It's a good thing I always fly Southwest. There isn't any ice down there.

Another Boeing problem - https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2024/01/scary-....

When one this sentence into the German to translate wanted, would one the fact exploit, that the word order and the punctuation already with the German conventions agree.

-- Douglas Hofstadter, Jan 1982

The flight lost a covered exit door that was not optioned by the airline.

Remember to wear you seat belts at all times.

Good thing they were only at 16,000 ft.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Yeah. "only". LOL

Glad there were no injuries.

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

Could the cabin pressure somehow gone too high?

Quote (Tug)

It's a good thing I always fly Southwest. There isn't any ice down there.

uh Tug; Apparently it is only in non-icing conditions that the heaters are an issue.

--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

No there are various safety valves which require no human or computer input to make sure it won't get too high. Either exploding or imploding.

Sorry, I was making a joke. My regular flight used to be Southwest in the morning and Alaskan in the evening. Alaskan discontinued all service on my regular route so it's all Southwest now. The joke is that now I never fly Alaskan and only fly Southwest I don't have to worry about ice as there is no ice in the southwestern United States. Southwest as an airline does fly to icy airports.

err we need it in cloud, temperature drops by the lapse rate with altitude which is about 2 degs every 1000ft. So if its 30 on the ground cloud above 15000ft agl there maybe icing.

Certain cloud types there is pretty much always icing even below icing level but we actively avoid them and they show up on wx radar.

Tug, jokes don't seem to go over well in the disasters forum.

Ok presume southwest doesn't do ice on the cabin service?

Service? What's that?

True, it's a short hop so we don't always get service.

Quote (BBC)

In late 2018 and early 2019, two aircraft were lost in near identical accidents, off the coast of Indonesia and outside the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa.

A total of 346 people were killed. Both crashes were caused by flawed flight control software, which ultimately forced the planes into catastrophic dives, despite the best efforts of the pilots.
Getty Images Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 Max 8 plane crashed in March 2019Getty Images
All passengers and crew perished after the Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 Max 8 flight crashed in 2019

Those incidents led to the grounding of the global 737 Max fleet for more than 18 months while the problem was rectified and further safety checks were carried out. The head of the FAA subsequently described the design as "the most scrutinised transport aircraft in history".

However, since the 737 Max came back into service, there have been a number of high profile problems with the programme, including electrical faults and quality control issues.

Safety campaigners have also expressed concern about the number of reported malfunctions aboard aircraft that have gone into service.

In December, Boeing called on airlines to inspect rudders on their aeroplanes, after a bolt was found to be missing on one aircraft. It said it was acting "out of an abundance of caution".

The head of the FAA subsequently described the design as "the most scrutinised transport aircraft in history"
Is it out of place to ask if any amount of scrutiny is enough until the company culture changes?

--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

The accidents were not near identical; any review of the FDR data will show that. The grounding was to create a software solution that would work even when the crew of an aircraft was taking active measures to make the situation worse, as the second accident crew did almost continuously.

The scrutiny was for the design. At the time there weren't widespread assembly problems.

But what can you expect with American labor? One could conclude Boeing has taken too much profit for the stockholders, but then the US Congress passed laws that encourage that exact outcome and this has affected every US company adversely.

One should look to the longshoreman's union as an example that money doesn't buy better labor...

It was way before the software that the design flaws were the root cause.

In fact alot of the issues they are having getting the 7 and 10 certified date back to the flawed certification of the 737 NG.

And then they are going to have to retro fit them to the 8 and 9.

The only reason why it's been so closely looked at is because the faa has lost its competence with the other authorities. And they are piggybacking it's process. If the max was N reg faa airspace only it would be dead now.

There are more than a few think the 7 and 10 wont be certified in 2024.

The comment from 3DDave about American labor piqued my interest. I do not work at Boeing and have never worked at Boeing. I do have a question for someone who is in a position to know, such as a current or recent Boeing employee.

As part of my job I have been to a number of United States MRO and modification organizations for Part 25 (air transport) aircraft. The trend at every USA MRO I have visited in at least the last ten years is entire maintenance and/or modification crews that do not speak English, led by a lead mechanic that is supposed to be fluent in both English and the team's language.

It is, I believe, a truism that information can be lost or corrupted when crossing language barriers. It is not guaranteed to happen, but I have witnessed occasions where it did happen.

What I would like to know is when we consider "American labor" at Boeing, does the same crew makeup exist? I believe this forum has recognized that problems exist at the higher management levels at Boeing. I ask my question because I wonder if Boeing is falling victim to information loss or corruption at the level where the tools meet the aircraft?

That reminds me of a local equipment dealer.
They had a lot of shop problems.
I hadn't been in there for several years but dropped in for a replacement part.
I got talking to the manager about the poor shop performance.
"Things are a lot better. Now All of our mechanics can speak English and our shop foreman can read and write!"
As well as being illiterate, the previous shop foreman was not bi-lingual and had problems communicating with the mechanics.
Not "Only In America".

--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

It looks like Boeing is withdrawing its bid for a safety exemption on 737 Max 7.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense...

yep, Its looking like 2027 or later for the max 7 and 10 to get certified now. And the 8 and 9 will have to be modified.

The max was first certified in 2017.

Its going to be over 20 years before its going to be deemed a mature airframe if it gets certified in 2027.

And they still don't seem to have a plan to replace it.

Which is worrying I might add for the whole of the industry, even though personally I have zero interest in flying them.

I have worked at Boeing, and other companies.
It's not only Boeing with the production issues. The past 15 years I have seen companies do cost cutting to make more profit. It has been more difficult to find employees that know machining, soldering, turning a screwdriver, etc. So, the upper mngmt outsource. The companies that accept the outsourced work, same issues.
More employees are not staying with companies long enough to learn their products, or properly train new hires.
Quality falls into cracks of bureaucracy. Companies will sell, but, shift work, downsize, whatever it takes to make a profit.
I saw this a lot when I was working for McDonnell-Douglas when Boeing bought them. The 3 other companies thereafter.
We are going through the same at my current company.
So, I don't 100% blame Boeing, their suppliers are also to blame. But, Boeing needs to step up and take control of their suppliers.

Chris, CSWP
SolidWorks
ctophers home

They need to stop all bonuses until a clean sheet short haul aircraft is ready.

or make the bonuses for Engineering design and quality KPI's instead of profit.

A technology company that cannot manage to hang on to their technical staff is doomed.
Train them and lose them is death by 1000 cuts.

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

I agree.

Chris, CSWP
SolidWorks
ctophers home

So airlines are starting to allow customers to opt out of flying 737-9 aircraft.
Again the airlines and the FAA may be better advised to take a step back and look at the whole picture.
A quality control issue, but the 737-9 will be rigorously inspected before they are allowed back in the air.
They 737-9s will probably not lose any more door plugs.
BUT
WHAT ABOUT ALL THE OTHER MODELS BUILT BY THE SAME PLANTS?
Until there is a complete audit of the entire manufacturing process for all models, if it's Boing, I'm not going.

--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

Thing is as long as the bonus cycle is complete the Managers really don't care if its 1000 cuts. They can just take the money and run.

Quote (waross)

WHAT ABOUT ALL THE OTHER MODELS BUILT BY THE SAME PLANTS?
Until there is a complete audit of the entire manufacturing process for all models, if it's Boing, I'm not going.

Spirit AeroSystems, who were the people who initially just forgot or couldn't be bothered to fit the locking bolts, also make stuff for Airbus and Bombardier.

I agree. I think all models should be inspected, at Boeing and Spirit, and other companies building parts/structures.

Chris, CSWP
SolidWorks
ctophers home

I thought they had determined that the door was removed in the Boeing production plant for spirit to sort some snags out.

If that's the case it's then in the Boeing system putting it back in.

Yeah, Boeing's quality assurance systems are at least partly to blame, but Spirit are very much on the hook for it as well. Spirit have staff in the Boeing plant to fix their snags, but it's unclear which of them failed to fit the bolts on the incident aircraft. Spirit were doing work on it in the Boeing plant, and Boeing's tracking system seems to have been deficient in whether opening the plug counted as a "removal" (which would require inspection). It also sounds like there are problems with missing and loose bolts coming out of the Spirit plant, in addition to earlier problems with bolts on the tail structure and poor hole drilling in the aft pressure bulkhead (which seems to be very much on the Spirit end of the problems).

Quote:

Thing is as long as the bonus cycle is complete the Managers really don't care if its 1000 cuts. They can just take the money and run.

I'm convinced that all a CEO of a publicly traded company does is prop up the public appearance and stock while dumpstering the company in the background. The hard part of their job is making sure the dumpstering doesn't affect the public appearance until after they get their big bonus and have moved on.

From what I know once the part has been handed over to the OEM then they have to deal with the QA of doors in and out. The part will be removed given a red tag by Boeing , then fixed then green tagged by spirit , reinstalled and the green tag put in the document pack by Boeing.

Airframe and Skinners can't sign for door replacements. I used to have to sign off the emergency exits being reinstalled after removal on the Jetstream as a Captain if they were removed by one of the fitters to change the desiccant tubes in the windows. It was a either me or a licensed B1 needed to sign them as installed correctly.

The door plugs are made in Malaysia by Spirt.

Latest from Juan Browne on the engine anti-icing for the MAX.

blancolirio - Boeing 737 Max-7/-10 Certification HALTED! 1 Feb 2024

This does not bode well:

Boeing in ‘last chance saloon’, warns Emirates boss

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68201371

I just hope that it doesn't impact their ability to meet their pension obligations. Despite never having worked for Boeing, since the acquisition/merger, they've been responsible for paying my McDonnell Douglas pension.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

Alternate headline "Emirates boss warns looking for discounts."

The pension should be funded separately from the company. If you take up high-risk sports it will be less of a concern.

or hey know something about the 777 and 787 that's not public yet.

I just heard the preliminary report on the Alaska Air 737 fake door blow-out incident has been released. Apparently, the 4 bolts that hold it in place were never installed.

4 bolts missing from Alaska Airlines door plug before blow-out: NTSB report

The preliminary report is available direct from the NTSB on the investigation page:

NTSB: In-flight structural failure, Alaska Airlines flight 1282

Direct link: DCA24MA063 Preliminary report.pdf

Downloading now, at the speed of glacier. Looks like 10-20 minutes to get it. I'm on a 1Gb fiber connection that doesn't slow for anything.

Edit: Timed out and died. Sigh.

The report seems to imply that the bolts may indeed have been in place when the fuselage was originally assembled but that during the final assembly of the aircraft itself, the plug door had to be removed so that some rivets could be replaced. This was done in the Boeing assembly plant in Renton, Washington, but the work was done by employees of Spirit AeroSystems, the company that manufactured the fuselage. The issue is that it appears that when the plug door was reinstalled, that the four retaining bolts were missed, and there seems to be photographic evidence that the bolts were not there when the work was finished.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

Yes, they were removed and not reinstalled.

Best to keep all the comments on the plug door on the other dedicated thread?

This is for other issues with Boeing.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

Its linked to the QA system. They were running a semi unofficial snag log which wasn't linked to the official build QA system.

I say semi because the local inspectors must have known it was being used. And all the workers as well.

I suspect in the official spirit documentation they will have a sign off that they were installed.

The rectification work was put into the unofficial snag book which doesn't carry the jobcard sign offs and audit checks that the official one does.

From that whistleblower story it sounded like it was just a wrong procedure. The Boeing manufacturing requirements were something along the lines of "opening" the door didn't require a jobcard and sign-offs but "removing" it did. To me, that sounds like the requirements were simply wrong, possibly copied from a door and not modified properly for the plug. Opening and closing a door wouldn't require removing and replacing hardware.

Quote:

Best to keep all the comments on the plug door on the other dedicated thread?

This is for other issues with Boeing.

Sorry, I didn't realize there was a thread for that specifically. I'll look for it.

More trouble for Boeing it appears:



LAtesT nEwS, LOL

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

... and my car struggles to maintain velocity when the gas tank is empty? Or maybe they meant the helium tanks.

That's like the old joke about the 4 engine aircraft... one engine fails and the pilot announces that they will be delayed 15 minutes... a little while later he announces that a second engine has failed and that they will be delayed half an hour... a little while later he announces that a third engine has failed and that they will be delayed an hour... a lady passenger comments that she hopes the fourth engine doesn't fail, because they will be up there forever.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Took longer than I had expected...

Boeing ousts head of 737 Max program in management shake-up

Boeing EVP Stanley A. Deal announced Wednesday that Ed Clark, the head of the company’s Boeing’s 737 Max program, was leaving the company.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/rcna139831

Looking at the details of these changes at the executive level, of which there were several, I'm not sure how the Right is going to react as at least two of these involved women, one being promoted to replace Ed Clark, the former head of the 737 Max program, and another, whose being given the responsibility for quality programs across the entire company. After all, there have been comments made recently that Boeing's quality issues are directly linked to their DEI efforts.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

Ed Clark's CV does not appear to be DEI (Masters, Aeronautics, 30+ years in the industry, male, white, english first language). So the guy who was in charge the 737 program seems not to match the reason for failure touted by some. More than likely there is a counterpart to him at Spirit that is in the hotseat, too.

Maybe you forgot CHUTZPAH, but who am i to say?

Is it possible that Boeing's problems are solved, now that they have a scapegoat?

