Breaking: Structural flaw halts production of Alenia 787 sections

Unbelievable... what else can go wrong?

trb,

The question should be, instead, given the current mismanagement team, what cannot go wrong on the program.

These negative margins are likely just more fallout from Boeing's decision to design the 787 to zero safety margins. As pressure to save weight gets greater with later line numbers to meet performance guarantees, look for more problems cropping up.

Its disturbing to me, even though I was the one who originally exposed that Boeing was designing the 787 to zero safety margins, that these problems are coming so often and the plane in many months from even flight tetsting that will undoubtable expose many more problems, both with structures and systems.

Thanks to Jon for giving investors the news they need when Boeing has demonstrated it won't, if the news is potentially negative in nature to the stock price. Their rosy coloring of the bad news on the program in their last minute they can hold the news from investors is troubling, and their many announcements proven false even more so (schedule of the program, etc.).

http://eastmans.web.aplus.net/pblog/index.php

There are zero margins of safety all over every airplane That Boeing, Airbus, etc. has ever built. It is standard practice in the industry to do so whenever possible. Often, other considerations, such as fit/form/function or producibility, prevent zero safety margins from being reached. Since a 50% factor of safety is added to the loads, a zero margin calculation shows that you have gotten all the weight out that you possibly can and still meet the regulatory and design requirements.

Except, WingBender, the 787 isn't meeting regulatory and design requirements.

And much of the blame, I have to say, goes to the zero margin design directive. That is why 787 structures are not meeting minimum margins and are having to be beefed up.

Minimum, or zero, safety margins must always be met or exceeded.

http://eastmans.web.aplus.net/pblog/index.php

Have you stopped taking your meds?

How juvenile, Wingbender! I thought only adults posted here. Your comment shows more your mental unfitness than mine.

Maybe I should have stated that minimum, or zero, safety margins must always be met or exceeded, except at Boeing.

http://eastmans.web.aplus.net/pblog/index.php

Hey, I've been meaning to ask you, do you have a web site and can you provide a link to it? Thanks in advance.

All the engineering challenges will be met, Boeing has the resources. The real challenge is in upper management, strategic planning. What is in question is whether Boeing will have an Return on Investment, within 10 years for this aircraft? This is turning into a very expensive learning exercise for the 737 replacement, which is where the real money is anyway. Is there any question that Boeing Commercial is kept afloat by the 737 line (manned by the apparently despised IAM). Boeing seems to have come adrift since the McDonnel Douglas merger, but the heart of the company is still there.

Thanks 787 Accountant, in time, the truth comes out. Whistleblowers are always attacked and disbelieved at first by those not familiar with the frauds they report.

My main website is www.thelastinspector.com (needs updating).

And my blog,

http://eastmans.web.aplus.net/pblog/index.php

Both with Boeing fraud exposed by whistleblowers, and 787 program problems, the worst revelations are still ahead of us.

Neil is partially right, management is the problem, but whether the company can be saved from their level of mismanagement and fraud is far from assured.

Boeing management just stepping up and taking responsibility for their own screw ups would be a sea change for Boeing management of today. Until they know and acknowledge what the problem is (themselves) that problem cannot be fixed.

And actually making Boeing an ethical company by routing out all those who meet the bottom line or other targets by illegal or unethical means would be an even more welcome change.

Until these changes take place, Boeing investors are throwing good money after bad.

And Neil, the 787 would have been a huge moneymaker, if competent management was in place who executed the program well and di not take the myriad shortcuts that have plaqued the program, one of which is Boeing management's continuing union phobias (which drove the poor outsourcing decisions) and union busting attempts.

Not sure how much of 787 tech will transfer to the 787 replacement. Hopefully none of the management will. A huge leap in efficiency would be required to justify a 737 replacement. Not sure you get there by just downsizing the 787, which is significantly overweight and likely won't meet performance guarantees anytime soon, IMHO.

787 Acct. I don't know about your example #1 but #2 sure smell. It took Boeing 14 years to retaliate for someone testifying? That's a stretch! And the verdict was overturned on appeal. And #3 I can find nothing about Boeing being charged by the government under the SOx law.
As for TheLastinspector, he doesn't even understand that zero margin is a good thing not bad. He also makes unsubstantiated claims of the 787 not meeting regulatory and design requirements. Just go to his blog and you can see his rambling rants and raves with no proof.

This finally sounds to me like one of those "typical" problems that can and have cropped up on most other aircraft programs. Potentially troublesome, definitely costly and certainly unlikely to save weight. But this is one of those issues which "Boeing Investor", "DIane", "LeeLaw"
and "Jerry1t", to name a few, would be correct in saying that this is not really newsworthy nor is it a major concern for the long term health of the program. Not like the shortage of fasteners (is the head of Boeing procurement still there?), the forced delivery of mostly unfinished sections in order to ensure a pretty rollout on a totally unsignificant day (thus ensuring a real and major manufacturing problem immediately threafter) nor the fact that the wing, at present, is only good for 120 to 130% of the ultimate load. People can claim all they want, that this is not a major problem. For me, it is not a major issue when the wing can be bent to 150% of the ultimate load. That is the deciding factor on if this wing is good enough or not. Boeing can prattle on about flying with a reduced envelope or that it is not a problem that can lead to a catastrophic failure. If it cannot lead to a catastrophic failure, why did they not go on to 150% during that test? Because something else could break? But surely nothing catastrophic?!

