Ah, so the mystery is solved: the doors were never bolted. Inspections done in Renton caught this in 99% of cases but nobody thought to follow the defect to source and get it fixed there. Classic case of "you can't inspect-in quality".
I don't know, that's very very unlikely. I'm mostly familiar with the 787 inspection process though. still the events listed here are basically harder, longer and involve more bickering than just doing the repair. but who knows... as I said, I just know that this would be impossible with the 787 and way way harder than what is in relative term a simpler repair. Spirit might be shoddy, incompetent, etc but not putting bolts at all and fraudulently tampering with records? Painting over them? Why? Airplanes take longer to repair, or ship routinely, 737 parts are extremely available especially for the literal manufacturer, it's not some sort of insane repair... Again, even assuming sheer incompetence this is too competent
The conclusion is still pretty spot on. The company known (to Boeing) for shoddy work does a warranty repair as a follow-up for a failed warranty repair, and while Boeing QA caught the first repair going wrong it didn't catch the second repair going wrong because those bolts weren't tagged as having been touched.
Still sounds like a clear case of an unbelievable amount of bad quality from Spirit, and Boeing not pressing the issue until something finally slips through the cracks
Even that could've been believable. But , and correct me if I'm wrong, the comment claims that Boeing's systems clearly show that the bolts were never installed. Like, they knew about it even after all of that, and knew about it upon delivery. Again, that just doesn't even make sense from incompetence, greed, laziness or any other angle. It's not like the same people on the factory floor who would want to sweep the bad repair under the
rug[0] also gets to control the delivery process, the massive paperwork, checks, automated checks, etc that are inherent to massively complex manufacturing. Again, this is claiming that the system knew about it, and that it was written there all along. So we are way beyond manufacturing issues here.
[0] (not that they would for what is claimed to be literally just painting over the plugs, without installing anything. that's just dumb, it's not something you can just get away with, it would've been visible from the very first flights and would he basically a world's first)
the comment claims that Boeing's systems clearly show that the bolts were never installed.
As I read it, it's kind of the opposite. The records show a repair that required removal of the bolts, but there is no record of replacement of the bolts. And there is a record of discussion of if the repair required a formal inspection, which (I think) would have involved recording the status of the bolts.
This is taken as clear evidence that the bolts were not there, but IMHO, if the bolts were missing, that's where they went, but it might not be enough to show they were missing. Also, there's some clear process problems.
I'd sure like to know about the inspections on the other plug doors.
Stupid metaphor but please help me understand, if I ordered a chicken-sandwich and was served with raw-meat, I would not politely return it and request a correction, I would flee the scene.
How are they in any sense whatsoever still working with a company or process that would 'paint over the plugs'? That was the warning sign.
I'm sure the answer is money somehow but is that even accurate? Surely this is more costly? Different budget maybe?
How are they in any sense whatsoever still working with a company or process that would 'paint over the plugs'?
Because there is no alternative supplier that could supply the same components in a shorter-than-years timeframe. And they don’t want to halt all production as it would bankrupt the company.
To the HN crowd, this is like AWS becoming broken and unreliable, but your entire build and architecture has AWS baked in. Moving to Azure or Google or whatever would take years of engineering and data migration. So you paper over the holes as best you can to keep the lights on.
Well mistakes happen. I wouldn't assume that my main supplier is malicious, because then you have much bigger issues than just a single defective part. The issue isn't that a part was defective here, the thing I have a hard time believing is that the part was not just defective, but that spirit just didn't do the job, knowingly. They didn't have the parts that an actual legit repair/rebuild would have required so they didn't do it. To me that makes very little sense, especially since they apparently tried to just lie about it first too, and then no systems or QA did anything about it.
Raw meat can happen, you catch it before you start eating it. In this case, it's more like you got a pack of used needles instead (pretty much equivalent to a non installed door in an airplane) because the chef didn't want to wait 5mins for the meat to cook, you basically just acknowledge the needles and start eating. That what is hard for me to believe. The original 737max controversy made sense, shortcuts were taken, and it made sense why that sort of disfunction would slowly creep into the design process. It also makes sense that some believed that the redesign would still work since hey, pilots just have to handle the errors if they happen! But in this case? The motivations don't make sense, especially since it apparently wasn't just a mishap or a failure, but intentional fraud.