I fail to see what is wrong with DEI. Diligence, Effectiveness, and Intelligence are good qualities.

with Boeing?

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

The max 10 certification is being pushed back to 2027 according to an industry brief I got recently. Due in part to this issue

Why it's being mentioned to me is market projection of my fleet type A220.

What with the Neo engine issues...

This summer is already crazy in Europe.

USA short haul carriers must be struggling as well.

Interesting article here.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/...

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

The Guardian story shows the intracies of the internal workings at Boeing. I am not a strong supporter of union membership necessarily indicating proficiency of work or increased final product safety. The quotes from the union-represented mechanics are strong and attention getting , but are the statements made with no ulterior motives?

Brian - the union members comments are no more “self serving” than management’s comments, and likely a lot less so. After this long running series of “problems” (to be polite), its long past time to listen to the people actually building the airplanes.

Glad the union leadership has finally woken up. It would have been better 20 years ago; I long waited for Detroit unions to go on strike for better car designs and manufacturing standards in the 1980s to meet Japanese competition and that did not happen. These guys should have gone on strike for lowering manufacturing standards long ago. I expect that runup in the stock price was a salve to their consciences over the observed slips on the factory floor.

https://www.npr.org/2024/06/13/nx-s1-5004725/boein...

If someone says its pilot stupidity I am going to agree with them on this one.

Both in old school handling and following check lists.

That must have been hellish to do damage.

Thankfully flying a none stretched fbw I don't have to worry about Dutch roll. Unlike the Q400.

This is all we need, and this time, it's not just Boeing...

FAA Investigating Report Boeing, Airbus Used Parts Made From Fake Titanium

A parts supplier said counterfeit titanium had entered its supply chain via phony documents.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/boeing-airbus-titan...

An excerpt from the above item:

The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating after a major manufacturer for Boeing and Airbus said some parts for commercial jets may have been fabricated using counterfeit titanium.

The FAA said in a statement to HuffPost that it is looking into the scope and the impact of the issue, and cited a disclosure from Boeing about a “distributor who may have falsified or provided incorrect records.”

The inquiry was first reported Friday by The New York Times, which found a manufacturer called Spirit AeroSystems had used titanium “sold using fake documents attesting to the material’s authenticity.”

According to the paper, a parts supplier first sounded the alarm after finding tiny holes in the material due to corrosion.

Spirit told HuffPost it removed all of the potentially phony material from its inventory as soon as it learned of the issue.

. . .

The company manufactures fuselages for Boeing and wings for Airbus, Boeing’s European rival.

According to the Times, the issue is limited to jets manufactured between 2019 and 2023, specifically Boeing’s 737 Max and 787 Dreamliner, as well as Airbus’ A220.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aeros...

The issue appears to date to 2019 when a Turkish material supplier, Turkish Aerospace Industries, purchased a batch of titanium from a supplier in China, according to the people familiar with the issue. The Turkish company then sold that titanium to several companies that make aircraft parts, and those parts made their way to Spirit, which used them in Boeing and Airbus planes.

In December 2023, an Italian company that bought the titanium from Turkish Aerospace Industries noticed that the material looked different from what the company typically received. The company, Titanium International Group, also found that the certificates that came with the titanium seemed inauthentic.

bought from a supplier in China; I'm just shocked; who would have thought this could possibly happen?

But the price couldn't be beat :)

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

Faked certs and material substitutions are not uncommon; the last big scandal was a company raiding scrap yards and falsifying the part history, even for turbine compressor or turbine blades.

I wonder if there was some machinist unexpectedly having to tweak a process that worked just fine until that material got to his shop. Could that be used as a way besides an expensive chemical analysis to see if the material isn't what was called for?

It happened like that when I spec'd 7075 for a part, the shop used 6061, and the anodizing supplier called and asked what the hell was up. That call did not come to me, but to our shop that did the substitution, but that secret didn't get kept long.

Another Southwest Airlines incident requiring further pilot training.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/southwest-airlines-flig...

From the FoxNews link: "The Boeing aircraft dropped from approximately 16,000 feet to just 400 feet above the Pacific Ocean" is how almost every landing at an airport near the Pacific Ocean happens. Most drop even further if the airport is lower. I have been within what felt like 6 inches of the Potomac River on several flights into DC. And once it was a roller coaster ride that cause me to fill the air sickness bag on the third attempt before diverting to Dulles.

The actual report is "Southwest Flight 2786 dropped from an altitude of roughly 1,000 feet to 400 feet above the ocean in just a few seconds, according to data from ADS-B Exchange, a flight tracking website. The plane, which was near Kauai’s Lihue Airport, then began a rapid climb."

"The less-experienced first officer “inadvertently” pushed forward on the control column while following movement of the thrust lever caused by the plane’s automatic throttle. The pilot then cut the speed, causing the airplane to descend. Soon after, a warning system sounded alarms signaling the jet was getting too close to the surface and the captain ordered the first officer to increase thrust. The plane then “climbed aggressively” at 8,500 feet a minute, the memo said."

https://www.staradvertiser.com/2024/06/14/breaking...

NYPost is even more addled. "It fell at an alarming rate of more than 4,000 feet per second, according to Bloomberg" I can't read Bloomberg as it is paywalled.

A sane report of the incident:

https://simpleflying.com/southwest-airlines-boeing...

Maybe saner, but still conveys the same message. It was pilot error, and the airline needs to do better training. The passengers expect a flight from Honolulu to Lihue, not a roundtrip to where they started, for no good reason.

Is this a more palatable source to you?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/faa-investigation-sou...

The full memo is at https://x.com/jonostrower/status/18016925336568467...

simpleflying did not have the same message - not 16,000 feet to 400 or 4,000 feet per second descent rate. Whatever Rupert Murdoch touches turns to sensationalist misrepresentations.

The CBS report had less information than simpleflying and added the Dutch roll event into the article for no particular reason, but at least it didn't misrepresent the event.

The only thing that is missing from the dynamics is what the g-load was, as a descent alone doesn't make for much of a roller coaster ride without the wind blowing. It doesn't seem like there was a particular disturbance in the cabin from the change to descent or from the change to climb after. I'm sure there was some, but not enough to contact the news.

It was part of pilot training to gain hands-on experience in the cockpit under a stressful condition that is difficult to simulate and under the watchful ear of the Captain who corrected the problem.


There is this very concerning snippit:


If the autopilot did get reconnected where did the FO think the autopilot would take them? It needs to be told something - altitude hold, for example.

Great, just freaking great. Where do they get the brilliant idea “the airplane is in trouble and warning sounds/messages are going off, so I’ll just turn on the autopilot and everything will be ok”?

That sounds a lot like the to MCAS crashes. The pilots were overwhelmed and their reaction was to put the plane in auto to alleviate their mental load.

Remember recently the 767 leaving Hawaii that dove when the autopilot was engaged and required a 3g pull up.

Was trying to find how much it costs companies to keep an airline pilot legally current in the USA.

Biz jet the flight safety course is around 45k$ per year per pilot if you do two of them at same time.

Can't find anything for the likes of southwest who will have Thier own check airmen and Sims.

Boeing just needs to change their shingle to rollercoaster business.
Problem solved.

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

Maybe more appropriate for Southwest Airlines.

https://rollercoaster.fandom.com/wiki/Highest_G-Force_on_a_Roller_Coaster

It sounds like 4G is the acceptable limit for paying thrill seekers. Milage may vary.

"The pilots were overwhelmed and their reaction was to put the plane in auto to alleviate their mental load." wasn't a response to MCAS, it was a response to the stall warning. ET-302 continued with that strategy right to the end.

In this case the FO was overwhelmed; the Captain was not. It was planned for the FO to train the missed approach and I think a lot of things were learned.

Why design a civilian airliner to overwhelm pilots, or if airlines persist in flying rocks, they need to train pilots enough so that they are not overwhelmed. You cannot have one w/o the other.

That the FO cannot properly handle a stall, or was it even a stall, is a complete disgrace.

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

I think that's part of the issue, the 737 was designed in the 1960s and hasn't been updated in lots of places.

But there is a lot missing here such as how the FO apparently leant on the control column and seems to be surprised the aircraft dived??

Was the plane on A/P?

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

The available workforce that want to be pilots has changed over the last 25 years I have been in the game. The backgrounds and life knowledge linked to common sense has also changed.

20 years ago there were still loads of ex mil kicking about. Both flying the line and in training.

I haven't had a ex mil pilot in an airline training department in charge of what I need to know in 13 years.

The mystery statement is the FO "while following" the thrust levers with the control column. I don't know what that means, except that with higher throttle and lower AoA the aircraft will ramp up speed, which is what happened. If it also was a lower/negative pitch, which also appears to be the case, then it also got a gravity boost.

The part about the plane retracting from 15 degrees of flap to 10, flap load relief, was interesting. I guess Boeing has met pilots before.

Ex-mil were the best pilots because they were the majority source of pilots. As aircraft become more complex, airlines want to spend less on training. They wanted ex-mil for the same reason - already significant training costs paid for by someone else. Now they want to train as if the candidates were ex-mil and not spend the money. I'd say, put them in sailplanes for a few hundred hours before moving to light aircraft. Let them understand what energy management means and how an airplane really feels and reacts before it's all deadened out with hydraulics and autopilots.

Quite energy management is the key.

My mates say when you had your career change

I honestly haven't I am an energy management engineer aren't we all.


Been flying all week with a 23 year old. The systems he had zero issue with. The 60 tons of mass he didn't really understand to be honest.

I did my best...

So how many actual flying hours did this 23 yr old have before flying with you?

He came out of school with 130 hours and he was over 1500 at the end of the week.

He was actually pretty good, sensible questions.

Hours flown is a false indicator of experience these days.

Jetstream 1500 hours would be 750 approaches flown manually and landed by that pilot. And they would have had a fair few equipment failures.

On the A220 that would be under 300 approachs by them with the auto pilot coming out for the last 6 miles max before landing manually. And single figures number of times none normal check list would have been run out side the SIM.

Most of them will have been GPS jamming related.

When I got my upgrade to LHS I had 2500 hours 1200 on single engine piston instructing. With 2000 plus landings. And the turbo prop I was over 2000 approaches and 1000 landings by me.

A 5000 hour modern career profile pilot will be lucky to have over 600 landings experience flown by them.

My average flight length on the jet is 2 hours. Manual flying time under 5 mins per flight.

Jetstream was about 30 mins with 100% manual hands on flying.

80/90 the captain's had a completely different experience and stick time profile compared to currently.

The ET captain had 7k hours but the bulk of them will be 6-7 hour flights

To add I had a back ground of driving 40 ton lorries and cranes before aviation. Which I think has given me lots of experience just dealing with mass.

I have the engineers theory how the physics of flight works. But that doesn't translate into muscle memory and instinct how a 60 ton mass is going to react.

Most pilots have very basic theory background. And the gut feeling instinctive knowledge of how a mass is going to react is very individual. Some just have it others don't.

Add in that masses reaction is going to change depending which part of the flight envelope it is in. Due to aerodynamic changes.

How to train that I have no clue. I have sat next to pilots with 20k plus hours been flying since the 80's and they start to try and steer at high speed using the nose wheel. Then unsurprisingly sliding occurs.

To me we have a bloody great rudder at the back which doesn't skid or loose grip, use it.

The A220 the nose wheel powered steering tiller is unavailable high speed. You have 5 degs range linked to the rudder pedals. Which forces pilots to use rudder for directional control at high speed. Doesn't stop some trying to use the tiller and going off runway.

Braking also doesn't seem to be instinctive. Why try and turn a corner with 60 tons of momentum under heavy braking? It's hardly a suprise when the thing doesn't turn. But I learned that 30 years ago driving 40 ton trailers better to keep the thing straight and brake then turn. But some the instinct is to avoid by trying to turn. Then hit the dirt sideways instead of going off the end straight with everything in line and you still have some directional control.

Btw the way I have never gone off a runway either sideways or in a straight line. I have had a couple of times had brake failures. Which I thought we were going to. But good old Garrett engines and max beta reverse saved the day in a straight line. And if we had gone off the end it would have been less than 20 knts and little if any damage. If I had tried to turn at 90 knts when they failed I think I would have turned into a passenger while the laws of physics dictated the end result.

I think it's also to do with a lack of understanding about how much grip tyres can actually supply. far too many simply believe they will stick tot he tarmac like glue in all and every condition.

I did all my hairy driving in days before anti lock brakes and tall skinny tyres which folded under if you tried to take a corner too hard / understeered all the way into the hedge. So do all your braking in a straight line to get rid of energy / speed and then turn. Or in extremis take the head on crash (always just managed to avoid that) and don't roll the car into a ditch.

But aircraft must be the same in that you just don't get exposed to those sorts of experiences for many of the pilots coming off the production line. It's all about managing the flight computer, not actually flying the plane. I still don't understand though how that SW flight managed to accidentally lean on the control column... or get overloaded on a go around they had actually talked about before they left.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

If one turns with the mains and the rudder there is 80% or so on those tires. If just the nose, there is leverage, but less than 20% of the weight.

One suggestion is somatogravic illusion. If flying straight and level and you give it the gas, you get pushed back as long as the acceleration and changing acceleration lasts, the same feeling as when the plane is climbing at a constant speed. If one isn't looking at the instruments to see the actual pitch of the plane, it can be easy to push forward and go nose down to get back to the feeling of being where the butt cheeks, and inner ear, are telling you compared to what you expect to feel.

