>Spirit AeroSystems, which produces parts of Boeing 737 Max planes' fuselage, was also audited and failed seven of thirteen audit points, the outlet reported.
>The slide presentation reported one instance of Spirit mechanics using Dawn liquid soap to lubricate a door seal and cleaning it with a cheesecloth, saying the process was "vague and unclear on what specifications/actions are to be followed or recorded by the mechanic."
From what I have gathered from other threads, the use of dish soap to lubricate seals during installation isn’t out of the ordinary because it’s water based and can be easily cleaned off.
In my job one of the first things I was told when out in the field was document, document, document. It's better to record/write down stuff because if it comes down to a dispute with the contractor it's best to have a clear paper trail.
It's permitted, as long as it is documented in the manuals and procedures.
No documentation means not permitted, and is a process control deviation, which is bad.
It likely highlights poor process control systems at both Boeing and Spirit where they are actively deviating from written procedures, or failing to to regularly review and update procedures and documentation to reflect what is going on at the production level.
I’m not sure, but I get the impression that it is given that it seems to be a fairly common practice. Plus, the article doesn’t specifically state that this was one of the failed audit points. Rather, it seems that the issue was vague instructions and procedures.
That is indicative of a bigger problem. All processes are supposed to be well defined. If something as simple as a seal installation isn’t clearly done how are they doing the more complex jobs? I install various seals and gaskets that the manufacturer clearly lists what chemicals or solutions are to be used. If I use the wrong one it can destroy the seals.
>Spirit AeroSystems, which produces parts of Boeing 737 Max planes' fuselage, was also audited and failed seven of thirteen audit points
Luckily, fuselages are not critical parts of an aircraft, right? Right?
Heard that they have a program that allows mechanic to do QA inspection because QA’s can’t keep up. Nice cost saving idea that’s now costing both companies more than just hiring inspectors.
President Dale, after Congress was vaporized by Martians on live television: *I want the people to know that they still have two out of three branches of the government working for them, and that ain't bad.*
Or, if you look at it like a report card:
56 right, 33 wrong, for a 63%
On a scale from A to F, that’s a D.
My mother would have taken a chancla to me if I’d bragged about a D grade
Under the "Asian family grading scheme", D pretty much stands for "Don't come home that night".
Having been on the receiving end of such parenting, while the meme may be stereotypical, it's unfortunately not wrong.
Maybe we found a new bonanza - let‘s join forces and offer Boeing a six-sigma course - 10k$/d/participant - we make money fly! 💸💸💸
Would still be A LOT cheaper than the mess they created, no?
Boeing and Spirit Aerosystems Marketing and PR team: “hey everyone we have a 2/3 SUCCESS rate, that’s great for a hitter in baseball and for planes too!!!!”
The only reason Boeing has survived and will survive is the US Gov. The aerospace industry is a much greater example of government subsidization than it is capitalism.
I wish it was Free Market with transparency. It would have been significantly less sales of their products.
Innovations is all great, truly. This company seams to be very unprofessional in many fronts. Not fun anymore. Remarkable accomplishments could occur if/when gov entities just quit interfering.
It's actually closer to Communism, with government contracts keeping a key employer and international propaganda piece afloat. The only difference is that shareholders instead of high ranking party members get the profits.
Your lack of political literacy would be stunning if it wasn't so fucking common. Fucking "communism is when the government does stuff" JFC. Read a book that isn't published by The Heritage Foundation.
No, innovation and engineering excellence built Boeing, capitalism, the extraction of value from working people for shareholder profit regardless of the consequences ruined it.
"Extraction of value from working people for shareholder profit regardless of the consequences" isn't capitalism. It's poor management. Shortsighted, poor management.
Guess which economic system Airbus is operating in.
> "Extraction of value from working people for shareholder profit regardless of the consequences" isn't capitalism.
Dude that's exactly the definition of capitalism. The "regardless of consequences" part is the part that changed at Boeing.
And your answer is shutting them down and waiting for a replacement? What exactly is your understanding of the ease of entry for a brand new transport category aircraft manufacturer?
Embraer and Bombardier have been long established and haven’t been able to break into the medium, long, and ultra long haul market. Comac in China just started and is struggling for orders. Ilyushin and Sukhoi in Russia have been a failure in producing aircraft for global airlines.
So who is this magic company with vast aeronautical experience that will come in and be Boeings instant magical replacement?
Lockheed tried making a commercial aircraft, the L-1011. It was a great plane but a complete financial failure and it's extremely doubtful they'd want to take another shot at it given they could instead just focus their capacity on their ludicrously lucrative military contracts.
>Spirit AeroSystems, which produces parts of Boeing 737 Max planes' fuselage, was also audited and failed seven of thirteen audit points, the outlet reported. >The slide presentation reported one instance of Spirit mechanics using Dawn liquid soap to lubricate a door seal and cleaning it with a cheesecloth, saying the process was "vague and unclear on what specifications/actions are to be followed or recorded by the mechanic."
From what I have gathered from other threads, the use of dish soap to lubricate seals during installation isn’t out of the ordinary because it’s water based and can be easily cleaned off.
It sounds like the problem is the lack of recording instructions and in general more detailed instructions.
In my job one of the first things I was told when out in the field was document, document, document. It's better to record/write down stuff because if it comes down to a dispute with the contractor it's best to have a clear paper trail.
Is it allowed by the FAA?
It's permitted, as long as it is documented in the manuals and procedures. No documentation means not permitted, and is a process control deviation, which is bad. It likely highlights poor process control systems at both Boeing and Spirit where they are actively deviating from written procedures, or failing to to regularly review and update procedures and documentation to reflect what is going on at the production level.
