Think Twice Before Boarding A 737

[bpw]

Anyone seen this?

http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/peopleandpower/2010/12/20101214104637901849.html

Shocking in true.

[Beggar Thy Children]

I work in aerospace engineering and I don't see how you could get away with that, especially supplying Boeing. They're all over you.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Beggar Thy Children

[frenchy]

I work in aerospace engineering and I don't see how you could get away with that, especially supplying Boeing. They're all over you.

I work for a competitor of Boeing, guess which?

No one on this forum take the BBC reporting seriously so why take aljezzera seriously? I stop reading the article when I read that the B737NG was a radically new aircraft... designed in ATA!!!

[Bloo Loo]

I work in aerospace engineering and I don't see how you could get away with that, especially supplying Boeing. They're all over you.

do you work at Ducommun?

[Beggar Thy Children]

do you work at Ducommun?

No, but I deal directly with Boeing and I know what theyre like.

[interestrateripoff]

But Gigi Prewitt and Taylor Smith say that ill-fitting and out of contour parts continued to arrive from AHF Ducommun - and that assembly workers in Wichita took dangerous short-cuts to get them to fit.

Some parts were so badly out of shape that they had to be beaten on to the airframe with hammers - a process which builds in potentially lethal pre-stress.

The FAA had given Boeing "delegated authority" to police itself on matters like this - provided it reported problems voluntarily.

So they decided to use the Clarkson method of high precision engineering.

Shocking if true.

[Bloo Loo]

No, but I deal directly with Boeing and I know what theyre like.

but the whistleblowers saif they"eventually" sent a delegation to Ducommon....maybe they arent "all over" favoured suppliers.

I must add that having dealt with Adams and Hann, a supplier of parts to the "Industry", I noticed that all parts, right down to screws and washers are all tracked from source, to shelf to supplier, rigorously...whether end users actually have men on site to audit is another question.

[Ruffneck]

Would they risk an aricraft worth millions because of a few dollars worth of badly machined parts?

[symo]

History is full of non QA approved parts causing major problems, it would not surprise me. Also what did the whistle blowers have to gain? They put passenger safety first when they saw the parts being cut by hand.

Don't forget Boeing has major government connections, getting this to go away will be interesting, especially if someone has an inclination at the FAA and goes to WikiLeaks.

[cashinmattress]

Comes as no surprise to me, and speaking as an engineer. Quality is a thing of the past because it is all about profit, and corporate law makes it nigh impossible to jail/punish people for incompetence.

They don't make em like they used to.

C'est la vie.

It will just be a wall of crap coming out of the worlds manufacturers until such time as we can perfect a reliable and cheap carbon nano-tube process.

[corevalue]

Would they risk an aricraft worth millions because of a few dollars worth of badly machined parts?

DC-10, Paris, March 3 1974.

Interestingly, the story has been airbrushed in Wikipedia. McDonnell-Douglas had a "gentlemans agreement" with the FAA to make modifications to the cargo door, then sold two planes to Turkish airlines without the mod. What's left out is that the management at MD used the inspection stamps of two parts inspectors who were away on holiday to get the paperwork through showing the mod had been done, when it hadn't. Those guys had a hard time proving it had been stamped without their knowledge. Luckily, one had gone abroad so his passport stamp showed he was out of the country.

In the past I've been reprimanded for refusing to sign off avionics that didn't work to specification. No problem, they got some other patsy to do it. I've analysed test records and found that out-of-specification parts routinely get built into planes, it's too hard to get manufacturing or design to change, the cost/time penalty is too great. I've found errors in the maths of spcaecraft guidance systems (and I'm no great mathematician!), but in that case there was a piece of real luck as the error was cancelled further downstream (not realised until the designer was forced to investigate his mistake). A satellite using the same guidance system had already been launched successfully.

[MongerOfDoom]

Anyone seen this?

http://english.aljaz...4637901849.html

Shocking in true.

I suppose if one fell on a house, it might affect its price?

BTW, I am not sure what would be so surprising about Boeing putting a slight preference on profits over safety.

Some years ago they refused to admit there was a problem even after two 737s fell out of the sky under similar circumstances consistent with an uncommanded rudder hard-over (the airlines pointed that out as a probable cause). Everyone on board died in both incidents. Boeing's position was that the rudder control unit passed tests, and it could have been the pilots' fault who conveniently were not around to defend themselves. It took a lucky crew who managed to land a plane suffering from rudder reversal before they diagnosed the problem. Even then, the fix took a long time and the 737 fleet continued flying during that time. Admittedly, there was a changed landing procedure in place so a re-occurrence was less likely to smash the plane into bits. Just google "boeing 737 rudder reversal" if interested. If that does not put you off flying, I suspect nothing will.

[ken_ichikawa]

Have a look at number 6 on this list number 7 is argueably worse though

http://www.cracked.com/article_18884_the-7-most-horrifying-cost-cutting-measures-all-time.html

[OnlyMe]

I suppose if one fell on a house, it might affect its price?