Quote:

The CFIT/LOC Risk
Whilst there are many situations in which these illusions can occur, one of the most likely, and certainly the most dangerous, is when the positive changes in acceleration, which accompany the initiation of a go around or the transition to initial climb after take off, are occurring. In both cases, the consequences can rapidly lead to CFIT if the condition is not recognised or to LOC if the situation is recognised but the complexities of recovery are mishandled.

Flap and gear retraction and changes in thrust whilst seeking to achieve and maintain a specific climbing flight path involve considerable changes in acceleration which, in turn, are conducive to a somatogravic illusion. As the inputs to establish sustained climb take effect, a perception of excessive pitch-up may occur. This can lead to a fear that the stalling angle of attack may be approaching. The instinctive reaction to this is to push the nose down in the belief that a reduction in pitch to a more “normal” climb angle is being achieved. If the aircraft is banked, either intentionally or unknowingly, at the same time, the perception of angular acceleration may be underestimated because of a somatogyral illusion, leading to an instinctive tendency to increase the angle of bank.

Sometimes, the strength of these illusions may be so intense that even a conscious cross reference to the flight instruments, which do not validate the perception, may be insufficient to lead to a corrective input to the flight controls by the affected individual. However, in a multi-crew aircraft, it is uncommon for both pilots to be similarly affected at the same time and effective monitoring becomes critical if the risk of an unintended excursion is to be avoided.

https://skybrary.aero/articles/somatogravic-and-so...

I normally hope that the pilots on aircraft I fly on would not be flying by the "the seat of their pants", but rely rather more on what their instruments are telling them. Hell, I took a one hour flying experience recently and spent anytime not looking out of the window watching the instruments very regularly (even though the instructor told me not to...)because I don't trust my inner ear to that extent.

I guess that's why many airlines seem to prefer to hand over to the A/P as soon as possible to prevent too many incidents like this?

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

Even when they try not to, as mentioned above, the illusion can be felt so strongly when decision time comes the inner ear wins.

A/P is preferred because it is tighter on the controls so it is tighter on the fuel burn, hitting closer to optimum than people tend to.

Yes it is the modern way they promote basically 400ft AP on.

The plane uses less fuel on automatics. But the statistics do show less accidents.

I find the human reactions to sudden stimulation very interesting.

It was the same with lorry driving.

And instructing you could just tell within minutes if the person just had the knack.

Had one kid who we could only stay in the circuit with for an experience flight due weather. By the 2 seconds circuit I was having absolutely zero input. He was at solo standard for landing by the end of the hour. I said to his dad he had the knack. Heard 10 years later he had joined the air force as a pilot. Was a bit worried he had been killed in the recent spitfire crash.

Just to note the changing profile of pilots and the effects that 3DDave is discussing are not linked to Boeing.

The same issues are present on all types.

Air France af477 on Airbus was similar application of control input completely opposite to any logical response to the situation.

And AF pilots at the time were all top level university educated, they were assessed way more than your normal line pilot, And also they had way more career development theoretical training.

They still pulled back when they should of pushed forward or even let go would have saved them.

So, they had some Max training?

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

They have extensively changed the requirements to fly a max worldwide.

I believe simulator training is mandatory now dictated by Boeing. And they have to use a full max simulator not just a Ng simulator at least once a year.

1503-44, I think he means AF 447, not 477. That disaster was in 2009, before Boeing Max planes, and was an Airbus A330.

Yes I did mean that one.

Throw one out to you.

80's flight crew had a pretty awful reputation for being hard drinking, sexist, alpha male bullys and captains taking fo's behind the hanger was not uncommon.

That started going out of fashion after Tenerife KLM when CRM was developed as a concept.

Now those types are actively avoided by HR departments.

Has this change in acceptable personality type made a difference to the reactions under stress do you think?

3D, when I was in school, my controls professor said in lecture that he was working with the navy. They wanted a smoother ride on the automatic carrier landing system so that the pilots would use it more often.

Autoland is rough as hell to be honest. On all types civilian. I only use it when I have to for cat 3 or due tiredness issues with both of us.

Or technical tech request to keep the certification valid.

it really is rough as standard what ever the weather conditions are.

I think it would be hard to prove a connection with personality type.

I'd bet more on increased mass, extended operating envelop and "smaller windows".

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

that's why I threw it out.

There has been a steady decrease in fatalities in commercial aviation over the same period. So the change I think is for the best.

They have just put out that if the leap 1B engines have a bird strike. There is a small chance that smoke makes it through the bleed system into the cabin.

Apparently the were above certification size of birds that caused it in real life..

A horrible stink in the cabin on the turboprops was normal. Haven't had one on the jet yet . I was a mass murderer of birds on the turboprops.

Did they get a good look at you?

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

made me laugh...

Speaking of Boeing, it appears that the two NASA astronauts may be stuck on the International Space Station as their Boeing Starliner is leaking helium which is used in the thruster controls. At the moment, they're trying to trouble shoot the problems from the ground. It would be ironic is Space X is called on to mount a 'rescue mission' to return the NASA crew to Earth using one of their Dragon capsules.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

The explanation that makes most sense was a claim that the problems are all in the service module that is jettisoned prior to re-entry so that any chance of investigation goes away at that point. The reports are they have leak rates in the range that they will become inoperative in a year or more, so that isn't the limitation.

Reference picture: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/640/cpsprodpb/29cc/l... on https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpeg21x7n7qo BBC: Starliner: Nasa to fly new craft to space station

https://spacenews.com/fifth-helium-leak-detected-o...

Why is helium the gas of choice for this application?

When ever it's been involved in anything I have looked at it's an absolute pig to stop it leaking.

The old MRI medical imagers had loads of it... Or NMR's as they were called when I was a kid.

Don't use the "N" word!

Good question - the common use of Helium I encounter is leak testing
Fundamentals of helium leak testing ASM Link https://youtu.be/h3XHdeGo4r8

Helium is used because its boiling point is lower than hydrogen. Since hydrogen has a high propensity of leaking as well, using helium to purge the lines is preferred since any other gas might freeze in the line and you'd much rather your flight crew sounding like micky mouse, than them being crispy critters due to an H2 leak. It also gives the flight crew in situ leak checks of all the lines, so helium is also "the canary in the coal mine" in this sense.

Thanks for answering why it's used. Makes sense.

And Zeus for making me laugh. My dad was an academic in bio medical physics in Aberdeen, Nottingham got the Nobel prize for NMR. My dad was on the ionising and none radiation side of things.

An add on to 787 fasteners issue.

Apparently the problem is a procedure issue.

The fasteners were ment to be torqued up driving the nut. In practice on the production line the nut was held and the head was driven.

They are running data for the way it was physically done in practice. Once that's done it can become a compliant practice.

Any ideas what might be the result between the difference between head holding or nut holding methods? Presume there were washers both sides.

Torque apparent vs torque applied. A washer is only a means to distribute force statically, dynamically there are frictional surfaces, either on the nut or screw head side that are likely nonlinear based on run-in speed. This may be significant or may not, hopefully their testing won't reveal any major discrepancies.

PS, I am new here and I'm not trying to hijack the posts, it's just the last two posts fell right in my wheelhouse. Great discussions btw.....almost took a job with Boeing in a past lifetime, lol.

Mate great replies, I am an ex mechanical who had a career change from FEA in his early 30's to become a commercial airline pilot, now early 50's.

I was watching the forum and joined when I felt I could add something useful when the MAX kicked off.

Some of those later strikes might have been kamikazis.
I've seen them behave that way with my cat.

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

The main, and slight difference, is that if the contacting surface of the structure is not perfectly perpendicular to the restraining feature for the bolt, the bolt head will have, at the last stages of tightening, an oscillatory bending load of however many turns it takes from developing an initial load of consequence to the final load. If this happens to the nut side, the contact point for that bending on the fastener thread remains at a constant angular position and no oscillation takes place in the fastener body. So, this is to avoid the almost imperceptible introduction of fatigue cycles.

They should not be using torque as the defining feature and instead be using torque + turn, which eliminates 95% of friction related variability.

---

Hydrogen can produce hydrogen embrittlement and no one wants that. It's also oxygen safe, so can be used to pressurize oxidizer tanks.

And do they specify a method normally for line maintenance? As well?

Haven't seen anyone use power tools at work on the line but I presume the c check do.

Must admit when on the spanners with none aviation stuff at home I find it easier to have a ring spanner on the nut and use an impact driver on the head.

Ex mechanical.... No such thing! Once a mechanical always a mechanical! I will give you "former mechanical".

This is anecdotal and I hope things have changed for the better at Boeing. Time frame, mid 90's. I was getting out of the military with aviation experience as well as a degree in aeronautics. The two largest corporate recruiters who were allowed first crack at us were Boeing and Sun Microsystems. Boeing = aviation, makes sense, no idea why Sun Microsystems. Having had gone clubbing the night/morning before my LSAT, my first and last career option became Boeing. I am a little fuzzy on the exact details, but I talked to some Boeing managers who made some very hefty offers but before I could matriculate into Boring(edit: Freudian slip I think) Boeing culture and sign a contract, there was a mandatory, prospective Boeing employee orientation I had to attend. In this orientation, it was impressed on us, that we were only going to be a cog in a much larger system. The part of the orientation that was most determinative in my decision not to join Boeing was the presenter saying, " You will be issued a Boeing Employee Identification Number, You will remember this number, It will become your identity and you will be known by it throughout your entire career at Boeing" and I thought "Yeah, this isn't for me". Take from this what you want but this is how my opinion is colored whenever I read about issues with Boeing.

3DDave
They should not be using torque as the defining feature and instead be using torque + turn, which eliminates 95% of friction related variability. So I still get 5% for friction!

Thank you for a more detailed explanation. My background was coming from contact mechanics where we looked at this type of interface. So back to the initial question, it's only to avoid the fatigue cycles depending on if the torque + turn is applied to the nut or bolt?

If the bolt is an interference fit and is meant to be pulled in by the nut, then turning the bolt may cause complications due to friction, galling and heat.
But this is speculation on top of speculation, for discussion only.
I hope we hear the results of the investigation.

--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

Tis true engineering does alter your thoughts processes for life.

Let's you build mancaves and the like. (Details in hobby forum)

it really and highly depends on the type of fastener.
many aerospace fasteners for composites structures do not have a head that can be torqued (hi-loks, lockbolts, etc).
in any case, fastener clamp-up is critical to joint fatigue performance. torqueing a fastener from the head side can produce a different level of clamp up for a given torque than applying the torque to the nut/collar side.
and in many installations, washers are not used under the head, only under the nut/collar.

Good point about the composite materials hadn't thought about that.

Also zero experience with them at this level.

I could imagine it would complicate things significantly.

Torquing the head, in some instances some indeterminate torque may be lost to overcome friction between the turning bolt and the material.
It depends.

--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

I would also think there spinning harder material against the composite matrix will generate heat and other effects which may cause issues.

I am hoping 3D and SW are kind enough to post some more details on the topic.

On the metal airframes we used to regularly see the skinners.

Composite we maybe see one after a lightning strike looking pale. But that's it. Our tech have a collosal composite tech team including a couple of Deg level qualified certifiers. Lightning strike on a 737 or dash was a 30 min inspection and a bit of speed tape usually done by the normal B1s. Last lightning strike on the A220 bill came in at 3/4 of a million $ and it spent 2 months in the hanger. For a wing tip strike.

Does it bother you that your airplane insults you every time you land? 😳

That's only proper Airbus that calls you a retard.

We have to manually say retard on the A220 if the auto thrust is on .

I don't have it on for manual landings due to a history of turboprop flying without auto thrust.

A220 is technically Bombardier and has no relation to Airbus user interface. It is also a boat anchor for Airbus; sold by Spirit at a loss and it has no future integration with the Airbus product line strategy of commonality on the flight deck. If Boeing absorbs Spirit, then Airbus will be paying Boeing for major components. If they can't get a deal to get those factories from Boeing or Spirit, Airbus will have to tool up a brand new factory to build them at a loss.

The Spirit factories making Airbus parts will be sold to Airbus. Boeing doesn’t want them and Airbus doesn’t want Boeing to have them.

A220 program was not sold by Spirit; it was given to Airbus by Bombardier who didn’t have the cash to invest in it.

Yeah lightning strike damage on composites can be a lot more expensive to repair than metal structures, even with lightning protection on the parts. Its the tradeoff for weight savings.

"The Spirit factories making Airbus parts will be sold to Airbus."

Airbus is expecting Boeing to kick in a large amount of cash with that "sale". Why would Boeing do that?

The A220 large component production is sold at a loss to Airbus by Spirit.

Because Boeing is sitting on absolutely collosal amounts of pension liabilities

Major US corps have funded independent investment corps to manage pensions.

Most have escaped defined benefit plans in favor of pushing the retirement funding risk to employees via 401k plans. Not sure what the situation is for offshore Spirit Aerosystems holdings require, but that is a drop in the proverbial bucket.

Quote (Alistair_Heaton)

Because Boeing is sitting on absolutely collosal amounts of pension liabilities

I collect a monthly pension from Boeing, despite having never worked for them.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

It's all under UK law. And the site would have to be environmentally cleaned before disposal if they closed it.

