11 ms·
Boeing finds debris left in new 737 MAXes, now in storage
- mmrezaie 7y agoDoes this mean normally these planes were suppose to fly and they had passed their final check?
- kryogen1c 7y agoSubmitted title is actual title, but the first paragraph actually makes sense, recommend change Boeing recently discovered some of its stored 737 MAXes have foreign objects in the fuel tanks.
- ulfw 7y agoMakes me more and more think this is a trash aircraft through and through.
- tifadg1 7y agoAh yes, because it's all black and white.
- GrayShade 7y agoThe article doesn't say what kind of debris they found. Can it lead to the fuel being cut off during flights? Can it be undetected for non-737 MAX planes that are currently flying? Also, from the comments: > One Middle East airline inspected their new 787 and found lots of debris and didn’t want 787 from Charleston for some time. They also found a chewing gum covering a hole in a wall close to a door.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- markus_zhang 7y agoCharleston is also the place that makes those military refueling aircrafts that were refused by USAF?
- GrayShade 7y agoNot sure, but that seems to be a thing: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a26627917/air-force-kc-461-deliveries-trash-boeing/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a26627917... > New KC-46A tankers fresh off the assembly line were found with “loose tools” and “bits of debris” in them left behind from the manufacturing process.
- jsight 7y agoNo, those were made elsewhere.
- kayfox 7y agoCharleston makes 787s and parts for some other aircraft. The KC-767/KC-46 is assembled at the Everett factory by IAM union machinists.
- markus_zhang 7y agoThanks, stupid me, makes sense to separate military and civilian stuffs...
- kayfox 7y agoIts by airframe, not by military or civilian. The military airframes are made in the same factory as the corresponding civilian airframe, its just flown to a different facility (In Seattle or such) to be built out with the required military hardware.
- markus_zhang 7y agoThanks! This makes more sense~~
- londons_explore 7y agoI feel like it would be easier to just put a big mesh over the fuel intake inside the tank, and then say "this plane is certified to have objects up to 10 inches in the fuel tank and will still operate as designed". Planes have two fuel tanks and two engines anyway - I would really struggle to imagine a scenario in which FOD in a fuel tank would lead to something worse than an emergency landing.
- GrayShade 7y agoThere already are filters on the fuel intakes, but having a rag in there doesn't seem ideal.
- iso947 7y agoA screwdriver is under half an inch in diameter and will cause major problems with your engine.
- mrguyorama 7y agoFuel filters getting clogged leads to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_38 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_38
- HeyLaughingBoy 7y agoAn emergency landing in mid-ocean?
- salawat 7y agoIt's a matter of degree, and you aren't only concerned with the engines. Aircraft frequently pump fuel around to other tanks for trim purposes. Debris that can manage to get passed filters into the pumps/lines can cause premature pump failure. Lose too many, and you have a plane out of service. Given that most MTBF are calculated assuming the absence of debris except that which may come in with the fuel, there is really no excuse for not cleaning out your tanks.
- fh973 7y agoApparently these problems are very hard to avoid. See here for some stories in context of the Space Shuttle: https://waynehale.wordpress.com/ https://waynehale.wordpress.com/ As a remedy, they use tools that are tracked by RFID and tool cabinets that monitor that all tools are back in place.
- buildbuildbuild 7y agoAlso through “sponge logs” which inherit their amusing name from the medical industry.
- acomjean 7y agoIt’s a known problem with known solutions. “Foreign object elimination” I ended up taking the FOE training after someone left a tool at a radar site. I work in software and never visited the site, but “big company”. FOD foreign object damage is what everyone is trying to avoid. (Pdf) https://www.astm.org/CERTIFICATION/DOCS/222.NCATT_FOE_Standard.pdf https://www.astm.org/CERTIFICATION/DOCS/222.NCATT_FOE_Standa...
- sysadmindotfail 7y agoAny large aerospace contractor has mandatory FOD/FOE training for ALL employees (contract stipulation). Don't forget to not charge for this time spent!
- Gustomaximus 7y agoI don't care how certified these planes are down the track, I never want to set foot on a 737 Max and generally any new Boeing that doesn't have a solid air history. Trust with these guys is totally blown.
- SimplyUnknown 7y agoI'm totally with you, but how do you prevent it? Usually you only know what type of plane you fly with after buying tickets. A solution might be to only buy tickets from operators that don't have with 737 MAX planes but this group might be getting smaller over long time.
- tus88 7y agoOr larger.
- SimplyUnknown 7y agoSure, but you never know which way it will go but this is assuming the 737 MAX gets recertified by the FAA and operators are going to buy them because it is cost-effective or whatever. This means that the group that doesn't have a 737 MAX is going to be smaller and therefore harder/way more expensive to avoid.