BTW, I am not sure what would be so surprising about Boeing putting a slight preference on profits over safety.

Some years ago they refused to admit there was a problem even after two 737s fell out of the sky under similar circumstances consistent with an uncommanded rudder hard-over (the airlines pointed that out as a probable cause). Everyone on board died in both incidents. Boeing's position was that the rudder control unit passed tests, and it could have been the pilots' fault who conveniently were not around to defend themselves. It took a lucky crew who managed to land a plane suffering from rudder reversal before they diagnosed the problem. Even then, the fix took a long time and the 737 fleet continued flying during that time. Admittedly, there was a changed landing procedure in place so a re-occurrence was less likely to smash the plane into bits. Just google "boeing 737 rudder reversal" if interested. If that does not put you off flying, I suspect nothing will.

Still haven't got it right. You can have all the right numbers and traceability but doesn;t mean that any part is right. So as to the original point about fuselages, who knows but when large sums of money (and liability) are involved the bigger the issues the more ommercial pressure there will be to keep quiet and hope for the best.

13 Feb 2007 - 737 rudder issues resurface despite redesign

Guy Norris, Flight International

Boeing's long-running problems with the 737 rudder, thought to have beenfinally settled six years ago with the redesign of the power control units (PCU),have resurfaced with the discovery of fractures in the input control rods to theunits, and a subsequent call for wide-ranging corrective action by the USFederal Aviation Administration.

The original rudder control system redesign was prompted by a number ofrudder incidents, and two fatal accidents judged to have been caused by large,uncommanded rudder deflections. The new system had a different rudder PCUdesign, with two independent valves and actuator arms or rods.

The latest FAA airworthiness directive (AD) follows reports of fractures inthe ends of rods connected to both the main and standby PCU. The FAA says theaction will "prevent failure of one of the two input control rods of the mainrudder PCU, which, under certain conditions, could result in reducedcontrollability of the airplane and to prevent failure of any combination of twoinput control rods of the main rudder PCU and/or standby rudder PCU, which couldcause an uncommanded rudder hardover event and result in loss of control of theairplane".

Boeing says the fractures in the rods have been caused by a quality controlissue that resulted in the units becoming "over-baked and brittle". AlthoughBoeing identified the problem in 2006 and initiated a retrofit programme, theFAA AD and acceleration of the replacement effort was made inevitable by "thesubsequent discovery of a second broken rod in December".

Boeing says 880 aircraft have been fitted with the "enhanced" rudder system,of which 681 were discovered to have been delivered with "suspect rods".

[Peter Hun]

Personally I would avoid the 787 'Dreamliner', althought it should probably be called NightmareLiner.

Its three years late, and has the largest number of orders of any new aircraft, so Boeing have a massive incentive to rush it as they are facing massive penalties (billions). Its full of new technologies such as non bleed air for electric generation and carbon fibre construction. The potential for something to go wrong is huge. As a example the recent in flight fire knocked out the power to everything - its not supposed to do that and it was caused by a 'foreign object' in an electrical cabinet. A screwdriver nearly wiped out a 787 . This was an aircraft that has 500 engineers working on it every night for certification testing.

I find the story about sub-standard parts in the 737 a bit doubtful, there are 5000 flying continuously and they would be falling out of the sky all over the place if there was an issue.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Peter Hun

[corevalue]

Personally I would avoid the 787 'Dreamliner', althought it should probably be called NightmareLiner.

Its three years late, and has the largest number of orders of any new aircraft, so Boeing have a massive incentive to rush it as they are facing massive penalties (billions). Its full of new technologies such as non bleed air for electric generation and carbon fibre construction. The potential for something to go wrong is huge. As a example the recent in flight fire knocked out the power to everything - its not supposed to do that and it was caused by a 'foreign object' in an electrical cabinet. A screwdriver nearly wiped out a 787 . This was an aircraft that has 500 engineers working on it every night for certification testing.

I find the story about sub-standard parts in the 737 a bit doubtful, there are 5000 flying continuously and they would be falling out of the sky all over the place if there was an issue.

Sub-standard doesn't mean it will fail. It means that the probability of failure is higher, sometimes only slightly, other times catastrophically. There is a huge margin of safety and redundancy in aircraft systems so that a single-point failure should have no consequence. That is, most of the time

[happy_renting]

I work for a competitor of Boeing, guess which?

No one on this forum take the BBC reporting seriously so why take aljezzera seriously? I stop reading the article when I read that the B737NG was a radically new aircraft... designed in ATA!!!

The article also makes it clear that it relates to activities in the 1990's, not 2010. Maybe you should have read the rest of the article.

DC-10, Paris, March 3 1974.

