New Electrical Flaw Grounds More Than 60 737 MAXs, Adding To Boeing's Woes (seattletimes.com) 75
phalse phace writes: A minor change in Boeing's 737 MAX manufacturing process that was insufficiently vetted caused an electrical system problem that on Friday temporarily grounded more than 60 of the aircraft -- out of almost 200 MAXs that have returned to service since December. While this latest manufacturing flaw is unrelated to the flight-control system implicated in two fatal crashes that grounded the MAX for nearly two years, it slows the positive momentum that had begun to build as more MAXs took to the air and new orders came in from United, Alaska and Southwest.
The problem, according to two people with knowledge of the modified manufacturing process, arose when a backup electrical power control unit was secured to a rack on the flight deck with fasteners -- in place of the rivets previously used. This change was executed in such a way that it did not provide a complete electrical grounding path to the unit. The lack of secure electrical grounding could potentially cause malfunctions in a variety of electrical systems, such as the engine anti-ice system and the auxiliary power unit (APU) in the plane's tail. Boeing said it discovered the issue "on a production airplane during normal build activity" and that inspections are needed to verify "that a sufficient ground path exists" for this control unit.
The problem, according to two people with knowledge of the modified manufacturing process, arose when a backup electrical power control unit was secured to a rack on the flight deck with fasteners -- in place of the rivets previously used. This change was executed in such a way that it did not provide a complete electrical grounding path to the unit. The lack of secure electrical grounding could potentially cause malfunctions in a variety of electrical systems, such as the engine anti-ice system and the auxiliary power unit (APU) in the plane's tail. Boeing said it discovered the issue "on a production airplane during normal build activity" and that inspections are needed to verify "that a sufficient ground path exists" for this control unit.
Problem or confirmation bias (Score:5, Interesting)
Is this really an issue adding to Boeing's woes, or just a normal every day thing that happens with airliner manufacturing and the only reason we are hearing anything about it is Boeings 777 Max crashes?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When you are in the news for plane problems, it's hard to get back out. Every mistake becomes magnified. I'm thinking of buying Boeing stocks because everyone is spooked and it's a hard business to create competitors in.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree there is likely to be an over reaction here. I bought a single call contract just play it. However anytime an entire fleet gets grounded it, *is* news.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why companies like Boeing are supposed to have manufacturing engineers on staff to oversee the line-techs.
I'm going to bet that in this particular case the problem stems from two different engineers that were unintentionally working cross-purposes. The mechanical engineer that originally selected rivets did not know that the electrical engineer chose to use those rivets specifically for grounding purposes instead of running a dedicated ground. A subsequent engineer, dealing with field reports of ma
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no doubt that it is. I also have no doubt that processes documented within service manuals are subject to being ignored by techs that are either pressed for time, pressured to get a particular maintenance task done quickly, or suffer from hubris that they know how to fix it damn the instructions.
Re: Problem or confirmation bias (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
An APC rack is not contending with a requirement to save as much weight as possible.
Aircraft design requires compromises, because it's required in order to save weight. So using something like the rivets as a ground path may well be just fine, but the caveats are in maintenance and bearing that design consideration in mind on all future revs. The last part appears to have been glossed-over.
Re: (Score:2)
When you are in the news for plane problems, it's hard to get back out. Every mistake becomes magnified. I'm thinking of buying Boeing stocks because everyone is spooked and it's a hard business to create competitors in.
Doesn't look like it's been affected much [yahoo.com]. Really, the whole 767 Max thing doesn't seem to have affected Boeing's stock price much. Personally, I think this is legitimately newsworthy, I don't think groundings like this are that common, and considering the level of scrutiny the 767 MAX was under I'd expect them to have been extra thorough when executing the repairs. The fact this mistake got through tells me that they still have a big technical deficit to deal with.
Re:Problem or confirmation bias (Score:4, Interesting)
At work we have a software vendor. They really screwed up an implementation. It was annoying, but these things happen, they fixed the problems over time and it caused a lot of pain. The next time we needed the implementation we had put them under a microscope, making sure they did things properly. However they decided to hide some of their process, and the implementation screwed up again.
Needless to say their contract may not get renewed. Mistakes happen, we know that, however after a major mistake, you really should be doubling your efforts to make the next one smoother, applying lessons learned, and not try to hide or deflect the problems.
It seems that Boeing was trying to be more modular in their design and manufacturing approach, which in itself isn't bad, but it probably also created some company silos in which necessary eyes were not involved in some of the change processes. The recent problem was also due some miss communication across different modules.
