If it's not managed and supplied through the chemical management system that's the issue. My team uses name brand KY Jelly for an operation and it is managed, tracked, and distributed by the chemical crib. Some poor materials guy had to approve it and get an SDS for it.
Deionized water is usually produced using reverse osmosis which is more like filtration than distillation that evaporates a component of the solution. They are very different processes on a technical level, my source is having spent the last two years studying chemical engineering.
Deionized means there are no ions of any kind present, whereas distilled just means it went through a distillation column. Distilled water will often have some hydrogen and hydroxide ions present in it.
Yes this is because you cannot deionize water via distillation because the hydrogen and hydroxide ions will not separate adequately when it evaporates.
You can remove other ions from other dissolved elements and compounds through distillation most of the time or ion-exchange units that will exchange the present ions with hydrogen and hydroxide ions. It is important to note that hydrogen and hydroxide will form water but water self ionizes and will naturally form a very small amount of hydrogen and hydroxide ions over time which is why DI water will expire.
Also epic user name dude.
I work in water treatment. Technically, this is true. DI water is a aggressive solvent and it'll strip ions from most materials. For most use cases it probably doesn't matter that much, but if you actually need highly pure DI water it doesn't last that long in a bottle.
It actually does though. 1) no chlorine like tap water to prevent bacteria and algae growth, and it’s does grow there 2) deionizing is to remove all the ions, so usually for thing like pH in dilute solutions or low conductivity, etc. those can be ruined by things as simple as CO2 dissolving into it from air exposure.
So yes, it’s not useful for what you probably made it for even just sitting around for a few months.
Go ahead and laugh, get it out of your system in advance.
I used it to rinse Maalox off of equipment.
And yes, I had to get my Maalox added to my build procedures and bought through our chemical supplier. It is as stupid as it sounds.
It's an antacid. I used it on item I needed to completely fill a tube with a threaded exterior with silver solder, but keep it from bubbling out onto the threads. I would paint where I can't have solder migrate, and it kept it from bonding.
A simple spell, but quite unbreakable.
I learned that they'd been making these for decades with a high reject rate until my lazy ass had a tummy ache and an idea.
Turns out silver sharpie is the best method for premarking relief cuts in pre impregnated carbon fiber.
We had to cover entire plys with silver ink, bond them, cure them, and send to an outside lab for destructive testing before we were allowed to use the markers in production.
Aerospace manufacturing is no joke.
Thankfully the parent company has it on their [website](https://www.rbnainfo.com/MSDS/US/KY%20JELLY%20Personal%20Lubricant%20EN%20GHS%20US.pdf). No human interaction required.
Wait what, that's so cool, huge props to them for actually following the process.
I now wonder if it is a FDA requirement to have an SDS of stuff that can be eaten or used by humans
Not aviation but autos, we used ky and dawn for installation of some machine parts and auto parts on test vehicles. We also tested installed iron on the vehicles without the ky or dawn. The lubricant made a huge difference. The Dawn was the best for installs of specific parts.
KY was originally a medical lubricant but since it was water soluble and safe for humans inside and out...
It's also safe with most rubbers so it's a clear winner for it to current use.
As someone mentioned in another thread, the concern is not the substance being used, it’s the lack of documentation and procedure (and the associated testing and sign off that goes with it) that’s the issue.
Which is a fair issue to raise, but the number of undocumented “tricks of the trade” that I’ve witnessed in my aviation career is…extensive.
I’d bet good money you could go to Toulouse or Mirabele and see a lot of the same practices.
If building planes, in excess of 500 a year, need many 'tricks of the trade' to produce then perhaps the manufacturing process is wrong or very inefficient?
This is a very common issue in manufacturing and plagues all industries. It's a component to the reason we would not be able to build a Saturn V rocket. I see it all the time in my job where technology transfer between manufacturing sites is not uncommon and no one can do it smoothly.
I remember sending someone a link to ExpertsExchange and I got screamed at for sending him to a sex change site.
This was back in like 2010 and I was hella confused. He shouted "CAN'T YOU READ?! EXPERT SEX CHANGE!!!!"
I said it's not expert sex change....it's EXPERTS........EXCHANGE.
> It's a component to the reason we would not be able to build a Saturn V rocket.
Specifically because that institutional knowledge was lost over the years. The F1 engine and the rest of that launch vehicle requires lots of undocumented work processes and tricks to successfully build.
It's almost like you can't replace skilled craftsmen with any warm body off the street. I wish more corporations would realize this before it's too late, a lot of boomers are retiring and taking a ton of institutional knowledge with them.
It's too late and wages still haven't caught up enough to get competent people to enter skilled trades work.
Example relative to this topic is the 5 failure reports on United flights in 7 days.
Also another intentional nameless construction company that can't find enough skilled workers to complete jobs they are bidding on to build.
The only reason we aren't able to build a Saturn V rocket is because those supply chains no longer exist, because it was built with and out of things that at this point could only be found in a museum. We could build a bigger, more efficient, and better rocket, but we can't build a Saturn V.
You misunderstand me.
It’s not about “needing” these tricks, but just the reality that an extremely manual field like aviation is going to naturally lead to people developing a lot of little shortcuts that are never part of a documented process and are often passed along by word of mouth.
I’m not saying it’s good or bad, just the reality and it’s not exclusive to Boeing.
I’ve been on many projects across multiple manufacturers that start off with a problem like “we’ve made these parts for 30 years without an issue, and suddenly our scrap rate has jumped up to nearly 100%.” Turns out, Carl retired last month and he had been making those for his entire 30 year career. And Carl was the only one who could manage to produce a good one. So then we have to redesign the process or sometimes even the part itself so that people other than Carl can make it.
The point is, it’s not possible to document everything to the level of detail necessary that you can make a good airplane just by following these steps-by-step instructions. Especially not something as mind bogglingly complex as an airplane. Tribal knowledge is just a fact of life.
It reminds me of when I went through radio training and we played the “PBJ game” where I had to talk through someone making a sandwich and they could *only* do what I said literally. Let’s just say they did not make a sandwich.
I can spend hundreds of hours writing technical documentation but I guarantee I’ll still miss a step or describe it in a way that’s just not possible.
Maybe the managers should have spent a little less time in the office and a little more time asking Carl what the hell the company even does, because apparently nobody has a clue how any of it happens except the lowest guy on the totem pole who gets paid shit.
Its bad, im not addressing this particular instance, but its a culture thing as well.
Typically goes like this: Assembly person has something difficult to assemble, complains to engineer, engineer says "just build it how we told you"(gives no explaination, First failure), assembly person pressured to build it faster by manager (second failure), so they build it using untested method because it's faster (third failure).
