UKC

Not a good look, whilst giving evidence...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68534703

Really sad and tragic 

We need more people like him 

People like him need our support 

Indeed. If the stress of whistleblowing drove him to suicide, something is very wrong.

That's very suspicious.  Why go through all the trouble of traveling to give evidence only to then decide in the hotel parking lot that it's all not worth it (in the ultimate sense)?  

Indeed; as I said, not a good look.

Seems to be a common theme when giving evidence in America. 

In an ideal world you'd hope that anyone pointing out deficiencies in safety critical systems would be considered a valuable asset, not least to a company that relies on not killing its end users. What actually transpires is that short term profit and denial trump human life even to the point that the company goes to the wall. I've flown once in the last fifteen years or so but if I do again I'll definitely check to see if it's a Boeing or an Airbus.

There used to be a popular saying, at least among Americans with links to the industry: 'if it ain't Boeing, I ain't going'. I guess that isn't used so much now. 

I guess one needs to keep in mind how safe the airline industry is more generally, how many Boeing flights there are without incident, and compare that with things like driving, towards weighing up how much risk is posed by going on a Boeing aircraft? The safety protocol in the airline industry are really strong, they have the people who check the aircraft, and then people who check after the people who've checked to help make sure nothing was missed. 

To be a chartered engineer, among other elements one needs to get an industry publication, and my Dad used to get Aerospace Magazine before he retired and could no longer get it as cheaply (it's more than £100 a year, circa £130 or something), he could still afford it but he doesn't want to, and reading that while growing up left me feeling very reassured about airline travel, should a journey calculator show that to be greenest.

Even with Boeing having not been 'by the book' recently, I think I'd still place it low down among the things I do regarding risk, like how I cycle into Sheffield city center a few times a week.

Edit: Sometimes airline industry people would write in or write articles which compared the airline industry to rail travel, about how the rail network is still somewhat old fashioned in it's monitoring and safety protocol compared to air travel, with no 'real time' way of being notified on mechanical faults with the track or infrastructure, or landslides or traffic going off a bridge onto the track etc.

Personally, I'd not worry at all, but you maybe might need to read Aerospace Magazine for a bit to be also chlled.

I obviously don't intend to be glib with my use of 'by the book' regarding Boeing, but I'd still be chilled, whichever airliner I went on. 

https://www.aerosociety.com/aerospace

Edit: It's the magazine for The Royal Aeronautical Society, it's a fascinating read.

The dislike above is entertaining, everything I've written is true, airline is the safest way to travel (safer than cycle commuting or driving or the train),  they do have double checks, and the rail industry isn't as stringent. Dislikers must believe in telepathy 'I expect people to understand why I've pressed this'.

I fly a few times a year and my main criteria has always just been "not Ryanair". Ryanair are exclusively Boeing and easyJet are exclusively Airbus, so even more reason to stick with this attitude now.

It turns out it might now be cheaper than it used to be for none industry people to buy Aerospace Magazine than it was, one can become an affiliate and a member of the Royal Aeronautical Society like that, it used to just be engineering types who could join.

https://www.aerosociety.com/aerospace

I'm thinking of looking into joining, it's an interesting read,

Oh, I'm not chewing my fingernails to the bone but (given a choice) would I rather fly on a plane whose door had recently blown out or on one that hadn't?

It's my dislike.

I work with the design of safety critical systems.

It offends me that Boeing appear to have been cutting corners. And that the FAA have been complicit in this. Boeing got complacent, believing they were so clever, they couldn't make mistakes, or maybe just cutting corners for economic reasons.

Your post appeared to be excusing this behaviour, which undermines the very safety record you were lauding.

Then I guess you’ve not been following the news over Boeing recently.

Re: your bike analogy.  Imagine setting off on a bike where somebody didn’t fit the big bolt that holds the front wheel on.  That’s basically where we are with Boeing, except there’s regulatory capture, management coverups and hundreds of dead.

When people die on the roads, it is generally due to mistakes by one or more of the road users.  As a road user you can make choices that raise or lower your risk of dying.  

When people die in Boeing aircraft it’s seemingly due to an atrocious management culture, a total lack of accountability and a profit-over-lives mentality. As a Boeing passenger your life is in the hands of people who value their pay checks over your life.

With the 737 Max fiasco it seems absolutely clear that Boeing had no compunctions about ignoring safety if it increased their profit. That aircraft should never have gone into production.

It just goes to show what happens when you let a corporation audit themselves, they immediately take the piss. The USA now have no option but to to rebuild the FAA into an independent organisation that can actually carry out real safety assessments.

