Boeing's goings...

[W5]

The Air Current: Report: Decades of corporate decision making eroded Boeing safety culture

https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/report-decades-of-corporate-decision-making-eroded-boeing-safety-culture/

 

Air Safety Reporting by The Air Current is free of charge

[Malcolm]

‘Lack of awareness’ of safety guidelines at Boeing: FAA report

 

 

 

 

By Nathaniel Dove  Global News

Posted February 27, 2024 1:19 pm

Boeing is not as committed to safety as it claims it is, an FAA report concluded.

An investigation by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration “observed documentation, survey responses, and employee interviews that did not provide objective evidence of a foundational commitment to safety that matched Boeing’s descriptions of that objective.”

The agency launched the investigation in March 2023 after fatal crashes of Boeing 787 MAX-8 planes flown by Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines in 2018 and 2019 but before a door plug flew off a 737 MAX-9 Alaska Airlines plane in January and United Airlines found loose bolts on other MAX-9s.

The report said the expert panel was directed to look at the company more broadly and not at any specific airplane incidents or accidents, though it notes that “serious quality issues with Boeing products became public” on several occasions.

These quality issues amplified the Expert Panel’s concerns that the safety related messages or behaviours are not being implemented across the entire Boeing population,” it states.

The report comes less than a month after the FAA head told an American congressional committee that Boeing’s oversight system “is not working.”

2:17Documents shed light on Canada’s 2019 move to ground the Boeing MAX-8

The panel reviewed more than 4,000 pages of Boeing documents and conducted more than 250 interviews with employees across six company sites.

Boeing’s stated goals are to prioritize safety, even declaring that “safety is our foundation” in August 2023, but the report stated its findings and recommendations “indicate gaps in Boeing’s safety journey.”

It describes a “disconnect” between Boeing’s senior management and other employees “on safety culture” and found a lack of awareness of safety-related metrics at all levels of the organization and a “lack of pilot input in aircraft design and operations.”

The panel could also not identify a consistent and clear reporting channel or process and found that employees didn’t know how to use different reporting systems and that employees preferred to avoid all reporting systems, preferring instead to speak to their manager.

“The Expert Panel is concerned that this confusion about reporting systems may discourage employees from submitting safety concerns,” it said.

•  

In total, the panel found 27 areas deemed “insufficient.” It recommended Boeing address all areas and implement its solutions, which includes creating a sufficiently autonomous investigation process, within six months.

The FAA grounded the 737 MAX-9s in January before permitting them to fly again after requiring better inspections.

While the grounding of that aircraft temporarily impacted flights for some airlines, Boeing’s ongoing issues could have ripple effects in the aviation and travel industry. The groundings and inspections have slowed Boeing’s ability to build and deliver new planes, with airlines such as WestJet facing indefinite delays on dozens of new aircraft ordered.

The National Transportation Safety Board, another American agency, is still investigating the Alaska Airlines door plug blowout. In a preliminary report, it concluded the plane was missing several bolts.

Boeing’s CEO, Dave Calhoun, previously admitted Boeing had made mistakes and vowed incidents like the mid-air panel blowout can “never happen again.”

— with files from Global News’ Alex Boutilier, Touria Izri, Eric Stober and Aaron D’Andrea and The Associated Press.

[deicer]

Looks like the FAA has started the clock on Boeing...

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/28/business/faa-boeing-90-days/index.html

FAA gives Boeing 90 days to come up with a plan to address quality issues

 

Boeing must produce within 90 days a plan to fix serious quality and safety issues, the Federal Aviation Administration said on Wednesday.

The agency said FAA Administrator Mike Whitaker and Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun held a day-long meeting on Tuesday where Whitaker made the demand.

That meeting came the day after a year-long FAA-commissioned probe found a “disconnect” between Boeing executives and employees on safety and said employees fear reassignment or stalled career growth for reporting safety issues.

The meeting preceded the anticipated release of a six-week FAA audit of Boeing’s production line – an audit spurred by investigators’ finding that critical bolts were not installed on a Boeing 737 Max 9 door plug that blew open mid-flight.

The FAA said the Boeing plan must address weaknesses in implementing the company’s Safety Management System, known as SMS, as well as integrating the SMS program with another quality program. SMS is a manual which is supposed to guide employees on procedures they should follow to insure planes are safe. But the panel said despite a wholesale re-write of the manual in recent years, it found “many Boeing employees did not demonstrate knowledge of Boeing’s SMS efforts, nor its purpose and procedures.”