The pension check from Boeing is not on the Boeing general ledger.

"the funding status of Boeing’s pension master trust grew to 93%, as of September 30, from 85.8% in 2020. The company’s one-, five- and 10-year returns were 0.4%, 4.1% and 5.8%, respectively. The fund has $49.1 billion in assets, as of September 30." https://www.ai-cio.com/news/boeings-elizabeth-tula...

That would mean a current shortfall of $4B on an increasing market value fund. Hardly "collosal". The fund is doing better than Boeing is.

That's good to hear Dave...

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

I think most companies no longer have large financial liabilities w.r.t. pensions, since most of them have been sold to insurance companies and are essentially funded by annuities managed by an insurance company. The lump sum cash value I'm sometimes offered for my pension comes out to be what an equivalent annuity would cost.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

It will be the old Shorts pension coverage that will be an issue.

The will be a load of final salary pensions in the mix as well.

If Boeing buys spirit it takes on the liabilitys that came with the Belfast operation purchase. Unless it can off load them through sale to airbus.

As most things are in northern Ireland it's a complete mess by all accounts.

Found it...

When spirit bought it off bombardier in 2019 it paid 500milion for it and took on 700 million pounds sterling in pension liabilities.

And the pension fund has not performed very well and is lacking in capital.

The UK government is on the hook if it fails. And there is UK law on this subject.

There are a raft of historic issues with the whole operation. I think I read somewhere there was only 10% catholics employed on site. The NI is now around 45 catholic.

Boeing doesn't need all of Spirit. Boeing only needs Wichita. Spirit can sink beneath the waves after that.

Boeing needs the Spirt Wichita, Tulsa and Dallas sites.
Airbus needs the Belfast, Prestwick, Saint-Nazarre, and North Carolina sites.
There’s a couple more (MRO?) sites to be sorted out.

Peculiarly, there's a fat 2018 announcement that Spirit would expand Tulsa to add more supply for the Wichita 737 line. I wonder how that looks right now with 737 production at a standstill and stock apparently piling up in Wichita.

From Indeed reviews about Tulsa:

Quote:

June 5, 2020
The ever-changing leadership team lacked vision and direction, which made it nearly impossible to succeed. You can’t run two large facilities with unique histories as one company without a lot of work and they failed to realize that. Everything was about meeting a date and very little to do with quality. They do employ some very intelligent technical people and I learned a lot working there. The “business” side of the company was an utter disaster! No job security, either. That’s why I ultimately decided to leave.

Dallas appears to be an MRO facility purchased by Spirit in 2021, so not much need for that to get production under control. It doesn't look like a must-have facility for Boeing and can probably be spun off and sold to get some cash in to help liquidate Spirit.

Is there something else besides these at those locations?

It's a legal.nightmare I suspect that if they did try and just dump what they don't want it would takes years to sort out. And suspect would result In people at spirit going to jail.

Plus might effect certification of the sites they want turning them into Greenfield. With the current mood of the faa it may be cheaper to just pay up.

Just popped up in my feed that spirit is laying off workers at Boeing plants.

Others will be better at commenting on the process and effects of that.


There is also reports that deal to sell the airbus parts is imminent. Sell might be an optimistic word.

I suspect Boeing can't touch spirit until they are offloaded which might be for a token amount to release the liabilitys.

Thanks again for sharing those links.

Boeing and spirit

https://leehamnews.com/2024/06/25/boeing-simply-ca...

Good breakdown of the spirit sites and what they do.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense...

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-buy-spirit-a...

Boeing getting it's part of spirit for stock.

Airbus getting it's sites for 1$ plus getting the pension liabilities of 600 million covered with cash to them.

Seems common sense has been applied.

Interesting article here.

Best quote is "Boeing's too big to fail, but it's not too big to be mediocre,"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2jeg14r9o

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

Does the US have anything like Canada's "Westray Act"?

Quote (Canadian Center for Occupational Health and Safety)

What was the Westray bill (Bill C-45)?

The Westray bill or Bill C-45 was federal legislation that amended the Canadian Criminal Code and became law on March 31, 2004. The Bill (introduced in 2003 in the 37th parliament, second session) established new legal duties for workplace health and safety and imposed serious penalties for violations that result in injuries or death. The Bill provided new rules for attributing criminal liability to organizations, including corporations, their representatives and those who direct the work of others.

Sections of the Criminal Code

The amendment added Section 217.1 to the Criminal Code, which reads:

"217.1 Every one who undertakes, or has the authority, to direct how another person does work or performs a task is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that person, or any other person, arising from that work or task."

Owners and supervisors have been jailed under the Westray act after serious safety workplace accidents leading to death or injury.
It may take something as drastic jail time for some very senior Boeing executives before a culture change happens.

The Westray Bill puts a notice on the desks of CEOs and owners in Canada.
THE BUCK STOPS HERE!
Link to The Westray Act, Overview

--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

The Canadian act comes from the UK health and safety 1974 act.

Most of the 1st world common wealth members have it in some form.

The Queen was very pro it. And did what she did.

I would be utterly amazed if the USA had anything like it. In fact the opersite has been lobbied and paid for in political donations to ensure the liability remains solely with the individuals being told what the management demand.

The Dutch roll incident they have released the cause.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/southwest-jet-du...

Attached is the NTSB Preliminary Report

• https://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=0f9c3609-0d51-4649-adaa-6

73 knts isn't that special.

Iceland air aircraft Max will be subject to that and more regularly.

Don't know what the certification requirements are.

The report noted that the anomaly was detected immediately after a maintenance event.

Lightening strike might have had more to do with it?

Tail is the highest bit.

DO they earth aircraft when on the ground or does it just jump across the tyres if you get struck on the tarmac?

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

Civilian no they don't earth them.

As for lightning strike basically anywhere.

The idea that the bracket died of natural causes is inane. I hope they have more than that.

Quote (Aviation Investigation Preliminary Report)

The captain said that while reviewing the logbook before the flight, he noted a previously recorded yaw damper discrepancy ...

Three aircraft were observed to have small rudder oscillations without associated rudder control surface movement ...

These quotes are red flags but are easily glossed over in the report. It seems a stretch to suggest a wind gust or other weather event caused or initiated the damage seen in the the photos provided in the preliminary report. Was there slop in the bracket holes?

If my rudder pedals were moving uncommanded on the A220 I would be grounding it.

And it would be written up in such way that they would be needing airbus to give a procedure release. Plus coms with chief pilot and tech pilot immediately.

Be interested to see what previous techlog entries were on the subject.

The natural causes is straight out of the old Boeing incident manual.

I suspect it is a everyone has messed up incident.

They are lucky it didn't turn into a fatal accident with a compromised tail.

Quote:

DO they earth aircraft when on the ground or does it just jump across the tyres if you get struck on the tarmac?

Tires are conductive.
It wasn't always so.
In the 40's and early 50's it was not uncommon to get a static shock from a car that had been travelling recently.
When I was a kid, static straps or grounding straps on automobiles were common.
This was a conductive strap fastened to the frame so that it dragged on the ground and discharged any static buildup.
Then tire manufacturers started adding carbon to the tire material to make it conductive enough to discharge static.
No-one gets static shocks from a car anymore.
Imagine what the first ground worker to touch an incoming aircraft would feel if the tires were not conductive.
BUT

Quote:

DO they earth aircraft when on the ground or does it just jump across the tyres if you get struck on the tarmac?

Given the characteristics of lightning strikes, a lightning strike will probably flash over the tires anyway.

--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

I am pretty certain its not spirit that produces the rear fuselage.

Its Boeing.

I'm trying to understand the rudder components and came across these OLD schematics and photos (YouTube video). I don't know how newer model components depart from the old systems so I'm offering these as a start point. Please speak up if I'm off track. The damage in this incident is related to the Standby PCU which is the upper set of components. It looks as though the system is fighting itself to produce the amount of damage seen in the photos of the frame and bracket (posted above).

Quote (Aviation Investigation Preliminary Report)

A new control rod was installed and during the rigging/adjustment of the main rudder PCU, maintenance identified additional structural damage to the rudder system in the area surrounding the standby rudder PCU.

This defies logic. After a significant control incident, a small issue was identified and repaired. As they were tiding up, a huge issue was discovered. Srsly? So is it possible this aircraft could have been returned to active duty with no one ever inspecting the standby unit? Is this how control issues run amok?

There is gross deformation of the failed support bracket. The photo does not provide adequate viewing angle to discern, but it appears that the standby HW has no clearance to this bracket. The kind of force needed to make this deformation would be a hydraulic one. It is as though there was a misaligned power mechanism or an adjustment out of spec such that min clearance was not maintained.

It looks like the rear fuselage is in place coming from Spirit: https://youtu.be/2poCWTMT36U?t=69
In any case this all appears to be within the vertical stabilizer and is essentially independent of the fuselage.

It is typical that hydraulic systems are force limited - there is a limit to the force they can generate, which is what makes them so durable in the hands of construction workers - push too hard and the pressure relief opens and the item moves. It is typical for the support structures strength to greatly exceed the forces the hydraulic system can produce.

The way to get the damage shown is by getting a cylinder to end of travel and then continue to push or pull on it with an external force beyond restricting the hydraulically operated travel.

---

Quote:

Then tire manufacturers started adding carbon to the tire material to make it conductive enough to discharge static.

Carbon has been a key ingredient in tire manufacture for a long time; it is key to preventing UV damage and dates from the early 1900s. In the 1970s tire makers started using silica as a filler to reduce rolling resistance and increase wet grip. This made electrostatic buildup worse.

I never noticed getting shocked when the car seats are not made of certain materials; the shock in the winter from rubbing the seat of the pants and the back of the jacket against the seat covering material.

The static discharge straps may just be what sells rather than what does some good.

That looks like a significant overload fracture of the fitting, not a fatigue failure. Crazy and a bit disturbing; that should not happen. The plane is less than 2 years old.

Quote (3DDave (Aerospace) 10 Jul 24 19:55)

The way to get the damage shown is by getting a cylinder to end of travel and then continue to push or pull on it with an external force beyond restricting the hydraulically operated travel.

So the question becomes how did this anomalous situation arise? It's difficult to imagine a rudder being free enough or leveraged enough to cause this damage. Are there indications of damage at other points along the force path? How is the damage to the Main PCU related to the damage to the Standby PCU? We'll have to stay tuned for more information.

It's also important to adequately rule out prior undiscovered damage given the log notes relating to yaw issues.

This damage looks like an impact occured. I wonder if the forces from a hard tail strike could transfer into the vertical structure of the stabilizer?

Maybe they struck a hanger door with the top of the stabilizer?

well then there would be a large externally visible damage. the rudder is fairly light construction (I've worked on them), and I can't see a way to impact the rudder and cause that fitting failure without breaking the rudder.

Old rudder system vs. new according to avstop.com, Sept. 14, 2000


Old


New

Dual main input rods seen here:

From Facebook:

:

Note that the input torque tube is not on the rudder centerline (FWIW), and from above, the forward connecting points of the rudder pistons are not necessarily above each other (again FWIW).
I presume there is an attachment lug on the standby PCU support bracket that is hidden by the input shaft in the report images.

Here are a few images of a "737 PCU" offered on the web in years past (again FWIW). The hydraulic fittings aren't oriented as I expected but the images offer a general view of how I imagine the units to appear.

THESE UNITS MAY BE OLD OR NOT THE CORRECT ITEM - USE YOUR DISCRETION BEFORE ATTACKING

According to the preliminary report (Page 4), following the in-flight incident, the maintenance team did the following in the order listed:
1. replace the main PCU as a likely cause
2. identified damaged bearing in the forward end of the upper input control rod (of the main PCU)
3. installed new upper input control rod
4. identified additional structural damage to the rudder system in the area surrounding the standby PCU bracket

This suggests that rather than doing a thorough initial investigation, they jumped to initial conclusions and chased their tail, only finding subsequent damage because they couldn't adjust the new components. This seems like a good way to miss critical issues.

The failure of the standby PCU bracket as the rudder system pressed against it could be consistent with the bearing damage on the input control rod if the rudder slammed hard over and pulled hard on the control rod at the same time. However, the bracket was significantly deformed and any damage at the other end of the system would have to match the amount of deformation. Is there more identifiable damage in the linkage? OTOH, if the bearing was damaged, were the multiple main and standby systems sending/receiving competing signals? How did the standby bracket deform while the main PCU attachment remained unscathed?

Just asking for some very busy friends.

PPRuNe discussion
blancolirio - Youtube

In the earlier picture you posted it looks like the force that caused the failure was in the 10 o'clock direction. You can see shiny metal in that quadrant in the upper bolt holes with the bolts removed. The lower piece appears to have broken in the 5-6 o'clock regions. There is buckling in the web as the top of the comment tried to bend to the left and the bottom left was still secured.

I stand by my completely unsupported speculation that the tail wasn't backed into something, just a little bit. If they hit it square on, maybe it was stiff enough that it wouldn't damage the outer sheet metal.

This is what the framing looks like on a boat when we bump into a larger object such as a ship or the earth.

Wondering if it's been subjected to a flight upset recovery.

Boeing pilots for years were taught to recover using rudder to lift the wing. They only started telling pilots not to do cycle control inputs after the tail fell off an airbus after 911.

I have no clue if the rudder system on 737 has a travel limit depending on phase of flight.