Re:Problem or confirmation bias (Score:4, Insightful)
60 planes grounded? That is not a minor issue. We would have heard about it in any case. The only difference is that with the other known screw-ups at Boeing, nobody is surprised anymore.
Re: (Score:1)
60 planes grounded? That is not a minor issue. We would have heard about it in any case. The only difference is that with the other known screw-ups at Boeing, nobody is surprised anymore.
It's not just 60 grounded 737 MAX planes though. They will also have to inspect of hundreds of them and up to 450 could require repairs.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-grounds-dozens-737-max-151951893.html
(Bloomberg) -- Boeing Co. will need to inspect hundreds of undelivered 737 Max jets for a potential flaw in their electrical power systems, said people familiar with the matter.
About 450 Max planes built since early 2019 could potentially require repairs, a total that includes about 90 aircraft in co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, media looking for sensational stories.
After Swiss Air 111 crash due to fire/smoke in cockpit, every aircraft landing due to reports of smoke was reported in headlines. It's like they believed the aircraft have something contagious.
Re: Problem or confirmation bias (Score:2)
It's the latter. You can bet money on that.
Ask anyone on the inside. At any business.
No, this is not a normal everyday thing (Score:2)
Boeing made these headlines about how, after going over it so carefully after what happened, this was going to be now the safest plane to fly, with every possible issue identified.
Well, guess what. There goes their narrative out the window.
I am wondering what they are promising airlines to sell these now, the only thing they had over the more modern competition (and the reason they re-spun a 60-year old design, cancelling their new design project) was that pilots would need no training, but if I understood
Re:Problem or confirmation bias (Score:4, Insightful)
Grounding 60 planes is not an everyday thing but it doesn't look like something uncommon either. It is called an Airworthiness Directive. You can find them published on the FAA, EASA, etc... websites (ex: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_... [faa.gov] ). It can correspond to an Alert Service Bulletin from the manufacturer. And can (and does) happen to every manufacturer and every aircraft as long as it is certified, from the smallest Cessna to an A380.
Anyways, I think the reason we are hearing about that one is because of the B737-MAX crashes.
Re: (Score:1)
Funky ground = everyday thing (Score:2)
There are MANY ground connections in small aircraft let alone airliners. (Retired avionics troop, engine mech and fighter crew chief here.)
Since as usual on Dicedot the parent article was for tech illiterates it didn't explain anything but is heavy on filler. (Rivets ARE "fasteners" BTW.) The fix is probably adding a short, simple ground cable worth only a few dollars even at aircraft markups. If new Barry-style mounts were used (for example) a popular grounding point to bypass the non-conductive rubber bis
Re: (Score:2)
There are MANY ground connections in small aircraft let alone airliners. (Retired avionics troop, engine mech and fighter crew chief here.)
Since as usual on Dicedot the parent article was for tech illiterates it didn't explain anything but is heavy on filler. (Rivets ARE "fasteners" BTW.) The fix is probably adding a short, simple ground cable worth only a few dollars even at aircraft markups. If new Barry-style mounts were used (for example) a popular grounding point to bypass the non-conductive rubber biscuit is one of the fasteners holding the airframe side to the airframe.
"Grounding" is merely not flying the affected birds until a tech receives the repair kit or standard part(s) then installs them. Hassle level depends on adjacent obstacles.
It sounds like the rivets, likely aluminum, provided the electrical grounding that the unit needed. The new fasteners likely used a different material that was less conductive, isolating the unit from the grounding that the airframe provides. It does sound like the fix is to provide proper grounding, either using a ground wire, as you mention, or perhaps a fastener that has better conductivity.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this really an issue adding to Boeing's woes, or just a normal every day thing that happens with airliner manufacturing and the only reason we are hearing anything about it is Boeings 777 Max crashes?
Wow, surprised no one berated me for 777 Max, vs 737 Max... and it took me this long to notice it. Sigh.
Re: (Score:2)
The 777max is actually 777x and not yet released
Boeing sucks at airplanes, good at union busting (Score:4, Interesting)
Congratulations on your highly successful union busting, Boeing.
Too bad for you that the union was the reason Boeing was able build airplanes correctly in the first place.
Management compensated themselves well for their short sightedness and greed, but they were literally crashing airplanes full of passengers into the ground.
