Malcolm Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 6 hours ago, Seeker said: Beat me to it. There was nothing wrong with the part And we know this ...... why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 6 hours ago, Malcolm said: And we know this ...... why? OK, you got me. We don't "know it". I'm just going by the reports that they couldn't find the bolts - kinda makes me think they weren't there in the first place. You're correct of course - best to wait for the official report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 4 hours ago, Seeker said: OK, you got me. We don't "know it". I'm just going by the reports that they couldn't find the bolts - kinda makes me think they weren't there in the first place. You're correct of course - best to wait for the official report. The FAA also said Wednesday its investigation into Boeing’s manufacturing processes included those involving Spirit, once a unit of the aerospace giant it sold off in 2005. FAA chief Mike Whitaker told The Wall Street Journal last week “all indications are it’s manufacturing” that led to the Alaska accident, and not a design flaw with the plug door. So far a design flaw has been ruled out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 18 minutes ago, Malcolm said: AA chief Mike Whitaker told The Wall Street Journal last week “all indications are it’s manufacturing” that led to the Alaska accident, and not a design flaw with the plug door. So far a design flaw has been ruled out. True, but "manufacturing" could mean the way the door was fabricated or the way it was installed on the aircraft so we still don't know. What I mean to say is that the manufacturing of the aircraft includes the installation of the door plug so if it was installed wrong it would still be accurate to say the problem was manufacturing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 Quote True, but "manufacturing" could mean the way the door was fabricated or the way it was installed on the aircraft so we still don't know. What I mean to say is that the manufacturing of the aircraft includes the installation of the door plug so if it was installed wrong it would still be accurate to say the problem was manufacturing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conehead Posted January 20 Author Share Posted January 20 FAA AD 737Max return to service.pdfThe FAA has issued a new AD permitting the Max-9 return to service after the appropriate inspections and repairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 24 minutes ago, conehead said: FAA AD 737Max return to service.pdfThe FAA has issued a new AD permitting the Max-9 return to service after the appropriate inspections and repairs. From the notice: ACTION: Final rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737–9 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of an in-flight departure of a mid cabin door plug, which resulted in a rapid decompression of the airplane. This AD prohibits further flight of affected airplanes, until the airplane is inspected and all applicable corrective actions have been performed. The FAA previously sent an emergency AD to all known U.S. owners and operators of these airplanes. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD is effective on January 18, 2024. Emergency AD 2024–02–51, issued on January 6, 2024, which contained the requirements of this amendment, was effective with actual notice. The FAA must receive comments on this AD by March 4, 2024. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 Boeing & Aerospace | Business https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeings-challenges-cant-be-fixed-without-a-culture-change/ Boeing’s challenges can’t be fixed without a culture change Jan. 19, 2024 at 6:00 am | Updated Jan. 19, 2024 at 6:00 am 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 The FAA's investigation into Boeing is getting wider as it flags another plane model for door-plug inspections An Alaska Airlines Boeing 737-900ER. CHARLY TRIBALLEAU/AFP via Getty Images© CHARLY TRIBALLEAU/AFP via Getty Images The FAA told airlines to inspect the door plugs of another Boeing jet, the 737-900ER. It uses the same door-plug design as the 737 Max 9 involved in the Alaska Airlines blowout. United, Alaska, and Delta Air Lines operate the 737-900ER with a door plug. A second plane has been dragged into the Boeing 737 Max 9 saga as the Federal Aviation Administration recommended a new set of inspections on Sunday. The Boeing 737-900ER uses the same door-plug design as the Max 9, which has come under scrutiny since the Alaska Airlines blowout on January 5. The Max 9 remains grounded as airlines continue inspections, although the 737-900ER isn't grounded. On Sunday, the FAA said it recommends "operators of Boeing 737-900ER aircraft visually inspect mid-exit door plugs to ensure the door is properly secured." After the Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 door plug was recovered earlier this month, investigators found four bolts attached to the Max 9 were missing. The door plug is undergoing testing to determine if they were ever installed. Loose hardware was also discovered on other Max 9 jets after they were grounded, by United and Alaska Airlines. The FAA's safety alert also notes that during maintenance inspections, some operators have "noted findings with bolts" on the 737-900ER. Related video: US watchdog orders checks on more Boeing jet doors (Reuters) More trouble for Boeing after US watchdogs warned airlines late Loaded: 42.45% Play Current Time 0:00 / Duration 1:24 Quality Settings Captions