Ours gets automatically limited by reducing the full travel of pedals to only give the max the limitations allow.

Hokkie is right this is the scope of what gets delivered.

Looks to me that the bracket is part of that and they just connect to the rudder.

So if I'm starting to understand the system, the standby PCU is one that the pilot can elect to turn on. It lacks protection from hitting the stops as the main PCU has so a gust of wind can throw the rudder from one extreme to the other and in such an event, the bracket can absorb all or most of the punishment, as can any other component in the many linkages. That makes sense now.

However, when the aircraft is parked and powered down, what determines the engagement of one system or the other. Is it just the last one on? What confidence can a pilot ever have that critical and hidden components haven't sustained damage while the aircraft is unattended?

Another thing that comes to mind is that once the bracket was deformed, would that lead to binding of the system or is there enough freedom of movement in the piston and its connections? Perhaps it could prevent the rudder from moving to one extreme as it no longer has as much extension.

Thanks for listening.

"Looks to me that the bracket is part of that and they just connect to the rudder."

Part of what? The PCUs are installed in the vertical stabilizer; nothing to do with the fuselage.

"Boeing pilots for years were taught to recover using rudder to lift the wing. They only started telling pilots not to do cycle control inputs after the tail fell off an airbus after 911."

The tail separated from the Airbus because Airbus has a flawed human factors design that allows full stop to stop movement with reduced pedal movement. The more critical it is not to slam the rudder back and forth the easier Airbus makes it for pilots to do so. Airbus pilots are expected to not overstress the vertical stabilizer via training.

Boeing pilots get accurate feedback; full pedal movement is always full allowable pedal movement.

They are in the bottom section behind the pressure rear bulkhead. Which is in the picture.

Zero clue about proper Airbus or Boeing old school
rudders.

Do know where that lot is on a 737. It used to need lifting gear to get it out of the rear bay with a team of 10 technicians.

"They are in the bottom section behind the pressure rear bulkhead"

Since there is continuing abuse of pronouns here, I have to guess you are referring to the PCUs. Proper use of proper nouns is better for clarity.

No, the PCUs are not behind the pressure rear bulkhead. The pressure bulkhead is roughly 5 feet lower than the PCUs are.

What is behind the rear pressure bulkhead is the horizontal stabilizer trim drive; neither are shown in the photo below.

Is it necessary to add even more labels?

As I haven't done type rating on one I have no reason to know how they do it on a 737. Or on an A320.

Must be confusing it with the elevator jack screw setup.

Still think a flight upset might be in the picture.

Another incident. Thought nothing at the moment to indicate that this was a specifically Boeing problem. However it seems pretty clear that something malfunctioned.

https://nypost.com/2024/07/12/world-news/packed-bo...

https://avherald.com/h?article=51aeb68f&opt=0

Sounds like pilot error in entering data into flight computer.

The pilot has instrumentation to tell how much pitch is allowed to avoid a tail strike. There's more error here than poor data entry, even if that's where it started.

It could easily have been a case where the plane rolls off the runway nose high - the take-off should have been aborted when the nose went past the tail strike attitude.

The point when they found out that it was not flying at the specified speed which was incorrect would have been faster than V1.

That's our cut off when we have to go flying. Well we don't have to but the stats have shown that the fatalities go through the roof if we do abort above it.

It's been pretty hard and trained for the whole of my career 23 years to go flying if you reach V1.

Tail strikes happen on all long aircraft when there is human errors in performance calculations and also setting the initial trim index.

Good news is all aircraft are designed to take it. Some the area is just a void under the skin others it's a titanium skid plate but in all case the essential services are away from that area. You can destroy the apu though.

I have never been in the situation real life. The Q400 was ripe for them. And only had a SIM with it once when it was set up to try and make us tail strike on a220. By incorrect cargo loading data.

I screwed the experience up and abandoned at 90knts. Got a bit of a talking to, to justify the aborted takeoff. It just wasn't looking right. We weren't accelerating fast enough and we passed a intersection 20knts slower than my gut feeling said we should of.

After the talking to we were told it was a performance issue and we had missed out on the training exercise because of my gut feeling. We did it again and scrapped it but the suprise factor was gone so it was no big deal. The examiner at break coffee just said "I had to give you a hard time, just checked your flight safety data, keep listening to your guts... We can't train or rely on gut feelings. Your getting a 4 for that one" the FO though missed out on the learning experience unfortunately.

There is a system in development to match the prediction performance to the actual real life. It's going into the surface management system that makes sure we are on the correct runway for departure. But I think it has a few more years to go. It will trigger a low energy abort around 80 knts apparently.

Yeah I was wondering if it was pilot/human error to end up with that pitch too early. But I'm hardly an expert and all the initial media reports were 100% positive about the pilot actions without touching on what caused that event to occur.

There are many slices of cheese involved and many humans.

I agree with hookie that there was issues with the handling.


You don't need fancy instruments to see your over pitched. You just look out the window.

Rotate to the normal attitude and then hold wait until it goes flying.

Although a long runway that will be a heavy aircraft.

Calling anything pilot error is easy (most often, perhaps always blaming pilot error is at best an incomplete conclusion).

A different point of view:
Complex Systems Thinking – How to change the way we think about problem solving

Brady Heywood

New CEO announced

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-names-ceo...

Bit of profile



https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense...

He did a good job on the c series.

Quote (Reuters)

But Calhoun indicated he does not expect significant personnel changes, saying, "I don't think this is intended to be a large leadership overhaul."

Calhoun may be a little lacking in credibility on his last week on the job.

Quote (Reuters)

Boeing on Wednesday named the aerospace veteran Robert "Kelly" Ortberg its next CEO, as the aviation giant reported a hefty loss on continued operational problems.
His appointment, which will take effect on August 8, comes as Boeing attempts to rebound from a series of safety and quality control problems that have sharpened scrutiny of the company.

--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

Kelly is quite an interesting person.

Mechanical engineer.

Was known to sit in on project meetings and have his lunch just listening.

Knew the project engineers personally.

Even was involved in the graduate recruitment and training program.

Sounds quite promising for Boeing

Great internal details. Must be on the internal distribution lists or knows a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy.

Nothing is promising for Boeing until the Board resigns.

I had one of the bomdider CS program head engineers on the jump seat on the 31st.

Retired now but was working with Kelly on the biz jet and cs cockpit concept project that bomdider has created.


It was an education on the capabilities of the FMS and NAV methodology, Definitely a new generation of information and interaction. Most of it I knew it was there but never got in the habit of using. But there were a couple of features I had never heard about. I might add they are documented and more suited to on the fly route creation which is highly unusual in my flavour of air transport where we download and fly it.

Not yet a 'disaster', at least not in the classic sense, but it appears that NASA may have to 'hire' Space X to bring home the two Boeing Starliner astronauts who've been stuck on the ISS since early June:

NASA Is ‘Evaluating All Options’ to Get the Boeing Starliner Crew Home

Eight weeks after the Starliner spacecraft launched, NASA is still looking for possible answers to its technical issues—including the possibility of SpaceX lending a hand.

https://www.wired.com/story/nasa-boeing-starliner-...

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

I've been posting about it on the 'spacecraft engineering' forum. I've been holding off on the 'disaster' discussion for some reason.

Brad Waybright

It takes competence to recognize incompetence.

"I've been holding off on the 'disaster' discussion for some reason"

-because it hasn't burned up yet.

Quote (thebard3)

I've been posting about it on the 'spacecraft engineering' forum.

Sorry, I don't follow that forum.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

Just out of interest I think the crew dragon has 7 seats.

And the next mission using it has 4 onboard for launch.


How much work would be required to get an extra 2 on to get them back?

I think that the Dragon capsule can have UP to seven seats, but I don't think that configuration has ever been flown before.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

I think the latest mission on the crew dragon is due to come back in February.

Would need to go up with 6 seats fitted. Plus adjusted life support consumables.

Alister, with the Boeing Starliner no longer available for its proposed future fights, at least in the short haul, I suspect that Space X will be asked to fill in the gaps.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

Well pointed out I hadn't thought of that.

Thankfully I think the risk assessment of NASA and Boeing will not take any chances.

Wonder what they are doing up there. An extra two will mess with the food planning.

I just saw this item:

NASA Might Delay Upcoming Crew 9 Mission to Return Stranded Starliner Astronauts to Earth

SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft could launch with two astronauts instead of four to make room for the Starliner crew.

https://gizmodo.com/nasa-might-delay-upcoming-cew-...

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

> Three separate, well-placed sources have confirmed to Ars that the current flight software on board Starliner cannot perform an automated undocking from the space station and entry into Earth’s atmosphere. ... Regardless, sources described the process to update the software on Starliner as "non-trivial" and "significant," and that it could take up to four weeks. This is what is driving the delay to launch Crew 9 later next month.


https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/08/nasa-likely-...

NASA have since delayed the return to Sept 24th, which would make sense if they need another month to allow an autonomous return.

It's worth watching what spaceX are generating hardware wise.

Although they seem to have a busy programme already.

Is there a spare docking port?

I'd say now that the Starliner is officially a failure. After years of delays, billions of dollars, and largely not successful test flights, it's hard to spin it any other way.
Link

Brad Waybright

It takes competence to recognize incompetence.

If I were those two astronauts, you would NOT be getting me into Starliner for the return trip anymore. Even if Boeing and NASA agreed it was "safe."

This mission failed in its latter part; it successfully delivered what it was supposed to. It has a problem that can be addressed and repaired, like the various previous problems space programs have encountered. Except for the amount of time and money, the Space-X development went through a large number of explosive development failures to get to the present state. Starliner appears to have greater capability than the Dragon capsule, but it may be that success of Starliner wouldn't matter anyway if the needs of NASA have changed. For example, Starliner has ISS orbit boost capability; AFAIK Dragon doesn't.

I'd say the mission is a complete and utter failure if the top priority is to provide a safe round trip. I think Dragon HAS been boosting the ISS, but maybe only the cargo craft. Starliner probably won't be doing that before it's 'de-orbited'.

Brad Waybright

It takes competence to recognize incompetence.

Articles about this say that Dragon docks on the wrong side of ISS, doesn't have the fuel capacity, needs to dispense with a critical part to expose engines that have the thrust which will be a problem. Perhaps that has all changed? It appears that the boost mission requires a very low thrust for a long time, something the Draco engines appear to not do.

The bad news today for the astronauts is they were expecting an 8 day trip and will now have an 8 month trip. I hope the cat and fish feeders were overfilled. The litterbox is going to be a big problem.

This mission wasn't a boost mission so Starliner would not be configured for it; boost was just a potential mission it might be used for in the future.

It seems that NASA has delayed future missions to allow Boeing time to do whatever needs to be done to return the craft to earth, or it will be jettisonned to burn up. Probably the latter is the best case scenario.

Brad Waybright

It takes competence to recognize incompetence.

Kinda reminds me of a 1960's TV show , where the actors are stranded on an island for 3 months instead of a " 3 hour tour".

"...when logic, and proportion, have fallen, sloppy dead..." Grace Slick

davefitz-
...and a contractor posing as Gilligan.

Brad Waybright

It takes competence to recognize incompetence.

A good engineer is often but not always able to work with and around incompetent management.
The best engineers are working somewhere else now.

--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

I was rather late yesterday due to a tech issue.

One witty pax came out with "if your going for the late flight record, I think your going to struggle up against the starliner"

As he had the look and the smell of a technician, I just said. "My fault, Oil seal gone on the bleed and I grounded it. fancy breathing sheep dip?"

He gave me a pat on the shoulder a smile and announced to the rest " right leave this crew alone we are in safe hands"

And the cc said the rest of the 130 odd pax did thanks to his comments in the back.

I guess I'm the Caterpillar 3500 whisperer. Our most recent incident involved a freshly rebuilt engine. it had run for about an hour off and on mostly idle speed. We hired a tech for the first loaded run but about a minute after starting the engine developed a faint ticking with a chirp sound. The tech increase speed until the sound went away. That's when I remembered z I've heard this before. I told the tech to get the valve covers off ASAP so we can see the red hot pushrods. They weren't glowing but two were smoking. As an operator, I've developed an ear. I don't always know what is wrong but I can always tell you that something is wrong.

I'm also a very aggressive troubleshooter. I'll run a 12 cylinder engine on 3 cylinders. It sounds bad, it may be bad. I don't know, I've never been trained by the OEM but I always find the problem and they don't

I trust my gut feelings as well tug. And they were twitching with this one.

Sometimes I can't put my finger on what's actually triggering them.

Thankfully the senior techs I work with trust them as well.

They are not always correct but I am told they mostly are and worth further investigation.

Btw the aircraft that I grounded still hasn't flown again after a night 18 hours in the hanger which is unusual.

Just a snippet I got in my feed

Quote (space explored)

White Sands that showed that valve issues came down to either a teflon tape seal or poppet valve expanding or extruding, causing restricted propellent flow to the thrusters.

Possible reason for thruster issue

Why would any modern system use tapered threads? Or, was PTFE tape improperly applied to a straight thread?

Quote:

Why would any modern system use tapered threads?

An MBA thinks it will save money? Remember. This is Boeing.

Quote:

Why would any modern system use tapered threads?

An MBA saved money on training? Remember. This is Boeing.

