FAA Calls for Door-Plug Checks on Second Boeing Jet (wsj.com) 49
The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration is recommending that airlines check a second type of Boeing jet that uses the same kind of door plug as the one that blew out of an Alaska Airlines flight earlier this month. From a report: The FAA said late Sunday that it advises operators of Boeing's 737-900ER aircraft to inspect the planes' midexit door plugs. The recommendation comes weeks after the midair accident involving a 737 MAX 9 jet. The 900ER jet isn't part of Boeing's newer MAX family of aircraft, but its door-plug design is identical to the MAX 9's, the FAA said in a release.
The FAA cited "an added layer of safety" in recommending the inspections and called for visual checks of four places where door plugs are secured to airplanes. It said some operators had already checked 900ER door plugs and "noted findings with bolts." In a statement, Boeing said, "We fully support the FAA and our customers in this action." The agency grounded 171 MAX 9 airplanes after the Alaska Airlines midair accident and emergency landing on Jan. 5. The grounding remains in place pending a review and approval of inspection and maintenance processes. Boeing has delivered 505 of its 900ER aircraft globally to airlines including Alaska Airlines, United Airlines, Delta Air Lines and Indonesia's Lion Air, according to company data.
The FAA cited "an added layer of safety" in recommending the inspections and called for visual checks of four places where door plugs are secured to airplanes. It said some operators had already checked 900ER door plugs and "noted findings with bolts." In a statement, Boeing said, "We fully support the FAA and our customers in this action." The agency grounded 171 MAX 9 airplanes after the Alaska Airlines midair accident and emergency landing on Jan. 5. The grounding remains in place pending a review and approval of inspection and maintenance processes. Boeing has delivered 505 of its 900ER aircraft globally to airlines including Alaska Airlines, United Airlines, Delta Air Lines and Indonesia's Lion Air, according to company data.
Random Thoughts (Score:5, Interesting)
Make accountants employees, not the Optimus Primes of the company.
If your company has a nice big place to build your planes, build them there.
Consider having inspections of the planes before things fall off - Okay, that one was sarcastic, I'm sure they have inspections that are ignored or not done.
Stop taking shortcuts like making video game type solution like making a plane behave like another plane via software, ala eliminating the need to require pilots to do flight sim training because a plane handles differently.
These problems are all part and parcel of people who don't know how to build planes dictating how to build planes. Dictating weird cost cutting measure that end up costing much much more than if the planes were built in a safe and proper manner.
And by the way everyone, if we think that Boeing is an issue, Airbus doesn't have much room to brag. I don't know enough to comment on the source of their little oopsies.
Don't let the manufacturer do self certification! (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't let the manufacturer do self certification!
Re:Don't let the manufacturer do self certificatio (Score:5, Interesting)
Certainly don't let them continue to self-certify when they have proven that they didn't do a good enough job even once, let alone multiple times like Boing has done.
Otherwise you will wind up with what we have with RVs in this country, they are also self certified. They do spot checks but I can only assume that the people hired to do that are blind, because I spent two years working on them and they are fucking trash in the best case. I've found stuff like romex pinched between an aluminum floor joist and a steel floor duct, the main 12V circuit breaker totally omitted and just a big blue wire nut in its place, whole rows of screws that missed so a wall is just flopping around, axle nuts not tightened... You name it, they will fuck it up. I heart Jayco's Amish Electrical
Re:Don't let the manufacturer do self certificatio (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't let the manufacturer do self certification!
Good catch! - I forgot the most important one of all.
Re: (Score:2)
That's easy to say, but much harder to actually do in real life. Who would you suggest do the certification? The only people qualified and knowledgeable who could do certification are those with real industry experience and training which takes many years and a lot of investment. Even if they work for the FAA, odds are they are former Boeing people. I don't see any real way around this. And even then the FAA does not have the resources to do anything more than give a second look at the reports that the
Re: (Score:2)
That's easy to say, but much harder to actually do in real life. Who would you suggest do the certification?
