Warbird Information Exchange

ZA 002 787 #2 that made a precautionary landing in Texas two weeks ago because of smoke and small flames in the cabin has been returned to KBFI. The aircraft experienced problems while on final for landing, the cause turned out to be F.O.D. inside the P-100 Main electrical power panel in the aft cargo area. A washer left inside fell across a pair of contacts and the power control computer kept reading 'send more power' and did until the power panel overheated and smoke checked itself.

Here's the best part (heavy on the irony), the power panel (box) involved is 'source accepted' @ the overseas vendor and is not opened by Boeing. SOOO, how ya doin' with that world wide vendors taking responsibility thing?

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Well, considering who the source is, I would typically feel very comfortable as they are well respected and don't tend to have a lot of high profile problems.

Do you think that Boeing is thinking at all about re-taking all that outsourcing in the future because of issues like this (and many others, of course)?

_________________

Capflyer,
Unfortunately, 99% of the quality and manufacturing troubles with the 87 come directly from outside (and outside the U.S.) suppliers who don't have the interest in safety and 'doing it correctly'. They know that they essentially have employment for life so their interest in doing a quality job come in about 12th on a good day. Boeing has about worn a trench in the sky to Italy trying to get the supplier there to pay attention to doing a quality job for somewhere past five semi-intense minutes they are still trying to get things corrected that were identified as serious issues three and a half years ago.

Randy,
I'm pretty sure they have given serious thought to attempting to take back parts of the project, however the way the contracts were done, Boeing told the suppliers 'we need a widget approximately so by so and this strong. You design it and build it because it belongs to you' The supplier designed it, built the tooling, and they own every part of the process so it would be like GM trying to claim that something built by Chrysler was theirs. Therein lies the problem, there aren't enough lira or Euros or Rupees' to get the part or manufacturing rights bought back by Boeing, whenever they agree to for a price suddenly the price goes up a few hundred thousand whatever's and an agreeable price is never met. The only options would seem to be having Boeing start producing the assemblies locally and start doing a 'Japanese inspection' (that's 'leave those cabbages on the loading dock for several weeks, look they are all rotted unacceptable') on parts sent from the original suppliers and that would lead to 'my lawyers can beat up your lawyers'. Plus that would make it look to all the other companies doing this same style of 'manufacturing' that the mighty "B" has failed at it and it's not the fault of a half a$$ed brain dead dope smoking philosophy, it must be Boeings fault for not implementing it correctly or forcefully enough.

This whole outsourcing issue is like poking a boil to the folks who really do build the airplane ('touch labor' to the couldn't change a flat tire MBA bean counters who've taken over the company) and I'll bet if the issues are ever sorted out, serious thought may be given to who builds what and under what limitations on the next project (likely the 737 replacement which is coming) and Boeing is working as hard as it can to run off anyone who's a knowledgeable 'old hand' so they can make the 'don't know' new hires do whatever they want, this is all part of Boeings 'Vision 2016' where they seriously want to have Boeing down to about 10 people and all they do is add a sticker that says 'completed by Boeing' and everything is done by outsiders and it all flows 'seamlessly' into the final assembly point by 2016. (JIT)

Who gives a college student their degree and MBA? Some old geezer who's never had a job in the real world, their entire life has been within the walls of some University, who has no practical experience, and lectures off of yellowed, laminated notes (and might just remind you of 'Professor Irwin Corey) 'well, theoretically this works so that's how it's done.'

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Boeing is evaluating "in-sourcing" components that have been previously outsourced. Although Boeing may not actually then build the part (it might be "built to print" by a vendor), they would maintain design responsibility.

This same discussion was going on at Douglas in the DC-10 days, so there is nothing new here.

"LOOK! LOOK!!! I'VE JUST INVENTED THIS THING!!! I think I'll call it a ...................wheel"

You'd still have the issues of your 'I could give a crap less about your problems round eye' supplier who isn't able or capable of making quick time changes to procedures or design issues when the lead time might be 18 months or more, if you have an issue with a part done in Auburn, it's a 45 minute drive from Everett to get in the individual in Auburns face and get him or her on the right path, if the guy making the part is 15 hours away by jet and two cultures removed from your issue then you have the problems currently affecting the 787.

I don't recall how many times in 4+ decades of aviation where the 'new boss' (he came from Amalgamated Consolidated Incorporated and I understand he really turned them around, we're lucky to get him) would gather everyone together in the lunch room and start spewing forth his 'philosophy' and 'revolutionary vision'. Usually my B.S. alarm would go off in the first 2 to 3 minutes and I just knew this 'idea' would never see fruition (something to do with being on the practical implementation end of a lot of those decisions, never saw a beancounter out on the ramp @ 0214 in horizontal rain, helping me change a component) . Everyone else in the room would all be doing the in unison head bobs. Sure enough, everyone would bust their fanny to prove physics wrong to try and implement the 'new plan and vision'. About the time it dawned on everyone else that this thing would NEVER fulfill itself Mr. New Boss big paycheck was gone to the next building full of gullible knob heads making more money and with a bigger office. And 'they' never learned, it was like a huge tank full of stupid farm raised trout, they'd bite at anything over and over and over.


