Boeing Says Some 737 Max Planes Might Have Defective Parts (cnn.com) 128
"Boeing on Sunday said some of its 737 planes, including many 737 Max aircraft, may have faulty parts on their wings," reports CNN.
Working with the Federal Aviation Administration, Boeing said it has reached out to airlines that fly 737 planes, advising them to inspect their slat track assemblies on Max and NG aircraft. The 737 NG series includes the 737-600, -700, -800 and -900 planes. Leading edge slats are an aerodynamic control surface that extend from the front of the wing. Some the tracks may not meet manufacturing standards and may need to be replaced, Boeing and the FAA said. They said if the parts are found to be defective, airlines should replace them before returning the planes to service.
The faulty parts could fail prematurely or crack. The FAA said a part failure would not bring down a plane, it could damage an aircraft while in flight. Boeing has sent out a service bulletin and the FAA will issue an airworthiness directive requiring airlines to inspect and repair its slat track assemblies within 10 days.
The company discovered the problem Friday, when Boeing was meeting with the parts supplier. Boeing employees noticed some of the parts were not heat treated, which led them to believe there might be a safety issue.
CNBC reminds readers that the Boeing 737 Max have already been grounded worldwide after two fatal crashes, with airlines cancelling thousands of flights through August.
"Boeing's CEO, Dennis Muilenburg, last week said the company had to regain the public's trust...."
The faulty parts could fail prematurely or crack. The FAA said a part failure would not bring down a plane, it could damage an aircraft while in flight. Boeing has sent out a service bulletin and the FAA will issue an airworthiness directive requiring airlines to inspect and repair its slat track assemblies within 10 days.
The company discovered the problem Friday, when Boeing was meeting with the parts supplier. Boeing employees noticed some of the parts were not heat treated, which led them to believe there might be a safety issue.
CNBC reminds readers that the Boeing 737 Max have already been grounded worldwide after two fatal crashes, with airlines cancelling thousands of flights through August.
"Boeing's CEO, Dennis Muilenburg, last week said the company had to regain the public's trust...."
Damn! (Score:1, Funny)
These planes already crash at the drop of a hat. At least give them a chance by equipping them with functioning parts!
Re: Damn! (Score:1)
Wait until you realize that it took Boeing this long to figure out there were problems of this kind.
Boeing and the FAA are supposee to be in the business of not killing people. Turns out somewhere in the course of doing business, they forgot about that....
Boeing is quickly aproaching a new era of not being too big to fail. Boeing sychophants, no matter how hard they want to keep enabling their management's behavior, are going to have to face the fire their blind alliegance helped create.
Re: (Score:3)
*Every* aircraft had air worthiness directives, this is no different - check out my posting history on the MAX situation and you will know I don't let them off lightly, but this story is just piling on.
Nothing to be worried about in this particular case, it's a normal situation. The MCAS situation however...
Re: Damn! (Score:5, Informative)
Wait until you realize that it took Boeing this long to figure out there were problems of this kind.
Boeing and the FAA are supposee to be in the business of not killing people. Turns out somewhere in the course of doing business, they forgot about that....
Boeing is quickly aproaching a new era of not being too big to fail. Boeing sychophants, no matter how hard they want to keep enabling their management's behavior, are going to have to face the fire their blind alliegance helped create.
Having read about this... The issue is a SUPPLIER has only recently admitted to supplying Boeing parts that they cannot be fully assured meet specifications. My guess here is that given the massive visibility this aircraft has right now that everything is being reviewed in detail, even with suppliers, and a review turned up some QA paperwork or process issues. This is not a design flaw, but a process and paperwork deficiency.
In this case, the problem is not with Boeing, but with the supplier. Now every aircraft that was equipped with suspect parts will have those parts replaced, most likely at Boeing's expense. Plus, it's not that the parts in question are known to be bad, only that they are not proven to meet all the requirements. Chances are, the parts are just fine. Even so, parts not proven to be up to standards, will be replaced.