With that out of the way… why did the left hand (LH) mid-exit door plug blow off of the 737-9 registered as N704AL? Simple- as has been covered in a number of articles and videos across aviation channels, there are 4 bolts that prevent the mid-exit door plug from sliding up off of the door stop fittings that take the actual pressurization loads in flight, and these 4 bolts were not installed when Boeing delivered the airplane, our own records reflect this.
Although TFA doesn't explicitly say the bolts were there to begin with, the bigger issue is that repairs were required on this door, the repair team lied about what they did, which bypassed a QA check that would have likely caught the missing bolts.
Given the awful (criminal?) behavior of the repair team, it seems reasonable to assume the bolts were initially present and they just forgot to put them back - rather than that they were missing from the start.
I read 'they were never bolted' as 'upon delivery of the aircraft, the bolts holding in the plug were not installed' in order to differentiate from the case of 'the bolts loosened during use of the aircraft after delivery to customer'.
But I can see how we could read to different statements from the parent.
Sure, that's not unbelievable. Tampering with the records is the weird part. I can't think of any reason why spirit or Boeing would be willing to do that when they can just... fix the repair if they knew about it? And if they didn't, then why tamper with the process management systems?
has in the past 365 calendar days recorded 392 nonconforming findings on 737 mid fuselage door installations
which prompted my comment.
then it says that the door in question was re-worked by Spirit employees.
It implies that the bolts were removed and not re-fitted, but I don't see evidence that they were ever fitted. Perhaps they were, but then removed by people working for a company that day to day doesn't fit bolts, or perhaps they were never there and the people working for the non-bolt-fitting company didn't see the problem with that.
Maybe you're in a company where you have to record the process of making instant coffee.
You have your screwed container of coffee you have a cup and a kettle of hot water.
Someone later finds the coffee container open and spilled by the resident cat.
There's no record of the container opened but there's requests for coffee and completed work orders for coffee have been billed which you can't do without opening the coffee container
Comments
Ah, so the mystery is solved: the doors were never bolted. Inspections done in Renton caught this in 99% of cases but nobody thought to follow the defect to source and get it fixed there. Classic case of "you can't inspect-in quality".
I don't know, that's very very unlikely. I'm mostly familiar with the 787 inspection process though. still the events listed here are basically harder, longer and involve more bickering than just doing the repair. but who knows... as I said, I just know that this would be impossible with the 787 and way way harder than what is in relative term a simpler repair. Spirit might be shoddy, incompetent, etc but not putting bolts at all and fraudulently tampering with records? Painting over them? Why? Airplanes take longer to repair, or ship routinely, 737 parts are extremely available especially for the literal manufacturer, it's not some sort of insane repair... Again, even assuming sheer incompetence this is too competent
That’s not what is stated in the linked posts.
The conclusion is still pretty spot on. The company known (to Boeing) for shoddy work does a warranty repair as a follow-up for a failed warranty repair, and while Boeing QA caught the first repair going wrong it didn't catch the second repair going wrong because those bolts weren't tagged as having been touched.
Still sounds like a clear case of an unbelievable amount of bad quality from Spirit, and Boeing not pressing the issue until something finally slips through the cracks
Even that could've been believable. But , and correct me if I'm wrong, the comment claims that Boeing's systems clearly show that the bolts were never installed. Like, they knew about it even after all of that, and knew about it upon delivery. Again, that just doesn't even make sense from incompetence, greed, laziness or any other angle. It's not like the same people on the factory floor who would want to sweep the bad repair under the rug[0] also gets to control the delivery process, the massive paperwork, checks, automated checks, etc that are inherent to massively complex manufacturing. Again, this is claiming that the system knew about it, and that it was written there all along. So we are way beyond manufacturing issues here.
[0] (not that they would for what is claimed to be literally just painting over the plugs, without installing anything. that's just dumb, it's not something you can just get away with, it would've been visible from the very first flights and would he basically a world's first)
As I read it, it's kind of the opposite. The records show a repair that required removal of the bolts, but there is no record of replacement of the bolts. And there is a record of discussion of if the repair required a formal inspection, which (I think) would have involved recording the status of the bolts.
