Boeing ignored 16" crack in fuselage

Boeing says in light of FAA mandate to inspect US 777 planes for cracking, corrosion and potential repairs after receiving a report about a 16-inch crack in the fuselage skin underneath an adapter for the airplane's satellite communications antenna, that the Malaysian 777 jet was not subject to that order since it isn't a US craft!

The Federal Aviation Administration had ordered additional, repeated inspections of certain Boeing 777 aircraft, warning that corrosion and cracking could lead to rapid decompression and damage to the structure of the aircraft.

Thus, Boeing did not heed the 16inch crack as warning to check forgeign 777s- just the US ones.

www.reuters.com...

Whats to say another Boeing wont drop off the radar again, sometime soon with this lack of company morale? =[

reply to post by gardener


Did you not read the article you posted?

Boeing said it worked closely with the FAA to monitor the fleet for potential safety issues and take appropriate actions. But it said the 777-200ER Malaysia Airlines aircraft did not have that antenna installed and was not subject to the FAA order.

Every post i see from you is wrong. Are you a troll?

reply to post by gardener


That's a bit like blaming Ford when your 30 year old duct-taped truck quits....

Airplanes are subject to how the owner maintains it...no one forces them though which is the crime, you can't pull a plane over...

Boeing isn't to blame here, they tell the owner how they see the older planes failing and the owner is supposed to correct the issue with a licensed mechanic, similar to auto's only way more expensive.

Cheers

gardener
Thus, Boeing did not heed the 16inch crack as warning to check forgeign 777s- just the US ones.

Correction

Malaysian Airlines didn't heed. Besides all that, should they have is the real question given the nature of the warning. We'll hopefully find out for sure when and if they ever find the wreckage and black box.

The reason I created this thread is to address their excuse as to why the MH370 flight's 777 was not inspected.

Boeing gave the reason as that it does not have the antennae installed, and was not subject to the FAA order.

Well, guess what? Boeing does have a SATCOM antennae installed in that location!

'a' but not 'the'

Big difference? Remains to be seen; they could have said they don't have the type of SATCOM antennae referenced in FAA directive, but instead they simply say they don't have the antennae and are not subject to the FAA order.

Which begs the question, what's the likelihood they are now inspecting their fleet in that area even though they have different antennas installed NOW? =D

gardener
FAA order

I see what you're trying to say but

Malaysian Airlines is not subject to FAA orders. FAA does not have jurisdiction there...

reply to post by gardener


One slight problem is that Boeing is not responsible for aircraft maintenance other than the aircraft version of a recall. Maintenance is performed by the owner or a company hired by the owning entity.

Treespeaker
reply to post by gardener

 

Airplanes are subject to how the owner maintains it...no one forces them though which is the crime, you can't pull a plane over...

Boeing isn't to blame here, they tell the owner how they see the older planes failing and the owner is supposed to correct the issue with a licensed mechanic, similar to auto's only way more expensive.

Cheers

Interesting insight from a non-commercial vehicle perspective.

say Boeing finds that a wing it fall off with a certain engine it installed. So Boeing orders inspection only of US planes with that certain engine installed on its wing(s).

A MAS's Boeing 777 wing falls off but with a different engine Boeing installed than that which FAA ordered inspection of, and MAS replies that they were exempt from the ordered inspection.

Who's to blame, FAA for being so specific, or MAS for waiting on directives to maintain/inspect planes regardless of directives?

reply to post by gardener


There may be an antenna in that "location" but not on the plane itself. That was number one.

Number 2 is Boeing is not responsible for maintenance of the craft...that is up to whoever owns the craft.

bbracken677

One slight problem is that Boeing is not responsible for aircraft maintenance other than the aircraft version of a recall. Maintenance is performed by the owner or a company hired by the owning entity.

Can't help but agree with you wholeheartedly, sir!

Comparing manufacture issues to regular maintenance would indeed be like night and day.

gardener
The reason I created this thread is to address their excuse as to why the MH370 flight's 777 was not inspected.