--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

In my experience it's the old timers and their "this is the way I've always done it" attitude that results on sealant being applied to non-tapered threads.

Wait until you tell one they don't need a lock washer.

It's likely the tapered thread uses less mass than the modern method.

This is purely a guess why if they do.

And the space side of things will be a different breed and setup to the aircraft side of the company.

Whatever the design, it's hard to believe this issue didn't show up either during ground testing or 2 previous test flights. Since it's affected several thrusters on this flight it doesn't seem to be a rare occurrence.

Brad Waybright

It takes competence to recognize incompetence.

From the snippet of information:

Quote:

or poppet valve expanding or extruding

--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

Yes, the space side will be different, since this part of the system is designed and built by L3Harris.

The pattern continues.

https://www.l3harris.com/company/diversity-equity-...

Even worse, they have an ESG statement as well.

Tug - what does merit look like to you? Your company decided to screw you after your making a good effort. Why are you still working for them instead of a better company? Isn't merit enough to get a better position? Maybe your boss stepped up for you - the company didn't.

Recall when the US went full on DEI and helped win WWII? That was when America was great.

DEI is just easy scapegoating rather than looking at crappy corporate culture and management, where GMs yak about safety, engineering excellence, and customer trust, but only care about their bonus, and that is carried down to the lowest management level that gets bonuses.

Face the truth, corporate culture has been crappy WAY BEFORE DEI came on the scene; it's just taken a couple of decades for the cumulative bad decisions to result in more than occasional fubars.

Boeing's culture was already internally lousy in the early 2000s, when it became obvious that their much vaunted "Systems Engineering" excellence was a paper tiger.

The bottom line is the bottom line, when CEOs are more concerned by "shareholder value" than design and manufacturing excellence; that's been going on since stock markets became thing.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

Rocketdyne was only acquired by l3harris in 2023.

And as it's flown before without issues in the same system I suspect it's more likely to be a bad materials batch or change of product or method of assembly.

In that order.

article from 2011 about Boeing getting rid of core systems integration and aircraft design competencies: https://www.reuters.com/article/world/special-repo...

and if you can get past the paywall, this article: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/electronics-...

and this about McD who took over Boeing:
between 1968 and its merger with Boeing in 1997 MDC only launched ONE new aircraft –the DC-10. And in the same time frame, it only won TWO new military contracts with its own designs – the F-15 Eagle and the C-17. A chronic lack of R&D, the resignations of top executives because of interference from Mr Mac and a lack of trust (in Douglas), and understanding of the airline market by the top management and board, killed off the premier commercial aircraft builder in Douglas and the number one military aircraft manufacturer in McDonnell.

3DDave, I work for a small company. We have maybe 7 people in management though we are owned by a much larger organization. There is only one position higher than mine in my career path and it is occupied by my manager. I don't know that I want his position. He has to focus so much on regulatory compliance he has no capacity left to to even consider quality or innovation. Just make it work.

Tug, I didn't mean a different management level - I meant a better company that doesn't screw the important employees who have high merit and that pays a great deal more, though I have yet to see any way that merit can be objectively measured. Past performance? Sure, though the best performance an employee can do is avoiding an expensive catastrophe; how is something that doesn't happen measured?

To be fair, Boeing has managed to build one new aircraft since the mid 90's and Airbus has managed to build 2 and acquire a 3rd so I don't see either company as being much more innovative or market leading compared to the other. I didn't count variations here, only new planes.

Corporate culture and public stock trading does nothing good for most companies since the board and upper management chases the next quarter numbers to get their bonuses, long term sustainability be damned.

Quote (LionelHutz)

Boeing has managed to build one new aircraft since the mid 90's

The 777 is one of the most successful airliners ever built. It's design and manufacturing processes are pretty much locked down so it would take overt action from management to mess it up. Similarly for the 767 which will probably be out of production in the next few years. The 757 probably could have had a longer production run. I'm not aware of any significant design or production issues with those. Nothing to be said about the 747. The 787 has had a lot of teething problems, but most seem to be resolved (rumors aside) unless we learn of something really untoward in the future. The 737 is the other plane that has an incredibly successful history. At least until the management blunder known as MCAS forever besmirched it's reputation.
It seems that Boeing is all-in on the 777, 787 and 737 variants. I don't see them earnestly working on anything else. It's probably a good thing right now because I don't think they really know how to design and build a new plane from scratch.

Brad Waybright

It takes competence to recognize incompetence.

Quote:

The 777 is one of the most successful airliners ever built. It's design and manufacturing processes are pretty much locked down so it would take overt action from management to mess it up.

That would never happen.
Upper management would never put unreasonable pressure on lower managers.
Lower managers, to meet upper management demands, would never cut inspection time so short that there would not be time to clean debris from the tanks.
Even if the floor workers screwed up and left debris, it would be found and reported by the final inspection teams.
Management would never shorten inspection times so that there was not enough time for a complete inspection.
The final inspection will always find left behind debris and missing bolts.

Quote:

would take overt action from management to mess it up

That would never happen would it.
Face it.
Boeing's culture is broken, badly broken.
Ah Snap. I forgot the sarcasm font again.


--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

Apparently the new CEO has set up shop on site in production in Seattle.

Making the blunties travel up from Virginia to see him.

waross, not sarcasm...cynicism. Not sure there is a font or emoticon for that.

Let's give this new CEO some breathing space.

We definitely don't want Boeing to go down. I would like them to start developing a 4th generation civilian aircraft relatively soon.

Airbus need to get thier finger out as well. And stop recycling their 1980's cockpit. They have an advantage having the CS cockpit ready to go.

But the regulator's need to define the new standards across a broad range of human performance issues and modern tech.

I see the current Boeing issues as a regulator failure as much as the company. That's international as well as the faa.

I haven't heard a bad thing yet about the new CEO.

Hopefully if he’s setting up shop in Seattle he’s less concerned with climate and diversity metrics than the last lot.

Those two aren't an issue.

It's the slavery to MBA's and stock performance that screwed them.

Recovery of the bonuses paid during the years of decline would be a good starting step

In my 45 yr career I've seen 4 companies effectively become dissolved due to poor management changes. Boeing appears to have all the same management issues as those 4, and the only thing that allows them to hang on is their "crony capitalism" ties to the gov't regulators, legislators, and judges.

Revisit the downward spirals of Enron, GdF Suez/Engie, Progress Energy and Foster wheeler and you will see the exact same management errors that are now contaminating Boeing. If it wasn't for "crony capitalism", they would have been split up and sold to other companies by now. Maybe make the relationship official and nationalize it- call it the dept of aviation, or DOA.

"...when logic, and proportion, have fallen, sloppy dead..." Grace Slick

New CEO is right on for the role and the challenge. Observe.

Yes they pull a retired 64 year old mechanical engineer out of retirement to be Boeing's next CEO. Why? Our 'system' is NOT producing the quality and quantity of employees it used too...... Look how old the Stranded Starliner Astronuts are? One is 64 also.....

And our boom and bust hiring and firing means there is never a transfer of information learned from one generation to another..... Mentoring is not happening for the most part...... Everybody is out for self only......

My first mentor type was a naval architect. Doing fea which he knew nothing about. He was one of the last square rigged sail boat naval types used to do jobs on the Swedish grain boats in his day.

Used to wander past me and say "what haved you ducked up today?"

"Nothing that I am aware of yet... But the day is young... "

"A wasted learning day then..."

He found a bug in the ANSYS program both static and nlgeom.

There are lots of bugs in software. Finding one is like finding the Sun at dawn.

---

A continuing problem in the world is that those who are even slightly better at something keep getting selected to do more; they are allowed confidence from their past work and learn from any mistakes they make while those in the second place aren't afforded the luxury of even one bad day. The top bubble continues to rise and expand and no one wants do deal with second place, regardless of inherit merit in their work, because judging merit takes effort and those at the top have more connections, so merit doesn't matter.

A great book about this is Engineers of Dreams by Henry Petroski, where the author opines that major bridge disasters seem to happen on a regular schedule as the founders of great companies finally retire taking the lessons they learned with them and then new companies step up to make old mistakes once again.

---

This isn't a new problem. I gave it a lot of thought a while back when I heard the House of Windsor had been banking with the same bank for centuries. I wondered how it is that one family would find a bank and that both would be reliable for that length of time and why almost no other families had similar success.

It occurred to me that longevity required 3 things. The first is the ability of the founder to create something valuable.

This is rather frequent. Plenty of people start businesses and are reasonably successful at them; many grow rather wealthy.

The second is the ability of the founder to identify a successor capable of running the business and making adaptations.

This is less frequent. Often near their retirement the founder is tired/exhausted/disinterested and sells out to the highest bidder. Or they worry too much that no one is as smart or dedicated as they are and refuse to delegate even small things to children or long-time employees and the business dies with them.

The third is the key, the ability to identify a successor who in turn is capable of identifying a successor.

Almost always it is the second hand-off that fails. When it succeeds, it is because the founder put into place a process that doesn't depend on one person alone to make this decision, but into the hands of a group. Because they are able to find that successor, they are also able to find successors for themselves, creating a self-sustaining process that will operate until some condition arises that is toxic to the continued operation or the business changes to be unrecognizable except by name.

The great religions fall into this pattern. Sometimes companies do. Sometimes families do. But not forever.

That any one company fails to manage succession of top management is normal. It's the extremely rare ones that don't fail. Rome fell. Greece before that. Egypt before that. Jupiter, Zeus, Amun-Ra. All were followed, but no more.

This is almost always how business is done. It should be no surprise.

Yep which is work in progress with current USA politics.

Quote (3DDave)

A great book about this is Engineers of Dreams by Henry Petroski, where the author opines that major bridge disasters seem to happen on a regular schedule as the founders of great companies finally retire taking the lessons they learned with them and then new companies step up to make old mistakes once again.

And in one of his other books, Petroski explained that since the vast majority of bridges are paid for with tax-payer dollars, that bidders are motivated to continue to shave the 'safety factors' in order to be the low bidder, as that's the only way that they'll win the contract.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

That's more applicable in the RI bridge thread.

3Ddave the bug was in the engineering formulation for the calculations.

Per say it wasn't a software bug.

He was a slide rule man and imperial units. It led to a change to the ASME piping codes a year later in the 90's

I seem to recall that there was an error in the engineering fomulations of the stress in piping components that caused half of the US nuclear plants to be shutdown and retrofit back in the late 1980's. A US NRC nuclear reg commission field engineer / inspector saw that the dynamic earthquake supports for large valves at nuclear plants were undersized ( by eye) , so he studied the calculations and found the error. He " blew the whistle" but was ignored for 2-3 yrs until others confirmed the error which caused the widespread shutdowns and retrofit changes to those supports.

On a much wider scale is the impolite fact that the US ASME section I ( power boiler) code ignores thermal fatigue in high pressure piping components. That was OK for large plants that would shutdown and startup only once per year for a 50 yr life, but it is not a conservative practice for large plants that are now required to operate in a cyclic mode, where some large combined cycle plants are required to startup and shutdown twice per day ( or 15,000 times in a 20 yr life).

There are other structural issues with US industry that are resulting in corporate failures. In the 1980's ( during reagan's admin) the laws related to pensions and retirements changed which led to diposable employees; prior to that corporate memory was enhanced by ensuring valuable employees would stay with the same company for 30-40 years in order to get a pension, but the introduction of 5 yr pension vesting and IRA's ended that practice and also acted as a lobotomy to corporate memory.The second issue is the practice of using only MBA's for all management roles, and the fashionable MBA dictum to always rely on borrowed money ignores the vulnerability that comes with a sudden increase in interest rates and unsustainable debt. The third is the prevalence of " crony capitalism" and its enabling the success of otherwise substandard companies to the detrement of better companies and also its enablement of "too big to fail" catastrophic bailouts.

On top of all that is the modern fact of life that technological change is occurring faster than can be absorbed by normal human sensitivities and which cannot be restrained or moderated by laws and morals that are based on an 18th century mindset.

"...when logic, and proportion, have fallen, sloppy dead..." Grace Slick

Davefitz this was in the yield proofing of pipes I think it's called.

When they proof the pipe taking it up to 1.1 the rated pressure to cause it to yield and work harden.

They had used a linear average yield curve based on pressure not displacement.

Basically the pipes weren't yielding enough or work hardening. I think the solution was to take them up to 1.3 pressure with a strain guage recording the post proofing yield.

The pressure testing bay was tense testing this theory.

Just take the 1.1 and 1.3 as example values it wasn't my area I just gave those it was pretty pictures. Who then started swearing when we did a full none linear analysis.

It must have been around 93/94 for this pipe issue.

Here is the 1979 NRC letter that summarizes the need to shutdown and retrofit the earthquake dynamic piping supports at east coast nukes. It occurrred shortly after TMI and this concern was noted by none other than the USA president J E Carter. This may be one example of appointing an engineer as the CEO.
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML9935/ML993510027.pdf


"...when logic, and proportion, have fallen, sloppy dead..." Grace Slick

Then the actual earthquake of August 23, 2011 exceeded the acceleration design criteria for the North Anna Power Station units 1 and 2. Fortunately the design has enough builders margin, that a safe shutdown from full power was achieved.
Despite "minimal damage" Dominion spent 21 million dollars (2011) inspecting, analyzing, and repairing the two plants. (https://news.dominionenergy.com/news?item=72382)

None of this is about Boeing.