Re: (Score:1)
The problem is most definitely with Boeing. They signed off on, accepted, and paid for the parts. They also used the parts to build the plane.
To write this off as simply a process and paperwork deficiency is negligent, irresponsible, and exactly the reason why they're in the position they find themselves in.
For every company that I've ever work at as an engineer, the very first thing you do is you qualify the parts and you continually evaluate your processes such that you have a very high degree of confid
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is most definitely with Boeing. They signed off on, accepted, and paid for the parts.
So, even if the supplier was lying about their process or didn't follow the contracted process you blame Boeing? Or the supplier discovers after an independent review of their QA processes that a group of parts was sold to Boeing where NOT properly vetted by the supplier's QA department so you blame Boeing? How's that on Boeing? Or do you suppose that Boeing has to directly manage and control ALL aspects of their supply chain doing all the QA work themselves, from obtaining raw materials all the way though
Re: (Score:2)
Wow.. Wrong on sooo many levels...
Should Boeing contract with suppliers and DEMMAND they provide properly vetted parts? Yes... Should they spot check? Sure, just to make sure. Do they have to personally verify *every* part was properly QA'ed by a subcontractor who's under contract and certified by the FAA to produce aircraft parts? That's a whole new level of impossible. At some point, you have to trust your suppliers are following the process you contracted them to follow.
You think Boeing should be w
Let's not worry (Score:4, Insightful)
about defective software when we can concentrate instead on defective parts.
Re: (Score:3)
How so?
Boeing is currently facing a fleet of aircraft which are grounded, a group of operators who are ticked off because they have paid for aircraft they cannot fly until Boeing finishes re-certifying the whole aircraft from wingtip to wingtip, nose to tail, all due to what amounts to a software and training deficiency they let slip though their certification process.
Then, because a supplier reports that a batch of parts they previously provided *may not* meet all the necessary requirements, Boeing says
Re: (Score:2)
all due to what amounts to a software and training deficiency they let slip though their certification process
This is a funny way of saying "corner cutting to make a buck when they should have fucking known better."
I'm not arguing that.. I'm arguing that bashing Boeing for a supplier's failures to follow the contracted process is wrong. In THIS case, Boeing is doing it's job correctly and notifying operators about a possible quality problem with installed parts, recommending replacement, which is EXACTLY what they should be doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Knee jerk much?
I'm not trying to argue away the MCAS software and training issues of the MAX. All I'm saying is that bashing Boeing over THIS issue is wrong. In this case, Boeing is doing EXACTLY what they need to be doing. A supplier reports that they discovered quality problems with a set of parts they supplied to Boeing, and Boeing has turned around and notified operators, requiring they replace these parts.
Huh (Score:1)
Ya think?
headline's wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Not just the 737 max which isn't currently allowed to fly worldwide - Many 737 planes including those still flying have had the possible defective parts installed.
Not just 737 Max, more than 300 Boeing 737 jets. (Score:5, Informative)
FAA identifies potentially defective parts on more than 300 Boeing 737 jets [marketwatch.com]. (Marketwatch, from the Wall Street Journal, June 2, 2019)
Quote: "U.S. air-safety regulators said parts inside the wings of more than 310 of Boeing Co.'s 737 jets, including grounded Max models, may be defective and need to be replaced." (My emphasis)
The McDonnell Douglas culture damaged Boeing. (Score:2)
Quote: "McDonnell Douglas executives became key players in the new company, and the McDonnell Douglas culture, averse to risk and obsessed with cost-cutting, weakened Boeing's historical commitment to making big investments in new products. "
"After the merger, there was a real battle over the future of the company, between the engineers and the finance and sales guys."
The Boeing 737 design is 52 years old! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Parts of it come from the 707, which is ten more years older.
Re: Made in China (Score:1)
Literally no control over what happens in your own factory
time for some one to do hard time over this (Score:3)
time for some one to do hard time over this
Re: (Score:2)
More like poor boeing QA, subpar American operations that take shortcuts to maximise profit
The Chinese have us beat at this but I guess we're catching up...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's a troll. The first part of it is copy/pasted from a comment on an earlier story. The racist rant was added in this comment. It's probably hoping to get positive moderation from people who don't read the entire comment.
