More Boeing bashing by 7 news Australia.

a reply to: PorkChop96

They did a deep dive into their processes, the final report will shed more light on this. In the meantime, its only opinion here as usual. Failed 33 out of 56, repeated.

a reply to: quintessentone

I'm sure the final report will say something about it, and my question still stands and will be curious as to their reasoning behind calling it out.

You still got it wrong, go back and read it again.

Citing a presentation it says it reviewed, The New York Times reported, “The plane maker passed 56 of the audits and failed 33 of them

Passed 56 audits, failed 33 audits for a total of 89 audits.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

I'm sure the final report will say something about it, and my question still stands and will be curious as to their reasoning behind calling it out.

You still got it wrong, go back and read it again.

Citing a presentation it says it reviewed, The New York Times reported, “The plane maker passed 56 of the audits and failed 33 of them

Passed 56 audits, failed 33 audits for a total of 89 audits.

Oh yes I see what I got wrong, so far they failed 30% of audits, not over half. Still a high failure rate.

a reply to: quintessentone

Being in a manufacturing environment, and being a part of many audits, there are a multitude of things to fail on.

Until that final report comes out, we will have no idea what they failed for. Could be something simple, could be complete mishandling of product and safety issues.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

Being in a manufacturing environment, and being a part of many audits, there are a multitude of things to fail on.

Until that final report comes out, we will have no idea what they failed for. Could be something simple, could be complete mishandling of product and safety issues.

I once held a position of ISO internal auditor, so I know very well how it goes.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone


Not sure why the "Times" decided that them using Dawn soap as an assembly lubricant was such a major finding, liquid soap is used as a lubricant in many assembly processes and in every day life. Unless it is strictly called out in any sort of documentation that they specifically cannot use that, there is no significant finding there.

The FAA decided it was a finding because Dawn dish soap is not listed as an approved chemical for that process in the Boeing specifications.

originally posted by: Shaker

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone


Not sure why the "Times" decided that them using Dawn soap as an assembly lubricant was such a major finding, liquid soap is used as a lubricant in many assembly processes and in every day life. Unless it is strictly called out in any sort of documentation that they specifically cannot use that, there is no significant finding there.

The FAA decided it was a finding because Dawn dish soap is not listed as an approved chemical for that process in the Boeing specifications.

Exactly and there is probably a good reason for that.

The FAA has been pushing for more diversity in their hiring.

nypost.com...

From the article:

"The Federal Aviation Administration is actively recruiting workers who suffer “severe intellectual” disabilities, psychiatric problems and other mental and physical conditions under a diversity and inclusion hiring initiative spelled out on the agency’s website.

“Targeted disabilities are those disabilities that the Federal government, as a matter of policy, has identified for special emphasis in recruitment and hiring,” the FAA’s website states. “They include hearing, vision, missing extremities, partial paralysis, complete paralysis, epilepsy, severe intellectual disability, psychiatric disability and dwarfism.”

The initiative is part of the FAA’s “Diversity and Inclusion” hiring plan, which claims “diversity is integral to achieving FAA’s mission of ensuring safe and efficient travel across our nation and beyond.”

They're a bunch of boneheads. No way I'm getting on a plane.

a reply to: ScarletDarkness

My son just walked off a Boeing 787 tonight in Denver .He called me and said the APU wasn't working so no a/c and they couldn't start the engines. I told him to get off and find another flight home.When he got up and left many other passengers got up and left also. Before he left the gatehouse they deplaned the remaining passengers. Fortunately, he found a later flight home, still Boeing 737 but not a max, no other options. These incidents will be the end of Boeing. Carriers that can't book seats on Boeing aircraft because of passenger fear, will cancel orders and go to Airbus. Corporate greed, incompetence, and D.I.E will be the death of Boeing. Maybe they want out of the passenger aircraft business, if so they're doing a good job

Saw a blurb that United told boeing thanks but no thanks on the rest of the max orders.

Either way this will not help their stock prices.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It depends. If Boeing is carrying the service and repair contract for their equipment, yes.



If not, then no. So far, I haven't seen any disclosure on who's actually servicing the aircraft that are having issues. I'm sure it will be brought out soon.

a reply to: Irishhaf

No they told them to start converting the Max 10 into Max 9s. The 10 isn't expected until 2027 now, so instead of waiting several more years, they're going to convert them into 9s instead.

a reply to: StoutBroux

Boeing only does the maintenance in specific situations. United and Alaska do in house maintenance on their aircraft, with some outsourcing to large MRO companies around the US for some heavy maintenance work.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: StoutBroux

It's a seven year old plane. You think Boeing has been responsible for every bit of maintenance on that plane in the last seven years? Or that nothing is going to break in that time? Once the plane is delivered maintenance becomes the responsibility of the airline, outside warranty items, or special cases.

This made me wonder does Boeing have some kind of contract or clause with the airlines that absolves them of liability if poor maintenance causes a crash or issues?

Using Dawn soap on an aircraft door seal (and they also used a credit card to check the seal (?) ) - confusion:

Copilot

Certainly! According to a recent Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) audit of Boeing’s 737 Max production facility, mechanics working for Spirit AeroSystems were observed using Dawn dish soap on a door seal in place of lubricant. After applying the soap, they reportedly cleaned up the seal with a “wet cheesecloth” 1. This unconventional use of dish soap highlights the challenges faced by Boeing in maintaining quality control during aircraft production.

While Dawn dish soap is not typically recommended for lubricating door seals, it seems that in this instance, it was used as an alternative. For everyday household purposes, I recommend sticking to the manufacturer’s guidelines when it comes to cleaning and maintaining door seals. If you’re dealing with a dishwasher door gasket, for example, warm water and mild dish soap can be effective for cleaning 2. However, for critical applications like aircraft doors, it’s best to follow approved procedures and use appropriate lubricants.

Spirit mechanics also used a hotel key card to check a door seal, a tactic that was "not identified/documented/called-out in the production order," per the FAA.

a reply to: Zaphod58

a reply to: Astrocometus

Which has zero to do with these incidents. The aircraft involved in these incidents are between 7 years old and 25 years old.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Say what you want about whatever aircraft. Say something
about the whistleblower. Why is he dead?

a reply to: Astrocometus

Gun shot. Other than that, not for me to say. I’m not investigating it and have no knowledge other than it was gun shot. And they’re not likely to release enough to draw conclusions.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Fair enough

But you don't think it's suspicious at all?