FAA Memo Reveals More New Boeing 787 Manufacturing Defects (msn.com) 77
The Seattle Times reports:
The litany of manufacturing defects on the 787 Dreamliner is expanding as Boeing engineers take apart planes and discover new or more widespread issues, a Federal Aviation Administration internal memo indicates. The FAA memo, which was circulated internally Monday and reviewed by The Seattle Times, points to new concerns about a previously unreported defect caused by contamination of the carbon fiber composite material during fabrication of the large structures that make up the 787's wing, fuselage and tail. The memo also adds detail about the small out-of-tolerance gaps that have been discovered throughout the airplane structure: at the joins of the large fuselage sections, at a forward pressure bulkhead and in the structure surrounding the passenger and cargo doors. The FAA memo, which lists safety conditions affecting airplanes currently in service worldwide, states that these tiny gap defects are thought to be present in more than 1,000 Dreamliners.
These are not considered an immediate safety concern but could cause premature aging of the airframe.
Bloomberg reports these delays may hamper Boeing's efforts to pay down its $62 billion debt: Boeing is working to find and repair tiny structural imperfections about the width of a piece of paper in the carbon-fiber aircraft while addressing quality lapses among suppliers and their subcontractors. Both issues came to light as the Chicago-based planemaker did a deep dive in its factories and production system in the wake of two fatal crashes of its 737 Max... A Boeing spokesman wouldn't confirm a Wall Street Journal report Friday that deliveries aren't likely to restart until February or March... For each manufacturing glitch that strays from its design specifications, Boeing has to file a so-called notice of escapement with the FAA that evaluates the problem, recommends a fix and provides an engineering analysis to back up its finding. The company is still working through those notices, along with a broader inspection regimen for the 787, according to people familiar with the situation.
There are about 20 locations on Dreamliners where potential quality breaches have been identified, said one of the people, who asked not to be identified discussing a confidential matter. At a Boeing fabrication plant in South Carolina, for example, mechanics are inspecting the area surrounding doors at the rear of the aircraft for tiny gaps, one of the people said. Dreamliners continue to roll off the line in North Charleston at a slow rate of two planes a month, the person said. Conducting the inspections can be time consuming and costly since, in some areas of the plane, workers have to tear out passenger cabins to gain access...
The planemaker had initially requested permission to inspect a handful of planes and, if they passed, use its regimen for the rest of the undelivered aircraft, the people said. The FAA rejected that plan, and company and the regulator haven't yet agreed on an appropriate level of inspections, said one of the people.
These are not considered an immediate safety concern but could cause premature aging of the airframe.
Bloomberg reports these delays may hamper Boeing's efforts to pay down its $62 billion debt: Boeing is working to find and repair tiny structural imperfections about the width of a piece of paper in the carbon-fiber aircraft while addressing quality lapses among suppliers and their subcontractors. Both issues came to light as the Chicago-based planemaker did a deep dive in its factories and production system in the wake of two fatal crashes of its 737 Max... A Boeing spokesman wouldn't confirm a Wall Street Journal report Friday that deliveries aren't likely to restart until February or March... For each manufacturing glitch that strays from its design specifications, Boeing has to file a so-called notice of escapement with the FAA that evaluates the problem, recommends a fix and provides an engineering analysis to back up its finding. The company is still working through those notices, along with a broader inspection regimen for the 787, according to people familiar with the situation.
There are about 20 locations on Dreamliners where potential quality breaches have been identified, said one of the people, who asked not to be identified discussing a confidential matter. At a Boeing fabrication plant in South Carolina, for example, mechanics are inspecting the area surrounding doors at the rear of the aircraft for tiny gaps, one of the people said. Dreamliners continue to roll off the line in North Charleston at a slow rate of two planes a month, the person said. Conducting the inspections can be time consuming and costly since, in some areas of the plane, workers have to tear out passenger cabins to gain access...
The planemaker had initially requested permission to inspect a handful of planes and, if they passed, use its regimen for the rest of the undelivered aircraft, the people said. The FAA rejected that plan, and company and the regulator haven't yet agreed on an appropriate level of inspections, said one of the people.