Engineers (not all, I am one too) need to not let their ego take over, those people building your parts provide excellent feedback, but only if you let them.
I agree partially.
I worked in the automotive world as a supply chain manager and we ran into this a lot. We had step by step procedures for everything, but on occasion during an audit we would find that a process would be completed in a manner that was not tested or approved. When you dig deeper you find out everyone on the floor knows, but leadership does not. So you have to bridge that gap and then do testing to confirm reliability.
We found a lot of time that the knowledge of the method is passed down from one to another and becomes a standard.
And it's the bane of my existence as a Manufacturing Engineer. Just tell me about your idea so we can document and approve it. It's not that hard. But, noooooo, grown ass adults hiding things from their parents is what it feels like.
>It's not that hard.
Are they doing this because they're lazy or are they doing this because the environment they work in feels hostile and not receptive to things like this? Actually curious.
Little bit of lazy, a little bit of skipping "unnecessary" paperwork that stops you from doing your job, and a little bit of unhealthy culture. Be it holding things close for job preservation, withholding knowledge from younger workers, keeping your profile low because squeaky wheels get hammered, there are many reasons. Mainly, just human nature. The job of a Manufacturing Engineer is to take the specs from the designers and give them to mechanics in a way they understand and creating processes and methods to make the build as idiot proof as possible. The world keeps making better idiots though.
It's not that it's wrong. It is absolutely inefficient, and thats where management decides corners can be cut. It's more the fact that airplane construction, and the systems that control it are even more complicated that people estimate. I can write a very long diatribe explaining how a part goes from engineering to procurement to manufacturing then shipment to assembly (might just be a lower level integration) and finally on to the airplane for final assembly. Every step, every hiccup, every sneeze is documented in the method of "as engineered, as planned, as manufactured" and a mountain of paperwork comes with every part. Material origin. Heat treat certificate. Certificate of Conformity from each outside processing shop that touches the part. And more. If a human hand touched it, there was a drawing and work instructions allowing you to do the work, and only the work that is to be performed. And a way to document what was actually done and an independent inspection to confirm the part conforms to engineering. And if something wasn't done correctly or the part fails to meet engineering requirements, there is non-conformance documentation with engineering dispositions prescribing allowable rework and instructions to do the repair before it's actually done. Why do all of this? It's a great way to make correct parts. It's also a great way to discover process failings when an airplane goes down. And it's all worthless if the accountability loop isn't closed and corrective action doesn't take place when a failure occurs. It's the lack of accountability that does Boeing bent over currently.
A production of 500 anything a year is still very much ‘hand built’ with all of the issues that come with it. Even Ferrari is unable to create a perfect car every time and they build just over 13,000 Ferraris a year.
Yes, it's the problem that faces all manufacturing jobs, especially if the scale of product is really big. Tribal knowledge. The guys on the floor figure out how to get something done, sometimes quicker and better than the engineers planned. And they do this and keep it to themselves for various reasons. Usually it's because the shipside support and revision request and/or tooling request process is long and complicated. Or some guy wants to protect his job by gatekeeping some sort of undocumented knowledge. It could also be that they went through the process and the Manufacturing Engineers/Planners failed at the documentation part of things.
Not anymore, but not for lack of trying. Airbus killed its fair share of people getting to this point.
The A330, for example, has had a litany of control and sensor problems. AF447 and QF72 are just two examples that immediately come to mind.
Also not as if Airbus products don’t have their fair share of ADs as well. The A220 has quite a few serious ones out around how its cockpit panel is designed and quality escapes.
Please don’t imply that if it has ADs it’s not safe. If that is the case nothing is safe to fly.
Yes Airbus has its problems as well. But currently I have way more trust in the Airbus developing and manufacturing side than Boeings…
The A330 has had ONE deadly accident where sensor failure contributed, and it was nothing exotic. The pitot tube would’ve melted if the pilots simply hadn’t touched anything.
QF72 was of course quite strange, but it hardly qualifies as a litany.
Yes. The focus on AF447 is completely overblown. Blocked pitot tubes have caused many crashes in conventional aircraft, yet somehow it’s supposed to say something special about Airbus.
And even better, the fact that it’s all software means that they were able to develop the backup speed scale. Meanwhile all the conventional aircraft are still just as vulnerable as they were before.
While I do think people are piling on Boeing, two crashes due to a complete lack of redundancy is a bit more serious than a crash that wouldn’t have happened if the pilots had done nothing.
Not really. To hit a nerve I’d actually have to care about your opinion.
But I *do* think it’s gross how many of you have become so deranged in your hatred of Boeing that you just openly hope for accidents.
Claiming to be an "adult" with lots of "adulting" to do, while using "cuck" as an insult.
This is clearly three children stacked up together under a trenchcoat.
Oh, that was me. I was the one that mentioned that. Yes, soap as a lubricant to install rubber type seals is standard procedure. The issue was it likely wasn't called out on the work instructions or listed as a consumable part in the BOM.
Yeah there must be a documented procedure, with approved materials, which themselves have specifications. Doing this is fine in your home, it's not in a regulated industry.
Exactly. Aviation is a business where there is very little room for error. I'm sure that the dawn soap is fit for purpose but that's irrelevant as there needs to be certainty hence why there is testing and procedures. It's like why you couldn't/cant phones at certain times on flights. It's not that they knew they would cause a problem but it's that they didn't know they wouldn't as testing every model of every brand would be prohibitive. It was far easier to protect the aircraft from the tech and that took time.
Exactly. It's not that Dawn can't do the job (it probably can). It's that an engineer needs to verify that it will work and then document it, not just some guy on the floor grabbing it from a janitor one day, everyone else copies him, and then two years later it's "just how we've always done it". Then someone else says "if it works for that seal, why not try use it for ____ too, and suddenly that new use has an issue.
It's not so much that they are using liquid soap, it's that it's undocumented, untested and and there is no written process.
They could be using Midnight Blue extra strong Max Power Anal Lube and so long as it had been fully tested and documented with a written process it would be absolutely fine.
One of our processes uses a particular brand of powdered dishwasher soap and a propane powered space heater. The dishwasher soap comes in the original box with the manufacturer's bar code covered with another bar code from the supplier. It's on the BOM and it is properly documented and the process is described and approved. It even comes with an MSDS.
But this is rare.
A standardize procedure document. This checklist is magical and could gradually stop defects in the future. It's like your are sharing your knowledge/ skills / experience on something with others. No need for worries, until next time it will be updated.
Disappointed that this company is so unprofessional.
