Alaska Airlines 737-900 MAX loses a door in-flight out of PDX
remi
"but in what world do you take delivery of unfinished or known defective components from suppliers"
Sorry to inform you, but in aircraft production there are many, they are assigned as DEVIATIONS.
As examples: over countersunk fastener holes in wing skin, substitute carbon cable in place of SS,
panting of skin panels, blind rivets in place of solids.
Engines are also released with test bed performance figures below ideal, example fuel flow slightly high, EGT a few
degrees above the target, to name a few.
Of course these are production standards and not Operational Standards.
The purchasing Co. Rep would be presented with these, almost as a fait accompli.
"but in what world do you take delivery of unfinished or known defective components from suppliers"
Sorry to inform you, but in aircraft production there are many, they are assigned as DEVIATIONS.
As examples: over countersunk fastener holes in wing skin, substitute carbon cable in place of SS,
panting of skin panels, blind rivets in place of solids.
Engines are also released with test bed performance figures below ideal, example fuel flow slightly high, EGT a few
degrees above the target, to name a few.
Of course these are production standards and not Operational Standards.
The purchasing Co. Rep would be presented with these, almost as a fait accompli.
What incompletely built components are accepted?
When is manufacturing using unfinished and defective parts in line with production standards?
remi
"but in what world do you take delivery of unfinished or known defective components from suppliers"
Sorry to inform you, but in aircraft production there are many, they are assigned as DEVIATIONS.
As examples: over countersunk fastener holes in wing skin, substitute carbon cable in place of SS,
panting of skin panels, blind rivets in place of solids.
Engines are also released with test bed performance figures below ideal, example fuel flow slightly high, EGT a few
degrees above the target, to name a few.
Of course these are production standards and not Operational Standards.
The purchasing Co. Rep would be presented with these, almost as a fait accompli.
"but in what world do you take delivery of unfinished or known defective components from suppliers"
Sorry to inform you, but in aircraft production there are many, they are assigned as DEVIATIONS.
As examples: over countersunk fastener holes in wing skin, substitute carbon cable in place of SS,
panting of skin panels, blind rivets in place of solids.
Engines are also released with test bed performance figures below ideal, example fuel flow slightly high, EGT a few
degrees above the target, to name a few.
Of course these are production standards and not Operational Standards.
The purchasing Co. Rep would be presented with these, almost as a fait accompli.
Demonstrating renewed commitment to quality and safety, Boeing is considering taking the innovative step of asking (permitting? encouraging?) its assembly line workers to finish their jobs.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/04/busin...ntl/index.html
Back on planet Earth, it's been known for years that aircraft move through the Boeing 737 production line with unfinished work from previous stations or steps.
I don't want to express fake outrage, but in what world do you take delivery of unfinished or known defective components from suppliers? If you're building a car, do you want an engine with "just a few missing valves"?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/04/busin...ntl/index.html
Back on planet Earth, it's been known for years that aircraft move through the Boeing 737 production line with unfinished work from previous stations or steps.
I don't want to express fake outrage, but in what world do you take delivery of unfinished or known defective components from suppliers? If you're building a car, do you want an engine with "just a few missing valves"?
Another problem
The Independent reporting ‘another problem with 737 jets”, misdrilled holes in fuselages.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...-b2490584.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...-b2490584.html
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The seat nearest the opening was deformed.
Was the seat frame damaged - mountings ok, - or - seat mountings deformed / damaged - or - floor deformed / damaged ?
When you think about it, the pressure differential across the floor would be greatest at the opening, and it would be an instant pressure 'pulse'.
Was the seat frame damaged - mountings ok, - or - seat mountings deformed / damaged - or - floor deformed / damaged ?
When you think about it, the pressure differential across the floor would be greatest at the opening, and it would be an instant pressure 'pulse'.
Join Date: Jan 2024
Location: LA
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Demonstrating renewed commitment to quality and safety, Boeing is considering taking the innovative step of asking (permitting? encouraging?) its assembly line workers to finish their jobs.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/04/busin...ntl/index.html
Back on planet Earth, it's been known for years that aircraft move through the Boeing 737 production line with unfinished work from previous stations or steps.
