4 ms·

That’s not what is stated in the linked posts.

• monocasa 3y ago
  > With that out of the way… why did the left hand (LH) mid-exit door plug blow off of the 737-9 registered as N704AL? Simple- as has been covered in a number of articles and videos across aviation channels, there are 4 bolts that prevent the mid-exit door plug from sliding up off of the door stop fittings that take the actual pressurization loads in flight, and these 4 bolts were not installed when Boeing delivered the airplane, our own records reflect this.
  • avalys 3y ago
    Did you read the whole thing? Boeing removed the bolts to fix another issue around the door and neglected to reinstall them.
    • mardifoufs 3y ago
      Sure, that's not unbelievable. Tampering with the records is the weird part. I can't think of any reason why spirit or Boeing would be willing to do that when they can just... fix the repair if they knew about it? And if they didn't, then why tamper with the process management systems?
    • dboreham 3y ago
      Spirit removed them, not Boeing.
    • monocasa 3y ago
      I read 'they were never bolted' as 'upon delivery of the aircraft, the bolts holding in the plug were not installed' in order to differentiate from the case of 'the bolts loosened during use of the aircraft after delivery to customer'. But I can see how we could read to different statements from the parent.
  • jacquesm 3y ago
    Pretty wild because such a delivery would normally include at least one flight.
  • k1t 3y ago
    Although TFA doesn't explicitly say the bolts were there to begin with, the bigger issue is that repairs were required on this door, the repair team lied about what they did, which bypassed a QA check that would have likely caught the missing bolts. Given the awful (criminal?) behavior of the repair team, it seems reasonable to assume the bolts were initially present and they just forgot to put them back - rather than that they were missing from the start.
• dboreham 3y ago
  It says two things: > has in the past 365 calendar days recorded 392 nonconforming findings on 737 mid fuselage door installations which prompted my comment. then it says that the door in question was re-worked by Spirit employees. It implies that the bolts were removed and not re-fitted, but I don't see evidence that they were ever fitted. Perhaps they were, but then removed by people working for a company that day to day doesn't fit bolts, or perhaps they were never there and the people working for the non-bolt-fitting company didn't see the problem with that.
  • inemesitaffia 3y ago
    Maybe you're in a company where you have to record the process of making instant coffee. You have your screwed container of coffee you have a cup and a kettle of hot water. Someone later finds the coffee container open and spilled by the resident cat. There's no record of the container opened but there's requests for coffee and completed work orders for coffee have been billed which you can't do without opening the coffee container
• wongarsu 3y ago
  The conclusion is still pretty spot on. The company known (to Boeing) for shoddy work does a warranty repair as a follow-up for a failed warranty repair, and while Boeing QA caught the first repair going wrong it didn't catch the second repair going wrong because those bolts weren't tagged as having been touched. Still sounds like a clear case of an unbelievable amount of bad quality from Spirit, and Boeing not pressing the issue until something finally slips through the cracks
  • mardifoufs 3y ago
    Even that could've been believable. But , and correct me if I'm wrong, the comment claims that Boeing's systems clearly show that the bolts were never installed. Like, they knew about it even after all of that, and knew about it upon delivery. Again, that just doesn't even make sense from incompetence, greed, laziness or any other angle. It's not like the same people on the factory floor who would want to sweep the bad repair under the rug[0] also gets to control the delivery process, the massive paperwork, checks, automated checks, etc that are inherent to massively complex manufacturing. Again, this is claiming that the system knew about it, and that it was written there all along. So we are way beyond manufacturing issues here. [0] (not that they would for what is claimed to be literally just painting over the plugs, without installing anything. that's just dumb, it's not something you can just get away with, it would've been visible from the very first flights and would he basically a world's first)
    • anotherhue 3y ago
      Stupid metaphor but please help me understand, if I ordered a chicken-sandwich and was served with raw-meat, I would not politely return it and request a correction, I would flee the scene. How are they in any sense whatsoever still working with a company or process that would 'paint over the plugs'? That was the warning sign. I'm sure the answer is money somehow but is that even accurate? Surely this is more costly? Different budget maybe?
      • tatersolid 3y ago
        > How are they in any sense whatsoever still working with a company or process that would 'paint over the plugs'? Because there is no alternative supplier that could supply the same components in a shorter-than-years timeframe. And they don’t want to halt all production as it would bankrupt the company. To the HN crowd, this is like AWS becoming broken and unreliable, but your entire build and architecture has AWS baked in. Moving to Azure or Google or whatever would take years of engineering and data migration. So you paper over the holes as best you can to keep the lights on.