
Boeing finds debris left in new 737 MAXes, now in storage - robin_reala
https://leehamnews.com/2020/02/18/boeing-finds-debris-left-in-new-737-maxes-now-in-storage/
======
Gustomaximus
I don't care how certified these planes are down the track, I never want to
set foot on a 737 Max and generally any new Boeing that doesn't have a solid
air history. Trust with these guys is totally blown.

~~~
SimplyUnknown
I'm totally with you, but how do you prevent it? Usually you only know what
type of plane you fly with _after_ buying tickets. A solution might be to only
buy tickets from operators that don't have with 737 MAX planes but this group
might be getting smaller over long time.

~~~
tluyben2
I pick airlines that have (almost) no Boeings and that I can call before
booking to see if it's an Airbus. I have done that for many years before the
737 Max issues. I simply find them annoying (very noisy) to fly with, but I
definitely try to avoid. Some times I find myself in a Boeing on short flights
when suddenly another airline provides the plane and it may be bad luck or
damaged hearing or whatever; every flight I get into (and I fly a lot) with a
Boeing, the noise is horrible.

~~~
avh02
my experience with A350 vs 787 (both Qatar) is that the A350's are some of
quietest planes I've flown.

~~~
vrsfvwae5tbh
Got bumped from a A350 to a 777 for an upcoming long haul when Cathay Pacfic
changed their schedules due to COVID-19. Blegh.

~~~
MaupitiBlue
The 777 is the safest of them all, isn’t it?

------
e40
The Daily podcast interviewed a manager of the NC (SC?) Boein plant and he
said he reported debris in planes and tried to stop them from being shipped
off... and failed. It wasn't the fuel tank, though, it was in the air frame.
Sharp objects. That coexist with wires. While listening I must have said "WTF"
out loud a dozen times.

~~~
PedroBatista
Worse, that type of thing is long been known as an dangerous issue and the
industry has processes and protocols to deal with it. That's why it's "worse",
Boeing knows about all these things and conscientiously decides to don't give
a f#$%k.

Airbus ( and I'm sure pretty much all the other manufacturers ) has all the
processes for training the workers about this problem, how to avoid it, how to
deal with it when happens, check-in and checkout all the tools at the start
and the end of the task, inspections, etc. this is so basic it hurts.

~~~
kayfox
I think its probably a lack of supervision and not a lack of protocols, if it
were a lack of protocols the 787s assembled in Everett would have the same
issues. Also, I have personally observed the use of protocols to prevent this
in tours and (a long time ago) working in the Everett factory.

~~~
LeifCarrotson
The tricky thing about protocols is that you have to be willing to follow them
and deal with the consequences when you step off the normal path through the
flowchart.

If the protocol says "(1) Check out tools before using them. (2) Check in
tools when returning them. (3) Verify all tools checked out have been checked
in before marking the job complete." that's one thing. Sending employees to
training on how to do this and seeing daily clipboards by the tool room with
initials might make you think the protocol is in use. And if there are
supervisors making sure that the clipboard is full of initials at the end of
the day, that can give you a nice warm fuzzy feeling.

The problem comes when supervisors want to 'look good' by having no deviations
from the protocol. If people are post-dating their check-in or pre-dating
their check-out, or checking stuff in that's still in use by a coworker, the
protocol is less than useless.

When humans are tasked with following those protocols, they'll make human
mistakes sometimes. If there are no mistakes that's not good, that's bad - it
indicates the metrics are being fudged. I think any supervisor that fails to
find a deviation from the protocol or who can't list an event when the
protocol required action outside the norm does not look good.

Similar stuff applies to software development: If you're doing code reviews,
or testing before check-in, or signing off on releases, and can't point to a
time when the protocol said "nope, go back to the drawing board" you're not
actually making your development safer you're making it a hassle.

~~~
kayfox
The tool crib checkout is done on computer at least. The toolbox inspections
might be fudged.

It also might be downstream or upstream of the Boeing factories, like at one
of the companies that manufactures major components (example: Spirit
AeroSystems manufactures the 737 main fuselage and I'm told Section 41/cockpit
of many aircraft) or at one of the maintenance facilities.

------
fh973
Apparently these problems are very hard to avoid. See here for some stories in
context of the Space Shuttle:
[https://waynehale.wordpress.com/](https://waynehale.wordpress.com/)

As a remedy, they use tools that are tracked by RFID and tool cabinets that
monitor that all tools are back in place.