The panel that reported on Boeing’s safety shortcomings on Monday recommended the company address those issues within six months; the FAA’s new directive sets a faster timeline.

The resulting plan from Boeing must lead to a “measurable, systemic shift in manufacturing quality control,” the FAA said.

Boeing has had a history of safety lapses. The January 5 blowout incident triggered a 19-day emergency grounding of all Max 9s and re-ignited scrutiny of Boeing following the fatal Max 8 crashes of 2018 and 2019.

[conehead]

This'll be interesting...

[Specs]

15 hours ago, deicer said:

“many Boeing employees did not demonstrate knowledge of Boeing’s SMS efforts, nor its purpose and procedures.”

I don't think that's a Boeing only thing.  

Edited February 29 by Specs

[J.O.]

It also depends on the questions they asked of employees. If they couldn't give a good answer when asked to explain their individual safety responsibilities, then it's a problem. If they asked them to explain some pie in the sky high level stuff, then this result is no surprise.

[Airband]

Boeing Is in Talks to Buy Spirit AeroSystems

Spirit Aero had been owned by Boeing before 2005 spinoff

Spirit AeroSystems signage on a Boeing 737 fuselage - David Ryder, Bloomberg

Fri Mar 01, 2024 - Bloomberg News
By Julie Johnsson and Ryan Beene

Boeing Co. is in discussions to acquire Spirit AeroSystems Holdings Inc., a move that would reclaim control of its struggling former aerostructures unit and the main supplier at the center of numerous quality issues affecting the 737 Max airliner.

The Wichita, Kansas-based supplier hired bankers to explore strategic options and has held preliminary talks with Boeing, according to people familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified because the talks are confidential.

Spirit is separately exploring the sale of a business in Northern Ireland that makes wings for Airbus SE, and the European planemaker has held preliminary discussions with the supplier about buying the business, some of the people said.

Representatives for Boeing and Airbus declined to comment. Spirit, which had a market value of about $3.3 billion as of Thursday’s close, also declined to comment.

Spirit shares jumped as much as 19% Friday in New York, after the Wall Street Journal reported earlier on the talks. Boeing fell as much as 2.3%. The planemaker’s shares have lost about 23% this year, the worst performer on the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

Buying back Spirit, which Boeing spun off in 2005, would mark the most dramatic step yet by the US planemaker to stabilize its supply chain after a series of damaging production faults. The latest and most serious lapse occurred early in January when a 737 Max 9 model lost a large fuselage panel during flight. While Spirit built the airframe in question, Boeing has said ultimate responsibility for safety and the right production protocols resides with the planemaker.

After Spirit was split off from Boeing, the company was sold to private equity investors, ending almost 80 years within the US planemaker’s fold. The move was part of Boeing’s drive to shed assets and ultimately become more profitable.

But the disposal left the contractor without the protective cover of Boeing’s balance sheet — particularly when the company faced a major crisis like the pandemic. During its 2020 nadir, Spirit cut 6,800 employees and put salaried workers on a four-day work week to preserve cash.

The supplier is now run by Pat Shanahan, a former Boeing executive, in a sign that the two companies are working more closely together. Last year, Spirit restructured key contracts with Boeing, still its biggest customer, to help bolster its ailing finances.

When asked if Boeing had gone too far selling off assets in past years, Boeing Chief Executive Officer Dave Calhoun told CNBC in January that “yeah, it probably did. But now it’s here and now. And now, I’ve got to deal with it.”

Until Boeing provided a cash infusion and restructured Spirit’s contract terms, the company had faced years of losses on a contract to build the nose-cone of the US planemaker’s 787 Dreamliner jets. Spirit has also been in contract talks with Airbus aimed at stemming its losses from the A220 and A350 programs.

Wing Factory

Airbus has also moved some suppliers of its airplane structures back inhouse. Boeing is Spirit’s largest customer, accounting for 64% of the supplier’s revenue last year. Airbus was its second-largest with 19%. Spirit makes parts across the European planemaker’s product line, including wings for the A220 narrowbody at the Belfast plant it purchased from Bombardier Inc. in 2020.

