Boeing's Big Gamble

May 9, 2019 12:05 PM

The airline industry is a highly competitive one, and Boeing was facing serious competition from its rival, Airbus (Al Jazeera video, transcript). This is the story of how, rather than designing a new airframe from scratch, which could be a long and costly business, Boeing decided to re-vamp its highly successful 737 series, building on new state-of-the-art computer technologies to make the planes more fuel efficient and economical. The new 737 was quickly certified by the FAA, and sold well; but then, some years later, they began crashing in similar ways. Double? No - this is the story of the Boeing NG, and poor manufacturing quality, rush to market, and failed FAA oversight, from 2010.
posted by carter (19 comments total)

Annoying engineering editor note: "precise to within 3000ths of an inch" should actually say "accurate to within three one-thousandths (3/1000, or 0.003) of an inch".

(Precise means hitting the same point, time after time. Accurate means hitting the *right* point. and the way they have it written is 1/3000.)
posted by notsnot at 1:10 PM on May 9, 2019 [16 favorites]

When you have aviation assembly line workers willing to use parts that don't fit and aren't safe, your company has made a very wrong turn. The kind that can destroy a company.
posted by Bee'sWing at 1:48 PM on May 9, 2019 [4 favorites]

but then, some years later, they began crashing in similar ways

Am I missing something? I don't find any mention of crashes in the links.
posted by Ickster at 1:57 PM on May 9, 2019

A look at the list of 737NG accidents doesn't seem to show any unusual patterns.
posted by Ickster at 2:00 PM on May 9, 2019

lckster - here it is in the video. I am not an aero engineer etc.
posted by carter at 2:04 PM on May 9, 2019

737s overshoot runaways, and their fuselages split apart at the same places ...
posted by carter at 2:05 PM on May 9, 2019

when you have workers willing to use parts that don't fit and aren't safe

The problem is Managers requiring workers to use non-conforming parts, or be fired.

[rant]Boeing started going downhill when they hired a bean counter as CEO and he moved their headquarters to Chicago. What was an engineering company is now not much more than an animated spreadsheet.[/rant]
posted by monotreme at 2:10 PM on May 9, 2019 [10 favorites]

Seems like a real stretch to me. Airframes in general aren't designed to slide across broken ground or into things.

The FPP ties manufacturing problems to a claim that 'they began crashing in similar ways'; the crashes have nothing to do with the manufacturing problems. It's like complaining that people were dying in poorly built ships when those ships were being run aground.
posted by Ickster at 2:13 PM on May 9, 2019 [3 favorites]

Ickster, there's also some interesting footage in the video of a deliberate crash carried out by the FAA. There is some discussion in that section of how fuselages should withstand these sorts of impacts, to a degree anyway. The argument is that faulty manufacturing processes resulted in the fuselages breaking apart where they might otherwise have not. But again, I'm not an aero engineer etc. ...
posted by carter at 2:24 PM on May 9, 2019

The issue here is not that planes started failing; the issue it that the manufacturer is lying to the FAA and bypassing its own safety measures. I don't care if this particular issue doesn't lead to a single failure ever; the problem is that a mechanism and culture has been put in place that will inevitably cause a major problem someday. You are a company that builds safe planes to your own specification, or you aren't.
posted by phooky at 3:05 PM on May 9, 2019 [15 favorites]

It used to be that there was a precise Receiving Inspection procedure where quality inspectors would get out their rulers and micrometers and and spec sheets and check each item received from an outside supplier before allowing it to be put in the caged and locked storeroom at the assembly plant.

But in a cost cutting measure they replaced it with Direct to Stock, allowing the supplier to certify their own compliance with specifications and say "No need to inspect this. Trust us."
posted by JackFlash at 4:14 PM on May 9, 2019 [7 favorites]

Jfc I know flying is much safer than driving but I’d rather die in a car collision than at 35,000 feet. This shit terrifies me.
posted by gucci mane at 4:15 PM on May 9, 2019

I’d rather die in a car collision than at 35,000 feet.

Odds are pretty good you won't die at 35,000 feet in a plane crash.

As they say, its not the fall, it's the stop.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 6:32 PM on May 9, 2019 [5 favorites]

This shit terrifies me.

You are not alone. Song by Loudon Wainwright III
posted by Mister Bijou at 7:32 PM on May 9, 2019

I’d rather die in a car collision than at 35,000 feet.

A single accidental death has happened on a US flight in the last decade, and they died of a heart attack.
posted by sideshow at 7:57 PM on May 9, 2019

The problem is Managers requiring workers to use non-conforming parts, or be fired.

[rant]Boeing started going downhill when they hired a bean counter as CEO and he moved their headquarters to Chicago. What was an engineering company is now not much more than an animated spreadsheet.[/rant]

Ok, cool story but the vast majority of Boeing's management are engineers and that has always been the case.
posted by atrazine at 2:48 AM on May 10, 2019

A single accidental death has happened on a US flight in the last decade, and they died of a heart attack

???

Jennifer Riordan, a 43-year-old bank executive and mother of two from Albuquerque, was seated in row 14 when she was sucked through a 10-by-14-inch window that had been broken by pieces of the disintegrating engine, two individuals familiar with the investigation said.
...
With the plane flying at about 550 miles per hour, Riordan probably died instantly. The cause of death was blunt impact trauma to her head, neck and torso, according to the Philadelphia medical examiner.

An individual familiar with the investigation said it is likely Riordan’s neck broke from the force of the airplane’s speed when her head was pulled outside.

Even if the cause of death had been a heart attack (which it wasn’t), it seems kind of remiss not to mention that it happened while the individual was being sucked out of a window that got smashed by one of the blades from a catastrophic engine failure.
posted by chappell, ambrose at 4:10 AM on May 10, 2019 [7 favorites]

I read this article and found it fascinating. Thanks for the post.

I read this a while ago and found it illuminating.
posted by zerobyproxy at 7:09 AM on May 10, 2019 [1 favorite]

Flying may be safe, but that doesn't mean crash-worthiness is not a worthwhile goal. Something like 85% of commercial aircraft accidents are non-fatal - there's all sorts of heavy landings, runway overruns, small fires, contained engine failures and burst tyres you don't really hear much about because everything worked out.

And it does seem incredible that there's been so many hull losses of the 737 NG which resulted in the same failure mode. American Airlines AA331 in 2009, Turkish 1951 in 2009, Aires 8250 in 2010, Caribbean 523 in 2011 and Lion Air 904 in 2013 - that's 5 breakups through the same process in 26 hull losses - 20%. In comparison, I can't find any evidence of a single A320 breaking up in the same way after leaving the runway (which does sometimes happen).

I don't think there's evidence that the 737-NG is more likely to have accidents due to the hull strength issue, but it seems fairly likely that when the right kind of accidents do occur, it's much more likely to break up into 3 pieces. Whether this is due to faulty components or just a bad design I don't know. I know I'd really hate to be sitting in the wrong bit of a 737-800 when it left the runway though!
posted by leo_r at 4:21 PM on May 10, 2019 [1 favorite]