All in all, this fuselage problem will be rightly categorized by Boeing as not a major issue. The irony is, that by now, nost people won't believe them.

And yes, I am wondering if Boeing is going to buy Crane Aerospace and maybe Alenia Aeronautica too.

http://boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2009/07/boeing_charleston.html#comment-57245

Boeing have made fantastic aircraft over the years and this is a major step change in aircraft contruction technology. Boeing have to do what Airbus done at previous air shows and say out loud "we have screwed up, its going to be another two years", and then at least everybody knows what is happening and not contantly guessing and making up possible senarios. From Boeing, no news is bad news.

The biggest problem they have is Airbus are gaining from Boeing experiences and the timelines are getting closer for the 787 and 350.

@ last inspector:

Some clarification: Boeing did not design to "zero safety margin", they designed to "zero margin" BEYOND the 50% safety margin (ultimate load = 150% limit load) required by the authorities.

@TheLastInspector: are you CaptainX? (Serious question...)

Speaking from the other side, I am not at all happy about what's happening at Boeing, but it does seem more and more that my personal feeling - CFRP is not the wunderkind people thought it is - is being vindicated. I know that not all the issues are a result of CFRP application, but it's not exactly proving to be very easy to design/manufacture or much more efficient on the airframe. And I have my doubts as to it's low/no maintenance, crash and fire behaviour credentials too.

What was that movie where someone gets electrocuted, and the main character says 'Shocking'?

How does several sections get built incorrectly before production is halted?

Where is management? And yet, I'm not sure if blood on the boardroom floor would help on this project.

It's a shame really. Neither Boeing, nor Airbus should make much money from their newest planes because both FUBARed the process - not because of market forces, which haven't had their chance yet. And what an incredibly difficult and messy program Boeing's first bird in 20 years has been.

Another fine reporting of unfortunately breaking news!
Very good job!

So which side-of-body is that know that is in trouble?

Here we go again..one of the suppliers runs into some production problem and the whole program is brought into question. Jon's piece, based on a letter dated June 23rd, is somewhat confusing as to the scope, nature and remediation of the issue. Apparently it does not affect planes 1-4. However, the information is six weeks old and alot may have happened since. So what if production was stopped for a while

Reuter , today, indicated that Boeing spokeswoman Loretta Gunter told Bloomberg that a solution has been designed and patches will be applied to all the planes built so far.

What troubles me is the rapidity with which conclusions are drawn and failures described. Given the series of postponements it is understandable that there is some skepticism. The truth will ultimately come out, but commentors to this page are fast to prejudge and declare a verdict.

This latest information is incomplete and is based on old information. It is incumbent on Jon to follow this up shortly and bring this situation into present reality. It is a disservice not to.

Is the lastinspector the only sane one?

Based on his website, which is not particularly well organized nor current, one is greeted with a continuous flow of invective relative to Boeing's behaviour towards its employees. It is an angry compendium of alleged labor mismanagement which cites any article pertaining to Boeing's misbehaviour.

In a Company with over 65,000 employess, it is rare to have perfect record of labor management . We are all familiar with the recent strike and the vocal disagreement that was a part of it. Present discussions about a Second production line may or may not result in some better understanding between the parties .

But now the lastinspector turns his anger into production and engineering matters....non of which ever appeared on his site...and claims an expertise and understanding to once again attack Boeing.

I reiterate...and continue to do so...there are all sorts of claims being made...some outrageous and many false...what is needed is coorboration of a truth, perspective and contributions from those with a balanced understanding and professional involvment . Opinions are easy..opinions based on facts are better.

These are complicated engineering matters and require clarity not half baked claims and converted misplaced anger.

I don't know if i want to fly in a 'plastic' tube!

Monocoque and monolitic structures don't lend themselves to simple modification when the load paths don't match prediction. What is the point if the resulting plane requires so much tacked-on localised reinforcement, that it ends up being heavier than an Al-Li structure? Crash and fire characteristics were cited previously, what about lightning dissipation, does this equate to fiber delamination due to absorbed energy?

I am trying no to lose faith but these comments do not help.

Everytime a problem arises, there is an outflow of "I told you so"...or Compsites will burn and degrade...Management has lost control, lightening is a problem, etc.

I am simply trying to have information validated...which is a rare thing on this site. The wing fix episode and now the Alenia situation are major matters that will reveal the truth of the situation....either they are normal occurrances in a complex production or they will indicate major failures added to prior ones. I hope not

"not half baked claims"

Jerry1t: isn't that an unfortunate choice of words given the subject at hand?

