Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system • Hacker News Board

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#51

Post by gpderetta » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 10:28 AM UTC

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…

If the audititors get involved yes yes you do that. Your manager (and their manager and so on) won't even have a say. In fact you might still end up doing the investigation as someone familiar with the system, but the auditors will be involved at every step.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#52

Post by koyote » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 10:32 AM UTC

xwvvvvwx wrote: post #42

How can I tell when I’m booking a flight if that plane will be boeing? I would like to avoid them (for the time being at least).

There are quite a few airlines that do not fly Boeing planes (EasyJet for example).

When booking the aeroplane will usually be listed but you can also check flight history of the flight number. Of course the airline might still swap the plane at any time.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#53

Post by madaxe_again » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 10:33 AM UTC

esel2k wrote: post #4

Coming from another highly regulated industry: Medical Devices, I think it is not uncommon that Bosses ignore processes and for the sake of numbers (cash & career) would just override them. As long as they are protegee of any higher up on the ladder people generally don’t care and as long no serious lawsuit would put people into jail I am wondering if this is ever going to change. Anyone has made other experiences?

I am aware of a cover-up regarding a broadly deployed consumer medical device made by a giant American healthcare co., intended for internal use, which contained levels of lead exceeding allowed levels. Millions of units were shipped, many of them targeted at children. They screwed up using their materials management solution, and miscalculated. They realised about 18 months after it had hit the market. The revised product is safe.

Regulatory bodies are aware but are sitting on it, as disclosure would be almost as damaging reputationally to them as to the manufacturer.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#54

Post by krn » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 10:39 AM UTC

londons_explore wrote: post #50

krn wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems to me the FAA comes out of this looking terrible, even if the accusations are not grounded it seems absurd that no actions were taken to verify such a notice coming from a QA engineer in the company itself. This has been going for a long time now[1]: > Instead of being manufactured by the approved computerised process, Ducommun employees were cutting the parts by hand - literally using a felt-tipped pen to…

Cutting parts by hand isn't necessarily bad. But they should have gone to a design engineer and said "we're hand cutting these parts, and don't think we can get accuracy better than 1/32nd of an inch. Will that compromise the design?" The engineer will then run a few tests and simulations, green-light the change, a superior will check the maths, and they'll be good to go with making the part by hand.

According to the same source:

> But there was worse to come: every part in the production process has to be signed off at each stage of its manufacture on a document called a "shop traveller". This records that each individual stage of manufacture has been carried out in accordance with the type design.

> The Boeing team discovered that Ducommun had apparently falsified these records: it had two sets of "books" - the official one recording that each part had been made by the computerised process and a second set recording the actual, handforming process which had really been used.

> What that meant, in the eyes of the Boeing team, was that every single chord and bear strap manufactured by Ducommun had to be viewed as unlawful.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#55

Post by rethab » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 10:50 AM UTC

xwvvvvwx wrote: post #42

How can I tell when I’m booking a flight if that plane will be boeing? I would like to avoid them (for the time being at least).

kayak.com allows you to search by plane type. not sure to what extent they can guarantee that you'll actually be flying that type of machine though.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#56

Post by Gravityloss » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 10:56 AM UTC

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.

Yes, there are lots of short haul small electric airliner startups.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#57

Post by jajag » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 11:04 AM UTC

LegitShady wrote: post #41

piva00 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Al Jazeera has a long report on YouTube [0] covering the allegations around Charleston, I know that they can be biased against the US but this report is quite eye opening. Even more given the interview with a VP (or director, can't remember exactly the position) being cut short by the PR person involved, the reports from workers inside the factory stating they wouldn't fly a plane built there, etc. [0] https://www.yo…

All Jazeera is garbage. If it's legitimate find a real source for it. I don't need the government of Qatar's propaganda and you shouldn't trust some of it because it co firms your biases. Treat bar actors as bad actors even if what they're saying this moment is something that interests you.

Judge the content not the source.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#58

Post by iagovar » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 11:10 AM UTC

torgian wrote: post #28

"""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 accounta…

I would say, as european, that all this storm of shit is good news for Airbus, but I hop on Boeing planes too, and I think competition is good news.

Boeing is maybe too big to fail, but the reputation hit they are taking may lead to companies not buying their planes, thus pushing for least competition, which is bad news for everyone.

Airbus being the kind of behemoth company it is, I am convinced that without Boeing's competition, over time, they would end up with the same practices, convinced that their aircraft sell themselves.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#59

Post by sandworm101 » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 11:14 AM UTC

iagovar wrote: post #58

torgian wrote: post #28

"""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 accounta…

I would say, as european, that all this storm of shit is good news for Airbus, but I hop on Boeing planes too, and I think competition is good news. Boeing is maybe too big to fail, but the reputation hit they are taking may lead to companies not buying their planes, thus pushing for least competition, which is bad news for everyone. Airbus being the kind of behemoth company it is, I am convinced that without Boeing'…

After the demise of the a380 project i doubt airbus will ever think again that the aircraft can sell themselves.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#60

Post by chopin » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 11:16 AM UTC

eecc wrote: post #23

chopin wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, I know, but is this the required procedure for this part? It's definitely more expensive than some visual or electrical inspections. That's why I said I'm reluctant that this is the procedure.