Interestingly, the story has been airbrushed in Wikipedia. McDonnell-Douglas had a "gentlemans agreement" with the FAA to make modifications to the cargo door, then sold two planes to Turkish airlines without the mod. What's left out is that the management at MD used the inspection stamps of two parts inspectors who were away on holiday to get the paperwork through showing the mod had been done, when it hadn't. Those guys had a hard time proving it had been stamped without their knowledge. Luckily, one had gone abroad so his passport stamp showed he was out of the country.

Curious if it has indeed been censored. The story was very much in the public domain at the time, it was headline news all over the world.

[ken_ichikawa]

I find the story about sub-standard parts in the 737 a bit doubtful, there are 5000 flying continuously and they would be falling out of the sky all over the place if there was an issue.

A lot of things depend on luck though! I have personally ridden motorbikes without brakes, without suspension, or with serious engine problems an old 600cc bike I had used to catch fire every so often. The funny time was when I was going down the M6 and it caught fire.

[OnlyMe]

I find the story about sub-standard parts in the 737 a bit doubtful, there are 5000 flying continuously and they would be falling out of the sky all over the place if there was an issue.

Bathtub curve - some problems arise early, some late in a component's life. Rolls' engine problems - an early life issues, degenerative stress cracks in ariframes - more likely a slower burn problem but one that progressively becomes an issue after say 10 years of flying. The comet had a stress crack problem that revealed itself very much earlier though.

[frenchy]

The article also makes it clear that it relates to activities in the 1990's, not 2010. Maybe you should have read the rest of the article.

Curious if it has indeed been censored. The story was very much in the public domain at the time, it was headline news all over the world.

sorry, but there are enough non-stories that get HPC blogging all day, if in addition this non-story has nothing to do with HPC why bother? i don't need you to tell me that it relates to the 90's thanks...

[Sour Mash]

I work for a competitor of Boeing, guess which?

No one on this forum take the BBC reporting seriously so why take aljezzera seriously? I stop reading the article when I read that the B737NG was a radically new aircraft... designed in ATA!!!

The BBC are pretty good when reporting on foreign stories that the UK govt has no interest in.

None of the big media organisations are unbiased but if you keep an eye on them all, you can get pretty good coverage of any given situation by choosing a suitable organisation which has no self interest in that story (nor has the government/billionaire who controls it).

[GinAndPlatonic]

Would they risk an aricraft worth millions because of a few dollars worth of badly machined parts?

Sure they will...they risked a rocket and its crew...

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/C/Challenger_disaster.html

Further, engineering data and management judgments conflicted and NASA's management structure permitted internal flight safety problems to bypass key Shuttle managers. Neither concerns regarding the low temperature and its effect on the O-ring nor the ice that formed on the launch pad had been communicated adequately to senior management or been given sufficient weight by those who made the decision to launch. In addition, the heavy emphasis on maintaining the schedule of Shuttle launches and an ambitious flight rate diluted the resources available for a single mission and very likely compromised quality.

[Ned Coates]

The BBC are pretty good when reporting on foreign stories that the UK govt has no interest in.

None of the big media organisations are unbiased but if you keep an eye on them all, you can get pretty good coverage of any given situation by choosing a suitable organisation which has no self interest in that story (nor has the government/billionaire who controls it).

Agreed.

I only know of informationclearinghouse for genuine news. Do you know of others?

[Ned Coates]

I suppose if one fell on a house, it might affect its price?

BTW, I am not sure what would be so surprising about Boeing putting a slight preference on profits over safety.

Some years ago they refused to admit there was a problem even after two 737s fell out of the sky under similar circumstances consistent with an uncommanded rudder hard-over (the airlines pointed that out as a probable cause). Everyone on board died in both incidents. Boeing's position was that the rudder control unit passed tests, and it could have been the pilots' fault who conveniently were not around to defend themselves. It took a lucky crew who managed to land a plane suffering from rudder reversal before they diagnosed the problem. Even then, the fix took a long time and the 737 fleet continued flying during that time. Admittedly, there was a changed landing procedure in place so a re-occurrence was less likely to smash the plane into bits. Just google "boeing 737 rudder reversal" if interested. If that does not put you off flying, I suspect nothing will.

I was at LGW when that BA crew survived, and later watched the computer simulation showing all the crew inputs on pedals and column referenced against altitude. Pretty amazing airmanship. Luckily it was an un paxed test flight post maintenance! I can't remember how much altitude they lost form the event start but it was as significant as the recent 380 situation. Sussex had a very near miss that day and many peoples lives have been saved as a result of that crew.

[MrPin]

A lot of things depend on luck though! I have personally ridden motorbikes without brakes, without suspension, or with serious engine problems an old 600cc bike I had used to catch fire every so often. The funny time was when I was going down the M6 and it caught fire.

Are you lucky today punk?

I would consider brakes to be a very good thing on a motorcycle! Suspension, well depends how padded your bum is?

Serious engine problems never often happen if the bugger starts!

Flames on the M6? Crikey, it's "Deliverance" country past Charnock Richard!