Iceberg? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone else think the 737 Max might be just the tip of the iceberg? Clearly self-regulation has failed badly in multiple respects.
Re: Iceberg? (Score:5, Insightful)
Self-regulation IS inmates running the prison.
Re: (Score:2)
Not the parent AC, this is not specifically a Trump issue but a republican deregulation issue, bastards have been working for this since at least Regan. Its the reason we don't have safe food anymore.
Please explain how this is a deregulation issue since the 737 MAX was developed and released while the FAA was under Obama's rule. Please note that I'm not blaming the Obama administration. Mistakes were made by all parties involved: the manufacturer, the government body that regulates, and the companies that operate and maintain.
Re:Iceberg? (Score:5, Interesting)
Clearly self-regulation has failed badly in multiple respects.
You can add external regulation (there already is some). Just don't expect too much from it. Think of the SOX auditors that are very serious about making sure everyone changes their password every three months. It's security theater.
In the worst case, external auditors will just give Boeing someone to offload the blame to. I don't really have a solution, but there is not likely a magic bullet.
Re: (Score:3)
Clearly self-regulation has failed badly in multiple respects.
You can add external regulation (there already is some). Just don't expect too much from it. Think of the SOX auditors that are very serious about making sure everyone changes their password every three months. It's security theater. In the worst case, external auditors will just give Boeing someone to offload the blame to. I don't really have a solution, but there is not likely a magic bullet.
There is a free market solution here that works 100 percent. If enough people die in plane accidents, other people will stop buying tickets. And neither will the dead ones. The invisible hand of the free market will eventually put that airline out of business.
Because let's face it. It is impossible to fix problems any more.
Re:Iceberg? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a free market solution here that works 100 percent. If enough people die in plane accidents, other people will stop buying tickets.
I'd like to find an improvement that doesn't kill people.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a free market solution here that works 100 percent. If enough people die in plane accidents, other people will stop buying tickets.
I'd like to find an improvement that doesn't kill people.
True enough - my bad. My post was poe level sarcastic, a fit of irony or something like that, and I knew it was bad the second after I submitted it.
Re: (Score:3)
Want to be one of these free market martyrs?
Re: (Score:2)
Want to be one of these free market martyrs?
Oh hell no. My post was just an illustration of how the free market works when involved with life critical processes. It was a Poe that was too close to the ideologue's thought process.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the 787 was the tip of the iceberg. Inspections found loose debris in the wings, like metal shavings which can migrate around and get into connectors, and I seem to recall that even tools were found? The 737 is the actual berg.
I predict that if one looks, one can find major manufacturing failures and probably also design flaws in everything Boeing has done for a decade or more.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, how so?
A supplier, under the microscope due to the MAX being re-certified, is forced to admit it wasn't following proper QA processes rendering a batch of parts suspect is somehow a Boeing problem? This is not a design issue, this is a manufacturing and quality issue.
Boeing is taking it on the chin for the MAX's issues, rightly so, but in this case they are actually doing the right thing, notifying operators of the possible issue with the identified parts and requiring replacement. This is what th
They better pay you $$$ to fly on one! (Score:3)
They better pay you $$$ to fly on one!
FAA says part won't bring down plane (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
hey don't make them feel bad, the manufacturer doesn't know what will or won't bring down a 777 either
Re:FAA says part won't bring down plane (Score:4, Informative)
FAA: All good?
Boeing engineer: Yep.
FAA: Kick the tyres, light the fires!
Re: (Score:2)
Out of interest, what exactly do you think the EASA does with Airbus? Yup, self certify to the same degree - the EASA simply takes the results of the Airbus certification program and checks it over for obvious issues.
If Airbus finds obvious failures itself, it discusses the matter with the EASA and they come to a mutually agreed conclusion - for example, the A380s wing failed its ultimate load test, and was eventually passed by statistical analysis of the fix.