But adhering to strict tolerances reduced PROFIT. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But adhering to strict tolerances reduced PROFI (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that the company is supposed to generate long term profits for the shareholders. So the current management culture in many companies like Boeing are working against such given their short term focus.
Re: (Score:3)
Boeing seems to be generating long term profits despite the screw-ups.
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
Even the pandemic doesn't seem to have done that much damage.
If profits are supposed to provide feedback on the quality of their products then the system clearly isn't working.
Re: (Score:3)
Boeing seems to be generating long term profits despite the screw-ups.
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
Even the pandemic doesn't seem to have done that much damage.
Halving revenue in two years seems quite a lot of damage to me. Assuming that their costs and overheads have not halved in that period, that's a huge kick in the profits.
Re: (Score:3)
It's bad but when you compare it to 2007 it's surprisingly not /that/ bad considering there was a global pandemic that massively affected the airline industry. And if you ignore the pandemic years they are looking pretty strong, you would expect them to return to those levels considering they were that high during the MAX fiasco and early Dreamliner problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Halving revenue in two years seems quite a lot of damage to me. Assuming that their costs and overheads have not halved in that period, that's a huge kick in the profits.
Costs and overheads would have to be a quarter to maintain the same profit.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm wondering how much delay we see between these issues of the last few years, and long term contracts already signed for orders of aircraft, which are extremely painful to get out of. And those customers may give Airbus a larger amount of consideration for the next round of orders.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the inability to differentiate between profit and revenue. You're in good company though, lots of MBAs seem to have the same problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the company is supposed to generate long term profits for the shareholders. So the current management culture in many companies like Boeing are working against such given their short term focus.
But profits in two years doesn't bring in shareholders like profits this quarter! Sigh...
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the company is supposed to generate long term profits for the shareholders.
Not really sure about that. Profits are profits and many (most?) shareholders, and higher executives, aren't really in it for the long term. Executives care about the next quarter, or near-term interval, that their bonuses and deferred stocks are based on and most shareholders aren't that loyal. As my investment advisor says, don't fall in love with a company, they won't love you back.
Yuuge gaps (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The company exists to generate profits for shareholders.
It should be generating wealth for shareholders. Part of that is quarterly profits. Part of that is building and protecting the value of the brand. The latter is suffering.
Re: (Score:2)
Karma is sweet (Score:5, Interesting)
On one hand, this is a good thing, because its a complete and total repudiation of the profits first corporate mentality in so many american companies that is destroying america economically. People have to understand to make a stock a good value you have to put engineers and worker well being first and its better to have something which ensures long term viability rather than short term super profits. The mentality of wall street today is parasitic in the mentality of buying a company, bleeding it dry and then discarding the carcass. They are flies feeding on a corpse. It is hard to defend something so destructive, pernicious and has no value to civilization.
Re: (Score:3)
There are two groups of shareholders. The ones looking to make a quick buck who don't care about the long term and just want good quarters, and those in it for the very long haul like pension funds who aren't interested in the short to medium term pain stuff like this causes.
Re: (Score:2)
pension funds who aren't interested in the short to medium term pain stuff like this causes.
And yet it was two pension funds who led the lawsuit blaming Boeing for the two crashes. I'd say that shows some interest ...
Boeing Investors’ Crash Suits to Be Led by N.Y. Pension Fund
The public pension funds of New York and Colorado are best positioned to lead a consolidated shareholder lawsuit blaming Boeing Co.'s board and management for the fallout from two catastrophic 737 Max 8 crashes, a Delaware judge ruled Tuesday.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/... [bloomberglaw.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing's top management is aware of these issues and has already formulated a strategic fix:
A stock buyback program.
Re:Karma is sweet (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You have to admit they have demonstrated good foresight with their strategy , since they started it 6 years earlier.
Re: (Score:2)
Sweet?
My Karma is a fickle bitch.
