Boeing finds debris in 737 MAX jetliners - company memo

By Eric M. Johnson

 

FILE PHOTO: An employee works near a Boeing 737 Max aircraft at Boeing's 737 Max production facility in Renton, Washington, U.S. December 16, 2019. REUTERS/Lindsey Wasson/File Photo

 

SEATTLE (Reuters) - Boeing Co <BA.N> found debris that could pose potential safety risks in the fuel tanks of several 737 MAX aircraft that are in storage and waiting to be delivered to airlines, according to an internal memo seen by Reuters on Tuesday.

 

Foreign object debris, an industrial term for rags, tools, metal shavings and other materials left behind by workers during the production process, has been a quality control issue for various Boeing aircraft, such as its KC-46 tankers.

 

Mark Jenks, general manager of the 737 programme, told employees in the memo that such debris was "absolutely unacceptable" and that the company was taking steps to address the issue in its production system.

 

A Boeing spokesman confirmed the memo's authenticity, and said Boeing does not see the debris as contributing to delays in the jet's return to service.

 

The objects were found during maintenance work on some of the hundreds of 737 MAX jetliners Boeing has built but not delivered due to a worldwide ban imposed last March following two crashes that killed 346 people, he said.

 

The FAA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

 

(Reporting by Eric M. Johnson in Seattle; Editing by Sonya Hepinstall)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-02-19

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

Will anyone be brave enough to trust Boeing enough to fly in a 737MAX after this fiasco?

The k46 tanker issues with debris and foreign object damage (FOD) were well publicized.  Sadly, I am sure that some people will maliciously try and damage or sabotage Boeing assets.  Some probably think they are hurting Boeing or giving them what they deserve after the 737 MAX crashes.  But, the sabotage is only likely to hurt more innocent people and is horrible.

7 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

Airbus isn't perfect either. Some of their aircraft have had deadly  defects and poor build quality. Some recent examples are;

-AB 320 Neo engine issues

- AB350  software defects requiring shutdowns and reboots

- AB 380 wing defects requiring additional checks

 

Yes, Boeing screwed up, big time. However, Airbus is  benefiting from the distraction.  How quickly some forget the  defective Pitot tubes of   the AB330 that caused many issues including the tragoc AF 447 crash. 

 

Nobody said airbus was perfect, but at least it hasn't the same company culture where its money first safety last. This is what has become public knowledge now. The US will do whatever it can to help boeing instead of punishing them as of they have a president who only thinks about money too.

1 hour ago, gk10002000 said:

The k46 tanker issues with debris and foreign object damage (FOD) were well publicized.  Sadly, I am sure that some people will maliciously try and damage or sabotage Boeing assets.  Some probably think they are hurting Boeing or giving them what they deserve after the 737 MAX crashes.  But, the sabotage is only likely to hurt more innocent people and is horrible.

Where is your evidence that this was sabotage?

a friend many years ago fitting out the AWACS Boeing aircraft, found foreign debris  in the new unused aircraft most days, tools, metal shavings, rivets, mis drilled holes etc. , so not a new thing, just bad working methods

3 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

 

 

 How quickly some forget the  defective Pitot tubes of   the AB330 that caused many issues including the tragoc AF 447 crash. 

 

According to the final report the accident resulted from the following succession of major events:

• temporary inconsistency between the measured speeds, likely as a result of the obstruction of the pitot tubes by ice crystals, causing autopilot disconnection and reconfiguration to alternate law;
• the crew made inappropriate control inputs that destabilized the flight path;
• the crew failed to follow appropriate procedure for loss of displayed airspeed information;
• the crew were late in identifying and correcting the deviation from the flight path;
• the crew lacked understanding of the approach to stall;
• the crew failed to recognize the aircraft had stalled and consequently did not make inputs that would have made it possible to recover from the stall.

These events resulted from the following major factors in combination:

• feedback mechanisms on the part of those involved made it impossible to identify and remedy the repeated non-application of the procedure for inconsistent airspeed, and to ensure that crews were trained in icing of the pitot probes and its consequences;
• the crew lacked practical training in manually handling the aircraft both at high altitude and in the event of anomalies of speed indication;
• the two co-pilots' task sharing was weakened both by incomprehension of the situation at the time of autopilot disconnection, and by poor management of the "startle effect", leaving them in an emotionally charged situation;
• the cockpit lacked a clear display of the inconsistencies in airspeed readings identified by the flight computers;
• the crew did not respond to the stall warning, whether due to a failure to identify the aural warning, to the transience of the stall warnings that could have been considered spurious, to the absence of any visual information that could confirm that the aircraft was approaching stall after losing the characteristic speeds, to confusing stall-related buffet for overspeed-related buffet, to the indications by the Flight Director that might have confirmed the crew's mistaken view of their actions, or to difficulty in identifying and understanding the implications of the switch to alternate law, which does not protect the angle of attack.

https://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601.en/pdf/f-cp090601.en.pdf

 

Airbus is very very happy with this news.

Is Boeing run by clowns at the moment?