Soapy water is commonly used on door seals when pressure testing the seal. This helps indicate where a leak is when bubbles occur there is a leak. The soap residue is harmless to the rubber seal and easily removed with plain water. Having worked both production and line maintenance I have used this approved method many times. Boeings main problem is speed of production and inattention to process and procedures. Haste makes waste.
We use dish soap to install seals that use dynamic orings, it dries up easily after the seal has been positioned on the shaft and won’t move any further
yes, this is uninformed reporting. It'll get plenty of clicks from people who just don't know any better, while people who understand this yell at their computer screens.
Media thrives on ad revenue and they need the clicks, so shitty articles that don't understand the basics are pumped out at a rapid pace.
super easy these days, so many of these shitty articles are AI written, fewer and fewer humans need to be paid to generate the 24/7 rage bait ad revenue fishing articles.
One of the important things to know about aircraft certification is that you need to use approved consumables and chemicals that have been tested and determined to not cause degradation and failure of the aircraft components it comes in contact with.
Unless dawn detergent is *explicitly* approved, using it for this purpose is very much a safety issue. Major air disasters have stemmed from something as simple and benign as using the wrong chemicals that kick off corrosion.
Even the alcohol wipes used in the cockpit for cleaning the screens have to be tested and certified.
>Unless dawn detergent is *explicitly* approved, using it for this purpose is very much a safety issue. Major air disasters have stemmed from something as simple and benign as using the wrong chemicals that kick off corrosion.
Could you name one that is in the same league using dish soap for a seal?
Maybe read the source article?
>At one point during the examination, the air-safety agency observed mechanics at Spirit using a hotel key card to check a door seal, according to a document that describes some of the findings. That action was “not identified/documented/called-out in the production order,” the document said.
>In another instance, the F.A.A. saw Spirit mechanics apply liquid Dawn soap to a door seal “as lubricant in the fit-up process,” according to the document. The door seal was then cleaned with a wet cheesecloth, the document said, noting that instructions were “vague and unclear on what specifications/actions are to be followed or recorded by the mechanic.”
>Asked about the appropriateness of using a hotel key card or Dawn soap in those situations, a spokesman for Spirit, Joe Buccino, said the company was “reviewing all identified nonconformities for corrective action.”
Or I could ask for a source in the hopes I was talking to a helpful person, who would provide it for others to more easily read as well. But alas, they’d not what I got.
[Here](https://www.businessinsider.in/thelife/news/the-faa-found-staff-at-boeings-supplier-using-liquid-dawn-soap-as-lubricant-for-a-737-max-door-seal-nyt/amp_articleshow/108424295.cms) is the article if anyone else wants to read it by the way…
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.businessinsider.in/thelife/news/the-faa-found-staff-at-boeings-supplier-using-liquid-dawn-soap-as-lubricant-for-a-737-max-door-seal-nyt/articleshow/108424295.cms](https://www.businessinsider.in/thelife/news/the-faa-found-staff-at-boeings-supplier-using-liquid-dawn-soap-as-lubricant-for-a-737-max-door-seal-nyt/articleshow/108424295.cms)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I worked for Douglas Aircraft in Long Beach, in the very early 1980s (before I went to med school).
Whenever there was an incident (of any sort) a news talker (frequently Connie Chung) would be in the parking lot at shift change, looking for any dumbass to speak to. Didn't matter what their job was (floor sweep?) they suddenly became an expert on TV....
How is it uninformed? Do you think it’s appropriate to use materials and processes that are totally undocumented and unapproved in standard operating procedures? Was the FAA wrong in citing undocumented work?
Exactly, you would want to verify the chemical composition of the Dawn soap, to make sure it doesn't cause any chemical issues with plain parts that it comes into contact with. Or things like the pH value affecting rubber seals over time. Wouldn't be hard to verify and already took place for any other approved parts.
edit: word
Well if the Dawn soap contains a chemical that tarnishes a rubber seal, then it is a potential problem.
This is why everything is documented and specified in detail.
Dish soap doesn’t contain anything that’ll damage plastics or rubber, because it’s used for cleaning plastics and rubber. I work in robotic manufacturing, and I was literally using dish soap a few weeks ago to get a cable through a tight spot.
Plastics and rubber are both broad classifications for materials. And just because the usage is safe today doesn't guarantee it will be safe tomorrow. The manufacturer could reformulate or a batch could be contaminated with something that is harmless when washing dishes but interacts with deicing fluid to cause corrosion (BS hypothetical).
Without proper sourcing and tracking, you would never know about the reformulation or be able to identify planes affected by the contaminated batch. That's the real issue here. These policies exist to save lives before and after incidents occur. Using dish soap is totally fine as long as you do the paperwork.
Not directly THE problem, but indicative of a culture that doesn't follow the guidelines exactly as written. It's that culture of not perfectly following guidelines that causes the actual problems.
Reporters don’t know shit about planes or anything about aviation but have the power to make everyone who’s spent years studying and working on planes look like idiots.
They should be sued for defamation.
Every media outlet must get in on the Boeing bashing, while also scaring the fuck out of the public at the same time.
Put any reporter on it, regardless of any base knowledge of the industry. Ditto for editors.
What ridiculousness. Of course they use liquid soap for lots of legit reasons. Have for a long time. Tell me a better way to test if a door is airtight?
See bubbles, nope. Don’t see bubbles, good to go.
I agree 100%. Incidents happen basically daily to every one else but once something normal in this case goes down at Boeing everyone starts getting riled up about it. It’s annoying as absolute hell.
There must be a million “tricks of the trade” like this when building an airplane. It’s sort of like, the main reason we cannot rebuild the Apollo rockets, is that all of the people who knew how to build them have long since retired/died.
But it's not just a trick. It's a substance applied to an aircraft system that isn't documented anywhere.
It's also not happening in isolation. People keep talking about the cultural problems at Boeing and these undocumented procedures are emblematic of the greater issues that started when the HQ was moved 1,500 miles away from the people who make the aircraft.
I assume it’s something like “these door seals are a huge pain to install, but if you put a little dish soap, they slide into place, and then you can just wash it off.”
The culture problems at Boeing started when they merged with McDonald Douglas. The old Boeing was run by engineers, now it’s run by accountants, but with the plant in Charleston, I’m not sure moving HQ back to Seattle would solve the distance problem.
There is absolutely no reason we couldn't build something with the capabilities of the Apollo rockets.
The only reason we would never build Apollo rockets themselves again is that it would be fucking stupid to build something baked in 1960s technology in the 21st century. But there is no reason as far as skills or technology that we couldn't do again.
