After Inspecting 50 Airplanes, Boeing Found Foreign Object Debris in 35 Fuel Tanks (morningstar.com) 140
Boeing has found debris in the fuel tanks of 35 of their 737 Max aircraft. After inspecting just 50 of the 400 planes which were awaiting delivery to customers, Boeing found debris in "about two-thirds" of them reports the Wall Street Journal, citing both federal and aviation-industry officials.
"The revelation comes as the plane maker struggles to restore public and airline confidence in the grounded fleet." Materials left behind include tools, rags and boot coverings, according to industry officials familiar with the details... [T]he new problem raises fresh questions about Boeing's ability to resolve lingering lapses in quality-control practices and presents another challenge to Chief Executive David Calhoun, who took charge in January... Last year, debris was found on some 787 Dreamliners, which Boeing produces in Everett, Washington... Boeing also twice had to halt deliveries of the KC-46A military refueling tanker to the U.S. Air Force after tools and rags were found in planes after they had been delivered from its Everett factory north of Seattle.
Their report include this observation from an Air Force procurement chief last summer. "It does not take a rocket scientist to deliver an airplane without trash and debris on it. It just merely requires following a set of processes, having a culture that values integrity of safety above moving the line faster for profit."
But "This isn't an isolated incident either," argues long-time Slashdot reader phalse phace. "The New York Times reported about shody production and weak oversight at Boeing's North Charleston plant which makes the 787 Dreamliner back in April." A New York Times review of hundreds of pages of internal emails, corporate documents and federal records, as well as interviews with more than a dozen current and former employees, reveals a culture that often valued production speed over quality. Facing long manufacturing delays, Boeing pushed its work force to quickly turn out Dreamliners, at times ignoring issues raised by employees...
Safety lapses at the North Charleston plant have drawn the scrutiny of airlines and regulators. Qatar Airways stopped accepting planes from the factory after manufacturing mishaps damaged jets and delayed deliveries. Workers have filed nearly a dozen whistle-blower claims and safety complaints with federal regulators, describing issues like defective manufacturing, debris left on planes and pressure to not report violations. Others have sued Boeing, saying they were retaliated against for flagging manufacturing mistakes.
"The revelation comes as the plane maker struggles to restore public and airline confidence in the grounded fleet." Materials left behind include tools, rags and boot coverings, according to industry officials familiar with the details... [T]he new problem raises fresh questions about Boeing's ability to resolve lingering lapses in quality-control practices and presents another challenge to Chief Executive David Calhoun, who took charge in January... Last year, debris was found on some 787 Dreamliners, which Boeing produces in Everett, Washington... Boeing also twice had to halt deliveries of the KC-46A military refueling tanker to the U.S. Air Force after tools and rags were found in planes after they had been delivered from its Everett factory north of Seattle.
Their report include this observation from an Air Force procurement chief last summer. "It does not take a rocket scientist to deliver an airplane without trash and debris on it. It just merely requires following a set of processes, having a culture that values integrity of safety above moving the line faster for profit."
But "This isn't an isolated incident either," argues long-time Slashdot reader phalse phace. "The New York Times reported about shody production and weak oversight at Boeing's North Charleston plant which makes the 787 Dreamliner back in April." A New York Times review of hundreds of pages of internal emails, corporate documents and federal records, as well as interviews with more than a dozen current and former employees, reveals a culture that often valued production speed over quality. Facing long manufacturing delays, Boeing pushed its work force to quickly turn out Dreamliners, at times ignoring issues raised by employees...
Safety lapses at the North Charleston plant have drawn the scrutiny of airlines and regulators. Qatar Airways stopped accepting planes from the factory after manufacturing mishaps damaged jets and delayed deliveries. Workers have filed nearly a dozen whistle-blower claims and safety complaints with federal regulators, describing issues like defective manufacturing, debris left on planes and pressure to not report violations. Others have sued Boeing, saying they were retaliated against for flagging manufacturing mistakes.
The MCAS was just a symptom (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole company is rotten and has cut too many corners and is chipping away at safety-margins everywhere. The MCAS was just the proverbial last straw. Now that people are actually looking, they find so many other problems that this can only be fundamental and systematic.
