5 ms·
Here are gruesome, firsthand details about production and management problems with the 737NG in a documentary from Al Jazeera. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v
by bolangi 6y ago
Here are gruesome, firsthand details about production and management problems with the 737NG in a documentary from Al Jazeera.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaWdEtANi-0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaWdEtANi-0
The following summary is my own:
The whole story is shown in the first seconds: three aircraft encountering more force than a usual landing (such as a runway overrun). All three fuselages breaking into three parts in exactly the same two places! All three aircraft exactly eight years old.
Aluminum members called chords run the length of the fuselage and around the circumference to make up the fuselage structure. The chords are joined to each other and to reinforcing surrounds for large openings like doors.
Poorly fitting chords and bear plates around openings were redrilled when mounting holes were misplaced, reshaped and pounded with hammers in order to mate them. This weakened of the structure to below design margins. In addition excessive metal fatigue due to hand processing led to accelerated corrosion, likely causing structural failure in three eight-year-old NG aircraft that broke up on landing. The aircraft were engineered to survive an emergency landing intact and were designed for 30-year airframe life.
More to the story as the government colluded with Boeing to cover these deficiencies and frustrate the actions (eventually lawsuits) by a team of whistleblowers.
Basically, the subcontractor agreed to use computer controlled manufacturing processes, then did 90% of the work by hand. The resulting substandard parts were beaten into shape on Boeing's production line.
Watching this, I can better understand a recent story on local TV about developments in the US airline industry. They forecast that many companies will using the the opportunity of the pandemic to retire older aircraft.
- mohaine 6y agoSmall Nit. Airplane expected life is normally rated in pressurization cycles, not years. It is how many times it takes off to normal flight and lands that really matter most for airframe lifetime so if the plane was flown more cycles than average, an 8 year life could be easily be the expected max.
- bolangi 6y agoThe source in this video, a former FAA inspector, gave figures in years rather than pressurization cycles.
- raverbashing 6y agoProbably an estimate for non-technical audiences A single aisle aircraft will do around 2-6 cycles per day. Of course what makes aircraft fly is money so there are major overhauls needed to keep them flying after a certain number of cycles (a D check)
- marshmallow_12 6y agoWhat is the maximum number of cycles, then?
- s1artibartfast 6y agoFirst link on google. ~75,000 flights depending on model. https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2012_q4/2/ https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2012...
- coredog64 6y ago737NG is not MAX. 737NG was launched in ‘97. This was before the MD merger was completed.
- bolangi 6y agoThe internal problems may be shared. Also the whistleblower efforts to get problems recognized continued for a decade.
- mbreese 6y agoThe article/interview also specifically alleges that the problems with Boeing aren’t restricted to one single airplane model, but are at the board level. If the above is true (and I have no reason to doubt it), it would be another example of systemic issues at the company. Which is sad to see, and if so, it’s a problem that needs to be addressed.
- jiofih 6y agoI’ve read somewhere that this all started with the McDonnel-Douglas merger. Boeing used to be an engineering company, but the suits took over after the merge to maximize profit - if a couple hundred innocent people die, you gotta break some eggs right? They probably fly LearJet themselves
- mbreese 6y agoThe phrase I heard somewhere was that when Boeing bought McDonnel-Douglas, what ended up happening was that MD acquired Boeing and convinced Boeing to pay for it. I don’t remember where I read that, but it stuck with me. Maybe we read it in the same place :).
- bobthepanda 6y agoThe bit about retiring older aircraft is not really due to safety. It is because each generation of aircraft keeps getting vastly more fuel efficient, and fuel makes up most of the cost of flying.
- WalterBright 6y agoThe 737MAX burns 15% less fuel than the 737, which is the entire reason for building the MAX.
- MaxBarraclough 6y agoDue mostly to the new engines, I presume?