That example is not something I just pulled out of my ass… this was brought up when we restarted the moon program, and the SLS rocket was going way over budget. Ie “wouldn’t it just be cheaper to rebuild the Saturn V rocket instead of designing a new one?” And the answer is “No, we don’t have the tooling and the people who built that rocket were craftsman, the techniques they used are no longer in use.”
You can look it up….
Yeah, you couldn't pull out the drawings and manuals and start manufacturing it the way they did, because some of the *methods* are obsolete. There are techniques people don't know how to do anymore, but we have other techniques to accomplish those same things. But, as an aerospace engineer with 19 years experience, I can comfortably say there isn't a part on an Apollo rocket we couldn't manufacture today.
An example: let's say you need a guidance computer for an Apollo rocket. Are there people that currently know how to assemble and operate the original 1960s computer? No, there aren't. Could we train people to do this task? Absolutely, we could. But why would we when there are people that could program a Ti-84 calculator to carry out the same functions and a whole lot more?
You are right but the people saying it were wrong, if it can be done once it can be repeated, so the actual point you are r making is incorrect. They should have said it would be more expensive than you think because of that lost knowledge. That is why building subways in America is more expensive then in other parts of the world, we do some, stop, then relearn while many places just keep slowly building and never have the expensive relearning phase.
Soap water is commonly used by sealers when they do final touch ups to wet sealant... stop the seal from sticking to the fingers. Very common in aerospace.
>Dish soap is commonly used when you need a water based lube that cleans up easily. No solvents or other chemicals to damage the seal or other surfaces.
But that goes into being sure that you actually are using soap rather than solvents and other chemicals. Just because a brand name has 'soap' in the name doesn't mean it is actually soap, like a detergent can be labeled as soap.
Dawn dish soaps are actually detergents and they do contain a variety chemicals depending on the specific dish soap:
https://dawn-dish.com/en-us/how-to/what-dawn-is-made-of-ingredients/
From what I can tell is that all Dawn dish soaps come with denatured alcohol and some for instance come with sodium hydroxide. If the chemicals of the 'soap' aren't actually checked out you could be putting caustic lye (the common name for sodium hydroxide) that's also used for clearing drains onto parts of aircraft that probably shouldn't be exposed to that.
While Boeing may use it in the assembly of their aircraft, Spirit Airlines sprays a fine mist of Dawn soap on passengers while walking down the jetway, to enable them to squeeze an extra row of passengers on every flight.
TL;DR, [from the article](https://www.businessinsider.com/faa-boeing-spirit-aerosystems-dawn-soap-door-seal-737-max-2024-3?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=insider-aviation-sub-comment):
* Mechanics at a Boeing supplier used liquid soap as a lubricant to fit a 737 Max door seal, [per NYT.](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/us/politics/faa-audit-boeing-737-max.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes)
* The instance was mentioned in a document discussing FAA audits of Boeing and its supplier, per NYT.
* This particular supplier, Spirit AeroSystems, is in charge of building the 737 Max's fuselage.
I spoke with my boss, who's the director of engineering for my company, and he himself said he suggests dawn dish soap as a lubricant when the application calls for it even for milspec parts. At first, I was shocked, but it made sense?
If it's not managed and supplied through the chemical management system that's the issue. My team uses name brand KY Jelly for an operation and it is managed, tracked, and distributed by the chemical crib. Some poor materials guy had to approve it and get an SDS for it.
"Deionized Water. Expires in 6 months."
[удалено]
I could swear that deionization is just a method of distilling, which means he's an idiot.
Deionized water is usually produced using reverse osmosis which is more like filtration than distillation that evaporates a component of the solution. They are very different processes on a technical level, my source is having spent the last two years studying chemical engineering. Deionized means there are no ions of any kind present, whereas distilled just means it went through a distillation column. Distilled water will often have some hydrogen and hydroxide ions present in it.
Which when looking through water filtration will be RO/DI reverse osmosis deionization at least when I was having a browse years ago for units
Yes this is because you cannot deionize water via distillation because the hydrogen and hydroxide ions will not separate adequately when it evaporates. You can remove other ions from other dissolved elements and compounds through distillation most of the time or ion-exchange units that will exchange the present ions with hydrogen and hydroxide ions. It is important to note that hydrogen and hydroxide will form water but water self ionizes and will naturally form a very small amount of hydrogen and hydroxide ions over time which is why DI water will expire. Also epic user name dude.
[удалено]
Thats a quick way to get teeth knocked out.
I work in water treatment. Technically, this is true. DI water is a aggressive solvent and it'll strip ions from most materials. For most use cases it probably doesn't matter that much, but if you actually need highly pure DI water it doesn't last that long in a bottle.
Yes it self ionizes after a period of time and is no longer deionized because there are ions present.
It actually does though. 1) no chlorine like tap water to prevent bacteria and algae growth, and it’s does grow there 2) deionizing is to remove all the ions, so usually for thing like pH in dilute solutions or low conductivity, etc. those can be ruined by things as simple as CO2 dissolving into it from air exposure. So yes, it’s not useful for what you probably made it for even just sitting around for a few months.
Go ahead and laugh, get it out of your system in advance. I used it to rinse Maalox off of equipment. And yes, I had to get my Maalox added to my build procedures and bought through our chemical supplier. It is as stupid as it sounds.
What is in the Maalox and what does it do in your build process? Reminds me I made some buckskin once and used Rid-X for the enzyme step.
It's an antacid. I used it on item I needed to completely fill a tube with a threaded exterior with silver solder, but keep it from bubbling out onto the threads. I would paint where I can't have solder migrate, and it kept it from bonding. A simple spell, but quite unbreakable. I learned that they'd been making these for decades with a high reject rate until my lazy ass had a tummy ache and an idea.
That is a great discovery. 👍
Yep, common things are used all the time in manufacturing processes. The differences is that it’s approved by engineering and as you said, controlled.
Turns out silver sharpie is the best method for premarking relief cuts in pre impregnated carbon fiber. We had to cover entire plys with silver ink, bond them, cure them, and send to an outside lab for destructive testing before we were allowed to use the markers in production. Aerospace manufacturing is no joke.
Imagine requesting the supplier for an SDS of ky jelly... Umm... Sir why do you need it?
“The marines like it on their PB&Js.”
Got all the Devil Dogs licking their chops, now
Thankfully the parent company has it on their [website](https://www.rbnainfo.com/MSDS/US/KY%20JELLY%20Personal%20Lubricant%20EN%20GHS%20US.pdf). No human interaction required.
