FAA grounds 737 Max 9 Aircraft Indefinitely after Alaska Airlines incident

KSC said:
Boeing really under the spotlights now. ANA 737 non max issue reported in the media.
Boeing plane returns to airport in Japan after crack found in coughpit window | Japan | The Guardian
Click to expand...
We’ve periodically seen the same thing with reporting of QF faults. As you’ve said this is a non event. In fact, if it was the outer pane as reported, then there was no reason for the crew to make an early landing. The outer pane is non structural, and basically provides a nice surface for the wipers to slide over.
 
Last edited:
jb747 said:
I can understand why Boeing do not recheck every nut and bolt on assemblies delivered to them by suppliers. If they had to do that, then there would be little point to having the item outsourced in the first place (which is a separate issue, as this supplier, in particular, was originally a Boeing division). So a fuselage comes from Spiriit, it’s lifted off the train that delivers it, and put on to the assembly line. This would be the same for any subassembly, from engines to seats. Whilst I think Boeing has fallen well and truly off the rails, the angst here should be directed at Spirit.

Speaking of falling off the rails…
Click to expand...

It’s bad risk management to rely solely on a supplier without any audits or checks. Especially if you are responsible for the end product and safety.

Good project management requires agreement that everything delivered meets specifications. If you don’t check, how do you know it’s meeting the specifications and what you paid for?

Even with regular aircraft maintenance, isn’t everything checked and signed off by a second person before the aircraft returns to service?
 
AMEX Velocity Platinum Card Benefits
Australia's highest-earning Velocity Frequent Flyer credit card: Offer expires: 21 Jan 2025
- Earn 60,000 bonus Velocity Points
- Get unlimited Virgin Australia Lounge access
- Enjoy a complimentary return Virgin Australia domestic flight each year

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

MEL_Traveller said:
It’s bad risk management to rely solely on a supplier without any audits or checks. Especially if you are responsible for the end product and safety.
Click to expand...
No, you have it wrong. This nothing to do with safety. The risk only relates to the chance of something happening before you’ve had your chance to take your golden parachute and move on.
MEL_Traveller said:
Good project management requires agreement that everything delivered meets specifications. If you don’t check, how do you know it’s meeting the specifications and what you paid for?
Click to expand...
I doubt that it’s even possible for Boeing to keep an eye of every facet of this, without having so many inspectors that any saving in having sold off the division in first place, would be eaten up. I expect that they have passed the inspection buck to Spirit, in the same way that the FAA entrusted Boeing to be self certifying. It saves money, until it fails completely…at which point any saving immediately disappears.
MEL_Traveller said:
Even with regular aircraft maintenance, isn’t everything checked and signed off by a second person before the aircraft returns to service?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that every nut and bolt is necessarily checked by multiple people. A LAME will sign off their own work, and that of anyone they are supervising. That’s the point of being a LAME in the first place. Again, with cost savings, LAMEs are becoming thin on the ground. Those pesky apprentices cost money.
 
Last edited:
Interestingly today on a QF 73H flight, the person ahead of me boarding asked the boarding agent

- ‘Is this one of the 737 Max air planes that have all the safety problems and the accident last week?

The boarding agent said ‘No, no problems with us we don’t have any Max Boeing aircraft and the company isn’t ordering any either so you have nothing to worry about’

The passenger then said thank you very much, repeated it to her travelling companion and boarded.

Just thought interesting that due to the ongoing media coverage it’s reaching eyes and ears everywhere again…
 
jb747 said:
I doubt that it’s even possible for Boeing to keep an eye of every facet of this, without having so many inspectors that any saving in having sold off the division in first place, would be eaten up. I expect that they have passed the inspection buck to Spirit, in the same way that the FAA entrusted Boeing to be self certifying. It saves money, until it fails completely…at which point any saving immediately disappears.
Click to expand...
What's interesting to me (and I've seen this a lot in my own industry - IT) is that we often predict that outsourcing to save money will result in failure, and it regularly does, but we assume that the failure will be catastrophic enough that those involved will see the errors of their way and the constant penny pinching will stop.

IBM still contracts for payroll systems and other government portals after what happened with health and census, Fujitsu still gets UK govt contracts after the horizon debacle and accusing 600 postal staff of theft (and some getting locked up), PWC still gets govt contracts etc etc...

Just like with anything else it's almost always a slap on the wrist and we just fail forward, until the next instance.
 
Next time I fly Alaskan I will tell the PAX in that row not to take off their seatbelt. Their Seattle flights are chokkers.
 
33kft said:
What's interesting to me (and I've seen this a lot in my own industry - IT) is that we often predict that outsourcing to save money will result in failure, and it regularly does, but we assume that the failure will be catastrophic enough that those involved will see the errors of their way and the constant penny pinching will stop.

IBM still contracts for payroll systems and other government portals after what happened with health and census, Fujitsu still gets UK govt contracts after the horizon debacle and accusing 600 postal staff of theft (and locking some up), PWC still gets govt contracts etc etc...

Just like with anything else it's almost always a slap on the wrist and we just fail forward, until the next instance.
Click to expand...
The point of ICT outsourcing is having someone to blame when things go wrong or delivered late, but usually late, over-budget, and trapped into expensive maintenance. The second reason is HR believes all ICT people have no real long term value. Even 'Cloud' is trendy, when $AUD depreciation means 40% more expensive.

ALL the big outsourcers now track the contract, and what was contracted exactly, and every change request nullifies everything. The law case in CensusFail evaporated early, as the contractor documented all cheapest bits, and sign here - you are not getting network. The easy days of defaming an outsourcer are mostly over. When even the bit about a cloud masterkey being stolen hardly rippled the pond.

Back to Boeing and Sprit, The Chinese are working in getting their Airframes made locally - developing real world capability.
 
33kft said:
Just like with anything else it's almost always a slap on the wrist and we just fail forward, until the next instance.
Click to expand...
The issue really comes up where there is no fallback. You contract everything out, but do not retain the ability to do things in house. Then it's only a matter of time.
 
Exactly Boeing may no longer have the in-house experience to actually manufacture a frame.

Same when a company has outsourced all their IT. Can be an insurmountable project to start a new division with the scale to in-house.
 
ethernet said:
The point of ICT outsourcing is having someone to blame when things go wrong or delivered late, but usually late, over-budget, and trapped into expensive maintenance. The second reason is HR believes all ICT people have no real long term value. Even 'Cloud' is trendy, when $AUD depreciation means 40% more expensive.
Click to expand...
There has long been a saying about ICT outsourcing, and that is that you can outsource everything but risk. And I am sure that carries over into many other outsourcing efforts, as Boeing is finding out. And while every nut and bolt may not get checked, random spot checks would be prudent. After all, they are checking so many of them now, something a QA system should have picked up.
 
codash1099 said:
theconversation.com

Boeing needs to get real: the 737 Max should probably be scrapped

There have been so many problems with the 737 Max that the nuclear option may be the best way forward.
theconversation.com theconversation.com
Click to expand...
If Boeing could have its time again, it probably would've scrapped MAX and designed a new clean sheet narrow body.

But at this point in time, I can't see them ditching the 737 MAX program. There's too much on the line for them with that program. Thousands of orders, along with reputation (although that's been shot as well).

The article in question is also a little under researched suggesting there's no problems with the 787s....i guess it's been a hot moment since the 787 made worldwide headlines for thr wrong reasons but there's plenty of QA problems with it recently too.
 
Last edited:

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.

Recent Posts

Currently Active Users

... and 7 more.
Total: 318 (members: 57, guests: 261)
Back
Top