You see some rather variable attitudes to safety as an engineer. I remember visiting the heritage railway in Loughborough as part of a grad scheme, someone leant against a leaking Acetylene tank smoking a cigarette while I was using the torch about 3m away. I related this story to my manager in my current job and his eyes went rather wide in horror. Also a driver at Tyseley depot starting up a train and driving off when we had a stop board on the train (thankfully we were on board it and not in the pit!).

The nuclear industry thankfully has a much better safety culture and awareness of the hazards present.

I guess I should clarify what I mean, it's been coming to light in the worst kind of way, but it has been coming to light, which is why I'd still not worry about flying on a Boeing aircraft if it's within the operation of the airline industry, because of how safety focussed it is as an industry, Boeing have been truly irresponsible, but the industry isn't.

How they approached the 737 Max particularly was really poor, and took deaths to come to the surface when it shouldn't have happened anyway, but the reaction was very strong as well, which reflected how seriously safety is taken within the airline industry, which makes flying on Boeing airlines as a make of aircraft still statistically very safe.

It's less that I'm not worried because I don't consider Boeing to have done some very very serious things, it's that I'm not worried because of the safetly culture of the airline industy, which is behind the statistics of how ulikely one is to be in an accident on a Boeing airliner (when they have been irresponsible).

A door literally fell off a Boeing plane in-flight because Boeing didn’t put the door bolts back when replacing the door.  (Well, door blank)

Thats pretty mild incompetence compared to the 737-Max saga.

I think we could go back and forth for a long time, and I'd still say that, statistically speaking, I wouldn't be considering it to be worth thinking about if I flew on a Boeing aircraft.

Edit: You were right about me missing some of their incompetencies, re the door blank, but withe number of miles and passenger flights flown on Boeing aircraft per year, I'd still be chilled.

One hopes the culture at Boeing improves.

To their credit, the FAA have identified their undue 'coziness' with Boeing, and are getting their act together.

As I understand it the getting of their act together is a major undertaking though. For years the government has cut the FAA to the bone because Boeing were all too willing to cover the cost. They can't reinstate it just like that. A whole load of the people who would have started work there and gained the experience have gone into other fields, so they have to start from scratch.

That explains why Boeing expected their word/approach to be accepted without question on international standards bodies; they considered themselves to be the de facto regulator...

I share your aversion to the Vomit Comet from a passenger service perspective. However I spoke to a Ryanair pilot back in the summer & - while he didn't try to soft-soap the customer service - he did say their adherence to safety protocols far exceeded industry requirements. I'll never forgive them for dumping me in Charleroi at midnight in the middle of winter but I'm not sure they'd kill me any quicker than any of the others.

EasyJet is even better as good old Helios once had a safety run in and never wants to experience it again..

When I next get on a plane I hope not to be like a bomber crew pissing on the wheels and tucking a lucky rabbits paw into my pocket

I saw a documentary that said that the profits Boeing made from one year of sales, after the corner cutting, was considerably more than all the pay outs to the families of the deceased. 

Yes, I agree. 

It's a little while ago now, and I think you might be a bit too young to remember, but the DC-10 (MacDonnell Douglas IIRC, wide-body, 3 engine competitor to 747 [*]) had several unrelated but unfortunate accidents at least one of which was "whoops where's that door gone".

I can remember thinking at the time that this wasn't a plane to fly on.

[*] - the other 747 competitor was the 3 engine Lockheed Tristar, I think this was all before Airbus got into the wide-body market.

Some people blame Boeing's current problems on their merger with McDonell Douglas, when they went from a company driven by superb engineers to one that was more profit-oriented. 

"McDonell Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing's own money", as I read one person elsewhere phrase it.

No sign of the door plug maintenance records, and the CCTV is gone…

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/03/boeing-door-plug-probe-stalled-...

Bits fall off another 737

• https://www.timesnownews.com/world/united-airlines-flight-433-from-san-fran...

It does seem to have been an odd decision.

Company A fails so has to be brought by company B. Do you

a)sack the idiots in company A who failed

b)give them a new company to screw over?

I appreciate this might seem a bit of a leading question.

On general production quality I read an article but cant find it now suggesting that savvy airlines were only accepting planes from one of the two Boeing plants since the quality varied that dramatically. I think its also the case the good plant got closed!

The US Airforce stopped accepting tanker planes from them for a while since for some reason they didnt consider random tools left lying around in them as a plus.

"To date, we still do not know who performed the work to open, reinstall, and close the door plug on the accident aircraft"

That is an absolutely staggering admission.

