Boeing Names Independent Quality Review Leader

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

It does make you wonder how many potential sales they've lost now because of this, and if those lost sales were worth more than the savings from ignoring quality issues?
The problem is, there's no competition. If you need an airliner, it's Boeing or Airbus. As Boeing struggles, Airbus can increase their prices or terms, making the less pricey, yet dodgy QA at Boeing seem more economically attractive.
 
This is what happens when you introduce an open door policy.
Lol. Even if they're closed, Boeing's doors are not secure.

0125eb88-4869-4be2-ba55-c66a68c16f00_1920x1080.jpg
 
Last edited:
This is likely to be United's fault and not Boeing's...but it's still not a good look. Frustrating that the news article says a "tyre" fell off when it was actually the entire wheel. Lucky nobody was underneath it when it returned to terra firma:

 
I'm sure they're qualified. I'm also sure that they're ass-deep in practicing CYA, for having let Boeing do their own inspections and so on.
We used to say that government inspectors could be in an aircraft factory or a meat packing plant, it's all the same. Some AF inspectors that I saw were well qualified and some seemed to have been hired just to fill a space. That said, you can't inspect in quality; it has to be built in. A good inspector who watches the job in progress instead of just showing up for a final inspection and paperwork sign-off is invaluable but you also need the production workers to have quality as their goal instead of schedule and budget. Where I worked the union contract was changed so that hourly mechanics who took salaried supervisory jobs were no longer able to keep their union seniority. When they were able to keep their union seniority, you'd hear supervisors say that if their manager pressured them too much, they'd "go back to the toolbox". After the system was changed, experienced mechanics didn't want to become supervisors so people were hired off the street to be salaried supervisors and knew that their jobs depended on meeting schedule and budget. You might have a whole crew from supervisor on down with no experience on the particular aircraft and they could easily make honest mistakes that the inspector wouldn't catch because he was stretched too thin and could only come by for required "stamp off" inspections. There are also some people who will cover up bad work that they don't think will matter and they're often right, it won't be a problem for thirty years but sometimes they're wrong.
 
We used to say that government inspectors could be in an aircraft factory or a meat packing plant, it's all the same. Some AF inspectors that I saw were well qualified and some seemed to have been hired just to fill a space. That said, you can't inspect in quality; it has to be built in. A good inspector who watches the job in progress instead of just showing up for a final inspection and paperwork sign-off is invaluable but you also need the production workers to have quality as their goal instead of schedule and budget. Where I worked the union contract was changed so that hourly mechanics who took salaried supervisory jobs were no longer able to keep their union seniority. When they were able to keep their union seniority, you'd hear supervisors say that if their manager pressured them too much, they'd "go back to the toolbox". After the system was changed, experienced mechanics didn't want to become supervisors so people were hired off the street to be salaried supervisors and knew that their jobs depended on meeting schedule and budget. You might have a whole crew from supervisor on down with no experience on the particular aircraft and they could easily make honest mistakes that the inspector wouldn't catch because he was stretched too thin and could only come by for required "stamp off" inspections. There are also some people who will cover up bad work that they don't think will matter and they're often right, it won't be a problem for thirty years but sometimes they're wrong.

And they're building planes carrying a couple of hundred people ... perhaps this is a systemic problem for both Boeing and FAA?

I have no experience in building or inspecting airplanes. Your further comments would be appreciated.
 
One of the problems is the size and complexity of the aircraft in terms of required monitoring.

If the FAA is to do the certifying in a competent manner they need to have large numbers of qualified personnel - in terms of engineering and fabrication skills, and in terms of quality assurance skills. This would require a very large number of people per project (what the number would be is a guess but I would bet over 1000 per current design - probably a lot more). This requires funding and encouragement. The FAA also needs to be backed-up by knowledge based regulatory controls with serious legal ramifications for failure on the part of the corporation and FAA personnel.

The idea of allowing self-certifying is at best irresponsible in just about any product, and in most cases (at least where there is a chance of any significant of loss of life) should IMO be considered incompetent to the point of criminality.

The fact that there have been so few serious accidents and quality control issues amongst the airliner industry is a testament to the ideals and attitudes of the design and manufacturing personnel as well as the operating companies and monitoring agencies, but IMO there are fundamental mistakes being made in allowing a company to 'self-certify'. As far as I can tell it is only being allowed because the people controlling the purse strings have decided that the airlines are not killing enough people that they have to worry about the ramifications.

Don't get me wrong, I know that people are not perfect and therefore mistakes will be made, but there is a seriously comprehensive body of knowledge behind quality control/assurance based on over 100 years of 'modern' manufacturing processes, and self-regulating/self-certifying is not in there. The fact that it is being seriously undertaken indicates that there are people that feel they know better than the afore mentioned 100 years of experience. There have been other threads on this forum and other forums that discussed this subject to one degree or another, from one aspect or another, many of which brought up the lessons taught by the mass production involved in WWII as an example of the right way to do things. I think a can accurately say that the only time they considered that self-regulation/self-certifying is allowable is during times of emergency and only when there is no other choice.

bleh
 
March 9 (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into the Boeing (BA.N), opens new tab 737 MAX blowout on an Alaska Airlines (ALK.N), opens new tab flight in January, the Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday, citing documents and people familiar with the matter.

The investigators have contacted some passengers and crew on the Jan. 5 flight, which made an emergency landing in Portland, Oregon, after a fuselage panel ripped off midair, WSJ said.

The investigation would inform the DOJ's review of whether Boeing complied with an earlier settlement that resolved a federal investigation following two fatal 737 MAX crashes in 2018 and 2019, the report added.

Boeing, Alaska Airlines and DOJ did not immediately respond to Reuters request for comments.


 
This incident was caused by operator error, exacerbated by idiot passengers not keeping their seatbelts fastened. However, it's a Boeing aircraft so it's going to make the news:



Here's the original story for those who didn't see it:

 
In the years I travelled by air, I kept the belt on. The Captain used to say, "We recommend you keep your belt fastened as we do in the cockpit".
The one memorable downdraft, a relatively gentle but continuous, occurred just after I received a cup of coffee. I realised as the coffee began to rise up from the cup, a mess would be next if I didn't do something. I hit the belt release and slowly stood keeping the coffee just above the cup. Just at the moment before the coffee reached the ceiling panel, positive G returned and I resumed my seat with my coffee returned to my cup.
 
This incident was caused by operator error, exacerbated by idiot passengers not keeping their seatbelts fastened. However, it's a Boeing aircraft so it's going to make the news:



Here's the original story for those who didn't see it:

The originally story totally made it seem like "another Boeing incident."

It most certainly was not. Just like the one that went off the runway, the one that lost a wheel, the one that leaked hydraulic fluid, and the one that burst a tire.

Hell it could be a cessna and the press will still somehow blame Boeing for it
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back