Re:Karma is sweet (Score:4, Insightful)
One big problem of US laws governing responsibility is that corporations are responsible to their shareholders first. Not their customers, nor the passengers, nor the people on the ground. The primary responsibility is to shareholders alone. So it's not terribly surprising that companies are putting quarterly profits over and above all other considerations. That can be seen as their legal duty, especially by those shareholders after the largest payouts.
To change the culture, you have to change the law, but how would you change it in order to maintain a company that is competitive and yet produces robust, safe products?
I suppose that's where oversight comes in, except that there's a very different meaning to oversight that currently applies to US aircraft manufacturers. Which means that you also need new laws governing the watchdogs. (The FAA and NTSB aren't alone in this... interesting... use of the word "oversight". The FCC is guilty as all hell over it.)
This is not a trivial situation. It basically means reconstructing the entire way commerce is handled in the country.
Responsible to shareholders on paper (Score:3)
If you've ever had equity in a startup you know just how well that works in practice.
The "business judgement rule" means courts will not stop wasteful and destructive practices. The sheer size means that no shareholder vote is likely to get a majority.
Managers of publicly traded companies often run them for their own egos and pocketbooks.
Only major changes will fix it, agreed.
Re: (Score:1)
Clearly you don't have an MBA.
(Good for you!)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Shut up, this is an aviation story, nobody wants to hear about your mask fetish!
Re: (Score:3)
So who wants to hear about your shut up fetish?
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Statistics are statistics.
That makes them comparable.
Facts don't care about your feelings, dipshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Seattle Times (Score:3)
They've done very good reporting on this right from the start really. If you want one source for the 737 dossier that is the one right there.
The Daily (Score:5, Informative)
It's just under 30 minutes, and well-worth a listen:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0... [nytimes.com]
(Yeah, yeah, New York Times, "mainstream media, Fake News" blah blah blah. Whatever. Save your pixels.)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a shame because the Dreamliner is quite a nice aircraft in many ways. I found it more comfortable than older ones, and the air quality in particular was much better.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a shame because the Dreamliner is quite a nice aircraft in many ways. I found it more comfortable than older ones, and the air quality in particular was much better.
Yes it is comfortable, but I really don't like the window darkening. Because it electronically darkens the entire window at once, it precludes cracking the shades open a bit the bottom in order to have some light at 100% transmission. This isn't the desired behavior for people who actually like to look out aircraft windows during a flight. That, plus the crew can override your settings at will.
Re: (Score:3)
The window tinting is good. It's really annoying to be opposite someone cracking the window open and letting sunlight in when you are trying to sleep. You have a personal light for your seat if you need to see what you are doing.
Being able to dim it is nicer than a binary open/closed.
Re:The Daily (Score:5, Informative)
It's really annoying to be opposite someone cracking the window open and letting sunlight in when you are trying to sleep.
This is what a sleep mask is for. When I want to sleep on a plane I just put one on. The window seat person should have 100% control over the window shade. If you want control, pick a window seat.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why the cabin crew usually enforces having the blinds down when the cabin lights are on low.
Re: (Score:3)
You have a personal light for your seat if you need to see what you are doing
Unfortunately Boeing chose not to invest in magical personal lights that allow you to see outside the plane when the window is obscured.
Airbus tried to simulate magical lights by feeding external cameras to the setback video of the A380s, but in general the clarity was crap, and they chose the top of the tail for the camera location - so the body and wings of the plane itself obscured the majority of the view.
Re:The Daily (Score:5, Interesting)
The cameras on the A380 are for safety, the ability for passengers to view them is just a side benefit.
One issue in many accidents is the cockpit crew not being aware of damage to the aircraft, because the instruments either aren't working or are giving misleading readings. Cameras that can see the wings and the landing gears are very handy in an emergency.
Re: (Score:1)
Cameras that can see the wings and the landing gears are very handy in an emergency.
Indeed. Who needs stall warnings when you can have yarns on the wings and cameras? :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
cracking the window open and letting sunlight in when you are trying to sleep
As if the light coming in through the bad seams in the fuselage isn't bad enough.
Re: (Score:3)
That, plus the crew can override your settings at will.
Yep. As a window-seat-guy this is my #1 gripe about the 787. As soon the window "darkening feature" was announced I thought "The crew will just darken them for the entire journey."