I don't want to express fake outrage, but in what world do you take delivery of unfinished or known defective components from suppliers? If you're building a car, do you want an engine with "just a few missing valves"?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/04/busin...ntl/index.html
Back on planet Earth, it's been known for years that aircraft move through the Boeing 737 production line with unfinished work from previous stations or steps.
I don't want to express fake outrage, but in what world do you take delivery of unfinished or known defective components from suppliers? If you're building a car, do you want an engine with "just a few missing valves"?
Nobody is going to deliberately ship "defective" product, but virtually everything of that scale is going to ship with a bunch of minor non-conformances. Things where something doesn't quite meet the drawing - maybe the outside radius on a corner of some non-structural component is off on a couple units because the plant that makes that part found the long tail of their manufacturing tolerances. The only reason that number is on the drawing is because there has to be a number there, but it can have a loose tolerance than someone put in. It gets reviewed at a couple levels and someone signs off to accept it. Is it non-conforming? Yes. Is it defective? No.
*** my experience
[chrisl137;11590785]Suppose you have an aircraft factory and you sub out your fuselages to an outside vendor.
*** Such parties are Partners or Subcontractors, not Vendors.
Now suppose their delivery for a bunch of units is held up because one of the … factory in Malaysia, and your sub … fine aircraft.
*** Does not work that way in aerospace, not allowed, outright dangerous.
Malaysia is not involved here it appears, so please don’t put it in if it is a phantasy, Spirit Malaysia apparently delivered the original plug, Spirit Wichita and Boeing Renton appears to have made the boo-boo here
Nobody is going to deliberately ship "defective" product,
*** Reading the material of previous and this case. I would ask a lawyer (Willow?) if it is Negligence or Criminal Negligence what happened here. Moving a HQ to Chicago moves higher management further away from understanding what they are doing. May move them legally from one to the other legal tray. But in aerospace safety culture it is considered criminal negligence.
In some cases people appear to have been pushed to ship defective products. Without understanding what the consequence might be, in aerospace safety culture this is considered criminal pure and simple.
but virtually everything of that scale is going to ship with a bunch of minor non-conformances. Things where something doesn't quite meet the drawing - maybe the outside radius on a corner of some non-structural component is off on a couple units because the plant that makes that part found the long tail of their manufacturing tolerances.
*** yes you can have a pile of non conformances (NCR … others say RNC), but these are documented and checked by knowledgeable specialists.
The only reason that number is on the drawing is because there has to be a number there,
*** in aerospace every number has a reason and generally multiple reasons behind it …
but it can have a loose tolerance than someone put in. It gets reviewed at a couple levels and someone signs off to accept it. Is it non-conforming? Yes. Is it defective? No.
*** information that bubbles up in lots of places is that it is signed off but not checked… and whistleblowers pointing out that in multiple cases people did not want to sign but were forced to or removed or both…
*** Such parties are Partners or Subcontractors, not Vendors.
Now suppose their delivery for a bunch of units is held up because one of the … factory in Malaysia, and your sub … fine aircraft.
*** Does not work that way in aerospace, not allowed, outright dangerous.
Malaysia is not involved here it appears, so please don’t put it in if it is a phantasy, Spirit Malaysia apparently delivered the original plug, Spirit Wichita and Boeing Renton appears to have made the boo-boo here
Nobody is going to deliberately ship "defective" product,
*** Reading the material of previous and this case. I would ask a lawyer (Willow?) if it is Negligence or Criminal Negligence what happened here. Moving a HQ to Chicago moves higher management further away from understanding what they are doing. May move them legally from one to the other legal tray. But in aerospace safety culture it is considered criminal negligence.
In some cases people appear to have been pushed to ship defective products. Without understanding what the consequence might be, in aerospace safety culture this is considered criminal pure and simple.
but virtually everything of that scale is going to ship with a bunch of minor non-conformances. Things where something doesn't quite meet the drawing - maybe the outside radius on a corner of some non-structural component is off on a couple units because the plant that makes that part found the long tail of their manufacturing tolerances.