Fullscreen Reuters US watchdog orders checks on more Boeing jet doors Unmute 0 View on Watch The 737-900ER is the third generation of Boeing's narrowbody 737 jet, which was first delivered in 2007. It doesn't appear to have been involved in any door-plug incidents like the Max 9. The fact that the FAA is issuing a safety alert based on Boeing's design suggests more unease around the American manufacturer. According to Reuters, the vast majority of 737-900ER jets with a door plug are operated by three US carriers: United, Alaska, and Delta Air Lines. United and Alaska told Reuters they have begun the inspections and expect them to be completed soon without disruption. Delta Air Lines said it had "elected to take proactive measures to inspect our 737-900ER fleet" and doesn't anticipate an impact on its operations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 Components of the 737 are made all over the globe. gone are the days of a single manufacturer. It is not cost effective. nothing is made in Renton. The components are all ASSEMBLED in Renton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 It appears United is thinking hard about the 737... https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/23/united-ceo-casts-doubt-on-boeing-737-max-10-order.html United CEO casts doubt on 737 Max 10 order after Boeing’s recent problems KEY POINTS United is considering fleet plans without the Boeing 737 Max 10. CEO Scott Kirby expressed frustration with delays and manufacturing issues at Boeing. Kirby said the Max 9 grounding after a door plug blew on an Alaska Airlines flight is the “straw that broke the camel’s back.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 https://viewfromthewing.com/boeing-whistleblower-production-line-has-enormous-volume-of-defects-bolts-on-max-9-werent-installed/ Boeing Whistleblower: Production Line Has “Enormous Volume Of Defects” Bolts On MAX 9 Weren’t Installed A reader at respected airline industry site Leeham News offered a comment that suggests they have access to Boeing’s internal quality control systems, and shares details of what they saw regarding the Boeing 737 MAX 9 flown by Alaska Airlines that had a door plug detach inflight, causing rapid decompression of the aircraft. The takeaway appears to be that outsourced plane components have so many problems when they show up at the production line that Boeing’s quality control staff can’t keep up with them all. Current Boeing employee here – I will save you waiting two years for the NTSB report to come out and give it to you for free: the reason the door blew off is stated in black and white in Boeings own records. It is also very, very stupid and speaks volumes about the quality culture at certain portions of the business. …With that out of the way… why did the left hand (LH) mid-exit door plug blow off of the 737-9 registered as N704AL? Simple- as has been covered in a number of articles and videos across aviation channels, there are 4 bolts that prevent the mid-exit door plug from sliding up off of the door stop fittings that take the actual pressurization loads in flight, and these 4 bolts were not installed when Boeing delivered the airplane, our own records reflect this. …As a result, this check job that should find minimal defects has in the past 365 calendar days recorded 392 nonconforming findings on 737 mid fuselage door installations (so both actual doors for the high density configs, and plugs like the one that blew out). That is a hideously high and very alarming number, and if our quality system on 737 was healthy, it would have stopped the line and driven the issue back to supplier after the first few instances. …Now, on the incident aircraft this check job was completed on 31 August 2023, and did turn up discrepancies, but on the RH side door, not the LH that actually failed. I could blame the team for missing certain details, but given the enormous volume of defects they were already finding and fixing, it was inevitable something would slip through- and on the incident aircraft something did. I know what you are thinking at this point, but grab some popcorn because there is a plot twist coming up. The next day on 1 September 2023 a different team (remember 737s flow through the factory quite quickly, 24 hours completely changes who is working on the plane) wrote up a finding for damaged and improperly installed rivets on the LH mid-exit door of the incident aircraft. …Because there are so many problems with the Spirit build in the 737, Spirit has teams on site in Renton performing warranty work for all of their shoddy quality, and this SAT promptly gets shunted into their queue as a warranty item. Lots of bickering ensues in the SAT messages, and it takes a bit for Spirit to get to the work package. Once they have finished, they send it back to a Boeing QA for final acceptance, but then Malicious Stupid Happens! The Boeing QA writes another record in CMES (again, the correct venue) stating (with pictures) that Spirit has not actually reworked the discrepant rivets, they *just painted over the defects*. In Boeing production speak, this is a “process failure”. For an A&P mechanic at an airline, this would be called “federal crime”. …finally we get to the damning entry which reads something along the lines of “coordinating with the doors team to determine if the door will have to be removed entirely, or just opened. If it is removed then a Removal will have to be written.” Note: a Removal is a type of record in CMES that requires formal sign off from QA that the airplane been restored to drawing