And that's exactly what happens.
A couple of years ago I flew a daytime flight from LHR to MCT. The windows were dark the whole time. All the way across Europe and the Middle East and I didn't get to see a damn thing.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=L... [gcmap.com]
Re:The Daily (Score:5, Interesting)
The crew want you to sleep for several reasons including
1) sleepy pax are less likely to cause problems
2) sleeping during the flight can apparently reduce the effects of jet lag. It does for some people but not for others.
3) a dark cabin means an easier flight for the cabin crew.
The 787 darkened windows policy shows where things are heading. The next gen planes will have no windows. Saves weight and will increase the structural rigidity of the fuselage.
If you want to look outside then the in-flight system will give you what the airline deems suitable.
Re: (Score:3)
So, your complaint is the NYT accurately reported what the CIA said, as well as accurately reporting how we found out they were lying.
How does time work in your universe? Here, it moves in one direction and events that happened later in time are not knowable to people earlier in time.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when do journalists trust the government and print their lies at face value
The article is literally "The CIA investigated itself and said this". There is no claim that the CIA is being truthful. You are trying to insert that.
And because time apparently doesn't work in your universe the way it works in ours, you are trying to use events that happened after this article to discredit the article.
Hell, why are YOU defending the powerful?
I'm not. I'm opposed shitty-quality lies involving time travel to attack others.
There is plenty to attack the CIA and NY Times over. Inventing new ones detracts from those.
Re: (Score:1)
(Yeah, yeah, New York Times, "mainstream media, Fake News" blah blah blah. Whatever. Save your pixels.)
Re: (Score:2)
Your treasured New York Times are liars that support the powerful.
OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Could you outline the specific lies in the NYT podcast I linked? Here's the link again -
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0... [nytimes.com]
Which are the lies in the report?
If you deflect, ignore or blow smoke then you're like every other HURR DURR MSM LIARS posters out there, who just ramble unsubstantiated claims but when push comes to shove refuses to back up their claims with facts.
the debt was the point (Score:1)
may hamper Boeing's efforts to pay down its $62 billion debt
A lot of people got rich by having Boeing pile up that debt. They know, for one thing, that the government can't let Boeing fail.
Just how wallstreet makes even more money when Boeing gets bailed out.
Always follow the money.
Re:the debt was the point (Score:4, Insightful)
When mobsters max out a company's credit and pocket the money it's called a bust-out and they get racketeering charges.
When executives of a Fortune-100 do it, it's called "management" until they get paid to go the fuck away and the shareholders are left holding the bag.
Scrutiny always finds problems in complex systems (Score:2)
I bet Airbus would have issues also if carefully dissected.
Re: (Score:2)
They do, and so does Embraer. But neither one is in the jurisdiction of the FAA.
Re: (Score:2)
Airbus has assembly lines in the US, and doesnt seem to be having issues
Re: (Score:2)
Qatar Airways grounds 13 Airbus A350s citing fuselage degradation. [aljazeera.com]
Re: (Score:3)
But neither one is in the jurisdiction of the FAA.
If you want to operate them in US air space, the FAA does in fact have jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that Airbus and Boeing have similar accident rates, that's not an unreasonable guess. Given that the design and specification for aircraft components is phenomenally thorough - DO-178C is not a handy chart of ten items, and that's just for the software - it's astonishing that anything gets built at all. But given the obviousness of some of these defects, I'm wondering how much the vendors care about these specifications and how much of it is an exercise in CYA (it's not "our" fault the aircraft fell o
Notice of escapement (Score:2)
So just how much cash do the executives anticipate escaping with while leaving their replacements the manufacturing problems to solve?
Re:Notice of escapement (Score:4, Funny)
Their parachutes are rated at one Hercules transport plane's worth of used currency in non-consecutive numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm really sorry to hear this (Score:2)
Lockheed L-1011 Tristar - Still think that guy is something like riding in a classic car only it's an airplane.
Airbus A380 - Flew once between Singapore and Hong Kong and this plane was amazing. It laughs at turbulence. It has a lot of fans and I can understand why.