The missing CCTV isn't such an issue, AFAIAC, provided physical access controls are adequate (i.e. preventing unauthorised personnel accessing the production/maintenance facilities).

Yeah. Quality system 101.. how is that even possible? The work should have been assigned and signed off and recorded and verified.

implies a complete lack of use of the required work instructions and quality management processes.

or they are just lying…

Why would they lie? They'd love to be able to pin all the blame on a fitter. They just don't know, due to extremely poor auditing and record keeping.

I’m not sure. Playing for time? 

But I do know that they couldn’t pin the blame on a fitter. If the QMS was used properly it would indeed show someone did the task wrong, but it would also show that someone didn’t verify it, and that the whole quality chain was broken. Which would look very bad for Boeing. Then again, not being able to instantly produce records shows the same thing I guess.

Their entire industry relies on adherence to procedure and QM. If they’re known to be taking a lax attitude to quality, it should be game over time.

Maybe they really are that bad. In which case I’m not flying on their planes again.

Yeah, that crossed my mind, too; they might know what happened, but don't want to let on.

If it's worse than a non-existent QMS, it must be bad...

They can't: this work has to be inspected, and signed off. And then the work records inspected and signed off.

You don't just say "Hey, you, whatever your name is, before you go for your tea break, can you just pop that door back in? I think all the bits are there. You've heard how it's done, right?"

That sounds rather like what Boeing actually did unfortunately.

In THEORY their QMS should be audited regularly to stop slippage and ensure complete record keeping.. by the FAA I assume? So they really must have been in Boeings pocket if it’s got to the point of such gross quality failings.. which possibly implicates the regulator themselves. Afaik the NTSB are still independent and can make/have previously made ‘recommendations’ to both the manufacturer AND the regulator.

And one of the key whistleblowers has met an unfortunate and untimely end, just as evidence was due. If it wasn’t so serious I’d get the popcorn.

Audits generally use random sampling; they don't inspect every record. So it's possible to miss the fact that record-keeping is a bit hit & miss.

True, but with the number of incidents stories and near misses, you’d think a decent audit would spot something.. 

Conversely it shows how well built they are…there was no accident as a result!

It might show the design margin. But a door falling out isn't a sign of good build quality... They're not supposed to fall off/out...

One problem of QA audit processes is that the auditors can get a bit complacent with a company that has had a good record. That means that auditors may not be so good at finding when a company's standards start to decline...

Very true, but Boeings record leading up to this latest cock up was anything but good.

I was thinking more historically... Hopefully, their external auditors are wising up; their reputation as capable auditors might be damaged. That might be welcomed by some companies...

If Boeing made climbing harnesses then they'd be out of business by now.

How long before every company buying planes from them cancels the order and looks elsewhere ?

Unfortunately it's not as simple as that. Buying a different aircraft means retraining all the pilots. It's a huge cost to the airlines, which is why they stick with the 737. This is the reason why Boeing came up with the fundamentally flawed 737 Max, so they could sell it to all the airlines who already had loads of 737 pilots.

I can tell you some 'interesting' stories about the nuclear industry. Plus there is plenty of information on disastrous nuclear safely practice publicly available. 

The railway industry publishes their procedures (Rule Books, on the RSSB website).

I once looked at them for a project I was working on. I was pretty horrified at how poorly they were written; they would never been adequate as specifications for automated systems, even at the highest level. The most obvious flaw in the train dispatch procedure is that there is no means of stopping a train once it has been released; this has resulted in at least one fairly recent fatality. Terminology wasn't defined. In that one procedure, PICOP had two meanings; Person In Charge of Possession and Person In Charge Of Platform.

I am well aware of dodgy historical practices in the nuclear industry (the pit at Dounreay, Harwell experiments, Tokaimura criticality incident and various others)

I also see the efforts that my current employer in the nuclear industry are making in the area and can compare them to what I saw in the rail industry between 2015 and 2020, rail took things much less seriously!

The only “elsewhere” at the moment is Airbus and they have a large backlog of orders.

I think one of the underlying causes of Boeing’s failings is they have a large order book also and are rushing to manufacture.

so they analysed what would happen in the design stage ,and designed the risk out. That is surely the right way.

Rather have that than the other way.  

Whilst true, this is as shocking as the original crime. Humans.. maybe we should get good honest unbiased AI to do the audits? 😉 

im only half joking. I work in an industry with similar safety and QM requirements and we are considering automated internal audit using AI to allow 100% audit coverage (in addition to conventional human audit of a sample). I see potential, but also many issues!

was that the air crash in France?  My dad lost one of his clients in that.  Another one who was a leading gyrocopter character was killed in a crash at a show when his rotors sliced his tail fin. (possibly Late 60s early 70s?)

it was 1969 - just looked it up https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/19519

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/opinion/latest/9203579.extraordinary-stor...

https://simpleflying.com/mcdonnell-douglas-dc-10-major-accidents-list/#:~:t...