Re:The MCAS was just a symptom (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole company is rotten and has cut too many corners and is chipping away at safety-margins everywhere. The MCAS was just the proverbial last straw. Now that people are actually looking, they find so many other problems that this can only be fundamental and systematic.
This is an entirely management generated crisis and they've done it through prodigious use of 'innovative business models'. Boeing managers used to be engineers first, managers second. Then they merged with McDonnell Douglas. The McDonnell Douglas Management Clown Posse took the company over (somebody actually joked McDonnell Douglas bought Boeing with their own money) and the next thing you know engineers and quality control people became annoying naysayers standing in the way of innovative business models. Twenty years later, here we are and Boeing is the smoking ruin of the respected quality aircraft manufacturer it used to be.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed. A sad thing to observe. Also because if Boeing goes down the drains, then there is nobody left to keep Airbus honest.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe mass air travel hasn't much of a future anyway. We are going to have to come up with some sort of fuel that doesn't contain carbon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The MCAS was just a symptom (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Embraer is partially owned by Boeing, it only builds small regional jets, they outsource most of the design process and their E2 sells about as well as the A380.
Re: (Score:2)
Your sentence implies that
* Boing would go down (unlikely)
* 'They' kept Airbus honest (hahaha)
* Airbus is 'honest' (You haven't worked in Airospace or read the news in the recent years)
All of these statements are IMHO wrong. Airospace industry is mainly cost cutting.
Re: (Score:2)
You think they are large enough? Well, if they are that would definitely be a good thing.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Bombardier just sold their airliner business to Airbus and their regional jet business to Mitsubishi. They also are currently selling their rolling stock business to Alstom so only their business jet line is left, but I think they will sell it as well and liquidate the company soon, too.
Embraer regional jet business is a joint venture with Boeing now and Comac is completely irrelevant outside China. Even Russia is more relevant, at least a Mexican airline uses their SSJ.
Re: (Score:3)
Narrow-body full-size airliners? Not Bombardier. The only part of Bombardier left is their executive jet business, sadly. The C series airliner stuff was partially sold to Airbus last year, under anti-competitive pressure from Boeing's lobbying with the Trump administration. Now over the next few months, the rest of it is being sold. Even the much vaunted rail division is being sold off. When this is finished Bombardier will be a shadow of its former self. Arguably it tried to get too big and grow too
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The small end for Airbus is now the A220 aka Bombardier C series. For Boeing it is Embraer, I don't think they've put a Boeing brand on it yet, and probably are better off not to now that the Boeing brand has been decimated. So basically, no they don't have any other competitors.
Re: The MCAS was just a symptom (Score:2)
Bombardier just sold their commercial aircraft business to Airbus in a fire sale, so how is that again?
Re: The MCAS was just a symptom (Score:5, Interesting)
Russia and China are making big moves with both governments backing the development of aircraft manufacturing businesses. Likely they will end up tag teaming a Russian/Chinese airline manufacturer. They will undercut Airbus and Boeing and Boeing doing as badly as it has right now, has left a wide opening for them. Japan also looks to be making a move. Boeing picked at bad time to allow the company to be run by psychopathic bean counters.
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing is just the poster child for this phenomenon because they killed a bunch of people and it couldn't be ignored anymore. What you describe is a ubiquitous phenomenon. Perhaps it's civilization grinding to a halt.
Re:The MCAS was just a symptom (Score:4, Funny)
I don't see what the issue is. That's what fuel filters are for, right? And I'm sure this has filters. No problem here.
And I'm sure this isn't an issue in any planes that have already shipped. This is just a new problem popping up. Before this they didn't have any problems at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Hehehehehe...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see what the issue is. That's what fuel filters are for, right? And I'm sure this has filters. No problem here.
In addition, has anyone bothered to study the possible beneficial effects of tools, rags and boot coverings in the fuel tanks? Perhaps they increase fuel economy -- no one knows!