Boeing and Spirit have faced withering scrutiny over quality control, particularly after the Jan. 5 accident. Spirit assembles most of the 737 Max plane’s fuselage before shipping them by rail to Boeing’s factory in Renton, Washington, for final assembly of the aircraft.

US investigators have said the so-called door plug on the plane involved in the accident was apparently missing four key retention bolts meant to hold it in place when it was handed over to the customer.

The incident capped a series of quality lapses involving Boeing’s former aerostructures unit. A drilling mishap on an aft pressure bulkhead supplied by Spirit slowed deliveries of the 737 Max last year, the planemaker’s most important generator of cash flow. A separate issue with tail-fin fittings also affected output earlier in 2023.

[W5]

737 Max anti-ice system fix is slow going

https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/737-max-anti-ice-fix-slow-going/

[deicer]

Now revealed that it isn't just the 737 with the anti-ice problem...

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faa-raises-new-anti-ice-system-concerns-on-boeing-737-max-787-jets/

FAA orders fixes related to anti-ice systems on Boeing 737 MAX, 787 jets

And now, it’s not just the MAX with an engine anti-ice system problem.

Airlines have reported a separate issue with a similar system on Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner that has caused what the FAA calls “relatively minor” damage to the engine inlets on some two dozen of these widebody jets in service.

Though the FAA considers neither problem to be an immediate risk to flight safety, in February it issued separate notices of two proposed airworthiness directives to require the fix for the engine anti-ice system on the MAX and to lay out inspection and repair procedures for that system on the 787, pending a redesign that provides a permanent fix.

Boeing previously issued guidelines that recommended airlines do what the FAA will require within three years in the case of the MAX and within 30 months for the 787.

Damage to 787 engine inlets in service

Unlike this MAX issue, the fault discovered on the 787 Dreamliner has resulted in actual damage to engines on passenger aircraft.

The FAA airworthiness directive on the 787 states that “damage was found during overhaul on multiple inlets around the Engine Anti-Ice duct within the inlet aft compartment.”

The ducting that delivers the hot air to the engine inlet to prevent ice buildup has seals at key connecting points. Those seals are installed by the supplier of the inlets: Collins Aerospace, now part of RTX, formerly known as Raytheon.

Boeing’s Kowal said the duct seals on the damaged 787s had degraded over time.

Collins spokesperson Lori O’Donley said the problem was not a production quality lapse.

“All inlets were delivered as designed with all required hardware,” she said.

Rather than a production issue, it was a matter of the seals being insufficiently durable.

Even when the plane was flying in dry air and the anti-ice system was not switched on, the seal degradation led to hot air leaking into the inlet compartment, “exposing inlet components to high temperatures,” the FAA states.

Boeing said this resulted in “thermal damage and discoloration to a limited area of the surrounding composite and metallic structure inside the inlet.”

“Fewer than two dozen inlets have been identified” with this damage, said Kowal.

The FAA’s proposed airworthiness directive warns that heat damage to the inlet structure could lead to “reduced structural strength and departure of the inlet from the airplane.”

“Departure of the inlet” is a bland way of describing the front of the pod around the engine fan detaching, potentially striking the jet’s wing, tail or fuselage. Such disintegration could result in “subsequent loss of continued safe flight and landing or injury to occupants,” the airworthiness directive states.

It was exactly such an accident in 2018 that produced the single U.S. airline passenger fatality in the last 15 years, when an engine inlet broke off on a Southwest Airlines 737 en route from New York to Dallas and struck the fuselage.

Despite this alarming potential outcome, once again the FAA doesn’t consider this likely and assesses the risk as low enough to allow airlines to take their time to fix it.

In an email, the FAA’s Gregor said the damage found on the in-service 787s was “relatively minor” and that other factors besides the heat damage “would need to present themselves” for the catastrophic scenario to happen.

Likewise, Kowal said Boeing has done extensive engineering analysis and determined “it’s not an immediate safety of flight issue, and the fleet can continue operating safely.”

Boeing issued a service bulletin to 787 operators in September informing them of the issue and recommending inspection of the inlet cowl assembly on both engines of every 787 for signs of heat damage around the engine anti-ice duct.

The bulletin also provided instructions to install or replace seals on the ducts, repairing any damage, and replacing the engine inlet if necessary. These actions were to be accomplished within 30 months.