- bobthepanda 6y agoFrom the Wikipedia: > In mid-2011, one design objective was matching fuel burn of the 737 MAX to that of the Airbus A320neo's 15% fuel-burn advantage. The initial 737 Max reduction was 10–12%; it was later enhanced to 14.5%. The fan was widened from 61 in (150 cm) to 69.4 in (176 cm) by raising the nose gear and placing the engine higher and forward. The split winglet added 1–1.5% fuel burn reduction, a re-lofted tail cone added an additional 1% reduction. Electronically controlling the bleed air system improved efficiency. The new engine casings included chevrons, similar to those of the Boeing 787, which also helped to reduce engine noise.[100] But yes, mostly the engines.
- lqet 6y agoWatched the first 20 minutes, this is surreal. Critical fuselage parts didn't fit together because workers at the subcontractor (Ducommun) traced a template with magic marker onto the material and cut and drilled the part by hand. Officially, the parts were manufactured by high precision CNC machinery with extremely little tolerances. At Boeing, if drill holes didn't match up in parts A and B, workers were told to just put the parts together and re-drill the hole in part B through the hole in part A, or hammer the parts into place. Internal Boeing investigators who found out and documented the issues were threatened to be sued if they spoke up.
- Symbiote 6y agoI watched about 40 minutes. The two investigators were later fired, after (they imply) the US government leaked their identities to Boeing. I wonder if they thought to report this to the European aviation regulator, after getting nowhere in the US.
- xwolfi 6y agoAt this point you Whistleblow to Airbus, they'll find a way to make it known, and make it stop.
- benhurmarcel 6y agoYou'll be better off contacting the EASA. A competitor will not want to meddle in this kind of topics, nor should they have to.
- Glawen 6y agoAirbus will do nothing, they are not interested in harming Boeing as they would suffer retaliation from US government
- ricw 6y agoWasn’t this the exact problem with the 787? Particularly in Boeing’s factory in the carolinas which is the only plant producing the 787? I’m definitely not flying the 737MAX, and this seriously makes me question the 787 as well as 737NG or in fact Boeing as a whole.
- IndySun 6y agoAs others have noted... Utterly shocking and terrifying documentary. It shows criminal activity and I wonder why those involved aren't in jail.
- wonder_er 6y agoI'm half-way through this documentary right now, per your request, and it's fascinating. Thanks for the recommendation!
- ridgeguy 6y agoWatched the entire video. A greatly dispiriting example of regulatory capture. Not only does Boeing appear to own the FAA, it's bought off the DoJ as well. Thank you for posting the video link.
- fallingknife 6y agoThat video is from 2010. Did the predicted failures of more 737NG's ever happen?
- gbil 6y agoDISCLAIMER: I haven't seen the full video yet but a quick search brings up recent issues with 737NG [1] [2] Especially [2] is crazy and I'm quoting "airlines must inspect any Boeing 737NG aircraft that have been parked for more than a week for corrosion of engine bleed air valves" more than a week ? is this acceptable? [1] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/09/29/boeing-faces-new-737-issue-cracks-wing-supports-ng-version/3812795002/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/09/29/boeing-... [2] https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers/corrosion-can-prompt-737ng-in-flight-engine-shutdowns-following-storage-faa/139485.article https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers/corrosion-can-prompt...
- zaarn 6y agoIIRC most aircraft will require a series of inspections on parts if parked for a week. Most aircraft are built to be flown with little to no interruptions (other than for maintenance). From what I recall, if your aircraft sits on the ground for a month, you need quite a few more intensive inspections to make sure it's still flight ready. Aircraft will rarely park for a week unattended, the only reason they would be is a refit or major maintenance. Every hour an aircraft isn't in the air costs the airline A LOT of money.
- mhb 6y agoIt is alarming, but, in the three examples of plane crashes the planes all overshot the runway. I don't know what the expectations are in those cases. Is it unreasonable to expect nothing to fail? Just like JIT, the quest for greater efficiency makes systems less robust. Were these failures anticipated due to engineering tradeoffs or due to the manufacturing issues?
- sofixa 6y agoYes. Planes are designed and tested to not fail in dangerous scenarios, like overshooting the runway, having to abort takeoff at the last moment, an engine exploding, etc. The airplane falling apart is unexpected