Re: (Score:2)
The tools and rags move around in flight and were part of the intentional damping system for MCAS. Remove all that and now you have to redesign MCAS.
(/s)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That post was good and funny sarcasm.
I write things sarcastically when I think it's obvious, well, to me it is. But then I get criticized, downmodded, sniped, flamed. So now I include a /s hoping people get it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It is not just Boeing. They're just the ones that got caught. GE's company culture is the exact same behind the scenes: Do as little work as possible, pick as many 'already certified' parts as can, Frankenstein them together and claim it's 'certified'.
Working with trial versions of WindRiver and Matlab because GE's IT department was 'working on' legal stuff. Based on context it seems like it's 'normal' to try and make certified flying bits with trial software.
Eaton decided to listen to IBM marketing over th
Re: The MCAS was just a symptom (Score:2)
Re: The MCAS was just a symptom (Score:2)
From what I have seen over the past 12+ years (5 different projects) is that most got deployments are using git like it's subversion anyway. A single master repository, a master branch with feature branches, and no true distributed development.
What this means is that developers get to fight with the trash dump of indexes and submodules for the exact same functionality that is trivial under subversion.
Re:The MCAS was just a symptom (Score:4, Insightful)
Sadly, this is true.
The Boeing I worked for in the 90s and 2000s is very different than the Boeing of today. The bean counters have won and everything from nose to tail has suffered as a result.
They still have lot of great people and fantastic engineering teams, but all that gets left by the wayside when cost-cutting and profits are the overarching determiners of how business is conducted.
Something like MCAS would never, ever have been allowed to see the light of day in the flawed form it took when it was produced.
Using a singe sensor (!!) for such a critical flight control would have been unthinkable, and I mean that literally. NO ONE would have dreamed about signing off on such an insane engineering gaffe like that, and I mean no one.
Whoever came up with it would have been scorned and likely dumped in the next round of layoffs. At best they would have been relegated to menial tasks like counting the screws in the lavatory sink fittings.
Re: (Score:3)
The irony is, the problem with MCAS was obvious, as was the fix. If they hadn't tried to cut corners by only using input from one sensor and nickel and dime-ing customers on warning lights, there never would have been a problem. After the first accident, if they'd come clean and fixed the problem, everyone would have been satisfied.
Instead, Boeing caused a political shit storm and is now under intense scrutiny. The situation is snowballing well beyond their ability to control.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing with fuckups of this type is that they do not know enough to understand they are fuckups. Hence there was no way for them to "come clean", since in their minds this was never their fault, but just good business practices.
Re:The MCAS was just a symptom (Score:4, Insightful)
> Using a single sensor (!!) for such a critical flight control would have been unthinkable, and I mean that literally. NO ONE would have dreamed about signing off on such an insane engineering gaffe like that, and I mean no one.
I agree. I simply don't understand how this happened, no matter how much pressure there is from management. It defies logic and reason; it is extremely annoying that this isn't obvious to, well, everybody.
And yet it receives really no significant detailed media coverage, and we're no nearer understanding exactly how it happened. Reconstructing this chain of events alone would go much further to illuminate what is going on at Boeing than pretty much all of the other quality control stories combined (this one about debris in tanks) included.
Re: The MCAS was just a symptom (Score:2)
Boeing is diversifying to the bottom.
At this point I donâ(TM)t care if the max gets recertified. Iâ(TM)m not flying on that shit show.
*Thank you* (Score:5, Funny)
There's nothing worse than paying $135 million for a vehicle, then never being able to find where that rattle is coming from.
AH - SNAKE!
Re: *Thank you* (Score:2)
Now, thatâ(TM)s funny!
Nothing new for Boeing (Score:5, Interesting)
That 777 that crashed in Heathrow also had foreign objects (a scraper and other stuff) left from the manufacturing in its tanks. It wasn't the crash cause, but their manufacturing standards have been shoddy for a while.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
https://lessonslearned.faa.gov... [faa.gov]
Page 84 of the file (70 of the document).
