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

FAA investigating how counterfeit titanium got into Boeing and Airbus jets

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–267 of 267 posts

Re: FAA investigating how counterfeit titanium got into Boeing and Airbus jets

#261

Post by stoobs »

lupusreal wrote: post #155
ajross wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but to be fair the reporting is incomplete because the Boeing-maintained records of the maintenance were incomplete in seemingly-deliberate ways. So... we just don't know. At least one, plausibly two bad guys there.

As far as I can make out, Spirit employees (probably with the knowledge and tacit approval of management, because that's the way these things usually go) found a loophole in the record system that allowed them to avoid triggering QA checks. Boeing has blame for creating a system with such a loophole, or failing to find it before it was used, but it was Spirit personnel who actually used it.

IIRC from one of the whistle-blower accounts, the main issue was that the Boeing computer system only had an option for fully removing the door, which wasn't done, only a partial removal to allow access to the parts needing work. There was then a disjoint between the Spirit work system and the Boeing one which resulted in someone saying "fuck it" and skipping it.

Let me see if I can find the account again.

Re: FAA investigating how counterfeit titanium got into Boeing and Airbus jets

#262

Post by Arnt »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #258
Arnt wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a bottle of water on the table next to me. The label says it's... basically official wording for "high quality" and that the source, result and production process was thoroughly tested on a named date, and with a less thorough using continuous testing regime. I find it difficult to believe that aircraft metal production has less testing. And if not less, then surely that which the manufacturer does can be rep…

There are all kinds of tests you can do, and they do do all those tests of course, and they can tell you a lot, but they can not tell you what kolnowledge of the raw material source and production process tells you. Tests can prove that a part is bad, but can not prove that a part is not bad. All the xrays and ultrasound and strain guages and spark chromatography in the world don't tell you how a part will perform an…

I hear what you're saying, but I don't think you understand my question. No doubt my phrasing is bad.

The manufacturer had to produce the material in a certain way, right? Mix specific amounts of other things into the titanium, use specific heat, specific cooling. (I don't know anything about metal, really, just assuming that these things are like how high-performance concrete is made.) Now, the choice of additives, amounts, temperatures, pressure etc. is based on testing, right? Someone chose a particular pressure after doing many tests using a range of pressures. The manufacturer isn't allowed to just set up a production process that matches that spec and just assume that the result will match the results elsewhere. But the manufacturer can't take decades to check the product at the normal passage of time either. So the manufacturer has to do some sort of accelerated test to check that the production process works as intended.

That testing is naturally not perfect. I understand that. And whatever testing Airbus/Boeing can do after taking delivery is also not perfect.

My question was rather: Why can't Airbus/Boeing reach the same standard of testing as the manufacturer? If the manufacturer can do some tests and document them (or just fake the documentation) and assert that its production process matches the spec, then I don't see why Airbus/Boeing can't. I do realise that it isn't sure to match reality, the thing I don't see is why Airbus/Boeing can't get as close to testing the spec as a (proper) manufacturer can. I'd like to understand that.

If the answer is that some significant aspect is unobservable afterwards, then my next question is how that was chosen to begin with.

Does this make more sense?

Re: FAA investigating how counterfeit titanium got into Boeing and Airbus jets

#263

Post by stoobs »

stoobs wrote: post #261
lupusreal wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I can make out, Spirit employees (probably with the knowledge and tacit approval of management, because that's the way these things usually go) found a loophole in the record system that allowed them to avoid triggering QA checks. Boeing has blame for creating a system with such a loophole, or failing to find it before it was used, but it was Spirit personnel who actually used it.

IIRC from one of the whistle-blower accounts, the main issue was that the Boeing computer system only had an option for fully removing the door, which wasn't done, only a partial removal to allow access to the parts needing work. There was then a disjoint between the Spirit work system and the Boeing one which resulted in someone saying "fuck it" and skipping it. Let me see if I can find the account again.

Eh, slightly faulty memory on the details, but it's here:

Part 1 - https://leehamnews.com/2024/01/15/unplanned-removal-installa...

Part 2 - https://leehamnews.com/2024/01/15/unplanned-removal-installa...

Still a clusterfuck all around though.