requirements. If you have been paying attention to this situation closely, you may be able to spot the critical error: regardless of whether the door is simply opened or removed entirely, the 4 retaining bolts that keep it from sliding off of the door stops have to be pulled out. A removal should be written in either case for QA to verify install, but as it turns out, someone (exactly who will be a fun question for investigators) decides that the door only needs to be opened, and no formal Removal is generated in CMES (the reason for which is unclear, and a major process failure). Therefore, in the official build records of the airplane, a pressure seal that cannot be accessed without opening the door (and thereby removing retaining bolts) is documented as being replaced, but the door is never officially opened and thus no QA inspection is required. The commenter concludes, “Where are the bolts? Probably sitting forgotten and unlabeled (because there is no formal record number to label them with) on a work-in-progress bench, unless someone already tossed them in the scrap bin to tidy up.” The information was first flagged by aviation watchdog JonNYC. Boeing outsources a lot of the production of components for its aircraft because it’s cheaper as part of an overall shift in strategy that dates to CEO Harry Stonecipher who had been CEO of McDonnell Douglas, When people say I changed the culture of Boeing, that was the intent, so that it’s run like a business rather than a great engineering firm. One of the major suppliers is Spirit AeroSystems, which used to be part of Boeing and was spun out and sold to private equity in 2005. That’s whose work is at issue here. This story suggests a one-off mistake with this particular part on this particular aircraft, though also that production issues are common. That doesn’t square with a theory that bolts could have come loose from flying a poorly-designed aircraft, or that Boeing 737-900ERs are being inspected too. Those have the same door plug because the MAX 9 is built on the same airframe. It may or may not square with finding loose door plugs on other Boeing 737 MAX 9s. So this story is far from ‘official’ but it seems knowledgeable from someone who suggests they’re a whistleblower inside of Boeing. A story in Politico this morning suggests that Boeing’s new team of lobbyists has their work cut out for them. It certainly appears so, but perhaps work needs to start at the board and C-suite level. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 The whistleblower thread is on this page: https://leehamnews.com/2024/01/15/unplanned-removal-installation-inspection-procedure-at-boeing/#comment-509962 Scroll down to: throwawayboeingN704AL January 16, 2024 Read from there down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falken Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 Listening to bloomburg this morning discussing why Boeing shares have dropped so much. She said the window blew out on one and then there was that other one "ON FIRE" over Miami! They claim they are experts reporting business news with reporters all over the world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conehead Posted January 23 Author Share Posted January 23 1 hour ago, deicer said: The whistleblower thread is on this page: https://leehamnews.com/2024/01/15/unplanned-removal-installation-inspection-procedure-at-boeing/#comment-509962 Scroll down to: throwawayboeingN704AL January 16, 2024 Read from there down. Just… wow… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 While the reporting clearly lacks even a modicum of research or expert consultation, the engine issue is a red herring anyways. That whistleblower report (if true) should be cause for immediate suspension of B737 production and deliveries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 FAA halts Boeing 737 Max production expansion, but clears path to return Max 9 to service The Federal Aviation Administration said it would halt any Boeing 737 Max production expansion. The FAA also cleared 737 Max 9 inspection instructions, paving the way for the planes to be ungrounded. The FAA grounded the jets after a door panel blew out on a Alaska Airlines flight earlier this month. Alaska Airlines N704AL is seen grounded in a hangar at Portland International Airport in Portland, Oregon, on Jan. 9, 2024.© Provided by CNBC The Federal Aviation Administration on Wednesday halted Boeing's planned expansion of its 737 Max aircraft production, but it cleared a path for the manufacturer's Max 9 to return to service nearly three weeks after a door plug blew out during an Alaska Airlines flight. "Let me be clear: This won't be back to business as usual for Boeing," said FAA Administrator Mike Whitaker in a statement Wednesday. "We will not agree to any request from Boeing for an expansion in production or approve additional production lines for the 737 MAX until we are satisfied that the quality control issues uncovered during this process are resolved." Boeing didn't immediately comment. Its shares were down roughly 4% in after-hours trading after the FAA's announcement. Boeing has been scrambling to ramp up output of its best-selling aircraft as airlines clamor for new jets in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. The FAA on Wednesday also said it approved inspection instructions for the Max 9 aircraft. Airlines had been awaiting that approval to review their fleets to return those planes to service. The FAA grounded the 737 Max 9 planes after a fuselage panel blew out as Flight 1282 climbed out of Portland, Oregon, on