Just like they normally don’t let the engineers test fly the airplane. But it was not an engineering problem. It was a manufacture problem. With the evidence on the faulty parts plain to see.I don't doubt the individuals believed there were problems, but it would only really be disturbing if there were any catastrophic failures of the hull of a 737NG that actually happened to one of the 6,500 aircraft flying over the last 20 years. The people in procurement (the only ones actually involved in the article) usually don't get to make engineering decisions for a reason.
The decision to use those parts and how they could be adjusted were an engineering problem. The procurement woman was horrified by adjustment shims being used. Not exactly her call.Just like they normally don’t let the engineers test fly the airplane. But it was not an engineering problem. It was a manufacture problem. With the evidence on the faulty parts plain to see.
Which "blow up" are you talking about? I didn't find any looking up the 737NG models.But hey...thousands of those flufs flying, with only one blow up that I’m aware of. So the odds are in our favor.
I would not dismiss that news source straight away. Entering Boeing part quality issue in the Google search field did give these among the top five:Al Jazeera--noted.
It was an older 737, Aloha. Blew it's top. I heard the inside story on this...the auto pressurization system was inop, so the crew had to run it in manual. They accidentally over pressurized the cabin, and the relief valves failed.Which "blow up" are you talking about? I didn't find any looking up the 737NG models.
Does your friend think the news media is "soft pedalling" the 737 MAX/MCAS issue? Because my perception is exactly the opposite--where there has been an opportunity to paint Boeing as an irresponsible corporation, that's the way the story has been presented.edit - A good friend and 737 pilot said that no main stream media outlet is going to go after Boeing. They are soft pedaling the current problems with the company.
The allegation is that 737NGs are built with faulty parts that pose a serious risk to safe flight. These alleged inclusions of unsafe parts occurred more than 10 years ago, enough time to be showing up in accident stats we would think. So, are these planes unsafe? Falling from the sky in huge numbers?Feel free to show us why or where the video information is flawed, or non factual. That would help me, and everyone else here.
I think the reason is that the 787 is only more efficient on long haul flights and not so good at short haul hops. The 787 would also need a different rating for the crew that flies it. If the airline doesn't have any 787's, I am guessing it would cost a lot more than using another 737 with a common type rating.But from a financial point of view... the 787 looks vastly better. Unless Im missing something important.
0,0003333... could be a common tolerance. Check SI measurement units and tolerance, round to nearest US measurement. To be able to procure parts internationally, Boeing must have the drawings in SI units. Note that most CNC machines default to SI units.I'm fairly sure that the tolerances are 0.003", the reporter heard "three thousandths of an inch tolerance" and came up with a 3000th of an inch.
Unless 0.0003333.... is a common tolerance I've never heard of.
I find the quote disturbing because the crew actually did not adhere to the procedure. We have some insight into why they might have done the wrong things so I don’t think it’s fair to place all blame on the crew either.""The crew performed all the procedures repeatedly provided by the manufacturer but was not able to control the aircraft," Dagmawit said, citing data from the Boeing 737 MAX 8's recorders."
This is deeply disturbing, as a professional pilot, and as an individual who commutes to work every week, many times on the 737.