More Bad Boeing News

[Ray Tackett]

FAA accuses Boeing of knowingly putting defective parts in aircraft, after being notified by suppliers of the problem and after failing Boeing strength testing.

https://apnews.com/12c95b73e0df4d76aa2e108123ff557e

[Stephanie Belser]

I think that moving top management to a location where they have to fly at least three hours to get to their main manufacturing plants was a chuckleheaded idea.

[B.Butler]

I think that moving top management to a location where they have to fly at least three hours to get to their main manufacturing plants was a chuckleheaded idea.

Hometown engineering firm stolen by the bean-counters.

[Reams Goodloe]

>>>Hometown engineering firm stolen by the bean-counters<<

Yes, long known in the hometown... ..ever since it was obvious that the Boeing grill nameplate was the only original thing left on the Mickey D takeover wagon.


>>>moving top management to a location where they have to fly at least three hours to get to their main manufacturing plants was a chuckleheaded idea<<

Yes, but probably not as bad as moving the MR&D - Manufacturing Research and Development - out of the area where there was constant interchange with manufacturing.

Kelly Johnson proved that if you wanted to make a great flying machine, you put the engineers and the shop at the same location.... The more separation is provided, the more that an inferior product results.... That will keep happening until the pendulum swings the MR&D folks to locations back near shop floors. Of course, same issue for management....!

Reams

[Reams Goodloe]

>>>FAA accuses Boeing of knowingly putting defective parts in aircraft, after being notified by suppliers of the problem and after failing Boeing strength testing.<<

Ray -

I guess I'd need to know more about the circumstances and the reporting of the activity. I've seen situations where the most cost effective - and at times the only practical alternative - was to finish the build knowing that you needed to retrofit something before you signed it off for flight. Sometimes it is easier just to finish with the bad fastener or slat track, and then rebuild or retrofit later, than to call a halt to the production line and wait for good parts. But, if some folks at the lazy B did that and then tried to sneak the machines into service, without reporting the situation, that's another bad act....

Reams

[Bill Bridges]

>>>FAA accuses Boeing of knowingly putting defective parts in aircraft, after being notified by suppliers of the problem and after failing Boeing strength testing.<<

Ray -

I guess I'd need to know more about the circumstances and the reporting of the activity. I've seen situations where the most cost effective - and at times the only practical alternative - was to finish the build knowing that you needed to retrofit something before you signed it off for flight. Sometimes it is easier just to finish with the bad fastener or slat track, and then rebuild or retrofit later, than to call a halt to the production line and wait for good parts. But, if some folks at the lazy B did that and then tried to sneak the machines into service, without reporting the situation, that's another bad act....

Reams

This problem with the B737 is nothing, compared to some of the problems GD had with some of the F-111 subs.

[Ray Tackett]

>>>FAA accuses Boeing of knowingly putting defective parts in aircraft, after being notified by suppliers of the problem and after failing Boeing strength testing.<<

Ray -

I guess I'd need to know more about the circumstances and the reporting of the activity. I've seen situations where the most cost effective - and at times the only practical alternative - was to finish the build knowing that you needed to retrofit something before you signed it off for flight. Sometimes it is easier just to finish with the bad fastener or slat track, and then rebuild or retrofit later, than to call a halt to the production line and wait for good parts. But, if some folks at the lazy B did that and then tried to sneak the machines into service, without reporting the situation, that's another bad act....

Reams

Possible, but just finishing the builds without attempting to put the aircraft in service would not seem to merit a multimillion dollar fine. I can build any old heap of aluminum I want and call it an airplane, as long as it stays on the ground.

The problem could possibly have been airworthiness certificates. Until a week or so ago, Boeing could print their own airworthiness certificates for type-certified aircraft. Issuing an airworthiness certificate for a plane known to contain defective parts might well incur a fine, even if the engines were never started.

Boeing's bean counters remind me of the ones at now-defunct Wang Laboratories, where I worked for sixteen years. There, the mantra was "save a buck no matter what it costs." Fortunately, Wang never built an aircraft.

[Ray Tackett]

I think that moving top management to a location where they have to fly at least three hours to get to their main manufacturing plants was a chuckleheaded idea.

Definitely. I worked for a major mainframe manufacturer in their military systems division in Pennsylvania. Those engineers were a few feet away, and stuff worked. Then we got some commercial work from a division in California. Two critical circuit cards had no chance of working, and one drove its power supply into current limit shutdown or caught fire. The D-size prints (remember those), had the "Designed by". "Drawn by", "Checked by", and "Approved by" boxes all signed by the same guy on the same day.

It cost a couple of weeks and hundreds of thousands of 1970 dollars just to troubleshoot so the appropriate engineering changes could be "Designed", "Drawn", "Checked", and "Approved". One of the problems required acquisition of an expensive piece of special test equipment.