Well it does have a link with the new CEO of Boeing.

He has just over seen the creation of the latest generation of modern cockpit and system interactions.

He is well qualified as an engineer and CEO.

I was reading about an upgrade to the A220 cockpit giving linked sidestick controls to give feedback to what the other pilot was doing. He made comment on the technical side of it not the business in it.

I really hope he succeedes sorting the Boeing utter mess out.

It's more about who is in charge of a safety critical company and how they deal with problems.

Another drama

https://simpleflying.com/boeing-777x-test-fleet-gr...

Flight testing to find problems finds problems. News at 11.

If a Boeing jet has a flat tire now makes headlines.

Brad Waybright

It takes competence to recognize incompetence.

Sure, just critical engine mounts cracking in half. No big deal….

Quote:

"This part is custom to the 777-9, and each 777-9 engine includes two of this component so there is redundancy," the company told FLYING in a statement. "We are keeping the FAA fully informed on the issue and have shared information with our customers."

The FAA confirmed that Boeing had notified the agency about the situation and was taking steps to assess the issue.

A thrust link is described as a "heavy titanium component" that is not part of the engine itself. The 777X is powered by the General Electric GE9X, which has a 134-inch front fan, sitting in a cowling measuring 11 feet across. According to GE, it is the largest and most powerful engine in the world and also has more fuel efficiency than its predecessors.

Hazarding a guess - someone in the supply chain lied about the titanium.

And it has been found in testing. Good work, Boeing.

And these motor mounts were different from all of the motor mounts that Boeing successfully designed in the past how?
Could it be that their very best engineers now work for someone else?

--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

Quote (Hokie66)

And it has been found in testing. Good work, Boeing.

Certification test flights aren’t the best time to find out that your engine mounts fail under working loads.

You'd prefer they find it in service Tom?

Everyone,
This thread has become like a chicken coop, where every hen pecks on the wounded bird. In this case you aren't solving anything, just pecking for the sake of poking something big from a safe distance.

I suggest this thread has served its purpose and can be closed.

I’m surprised at how blasé some of you seem about engine mounts cracking in half during certification test flights—flights that are meant to prove the plane is safe for production.

It's quite a common occurrence.

The q400 had it's engines derated 3-4 times due to cracking of multiple structural bits.

I never did a Max TakeOff Power in one in 2700 hours, even with the final derated certified version.

The live loads on a dynamic real life engine are effected by not just the thrust vector. There is other forces on them which are only found when they entre the test flight stage. It can be something as annoying as a vortex being shed off the ice detection vane on the side of the nose.

There is also common findings on the undercarriage when they start experiencing live pilot flown landings.

Sorry spar.... I agree about the Boeing side of things, the stuff now generally being reported is just normal. And they seem to have started progressing with leadership which was was the root cause of the issues in the company. I would like to hear more about the changes in the regulatory bodies to trap this behaviour. And notice I said bodies, it's not just the FAA at fault here.

The A220 has been flying 8 years now there is still issues in various systems to be rectified. A huge update is due soon that gets rid of some major ones.

Quote (3DDave)

"This part is custom to the 777-9, and each 777-9 engine includes two of this component so there is redundancy,"

Challenger had 3 of each component (o-rings). I thought this was part of any ABET accredited engineering curriculum. Adding additional parts that will fail under the same conditions that caused the first part to fail does not increase safety.

The SRB o-rings did increase safety. They simply didn't guarantee it under all conditions, particularly for use outside the design conditions. There were numerous instances where the primary ring was ablated and formed a leak path and the secondary held.

The question for redundancy is always for what failure cause is the redundancy supposed to cope. The most reasonable one is for an undetected manufacturing error, such as an inclusion or other fatigue initiation site. For example, two engines are suitable for ETOPS because the most likely cause for engine failure is something specific to an engine, like a fatigue crack in an engine blade or disk that is unlikely to be in the other engine. But, exposed to a fine volcanic ash or a dense flock of birds or maintainers leaving the oil drain plug o-rings in the shop, those engines aren't redundant at all.

If it is for design error, that can be a huge problem as the duplicated item can merely extend the time before an initial failure is discovered, such as the double lead screw nut in the MD-80 of Alaska Air fame, where both nuts had identical wear rates, just slowed by sharing the load, and both worn out at the same time. The two lasted longer than one alone would have, but reliance on the design didn't consider how they would in fact fail and, more importantly, how it would signal that one of them had failed.

In the case of the o-rings in the SRBs, when operated within the design conditions, NASA had time to see the primary failure; their problem was accepting the primary failure and not fixing it, therefore elevating the secondary o-ring to a primary status.

It's possible someone had a brain fart on an axially loaded member. It appears to be two pins and a rod, if the story is accurate. Not an easy thing to get wrong, but without photographs of the broken item, impossible to decide.

I still lean towards someone in the supply chain either making an error or just fraudulently certing the material and the alloy isn't it what was supposed to be. Maybe the Russian supply of titanium isn't as secure as it should be.

I am unsure that whoever was speaking for the company was relying on an engineering evaluation or simply noting the that the second thrust link acted as a backup. I doubt the statement was run through the Reliability Engineering department to sign off on.

As AF447 proved, redundancy is very difficult.

Edit: The o-rings were back up to zinc chromate putty, so perhaps the count of 3 sealing items came from that.

There seems to be a huge issue with materials in aviation just now.

Ranges from Engines through to skin rivets

I wouldn't be surprised if the starliner issues are due to out of spec materials.



AF447 the primary system was in his bed. It was the secondary and tertiary that failed completely.

Quote (Spar)

This thread has become like a chicken coop, where every hen pecks on the wounded bird.

A unique but possibly accurate description of Boeing. grin

--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

Quote (1503-44)

A technology company that cannot manage to hang on to their technical staff is doomed.
Train them and lose them is death by 1000 cuts.

I once encountered a unique exception to this.
Once upon a time in a turd world country We were purchasing a 1600 KVA genset from Cat. The largest in our micro-grid.
There were some strange laws in this country.
The year, for employers was 14 months long.
Once upon a time, a politician got elected by promising an extra months pay to all workers.
That worked so well for the politician that later another Pol got elected by adding another year to the payroll year.
In addition to the annual was a requirement that after 20 years of service, an employee was to be paid a bonus of two years pay.
At an informal breakfast with the sales manager and the son of the CEO and owner of the Cat franchise this came up.
It was mentioned that most employees took the two years bonus and quit to become self employed, and this must be distressing to the company.
The response;
It is actually to our advantage.
Our mechanics are all factory trained on Cat engines.
Now, as well as our shops, there is a network of independent, factory trained mechanics across the country.
As these mechanics are trained on Cat systems only, this gives us a sales advantage.
What we lose is compensated for by extra sales due the the relative ease of finding a trained Cat servicemen in the country.
A very unique exception to the general rule.

--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

Appears NASA to make a final announcement regarding whether Butch and Suni will ride home via starliner or via a crew dragon on 8/24/24 at 1pm EST.

Original design was 2 orings, 3rd oring and capture tang added after Challenger, along with other features.

Quote (ChorusDen)

Appears NASA to make a final announcement regarding whether Butch and Suni will ride home via starliner or via a crew dragon on 8/24/24 at 1pm EST

It would be a brave decision to let them come back on the starliner, given the recent scrutiny. All spacecraft can fail, at any time.

Well, it looks like the Starliner astronauts are not coming home until early NEXT year, when they'll hitch a ride on a returning SpaceX mission. There's still no word as to how and when they intend to bring the Starliner craft home. As currently configured, it can't operate autonomously. Perhaps they can reprogram it from the ground so that it could return on a automatic flight program. If not, they'll eventually have to ditch it since it's occupying one of the limited docking stations on the ISS.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

Quote (btrueblood)

Original design was 2 orings, 3rd oring and capture tang added after Challenger, along with other features.

On one of our 'photo safaris', my friend Dennis and I stopped at the ATK testing facility near Promontory, Utah. They had what they called a 'Rocket Park' (we saw it on one of those 'brown signs' you see along the interstate), outside their fenced-in secure area where anyone could stop and look at examples of their rockets, which included things like the Minuteman Missile and the shuttle booster, as well as some smaller and experimental rockets:


October 2009 (Sony A100, 10-24mm)

Now being a couple if engineers, we immediately went and looked at the shuttle booster. And while there was never any mention in any of the placards about the Challenger accident, they didn't try to hid anything either. In fact, they had on display a section of the booster housing, which would have been very close to where the failure occurred, where you could clearly see the O-Ring grooves.

Here's a shot of that section of the booster:


October 2009 (Sony A100, 10-24mm)

And of the placard describing where this section was in the booster assembly:


October 2009 (Sony A100, 10-24mm)

And here's a close-up of the O-Ring groves:


October 2009 (Sony A100, 10-24mm)

Anyway, it was an interesting stop and well worth the time and distance as it was a bit off of our planned route (we were heading to Butte, Montana).

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

Quote (NBC)

Aug. 24, 2024, 10:14 AM PDT / Updated Aug. 24, 2024, 10:54 AM PDT
By Denise Chow
NASA will call on SpaceX to bring home two astronauts who have been stuck on the International Space Station since early June after their Boeing spacecraft ran into several problems midflight, the agency said Saturday.

--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

Quote (Wall Street Journal)

https://www.wsj.com/video/series/on-the-news/nasas...

Here is a link to a Wall Street Journal Video on NASA's Plan B, and Why SpaceX Is Completing Boeing’s Starliner Mission.

Of course, I am assuming the Censor Gods approve of the Wall Street Journal as a Permissible Source of information, and don't delete this post like they did the ZeroHedge excerpt from their article?

Quote (arsTECHNICA)

NASA's senior leaders in human spaceflight gathered for a momentous meeting at the agency's headquarters in Washington, DC, almost exactly 10 years ago.

These were the people who, for decades, had developed and flown the Space Shuttle. They oversaw the construction of the International Space Station. Now, with the shuttle's retirement, these princely figures in the human spaceflight community were tasked with selecting a replacement vehicle to send astronauts to the orbiting laboratory.

Boeing was the easy favorite. The majority of engineers and other participants in the meeting argued that Boeing alone should win a contract worth billions of dollars to develop a crew capsule. Only toward the end did a few voices speak up in favor of a second contender, SpaceX. At the meeting's conclusion, NASA's chief of human spaceflight at the time, William Gerstenmaier, decided to hold off on making a final decision.

A few months later, NASA publicly announced its choice. Boeing would receive $4.2 billion to develop a "commercial crew" transportation system, and SpaceX would get $2.6 billion. It was not a total victory for Boeing, which had lobbied hard to win all of the funding. But the company still walked away with nearly two-thirds of the money and the widespread presumption that it would easily beat SpaceX to the space station.

The sense of triumph would prove to be fleeting. Boeing decisively lost the commercial crew space race, and it proved to be a very costly affair.

Link to the history of the Boeing vs SpaceX Contract Competition and Split of money

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/05/the-surprise...

When the Space Shuttle Booster O-rings failed - and I know there were several "near miss" failures before the fatal burn-through - were these failures at the lowest O-ring joint because that was exposed to most burning gases the longest (since it was closest to the exhaust itself)? Or were the previous failures scattered up and down through all the joints?

Per Wikipedia

Quote:

The propellant had an 11-pointed star-shaped perforation in the forward motor segment and a double-truncated-cone perforation in each of the aft segments and aft closure. This configuration provided high thrust at ignition and then reduced the thrust by approximately a third 50 seconds after lift-off to avoid overstressing the vehicle during maximum dynamic pressure (max. Q).

So all joints would have the same burn exposure. It appears that most erosion events happened at the same field joint, the one near the nozzle.

Relevant discussion: https://www.nasa.gov/history/rogersrep/v1ch6.htm

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5070507-truth-...

This book has alot of technical detail about the engineering of what happened.

Here is a link to a 1986 Article in the Los Angeles Times, entitled: "NASA Rejected Seamless Rocket to Save Money"

DoD does not use segmented solid rocket motors. The O-Ring Failure Problem is the reason why. Aerojet was the only contractor offering a non-segmented design out of the 4 contractors and was the technical design chosen first by the SSEB Evaluation Team.

But then Politics enters the engineering world every day, especially in Government Contracts.....

The board rated Morton Thiokol least capable contractor from a technical standpoint, but the cheapest from a cost standpoint.

The Key Politicians in control that day wanted Morton, therefore Management at NASA overruled their source selection evaluation board's choice of AeroJet, and selected Morton Thiokol.

This is how Engineering Works in the US Government...... Engineers are fired on a regular basis if they don't justify what politicians and thus management wants the answer to be.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-02-15...

Quote:

Four companies submitted bids to build the solid rocket boosters for the Space Transportation System based on the requirements provided by the Space Shuttle Program.

Three of the designs were segmented cases to expedite transport of the boosters from the factory. However the fourth bidder Aerojet submitted a proposal for an unsegmented case.

The Aerojet proposal was rejected specifically because of its case design.

The strength of the case was found inadequate for the prelaunch bending moment loads and was not designed with an adequate safety factor for water impact loads

Of the four proposals, the ones selected for final consideration were those of Thiokol and Lockheed (both segmented case designs). Lockheed was preferred on technical matters, but Thiokol was preferred on management and cost.

