Veteran Boeing manager was transferred to 787 production; based on he saw there, he won't fly in a Dreamliner and begs his family not to

You are absolutely correct. I worked for 24 years in the Everett plant. 747 wing body join. Q.A. never had a horse in the race as to whether or not an engineering disposition was favorable, only if the process called out ie NDT requirements etc were correct. Quality would write pickups, they would document non conformance, they stamped defective part reorder tags and red scrap part tags. The part was scrapped by the engineering review if it was of any significance. A bent retainer for a bulb seal is treated differently than a gouge on a torque tube for instance. That process was almost 100 percent initiated by a line worker. If it was something that may have been overlooked there would be a line check requested which would kick out a greenline from planning to check and correct downstream units. Production managers would scream all the time about the dispo on a tag. Quality assurance people did not evaluate the structural and or functional acceptance of a defect. Only liaison engineers. I would guess the fastener shard he refers to is the thread of a BACN10BH* steel collar. The interference fit on those would sometimes peel slivers out. When they did you had to grab it with pliers and break it the rest of the way off. Rarely did I see one fall off on it’s own. It would usually hang off the end of the pin. I installed hundreds of thousands of fasteners of all types over the years. The collar shard is not a new phenomenon. In three decades he must have been around the older legacy aluminum tubes. The collars all torque the same. Tighten it until the tail snaps off. Remove the thread curl if present. Clean up your mess. Done.

3 Likes

Engineering isn’t responsible for defect detection. Usually manufacturing that finds the defects. Once it’s documented. There is no choice but to correct it, or engineering determines it meets requirements and accept it as is.

There are always problems joining large aircraft sections.

1 Like

Why?

Airbus literally produces their aircraft in multiple countries and ships the parts to France for final assembly.

Why would make here, test here, assemble here, test here, be better than make there, test there, transport here, assemble here, test here?

especially given a ”culture issue” suggested at Boeing around testing. wouldn’t it be better to split that over multiple organizations?

4 Likes

Where are the links to the articles about the previous fires caused by the shards of metal next to wiring bundles?

https://www.brightworkresearch.com/scmhistory/2017/03/boeings-collaboration-problems/

and so on…

2 Likes

That is a failure in quality control and oversight. Boeing has no one to fault but themselves for not demanding more of their suppliers.

Toyota and Apple manage to produce high-quality products at scale by holding their suppliers to a high standard of quality. Of course Airbus put this infrastructure in a long time ago and can now take advantage of cost savings from their supply chain. Boeing (apparently) can only be competitive by cutting corners.

So yes, it’s a lesson in how to do outsourcing poorly. Agreed.

6 Likes

I have worked with this “manager” previously in Everett. He got sent to Charleston to get rid of him. He is an idiot. The shavings he is talking about get removed every day, multiple times per shift, and a big clean up at the end of each shift. The 787 started out with some rather large teething pains, but has matured into a great airplane. I cannot speak for the S.C. factory, I was Everett 787 QA at the delivery center. We made damn sure FOD was not present on any airplane we delivered.
Barnett is grasping at any straw to try and get a payday. … Ask those that worked with him, he was a danger to himself and others… so they promoted him out of trouble. Ask those that worked under him… and the word incompetent keeps coming up. It’s funny how many people in here badmouth the 787 yet have never been around one to know a thing about the plane, other than what a misguided media spoon feeds! Someone mentioned the batteries… caused by contamination at the manufacturer… not Boeing. The entire manufacturing process got redone to assure no contamination of the cells. To protect even further, Boeing designed the Stainless Steel that the containment can is made of, and doubled the thickness they said would contain a battery fire.
I travelled all over the world as part of flight test with 787 and have flown them in service since. All I hear from pilots, cabin crew, maintenance and passengers is what a great plane it is.
Someone compared the 787 to the A350… not even close. The 787 is almost all composite, carbon fiber… the 350 is carbon panels attached to a standard metal frame. The 787 is stronger, it is pressurized higher, so your body thinks it’s at a lower altitude, and the HVAC maintains a more humid air, so you dont get all dried out, which reduces jetlag.
This Barnett is just trying to get even with Boeing for weeding his butt out of there. He thinks that being a whistleblower will protect him. When Boeing disproves his claims… I truly hope they sue him for damaging their reputation.