That in itself is a bodge by Boeing. The Boeing 737 Max is a completely different aircraft to the original 737, with different handling characteristics, hence the 'fly into the ground despite pilot desperately trying to pull the nose up system' being fitted to stop it doing a tail stand on take off.

yes, it was the Turkish Airlines crash I was thinking of.  I remember going in to a lesson (run up to A levels) taken by the headmaster that morning.  He was ashen, totally overwhelmed by the horror of the morning news.  He spent a few minutes speaking to me alone (before anyone else came in ) of the feeling of overwhelming helplessness he felt about it.  That was a man who had spent time as a prisoner of the Japanese, an experience one of his brothers did not survive.  I remember being impressed by how overcome with grief he seemed for the strangers lost in the crash.

I thought the main criticism of the Max is that it is far from completely different, but the latest in a line of endless compromises on the original design. The original used 60% of the airframe of the 727, including the fuselage, which was itself essentially the same as the 707. Subsequent versions have been stretched in length continually from the original, with only minor tweaks to the  aerodynamics. Bigger and bigger engines have been added, which led to their rather compromised positioning on the Max. Many experts have said that Boeing should have started again from scratch, long ago. (Of course, the handling and the avionics have changed a lot.)

You probably put it better than I did. In terms of handling and performance it is completely different, but just keeps the name to avoid retraining the pilots, which the operators are complicit in.

Not just the name, should be essentially the same control systems (and hopefully control reactions) so that minimal training is required.

I believe you could pilot both the 757 & the 767 "at the same time" because their systems were the same.

But I do know what you mean, they have rather overstretched the point with the 737, not the same plane really, just still has 2 wings etc.

I believe the issue was the engines couldn't be physically fitted under the wing, so they had to be moved forward and into the wing (still had to flatten the intake to get ground clearance).

Putting the same “737” throttle and other control inputs into the aircraft on take off caused the nose to flip up and the engines to stall, so they fitted a system to push the nose down, which overrode the pilot. Due to numerous design flaws a simple, and regular, issue on a single component caused the planes to fly into the ground, (after the pilots became physically exhausted fighting the controls).

Can't remember the details but that "push the flaps down anti stall" feature was reported to the FAA as 1% maximum so wasn't classified as a critical subsystem, but they actually made it 2.5% (my figures and nomenclature may be wrong).

If it'd been "reported" correctly then that feature would have required more FAA scrutiny, more pilot training (but not complete retraining) on that subsystem so pilots would at least have been aware of its existence even if that didn't include how to disable it.

Combined with one attitude sensor is cheaper to produce than having a second sensor for redundancy purposes...

But the whole debacle arose from Boeing trying to rush a "response" to Airbus's more fuel efficient A320neo planes which caught them unprepared (more fuel efficient engines, hence bigger, so have to be placed higher and further forward, which alters balance of plane, so needs anti-stall "assistance", which files the plane into the ground).

I am a victim of exactly that.

Hired mountain bike on holiday, front wheel not installed properly. This was back in the days of those washers with a hook that was supposed to go in a hole in the forks - well, they hadn't been hooked in. I hadn't checked, as you expect the bike to be supplied safe for use. Cut a painful story short, I left quite a lot of skin down the path and still have the scars!

Hire company naturally denied all responsibility!

Article here has more info

https://spectrum.ieee.org/how-the-boeing-737-max-disaster-looks-to-a-softwa...

Isn't this all complicated by the remedial work on the door plug being by a subcontractor (largely owned by Boeing IIRC). Still staggering that between them there is no traceability. I'd guess it's been erased by someone implicated rather than overlooked completely.

Jk

I can't believe I allowed myself to read this whole thread knowing that I am getting on a plane on sunday (just checked - a Boeing 787-8)

If the breakdown had been recorded in the first place, it's impossible to erase. Traceability is a mandatory requirement in the manufacturing process. Which of course implies the breakdown and rework was carried out and never recorded. 

The elephant in the room is the FAA's role and it's oversight of Boeing's processes and procedures. Simply accepting the word from Boeing that a modifiction, design or process change is unacceptable. UK (CAA) and European (EASA) airwortiness bodies would never simply accept a manufacturers word. It was always a tense time when the CAA just came along for a planned visit, and even more so for an unscheduled one.