*** yes you can have a pile of non conformances (NCR … others say RNC), but these are documented and checked by knowledgeable specialists.
The only reason that number is on the drawing is because there has to be a number there,
*** in aerospace every number has a reason and generally multiple reasons behind it …
but it can have a loose tolerance than someone put in. It gets reviewed at a couple levels and someone signs off to accept it. Is it non-conforming? Yes. Is it defective? No.
*** information that bubbles up in lots of places is that it is signed off but not checked… and whistleblowers pointing out that in multiple cases people did not want to sign but were forced to or removed or both…
Join Date: Jan 2024
Location: LA
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now suppose their delivery for a bunch of units is held up because one of the … factory in Malaysia, and your sub … fine aircraft.
*** Does not work that way in aerospace, not allowed, outright dangerous.
Malaysia is not involved here it appears, so please don’t put it in if it is a phantasy, Spirit Malaysia apparently delivered the original plug, Spirit Wichita and Boeing Renton appears to have made the boo-boo here
*** Does not work that way in aerospace, not allowed, outright dangerous.
Malaysia is not involved here it appears, so please don’t put it in if it is a phantasy, Spirit Malaysia apparently delivered the original plug, Spirit Wichita and Boeing Renton appears to have made the boo-boo here
but virtually everything of that scale is going to ship with a bunch of minor non-conformances. Things where something doesn't quite meet the drawing - maybe the outside radius on a corner of some non-structural component is off on a couple units because the plant that makes that part found the long tail of their manufacturing tolerances.
*** yes you can have a pile of non conformances (NCR … others say RNC), but these are documented and checked by knowledgeable specialists.
*** yes you can have a pile of non conformances (NCR … others say RNC), but these are documented and checked by knowledgeable specialists.
The only reason that number is on the drawing is because there has to be a number there,
*** in aerospace every number has a reason and generally multiple reasons behind it …
*** in aerospace every number has a reason and generally multiple reasons behind it …
Hello A0283
In the context of the Alaska 1282 incident:
In the federal criminal case against Boeing test pilot Mark Forkner, filed and tried to a jury in federal district court in Texas, the charges against him do appear to provide a basis for criminal responsibility to be charged here, but with some important caveats. Recall the unfortunate Mr. Forkner was charged with federal crimes based on allegedly fraudulent statements to the FAA relating to the provision of aircraft parts. The first two counts of the indictment against Mark Forkner alleged fraud involving aircraft parts in interstate commerce, and the remaining counts alleged wire fraud stemming from Boeing invoices to customers. Fortunately (in my view) however, he was acquitted.
The point is, seriously deviating from the required and certified production quality assurance levels - to my non-engineer mind - is a very similar occurrence to the occurrences which served as a basis for the prosecution against Mr. Forkner. I'm referring not to any specific crime(s) which could be charged - I don't practice in the area of federal criminal law - but rather referring to the similarity of the nature or type of underlying problem that occurred. If the MCAS and its terrible deficiencies can be the predicate for a criminal prosecution derived, in a fundamental sense, from its deviation from required and certified safety characteristics, then a door plug not properly assembled and which departs the fuselage in flight also could be such a predicate.
Some other caveats. Though the door plug blowout is quite serious, nobody died and the injuries, such as they are, weren't the stuff of lawyer-televison-advert dreams. So as a criminal case, it would lack the same impact as the crashes (sorry for any unintended dark irony).
The criminal case against Boeing (as many community members already are aware) was settled by a DPA with the United States Department of Justice (Deferred Prosecution Agreement). But the families of the victims of the two MAX crashes challenged dismissal of the charges against Boeing through the DPA, on the basis that their rights - rights as set forth in a FEDERAL STATUTE for gosh's sakes, were not granted to them, to give input to the court on the content of the DPA. So they appealed the dismissal, and it's pending (afaik) in federal appellate court.
Imagine if the Court of Apeals throws out the DPA and a criminal case against Boeing restarts in federal district court in Texas.