Cutting corners and costs has a higher priority then human life?

They should be banned from aircraft production.

Is Boeing being run and managed by General Motors !!

47 minutes ago, spiekerjozef said:

Is Boeing run by clowns at the moment?

Cutting corners and costs has a higher priority then human life?

They should be banned from aircraft production.

According to some Boeing is now run by accountants.

It used to be run by engineers.

It seems like Boeing has adopted the policy of software companies who use their customers as beta testers.

Troll posts have been removed. 

52 minutes ago, car720 said:

Not clowns.  Chinese.  

You can't blame the Chinese for this. Thanks to Boeing management, a new aircraft manufacturer will emerge in Asia and kill off both Boeing and Airbus.

Debris found in any plane or jet is the fault of the people building these new aircraft, and

being too lazy to build and inspect them properly, or not having enough staff to do these important

inspections.  Carelessness, as well as profits before safety attitude, causes this situation to happen.

Geezer

Edited February 19, 20206 yr by Stargrazer9889
error.

3 hours ago, than said:

According to the final report the accident resulted from the following succession of major events:

• temporary inconsistency between the measured speeds, likely as a result of the obstruction of the pitot tubes by ice crystals, causing autopilot disconnection and reconfiguration to alternate law;
• the crew made inappropriate control inputs that destabilized the flight path;
• the crew failed to follow appropriate procedure for loss of displayed airspeed information;
• the crew were late in identifying and correcting the deviation from the flight path;
• the crew lacked understanding of the approach to stall;
• the crew failed to recognize the aircraft had stalled and consequently did not make inputs that would have made it possible to recover from the stall.

These events resulted from the following major factors in combination:

• feedback mechanisms on the part of those involved made it impossible to identify and remedy the repeated non-application of the procedure for inconsistent airspeed, and to ensure that crews were trained in icing of the pitot probes and its consequences;
• the crew lacked practical training in manually handling the aircraft both at high altitude and in the event of anomalies of speed indication;
• the two co-pilots' task sharing was weakened both by incomprehension of the situation at the time of autopilot disconnection, and by poor management of the "startle effect", leaving them in an emotionally charged situation;
• the cockpit lacked a clear display of the inconsistencies in airspeed readings identified by the flight computers;
• the crew did not respond to the stall warning, whether due to a failure to identify the aural warning, to the transience of the stall warnings that could have been considered spurious, to the absence of any visual information that could confirm that the aircraft was approaching stall after losing the characteristic speeds, to confusing stall-related buffet for overspeed-related buffet, to the indications by the Flight Director that might have confirmed the crew's mistaken view of their actions, or to difficulty in identifying and understanding the implications of the switch to alternate law, which does not protect the angle of attack.

https://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601.en/pdf/f-cp090601.en.pdf

 

The main problem in my opinion is that Boeing built a plane that can’t be flown without the help of electronic helpers due to the position of the engines. I can’t remember which way it was, but without the helpers the plane will either go nose up or down by default. 

7 hours ago, robblok said:

Nobody said airbus was perfect, but at least it hasn't the same company culture where its money first safety last. This is what has become public knowledge now. The US will do whatever it can to help boeing instead of punishing them as of they have a president who only thinks about money too.

Trump DID NOT leave dirty rags in the fuel tanks. I guarantee that. No matter, any opportunity to smear him is acceptable to many.

48 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

The main problem in my opinion is that Boeing built a plane that can’t be flown without the help of electronic helpers due to the position of the engines. I can’t remember which way it was, but without the helpers the plane will either go nose up or down by default. 

They are all automated most of the flying is done via computer nowerdays to the point of many pilots beeing unskilled in the art of stick and rudder skills as far as debris beeing left behind that is a common problem across all industry producing large machines

10 hours ago, ThaiBunny said:

Will anyone be brave enough to trust Boeing enough to fly in a 737MAX after this fiasco?

...why is it this particular model a 'lemon'...makes you think about all their models...RIP all those who died in one.

13 hours ago, Tug said:

They are all automated most of the flying is done via computer nowerdays to the point of many pilots beeing unskilled in the art of stick and rudder skills as far as debris beeing left behind that is a common problem across all industry producing large machines

Didn’t know that. Still, if the computer dies for whatever reason a regular plane could probably just glide for a while whereas this one would go nose up or down. 

16 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

The main problem in my opinion is that Boeing built a plane that can’t be flown without the help of electronic helpers due to the position of the engines. I can’t remember which way it was, but without the helpers the plane will either go nose up or down by default. 

It's not quite as simple as that.

 

It's been a while since I was an aerospace engineer at Rockwell, but the physics is pretty obvious.

 

The new larger and heavier engines were positioned way forward on the wing spar compared to older 737 versions

 

This simple fact to anyone with the bare minimum understanding of aeronautics tells you that aerodynamically it's a fundamentally different aircraft, not a bad aircraft, but different to before.

 

The MCAS software much discussed in itself is not bad, in fact versions of it are deployed on many aircraft.