~~~
acomjean
It’s a known problem with known solutions. “Foreign object elimination” I
ended up taking the FOE training after someone left a tool at a radar site. I
work in software and never visited the site, but “big company”. FOD foreign
object damage is what everyone is trying to avoid.

(Pdf)
[https://www.astm.org/CERTIFICATION/DOCS/222.NCATT_FOE_Standa...](https://www.astm.org/CERTIFICATION/DOCS/222.NCATT_FOE_Standard.pdf)

~~~
sysadmindotfail
Any large aerospace contractor has mandatory FOD/FOE training for ALL
employees (contract stipulation). Don't forget to _not_ charge for this time
spent!

~~~
Danieru
> Don't forget to not charge for this time spent!

Implying an interesting story here, mind sharing?

~~~
acomjean
If you've ever worked for a defense contractor, you have charge codes for
everything. They take charging to the correct code correctly very very
seriously. (In 6 minute intervals (.1 hr)). Submit your time daily.

We were a Boeing Sub contractor.

Timecard fraud was a fireable offense. The company I worked for was rumored to
have fired someone who came into the office on a weekend and badged in his
buddy who wasn't actually there. Basically trying to game the door timer
system.

My last task at big co, was making a timecard app for ios and blackberry, to
make it easy.

~~~
Danieru
Yes that makes sense, but the interesting story would by why required training
should _not_ be billed to the client.

------
GrayShade
The article doesn't say what kind of debris they found. Can it lead to the
fuel being cut off during flights? Can it be undetected for non-737 MAX planes
that are currently flying?

Also, from the comments:

> One Middle East airline inspected their new 787 and found lots of debris and
> didn’t want 787 from Charleston for some time. They also found a chewing gum
> covering a hole in a wall close to a door.

~~~
londons_explore
I feel like it would be easier to just put a big mesh over the fuel intake
inside the tank, and then say "this plane is certified to have objects up to
10 inches in the fuel tank and will still operate as designed".

Planes have two fuel tanks and two engines anyway - I would really struggle to
imagine a scenario in which FOD in a fuel tank would lead to something worse
than an emergency landing.

~~~
iso947
A screwdriver is under half an inch in diameter and will cause major problems
with your engine.

------
cultus
So there is no need to delay delivery because they've launched a "robust"
internal investigation. I'm sure this debris doesn't at all point to the
possibility of overall bad quality control and the presence of other
undetected problems. It'll be just fine.

------
goalieca
All of the rigor of modern software development.

------
sam36
I'll chime in as I was previously an "air frame structure tech". Basically I
did everything on the airplane other than mess with engines or electronics.
Worked on the Navy P3 Orion fleet (remove and replace wings), the Airforce
C-17 fleet (worked various tech bulletins as well as air frame inspection
checks), and a brief stent on the the 747 'Sofia' project (cut a really giant
hole for a telescope)

Anyway, I was most intimate with the P-3 orion fuel tanks (which is the entire
wing) as we regularly pulled the wings on those planes, replaced various
spars, ribs, etc and then reinstalled the wings. Then we'd have to fill the
entire wings up with the 'anti explosion foam' which is in several hundred
cube shapes, all with painted on numbers (yes they all go back in order),
ranging from 6" to 18" in size. After that was done, plane was refueled and
tested. Normally after a few weeks of checks, the fuel filters and intake
strainers would be checked. They commonly had rags in them, but always had
tons of metal shavings and wads of human hair (probably hair from your legs).

So yes, 'FOD' is always in the tanks after any construction or maintenance.
There would be no tools in the tanks as normally your employee number or
social security number was etched on everything you owned.

------
dylan604
This isn't unique in the manufacturing of large engineering projects. There
are stories of the US Navy doing sonar test runs of new double hulled
submarines to see if the submarine is as quiet as expected. One of the things
that happen[s|ed] often enough is a tool box being left in between the double
hulls that they know what it sounds like.

~~~
CryptoBanker
USN submarines haven't had double hulls for 70 years almost. Hopefully things
have improved

~~~
dylan604
We haven't put skids on the bottom of the boats in a really long time either.
Doesn't make the stories any less interesting though.