Boeing gave the reason as that it does not have the antennae installed, and was not subject to the FAA order.

Well, guess what? Boeing does have a SATCOM antennae installed in that location!

'a' but not 'the'

Big difference? Remains to be seen; they could have said they don't have the type of SATCOM antennae referenced in FAA directive, but instead they simply say they don't have the antennae and are not subject to the FAA order.

Which begs the question, what's the likelihood they are now inspecting their fleet in that area even though they have different antennas installed NOW? =D

Anyone who really knows anything about aviation knows that it is not Boeing's responsibility to do anything about ADs issued by the FAA. It is up to the operator - in this case Malaysian airlines. And if you had bothered to actually read the AD, you would have seen that it was limited to aircraft with a certain specifiedadapter for an antenna, not just any generic antenna. And you slam Boeing for not inspecting "their" fleet. That 777-200ER was sold 11 years ago. It's not in their fleet. How much is Airbus (EADS) paying for your trolling services?

An FAA directive would be taken seriously by relevant agencies anywhere in the world. The US and EU (and other countries) have refused entry to carriers which have failed to carry out checks and maintenance to accepted standards. An international airline like MAS simply couldn't afford to ignore this. Remember they are not a tinpot outfit - they have six Airbus A380s and are scheduled to get the 787 Dreamliner.

To be crystal clear, the only reason this directive doesn't apply to Malaysia Airlines is that their 777s are not fitted with this type of satcom antenna and the associated fatigue issues can't arise.

reply to post by SummerLightning


Directives from the FAA do not need to be taken seriously if aircraft from a fleet are never going to enter airspace under which the directives have jurisdiction. Typically there might be industrial orders by the manufacturers (after recommendations by the FAA for example) for certain work to be performed on aircraft, though on older aircraft this is more done from an insurance policy front. IE no one can sue the pants off of Boeing or Airbus if an aircraft comes down because it has not had upgrades done, and the responsibility is handed squarely at the owner.

Directives or recommendations, unless super critical also do not need to be performed instantly, various airlines have been guilty of ignoring or holding out on updates because they don't want to take an aircraft out of service for one update, so they will wait and once there are a few updates that need to be performed they will then do the work. It is all about hoping and making as much cash as possible, because despite occasional problems, a problem that can bring an aircraft down is fairly rare. So it is a safe bet that it will be ok.

So bottom line is, they can fly an aircraft from the 60s that does not meet US and EU code, and they won't get banned. They get banned when they are unable to prove flights that head into those areas, meet code, or that in general the fleet don't meet code. There are also political bannings also, Iran Air for example. A fleet was maintained up to code for flights into Europe, and then due to financial injunctions of transfers of money, made it impossible for Iran Air to refuel while in the EU. Then a short while after this, Iran Air was banned because it was not able to 'safely' fly its aircraft in and back out again. There was also issue of domestic flights being unsafe in Iran, but the reality is it was more about money than it was about safety.

You will find lots of these little things if you read around various incidents and crashes in which profit takes lead over safety. Back in the 90s there were a spate of 737's that suffered rudder hard-overs and others that suffer reversals due to bad tolerances and manufacturing techniques (hats off to the 'US tech is the best in a previous thread' Great tech, but hey lets leave steel filings inside servo valves, because we can't be arsed to do the job correctly ) Anyway, 737s suffered these problems, they figured it out and issued recommendations that units be replaced... it didn't become a REQUIREMENT until 2002, total number of suspected incidents = 5 stetting from 1991 right through to 1999.

The point is that you are trying to see something that is not there, to see intent were there is none. This is not a smoking gun of culpability.

And besides, I read that (to go along with the other thread about this aircraft loss, that Rolls Royce have a call to base feature on their engines so they know how long each unit has been run for (power on and spinning) in order to track maintenance schedules
apparently the engines were still giving back good readings 5 hours after the aircraft went missing.... the plot thickens.