The proposed FAA airworthiness directive will make those instructions mandatory.

Meanwhile, Kowal said, at Boeing “redesign activities are underway for a long-term solution” to fix the durability problem with the duct seals.

Flaws missed during certification

A separate question is how this flaw with the 787 anti-ice duct seals and the single point of failure in the backup power supply on the MAX slipped through the FAA’s original certification of these aircraft.

The FAA said it “certifies aircraft based on available information at the time” and “takes appropriate action when it becomes aware of new information.”

On the 787 in-service damage, Boeing’s Kowal said the composite and metallic structure that makes up the engine inlet “was properly tested to temperature levels that are expected in service” during certification.

However, she said the gradual degradation of the duct seals during service “is new information and that’s the focus of the redesign.”

 

[conehead]

3 hours ago, deicer said:

 

The ducting that delivers the hot air to the engine inlet to prevent ice buildup has seals at key connecting points. Those seals are installed by the supplier of the inlets: Collins Aerospace, now part of RTX, formerly known as Raytheon.

 

The same company that owns Pratt & Whitney, and is on the hook for billions of $$$ for the geared turbo fan engine fiasco being experienced by any operator of those engines. That's why there are so many A220 and A320NEO aircraft sitting around the world waiting for new engines. 

[deicer]

Once again, another issue with 737 Max aircraft is coming to light.

It just doesn't end...

https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2024/03/07/boeing-737-max-flight-controls-muntean-lead-sot-vpx.cnn

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-ntsb-probes-stuck-rudder-pedal-issue-boeing-737-max-flight-2024-03-07/

US NTSB probes 'stuck' rudder pedal issue on Boeing 737 MAX 8 flight

WASHINGTON, March 7 (Reuters) - The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is investigating a United Airlines (UAL.O), opens new tab Boeing (BA.N), opens new tab 737 MAX 8 flight last month that experienced "stuck" rudder pedals after it touched down on the runway for its landing, the agency said on Thursday.

The NTSB said in a preliminary report on the Feb. 6 flight that the plane taxied to the gate at Newark Airport without incident and there were no injuries to the 161 passengers and crew.

The safety board reported the captain said that during the landing rollout, the phase just after touchdown, the rudder pedals did not move in response to "normal" application of foot pressure while attempting to maintain the runway centerline.

Boeing said it worked with United "to diagnose the rudder response issue... The issue was successfully resolved with the replacement of three parts and the airplane returned to service last month."

Boeing said this was the only report of this issue in the 737 MAX fleet. The rudder pedal system is identical to the prior generation 737 NG and the planemaker said it was aware of two similar occurrences in 2019 on NGs that were resolved through component replacements.

United said the parts at issue are present only nine United aircraft originally built for other airlines. "We’ll continue to work with Boeing, the NTSB and the FAA on next steps for these aircraft," the airline said.

The Federal Aviation Administration referred questions to the NTSB.

Boeing has been under scrutiny in recent months after a Jan. 5 mid-air blowout on another plane model, the 737 MAX 9. Last month, the FAA formally mandated inspections in 737 MAX airplanes for loose bolts in the rudder control systems after the planemaker recommended them in December.

The NTSB report said the captain said that in the MAX 8 flight last month the pedals remained "stuck" in their neutral position and the captain used the nosewheel steering tiller to keep the airplane near the runway centerline while slowing to a safe speed before exiting the runway onto a high-speed turn-off.

The NTSB said the captain asked the first officer to check his rudder pedals and the first officer reported the same problem. The captain said that shortly thereafter the rudder pedals began to operate normally.

Three days after the incident, United conducted a test flight and was able to duplicate the reported rudder system malfunction identified during the incident on the same plane.

Post-incident inspection found no obvious malfunctions, the NTSB said, and after removal of the rudder system components United conducted a second flight test and found the rudder controls operated normally.

Edited March 8 by deicer

[deicer]

Further to above with more information...

https://avherald.com/h?article=515dab89&opt=0

[W5]

NTSB Alaska 1282 investigation is like peeling an onion.

The Air Current ; issue free for public safety

https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/ntsb-chair-alaska-1282-investigation-peeling-an-onion-boeing/

Edited March 9 by W5
Word added

[deicer]

What is concerting in that article isn't the lack of quality control by Boeing(which is a major concern) rather it is the efforts of Boeing to be uncooperative with the investigations.

