Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 223 posts

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#21

Post by xiphias2 »

usr1106 wrote: post #16

There is at least one big airline that denies to accept airliners built in Charleston. Don't remember which. So quality problems are not invented by a single disgruntled employee. There have been news articles before https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/business/boeing-dreamline... says that Qatar Airways "stopped" accepting planes fron Charleston. Not sure whether that means indefinitely or until the planes in questio…

I would imagine that now that people hate Boeing management for risking their life it's much easier for other airplane startups to raise VC money and be succesful.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#22

Post by LadyCailin »

xiphias2 wrote: post #21
usr1106 wrote: post #16

There is at least one big airline that denies to accept airliners built in Charleston. Don't remember which. So quality problems are not invented by a single disgruntled employee. There have been news articles before https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/business/boeing-dreamline... says that Qatar Airways "stopped" accepting planes fron Charleston. Not sure whether that means indefinitely or until the planes in questio…

I would imagine that now that people hate Boeing management for risking their life it's much easier for other airplane startups to raise VC money and be succesful.

I’m not sure I trust a startup to make life safety equipment either. Startups by definition have to do whatever they can to cut costs and get as minimal of a minimally viable product as they can, and often, that leads them to releasing shitty versions of the product and patching it later. That’s fine when it’s a mobile game, but when it’s airplanes that carry hundreds of people across the ocean...

I’m not sure I have a solution here, other than saying something like “just fix Boeing” but whatever company is making commercial airplanes, I want them backed by governments and large corporations, not VC money.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#23

Post by eecc »

chopin wrote: post #18
briandear wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do we know the FAA hasn’t taken no notice? Does the whistleblower present any evidence? How about the air carriers? Do they fail to test their systems during their frequent inspections? One requirement of an air carrier certificate is that they have to check this stuff and sign off on it.

What I know from how an oxygen generator works, you cannot reliably test those destruction free. So you would have to take some out and trigger them. I would be reluctant to believe that this is the procedure.

Randomizes destructive testing is a perfectly fine and established procedure.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#24

Post by raverbashing »

The upside to this complaint is that it should be "fairly easy" to test. Though you probably need someone to obtain some systems from a plane currently in operation.

But if the fault rate is 1/4 of the systems, you probably don't need many samples.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#25

Post by xiphias2 »

LadyCailin wrote: post #22
xiphias2 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would imagine that now that people hate Boeing management for risking their life it's much easier for other airplane startups to raise VC money and be succesful.

I’m not sure I trust a startup to make life safety equipment either. Startups by definition have to do whatever they can to cut costs and get as minimal of a minimally viable product as they can, and often, that leads them to releasing shitty versions of the product and patching it later. That’s fine when it’s a mobile game, but when it’s airplanes that carry hundreds of people across the ocean... I’m not sure I have…

The minimum viable product for a passenger plane startup is a newly FAA certified one, which is already a higher quality standard than how Boeing 737 MAX plane was certified.

Also I bet that the EU certification won't be easy in the next 10 years.

At the same time the number of whistleblowers increasing is great for keeping Boeing in check.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#26

Post by koonsolo »

usr1106 wrote: post #16

There is at least one big airline that denies to accept airliners built in Charleston. Don't remember which. So quality problems are not invented by a single disgruntled employee. There have been news articles before https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/business/boeing-dreamline... says that Qatar Airways "stopped" accepting planes fron Charleston. Not sure whether that means indefinitely or until the planes in questio…

I heard the same thing about Charleston from a European airliner that is buying boeings.

The project managers wished their airplane wouldn't be assembled there, because that causes a whole bunch of extra problems.

There were plenty of rumours going around of what was happening at that plant. The quality difference was definitely there, and I'm surprised not more airlines requested that. Maybe they did bit it was behind closed doors.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#27

Post by baddox »

LadyCailin wrote: post #22
xiphias2 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would imagine that now that people hate Boeing management for risking their life it's much easier for other airplane startups to raise VC money and be succesful.

I’m not sure I trust a startup to make life safety equipment either. Startups by definition have to do whatever they can to cut costs and get as minimal of a minimally viable product as they can, and often, that leads them to releasing shitty versions of the product and patching it later. That’s fine when it’s a mobile game, but when it’s airplanes that carry hundreds of people across the ocean... I’m not sure I have…

> but whatever company is making commercial airplanes, I want them backed by governments and large corporations, not VC money.

I’m not sure if the incentives or expected results really change all that much. Certainly there are plenty of large wealthy governments and large corporations that don’t have a great track record with safety in large engineering/manufacturing endeavors.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#28

Post by torgian »

"""On the matter of parts being lost, in early 2017 a review by the Federal Aviation Administration upheld Mr Barnett's concerns, establishing that the location of at least 53 "non-conforming" parts was unknown, and that they were considered lost. Boeing was ordered to take remedial action"""

That's not just bad; this is really, _really_ bad. In my eight years of the Navy, working on aircraft, parts and tool accountability was 100% the most serious part of our day. You went to and left the aircraft with everything accounted for. If _one_ part or tool was missing, everything would shut down for that aircraft until it was found.

The fact that tools and parts were/are missing tells me that either supply didn't do its job right, or someone left a loose nut in a compartment somewhere, just waiting to kill people.

People _die_ because of this shit.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#29

Post by torgian »

mikekchar wrote: post #8
jMyles wrote: post #2

Wow - more serious story than I first imagined. > Mr Barnett, a former quality control engineer, worked for Boeing for 32 years, until his retirement on health grounds in March 2017. From 2010 he was employed as a quality manager at Boeing's factory in North Charleston, South Carolina. This plant is one of two that are involved in building the 787 Dreamliner. In terms of credibility lent by a career, you can't do muc…

>> [...] The FAA, however, said it could not substantiate that claim, because Boeing had indicated it was working on the issue at the time. > [...] I hope we can all agree that this is an embarrassingly obvious fox guarding this particular hen-house. I can imagine situations where I would not agree, to be honest. If a manager says, "There is a bug in this system here" and I say, "I'm investigating that problem and wi…

In the meantime, people die, or have the potential to die.

There's nothing preventing the FAA from proceeding with its own investigation, except for Boeing saying, "Nah, don't do that, we got our own thing going on here... btw, how's your bank account? Get that 250k yet?"

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#30

Post by riffraff »

LadyCailin wrote: post #22
xiphias2 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would imagine that now that people hate Boeing management for risking their life it's much easier for other airplane startups to raise VC money and be succesful.

I’m not sure I trust a startup to make life safety equipment either. Startups by definition have to do whatever they can to cut costs and get as minimal of a minimally viable product as they can, and often, that leads them to releasing shitty versions of the product and patching it later. That’s fine when it’s a mobile game, but when it’s airplanes that carry hundreds of people across the ocean... I’m not sure I have…

maybe we don't need someone who never built a plane, as much as allow some of those that already do to scale up?

Bombardier, COMAC/UAC, Mitsubishi, or some of those that make very small planes like Textron etc.

The problem seems to me that aircraft companies are treated as national assets, and no country wants to allow, and obviously not encourage, challengers to their champion.

Post reply on HN