Re: (Score:2)
"The Right Honourable Lord Adonis". lol
Report of what foreign material found in the tanks (Score:4, Funny)
Fuck those workers (Score:2)
This is what mistreating workers gets you (Score:3, Insightful)
This kind of garbage being found in supposedly ready airplanes is symptomatic of a company that treats it workers like shit. Look at all the stuff they found: it's leftovers from when work was going on. This is what happens when workers don't give a shit and will do only what's absolutely required by their job descriptions, instead of what needs to be done.
Don't blame the workers, management puts in place the environment. When the leaves start falling off the trees, you don't blame the trees, you blame the soil. And anyone polluting the soil.
Re: (Score:2)
I worked with Boeing in the 90s. We went through periods of more than a year without a single FOD incident. This level of foreign objects reeks with intention. It is beyond what I would think could be accidental.
Perhaps the workers are protesting? If so, they are risking lives.
Or it could be stress from having to work too fast, with not enough time to do proper tool count and cleanup, because somebody higher up could get a fat bonus for cutting construction and repair cost by 10%..
Well, at least they found them. (Score:2)
I've got no problem with inspections finding things. That is what they are there for. Having inspections is a plus.
So is the goal of this to make people go "Oh, come on, making a headline out of that is stupid! Boeing is bad, but not as bad as you like to present them."? Aka false flag Boeing PR.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you would have no beef with finding missing bolts, untightened hose clamps and bits of rags left all through your engine bay two out of three times after you'd taken your vehicle for service then?
It's not the fact that shit is being found (if there is one saving grace here it is the fact that it is indeed being found), its the regularity of which shit is found. Imaging if two of three houses were found to have defective foundations. Imagine if two out of three laptops were found to have a bunch of b
This wouldn't happen... (Score:2)
..if they were built in the USA!! Damn China or wherever, no one builds things as good as America, dag nam it!
FOD means the workers who left it don't care. (Score:5, Insightful)
FOD (Foreign Object Debris) means the workers who left it don't care and are lazy slobs.
Retired USAF maintainer (Bronco, Phantom, F-16) here and there is zero excuse for leaving shit IN fuel systems because a worker CARRIED that material (rags, safety wire, fasteners, whatever) into the system in the first place.
Shit in fuel systems reflects a diseased workplace culture and lack of inspections and punishments to build self-discipline. The military doesn't play when it comes to FOD and anything less is slack and dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
In gliding here, FOD stands for foreign objects and damage, it’s part of the compartment closure safety check, correct assembly, all fasteners safetied, no foreign objects or maintenance induced damage.
A second person has to inspect and sign every opened compartment.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Solution is easy (Score:2)
I am, normally, fairly liberal minded. But, I have zero tolerance for this shit.
regardless of Boeingâ(TM)s management, the assembly workers and QA are, intimately to blame. Management overseeing the planes in question? Fire them...no golden parachute. Make examples of them.
Identify the workers who worked on the fuel tanks affected (or, other area where QA is poor). Cross reference them. Fire them. Fire the dups. If no dups, fire the lot of them. Rehire.
If any other planes suffered a crash which t
Conflict of interest (Score:3)
The fact that the Q&A department works for the same company is a clear conflict of interest.
It should be government-owned, since the same quality controls should be applied country-wide for a given industry.
Boeing needs outsider QA to restore trust. (Score:3)
QA should never be a matter of rats guarding the cheese. The USAF rotates maintainers into QA but they work for a different unit and their reporting official is not in the units they inspect.
Rotating maintainers through QA expends their skills while freeing them to report what they find. Since Boeing is so fucked up they should consider complete outsider inspections by another firm to restore trust.
It isn't difficult to inspect aircraft or engines. It's lazy and slack not to do so correctly.
no competition (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Grumman? The only civilian aircraft they have built are the Gulfstream business jets. Lockheed has voluntarily quit the civilian market after the tristar.
Simple solution (Score:3)
As we have heard repeatedly from the con artist, regulations are stifling innovation and competitiveness in this country. And he's right. We should remove most regulations from the aircraft industry and let them self-regulate. No company would ever . . .
*whisper* *whisper* *whisper*
Really? They're already self-regulating?