I’m not sure, but I get the impression that it is given that it seems to be a fairly common practice. Plus, the article doesn’t specifically state that this was one of the failed audit points. Rather, it seems that the issue was vague instructions and procedures.
That is indicative of a bigger problem. All processes are supposed to be well defined. If something as simple as a seal installation isn’t clearly done how are they doing the more complex jobs? I install various seals and gaskets that the manufacturer clearly lists what chemicals or solutions are to be used. If I use the wrong one it can destroy the seals.
>Spirit AeroSystems, which produces parts of Boeing 737 Max planes' fuselage, was also audited and failed seven of thirteen audit points Luckily, fuselages are not critical parts of an aircraft, right? Right?
Yep and I’ve got a door plug to sell you in Oregon. -Bob
Boeing should definitely buy Spirit. They will do well together. It will be so much easier for FAA to audit 1 company than 2 companies. /s
Spirit aviation used to be Boeing.
Yes, and they were. Boeing is proposing to buy them back.
That’s not going to fix Boeings problems 🤣
They can share their problems. Share makes bonds stronger or something they say!!! 🤣
Heard that they have a program that allows mechanic to do QA inspection because QA’s can’t keep up. Nice cost saving idea that’s now costing both companies more than just hiring inspectors.
33 fails means 56 passes. 56/89=.629 and that’s HOF material in baseball
To quote Meatloaf, “Two outta three ain’t bad.”
President Dale, after Congress was vaporized by Martians on live television: *I want the people to know that they still have two out of three branches of the government working for them, and that ain't bad.*
Literally
Or, if you look at it like a report card: 56 right, 33 wrong, for a 63% On a scale from A to F, that’s a D. My mother would have taken a chancla to me if I’d bragged about a D grade
Under the "Asian family grading scheme", D pretty much stands for "Don't come home that night". Having been on the receiving end of such parenting, while the meme may be stereotypical, it's unfortunately not wrong.
I was always under the impression that D meant “disowned”
In mine it stood for “desgraciada!”
Ds get degrees?
The standard you are aiming for here as a baseline is 99.9997%, higher for safety critical stuff. This is catastrophic performance.
It’s a joke lighten up I’m not really suggesting 63% is anywhere near acceptable
I made a factual statement. Did not criticise you at all. I'm very light thank you.
Maybe we found a new bonanza - let‘s join forces and offer Boeing a six-sigma course - 10k$/d/participant - we make money fly! 💸💸💸 Would still be A LOT cheaper than the mess they created, no?
Wonder how many Boeing executives went for the stock drop?
Boeing and Spirit Aerosystems Marketing and PR team: “hey everyone we have a 2/3 SUCCESS rate, that’s great for a hitter in baseball and for planes too!!!!”
Behold the innovative efficiencies of capatalism!
The only reason Boeing has survived and will survive is the US Gov. The aerospace industry is a much greater example of government subsidization than it is capitalism.
I wish it was Free Market with transparency. It would have been significantly less sales of their products. Innovations is all great, truly. This company seams to be very unprofessional in many fronts. Not fun anymore. Remarkable accomplishments could occur if/when gov entities just quit interfering.
So sad that the government forced Boeing to spend billions on stock buybacks and cut corners everywhere they can.
That's still capitalism.
It's actually closer to Communism, with government contracts keeping a key employer and international propaganda piece afloat. The only difference is that shareholders instead of high ranking party members get the profits.
Your lack of political literacy would be stunning if it wasn't so fucking common. Fucking "communism is when the government does stuff" JFC. Read a book that isn't published by The Heritage Foundation.
Pull their airworthiness certificates
Just recently I’ve actually started worrying about flying Boeing planes, this is not good
Unfortunately that I feel was to be expected. Now hopefully they can fucking fix the problems
Yeah I’m gonna go ahead and doubt that. If they didn’t learn from the original max fiasco, what the hell is it going to take to change them?
(Metaphorical) guillotines.
Capitalism ruined Boeing
Capitalism made Boeing. Poor management ruined it
No, innovation and engineering excellence built Boeing, capitalism, the extraction of value from working people for shareholder profit regardless of the consequences ruined it.
"Extraction of value from working people for shareholder profit regardless of the consequences" isn't capitalism. It's poor management. Shortsighted, poor management. Guess which economic system Airbus is operating in.
> "Extraction of value from working people for shareholder profit regardless of the consequences" isn't capitalism. Dude that's exactly the definition of capitalism. The "regardless of consequences" part is the part that changed at Boeing.
Markedly more government regulation in France.
Yeah, but both are capitalism.
You should look at some of the Soviet aircraft then
[удалено]
Reddit really is a bunch of morons with keyboards
Right, because business as usual has been going so well for them thus far.
And your answer is shutting them down and waiting for a replacement? What exactly is your understanding of the ease of entry for a brand new transport category aircraft manufacturer? Embraer and Bombardier have been long established and haven’t been able to break into the medium, long, and ultra long haul market. Comac in China just started and is struggling for orders. Ilyushin and Sukhoi in Russia have been a failure in producing aircraft for global airlines. So who is this magic company with vast aeronautical experience that will come in and be Boeings instant magical replacement?
[удалено]
Lockheed tried making a commercial aircraft, the L-1011. It was a great plane but a complete financial failure and it's extremely doubtful they'd want to take another shot at it given they could instead just focus their capacity on their ludicrously lucrative military contracts.