- sascha_sl 7y agoIt's not much different than the NEO, the pitch was that you will not have to send your pilots back to training because "it's just a 737". Since it clearly is not just a 737 the NEO (which is also a variant, but one that didn't inherently change the aerodynamics of the plane) now has the advantage, not just because reputation.
- londons_explore 7y agoNearly all routes are flown with a specific type of plane always. Just use FlightRadar24 to see for that specific flight what usually does that route. Thats only a 90% guarantee, since plane types are reshuffled during disruption sometimes.
- nottorp 7y agoWho needs Netflix? Just read the Boeing news...
- PedroBatista 7y agoHaving seen a documentary a few years ago about the 787 and the absolute shitshow that was and still is, I'm now convinced Boeing has been building their planes like an AMC Gremlin for at least 2 decades.
- growlist 7y agoWhat next?
- nobrains 7y agoDo you think there is an element of sabotage by competitors?
- hosteur 7y agoWhy would you think so?
- siggi_pop 7y agoI don't think that the competition are that effective or good. I remember that I have seen documentaries about how the factory workers at Boing anonymously complaining about the build quality and especially that management was not taking their concerns seriously. And this was before Max incidents. I will bet on issues because of profit/cost focus and poor management over conspiracy theories any day of the week.
- masukomi 7y ago> FOD is absolutely unacceptable. One escape is one too many. With your help and focus, we will eliminate FOD from our production system. > We’ve already held a series of stand down meetings in Renton with teammates on the factory floor to share a new process for stopping FOD. I can't help but think of "beatings will continue until morale improves!"
- siggi_pop 7y agoStarting to feel bad for boing now
- stopads 7y agoIt seems like Boeing (and the FAA and the industry more broadly) have been hiding behind the veil of the "zero commercial accidents" streak for however long that was happening while aggressively trying to coverup serious problems. It's great that everyone is finally doing a deep dive to figure out these problems. We need more of this, more critical thought and curmudgeons and people who assume the statistics are wrong.
- goalieca 7y agoAll of the rigor of modern software development.
- anodyne33 7y agoWith the knowledge that A&P mechanics (air frame and powerplant) are required to shadow their tools in their boxes (filling the drawers with foam and plucking a distinct home for every tool to make confirmation that all are returned easy and fast) I find it staggering that tools are left behind on a regular basis at the assembly phase.
- kayfox 7y agoIts the same at the Boeing factories, it will be interesting to see where this stuff gets traced to.
- cultus 7y agoSo there is no need to delay delivery because they've launched a "robust" internal investigation. I'm sure this debris doesn't at all point to the possibility of overall bad quality control and the presence of other undetected problems. It'll be just fine.
- e40 7y agoThe Daily podcast interviewed a manager of the NC (SC?) Boein plant and he said he reported debris in planes and tried to stop them from being shipped off... and failed. It wasn't the fuel tank, though, it was in the air frame. Sharp objects. That coexist with wires. While listening I must have said "WTF" out loud a dozen times.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- PedroBatista 7y agoWorse, that type of thing is long been known as an dangerous issue and the industry has processes and protocols to deal with it. That's why it's "worse", Boeing knows about all these things and conscientiously decides to don't give a f#$%k. Airbus ( and I'm sure pretty much all the other manufacturers ) has all the processes for training the workers about this problem, how to avoid it, how to deal with it when happens, check-in and checkout all the tools at the start and the end of the task, inspections, etc. this is so basic it hurts.
- kayfox 7y agoI think its probably a lack of supervision and not a lack of protocols, if it were a lack of protocols the 787s assembled in Everett would have the same issues. Also, I have personally observed the use of protocols to prevent this in tours and (a long time ago) working in the Everett factory.
- atoav 7y agoIn the daily podcast episode that QC employee explicitly tells a story of how managers tried to hush him, change the protocols, ignore issues etc. That same guy also said it had to do with the location of that new factory and the lack of company culture paired with managers who just had the numbers in mind.
- LeifCarrotson 7y agoThe tricky thing about protocols is that you have to be willing to follow them and deal with the consequences when you step off the normal path through the flowchart. If the protocol says "(1) Check out tools before using them. (2) Check in tools when returning them. (3) Verify all tools checked out have been checked in before marking the job complete." that's one thing. Sending employees to training on how to do this and seeing daily clipboards by the tool room with initials might make you think the protocol is in use. And if there are supervisors making sure that the clipboard is full of initials at the end of the day, that can give you a nice warm fuzzy feeling. The problem comes when supervisors want to 'look good' by having no deviations from the protocol. If people are post-dating their check-in or pre-dating their check-out, or checking stuff in that's still in use by a coworker, the protocol is less than useless. When humans are tasked with following those protocols, they'll make human mistakes sometimes. If there are no mistakes that's not good, that's bad - it indicates the metrics are being fudged. I think any supervisor that fails to find a deviation from the protocol or who can't list an event when the protocol required action outside the norm does not look good. Similar stuff applies to software development: If you're doing code reviews, or testing before check-in, or signing off on releases, and can't point to a time when the protocol said "nope, go back to the drawing board" you're not actually making your development safer you're making it a hassle.