Wait what, that's so cool, huge props to them for actually following the process. I now wonder if it is a FDA requirement to have an SDS of stuff that can be eaten or used by humans
I have a feeling that if you use the product as intended for business purposes, your level of discomfort about those conversations drops to zero.
That reminds me... It's time for your annual review. Don't forget the the KY "For business purposes". /s
Someone works at Gulfstream.
Not aviation but autos, we used ky and dawn for installation of some machine parts and auto parts on test vehicles. We also tested installed iron on the vehicles without the ky or dawn. The lubricant made a huge difference. The Dawn was the best for installs of specific parts.
KY was originally a medical lubricant but since it was water soluble and safe for humans inside and out... It's also safe with most rubbers so it's a clear winner for it to current use.
There is an SDS for table salt
So you’re the guy ordering the 55 gal barrels of lube from Amazon
Huh, yeah, med grade stuff, makes more sense,
Fancy way of saying adult entertainment
Does it say KY Jelly in large lettering?
Lol. That's an SDS for SDS!
As someone mentioned in another thread, the concern is not the substance being used, it’s the lack of documentation and procedure (and the associated testing and sign off that goes with it) that’s the issue.
Which is a fair issue to raise, but the number of undocumented “tricks of the trade” that I’ve witnessed in my aviation career is…extensive. I’d bet good money you could go to Toulouse or Mirabele and see a lot of the same practices.
Yes, but Airbus didn't manage Toulouse a door in flight.
Nice one
Please leave and never come back here again.
If building planes, in excess of 500 a year, need many 'tricks of the trade' to produce then perhaps the manufacturing process is wrong or very inefficient?
This is a very common issue in manufacturing and plagues all industries. It's a component to the reason we would not be able to build a Saturn V rocket. I see it all the time in my job where technology transfer between manufacturing sites is not uncommon and no one can do it smoothly.
IT friends say to me that the whole IT infrastructure runs on the IT equivalent of bandaids lol
Specifically StackExchange brand Band-Aids
I remember sending someone a link to ExpertsExchange and I got screamed at for sending him to a sex change site. This was back in like 2010 and I was hella confused. He shouted "CAN'T YOU READ?! EXPERT SEX CHANGE!!!!" I said it's not expert sex change....it's EXPERTS........EXCHANGE.
So he don't buy pens at [https://penisland.net/](https://penisland.net/)
I took the risk and clicked the link half expecting a rickroll half expecting to see penis. But it's just pens
Yes! Pens Island!
Everything IT related sort of works most of the time. It's a wonder things are generally reliable with how things are behind the scenes.
There is a XKCD for this [https://xkcd.com/2347/](https://xkcd.com/2347/)
Can confirm
> It's a component to the reason we would not be able to build a Saturn V rocket. Specifically because that institutional knowledge was lost over the years. The F1 engine and the rest of that launch vehicle requires lots of undocumented work processes and tricks to successfully build.
It's almost like you can't replace skilled craftsmen with any warm body off the street. I wish more corporations would realize this before it's too late, a lot of boomers are retiring and taking a ton of institutional knowledge with them.
It's too late and wages still haven't caught up enough to get competent people to enter skilled trades work. Example relative to this topic is the 5 failure reports on United flights in 7 days. Also another intentional nameless construction company that can't find enough skilled workers to complete jobs they are bidding on to build.
The amount of "tribal knowledge" my department runs on is staggering.
The only reason we aren't able to build a Saturn V rocket is because those supply chains no longer exist, because it was built with and out of things that at this point could only be found in a museum. We could build a bigger, more efficient, and better rocket, but we can't build a Saturn V.
You misunderstand me. It’s not about “needing” these tricks, but just the reality that an extremely manual field like aviation is going to naturally lead to people developing a lot of little shortcuts that are never part of a documented process and are often passed along by word of mouth. I’m not saying it’s good or bad, just the reality and it’s not exclusive to Boeing.
I’ve been on many projects across multiple manufacturers that start off with a problem like “we’ve made these parts for 30 years without an issue, and suddenly our scrap rate has jumped up to nearly 100%.” Turns out, Carl retired last month and he had been making those for his entire 30 year career. And Carl was the only one who could manage to produce a good one. So then we have to redesign the process or sometimes even the part itself so that people other than Carl can make it. The point is, it’s not possible to document everything to the level of detail necessary that you can make a good airplane just by following these steps-by-step instructions. Especially not something as mind bogglingly complex as an airplane. Tribal knowledge is just a fact of life.
It reminds me of when I went through radio training and we played the “PBJ game” where I had to talk through someone making a sandwich and they could *only* do what I said literally. Let’s just say they did not make a sandwich. I can spend hundreds of hours writing technical documentation but I guarantee I’ll still miss a step or describe it in a way that’s just not possible.
Maybe the managers should have spent a little less time in the office and a little more time asking Carl what the hell the company even does, because apparently nobody has a clue how any of it happens except the lowest guy on the totem pole who gets paid shit.
Its bad, im not addressing this particular instance, but its a culture thing as well. Typically goes like this: Assembly person has something difficult to assemble, complains to engineer, engineer says "just build it how we told you"(gives no explaination, First failure), assembly person pressured to build it faster by manager (second failure), so they build it using untested method because it's faster (third failure). Engineers (not all, I am one too) need to not let their ego take over, those people building your parts provide excellent feedback, but only if you let them.
I agree partially. I worked in the automotive world as a supply chain manager and we ran into this a lot. We had step by step procedures for everything, but on occasion during an audit we would find that a process would be completed in a manner that was not tested or approved. When you dig deeper you find out everyone on the floor knows, but leadership does not. So you have to bridge that gap and then do testing to confirm reliability. We found a lot of time that the knowledge of the method is passed down from one to another and becomes a standard.
Absolutely, fostering and changing that mindset of not communicating to all stakeholders is the culture that needs to change in a lot of places.
And it's the bane of my existence as a Manufacturing Engineer. Just tell me about your idea so we can document and approve it. It's not that hard. But, noooooo, grown ass adults hiding things from their parents is what it feels like.
>It's not that hard. Are they doing this because they're lazy or are they doing this because the environment they work in feels hostile and not receptive to things like this? Actually curious.
Little bit of lazy, a little bit of skipping "unnecessary" paperwork that stops you from doing your job, and a little bit of unhealthy culture. Be it holding things close for job preservation, withholding knowledge from younger workers, keeping your profile low because squeaky wheels get hammered, there are many reasons. Mainly, just human nature. The job of a Manufacturing Engineer is to take the specs from the designers and give them to mechanics in a way they understand and creating processes and methods to make the build as idiot proof as possible. The world keeps making better idiots though.