As for negligence asserted in a civil case, well, those injured in the Flight 1282 incident already have filed suit (iirc).
My own view is sort of not hot-headed. I posted a little about the trial of Mark Forkner, at the time, and also about the DPA. Consistency may well be the hobgobblin of mediocre lawyers' small minds, but sometimes it may be what fits best. Short of direct and specific evidence showing a knowing dereliction of responsibility under the FARs and any other FAA authority, I don't see that prosecuting another scapegoat over the door plug incident would make any sense. Nor would treating the crisis at the formerly great Boeing as a situation where criminal charges would right the enterprise for going forward. The root cause or causes aren't that individuals broke the law. The system by and through which the enterprise was structured and directed, and managed and supervised, broke down. (Interesting thread on this over at R&N, to be sure).
In the context of the Alaska 1282 incident:
In the federal criminal case against Boeing test pilot Mark Forkner, filed and tried to a jury in federal district court in Texas, the charges against him do appear to provide a basis for criminal responsibility to be charged here, but with some important caveats. Recall the unfortunate Mr. Forkner was charged with federal crimes based on allegedly fraudulent statements to the FAA relating to the provision of aircraft parts. The first two counts of the indictment against Mark Forkner alleged fraud involving aircraft parts in interstate commerce, and the remaining counts alleged wire fraud stemming from Boeing invoices to customers. Fortunately (in my view) however, he was acquitted.
The point is, seriously deviating from the required and certified production quality assurance levels - to my non-engineer mind - is a very similar occurrence to the occurrences which served as a basis for the prosecution against Mr. Forkner. I'm referring not to any specific crime(s) which could be charged - I don't practice in the area of federal criminal law - but rather referring to the similarity of the nature or type of underlying problem that occurred. If the MCAS and its terrible deficiencies can be the predicate for a criminal prosecution derived, in a fundamental sense, from its deviation from required and certified safety characteristics, then a door plug not properly assembled and which departs the fuselage in flight also could be such a predicate.
Some other caveats. Though the door plug blowout is quite serious, nobody died and the injuries, such as they are, weren't the stuff of lawyer-televison-advert dreams. So as a criminal case, it would lack the same impact as the crashes (sorry for any unintended dark irony).
The criminal case against Boeing (as many community members already are aware) was settled by a DPA with the United States Department of Justice (Deferred Prosecution Agreement). But the families of the victims of the two MAX crashes challenged dismissal of the charges against Boeing through the DPA, on the basis that their rights - rights as set forth in a FEDERAL STATUTE for gosh's sakes, were not granted to them, to give input to the court on the content of the DPA. So they appealed the dismissal, and it's pending (afaik) in federal appellate court.
Imagine if the Court of Apeals throws out the DPA and a criminal case against Boeing restarts in federal district court in Texas.
As for negligence asserted in a civil case, well, those injured in the Flight 1282 incident already have filed suit (iirc).
My own view is sort of not hot-headed. I posted a little about the trial of Mark Forkner, at the time, and also about the DPA. Consistency may well be the hobgobblin of mediocre lawyers' small minds, but sometimes it may be what fits best. Short of direct and specific evidence showing a knowing dereliction of responsibility under the FARs and any other FAA authority, I don't see that prosecuting another scapegoat over the door plug incident would make any sense. Nor would treating the crisis at the formerly great Boeing as a situation where criminal charges would right the enterprise for going forward. The root cause or causes aren't that individuals broke the law. The system by and through which the enterprise was structured and directed, and managed and supervised, broke down. (Interesting thread on this over at R&N, to be sure).
I don't see that prosecuting another scapegoat over the door plug incident would make any sense.
The practice in civil law jurisdictions (as opposed to common law) of prosecuting responsible people in transportation accidents, for simple negligence or error, usually works out to unfair blame shifting. The little people spend time in court and possibly jail, while the management responsible for safety culture go on about their business. We don't do this in common law countries. But MCAS was so egregious ....
As far as the blown out door plug goes, no one got seriously hurt and imo, even with the severity of problems it seems to be uncovering, it doesn't come close to any threshold for criminal prosecution.