A randomly chosen group of up to five competitors, with all of the competitors presenting their concerns first, followed by a vote about whether those issues should prevent certification, and the majority rules. When they fix problems, the manufacturer can demonstrate their fix, then call for another vote. If their competitors keep denying the certification and the manufacturer disagrees with their reasoning, let them sort it out in court.
Re: (Score:2)
Not going to work unless you are planning to allow a European, subsidized company, in on it. Or Embraer or a Russian or Chinese company. They are the only competitors in this space.
Re: (Score:2)
Not going to work unless you are planning to allow a European, subsidized company, in on it. Or Embraer or a Russian or Chinese company. They are the only competitors in this space.
I guess foreign companies would be okay. But they don't necessarily have to be commercial airline manufacturers — just competitors. :-D Boeing builds non-commercial aircraft, too, so military contractors are competitors.
So if you limit it to U.S. companies, you have Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, and Cessna/Textron Aviation, plus on the military contractor side, you have Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin. I can't think of a fifth unless you include companies that only do drones (e.g. General
Re: (Score:2)
> Consider having inspections of the planes before things fall off
- Some of the planes are built so that nothing falls off at all.
- Wasn't this one built so that nothing would fall off?
- Obviously not.
- What sort standards are these planes built to?
- Very rigorous engineering standards.
- What kind?
- parts aren't supposed to fall off...
-- Clark and Dawe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
> Consider having inspections of the planes before things fall off
- Some of the planes are built so that nothing falls off at all. - Wasn't this one built so that nothing would fall off? - Obviously not. - What sort standards are these planes built to? - Very rigorous engineering standards. - What kind? - parts aren't supposed to fall off...
-- Clark and Dawe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Damn, that was funny!
Re: (Score:2)
@Ace_Larrakin_Productions
2 weeks ago
"This plane that was involved in the incident in Oregon this week..."
"The one the door fell off?"
"Yeah."
"Yeah, that's not typical, I'd like to make that point."
Re: (Score:1)
Some news sites are reporting that the MAX software was outsourced to $9/hr Indian programmers instead of Seattle software engineers.
Does anybody here know if this is true?
Re: (Score:2)
Some news sites are reporting that the MAX software was outsourced to $9/hr Indian programmers instead of Seattle software engineers.
Does anybody here know if this is true?
Apparently it was at least outsource to cheap programmers. https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
One of the other interesting things from this article was the meeting where a manger told an all hands meeting of senior engineers that Boeing no longer needed Senior Engineers.
Perhaps that turned out to be not even wrong. I suppose they had some nice profits until their accounts and and MBA idiocy cost them much money and left their once great reputation in tatters, now considered a dangerous choice in flying
Re: (Score:2)
how did that outsourced to the low bidder code pass the faa review? wait the self certification PHB said that the outsource code must pass my bonus is on the line!
Re: (Score:2)
If you sat in a government IT meeting you'd not ask this question.
Re:Random Thoughts (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, they had "redundancy", at least as far as a programmer who normally does financial software understands redundancy. Their failover procedure was:
1) Disconnect the faulty MCAS
2) Land the plane
3) Turn off the faulty system (it couldn't be turned off in flight)
4) Turn on the backup MCAS
5) Take off again.
No one at the programming contractor had any experience with real-time inputs or life safety systems, and since they couldn't figure out how to make the two AoA sensors check against each other they connec
Re: (Score:1)
Does not matter. ... many did not.
They used one single sensor for angle of attack.
Somehow failed to tell customers (the airlines buying the planes): that they made a significant change.
Some airlines knew it and did the introduction training to the pilots how to disable the system if it makes trouble
So we had nearly 100 crashes where half the crew ran into to cabin and helped with manual power and body weight to prevent the plane from crashing: because the pilots did not know they simply can switch it off.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it was outsourced to a domestic company which normally did financial software since as far as MBAs are concerned programmers are all the same. The Indian and Chinese programmers worked on the entertainment system.
Re:Random Thoughts (Score:4, Insightful)
Or rather, ditch McDonnell Douglas.
The acquisition of Boeing by McDonnell Douglas is what happened. Of course, everyone sees it as "Boeing acquires McDonnell Douglas" but internally, it's the other way around, just using Boeing's money to make it happen.