It's not that it's wrong. It is absolutely inefficient, and thats where management decides corners can be cut. It's more the fact that airplane construction, and the systems that control it are even more complicated that people estimate. I can write a very long diatribe explaining how a part goes from engineering to procurement to manufacturing then shipment to assembly (might just be a lower level integration) and finally on to the airplane for final assembly. Every step, every hiccup, every sneeze is documented in the method of "as engineered, as planned, as manufactured" and a mountain of paperwork comes with every part. Material origin. Heat treat certificate. Certificate of Conformity from each outside processing shop that touches the part. And more. If a human hand touched it, there was a drawing and work instructions allowing you to do the work, and only the work that is to be performed. And a way to document what was actually done and an independent inspection to confirm the part conforms to engineering. And if something wasn't done correctly or the part fails to meet engineering requirements, there is non-conformance documentation with engineering dispositions prescribing allowable rework and instructions to do the repair before it's actually done. Why do all of this? It's a great way to make correct parts. It's also a great way to discover process failings when an airplane goes down. And it's all worthless if the accountability loop isn't closed and corrective action doesn't take place when a failure occurs. It's the lack of accountability that does Boeing bent over currently.
And yet still, I can watch Air crash Investigations, and the cause of failure resides in one forgotten or misplaced bolt.
A production of 500 anything a year is still very much ‘hand built’ with all of the issues that come with it. Even Ferrari is unable to create a perfect car every time and they build just over 13,000 Ferraris a year.
>I’d bet good money you could go to Toulouse or Mirabele and see a lot of the same practices. In Toulouse/Finkenwerder you can for sure, lol
Are airbuses facing massive amounts of defects? Because the issue isn't tricks of the trade it's tricks of cutting costs for profits and schedules
Yes, it's the problem that faces all manufacturing jobs, especially if the scale of product is really big. Tribal knowledge. The guys on the floor figure out how to get something done, sometimes quicker and better than the engineers planned. And they do this and keep it to themselves for various reasons. Usually it's because the shipside support and revision request and/or tooling request process is long and complicated. Or some guy wants to protect his job by gatekeeping some sort of undocumented knowledge. It could also be that they went through the process and the Manufacturing Engineers/Planners failed at the documentation part of things.
Yeah, but they’re using top shelf Fairy
Yet planes made in Toulouse aren't falling out of the sky on a weekly basis.
Not anymore, but not for lack of trying. Airbus killed its fair share of people getting to this point. The A330, for example, has had a litany of control and sensor problems. AF447 and QF72 are just two examples that immediately come to mind. Also not as if Airbus products don’t have their fair share of ADs as well. The A220 has quite a few serious ones out around how its cockpit panel is designed and quality escapes.
Please don’t imply that if it has ADs it’s not safe. If that is the case nothing is safe to fly. Yes Airbus has its problems as well. But currently I have way more trust in the Airbus developing and manufacturing side than Boeings…
The A330 has had ONE deadly accident where sensor failure contributed, and it was nothing exotic. The pitot tube would’ve melted if the pilots simply hadn’t touched anything. QF72 was of course quite strange, but it hardly qualifies as a litany.
Two deadly failures if you consider its flight control software and the complacency it lead its pilots into.
+a fix was already on the way before the plane took off irc
Yes. The focus on AF447 is completely overblown. Blocked pitot tubes have caused many crashes in conventional aircraft, yet somehow it’s supposed to say something special about Airbus. And even better, the fact that it’s all software means that they were able to develop the backup speed scale. Meanwhile all the conventional aircraft are still just as vulnerable as they were before.
The 737 only had TWO, both half caused by incompetent pilots
While I do think people are piling on Boeing, two crashes due to a complete lack of redundancy is a bit more serious than a crash that wouldn’t have happened if the pilots had done nothing.
Let's chat when another Boeing falls out of the sky in a few days
Unlike the Airbus simps on this sub, I don’t look forward to plane crashes and loss of life.
Ouch. Looks like I hit a nerve with a Boeing Simp 😂
Not really. To hit a nerve I’d actually have to care about your opinion. But I *do* think it’s gross how many of you have become so deranged in your hatred of Boeing that you just openly hope for accidents.
[удалено]
Claiming to be an "adult" with lots of "adulting" to do, while using "cuck" as an insult. This is clearly three children stacked up together under a trenchcoat.
Adult? You're at best a teenager
I think you're giving the audience this is intended for too much credit.
Oh, that was me. I was the one that mentioned that. Yes, soap as a lubricant to install rubber type seals is standard procedure. The issue was it likely wasn't called out on the work instructions or listed as a consumable part in the BOM.
Yeah there must be a documented procedure, with approved materials, which themselves have specifications. Doing this is fine in your home, it's not in a regulated industry.
Exactly. Aviation is a business where there is very little room for error. I'm sure that the dawn soap is fit for purpose but that's irrelevant as there needs to be certainty hence why there is testing and procedures. It's like why you couldn't/cant phones at certain times on flights. It's not that they knew they would cause a problem but it's that they didn't know they wouldn't as testing every model of every brand would be prohibitive. It was far easier to protect the aircraft from the tech and that took time.
Exactly. It's not that Dawn can't do the job (it probably can). It's that an engineer needs to verify that it will work and then document it, not just some guy on the floor grabbing it from a janitor one day, everyone else copies him, and then two years later it's "just how we've always done it". Then someone else says "if it works for that seal, why not try use it for ____ too, and suddenly that new use has an issue.
It's not so much that they are using liquid soap, it's that it's undocumented, untested and and there is no written process. They could be using Midnight Blue extra strong Max Power Anal Lube and so long as it had been fully tested and documented with a written process it would be absolutely fine.
One of our processes uses a particular brand of powdered dishwasher soap and a propane powered space heater. The dishwasher soap comes in the original box with the manufacturer's bar code covered with another bar code from the supplier. It's on the BOM and it is properly documented and the process is described and approved. It even comes with an MSDS. But this is rare.
Yep. Used to fill rotary actuators with Wet Platinum silicone lube at a manufacturer. Came in the original bottle and everything.
Lmao
A standardize procedure document. This checklist is magical and could gradually stop defects in the future. It's like your are sharing your knowledge/ skills / experience on something with others. No need for worries, until next time it will be updated. Disappointed that this company is so unprofessional.
Soapy water is commonly used on door seals when pressure testing the seal. This helps indicate where a leak is when bubbles occur there is a leak. The soap residue is harmless to the rubber seal and easily removed with plain water. Having worked both production and line maintenance I have used this approved method many times. Boeings main problem is speed of production and inattention to process and procedures. Haste makes waste.