- slumdev 7y agoIf it's Boeing, I ain't going.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- vectorEQ 7y agono where it states if this is actually hazardous or not, if its a common thing which might happen to other vendors too or anything. just 'found some stuff which didn't pass the checks.' ok, thats what there are checks for..., good job... such reporting. just post some random piece of information about some buzzword or google trend without any background or context to put it in.
- atoav 7y agoHave a listen to this: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/podcasts/the-daily/boeing-crash.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/podcasts/the-daily/boeing... Sharp debris in the airframe close to electrical wires and the very wires that control the airframe in planes that left the factory are not a theoretical risk. Imagine your airline gets a "quality controlled" factory new plane and you find they forgot a whole ladder (!) inside the hull — if this shouldn't raise concerns — what would? Or must it crash first? Oh wait.. The software problem alone was bad, but combine this with a lack of effective oversight and a bad company culture and it looks far more bleak
- heisenbit 7y agoThe other good news is that the wire distances are not up to current standards in the MAX. So when one goes you have a better chance the other critical one also goes.
- phkahler 7y agoThe head of Boeing's 737 programme has told employees that the discovery was "absolutely unacceptable". That's fine, but what action did that person take other than saying that? Or does anything else need to be done at that level? I recall reading about Andy Grove on the topic of management, and maybe the point of people at that level really is to just push down "company values" in a sense. I'd rather have someone up there shouting about this than constantly shouting "shareholder value" or "just deliver", at least for products like this. Maybe the bad culture there is changing ;-)
- wnoise 7y agoNotice that he said the discovery was unacceptable, not that having the debris was unacceptable.
- paulmd 7y agolike the employees who wrote the "designed by clowns supervised by monkeys" email. boeing took swift action... to fire the employees who made the mistake of documenting the problem in writing.
- jordache 7y agoI suspect all the boeing planes have this paltry quality. It's just that the focus is very intense on the MAX right now.
- Loughla 7y agoWhen left to their own devices, and when allowed to act as their own oversight and auditing authority, it turns out that huge, impersonal corporations won't act in the public's best interest. It's like there should be a portion of government funds devoted to an agency responsible for ensuring that these type of things can't happen. Who knew? That's weird, right?
- dylan604 7y agoThis isn't unique in the manufacturing of large engineering projects. There are stories of the US Navy doing sonar test runs of new double hulled submarines to see if the submarine is as quiet as expected. One of the things that happen[s|ed] often enough is a tool box being left in between the double hulls that they know what it sounds like.
- CryptoBanker 7y agoUSN submarines haven't had double hulls for 70 years almost. Hopefully things have improved
- dylan604 7y agoWe haven't put skids on the bottom of the boats in a really long time either. Doesn't make the stories any less interesting though. https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Mans-Bluff-Submarine-Espionage/dp/1610393589/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=blind+man%27s+bluff&qid=1582161638&s=arts-crafts&sr=8-1 https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Mans-Bluff-Submarine-Espionage/...
- canada_dry 7y agoConsidering how often surgeons leave all sorts of things inside patients (https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/surgical-objects-left-in-patients-on-the-rise-in-canada-data-shows-1.4673890 https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/surgical-objects-left-in-patie...) it's not hard to imagine manufacturing facilities doing much worse! Of course, the issue is knowing about the problem and ignoring it. That's inexcusable.
- sam36 7y agoI'll chime in as I was previously an "air frame structure tech". Basically I did everything on the airplane other than mess with engines or electronics. Worked on the Navy P3 Orion fleet (remove and replace wings), the Airforce C-17 fleet (worked various tech bulletins as well as air frame inspection checks), and a brief stent on the the 747 'Sofia' project (cut a really giant hole for a telescope) Anyway, I was most intimate with the P-3 orion fuel tanks (which is the entire wing) as we regularly pulled the wings on those planes, replaced various spars, ribs, etc and then reinstalled the wings. Then we'd have to fill the entire wings up with the 'anti explosion foam' which is in several hundred cube shapes, all with painted on numbers (yes they all go back in order), ranging from 6" to 18" in size. After that was done, plane was refueled and tested. Normally after a few weeks of checks, the fuel filters and intake strainers would be checked. They commonly had rags in them, but always had tons of metal shavings and wads of human hair (probably hair from your legs). So yes, 'FOD' is always in the tanks after any construction or maintenance. There would be no tools in the tanks as normally your employee number or social security number was etched on everything you owned.