The FAA then accept the EASA certification, as
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the wings for modern airplanes fail the first test because of the imperative to build light. Then they are usually strengthened and retested, and exactly that happened to the A380 wing. I remember the video of the passed second test.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? The A320, A330, A340, A350, 737, 747, 757, 767, 767 and 777 all passed first time...
Breaking during the test is very very much an outlier, not the norm.
And its interesting that you say you saw the video of the second test, because there was no second test - they determined what structural changes were needed and then certified the wing by statistical analysis, they didn't do a second ultimate load test.
Re: (Score:1)
It WILL bring down the plane when your're on low approach and your slats get jammed up before full extension, and the rest of the system thinks they are, and your throttles cut airspeed, and you drop from the sky onto the ground in an unexpected stall you have no time to recover from.
Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
"The FAA said a part failure would not bring down a plane, it could damage an aircraft while in flight."
Wrong. This kind of failure could bring down a plane. To say it couldn't is foolish at best and criminally misleading at worst.
You'd be surprised what could bring down a plane, sometimes it's the littlest thing.
For example, check out China Airlines Flight 120: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"When the aircraft retracted the slats after landing at Naha Airport, the track can that housed the inboard main track of the No. 5 slat on the right wing was punctured, creating a hole. Fuel leaked out through the hole, reaching the outside of the wing. A fire started when the leaked fuel came into contact with high-temperature areas on the right engine after the aircraft stopped in its assigned spot, and the aircraft burned out after several explosions."
It was just luck that this didn't happen earlier, possibly in flight. If they'd had to wait to taxi to the terminal (for departing aircraft runway clearance, for example) this might have happened before they got to the terminal. It could very well have happened in flight.
"... the washer on the nut side of the assembly was omitted, following which the downstop on the nut side of the assembly fell off and then the downstop assembly eventually fell off the track."
That's right- one missing washer caused this near disaster.
So please, don't tell me that problems with the leading edge slats (!!) couldn't cause a fatal accident.
Re: (Score:3)
loading the aircraft in ways it wasn't designed for
yeah like flying.
Re: (Score:2)
when your're on low approach and your slats get jammed up before full extension, and the rest of the system thinks they're out, your throttles cut airspeed, shit gets all confused as fuck, and you drop from the sky in an unexpected stall with no time to recover, made even worse under shitty weather, wind, and visibility.
That sounds ungood.
I believe the insurance companies refer to this as an "involuntary conversion of assets" or "unrequested terrain contact".
Post-merger culture. (Score:4)
This is what happens when the wrong side wins a post-merger culture war.
Re: (Score:1)
This is what happens when the wrong side wins a post-merger culture war.
You know the real why MD was merged into Boeing?
One year before the suddenly announced merger (there was no plan for merger at all) MD was in the process to join venture with China to develop a commercial passenger plane.
US government stepped in to stop the JV with China, but it was too late. To kill that JV the US government forced Boeing into acquiring MD (as I said before, there was absolutely no plan for the MD/ Boeing merger at all before the US government stepped in).
The consequence of the merger to C
customers had to pay extra (Score:1)
This is why corporate mergers are bad. (Score:5, Interesting)
Many people have suggested that the corporate culture shift at Boeing after the McDonnell-Douglas merger led directly to all of these problems in recent airplanes. But even if they're wrong, the risk inherent in having only two full-size jet aircraft manufacturers (Airbus and Boeing) was brought into stark relief by the 737 MAX problems.
Consequently, IMO, the best thing that could happen to the industry would be for the government to break up Boeing. I know more than two decades have passed since then, but better late than never.
Re: (Score:1)
That won't happen. With Trump you're going to get less regulation of the businesses so more things like this are going to happen. Everything is being set up for another GFC as even the small protections that were put into place after 2007/8 start getting rolled back and the financial companies get ever more creative.
Re: (Score:2)
Harder to compete with one other company? No, not likely. Having more competition almost always results in increased innovation. If that results in manufacturing getting faster and cheaper, that's probably a good thing.