 

[Malcolm]

Said to be an technical event..... Strange

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/latam-...DDZJ3USYZYL5M/

Seems like a significant event, not linked to turbulence. Jokat said the pilot came to the back of the plane once the plane landed.

“I asked him ‘what happened?’ and he said to me ‘I lost my instrumentation briefly and then it just came back all of a sudden’.

 

WORLD

50 people injured by ‘strong movement’ on Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner

By Staff  The Associated Press

Posted March 11, 2024 6:12 am

 Updated March 11, 2024 9:02 am

 

At least 50 people were injured Monday by what officials described as a “strong movement” on a Chilean plane traveling from Sydney to Auckland, New Zealand.

LATAM Airlines said in a statement that there was “a technical event during the flight which caused a strong movement.” It did not elaborate on what happened.

Passengers were met by paramedics and more than 10 emergency vehicles when the flight touched down in Auckland.igation over Alaska Airlines mid-flight door blowout

About 50 people were treated at the scene for mostly mild injuries, with 13 taken to a hospital, an ambulance spokesperson said.

One patient was believed to be in serious condition.

Passengers said a number of people were not wearing seatbelts when flight LA800 suddenly dropped.

[Kip Powick]

1) so you are sitting in this chair, going through the air in excess 950km/h and so confident that there will be no bumps, because the guy/gal up front "always' warns you when to put on ones seatbelt...????

  (absolutely no sympathy for those that "kissed" the ceiling)

2) Obviously we have to wait until the investigation is complete but there is a possibility this 'accident' was caused by a crew member....

3) Av Herald has classified this as an accident....Accident marks an incident, that has caused injuries or death to humans or caused significant damage.

[deicer]

United has halted delivery of it's 737-10 Max.  Will be going over to Airbus for the 321.

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/united-ceo-tells-boeing-to-stop-making-its-long-delayed-max-10s-1.2045725

United CEO Tells Boeing to Stop Making Its Long Delayed Max 10s

United Airlines Holdings Inc. has told Boeing Co. to stop building 737 Max 10 jets for the carrier, opting to switch to a smaller variant and the rival Airbus SE A321 until the US planemaker can pull the stretched single-aisle through its long-delayed certification.

“We’ve asked Boeing to stop building Max 10s, which they’ve done, for us and start building Max 9s,” United Chief Executive Officer Scott Kirby said Tuesday at a JPMorgan investor conference. “It’s impossible to say when the Max 10 is going to get certified.” 

Once the Max 10 gets clearance to operate, United will switch back to the Max 10, Kirby said. The United CEO confirmed earlier Bloomberg reports that the airline is looking to swap out some of its massive order for 277 of that variant to use the A321 instead, offering the European planemaker the rare opportunity to seize an important piece of business from its chief rival.

“We are in the market for A321s, and if we get a deal where the economics work, we’ll do something,” Kirby said. “If we don’t, we won’t and will wind up with more Max 9s.”

A Boeing spokesman had no immediate comment on Kirby’s remarks. Deliveries of 737 jets slowed to 17 in February from 25 in January, the planemaker said Tuesday. 

Kirby has been one of Boeing’s most outspoken critics after a fuselage panel blew off of a 737 Max 9 operated by Alaska Air Group Inc. in early January. United, the biggest operator of the variant, temporarily took dozens of planes out of service while federal investigators probed the accident. The National Transportation Safety Board has found that workers at Boeing had failed to affix four bolts holding the door plug in place. 

The bigger impact on United has been with the coming Max 10, for which it is the launch customer with 200 options in addition to the firm order. The plane’s certification, expected this year, has been pushed back indefinitely as Boeing addresses issues in its factory and contends with increased scrutiny from the Federal Aviation Administration and other US agencies. 

Earlier this year, United removed the Max 10 from its fleet planning, saying the issues with Boeing will slow its growth in coming years. Delta Air Lines Inc. told Bloomberg on Sunday that its 737 Max 10s may not arrive until 2027.

While Boeing deliveries this year will be “way behind” what the planemaker originally forecast, Kirby said he’s “glad that’s the case.” Boeing executives have accepted that they need to make larger changes and go slow for now, in order to eventually ramp up output. 

