disaster?

Nobody noticed this until after the plane had already landed.

If a protective panel (50-100 kg, say?) falls off a plane in mid-flight, and nobody notices, I'd hesitate to call it a "little issue".

Call me picky, but modern planes are loaded with sensors, and I'd expect that the landing gear would be an area of particular interest to the pilot. It wouldn't be a little issue if it happened over someone's home, as happened with the 737 door plug.

Yes, bits should ideally not be dropping off planes for sure. I just meant that the loss of this panel did not appear to affect the trim of the airplane, nor any aspect of its airworthiness.

The investment question is whether Boeing is broke, either as a company or as an investment. Given that the only alternative is Airbus, lets hope not. I flew a Max a few weeks ago, to show faith.

[Gerry557]

Boeing leaving spanners on new aircraft according to Ryanair.

Tool control is a basic flight safety issue. Did they even know they were missing and if they did, why didn't they find them.

Where are the rest

https://aviationsourcenews.com/airline/ ... -737-maxs/

[bungeejumper]

Chief exec Dave Calhoun stepping down at the end of the year, and Commercial Head Stan Deal immediately. Chairman Larry Kellner not standing for re-election.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -step-down

BJ

[Hallucigenia]

Do they get a golden parachute?

[as in a parachute made out of really heavy metal....]