Boeing's biggest problem is that they aren't agile enough to adapt to changing markets, and are depending on
Really? (Score:3)
the best thing that could happen to the industry would be for the government to break up Boeing.
Re: (Score:2)
Many people have suggested that the corporate culture shift at Boeing after the McDonnell-Douglas merger led directly to all of these problems in recent airplanes. But even if they're wrong, the risk inherent in having only two full-size jet aircraft manufacturers (Airbus and Boeing) was brought into stark relief by the 737 MAX problems.
Consequently, IMO, the best thing that could happen to the industry would be for the government to break up Boeing. I know more than two decades have passed since then, but better late than never.
Into what though?
I'm not anti-regulation, but for any kind of regulation to be effective, it needs to be designed well which means we need to know what the end result we want is. So if Boeing is to be broken up, what should it be broken up into?
The aviation market is heading into a downturn, budget airlines that began rising in the last decade or two that didn't expect the air travel boom to end are failing, even long standing airlines are failing here in Europe. The airline industry is in contraction
Re: (Score:2)
To be clear, I'm not talking about a complete breakup. I think Boeing should keep the Embraer corporat
Would they have done this anyway? (Score:2)
This is obviously an entirely separate issue than the MAX problems, and kudos to the employees who picked up on the problem. The question is, were it not for being in the spotlight for the MAX crashes, would this issue have been handled the way it is now, or would Boeing management have shuffled their feet or swept this under the carpet? As I know nothing about the industry, perhaps some of you can answer. I am always curious these days if companies ever do the right thing because it is right or solely b
Re: (Score:1)
Agreed with the kudos. This is how grownups work: solve open and solve early.
Your question is ancient and interesting but moot. Even if this were the most cynical stunt, this kind of behavior must be encouraged. Complex events have lots of reasons. Honorable choices should create some space for good reasons to emerge later. A lot of good choices for right reasons had to happen for this event. They deserve praise today.
As the great modern hero Bill W. said “You can’t think your way into right act
MIght (Score:2)
Bring down the plane. (Score:2)
> The FAA said a part failure would not bring down a plane, it could damage an aircraft while in flight.
Agreed. A slat failure usually does not bring down a plane. You end up with a "higher than normal" landing speed and that often ends well. It doesn't happen often, but it does occasionally happen.
However sometimes it does go wrong. See Moskow, a couple of weeks back. That was a "nothing special, just a bit high landing speed" landing. It did NOT end well.
Re: (Score:2)
That was not a high landing speed, that was a hard nose down resulting in a bounce.
As long as the landing speed is below the tyre maximum speed and the flaps extension speed and as long as there is enough runway to brake, a higher than usual landing speed is really nothing special, but it will result in more brake and tyre wear.
yeah, like they bolted the wrong engines to it (Score:2)
The free market will correct this - NOT (Score:4, Interesting)
If you look at the discussion about corporate culture at Boeing, at the relentless cost cutting efforts, and all these things which led to two awful disasters, then you wonder whether Boeing's recent stock price crash will teach a lesson to share holders. It looks like it won't. A quick look at Boeing's stock price over the last five years confirms, that it is still way up. [nasdaq.com]
In other words: it pays off to sacrifice flight safety for the mighty US$, everyone who invested into this for more than a year made a hefty profit and will ask for more of the same.
And it gets worse (Score:2)
Will be interesting to see whether anything is left of these cretins when the dust settles.
Isn't this the plot of M. Crichton's "Airframe" (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly. The faulty slat tracks have nothing to do with the MCAS problem. But the scary thing is that the MCAS problem may have triggered increased scrutiny. Which is turning up lots of other problems.
How many more will they find?
If it ain't a Boeing... (Score:1)
Couple of years ago we visited the impressive Boeing factory in Seatle. The tour guide had a slogan "If it ain't a Boeing, I ain't going!".
It seems now that "If it IS a Boeing, she ain't going."