[https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Mans-Bluff-Submarine-
Espionage/...](https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Mans-Bluff-Submarine-
Espionage/dp/1610393589/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=blind+man%27s+bluff&qid=1582161638&s=arts-
crafts&sr=8-1)

------
jordache
I suspect all the boeing planes have this paltry quality. It's just that the
focus is very intense on the MAX right now.

~~~
Loughla
When left to their own devices, and when allowed to act as their own oversight
and auditing authority, it turns out that huge, impersonal corporations won't
act in the public's best interest.

It's like there should be a portion of government funds devoted to an agency
responsible for ensuring that these type of things can't happen.

Who knew? That's weird, right?

------
mmrezaie
Does this mean normally these planes were suppose to fly and they had passed
their final check?

------
phkahler
The head of Boeing's 737 programme has told employees that the discovery was
"absolutely unacceptable".

That's fine, but what action did that person take other than saying that? Or
does anything else need to be done at that level?

I recall reading about Andy Grove on the topic of management, and maybe the
point of people at that level really is to just push down "company values" in
a sense. I'd rather have someone up there shouting about this than constantly
shouting "shareholder value" or "just deliver", at least for products like
this. Maybe the bad culture there is changing ;-)

~~~
wnoise
Notice that he said the discovery was unacceptable, not that having the debris
was unacceptable.

~~~
paulmd
like the employees who wrote the "designed by clowns supervised by monkeys"
email. boeing took swift action... to fire the employees who made the mistake
of documenting the problem in writing.

------
PedroBatista
Having seen a documentary a few years ago about the 787 and the absolute
shitshow that was and still is, I'm now convinced Boeing has been building
their planes like an AMC Gremlin for at least 2 decades.

------
canada_dry
Considering how often surgeons leave all sorts of things inside patients
([https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/surgical-objects-left-in-
patie...](https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/surgical-objects-left-in-patients-on-
the-rise-in-canada-data-shows-1.4673890)) it's not hard to imagine
manufacturing facilities doing much worse!

Of course, the issue is _knowing about the problem and ignoring it_. That's
inexcusable.

------
stopads
It seems like Boeing (and the FAA and the industry more broadly) have been
hiding behind the veil of the "zero commercial accidents" streak for however
long that was happening while aggressively trying to coverup serious problems.

It's great that everyone is finally doing a deep dive to figure out these
problems. We need more of this, more critical thought and curmudgeons and
people who assume the statistics are wrong.

------
slumdev
If it's Boeing, I ain't going.

------
anodyne33
With the knowledge that A&P mechanics (air frame and powerplant) are required
to shadow their tools in their boxes (filling the drawers with foam and
plucking a distinct home for every tool to make confirmation that all are
returned easy and fast) I find it staggering that tools are left behind on a
regular basis at the assembly phase.

~~~
kayfox
Its the same at the Boeing factories, it will be interesting to see where this
stuff gets traced to.

------
growlist
What next?

------
kryogen1c
Submitted title is actual title, but the first paragraph actually makes sense,
recommend change

Boeing recently discovered some of its stored 737 MAXes have foreign objects
in the fuel tanks.

------
nottorp
Who needs Netflix? Just read the Boeing news...

------
nobrains
Do you think there is an element of sabotage by competitors?

~~~
hosteur
Why would you think so?

------
vectorEQ
no where it states if this is actually hazardous or not, if its a common thing
which might happen to other vendors too or anything. just 'found some stuff
which didn't pass the checks.' ok, thats what there are checks for..., good
job... such reporting. just post some random piece of information about some
buzzword or google trend without any background or context to put it in.

~~~
atoav
Have a listen to this: [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/podcasts/the-
daily/boeing...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/podcasts/the-daily/boeing-
crash.html)

Sharp debris in the airframe close to electrical wires and the very wires that
control the airframe in planes _that left the factory_ are not a theoretical
risk. Imagine your airline gets a "quality controlled" factory new plane and
you find they forgot a whole ladder (!) inside the hull — if this shouldn't
raise concerns — what would?

Or must it crash first? Oh wait..

The software problem alone was bad, but combine this with a lack of effective
oversight and a bad company culture and it looks far more bleak

~~~
heisenbit
The other good news is that the wire distances are not up to current standards
in the MAX. So when one goes you have a better chance the other critical one
also goes.

------
masukomi
> FOD is absolutely unacceptable. One escape is one too many. With your help
> and focus, we will eliminate FOD from our production system.

> We’ve already held a series of stand down meetings in Renton with teammates
> on the factory floor to share a new process for stopping FOD.

I can't help but think of "beatings will continue until morale improves!"

