Boeing Names Independent Quality Review Leader

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Airbus does the same thing…
Click to expand...
Outsourcing is rampant everywhere I suppose, but I somehow, likely irrationally trust the Euros on quality more than my North American brethren. For example, for motorcycle helmets, with us North Americans always seemingly looking for some sneaky way to cut costs and thus standards, I always buy made in Europe, since the specs in that market surpass what we have here.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76yu124i3Bo
 
Way back when, I booked a flight to Hawaii. World Airways. It was on a DC-10. As we boarded, one nervous passenger made her fears known about the DC-10. A world weary traveller said to her that he wanted to be on a DC-10. He said that it had to be the most inspected plane around, following two crashes. I keep that in mind when I fly. Usually it's a B747/B777 combo, NY to Asia.
If it ain't Boeing I'm not going.
(Brave talk indeed from someone who flies whatever the airline actually has.)
 
SaparotRob said:
If it ain't Boeing I'm not going.
Click to expand...
The challenge is, what's Boeing? If Boeing didn't make it, didn't conduct QA acceptance checks on outsourced components, nor seemingly conduct final pre-delivery QA checks on essential components like door bolts, is it a Boeing?

I flew on a Porter Airlines' Embraer E2 from Orlando to Toronto earlier this month. Nice plane. All the doors stayed on, so that's an added bonus.

I'm not sure I would get on a Comac or Sukhoi Superjet.
 
Last edited:
Most of the A320 family are assembled in Hamburg, Germany. AFAIR there's also a faicility in China. And another one in the US for A330 I believe.
At least the european contractors are long-known partners, Airbus subsidiaries or former Airbus subsidiaries.
Strict inspection of third-party and in-house parts as well as the final product is the only way to ensure proper quality. This is where Boing massively failed for several years now. I hope this will quickly improve regardless of cost.
 
Last edited:
The 737 problem brings to mind the Curtiss C-76 of WW2. It had the general configuration of the C-123 but was designed to be built out of Nonstrategic Materials, or Wood. The military had little enthusiasm for it but Congressional pressure was brought to bear and it was decided that it would be useful if the Germans invaded South Africa (!?). A special factory had to be built to enable proper treatment of the wooden structure during manufacturing. The design was beset with simultaneous problems of inadequate strength and excessive weight, and the two different engineering groups formed to address these issues found themselves often working at cross purposes. It was discovered that the only way to keep the aircraft within weight and balance limits was to load it past its maximum allowed gross weight.

Then the first prototype crashed, killing all on board, including a number of the engineering staff. The tail had come off and caused the crash; an engineer was watching the assembly of the tail of second prototype. He noted they were spreading glue and preparing to clamp two pieces together and asked how they were going to drill the holes for the bolts with those pieces already assembled. The workers replied that they did not know anything about bolts and that there had been none on the first prototype. The airplane apparently had flown for several hours with the tail only glued on. Eventually the program was cancelled and the two surviving prototypes were sent to Tinker Army Airfield where they were used as general purpose hacks. The factory was used to build plywood landing craft, so it was not a complete loss.
 
BlancoLiro on Youtube just reported some interesting news. Spirit and Boeing have completely different quality systems. Spirit personnel removed the door and reinstalled it but the Boeing system had no way to flag the fact the door had been removed and reinstalled and therefore needed inspection.
 

I flew on a DC-10 to Los Angeles about two weeks after 191 crashed at O'Hare. I was nervous as hell, I'd seen the pictures on the news.

 
Thumpalumpacus said:
I flew on a DC-10 to Los Angeles about two weeks after 191 crashed at O'Hare. I was nervous as hell, I'd seen the pictures on the news.
Click to expand...
All the McDonnell Douglas people were wearing badges that said, "I'm proud of the DC-10." after that crash.

Not sure that the company could have done anything to prevent that mishap, since it was caused by a labor saving approach thunk up by the airline mechanics. But the Detroit emergency abort and the Paris crash was caused by the company proceeding with the production of the aircraft after tests by General Dynamics showed that a pressurization blow out would cause the cabin floor to collapse and sever the flight controls.

The reason we had the USAF A-7D's grounded in October 1975 was because the TF-41 engines had so many problems (quite possibly caused by flawed USAF overhaul practices) that they had to be removed and inspected frequently. Forced to undertake this greatly added workload the USAF mechanics figured out how to avoid removing the bleed air ducts by wrapping safety wire around the ducts and twisting them over so they could remove the engine.
 

SEATTLE (AP) — Facing severe criticism after a door plug blew out on a 737 Max over Oregon this month, Boeing said Monday that it is withdrawing a request for a safety exemption needed to certify a new model of the plane.

The company asked federal regulators late last year to allow it to begin delivering its 737 Max 7 airliner to customers even though it does not meet a safety standard designed to prevent part of the engine housing from overheating and breaking off during flight.

But after a door panel blew out on a different version of the plane — a Max 9 — leaving a gaping hole in the fuselage of an Alaska Airlines flight out of Portland, Oregon, on Jan. 5, the company's quality control and commitment to safety have been questioned.

Last week, Democratic Sens. Maria Cantwell, chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, and Tammy Duckworth, chair of its aviation safety subcommittee, urged the Federal Aviation Administration to deny the request. Boeing said Monday it would withdraw it.

Facing scrutiny over quality control, Boeing withdraws request for safety exemption

The company asked regulators to allow its delivery even though it does not meet safety standard designed to prevent part of the engine housing from overheating and breaking off during flight.
apnews.com
 
Denniss said:
More work for him, affects 50 airframes that have not been delivered yet
Click to expand...
"An employee at Spirit AeroSystems, notified the plane maker that two holes may not have been drilled exactly to Boeing's requirements"

Jeez. Now these subs can't even drill a hole to spec? Where did Boeing find these guys?



Looks like the airlines are losing faith. By face-saving invitation or not, Emirates are sending their own engineers to double check Boeing and its subcontractors' work before accepting new aircraft.

Boeing in ‘last chance saloon’, warns Emirates boss

Sir Tim Clark criticises the plane-maker after a panel on a Boeing 737 Max 9 jet blew out in the air.
www.bbc.co.uk
 
Last edited:
Thumpalumpacus said:
I think I'll buy me some stock in Johnson & Johnson all the same, because Boeing seems to be going through Band-Aids® like wildfire.
Click to expand...
An informative vid on how Boeing got here,


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=URoVKPVDKPU
My immediate question is if Boeing removed those four bolts securing the door plug after the fuselage was received from Spirit, where are those four bolts now? Surely you can't just walk away from a task leaving four bolts on the floor or in some tool box? Someone has to wonder, where did these bolts come from?
 

I work on my own truck. When I do a repair and have an extra or missing bolt or nut, I retrace my steps to find the damned thing and replace it. And that's just to avoid being stuck on the side of the road, not falling from 30,000 ft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

US Military Aircraft Names
Replies
15
Views
1K
Venomstick121
M
USAF Reviewing the V-22 Role
Replies
0
Views
646
MIflyer
M
The B-52 Stratofortress, and the story behind the evolution of U.S. giant bombers.
Replies
0
Views
743
Dronescapes
M
Boeing MQ-25 Uncrewed Tanker
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
SaparotRob
Farewell to the Boeing 747, the Queen of the Skies. Long Live the Queen!
Replies
16
Views
1K
Warspite63
Menu
Log in
Register