Like Barnum said 'there's one born every minute'. BDK do you remember TQMS @ Long Beach? Everyone would like sit around in like a big like circle and like you could criticise like any policy and like any manager..like ya know. It was borrowed from the Navy and called Total Quality Management System, but was called 'Time to Quit and Move to Seattle' by the folks around LBG.

KAIZAN THIS and SPIN-

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

I was doing contract engineering (job shopping) when TQMS (aka Time to Quit, Management $ucks) was implemented at McDonnell Douglas in LGB so I missed the hangar gathering where everyone was fired and had to reapply for their jobs. What a coincidence that the absolute best person for the CEO job had the last name of McDonnell and happened to be the largest stockholder.

I also remember a Disneyland-esque floor show I attended (1992?). They bused every employee in LGB (not all at once of course- there were over 20,000 at the time) to the local Elks Lodge and had a pep-talk presentation about first time quality, complete with singers and dancing girls-straight out of a 1960s TV commercial. I felt like I was really being treated like a child and talked down to.

We always lamented how new managers, all transplanted from STL, would suddenly appear for every high level opening. Kind of like being sent to the Russian front for them I guess. For us, we always thought they were people that had outlived their usefulness in STL...

I guess the thought on the 787 was to reduce financial risks through partnering, but really the result was to increase schedule risk because companies like Vought started hemorrhaging money when they didn't get paid. And as partners they didn't get paid until parts were delivered, and they couldn't deliver until all their (poorly managed) subcontractors shipped their detail parts. I guess it was easier for Vought to sell/give their plant to Boeing than it was to make good on their commitments. Add to it the metric system and the language barriers of foreign suppliers and it makes the job that much harder.

Despite all this I still think the 787 will fare better than the A380 in the long haul. I think the 787 design is more flexible from an operator's perspective.

The purpose for doing flight test is to discover problems prior to entering revenue service. I'd rather they find any problems now and deal with them. If the fire was not design related all the better!

And to continue the thoughts you've just expressed, a fair number of 'charts and graphs' dead heads from LGB were culled out and sent to Everett to get them out of the plant and the area. A fair number of those overpaid drones who have less than zero practical experience in the noisy parts of the building wound up as mid level or higher managers in Everett compounding the issues normally associated with getting an all new project off the ground and can't seem to find anyone interested in seeing how these charts and graphs stack up against those other guys charts and graphs.
For the most part design/engineering isn't the major issue, it's the weak implementation and lack of ability to levy any penalties against the suppliers.


An issue has arisen concerning the engine suppliers for the 787, their contracts say they don't get paid until the airframe is delivered but they're not going to ship any engines until they get paid, a true to life trapazoidal conundrum

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Repeat after me - "Promote Failure"....

Ah yes, the age old axiom---"F^@* UP, MOVE UP, that guy can't herd ducks but he's too valuable to lose (!!!???!!!), promote him to where he can't touch the airplane"

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Interesting. That same scenario played out here at Lockheed GA as Lockheed California started imploding (see: L-1011) in the '70's and 80's. Lots of imports from California fell into the good jobs here. Plenty of bitterness from the local troops over that.

Kyleb,
I worked @ CALAC Lockweed on the L-1011 and thought it was amongst the finest WPA projects to ever be done in 9% humidity and 112+ degree heat, I understand towards the end of the project they were billing customers around $68Million per airframe and it was only costing them about $125 Million a copy to produce, that's how to make money-VOLUME never mind pricing. I saw enough scary things that I NEVER stepped foot on one in service!

I still have a cartoon from an old NEWSWEEK inside the lid of my top box showing an L-10 shedding parts and smoking while the guy in the cockpit is asking 'would a bribe help..?' referring to the ANA purchases of the pig.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

The Everett HERALD Nov. 29, 2010 copywrite Michelle Dunlop,
Boeings 787 program has "very clearly failed" Qatar Airways cheif executive Akbar Al-Baker told Bloomberg news this week.
Boeing announced Wednesday that it determined the causeof an electrical fire on it's 787 but hasn't provided a new delivery schedule for it's much delayed Dreamliner program.
That didn't sit well with Qatars CEO. who said he was "taken aback" by Boeings ongoing problems. Qatars Dreamliner is nearly three years behind schedule. "When you put a company in the hands of accountants you will always get garbage out, because you are always doing sums on how to save money" Al-Baker told the news service.
Boeing expanded it's outsourcing on the 787 to reduce risks and costs. However, some of the company's partners have stumbled, leading to the delays.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

In short the answer is yes. One of the benefits of moving the P8 to the 14-01 building (just south of the developmental center where the P8 was and other "things" are built) is now there is all kinds of room for building or "in sourcing" 787 sections. I'm not sure what the time table is for the in sourcing, but it is going to happen.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/228190.asp

"Albaugh said the 787-9 horizontal-tail production could potentially go to the research facility across from the Museum of Flight on East Marginal Way South, which Boeing is expanding.

However, plans for the new Seattle plant, to be renamed the Advanced Developmental Composites facility, go well beyond the 787-9. McNerney said it will focus on advances in composites manufacturing to be used on future new airplanes."

(Taken from here) http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/b ... ing21.html

_________________
" excuse me stewardess I speak jive"