Unions are beneficial to workers and management. Learn from Boeing's expensive, deadly failure.
there used to be an saying boeing or not going (Score:2)
there used to be an saying boeing or not going
How did they mess up this badly?
Re:there used to be an saying boeing or not going (Score:5, Interesting)
How did they mess up this badly?
Simple: They got rid of all good engineers and all good engineering managers. For a while that works because well designed airplanes are highly redundant. While it works, it gives you great profits, but over time, the remaining redundancies get smaller and smaller and eventually you end up killing tons of people. Just like has already happened.
In essence, they do not know how to do it anymore and they cannot recover from that.
Re: (Score:2)
How did they mess up this badly?
Simple: They got rid of all good engineers and all good engineering managers. For a while that works because well designed airplanes are highly redundant. While it works, it gives you great profits, but over time, the remaining redundancies get smaller and smaller and eventually you end up killing tons of people. Just like has already happened.
In essence, they do not know how to do it anymore and they cannot recover from that.
As a contractor, I kept getting new jobs for a particular engineering company that always started with... the last person who knew anything about this quit/was fired 5-10+ years ago. Who could foresee this leading to trouble?
Re: (Score:2)
As a contractor, I kept getting new jobs for a particular engineering company that always started with... the last person who knew anything about this quit/was fired 5-10+ years ago. Who could foresee this leading to trouble?
Indeed. Like engineering is trivial and no experience with a particular problem was needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Race to the bottom.
The problem we are having across a lot of industries, is that there are a lot of companies competing in a race to the bottom.
Boeing is competing against Airbus, So to try to get an advantage they are trying to make a cheaper product, vs a better product. It is easier to sell a product that is cheaper than the other. It is much harder to market off of quality and features.
Boeing screwed up, but they are still trying to be the cheapest, so they are not putting effort into quality, but keep
Re: (Score:3)
Simple. It was a "reverse takeover".
Boeing bought out McD. Unfortunately, the McD guys pushed the Boeing guys out of the boardroom, and the McD culture took over instead of the Boeing culture.
Re: (Score:2)
Insufficiently vetted.... (Score:4)
Seems to be Boeing's new motto.
Great time to buy the stock! (Score:2)
There are two airline manufactures that make big passenger planes for the planet. Eventually Boeing is going to get past these quality issues, then it'll be back to 350/share.
It's still a great time to buy the stock.
https://www.google.com/finance/quote/BA:NYSE?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiOqLHUg_nvAhVgHzQIHYKGAJQQ3ecFMAB6BAgQEBo&window=MAX
Re:Great time to buy the stock! (Score:5, Interesting)
Nope. For Boeing to re-build all the engineering skills they have lost would take several decades. Cannot be done. They will die slowly like any giant, but die they will.
Stop trying to pump. You made a bad investment, face it and cut your losses.
Re: (Score:1)
For Boeing to re-build all the engineering skills they have lost would take several decades.
No, it wouldn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop trying to short the stock. :-).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The question is, is it a great time to buy the stock vs other stocks? Stocks go up 10% per year or so on average, for every stock you are buying you are missing out on another one. It's quite easy to pick one that will grow in the long run, but will it grow faster or slower than others?
And Boeing has had dysfunctional management for quite a while now (since the McDonnel Douglas guys basically took over), so it's still risky.
Just buy into an index fund.
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually Boeing is going to get past these quality issues,
Are you confident about that? Based on what?
Crap enineering (Score:3)
If it grounds planes, it is not a minor change. If it was "insufficiently vetted" there is a severe process problem.
Despite the PR language (a.k.a. "lies") this is a major issue that indicates that Boeing has lost the ability to do solid engineering. If anybody still needed that proof...
Re: (Score:2)
Groundings can be for many reasons (Score:2)
They can be for reasons as simple as using a different lock nut. For example many years ago (at least two) F-16 permanent magnet generator rotors loosened because the locknut on the end of their shaft backed off freeing the rotor to damage the generator.
The original locking nut had a plastic locking insert (which exist because they're inexpensive, I consider them trash and won't use them on my personal vehicles). The replacement was all-steel. The work to replace it was a rountine generator removal, inspect
Fuck Boeing. "insufficentely vetted" ? (Score:3)
Grounded (Score:5, Funny)
Guys we want the electronics to be well-grounded, not the airplane.
Lemme guess... (Score:2)
Still market viable? (Score:2)
as more MAXs took to the air and new orders came in from United, Alaska and Southwest.