It's why the management and administration prompted moved from SeaTac to Chicago - they don't want to deal with the engineering problems. Boeing management consisted of engineers that walked the floor constantly and were right there in the same building to deal with problems as they arose. This remote management now means they get to sit in their offices and ignore all the problems.
It's how they gave Airbus a brand new aircraft design (the 220 series, formerly Bombardier C-series) and even better, a leg up in North America. The 220 series was designed for North American manufacture in mind - the supply chain was entirely within North America. Of course, when Bombardier got a contract with a major American airline (Delta? American?) they decided to start filing legal complaints. Bombardier, seeing that it sould scuttle the deal, made Airbus the deal of a lifetime and one that would probably haunt Boeing for the rest of its life as now Airbus has a foothold in North America and they're making more than just the 220 series here. (It was also likely a tactical mistake on Boeing's part, because all the legal shenanigans did not impress the Canadian government, who was looking at a replacement for their fleet of CF-18s. Boeing's F-18 Super Hornet was considered a shoo-in, but with what Boeing did, likely forced the hand towards the Lockheed F-35.
So thanks to McDonnell Douglas, Boeing lost twice - with 220s made in North America and losing what was basically a sure thing that Canada would go with the Super Hornets.
Yes, the day McDonnell Douglas acquired Boeing was when Boeing started to die.
Re: (Score:2)
What i find interesting is that Boeing stockholders went after Mullenburg with a FLAME thrower, when he was the one that was repairing the company (previous MBAs had done a lot of damage just like they did to McDonald Douglas; sold off Boeing's electronics/avionics, cut back QA, sold off frames, move various group
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you have missed the REAL problem. Boeing used to be ran by Engineers. Now, MBAs run the company. ANd they are working hard to see that their bonus in stock options perform oh so well.
That was the Optimus Prime accountants part, and the people who don't know how to make planes dictating weird cost cutting. We agree, I just phrased it differently.
What i find interesting is that Boeing stockholders went after Mullenburg with a FLAME thrower, when he was the one that was repairing the company (previous MBAs had done a lot of damage just like they did to McDonald Douglas; sold off Boeing's electronics/avionics, cut back QA, sold off frames, move various groups from union worked to non-union combined with LOTS Of offshoring ). Now, Calhoun is a total joke. That is the idiot that moved the HQ from Chicago to Virginia and thinks that will help. Such a waste of money and time.
Yes. My understanding from experience is that if you make accountants the prime focus of a company, they will eventually drive it into the ground.
Where I retired from, at one time we had three accountants. Then after they became a commodity, we rearranged. The accountants knew one thing as a touchstone. And that is that there is no case where
Check them all ... (Score:1)
The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration is recommending that airlines check a second type of Boeing jet that uses the same kind of door plug as the one that blew out of an Alaska Airlines flight earlier this month.
If I was running an airline I would have long since bitten the bullet and checked all new or new-ish door plug equipped Boeing jets in my fleet ASAP regardless of whether the FAA recommends I do so or not, and and the checks would not be limited to the 737-900 series. Having just one of these incidents happen on one of my planes would probably cost me far more than doing those checks. I know that some airlines already did these checks long before the FAA got off its ass and started 'recommending' checks, th
Now they can charge extra.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
After too many screw-ups, you can't rely on lobbying (legalized bribery) anymore; the public microscope is on you. Time for a major re-org of the company, even if profits take it in the shorts for a while. Put engineering and QA first, not the accountants. Maybe even take the company private so long-term-oriented investors can be sought; the public stock market is ADHD.
Re: (Score:2)
After too many screw-ups, you can't rely on lobbying (legalized bribery) anymore; the public microscope is on you. Time for a major re-org of the company, even if profits take it in the shorts for a while. Put engineering and QA first, not the accountants. Maybe even take the company private so long-term-oriented investors can be sought; the public stock market is ADHD.