 

The problem, and fundamental sin in other deployments crews are required to undergo simulator training to obtain certification to fly. In the MAX however, Boeing marketed the product as being directly transferrable from previous models, with crews requiring nothing more than CBT training, where MCAS wasn't even mentioned, let alone how to respond to an anomalous AOA sensor reading, and how to overcome it. 

 

The basic engineering flaw in the MAX MCAS was unlike in the Pegasus implementation, in the MAX, MCAS was the primary, whereas in Pegasus, the crew were are trained and the primary decision maker.

 

It's really just profit driven hubris at it's worst.

 

Had the MAX been marketed as a new aircraft with full simulator crew certification requirements this would never have happened   

19 hours ago, JustAnotherHun said:

It seems like Boeing has adopted the policy of software companies who use their customers as beta testers.

Boeing software is running on Windows95.

Edited February 20, 20206 yr by spiekerjozef

On 2/19/2020 at 6:15 AM, ThaiBunny said:

Will anyone be brave enough to trust Boeing enough to fly in a 737MAX after this fiasco?

I doubt that the issue is restricted to the 737MAX, it makes one wonder about the whole fleet. 

I hope it fails and the price of tickets go up by 5 times. $8,500 from BKK to London. Be careful what you wish for.

On 2/19/2020 at 10:52 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

On 2/19/2020 at 8:56 AM, gk10002000 said:

The k46 tanker issues with debris and foreign object damage (FOD) were well publicized.  Sadly, I am sure that some people will maliciously try and damage or sabotage Boeing assets.  Some probably think they are hurting Boeing or giving them what they deserve after the 737 MAX crashes.  But, the sabotage is only likely to hurt more innocent people and is horrible.

Where is your evidence that this was sabotage?

This is Thaivisa, no evidence necessary!

7 hours ago, GinBoy2 said:

It's not quite as simple as that.

 

It's been a while since I was an aerospace engineer at Rockwell, but the physics is pretty obvious.

 

The new larger and heavier engines were positioned way forward on the wing spar compared to older 737 versions

 

This simple fact to anyone with the bare minimum understanding of aeronautics tells you that aerodynamically it's a fundamentally different aircraft, not a bad aircraft, but different to before.

 

The MCAS software much discussed in itself is not bad, in fact versions of it are deployed on many aircraft.

 

The problem, and fundamental sin in other deployments crews are required to undergo simulator training to obtain certification to fly. In the MAX however, Boeing marketed the product as being directly transferrable from previous models, with crews requiring nothing more than CBT training, where MCAS wasn't even mentioned, let alone how to respond to an anomalous AOA sensor reading, and how to overcome it. 

 

The basic engineering flaw in the MAX MCAS was unlike in the Pegasus implementation, in the MAX, MCAS was the primary, whereas in Pegasus, the crew were are trained and the primary decision maker.

 

It's really just profit driven hubris at it's worst.

 

Had the MAX been marketed as a new aircraft with full simulator crew certification requirements this would never have happened   

Thank you very much for this information! ????

On 2/19/2020 at 4:33 PM, IAMHERE said:

Trump DID NOT leave dirty rags in the fuel tanks. I guarantee that. No matter, any opportunity to smear him is acceptable to many.

 

I think the other poster's point was.... a current corporate culture in the U.S. of money and profit above all else is in keeping with the ethos of the current U.S. president.  He and the past management at Boeing seem to be a good fit for each other.

 

And in both cases, the country and the company that they respectively manage are going to **** as a result. Perhaps Boeing will end up emulating Trump's long record of bankruptcies as well, if they don't end up turning around both their planes and their corporate culture.

 

 

Edited February 20, 20206 yr by TallGuyJohninBKK

9 hours ago, Just Weird said:

This is Thaivisa, no evidence necessary!

 

9 hours ago, Just Weird said:

On 2/18/2020 at 10:52 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

On 2/18/2020 at 8:56 PM, gk10002000 said:

The k46 tanker issues with debris and foreign object damage (FOD) were well publicized.  Sadly, I am sure that some people will maliciously try and damage or sabotage Boeing assets.  Some probably think they are hurting Boeing or giving them what they deserve after the 737 MAX crashes.  But, the sabotage is only likely to hurt more innocent people and is horrible.

Where is your evidence that this was sabotage?

This is Thaivisa, no evidence necessary!

I never claimed nor asserted that there was sabotage.  I mentioned sabotage because there was sabotage suspected in the k46 tanker case because things like lunch boxes, and other types of debris was found and the investigation determined it was most likely deliberate as the items were not part of the production or assembly process and required direct acts to put the items in the fuel tanks.

On 2/18/2020 at 11:36 PM, spiekerjozef said:

Is Boeing run by clowns at the moment?

Cutting corners and costs has a higher priority then human life?

They should be banned from aircraft production.

 

Boeing has MCAS.  Airbus has Alpha Protection.

 

It's just sheer luck that the Boeing MCAS crashes cost more lives than Airbus Alpha Protection crashes.

 

 

Posts removed.   Keep it civil or face a suspension.