It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Boeing passenger aircraft have major faults

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 02:21 AM
The Boeing aircraft manufacturing company has been accused of knowingly installing faulty parts vital to the structure of the fuselage on its 737's, the world's most popular medium-range commercial passenger jet aircraft.
Wilson's six-month investigation has unearthed allegations that parts were wrongly made, had holes drilled in the wrong positions or did not fit properly on the aircraft.

The parts were used in assembling the Boeing 737NG between 1994 and 2002.

Former auditors Taylor Smith and Jeannine Prewitt told Sky that Boeing accepted defective parts for 737s and other jets from Ducommun, a Californian supplier, and installed them even though they knew them to be faulty and potentially dangerous.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Pretty interesting. This comes after the fuel pump problem of a few years ago, when Boeing reported that up to 3, 284 of its aircraft could explode if the fuel levels got too low.

On a Boeing Co. assembly line in Kansas in 2000, [Jeannine] Prewitt saw workers drilling extra holes in the long aluminum ribs that make up the skeleton of a jetliner's fuselage. That was the only way the workers could attach the pieces, because some of their pre-drilled holes didn't match those on the airframe.

I'm not too savvy on the inner structural workings of today's modern jet airliners (tidbit: 737 has been manufactured since 1967), and I admit that I don't have a degree in metal fatigue, but surely extra holes are merely just more stress points for flaws to start? Most Air Force passenger planes have less windows so as to prevent cracks from starting there, I think I remember.

Extra holes drilled in vital components of an aircraft's internal structure cannot be good.

Related News Links:

Related Discussion Threads:
Boeing knowingly building flawed aircraft?

[edit on 21/8/2006 by watch_the_rocks]

posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 04:28 PM
I assembled sheetmetal structures for Boeing for several years. I worked for a company that was a subcontractor. Without seeing the actual parts I can't say for certain, but I'm 99% sure that these lawsuits consist of residue of oats processed by horses.

We used to get out of spec parts all of the time. All we had to do was to write-up documentation that showed why the part was out of specifications and send it and the part to Boeing's in house engineer. He would check the part and determine if it could be used or if it was scrapped. The majority of the time the parts were usable with modifications.

Extra holes in sheetmetal parts are not causes of cracks forming later on in the part. As a matter of fact there is a technique for repairing cracks that involve drilling a hole at the end of the crack to prevent it from spreading. A reinforcing patch called a bridge is installed if necessary.

None of the people making these claims are aircraft structures experts. If I had to guess I would say that they are in it for the money $$$ If some of these aircraft were built under Government contracts there is a considerable reward for FACTUAL claims like these, if not then they stand to benefit as part of the lawsuit.

posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 04:32 PM

I'm 99% sure that these lawsuits consist of residue of oats processed by horses.

I'd have to agree there. Boeing jets have excellent safety records, if there was some design flaw I'd imagine we would have seen many, many more crashes.

posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 04:39 PM
I think regarding the fuel pump fault, you might be refering to TWA flight 800, which was a 747. I personally do not believe it was a faulty fuel tanke or fuel system, but the craft was indeed shot down, possibly by terrorists. So thats one theory I do discount.

I also used to work for a company the supplied stuff to Boeing, and I can say, when it comes to essential parts, the specifications were very specific and we often had to do re-orders on some things that were even .05 of an inch off.

posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 04:48 PM
The official story with TWA 800 is that it was kind of a freak occurance, but ultimately due to poor maintenance. Wires rubbed together over a long term wearing off their insulation which allowed high voltage electricity to jump to the low voltage gas gauges wires going to the tank causing a spark and an explosion.

posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 04:52 PM
Yup, dj, that would be it. The offical explaination for flight 800. However, a good amount of evidence exists that shows not only was it not the case, but it was shot down and deliberately covered up.

Its one case of accusations against poor workmanship by a cooperation that I do not believe. especially when this was the first and only time something like this happened.

I honestly wonder what the purpose of this story is, to cast doubt on Boeing craft? maybe planted by a rival? because in my experiences, Boeing is really good at what it does.

posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 05:04 PM
I posted this submission. Not sure if it says that or not yet.

Anyway, I foudn this story to be very interesting, and there is a fair bit of it around on the web, hosted by some respectable sites. This made me think that these claims were true.

I am very happy that it appears they are not, as Boeing are about the only aircraft I ever travel on.

But this here is the story that goes on about the faulty fuel pumps. It was not just relating to one aircraft. I now have doubts on that as well.

But are you all sure that this is false? One of the articles stated that it was a very limited defect that was only apparent for a short amount of time, so a lot of workers probably would not have seen the faulty parts.

top topics


log in