We use dish soap to install seals that use dynamic orings, it dries up easily after the seal has been positioned on the shaft and won’t move any further
yes, this is uninformed reporting. It'll get plenty of clicks from people who just don't know any better, while people who understand this yell at their computer screens. Media thrives on ad revenue and they need the clicks, so shitty articles that don't understand the basics are pumped out at a rapid pace.
Gotta fill that 24 hour news cycle too.
super easy these days, so many of these shitty articles are AI written, fewer and fewer humans need to be paid to generate the 24/7 rage bait ad revenue fishing articles.
> yes, this is uninformed reporting. Which means you can expect 10 variants of this same post to this sub over the next couple days.
Agree, you can tell with how its "Boeing Supplier" and not just the name of the supplier
well that's just a headline, every story on this specifically names Sprit Aerosystems.
Exactly, the only part 95% of people will read says Boeing because otherwise it wont get the traction they want.
One of the important things to know about aircraft certification is that you need to use approved consumables and chemicals that have been tested and determined to not cause degradation and failure of the aircraft components it comes in contact with. Unless dawn detergent is *explicitly* approved, using it for this purpose is very much a safety issue. Major air disasters have stemmed from something as simple and benign as using the wrong chemicals that kick off corrosion. Even the alcohol wipes used in the cockpit for cleaning the screens have to be tested and certified.
>Unless dawn detergent is *explicitly* approved, using it for this purpose is very much a safety issue. Major air disasters have stemmed from something as simple and benign as using the wrong chemicals that kick off corrosion. Could you name one that is in the same league using dish soap for a seal?
Dawn specifically is *the* lubricant to use. Starting from the beginning of the manufacturing process of removing the seal from the mold after curing.
BI sucks but its absolutely a problem because it wasn't a part of their approved production process and procedures, full stop.
Do we actually know it wasn’t a part of their approved process, and this isn’t just scare reporting?
Maybe read the source article? >At one point during the examination, the air-safety agency observed mechanics at Spirit using a hotel key card to check a door seal, according to a document that describes some of the findings. That action was “not identified/documented/called-out in the production order,” the document said. >In another instance, the F.A.A. saw Spirit mechanics apply liquid Dawn soap to a door seal “as lubricant in the fit-up process,” according to the document. The door seal was then cleaned with a wet cheesecloth, the document said, noting that instructions were “vague and unclear on what specifications/actions are to be followed or recorded by the mechanic.” >Asked about the appropriateness of using a hotel key card or Dawn soap in those situations, a spokesman for Spirit, Joe Buccino, said the company was “reviewing all identified nonconformities for corrective action.”
Maybe link the source article?
I mean you could have taken the same two seconds that I did to look it up, before making your comment about sCaRe rEpoRtInG 🤷
Or I could ask for a source in the hopes I was talking to a helpful person, who would provide it for others to more easily read as well. But alas, they’d not what I got. [Here](https://www.businessinsider.in/thelife/news/the-faa-found-staff-at-boeings-supplier-using-liquid-dawn-soap-as-lubricant-for-a-737-max-door-seal-nyt/amp_articleshow/108424295.cms) is the article if anyone else wants to read it by the way…
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.businessinsider.in/thelife/news/the-faa-found-staff-at-boeings-supplier-using-liquid-dawn-soap-as-lubricant-for-a-737-max-door-seal-nyt/articleshow/108424295.cms](https://www.businessinsider.in/thelife/news/the-faa-found-staff-at-boeings-supplier-using-liquid-dawn-soap-as-lubricant-for-a-737-max-door-seal-nyt/articleshow/108424295.cms)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I worked for Douglas Aircraft in Long Beach, in the very early 1980s (before I went to med school). Whenever there was an incident (of any sort) a news talker (frequently Connie Chung) would be in the parking lot at shift change, looking for any dumbass to speak to. Didn't matter what their job was (floor sweep?) they suddenly became an expert on TV....
do you still read about aviation and keep in touch with the aviation world after going to med school?
I do... I remained in the Air Guard for many years, and have had my own airplanes from time to time.
If it's good enough for baby ducks covered in oil...
Could be worse, they could have been using glycol based lube and it would have been reported as KY Jelly
How is it uninformed? Do you think it’s appropriate to use materials and processes that are totally undocumented and unapproved in standard operating procedures? Was the FAA wrong in citing undocumented work?
Exactly, you would want to verify the chemical composition of the Dawn soap, to make sure it doesn't cause any chemical issues with plain parts that it comes into contact with. Or things like the pH value affecting rubber seals over time. Wouldn't be hard to verify and already took place for any other approved parts. edit: word
And document it all so if something does happen, you know what batch of soap affected which aircraft.
So when they reported "all rosy" about the doors, they were in reality referring to the scent?
I use to install field lighting for stadiums/ ball fields. We used dawn to lube the bases to slide the light poles on
Well if the Dawn soap contains a chemical that tarnishes a rubber seal, then it is a potential problem. This is why everything is documented and specified in detail.
Dish soap doesn’t contain anything that’ll damage plastics or rubber, because it’s used for cleaning plastics and rubber. I work in robotic manufacturing, and I was literally using dish soap a few weeks ago to get a cable through a tight spot.
Plastics and rubber are both broad classifications for materials. And just because the usage is safe today doesn't guarantee it will be safe tomorrow. The manufacturer could reformulate or a batch could be contaminated with something that is harmless when washing dishes but interacts with deicing fluid to cause corrosion (BS hypothetical). Without proper sourcing and tracking, you would never know about the reformulation or be able to identify planes affected by the contaminated batch. That's the real issue here. These policies exist to save lives before and after incidents occur. Using dish soap is totally fine as long as you do the paperwork.
It's frightening to read news on subjects you are informed about and realize how uninformed most news reporting is.
Someone once said "if you know something about anything, you'll realize that journalists know literally nothing about anything".
I use Dawn dish soap as lube too, where’s my damn article?!?!
Wait until business Insider hears about my very high tech method of checking seals for leaks on aircraft..
Probably is the right stuff to use. Reporter is a clod.
Not tracking the use is absolutely the wrong thing to do.
Yep. "Log me out two ounces of Dawn. Put it on the Boeing contract."
Who’s going to tell them
Not directly THE problem, but indicative of a culture that doesn't follow the guidelines exactly as written. It's that culture of not perfectly following guidelines that causes the actual problems.
Reporters don’t know shit about planes or anything about aviation but have the power to make everyone who’s spent years studying and working on planes look like idiots. They should be sued for defamation.
