Pretty wild claim on Boeing's part to say the task(s) may never have been created/signed off.

I've never worked production, but I am an FAA A&P mechanic with a decent amount of experience on Boeing aircraft (727, 737, 757, 767) in repair facilities and line maintenance for fire fighting operations.

If production is anything like a heavy check, all of the maintenance/inspection tasks are pre-selected by the planning department in their maintenance tracking program and a physical card is printed. It's generally the exact same tasks from plane to plane but varies if you're adding something like a landing gear change or doing a detailed inspection of the fan blades (amongst many, many other different inspections we do). As a mechanic, I have to clock into that task card for billing and tracking purposes and I either sign off the mechanic block certifying that I performed the work or sign off that I inspected another mechanic's work. I then have to digitally sign off the card and an inspector signs his portion and closes out the card.

It's possible that the planning department simply didn't pre-select the task, but not likely. Not only is each booth where the task cards are kept audited by QA, but as mechanics, we don't remove, install, or inspect anything without paperwork. We even have final cards where we ensure that the landing gear pins have been removed and verified before the customer takes off.

Looks like they need to clean house and rewrite their QA/QC program.

The investigation is still in early stages, but pilot error is emerging as part of the story.

https://theaircurrent.com/...-dive-investigation/

What you describe is not what the Boeing whistleblower is describing.

What am I saying contradicts that?

I'm just going to address your explanation of closing the door.

Every fastener in an aircraft has a torque value and lubrication requirement. That value and substance is called on a drawing, and then in the procedure. Regardless of how nonchalant opening and closing a door might be, installing fasteners is never that casual.

If what you are suggesting is truly the facts - that the fasteners were installed outside of the requirements of the QMS, then the federal inspector should padlock the door to that facility immediately and send everyone home until the proper oversight is established

---

"...the street finds its own uses for things"

There you go. According to this guy there are records showing the bolts missing, that means they have records of the assembly, and they know who did it.

QED

---

"...the street finds its own uses for things"

Where in the whistle blower account are you seeing them claim “there are records showing the bolts missing”?

This is a direct quote from the account “ No record or comment regarding the retention bolts is made.”

This guys says, "It was Boeing who opened the plug and then closed it up, marking the job complete." Not the Spirit employees embedded in Renton.

You say, " So spirit replaced the seal and I bet that is all recorded and inspected. "

Quote:

The self-described Boeing insider said company records show four bolts that prevent the door plug from sliding up off the door frame stop pads that take the pressurization loads in flight, “were not installed when Boeing delivered the airplane.” the whistleblower stated. “Our own records reflect this.”

Sorry if I was not clear. Boeing was the one that opened and closed the door, but my understanding is Spirit is the one who would have to physically replace the seal.

---

"...the street finds its own uses for things"

This is a direct quote from the account “ No record or comment regarding the retention bolts is made.”


If your read the actual post, it is clear when they say “Our own records reflect this” they don’t mean there is some record saying “4 bolts missing”. They mean there are no records showing the installation of the bolts. Those are two separate things.

You are misunderstanding what you are quoting.

The account is saying the records show how the plane was deliver with the bolts missing, not that the records show the bolts were missing. Those are two very different things.

Seriously, I have a direct quote from the account “No record or comment regarding the retention bolts is made.”

They are saying the record is missing any mention of the bolts and the way it was worked would mean there would be no record.

I stand corrected. My thought was he was discussing a document in the final inspection OQE that listed the bolts, and those 4 were missing. If the OQE for the bolts is not in the final inspection report, then you are correct. So someone thought no OQE was necessary. That strikes me as borderline gross negligence. How could any trained and experienced technician believe that no OQQ was required to install fasteners on an aircraft? How could any supervisor or manager not know that was happening without documentation? How could the floor quality inspector(s) not see it happening and question the process?

My comment about putting a lock on the door and sending everyone home stands. Wide spread systemic quality process failures.

---

"...the street finds its own uses for things"

https://www.theguardian.com/...rnal-panel-in-flight

It's wild, how this just keeps getting worse

Given the current climate it might not look good but this plane is 25 years old, what panel was it? No one on board knew about it so it wasn't a critical piece, how many tiktoks have we seen of jets flying with speed tape holding non critical panels in place? Again maybe not a good look but I bet this happens a lot more than we know.

... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzyEOk-s9l0

The optics aren't great for Boeing, but this is the mechanic's fault at UAL.

If the NY post is right about the panel, looks like it was delaminated composite. Did the mechanic do the coin tap test?

Also looks like it wasn't from missing bolts! I'd bet some bit delaminated and came off then once the air got underneath, the whole thing got ripped right off the bolts.

Not directed at your comment per se, but the use of speed tape is a completely acceptable temporary repair method found in either the standard practices chapter of the Boeing aircraft maintenance manual (AMM) or structural repair manual (SRM).

Hard to tell from the video clip, but the paint could be flaking off or the sealant could be missing.

The composite wings on the B787 and A350 are notorious for the paint flaking off due to the incredible amount of flex they experience in flight (apparently they're working on improving the binders in the paint so that it adheres better). If you see pics of upper side of the wing covered with a shitload of speed tape, it's to try and prevent the paint from peeling more.

Oooh, I hadn't seen that picture. Can definitely see most (all?) of the hardware is still installed.

I'll walk back my UAL mechanic's fault statement, but I wouldn't lay this one completely at the feet of Boeing (not defending them here!).

This plane has gone through a lot of heavy checks and those panels do get checked for cracks and delamination. Some mechanic somewhere missed that one bigly.

At this point we are at peak media coverage. My guess is this sort of thing happens on a regular basis. The difference is before it might have been seen by a few niche websites and now it gets picked up my main stream media. Just like every drunk passenger story was making front page news for a while.

My last trip the lag out was on an older 737 and everyone was complaining about how dated the plane was. The trip back was on a MAX and everyone was complaining about that.

That's why I ride a Lynskey. It's not going to delaminate halfway down Alpe D'Huez.

Metal fatigue has caused many accidents, just saying.

Yes I know, that was tongue in cheek. I used to ride a '98 Cannondale, or formerly known as Cracknfail...