FAA grounds 737 Max 9 Aircraft Indefinitely after Alaska Airlines incident

[jb747]

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

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.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

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…

https://www.usatoday.com/gcdn/-mm-/1620f6d12b9c1c084788bee2584729074b5b4555/c=0-805-2394-2158/local/-/media/USATODAY/todayinthesky/2014/07/05/1404607302000-AP-Montana-Train-Derailment.jpg?width=2394&height=1353&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp

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?

 

[Saab34]

Cracked Windsheids are more common than one thinks. Non event.

The Aviation Herald

Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation

avherald.com

 

[JohnM]

2 hours ago:

 

[jb747]

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.

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.

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?

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.

Even with regular aircraft maintenance, isn’t everything checked and signed off by a second person before the aircraft returns to service?

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.

 

[jakeseven7]

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…

 

[33kft]

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.

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.

 

[ethernet]

Next time I fly Alaskan I will tell the PAX in that row not to take off their seatbelt. Their Seattle flights are chokkers.

 

[ethernet]

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.

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.

 

[jb747]

Just like with anything else it's almost always a slap on the wrist and we just fail forward, until the next instance.

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.

 

[moa999]

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.

 

[OATEK]

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.

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]

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

 

[elanshin]

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

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.

 

[lovestotravel]

How's that 777X looking about now

 

[jb747]

If Boeing could have its time again, it probably would've scrapped MAX and designed a new clean sheet narrow body.

It was called the 757.

 

[jakeseven7]

Just leaving this here

 

[OZDUCK]

It seems that the FAA has concerns about another model of the B737 - the B737-900 ER.

Boeing 737-900ER: Second model to be inspected after 737 Max 9 blowout

The US regulator says the 737-900ER fleet uses the same door design as the grounded 737 Max 9s.

www.bbc.com

 

[justinbrett]

It seems that the FAA has concerns about another model of the B737 - the B737-900 ER.

Boeing 737-900ER: Second model to be inspected after 737 Max 9 blowout

The US regulator says the 737-900ER fleet uses the same door design as the grounded 737 Max 9s.

www.bbc.com

20+ year old aircraft? Seems a bit overdramatic.

 

[p--and--t]

20+ year old aircraft? Seems a bit overdramatic.

On the surface yes, and I have no knowledge of why, but what if the concern is a more recently detected similar drop in built and inspection standards by the same supplier?