So the 737 MAX still has a market? Just curious but what is it about this plane model that engenders that much loyalty from buyers? Is there really nothing to compete with it that doesn't have all the problems?
Re: (Score:3)
as more MAXs took to the air and new orders came in from United, Alaska and Southwest.
So the 737 MAX still has a market? Just curious but what is it about this plane model that engenders that much loyalty from buyers? Is there really nothing to compete with it that doesn't have all the problems?
It's not "this plane model" it's the cost of moving to something else. The costs to get crews rated on the new aircraft, the cost of developing new procedures, the costs of retraining maintenance personnel, etc.
This is especially pronounced for Southwest whose entire fleet is 737s.
Re: (Score:2)
So basically the same reason that schools force families to pay out the wazoo for a TI-83 when most kids already have a computer with 1000X the horsepower in their pockets.
Re: (Score:3)
In that case it's not just training teachers, it's about cheating by going online and getting information you're supposed to have memorized.
Re: (Score:2)
It's small and efficient. Customers want direct flights, scheduling software can handle it now, and ETOPS changes mean you can fly the things intercontinental. Everybody wants small, efficient twin engine airliners.
Sure, everything else being equal, and A320NEO is probably a better choice, but lots of carriers have a bunch of Boeing infrastructure already. And also, nationalism.
Time to do An Intel and Go Back to What Worked (Score:4, Insightful)
Looks like it's time to flush the McDonnell Douglas management and reinstate the old-guard Boeing management.
Re: Time to do An Intel and Go Back to What Worked (Score:2)
When exactly did Intel do that?
As far as I can tell, they are still an exploding high-speed air fortress rapidly losing altitude. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
When they finally realised the Alpha-derived Netburst architecture used for the P4 series was good at generating heat but not much else and went back to more traditional Pentium M as a basis for the Core and Core 2. The Netburst debacle gave AMD the opportunity to take the lead in price/performance, power/performance, and absolute performance with the Opteron.
Shouldn't require grounding (Score:4, Interesting)
The circuit shouldn't *require* grounding via the chassis to function. There should be discrete negative / ground lead in the connector and wiring harness to that module if it is required for it to function properly. I'm surprised it was designed that way in the first place. Additionally, I'm not sure rivets can / should be counted on as an electrical conductor. Electrical conductors are specifically designed to... provide conductivity, which is why they are usually copper, gold plated, etc, for BOTH sides of the connector. It seems that if something as simple as the composition of the rivet metal being switched to something else during production could also lead to loss of conductivity, especially if the metals involved are conducive to corrosion or other chemical reaction.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Shouldn't require grounding (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Many aircraft components don't require grounding to function, but require it not to (intermittently) MALfunction.
Usually grounding to airframe is done using simple ground straps.
Simple bonding strap for a Cessna:
https://www.mcfarlaneaviation.... [mcfarlaneaviation.com]
Others are not going to be better. (Score:2)
But this nicely shows why you don't want anything to get a cop's attention: Everyone has flaws. But once they found one, they are going to dig through all of your shit and uncover all the other flaws. They would have found some in the others too. Because they always do. But they didn't look.
And that right there is why you *do* have something to hide.
That being said, I feel no compassion for Boeing. ;)
Just: Don't be smug with your vehicle of choice. It will also have flaws that will raise your hairs.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the most insightful comment on the subject of electronic privacy that I've ever seen. What the hell is it doing on a thread about the 737?
Beancounters? (Score:2)
Well,
I really wonder what that bean counter attitude and its resulting problems are about.
Suppose the unit in question is riveted to the floor with 8 bolts.
Suppose because of quality and what do I know such a bold costs $10 (obviously it probably only costs 5cents, but who knows), then riveting down that unit costs $80, lets round it up to $100 in materials, and probably another $100 in work.
Right?
Now you replace the rivets with plastic fasteners. So you save something like $75 in materials, perhaps another
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. But you could use screws, too.
Meta problem (Score:5, Funny)
Based on the description of the problem: 60 planes are un-grounded so they must be grounded until they are grounded. Once they are grounded, they will be clear to fly.
Re: Meta problem (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Rodger, Rodger, what's our vector Victor? Tower radio clearance, over. That's Clarence, over. Over. Rodger. Huh?
Grounding problem (Score:1)
Convert it into a train (Score:2)
At this point Boeing's only hope is to turn the fuselage into a rail car. I was thinking boat at first, but then figured it might not float.
After Fucking Over Bombarier With Lies (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)