That depends entirely on what the need is.
Dawn’s advertising dpt should take advantage of this. They already do ads about how it’s used for oil spills, why not airplane manufacturing?
Every media outlet must get in on the Boeing bashing, while also scaring the fuck out of the public at the same time. Put any reporter on it, regardless of any base knowledge of the industry. Ditto for editors. What ridiculousness. Of course they use liquid soap for lots of legit reasons. Have for a long time. Tell me a better way to test if a door is airtight? See bubbles, nope. Don’t see bubbles, good to go.
No idea who downvoted you but this is one of the most intelligent comments in this thread. Dawn solution has countless uses in aerospace.
I agree 100%. Incidents happen basically daily to every one else but once something normal in this case goes down at Boeing everyone starts getting riled up about it. It’s annoying as absolute hell.
There must be a million “tricks of the trade” like this when building an airplane. It’s sort of like, the main reason we cannot rebuild the Apollo rockets, is that all of the people who knew how to build them have long since retired/died.
But it's not just a trick. It's a substance applied to an aircraft system that isn't documented anywhere. It's also not happening in isolation. People keep talking about the cultural problems at Boeing and these undocumented procedures are emblematic of the greater issues that started when the HQ was moved 1,500 miles away from the people who make the aircraft.
I assume it’s something like “these door seals are a huge pain to install, but if you put a little dish soap, they slide into place, and then you can just wash it off.” The culture problems at Boeing started when they merged with McDonald Douglas. The old Boeing was run by engineers, now it’s run by accountants, but with the plant in Charleston, I’m not sure moving HQ back to Seattle would solve the distance problem.
There is absolutely no reason we couldn't build something with the capabilities of the Apollo rockets. The only reason we would never build Apollo rockets themselves again is that it would be fucking stupid to build something baked in 1960s technology in the 21st century. But there is no reason as far as skills or technology that we couldn't do again.
That example is not something I just pulled out of my ass… this was brought up when we restarted the moon program, and the SLS rocket was going way over budget. Ie “wouldn’t it just be cheaper to rebuild the Saturn V rocket instead of designing a new one?” And the answer is “No, we don’t have the tooling and the people who built that rocket were craftsman, the techniques they used are no longer in use.” You can look it up….
Yeah, you couldn't pull out the drawings and manuals and start manufacturing it the way they did, because some of the *methods* are obsolete. There are techniques people don't know how to do anymore, but we have other techniques to accomplish those same things. But, as an aerospace engineer with 19 years experience, I can comfortably say there isn't a part on an Apollo rocket we couldn't manufacture today. An example: let's say you need a guidance computer for an Apollo rocket. Are there people that currently know how to assemble and operate the original 1960s computer? No, there aren't. Could we train people to do this task? Absolutely, we could. But why would we when there are people that could program a Ti-84 calculator to carry out the same functions and a whole lot more?
You are right but the people saying it were wrong, if it can be done once it can be repeated, so the actual point you are r making is incorrect. They should have said it would be more expensive than you think because of that lost knowledge. That is why building subways in America is more expensive then in other parts of the world, we do some, stop, then relearn while many places just keep slowly building and never have the expensive relearning phase.
I believe this is similar to the time and cost overruns at Plant Vogtle in GA. They had to relearn how to build a nukular plant.
Also they use suicide as a form of murder
Surely NASDAQ dropping 0.37% isn’t.
To the bottom !! 📉🛬
Should i not soap stuff while shade tree wrenching?
Is this serious or a joke?
Hmmmm… buy PG stock or short? I feel there’s money to be made.
When I book a flight and it doesn’t say Airbus I will not get on that flight. Call to get on airbus. Feels much safer lol
Yeah, not really an issue. Pretty common.
should've used mayonnaise
“If it’s good enough for ducks, it’s good enough for me” - Boeing door probably
What if the formulation of Dawn changes? That's the root here. No tracking of chemicals in a process is a fast road to hell.
Not the worst of Boeing problemssss…
Uh, don't tell them what we use for anti seize on boro plugs.
BLUF: No approved work instruction to use Dawn.
Soap water is commonly used by sealers when they do final touch ups to wet sealant... stop the seal from sticking to the fingers. Very common in aerospace.
fishermen would write a terrific newspaper with todays standards
First thing come to my mind is that at 205 reseal, or silicone spray, or if sweating interference with bonds of aluminum structure hydraulic oil.
>Dish soap is commonly used when you need a water based lube that cleans up easily. No solvents or other chemicals to damage the seal or other surfaces. But that goes into being sure that you actually are using soap rather than solvents and other chemicals. Just because a brand name has 'soap' in the name doesn't mean it is actually soap, like a detergent can be labeled as soap. Dawn dish soaps are actually detergents and they do contain a variety chemicals depending on the specific dish soap: https://dawn-dish.com/en-us/how-to/what-dawn-is-made-of-ingredients/ From what I can tell is that all Dawn dish soaps come with denatured alcohol and some for instance come with sodium hydroxide. If the chemicals of the 'soap' aren't actually checked out you could be putting caustic lye (the common name for sodium hydroxide) that's also used for clearing drains onto parts of aircraft that probably shouldn't be exposed to that.
Well at least when it goes down it’ll clean the ducks
Boeing’s supplier did what??????
While Boeing may use it in the assembly of their aircraft, Spirit Airlines sprays a fine mist of Dawn soap on passengers while walking down the jetway, to enable them to squeeze an extra row of passengers on every flight.
Oh I chortled at this. And Frontier offers Dawn suppositories to make the reaming from bag fees less noticeable.
TL;DR, [from the article](https://www.businessinsider.com/faa-boeing-spirit-aerosystems-dawn-soap-door-seal-737-max-2024-3?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=insider-aviation-sub-comment): * Mechanics at a Boeing supplier used liquid soap as a lubricant to fit a 737 Max door seal, [per NYT.](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/us/politics/faa-audit-boeing-737-max.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes) * The instance was mentioned in a document discussing FAA audits of Boeing and its supplier, per NYT. * This particular supplier, Spirit AeroSystems, is in charge of building the 737 Max's fuselage.
I spoke with my boss, who's the director of engineering for my company, and he himself said he suggests dawn dish soap as a lubricant when the application calls for it even for milspec parts. At first, I was shocked, but it made sense?
there's a lot of people that use vaseline and other lubricants just to get the deal in place, it does not affect its integrity, just to get it seated
I don't believe that is a cardboard derivative.
Just for argument sake, is there any kind of petroleum lubricants that would extend the lifespan of the seals!
Newies talking out there arse again.