Hey there, that’s a pretty damning accusation, if it were true. Alas, it triggers too many warnings, looks too much like a comment written at the behest of Boeing itself to attack the reputation of the manager. Also the way you write this now after so many others have confirmed what the whistle blower has said kind of makes you look like a shill.

Now, you may disprove me, but I must warn you: insulting me or the person in question will only hurt your argument, mister all-caps jet mech. Yes, I am pointing out how even your chosen nickname suggests you are not sincere. But please, prove me wrong.

6 Likes

I wonder how we’re supposed to read this?:

“Boeing is a a safe company because it knows how to keep incompetent managers on the payroll in the safest way.”

“We all knew how our management was incompetent, and that’s why you should trust us.”

“I’m a great spouse, it’s my stupid significant other that’s always messing up. Always.”

7 Likes

Well, you all have me really looking forward to next month, when I’ll be crossing 11 time zones on a pair of Dreamliners.

3 Likes

Good luck. Not just because of the Dreamliners, but because long plane trips suck. Remember to wear flight socks!

3 Likes

Do planes usually only have a 1.5x factor of safety?

1 Like

I fear that this will be a case of a MIC monopoly being saved despite its threat to public safety. A day hardly passes without some new scandal surfacing. The FAA is clearly in over its head manpower-wise and expertise-wise. They have been for decades. Congress wants it that way. Thus we have two incompetent forces trying to convince the public to fly around on timebombs.

Bill Clinton is to blame for encouraging this sort of thing. But in the end, the US will bail out Boeing on the backs of taxpayers unless people refuse to fly on its planes. Hello Airbus.

Do you want your plane to fly?

2 Likes

I have zero ties to Boeing, I left there happily in 2015. I just know THIS PERSON… and his reputation at the factory. I also know how life at the company works. I dont care if you believe me or not… I just find it funny when a bunch of people with zero knowledge of a topic, suddenly become experts on the topic.

It’s quite a bit more than 1.5… its 1.5 times the load they ever expect the plane to see… so 1X the max load they ever visualize the plane experiencing is quite a bit more than what it will ever see. Then, they add in another half of that. On the 787, when they bent the wings up… the wing looked almost like the letter U!! On the 777X pressurization check, where it ruptured… if people were in that plane, that pressure would be excruciatingly painful. Look for the videos of any Boeing plane wing stress test. Its impressive how far they bend!!

1 Like

I’ve done it multiple times, and in dreamliners with no creature comforts… only flight test equipment. You will feel better than after any flight you’ve done previously. The trip you are taking is why this plane was designed. Your body wont be put through as much stress… this really is a great plane to fly on!!
Especially if you have a business or first class seat!!

1 Like

This is maybe more damning than the original article.

If what you say is true, Boeing knew the individual was dangerous, and instead of taking appropriate action, promoted the worker, so he would have more authority.

This just further suggests that the safety culture at Boeing is backwards and terrible and in need of oversight. Outsourcing is probably a GOOD thing in this situation, because at least more organizations will inspect items, instead of “promoted dangerous people” overseeing things.

8 Likes

FWIW, the Wiki articles on the 787 talks about the battery issues quite a bit.

Key takeaways:

  • 787 uses (used?) lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2) batteries because they were the only ones certified for flight at the time (late 200xs)
  • after the battery incidents and fires Boeing put them in a big-ass containment box (which neutralised any size weight savings gained from using Li-ion…)
  • LiFePO4 batteries have since become available, and are considerably safer as they aren’t susceptible to thermal runaway caused by the cobalt in the other batteries.

tl;dr: not all Li-ion batteries are created equal. Not all applications of Li-ion batteries are created equal.

3 Likes