Boeing 787 Dreamliner - Flew it between JFK and CDG both ways. Despite being in coach I
race to the bottom (Score:2)
"We're behind schedule, what can we do?"
"We don't have the lamination process 100% correct. We need to investigate and come up with a fix!"
"Our stock price is getting hit by the delays in delivery."
All of these point to horrible program and executive management. Outsourcing could be some of it but ultimately regardless of what the root cause is management needs to get in front of the issues and address them with an eye towards safety.
I've worked for two airlines both hit by FAA emergency orders to address
MBA continues to destroy Boeing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're not wrong... it's been a long slow decline for Boeing. From a company who made boats as a way to keep their people employed during the depression to what it is now, it's been a long downhill slope. A lot of it started with the MD merger, and then it's just been attempts to slash costs ever since. Reducing benefits for employees, moving manglement our of Seattle to Chicago, moving so much manufacturing to SC just to save a few pennies, but having to send all the assemblies back up to Renton/Everett
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully, shareholders will realize how horrible the management is, and change back to engineers running the place.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, I've witnessed the last 30ish years of it from the perspective of someone who knows a whole lot of people at Boeing. I grew up going to the surplus store in Renton for fun, the kid of an engineer on a few of their programs.
Incidentally, we need more industrial surplus stores like that one, to get kids into engineering fields. I put together so much stuff with cast-off crap from there in my youth...
Width of a piece of paper? (Score:2)
Boeing is working to find and repair tiny structural imperfections about the width of a piece of paper...
Pieces of paper are generally about 8 inches wide. I'm pretty sure the Seattle Times meant "width of *the thickness of* a piece of paper".
Can we trust Boeing to be candid? (Score:2)
For each departure from design specification, Boeing has to recommend a fix [that Boeing develops] and provide an engineering analysis [that Boeing creates] to back up its finding.
Can we trust this setup? Boeing didn't seem very candid and forthright about MCAS. Instead they seemed very tight lipped and reluctant to say anything that could lead someone to consider that maybe, just maybe, the pilots should have training to be certified on the MAXs.
And do we give the FAA enough staffing, tools, and budget dollars* for them to properly evaluate what Boeing tells them, or are they stuck relying on the assumption that Boeing is operating candidly, truthfully, and in good faith?
*PS: T
Remember: Modern Boeing is not Old Boeing (Score:4, Insightful)
When the government allowed Boeing to merge with McDonnell Douglas [a REALLY BAD thing for the American people] the board did something awful; they kept the name and product lines of Boeing, but they dumped the old Boeing execs in favor of the McDonnell execs. This is counter-intuitive and NOT what normally happens in a merger - usually the execs preserved are the ones from the bigger more successful absorber company, NOT the execs from the smaller less successful absorbee company. Why then was this done? Because the McDonnell people were more experienced at outsourcing, particularly to lower-cost offshore "partners". The board, being investor types (who think any product is like any other and think a soda company, a shoe company, a computer company, or a plane company are all the same) clearly thought they'd boost profits by switching the Boeing brand and products to the McDonnell model of outsourcing and maximize their profits in the process, and probably thought the stodgy old stick-in-the-mud overcautious Boeing execs might resist this.
This shift has not worked out so well.
The first plane fully-developed under the new management is the 787 and all that outsourcing caused all sorts of problems and delays as parts arrived in the US for assembly without proper fasteners, with out-of-tolerance dimensions, behind schedule, etc. Boeing version 2.0 is not your father's Boeing - it is screwing up all over the place. 737Max? USAF Pegasus Air Tanker? 787? Starliner spacecraft? Boeing 1.0 - would not have tolerated this garbage. Boeing 1.0 was the home of engineering and management excellence. Boeing 2.0 looks to be competing with Tupolev.
Tiny defects my ... (Score:2)
"Boeing is working to find and repair tiny structural imperfections about the width of a piece of paper in the carbon-fiber aircraft..."
A piece of paper is about 8 1/2 inches wide - that's no "tiny structural imperfection" in my book! A baby could get sucked out of one of those gaps.