Boeing Urges Airlines To Inspect 787 Max Planes For Possible Loose Bolts (thehill.com) 38
Boeing instructed customer airlines to inspect their 787 Max jets for loose bolts, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced this week. From a report: The request comes after the manufacturer discovered two aircraft with missing bolts in the rudder control system, raising concerns about faults across all aircraft. "The issue identified on the particular airplane has been remedied," Boeing told CNN in a statement. "Out of an abundance of caution, we are recommending operators inspect their 737 Max airplanes and inform us of any findings." The inspection request entails a two-hour probe of the aircraft's safety-critical parts for each of the approximately 1,300 787 Max jets in service, the FAA said.
It is the 737-MAX, not the 787 (Score:3)
There is no such thing as a 787-MAX as far as I know.
The Hill article mixes the numbers up multiple times, are they also using AI writers now?
https://www.foxbusiness.com/ma... [foxbusiness.com]
https://www.reuters.com/busine... [reuters.com]
Re:It is the 737-MAX, not the 787 (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't need AI writers to make mistakes like this. You just need an absence of fact checkers and editors.
Re:It is the 737-MAX, not the 787 (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah I was being a bit cheeky but still, absolutely incredible that the article actually links to the FAA announcement and another story from CNN who both get the model right and then to get it wrong not once, but 4 mentions of a 787 and 3 mentions of a 737 in the same 7 paragraphs.
I'm almost impressed with the level of incompetence on this one, someone is sweating at a boarding gate right now!
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it starts with "journalists" who don't actually know anything about the subject they are writing about.
Re:It is the 737-MAX, not the 787 (Score:4, Informative)
The same 737 that to quote Boeing employees wasdesigned by clowns who in turn are supervised by monkeys and said they wouldn't let their families fly on one? https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention the trouble Boeing has had delivering aircraft on time, which it has "solved" this year by announcing it's going to sprint through production [reuters.com] at a greatly increased rate in the last two months of the year -- during the holidays no less. That can't be good.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost as if we shouldn't be relying on a political news site for aviation technical news.
SOP? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most nuts and bolts are safety wired in place and yes, SOP does mandate 15, 30, 60, 90, 180 day and yearly inspections. Safety wire checks are definitely in there.
Re: (Score:2)
Generally yes, which is how it was found. Typically important bolts and nuts are wired down so they can't back off during operation.
Of course, it's possible for other nuts and bolts to loosen over time. This was during an inspection where one person found a bolt with no nut (everything is typically installed with gravity in mind, so a bolt without a nut would be held in place by gravity a
Re: (Score:2)
Loctite and lock-wire...? (Score:2)
There are processes to deal with loose bolts. Everything from Loctite to jam nuts, to lockwire. Lockwire is Hell on wheels to work with, because it work hardens and will tear your hand up if you are not careful... but it does a very good job in ensuring stuff does not loosen up.
Even cars don't have issues with loose bolts, either due to Nylock fasteners, lock washers or ridged flange bolts, Loctite or anti-seize compounds and other items. Why would a plane have issues with loose bolts? This is a solved
I am impressed with aviation (Score:1)
They find some loose bolts, that probably are not that critical. They not only fix the problem, they also put out a call to all the other planes to have them specifically checked.
If a plane crashes (too often) they do not just ignore the problem, they seek the cause, and the cause of the cause etc.
Compare that with what happens when a virus escapes a lab and kills millions. Nothing at all. Just quietly ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
You're joking, but apparently checking for loose anything isn't part of Boeing's SOP [seattletimes.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about being Standard Operating Procedure during aircraft assembly in the Boeing factory?
Or is this the latest Boeing cost-cutting measure ... have their customers perform ALL of the inspections on new aircraft?
Wrong Nut (Score:3)
Safety wire? (Score:5, Insightful)
Were these bolts not safety wired in? In the Marine Corps I worked avionics on jet aircraft. Damn near every nut and bolt was safety wired after being tightened to NATOPS specifications. I can't imagine bolts holding the rudder assembly in place didn't have some sort of safety wiring accompanying them. If the safety wire is snapping it's either being improperly twisted (6 twists per inch max), improperly installed (righty tighty), or there is a serious problem with the design of the rudder assembly. Either way, it's rather alarming.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything newer than the 777 comes with the defective-by-design mantra.
Re: (Score:2)
But this is the 737, an airplane design that has been around since 1967. Was the rudder assembly redesigned for the 737-Max series introduced in 2011?
Re: (Score:3)
The 737 got fully redesigned with fly-by-wire in the late 1990s from the -600 (NG) onwards. And, obviously, again for the Max series.
Re: (Score:2)
Post-777 days, in case you hadn't caught that.
Back then though, the design hadn't be screwed over yet. The new management was only able to mess with the manufacturing and assembly side of the program.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe in a parallel universe, but in this one even the 737 max is steered with cables and pulleys, augmented by hydraulics.
MOMs, SBs, and ADs (Score:2)
Pilot here.
MOMs are like the weakest link in the chain. It means "Hey you should take a look at this, if you like, when you get around to it."
Boeing could issue an SB (Service Bulletin). That is not quite as weak as a MOM but doesn't really require immediate compliance.
OR
The FAA could issue an AD (Administrative Directive). These have the force of law. They require specific action taken in a certain amount of time. Usually it's within the next inspection period OR after the next flight OR something tha
Old joke (Score:4, Funny)
A plane was filled with professors and their assistants, then they were told that plane was designed and built by their students. The assistants panicked and headed for the exit while the professors remained calm and seated.
Asked why they had that much faith in their student's ability while their assistants didn't, the professors answered "Trust in their ability? Pfft, we trust that the plane can't even take off".
nuts and bolts (Score:2)
15 bolts (Score:2)
"I'm looking for *fifteen* loose bolts! . . . Oops! . . . I'm looking for *ten* loose bolts!"
Re: (Score:1)
10 loose bolts, hanging on the plane
10 loose bolts, hanging on the plane
If one loose bolt, should accidentally fall,
There'd be 9 loose bolts, hanging on the plane...
Many of their engineers have retired (Score:2)
Many of their engineers have retired, and became Slashdot editors.
Re: (Score:2)
Should inspect 737 NG (-600+) structural parts (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In other hardware news... (Score:2)
Both Biden and Trump are suspected of having screws loose.