There was controversy over the selection of Thiokol over Lockheed, especially because the NASA administrator was from Utah (home of Thiokol) as was a powerful senator who chaired the Senate space committee. Lockheed unsuccessfully protested the award.

However, note that this controversy was between two segmented designs.

Bottom line, segmented cases were used in the design because most of the solid rocket motor manufacturers of the time felt that such a design would meet the requirements best. The contract managers at NASA agreed and selected one of the segmented designs.

Reference: Development of the Space Shuttle, Heppenheimer, pp 71-78

Quote:

The strength of the case was found inadequate for the prelaunch bending moment loads and was not designed with an adequate safety factor for water impact loads

For anybody who lived thru government proposal evaluation process, knows that you don't dermtermine from paper proposals whether a design meets specification or not.

For anybody to make such a statement, means they don't understand the government procurement process.

It is common for government organizations to bias requirements documents, to favor one party over the others. This is exactly what NASA did to eliminate the best and safest solution.

...and typical with government, no one was held accountable.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote:

It is common for government organizations to bias requirements documents,

It's common, period; lots of private companies do the same.

However, in the case of aerospace and defense, it's not always a simple choice, because you, as the government, do not want to be beholden to a single contractor. Therefore, even if it's not necessarily the most optimum solution, you may decide to award a contract to someone else, for the following reasons:
> maintaining a "competitive" market
> ensure that there is at least one viable alternate that could potentially be a second source
> ensure that there is at least one viable alternate so that there is price competition

So while Boeing might have been a poor choice, it might have been necessary to ensure that SpaceX doesn't become the sole survivor and a single source.

Note also, SpaceX has gotten gobs of government funding and contracts, despite claims to the contrary

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

Quote (dik)

...and typical with government, no one was held accountable

Now you're seeing the light!

I was aware of it at the time and was surprised that no one filed and engineering association complaint.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Agree no one is held accountable and tax payer dollars just pay the cost overruns. Yes multiple sources are always preferred but in most of the NASA/DoD Programs I worked on or managed, we did not have the luxury of having the funds to cover two competing development contractors for same mission.

Early in concept phase there could be competition but never through the who process. Typically the government wanted to own tech daya packsges and eliminate proprietary hardware and software. But reality and avsilable program funds typically dictated the government did not buy the tech data packages, nor eliminate proprietary sole source hardware, firmware and software.

Just like Boeing signed a firm fixed price contract without changing the cost plus fee structure they grew up on.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

Popped up in my news feed.

https://cleantechnica.com/2024/08/26/jack-welch-sc...

Seems it's all linked to the same people.

We used to keep competition viable by occasionally awarding offshore pipeline contractors a job, as long as they were not very far away from the low bidder's price. There were so few contractors at the time that, if anybody went out of business, it would mean hefty price increases for everyone next season.

One would not really want companies with high strategic value to go out of business either. Buying stuff from potential adversaries is not a good position to be in. You really need to home grow as much of this stuff as possible.

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

Nothing like an unbiased article mixing some facts with a lot of fiction tied together with outrage.

John, star for those photos and the reminder to stop there on my next trip down I84/I15.

Yes, for nerdy engineers, it's well worth the stop. And it's also an 'advert' for watching out for those 'Brown Signs' on the interstate, often highlighting obscure places to visit which often prove to be more interesting than the more famous ones. My friend Dennis and I made it a point to watch for those 'Brown Signs' during our many trips together. In addition to the 'Rocket Park' we discovered that the geographical center of the United States had moved from where we had learned it was at when we were in school. It's now near Belle Fourche, South Dakota:


October 2009 (Sony A100, 18-70mm)

We also discovered the tallest 'structure' in North America, the 2,063 foot tall KVLY-TV antenna near Blanchard, North Dakota:


April 2019 (Sony a6000, 10-18mm)

Or an old Minuteman Missile command center, which is now open to the public, near Cooperstown, North Dakota. This was of special interest because my friend Dennis, who when he was a Captain in the Army did an exchange tour with the Air Force, manning a Titan II missile command center in Arizona:


April 2019 (Sony a6000, 10-18mm)

Or that there are actually TWO Continental Divides in the United States, the second one found near Browns Valley, Minnesota:


April 2019 (Sony a6000, 16-50mm)

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

Those are cool stories and photos, particularly the antennae, thanks John.

Why is there a guy in the Michigan Tech jacket sneaking into all the photos? Is he there for scale?

There are 6 Continental Divides in North America, and 5 of them go through the US.

https://www.magellantv.com/articles/what-is-the-co...

I stumbled upon this on NASA's Public Relations Site. While it is Great for this person, that a Communications Major was able to land a Project Management Position at NASA, it also shows organizations don't value technical folks as highly as MBA types or in this case a Communication Major'.... Yet without the techie's none of this happens.

Another reason why folks don't choose the tougher technical path in college, and the US does not graduate enough engineers and scientists. Heck I would have taken the easier path if I had known in the end it would pay more than an engineering path.....

Then the kicker is NASA promoting putting the first woman and first person of color on the Moon as their Mission Statement. So a person's sex and race is more important qualification than merit or the actual scientific mission?

Excerpt from article below with link to article below that:

"It led him to his current one as project manager for the ICPS (interim cryogenic propulsion stage) for NASA’s SLS (Space Launch System) Program, which is managed by Marshall, and will help NASA land the first woman and first person of color on the Moon under Artemis."

https://www.nasa.gov/people-of-nasa/i-am-artemis-c...

NASA was always just as much a political venture as a technical one.
Nobody had to go to the moon for technical reasons.

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

JohnRBaker THANKS for the great photo survey, visiting sites I will probably never get to see in person. Much appreciated!

Oops409 isn't a thread in the Pat's Pub the place for your last post? It has no engineering relevance.

1503-44 it is good to know the pub is sensible.

Pat's Pub decided that the Pub is not the place for pub like conversations so they've spilled into the working forums. Thanks Branch Covidians. I miss the days of a good rowdy conversation.

Brian, I wouldn't know.
I have not entered the pub since 2010.

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

I haven't ventured there either. So maybe it is the wild west . . .

Half way through


The Man Who Broke Capitalism: How Jack Welch Gutted the Heartland and Crushed the Soul of Corporate America―and How to Undo His Legacy.

Pretty good so far.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

Starliner might be coming back empty next week.

SpaceX now has it's turn on the wheel.

The SpaceX issue is a bit lame. They lost a booster due to a mishap that happened at sea, the first incident in a couple of years. No one was at risk due to the accident. No private property was destroyed, other than the rocket booster and perhaps some damage to the SpaceX-owned ocean-going landing platform. I can't help but wonder if this was done so as to save face with the Boeing crowd: "See, we also nailed SpaceX for screwing up."

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

John, you Nailed it! Booster recovery is probably not required, it is just the approach SpaceX took and developed the technology to do it. Has NO effect on the Actual Mission Requirements, other than it increases cost for SpaceX since they only got to use that booster 27? times before they lost one........

It was inspected just the same as a new one and it failed. Is it because something wore out and they didn't detect it or was it a part that was brand new and recently replaced? Ignoring this for a potential manned flight is little different than ignoring o-ring burn-through was. It's OK, it worked before?

3DD, are you refering to 0-rings on Starliner or the failure on the manned 1986 shuttle mission, where they knew they had ablation issues on previous flights, and they were launching outside of the design temperature range for the SRB o-rings? Politics/Management over ruled technical experts that day and flew anyways.

Note that this particular booster, this was IT'S 23rd flight. I suspect that SpaceX more than broke even on the life-cycle cost. But the point is that if SpaceX had just allowed this boosters to crash into the ocean, like every OTHER launch system currently in use, there would have been no issue whatsoever. BTW, occasionally SpaceX does not attempt to recover a booster, usually when the flight operation requires the use of all the fuel onboard, generally for a heavier payload or one that needs to be inserted to a higher orbit, but in those instances, the client has to pay the full cost of the booster since there's no 'refund' for turning-in the old one

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

Yup. Crash away. Unless something unexplained happens for a design used for manned spaceflight. Then the device has to perform exactly as it was promised to perform. They didn't promise it would crash.

It also ignores that being whatever number of missions there is zero chance that every part was installed before the first one and they need to find out what the cause of the failure is. Maybe they are getting complacent at SpaceX and this is the tip of the iceberg.

John, you earned a Star for the last two posts. Clearly, if SpaceX just dumped in big blue sea, like everybody else, then Government would not have any excuse to slow them down. SpaceX has mountains of data on flight, and should be able to pin point failure. If everything perfect till landing, then it will be quick software or hardware fix.

Perhaps Elon's AI figured it out immediately after splash down?

Question: Has SpaceX used a refurbished booster for any of their manned flights?

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

I just found the answer to my question:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article...

So it's happened at least once, perhaps more...

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

Circling back to the thrust links (an no, I'm not trying to kick Boeing when they are down):

Quote (waross)

And these motor mounts were different from all of the motor mounts that Boeing successfully designed in the past how?

The 777X thrust links are made from Titanium, although I'm not sure which alloy.

Most thrust links I have knowledge of, including those of the 777-200 and 777-300 are made from 15-5PH, so they switched materials.

I'm very curious why they did this, if anyone has insight, other than "minimal weight savings".

Quote (Alistair_Heaton)

It's quite a common occurrence. The q400 had it's engines derated 3-4 times due to cracking of multiple structural bits.

I never did a Max TakeOff Power in one in 2700 hours, even with the final derated certified version.

OK, but I don't really see this as a quasi-static or limit loads issue. They found a completely severed link which caused them to inspect the rest of the test fleet, and they found several more examples of cracking. This seems like a potential fatigue issue to me.

Reminds me of the issues Airbus had with dwell fatigue on some of the GE engines it was using. Alpha titanium and even alloys like Ti-6Al-4V are not immune to dwell fatigue especially in environments with long periods of mean stress hold in the VA spectrum (kinda like a thrust link...). Those GE components were seeing lives orders or magnitude below predicted.

Again, makes me curious why they would choose to switch from steel to titanium.

If I could hazard a guess based purely on speculation, it seems like they either had a fundamental misunderstanding of their fatigue environment, or there is a major issue with the materials / processing / manufacturing, or both. I have to assume the thrust links would have been extensively fatigue tested before this phase of development.

Something is definitely not passing the smell test here. I don't think we can chalk it up to "damage like this happens all the time, they'll just end up derating the engine".

Keep em' Flying
//Fight Corrosion!

There is counterfeit Titanium sloshing around the industry. Might be in these parts. You can guess the source.

Quote:

The Starliner spacecraft has started to emit strange noises

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/09/starliners-s...

Follow the link and scroll down a little. After the third paragraph is an audio clip of the conversation and the sound.
Thanks, Opps409.

--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

At first I thought it was aliens but turns out it was a misconfigured audio setting. Press "Settings" scroll down to "Audio" ...

I wonder how many MBA Management Layers this task had to flow down thru, to reach the Junior Engineer, who provided the Lego Style Tutorial for manegement to run back up the chain of command?

There's reports that Boeing is pissed at NASA since they were NOT in the meeting where it was decided that the two stranded astronauts would be returning to earth as passengers on a SpaceX mission.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

Doubling down and putting corporate pride ahead of safety. Brilliant strategy.

I wonder if that sound is a junior engineer who went AWOL just before the launch when he was accidentally closed into a void space.
His ghost is still trying to get out.

--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

A350 engine problems. Boeing is not the only aircraft manufacturer with issues.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/02/business/hong-k...

Rolls Royce XWB-97 engine seems to have a fuel nozzle.issue according to Cathay Pacific.

There has been nothing issued by RR or the certification authority for it EASA.

My understanding, at least this is what I was told when I worked for McDonnell Douglas, was the commercial jetliners are sold without engines. That's a separate contract between the airlines and the engine manufacturer. When the planes are ordered they just specify what engine is going to be used and when they're ready to install the engines, they show-up with a team from the engine manufacturer who are ultimately responsible for installing and testing the engines.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

They are sold without engines, but they are certified to use only certain engines. Airbus would have certified those engines for their aircraft. They do this, at the least, because the mount and the enclosure are designed by the aircraft maker and all the other systems on the aircraft that interface with the engine, including pilot training.

Yes the A380 had different engines for different customers. Some had Rolls Royce (including flight QF32 where an engine exploded), and some had Engine Alliance

Starliner landed OK. Seemed like everything worked properly.

Edit: Apparently 1 capsule thruster didn't work correctly, but it's on the capsule so it can be diagnosed.

Good news

And I am quite glad they didn't risk the crew.

https://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2024-0174-E

Emergency inspection issued about the RR engine

It just keeps on coming.
Kick them off the DOW
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/11/investing/boein...

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

Quote (arstechnia)

The future of Boeing’s crewed spaceflight program is muddy after Starliner’s return

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/09/the-future-o...

Quote:

It’s a question of whether it is one of the 30 companies that make up one of America’s most closely watched stock indexes, one taken as a proxy for the health of the overall economy by many people.

That disingenuous CNN pr*ck. The decline in price is compared against an artificial bump up in stock price and weathering a pandemic.

As to being a proxy for the health of the overall economy? It's a very good example of how corporate America operates. That's the problem for those at the stock market working to gouge out as much cash from stupid investors as possible. If investors can see how corporate America is actually working at Boeing they will understand that all of them are doing the same crooked crap.