This is taken as clear evidence that the bolts were not there, but IMHO, if the bolts were missing, that's where they went, but it might not be enough to show they were missing. Also, there's some clear process problems.
I'd sure like to know about the inspections on the other plug doors.
Stupid metaphor but please help me understand, if I ordered a chicken-sandwich and was served with raw-meat, I would not politely return it and request a correction, I would flee the scene.
How are they in any sense whatsoever still working with a company or process that would 'paint over the plugs'? That was the warning sign.
I'm sure the answer is money somehow but is that even accurate? Surely this is more costly? Different budget maybe?
Because there is no alternative supplier that could supply the same components in a shorter-than-years timeframe. And they don’t want to halt all production as it would bankrupt the company.
To the HN crowd, this is like AWS becoming broken and unreliable, but your entire build and architecture has AWS baked in. Moving to Azure or Google or whatever would take years of engineering and data migration. So you paper over the holes as best you can to keep the lights on.
There seem to be no alternatives other than buying them back, and it's not surprising since they were a core part of Boeing.
Even if there were alternatives, it might irk them to acknowledge that outsourcing most (all?) of their manufacturing didn't end well.
As for buying them back, see [1].
Doing so would reduce their return on net assets.....
[1] https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/boeing-rules-out-buying-t...
Well mistakes happen. I wouldn't assume that my main supplier is malicious, because then you have much bigger issues than just a single defective part. The issue isn't that a part was defective here, the thing I have a hard time believing is that the part was not just defective, but that spirit just didn't do the job, knowingly. They didn't have the parts that an actual legit repair/rebuild would have required so they didn't do it. To me that makes very little sense, especially since they apparently tried to just lie about it first too, and then no systems or QA did anything about it.
Raw meat can happen, you catch it before you start eating it. In this case, it's more like you got a pack of used needles instead (pretty much equivalent to a non installed door in an airplane) because the chef didn't want to wait 5mins for the meat to cook, you basically just acknowledge the needles and start eating. That what is hard for me to believe. The original 737max controversy made sense, shortcuts were taken, and it made sense why that sort of disfunction would slowly creep into the design process. It also makes sense that some believed that the redesign would still work since hey, pilots just have to handle the errors if they happen! But in this case? The motivations don't make sense, especially since it apparently wasn't just a mishap or a failure, but intentional fraud.
Although TFA doesn't explicitly say the bolts were there to begin with, the bigger issue is that repairs were required on this door, the repair team lied about what they did, which bypassed a QA check that would have likely caught the missing bolts.
Given the awful (criminal?) behavior of the repair team, it seems reasonable to assume the bolts were initially present and they just forgot to put them back - rather than that they were missing from the start.
Pretty wild because such a delivery would normally include at least one flight.
Did you read the whole thing? Boeing removed the bolts to fix another issue around the door and neglected to reinstall them.
I read 'they were never bolted' as 'upon delivery of the aircraft, the bolts holding in the plug were not installed' in order to differentiate from the case of 'the bolts loosened during use of the aircraft after delivery to customer'.
But I can see how we could read to different statements from the parent.
Sure, that's not unbelievable. Tampering with the records is the weird part. I can't think of any reason why spirit or Boeing would be willing to do that when they can just... fix the repair if they knew about it? And if they didn't, then why tamper with the process management systems?
Spirit removed them, not Boeing.
It says two things:
which prompted my comment.
then it says that the door in question was re-worked by Spirit employees. It implies that the bolts were removed and not re-fitted, but I don't see evidence that they were ever fitted. Perhaps they were, but then removed by people working for a company that day to day doesn't fit bolts, or perhaps they were never there and the people working for the non-bolt-fitting company didn't see the problem with that.
Maybe you're in a company where you have to record the process of making instant coffee.
You have your screwed container of coffee you have a cup and a kettle of hot water.
Someone later finds the coffee container open and spilled by the resident cat.
There's no record of the container opened but there's requests for coffee and completed work orders for coffee have been billed which you can't do without opening the coffee container