“This is not a 12 month issue, this is a two-decade issue,” Kirby said. “I’d rather Boeing do what they need to do, and they are now.”

[deicer]

Interesting views on the LATAM upset.

What is the forum's opinion on the comments section as to what the problem might be?

https://avherald.com/h?article=51601631&opt=0

[deicer]

[Airband]

On 3/11/2024 at 2:30 PM, Kip Powick said:

2) Obviously we have to wait until the investigation is complete but there is a possibility this 'accident' was caused by a crew member....

Cockpit Mishap Seen as Likely Cause of Plunge on Latam Boeing 787

Flight attendant hit a seat switch that pushed pilot into controls during flight to New Zealand, industry officials say

The Latam Airlines Boeing 787 that suddenly lost altitude sits on the tarmac at Auckland International Airport

Thu Mar 14, 2024 - WSJ
By Andrew Tangel

A cockpit seat mishap might have pushed a pilot into the controls on a Boeing 787 Dreamliner that took a sudden, terrifying plunge on a flight to New Zealand this week, according to U.S. industry officials briefed on preliminary evidence from an investigation of the incident.

A Latam Airlines LTM flight attendant hit a switch on the pilot’s seat while serving a meal, leading a motorized feature to push the pilot into the controls and push down the plane’s nose, these officials said. The switch has a cover and isn’t supposed to be used when a pilot is in the seat.

About 50 passengers on the flight from Sydney to Auckland required medical attention, and some passengers were pinned to the ceiling as the airplane suddenly descended. Latam, a Chile-based airline, has said the Dreamliner suffered a “technical event during the flight which caused strong movement.”

A spokesman for Latam said the company is working with authorities on the investigation, but declined to comment further until the investigation is finished. Latam’s pilots union declined to comment. The company’s flight-attendant union didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. 

“We are in contact with our customer, and Boeing stands ready to support investigation-related activities as requested,” Boeing said in a statement.

The investigation is continuing and evidence can emerge later to contradict preliminary findings.

Two investigators from Chile’s civil-aviation agency arrived in New Zealand on Wednesday to lead the investigation, which also includes an expert from New Zealand, a spokeswoman for the agency said Thursday. The Latam aircraft that took the sudden plunge returned to Chile during a flight with just crew on board. It is parked at Santiago’s airport, the spokeswoman said. 

“It was a horrible experience,” Verónica Martínez, a passenger on the flight, told Chilean media after she returned to Santiago on another aircraft. She said flight attendants as well as passengers who weren’t wearing their seat belts were thrown to the ceiling of the plane. “I saw a baby fly up. It was terrible.”

Boeing is expected to issue a memo related to the seat switch to airlines that operate the 787 Dreamliner, a wide-body aircraft often used on long-haul international flights. Industry publication the Air Current earlier reported a cockpit seat movement was a focus of the investigation.

Boeing faces scrutiny for separate manufacturing and safety lapses after a Jan. 5 accident involving a fuselage panel that flew off an Alaska Airlines 737 MAX jet midflight.

[Kip Powick]

 

 

[J.O.]

Unless that switch cover was missing, how in the heck would someone "accidentally" activate it? 

[Seeker]

Not only is it covered but the switch is recessed.  It's 2-position rocker switch that moves the seat fore and aft (and a little outboard when at the rearmost travel).  The switch is spring-loaded to the off position and the seat moves slowly.  

Seems like a plausible explanation but both the pilot and FA would have to be completely oblivious to the movement of the seat for it to get to the state where the controls were affected. 

[Kip Powick]

Could the pilot/FA be putting the dinner tray on his lap and accidently push the CC forward ???

[Seeker]

27 minutes ago, Kip Powick said:

Could the pilot/FA be putting the dinner tray on his lap and accidently push the CC forward ???

If you had the tray on your lap and the seat was moved contact/pushing the CC would be more likely but you'd have to be really zoned out not to notice it happening.

Maybe the pilot was a big fat dude, maybe he was sitting sideways in the seat, maybe it's a story to cover something else happening?

Personally, I find it to be a big relief that it's a simple human error rather than some deep complicated software problem.  Boeing will issue an alert telling crews to be careful with the seat buttons, the operators will tell the crews to be careful with the seat buttons, the issue will get added to the list of points to be taught during line indoc.  Done.