*Looks into camera*
Never mind.
Compare with Airbus (Score:2)
It would be interesting to know if there is an data on the rate at which debris is found in Airbus aircraft. Its this a Boeing problem or an industry problem?
Geez (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who wants to throw away something quality made that is going to last?
Some crappy foreign tool that you half stripped out, sure, toss it in.
Here we go again. (Score:2)
It does not take a rocket scientist to deliver an airplane without trash and debris on it. It just merely requires following a set of processes, having a culture that values integrity of safety above moving the line faster for profit.
This. A million times this.
Markets don't fucking regulate themselves, not until enough people have died. In the meantime, they (and the imbecilic plebes) will pretend and claim that external government regulation hampers quality and shit. News at 11.
Re:Time for Boeing Bashing! (Score:5, Insightful)
Then there are the thousands of pounds of fuel that flow through them that can often carries junk too.
Most of which is picked up by filters, which are designed to remove common fuel contaminants, sure. But are the plastics they use in their boot covers, gloves etc durable enough to be soaked in a petrochemical for extended periods of time without breaking down and gumming up a filter? Are these manufacturing remnants considered common fuel contaminants? The sealants you speak of? designed for 40 years of exposure and expected to be present. Manufacturing dross? I doubt it.
in reality you are really bad mouthing the poor guys and gals who have to don the protection suits, crawl through barely large enough access holes to wiggle their way through a maze dragging a bag of tools and supplies blah blah blah
Hells yes we are bad mouthing these people. This is not a Ford Focus, It is an aircraft which carries hundreds of people, thousands upon thousands of pounds of volatile liquid, and moves at 560-odd mph. If they are too dumb to tool count in and out, they should not be working the air frame. If line pressures make it too hard to perform these checks, or the checks are not SOP, why the hell aren't they standing at their bosses offices with pitchforks? If the floor staff are as shit hot as you are trying to suggest then there is no question they know the implications of bad QC on a machine this insanely complex and fault intolerant. Yet they keep doing dumb shit like this. This is as much an employee problem as it is a manglement problem. And it has only been a problem in the past few years. And its absolutely depressing to see a manufacturer that has had such a solid history of quality and reliability literally dive itself into the ground. How dare you make excuses for this.
Re: (Score:2)
If line pressures make it too hard to perform these checks, or the checks are not SOP, why the hell aren't they standing at their bosses offices with pitchforks?
Because their bosses office are in Chicago.
Re: (Score:2)
in reality you are really bad mouthing the poor guys and gals who have to don the protection suits, crawl through barely large enough access holes to wiggle their way through a maze dragging a bag of tools and supplies blah blah blah
Hells yes we are bad mouthing these people. This is not a Ford Focus, It is an aircraft which carries hundreds of people, thousands upon thousands of pounds of volatile liquid, and moves at 560-odd mph. If they are too dumb to tool count in and out, they should not be working the air frame. If line pressures make it too hard to perform these checks, or the checks are not SOP, why the hell aren't they standing at their bosses offices with pitchforks? If the floor staff are as shit hot as you are trying to suggest then there is no question they know the implications of bad QC on a machine this insanely complex and fault intolerant. Yet they keep doing dumb shit like this. This is as much an employee problem as it is a mangement problem. And it has only been a problem in the past few years. And its absolutely depressing to see a manufacturer that has had such a solid history of quality and reliability literally dive itself into the ground. How dare you make excuses for this.
Indeed. These people are expected to do a complex and demanding job right. And if they cannot, they have no business building planes in the first place.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Time for Boeing Bashing! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, this is a relatively trivial thing to blame Boeing about when there are so many worse problems. But this one is easy to understand and explain...and nearly anyone can see that it's a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
No.
FOD is not normal.
FOD is dangerous.
FOD is easily preventable when you have a process in place and you follow the process.
Re:Time for Boeing Bashing! (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to work maintaining aircraft - both heavy maintenance and fixing snags - before moving over to pushing papers around.
Oh for Pete's sake, this is ridiculous.