Jan. 5. The grounding forced United Airlines and Alaska Airlines, the two U.S. airlines with the planes, to cancel hundreds of flights. United plans to return the planes to service beginning on Sunday, according to a message to employees from Chief Operating Officer Toby Enqvist. "In the days ahead, our teams will continue to proceed in a way that is thorough and puts safety and compliance first," Enqvist said in the internal message. The CEOs of United and Alaska have expressed frustration with Boeing after the issue, the most serious in a recent spate of apparent manufacturing flaws on Boeing aircraft. The aircraft on the Alaska flight was delivered late last year. The FAA is investigating Boeing's production lines after the Alaska flight. Whitaker told CNBC on Tuesday that the FAA will keep "boots on the ground" at Boeing's factory until the agency is convinced quality assurance systems are working. He said the agency is switching to a "direct inspection" approach with Boeing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 FAA decision will of course have a ripple down effect (layoffs etc) for companies that supply the various components that go into the 737s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 (edited) It is very unfortunate that corporations abuse the trust put in them and then end up in a situation such as this. All in the name of profits. https://www.pogo.org/analysis/how-the-faa-ceded-aviation-safety-oversight-to-boeing Edited January 26 by deicer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 2 hours ago, deicer said: It is very unfortunate that corporations abuse the trust put in them and then end up in a situation such as this. All in the name of profits. https://www.pogo.org/analysis/how-the-faa-ceded-aviation-safety-oversight-to-boeing The pharma industry is 10X worse. Boeing's mistakes are front page news while pharma's are quietly buried one at a time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 21 minutes ago, Seeker said: The pharma industry is 10X worse. Boeing's mistakes are front page news while pharma's are quietly buried one at a time. And their profits put the aviation industry to shame. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/top-20-most-profitable-pharmaceutical-105215517.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W5 Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 127 Days: The anatomy of a Boeing quality failure Full article available on The Air Current: https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/127-days-the-anatomy-of-a-boeing-quality-failure/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 Things appear to be heating up. DOJ opens investigation into Alaska Airlines plane blowout, report says By Gene Johnson The Associated Press Posted March 10, 2024 2:02 pm Updated March 10, 2024 2:03 pm 3 min read The U.S The Department of Justice has launched a criminal investigation into the Boeing jetliner blowout that left a gaping hole on an Alaska Airlines plane this January, the Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday. Citing documents and people familiar with the matter, the newspaper said investigators have contacted some passengers and crew — including pilots and flight attendants — who were on the Jan. 5th flight. The Boeing plane used by Alaska Airlines suffered the blowout seven minutes after takeoff from Portland, Oregon, forcing the pilots to make an emergency landing. Boeing has been under increased scrutiny since the incident, when a panel that plugged a space left for an extra emergency door blew off a Max 9 jet. There were no serious injuries. “In an event like this, it’s normal for the DOJ to be conducting an investigation,” Alaska Airlines said in a prepared statement. “We are fully cooperating and do not believe we are a target of the investigation.” Boeing declined to comment. DOJ did not immediately reply to a request for comment. The Journal reported that the investigation would assist the Department’s review of whether Boeing complied with a previous settlement that resolved a federal investigation into the safety of its 737 Max aircraft following two deadly crashes in 2018 and 2019. In 2021, Boeing had agreed to pay $2.5 billion, including a $244 million fine, to settle an investigation into the crashes of flights operated by Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines. The company also blamed two employees for deceiving regulators about flaws in the flight-control system. Boeing has acknowledged in a letter to Congress that it cannot find records for work done on the door panel of the Alaska Airlines plane. “We have looked extensively and have not found any such documentation,” Ziad Ojakli, Boeing executive vice president and chief government lobbyist, wrote to Sen. Maria Cantwell on Friday. The company said its “working hypothesis” was that the records about the panel’s removal and reinstallation on the 737 MAX final assembly line in Renton, Washington, were never created, even though Boeing’s systems required it. The letter, reported earlier by The Seattle Times, followed a contentious Senate committee hearing Wednesday in which Boeing and the National Transportation Safety Board argued over whether the company had cooperated with investigators. The safety board’s chair, Jennifer Homendy, testified that for two months Boeing repeatedly refused to identify employees who work on door panels on Boeing 737s and failed to provide documentation about a repair job that included removing and reinstalling the door panel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now