If they take it private, I'll give them $2 for the company right now. No, wait. I don't want to take on that much debt. Never mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing is currently the world leader in stock buybacks.
you know what they say (Score:2)
if youre going, make got-dan sure its not a boeing
Doesn't seem to be a design problem (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, design seems OK, but manufacture quality and quality check is not. This could actually be worse than a design defect. If something turns out to be a design defect, the part can be replaced with one that is better designed. But here, well, if they forgot to bolt in the door plugs on this airplane, what else did they forget to do? Maybe another airplane has half the bolts that hold the wings missing. I doubt the airlines can check everything without completely disassembling the airplane.
Obviously completely defective QA (Score:2)
An airplane maker that cannot handle QA on the high level required is not an airplane maker. It is just a mass-murderer in waiting. I mean these days Boeing does not even manage to make sure there are no screws lose in critical places. We probably just have to wait a bit and they will kill a few hundred people more.
Inspect them ALL, not just second (Score:1)
All the Boeing door plugs should be inspected, every last stinkin' one. They'll have to prioritize the schedule because it wouldn't make sense to ground all flights at once.
Hold up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pressurization Warnings Are Important (Score:1)
This inspection idea is good, but here's another one: Check all Boeing planes that have issued a pressurization warning in the last year or two, since the only thing Alaska Airlines did when the warning buzzer went off was reset the buzzer and tell the crew the plane was good to go, as long as it didn't fly over water. If they've been doing that as a matter of course, it makes sense to pull any planes that issued such a warning out of service until they can be checked.
Re: (Score:2)
This inspection idea is good, but here's another one: Check all Boeing planes that have issued a pressurization warning in the last year or two, since the only thing Alaska Airlines did when the warning buzzer went off was reset the buzzer and tell the crew the plane was good to go, as long as it didn't fly over water. If they've been doing that as a matter of course, it makes sense to pull any planes that issued such a warning out of service until they can be checked.
That should absolutely be standard procedure, agreed, so long as it is in addition to these inspections, not instead of them. After all, if bolts were missing or loose, a plane could easily be one bolt away from a major failure and you wouldn't know it until that bolt failed and you started getting pressurization warnings, or worse, a door blown off.
So I agree with the folks saying that all door plugs should be inspected across the board. I seem to recall some other aircraft also having optional second do
Hey Boeing, get a clue! (Score:2)
In a statement, Boeing said, "We fully support the FAA and our customers in this action."
Instead of meaningless PR statements, how about sending some of your engineers and production line crews into the field to investigate? It would be good for at least somebody in your company to get out into the real world to a) see if there are any complicating factors in usage or maintenance that contribute to this problem and b) face some of the heat for costing airlines a lot of money and for almost costing passengers their lives. Coincidentally, that would also constitute truly effective PR.
It seems tha
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure tech people are investigating. All companies use the same PR drivel at all times. They should just tell the media "refer to standard response #37."
Re: (Score:2)
see if there are any complicating factors in usage or maintenance
The one significant airframe affected is about 3 months old. So that pretty much rules out usage or maintenance.
It will probably turn out to be a factory floor manufacturing/QA process that is flawed. As far as sending Boeing personnel out to check, I'd rather have a (somewhat) neutral observer looking from the FAA or NTSB.
plugs bad (Score:2)
Having a plug at all is a bad idea. It weakens the fuselage for the only purpose of allowing some craven airlines to pack in so many passengers that an extra exit is needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Could an airline develop their own plane? (Score:2)
This might sound insane, but how long of a stretch is it that an large airline could develop their own airplane?
Would United or American have enough money on the books to start a airplane manufacturer subsidiary? Imagine the savings..
Or what about Emirates? Why wouldn't an middle east state with a lot of oil money invest in a airplane manufacturer?
And yes, I understand that the barriers to entry is high, but with so much money on the line there must be someone willing to gamble.
Have you seen the new M320/77
Re: (Score:2)
I wondered, so looked it up.
https://simpleflying.com/moder... [simpleflying.com]
However, several delays later, it took nine years for Boeing to get the aircraft to the market, with an expenditure of over $22 Billion. The Airbus A350 is no exception when it comes to development delays and increased costs. The aircraft was delayed by over two years and cost nearly $10 Billion as opposed to the initial estimate of $5.3 Billion.
More expensive than the design is the manufacturing facility, and the biggest delay will be training up the new work force.