FOD in the fuel tanks is not a serious problem and happens a LOT given how they are sealed and what it takes to actually work inside them. Then there are the thousands of pounds of fuel that flow through them that can often carries junk too. There are fuel filters, screens and all kinds of protections in place.
No. It isn't ridiculous - not if you want to maintain safety in the air and scheduled flights. What happens if a boot cover - for example - wraps itself around an intake filter and blocks it? If the fuel system in the Boeings are made on the same principles that the fuel systems I've worked with, that means the system will detect a blockage (pressure drop) and open a bypass valve - the assumption being that unfiltered fuel is better for the engine than no fuel, especially when airborne. Which in the case of large debris means that foreign objects can and will get into the fuel pumps, engine fuel controllers and so on... might not kill the engine outright, but will generate extra maintenance, costs and delays. So FOD in the fuel is a serious matter.
And even if the protections built into the system works 100%, why would you accept eating up your safety margins? Do you neglect using the seat belt in your car since you have air-bags?
FOD is nearly unavoidable and extremely hard to control completely. I'm not saying we shouldn't do better, or that Boeing shouldn't be trying harder to train their workforce and reduce the problem, I'm just saying that finding stuff in fuel tanks, where sealant is regularly scraped off and new materials blobbed on by people working in dark, cramped, awkward and dangerous conditions dressed in hazmat suits isn't a huge hairy deal.
We counted every single tool out of and into the toolbox. We signed things like disposable gloves and boot covers in and out. If we were scraping sealant, we had to present our supervisor with a bag of scrapings, and if he though it was less than it should be he went in to check for loose scrapings himself. Yes, it is dark, cramped and uncomfortable - but that isn't an excuse to do a substandard job.
If anything were missing - be it half a glove, a 3' torque-meter, or anything in between, we stopped work and found it - if necessary opening up hatches and panels that were already signed off and closed. The aircraft didn't leave the maintenance hangar until all tools and equipment were accounted for.
Bashing Boeing for this is crazy talk by folks who don't know anything about the problem or the conditions which Boeing struggles under to control the problem. But I guess, Boeing is the big bad corporate satan, always going for profits over safety, never really caring about their reputation or doing the job right for some of you.
So we are off to the races, bashing the company as bad, when in reality you are really bad mouthing the poor guys and gals who have to don the protection suits, crawl through barely large enough access holes to wiggle their way through a maze dragging a bag of tools and supplies, lying in jet fuel, barely able to see, trying to not pinch off their air supply so they can reach the place where they scrape off the existing blobs of sealant, hopefully recovering all the scraps. Then they blob on new sealant, making sure to get enough on to fix the problems. Then try to reverse the process of getting in, dragging everything they brought in, plus the sealant scraps they scraped off back out.
Yea these folks need to be more careful, but I dare you to try it yourself. It's an extremely difficult job they do, so cut them a bit of slack.
No, people are bashing on Boeing for letting their corporate culture deteriorate to the point where the people who are doing the difficult job - and I've been there - either don'
Retired AF maintainer wholeheartedly agrees. (Score:2)
Retired USAF maintainer here who agrees with the bashing because if I could pick up the FOD my work generated and carry it off the fucking aircraft so can anyone else.
It's easy to see who's not doing their job. Good old fashioned adversarial QA inspections work very well. Been there, done that. stained the T-shirts.
Re: (Score:2)
And even if the protections built into the system works 100%, why would you accept eating up your safety margins? Do you neglect using the seat belt in your car since you have air-bags?
And that is exactly the point: You do _not_ reduce the safety margins. They are not there to keep the plane safe under normal operation. They are there to keep it safe when something not anticipated goes wrong.
Re:Time for Boeing Bashing! (Score:4, Interesting)
30 years ago a friend and I were embarking on a career in marine engineering (ship mechanic). But he was an aircraft mechanic already. I asked him why he would trade his exotic job for life in a noisy, damp engine room. He was furious at the aircraft industry.
One of his complaints was what we've seen here- junk left in the wings and other spaces of the aircraft. Beer cans, tools, panties, magazines. Probably not from Boeing, but other mechanics.