Re: FAA investigating how counterfeit titanium got into Boeing and Airbus jets

#264

Post by albrewer »

dr_orpheus wrote: post #116
albrewer wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> expensive metallurgical analysis involving destructive testing, spectrometers, and electron microscopes I used to work in a pressure vessel fabrication shop (for customers like Shell and Exxon). We had a few handheld mass spectrometers for exactly this purpose. Destructive testing was achieved with what we called a "coupon", a piece of metal that ostensibly went through every treatment the base part did. The coupon…

The article mentions that the CoC may have been falsified, but I also wonder if part of this is they had falsified coupon testing/inspection documentation (or likely pulled a "good" coupon test and said it was for that batch). They definitely did not test any coupons after receipt though since the testing by Spirit after the fact confirmed that "the material passed some of the materials testing performed on it but fa…

> they had falsified coupon testing/inspection documentation

This is accomplished by specifying a separate testing house that you trust for this, if you don't have your own equipment. Many manufacturers don't have a tensile test specimen puller, Charpy impact test machine, fatigue test machine, mass spectrometer, x-ray machine, ultrasound technician, or metallurgical lab technician on staff to verify all this. But what you don't do is blindly trust documentation supplied by the vendor.

Not to say you verify every little aspect of everything documented- at some point it's not economically viable. But everything I've mentioned above is pretty reasonable to do, especially as reliability in the end application becomes more critical.

Re: FAA investigating how counterfeit titanium got into Boeing and Airbus jets

#265

Post by trylfthsk »

exabrial wrote: post #127

> Spirit added that “more than 1,000 tests have been completed to confirm the mechanical and metallurgical properties of the affected material to ensure continued airworthiness.” So basically, has nothing to do with safety? Is this simply Uncle Sam is mad he couldn't take a dip of the proceeds?

Fraud is bad, generally.

Re: FAA investigating how counterfeit titanium got into Boeing and Airbus jets

#266

Post by Brian_K_White »

Arnt wrote: post #262
Brian_K_White wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are all kinds of tests you can do, and they do do all those tests of course, and they can tell you a lot, but they can not tell you what kolnowledge of the raw material source and production process tells you. Tests can prove that a part is bad, but can not prove that a part is not bad. All the xrays and ultrasound and strain guages and spark chromatography in the world don't tell you how a part will perform an…

I hear what you're saying, but I don't think you understand my question. No doubt my phrasing is bad. The manufacturer had to produce the material in a certain way, right? Mix specific amounts of other things into the titanium, use specific heat, specific cooling. (I don't know anything about metal, really, just assuming that these things are like how high-performance concrete is made.) Now, the choice of additives,…

The testing that produced the recipe is the full eventual observed lifetime performance in the past.

Re: FAA investigating how counterfeit titanium got into Boeing and Airbus jets

#267

Post by nucleardog »

1jbdg wrote: post #182
nucleardog wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The FAA is constantly auditing, certifying and testing airmen, airplanes and plants. Are they? Much of the work that would be done to inspect and certify the planes being manufactured was outsourced to the manufacturers to increase efficiency. They build their planes, inspect their planes, inspect and approve modifications and major repairs to their planes, and issue their own airworthiness certificates for their p…

Seems like there is a lot of criticism of the FAA while ignoring real time cuts to their budget. Looking at 2005 they had 14bn, 22.5bn in today’s money. Last years budget was 18.5bn. I am sure there is waste and opportunities for improvement but… that ignores the significant increase in flights, new planes etc. that has ballooned much faster than the crude time value of money calc above. Criticising them for doing le…

> Seems like there is a lot of criticism of the FAA while ignoring real time cuts to their budget.

Certainly wasn’t my intention! I don’t _think_ I said anything in there that was assigning blame to the FAA, merely pointing out that in practice they are no longer actively preventing issues.

I know their overall budget has been decreased and there are sources implying that’s the cause of the failures, but I couldn’t (on my phone, to be fair) find any good source comparing the portion of their budget that went to these programs specifically over time. So I chose to stick to what I could source and mostly let people draw their own conclusions.

For instance, while I have Thoughts(TM) I left it to the reader to take a wild fuckin’ guess which political party controlled the presidency, house, and senate in the years we decided outsourced the regulatory role of the FAA to those they regulate.

Post reply on HN