Boeing Bashing (Page 2): Until the recent MCAS debacle, the FAA allowed Boeing to do many of its own inspections (apparently because they didn’t have enough personnel)...

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Longshadow wrote:

Self-regulating?

FAA is not involved?

Until the recent MCAS debacle, the FAA allowed Boeing to do many of its own inspections (apparently because they didn’t have enough personnel)

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

TriX wrote:

Until the recent MCAS debacle, the FAA allowed Boeing to do many of its own inspections (apparently because they didn’t have enough personnel)

Red6

Longshadow wrote:

Self-regulating?

FAA is not involved?

The FAA had an arrangement with Boeing. The FAA allowed Boeing employees to be "special representatives of the FAA" and conduct quality audits, inspections, and reporting. I am not sure if this was unique to Boeing.

This "special representative" was supposed to act as an agent of the FAA while still reporting to and being paid by Boeing. These "special representatives" were under intense pressure to keep things moving on the production line.

Nothing could go wrong with that system!

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Red6 wrote:

The FAA had an arrangement with Boeing. The FAA a... (show quote)

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

Longshadow wrote:

Self-regulating?

FAA is not involved?

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/102695/why-did-the-faa-allow-boeing-to-self-regulate

marine73 Loc: Modesto California

dustie wrote:

Or how quickly the lost exterior skin panel near a... (show quote)

That flight was scheduled for Denver and had to divert to Medford.

Dikdik Loc: Winnipeg, Canada

Funding for the FAA was greatly reduced by the government, and it was necessary that Boeing look after a lot of their regulation. The system is largely broken.

Canonuser Loc: UK and South Africa

It seems to me if there is a switch that can be accidentally activated by whomever, and it causes such a severe outcome, there is clearly a design fault somewhere. Nothing of this nature should have ever been remotely possible. Once again Boeing has to notify all operators of a possible problem with one of their planes.

Red6

dustie wrote:

Or how quickly the lost exterior skin panel near a... (show quote)

The media often does "jump on the bandwagon" and "bash" someone or some corporation that is getting a lot of publicity. This is just human nature exemplified by Don Henley's song "Dirty Laundry".

But, do we want the media to NOT report something that could be important or of interest? Do we want the reporter or media source to judge what we should and should not hear? No, I want to hear everything and then I can investigate the issue myself and judge whether or not it was relevant.

In this case, this was an older aircraft and I understand it has been through numerous maintenance cycles, refits, and overhauls since 1998. Unless it was some type of just-discovered design error (unlikely at this age), this was most likely caused by sloppy maintenance on the airline's part. All of this information I just described is easily obtainable and verified online.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

ecblackiii wrote:

Remember the recent LATAM (a Chilean Airline) flig... (show quote)

IMHO the placement of the switch (with or without a protective cover) is a design flaw.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Canonuser wrote:

It seems to me if there is a switch that can be accidentally activated by whomever, and it causes such a severe outcome, there is clearly a design fault somewhere. Nothing of this nature should have ever been remotely possible. Once again Boeing has to notify all operators of a possible problem with one of their planes.

The switch was supposed to have a cover. It was designed to be used for maintenance, and covered when the seat was in use. But even with a cover, something like that should be placed where it would not be accidentally hit by anything without making some effort (e.g. opening a panel door).

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

DirtFarmer wrote:

The switch was supposed to have a cover. It was designed to be used for maintenance, and covered when the seat was in use. But even with a cover, something like that should be placed where it would not be accidentally hit by anything without making some effort (e.g. opening a panel door).

NOW we're getting more pertinent and useful information!
Too many people judge too quickly anymore.
Few get all their marbles in the basket before playing the game.

ecblackiii Loc: Maryland

DirtFarmer wrote:

The switch was supposed to have a cover. It was designed to be used for maintenance, and covered when the seat was in use. But even with a cover, something like that should be placed where it would not be accidentally hit by anything without making some effort (e.g. opening a panel door).

The switch is completely covered by a lid cover that has to be lifted upward in order to press the switch. (See photo)
The lid is to be closed except for intentionally moving the seat (backward in order to get into the seat, or to move the seat forward when no one is occupying the seat.) But pilots are responsible for performing prescribed procedures, like closing the lid, and airline maintenance is responsible for keeping the lid in serviceable condition. Boeing issued a notice reminding crews of that in 2017.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

ecblackiii wrote:

The switch is completely covered by a lid cover th... (show quote)

The plot thickens.....

Now if the lid is missing or not closed, NOT Boeing's problem.

Old Coot

ecblackiii wrote:

Remember the recent LATAM (a Chilean Airline) flig... (show quote)

Boeing's problems started when they movedf head Office to Chicago where new management decided that Boeings focus was to be shareholder value which meant that profit was the number one priority. As a result the plants were forced to make huge cost savings with many pieces of the airplanes being manufactured by outside sources in a bidding process. All these lead up to cutting back on inspections and quality control. We see the results today. In Chicago, almost all senior personnel are business people and not many engineers.