His loudest complaint regarded crashes: they were always blamed on the (dead) pilot. He got the official reports, often thousands of pages, and discovered that a careful reading would often show equipment failure, not pilot error. But that would bring expensive liability problems, so it was convenient to blame the pilot who was unable to defend himself.
Another complaint, more relevant to this discussion, was morale. The mechanics, and especially my friend, were depressed about the airlines' and manufacturers' corporate attitude toward maintenance and safety. It was always a rush to get the work done and fill the plane with passengers again.
I suspect that this morale problem is serious. Unhappy people do not do quality work. For my part, I won't even eat in a restaurant where the employees are unhappy and I really don't want to fly in a plane made and maintained by grumpy mechanics.
Re: (Score:2)
Bravo, Mr WegianWarrior. I salute you.
I respect that level of care and workmanship.
Re: (Score:3)
SC worker "quality" (Score:3)
SC civilian workers aren't military repair techs. Airmen are expected not to leave what they brought into fuel tanks in the tanks. It's easy. I wear or carried a FOD bag or container then you, holy shit, put my scraps in the damn bag or container. I managed that for 26 years (not a Fuels troop but depaneled and changed probes helping them on deployments and R&Ied many fuel-wetted engine components). I understand a chip or crumb flying off during sealant work or drilling but anything large like a rag or
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh for Pete's sake, this is ridiculous.
FOD in the fuel tanks is not a serious problem and happens a LOT given how they are sealed and what it takes to actually work inside them.
Yea these folks need to be more careful, but I dare you to try it yourself. It's an extremely difficult job they do, so cut them a bit of slack.
I'm not bashing Boeing. I think they are a good company.
I don't know if the debris can have any adverse effects but it shouldn't happen.
It's sloppy workmanship.
Re: (Score:2)
FOD in the fuel tanks is not a serious problem and happens a LOT given how they are sealed and what it takes to actually work inside them.
Ummm, no. Just no. FOD in a fuel tank is a pretty serious issue.
Then there are the thousands of pounds of fuel that flow through them that can often carries junk too. There are fuel filters, screens and all kinds of protections in place.
Yes, and those filters are there precisely because FOD in a fuel tank is a serious issue. The idea is to prevent what's supposed to be a pristine container from becoming contaminated. There's literally nothing that should be floating around free in a fuel tank, period. It's mind-boggling that you would suggest otherwise.
Would you board a plane that you knew had various bits of trash and debris floating around in the fuel tanks? Somehow, I doubt
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you check for this thoroughly and reliably? Such a tank also has baffles in it, which support the shape from inside and to prevent fuel from sloshing. Such objects are likely to clutter on the baffles or in the corners of the fuel tank. What reliable technology do you suggest for such an inspection?
Re: (Score:2)
How do you check for this thoroughly and reliably?
With [pixavi.com] something [flir.com] like [viscoy.com] these [spiborescopes.com] I'd [lcmenvironmental.com] suspect. [fiberscope.net]
Re: (Score:2)
A fiber optic equipped probe could be used. The fiber optic needs to reach to, and past, the baffles. That means some kind of a guided probe mechanism is needed. Is it going to operate well with the tank partially filled? No, which means the tank needs to be drained. How long will this take? Who pays for the equipment and the time out of service to do a thorough inspection? Who does the inspection, and reliably signs off on it rather than merely checking off the box and putting the craft back into service?
T
Re: (Score:3)
That means some kind of a guided probe mechanism is needed. Is it going to operate well with the tank partially filled?
Why is it so hard to drain the tank? Did they not build any fuel drain valves into the plane? Of course, even if that was the case, the inspection can happen when the tank is fully filled. We have remotely operated submarines and we have drones the size of your big toe. Combining the two is not that hard.
Who pays for the equipment and the time out of service to do a thorough inspection? Who does the inspection, and reliably signs off on it rather than merely checking off the box and putting the craft back into service?
Ideally a robot reporting up to the FAA. But we're not quite there yet in terms of technology. So I think we'll have to live with regular maintenance being done by the airline, with unannounced inspections
Re: (Score:2)
> Why is it so hard to drain the tank?
