Comments on: Planemaker’s parts problem puzzling

By: John Wofford

John Wofford — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 03:27:25 +0000

I’m glad I don’t fly.

By: Mr. Fusion

Mr. Fusion — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 01:59:46 +0000

I hope someone at Boeing kicks some serious QC ass over at AHF Ducommun, …

As one who has been in the Quality field for over 25 years, I disagree with this statement. This is not a Quality Control , or QC, problem. It is a management problem.

If you read the entire Post article, you will see that no one wanted to look into the problem because it might cost too much to fix.

“The most important thing is corrective action,” said Peggy Gilligan, deputy associate administrator for aviation safety at the FAA.

It shouldn’t take over two years to conduct an investigation and then report that Corrective Actions are being performed. That will only cover the future, not what has already been done. The most important thing would be to determine the extent of the problem. Ignoring the problem is not the way to fix it.

Is it just a coincidence that the FCC’s lack of diligence coincides with the Bush Administration and their deregulation policies?

By: BHK

BHK — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:07:53 +0000

Sounds like there may be other problems. Is it possible the parts have contracted or expanded during shipping? This is a problem when pieces have to be moved around all over the country through various temperature and humidity ranges.

By: Max

Max — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:44:56 +0000

Anybody know if the supplier was making the part to print (or in boeing’s case, model)? My experience in the Aviation field is that the part isn’t necessarily designed right. Usually, Assembly notes when this is the case, and notifies design engineering – I can not think of a single time when assembly has taken the initiative to rework a part on their own. This doesn’t pass the smell test, people.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 15:23:40 +0000

I used to work on the 737 line at the Boeing plant in Renton, Washington, and this doesn’t surprise me. Shoddy work is fairly common. Sadly, Boeing is still the best of the bunch. While working on Airbus planes I’ve found structural and casting defects hidden with body filler (Bondo-type material for you car guys). I fly if I have to, but I prefer to take the train.

By: Jetfire

Jetfire — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 15:16:10 +0000

rwilliams254,
Acctually, they should be bitchen to their supervisors. This will cost them more time to assembly the plane. Let alone what it may do to safety. People wonder why Japanese cars sell so well. They wouldn’t put up with this crap.
You should hear the stories I hear from vendors. Americans would have in their order clause like 3 defects per 1,000 was acceptable. The Japanese wonder why they wanted defected parts.

By: Alex

Alex — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 01:00:09 +0000

Boeing got its name from the sound its planes make when they hit the ground.

By: Milo

Milo — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 21:59:55 +0000

Smugly Canadian.

By: Ballenger

Ballenger — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 21:16:05 +0000

Call me unadventurous, but I would rather not be looking down from above the clouds, knowing I was on a plane respec’ed during assembly with Elmer’s, duct tape or ad hoc holes drilled in ANYTHING related to keeping it in the air.

If you can’t trust outsourced, low bid subcontractors working for giant military industrial corporations, who can you trust?

By: SN

SN — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:39:47 +0000

Wow, this is a BIG deal. Back in the 80/90s I worked at a small time factory which made packing boxes and materials for the automobile industry.

Even at our worst we never would have sent out a product so completely out of spec. Back then “statistical process control” was the mantra and we’d continually and randomly check each part that made up the whole to see if they were in spec.

So in this situation Boeing either the parts were NOT checked to ensure compliance with the spec OR even worse, the spec itself was wrong. Friggin’ awful and inexcusable.

By: moss

moss — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:27:41 +0000

They probably would have been fired as whistleblowers if they complained publicly. Damned few contractors in the upper reaches of military-industrial production will countenance an employee pointing out mistakes.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:27:04 +0000

Is this like the old joke that you don’t want to buy a car built on Monday?

By: rwilliams254

rwilliams254 — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:13:29 +0000

At least they’re getting the job done and punching new holes instead of whining about it to their supervisors.