However, if senior personnel are found to have lied to regulators, or encouraged/instructed others to do so, in material matters, I'm all in favor of prosecution. The situation with Mark Forkner seems marginal to me, and almost certainly there were people who were more deserving of prosecution.
Join Date: Jan 2024
Location: London
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing may postponed the delivery of up to 50 MAXes after wrongly drilled holes found
news.sky.com/story/boeing-may-delay-jet-deliveries-after-supplier-finds-glitch-with-fuselages-13064698
Can we expect a new AD/MoM for currently flying aircraft? Have a flight on RYA max in a months time.
Can we expect a new AD/MoM for currently flying aircraft? Have a flight on RYA max in a months time.
Indonesia’s Komite Nasional Keselamatan Transportasi (KNKT), assisted by NTSB, meticulously followed ICAO rules and published a preliminary report on crash of Lion Air flight 610 30 days after the accident.
So why is NTSB’s preliminary report on January 5 MAX9 accident overdue? Could it be due to technical assistance from Boeing’s team of lawyers, accountants and media flacks?
So why is NTSB’s preliminary report on January 5 MAX9 accident overdue? Could it be due to technical assistance from Boeing’s team of lawyers, accountants and media flacks?
Indonesia’s Komite Nasional Keselamatan Transportasi (KNKT), assisted by NTSB, meticulously followed ICAO rules and published a preliminary report on crash of Lion Air flight 610 30 days after the accident.
So why is NTSB’s preliminary report on January 5 MAX9 accident overdue? Could it be due to technical assistance from Boeing’s team of lawyers, accountants and media flacks?
So why is NTSB’s preliminary report on January 5 MAX9 accident overdue? Could it be due to technical assistance from Boeing’s team of lawyers, accountants and media flacks?
But with the media spotlight, the Congressional inquiries (on both sides of Capitol Hill), the FAA's inquiries and declining to approve increased production, such "technical assistance" - by which you mean interference - could only be attempted by utter fools. And I'm not even giving the current NTSB Chair any extraordinary credit for toughness of bureaucratic mind (though if I had to guess, I would say trying to provide such "technical assistance" would be a very predictable way to destroy the professional reputation and standing of anyone who tried it).
I'd like to think the Board has always been highly resistant to such interference, but so much of the mythology of the aviation safety ecosystem has been exposed as illusory or corrupt, that I'm not leaning against that particular door (plug).
I think it's fair to say that the aircraft in question was delivered in an unsafe condition.
Join Date: Jan 2024
Location: Scotland
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are some interesting photos here, and a description of the maintenance checks being carried out on AA's MAX planes.
https://news.alaskaair.com/alaska-ai...tions/as-1282/
If you download the media kit they are in high resolution.
https://news.alaskaair.com/alaska-ai...tions/as-1282/
If you download the media kit they are in high resolution.
Last edited by MarineEngineer; 6th Feb 2024 at 07:43.
There are some interesting photos here, and a description of the maintenance checks being carried out on AA's MAX planes.
https://news.alaskaair.com/alaska-ai...tions/as-1282/
If you download the media kit they are in high resolution.
https://news.alaskaair.com/alaska-ai...tions/as-1282/
If you download the media kit they are in high resolution.
This appears to show two washers under the nut. One could be a lock/spring washer?
And the upper roller bearing.
Join Date: Jan 2024
Location: Scotland
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did you notice that the door seal was deformed slightly?
You can't mix a lock washer with a plain washer. It is probably a spring washer fitted to stop the bolt rattling, or to make aligning the cotter pin easier while keeping the nut 'snug'.
You can't mix a lock washer with a plain washer. It is probably a spring washer fitted to stop the bolt rattling, or to make aligning the cotter pin easier while keeping the nut 'snug'.
(and/or for the nut to not bottom out on a plain shank)
P.S. Every time I look at those Rollers I think you really couldn't make them any shorter. But then again there are 4 bolts keeping the door plug in place (or rather there should be )
Last edited by 639; 6th Feb 2024 at 11:13.