I'd expect draining most of it to be easy. Does it have to be drained _completely, to seek out those rags or metal flakes that might get caught in the baffling? And does it have to be drained completely dry to inspect the entire tank, especially around the baffling? A partially filled tank might obscure debris in the corners or especially adjacent to the baffling. where I'd expect it to collect. I'm not an expert on fuel tanks, I merely have some mechanical experienc
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, you can start by counting your tools. Or paint outlines around them on a big board; see an outline with no tool? Shit, better go find it. Hey, you could even tie them to your person, like astronauts do!
Same with rags. Upgrade them to cloths, count them, attach them if necessary. No more Joe the Plumber tramping around in the fuel tank with a dirty rag hanging out of your back pocket.
Boot coverings, same thing. Check in, check out.
Things like shavings, welding debris, etc. are a bit harder, but various
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly. Was it thorough? And can we rely on Boing to do it, consistently for all of their aircraft? Or will they continue to omit or misreport inspections as they did at when they sold these aircraft? The physical inspection is expensive, it involves opening, cleanng, possibly repair or replaceing them, and reviewing the _entire_ fuel tanks, then sealing them back up safely. It will doubtless take the aircraft out of service for days. How will this be paid for, and who will do the inspection work?
Re: (Score:2)
This is the correct approach.
Yes, Corporations should be treated like people... and yes... when their obvious negligence in the pursuit of profits have ended lives so should the life of the executives end in jail as a murderer... or mass murderer if you wish.
I am a big fan of criminal prosecution for businesses breaking the law.
And for the record, we do not live in a free market society... no one alive today has seen it or knows what it feels like to have one. Corporate control, central bank, and regulator
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing is heavily subsidized by state governments as well as the Feds. They have no real competition outside of another state-subsidized corporation.
Re: (Score:2)
Aircraft manufacturing is definitely not a free market, and there's no real way it could be. Airlines have to invest so much in maintenance and other equipment that their lock-in makes what Facebook has look quaint. That's why the whole thing is regulated so much.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That systems are tolerant doesn't excuse being a slob but every maintainer has seen sloppy work. On NEW birds serious FOD is not excusable. FAA inspectors like any GOOD maintainer know their shit and if the inspector can find FOD so can theworkers who left it there or QA who should be doing followup.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't be a Satanist without being a Christian.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you can. Satan is in the Old Testament. You could not believe in the New Testament at all (Jewish Satanist, in your taxonomy). Or you could believe Jesus was just a prophet, not a god (godlet?), in which case you might be a Muslim Satanist. You could also believe Jesus was a god but that he went on a political junket to America, in which case you'd be a Mormon Satanist. Although in your taxonomy I think that would actually be a Mormon-Christian Satanist.
Re: (Score:2)
Satan in the old testament is not a person, but a generic word for an enemy. There is no hell in Judaism and no devil either. Islam does have something like that, but Islam was heavily influenced by the Christianity and their shaitan is more like an evil spirit than the adversary of god. So GP is right, without Christianity satanism would not exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Like phantomfive, you are to smart for this world.
To add to your points: hell did not exist in early Christianity. Hell comes from the north word Hel, meaning the frozen underworld the unworthy were condemed to, and the name of the godess to rule over them. Stupid christians in their attempt to rule everyone incorporated Hel/hell into their Bible during christioning and proselytizing.
Funny is that they mix many mythical figures into being Satan, such as Lucifer. And interesting is that Lucifer is mosttly mi
Re: (Score:2)
Satan in the old testament is basically God's DA. Worshiping him wouldn't make any sense, because everything he does is approved by and under the authority of God.
This doesn't make him a nice guy (read Job), but then Jhwh wasn't a particularly nice guy either.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, the Greeks didn't all worship Zeus. Giving the little guys some love can pay off. It's certainly no weirder than worshipping a trinity all at the same time and promoting yourself as monotheism.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that in Catholic countries you have hundreds of Saints to worship and every few years one more pops up.
Re: (Score:2)
My two favourite commandments. No god but god and idolatry.