If you want something done right, do it yourself. There has been more than enough nonsense going with this airplane and the supplier issue. I say bring it back in house and get it done right.

Responding to WilyB: Pun intended. Boeing spokesperson indicated that there is remediation in the works...this is not an unusual production problem...patches will be applied and "rebaked"

Boeing spokesperson Loretta Gunter says "Boeing did not mention the problem because it was a fairly routine occurrance that did not have impact on budget or the schedule"

Wherein lies the truth here?

Was it a coincidence that Airbus showed off their XWB fuselage section just days before the Boeing wrinkle story?
Have not seen any detail, but I wonder if these wrinkles only appeared after mating with other sections.
Cannot believe that this problem would have been allowed to leave the factory if it was evident.
the idea of a patch to fix the problem does not sound very elegant, and the question remains as to whether any airline would accept a new airframe in such a condition.

Patches are pretty routine for commercial aircraft of all models. Have you taken a look at the airplanes you fly in? Patches around the doors, patches at the skin splices, patches where there has been ramp rash (vehicles, etc running into the airplane), etc. I guarantee you that every commercial airplane will end up with patches in it's lifetime. Quite common repair. This will be no different, basically just a couple of hot bonded plies of GR/EP to redistribute the loads. Have done this repair in composite classes.

People who don't know anything about composites always make it sound a lot worse than it is. When we made composite versions of 737 horizontal stab inspar boxes, they were tested to ultimate, and a full fatigue test, then were beat to hell with saws and hammers, and repeated the tests. No problems, and the structure was about 18% lighter than the metal version. One was even recovered from a crash in Alaska (yes, they were used in airline service), and it still passed the tests. Eye opening even to composite experts. I suspect the 777 composite horiz stab inspar boxes would perform exactly the same. They've been flying for at least a dozen years?

Are there unique design issues? Absolutely, but that's all part of the game, so to speak. Generally, these engineers didn't work in school/industry learning this just to have a place to eat their lunch. I would look very askance at what people like "lastinspector" says about composites, as it seems he really doesn't know the material and how to design anything from it, and what he does seem to know is severely tainted by his apparent hatred for the company, for the industry really. I probably would agree, however, that Boeing Corporate did farm too much out, losing control of the design and production processes. Shame on them.

Alenia is providing the fuselage sections to Airbus a380 and in the future a350 as well.. A380 doesn't have as much CFRP in fuselage as dreamliner, but still make one wonder if there is the same issue the a380. On the other hand by improving Alenias QA boeing is inadvertly smoothing the future path of a350...

To put it mildly, Alenia's performance in Boeing and Airbus programs prior to the 787 provided nothing that could have recommended them for the rôle as a Tier-1 supplier.

Look for the Obamites, flush with TARP money, to come to the rescue with a "strategic investment" in Boeing to aid in "ironing out" the problems of the "Wrinkleliner." Then Obama can fire McNerney. :-)

My new nickname for the 787 is Lemony Snicket. A series of unfortunate events.

Dreamliner......more like 'Nightmareliner'

So, a day after Wingbender invites - or otherwise tries to stimulate - speculative misinformation ('Although if you would like to start a rumo(u)r that the problem is causing too much stress in the fuselage "shell" as you call it, please feel free.' - see Comments under 'Getting oriented' blog) Flightblogger unearths 787 OEM/supplier correspondence on fuselage skin wrinkles not a million miles from the side of body area...
Synchronicity, or what?

Let me see the PPV was good for sec. 44/46. Ship sets 1 - 6 were good. Alenia introduces a new work cell and units 7 and up are wrinkled. Come on fellows, this is a loss of process control by a supplier. This has happened at one time or another to all complex manufacture and assembly operations. It has happened to inhouse processes at Boeing too. In this case Alania introduced a new variable and the results went bad. This should not be difficult to fix and its not a design problem. Some people are making mountains out of mole hills.
And since the UK just gave Airbag "Launch Aid" for the a350, a little TARP money would be nice for Boeing. Take it from the ACORN share.

Not good for production..
It will late for 787 ..

@jerry1t -- I think the problem is that the same rabid anti-Boeing crowd that infested the Seattle PI blogs whenever the issue of the 787 came up, have discovered this blog. They care nothing about rational discussion, only about spewing bile against their imagined foe. Thus the S/N ratio of the comments on this blog has dropped dramatically, at least on stories about the 787

I really wish there was some way of ignoring specific posters -- it would make the comments much more useful, and reading them less of a chore.

Exactly. I've never seen so many people venting their spleens over... what? What the heck are they on? Every new model of every manufacturer has had these introduction problem, and where were these people then?

Granted, the slowness of the suppliers to deliver finished sections as Boeing has foolishly hoped has set the 787 program back enough to look bad, but otherwise, it's no big deal. Really. Don't confuse the two subjects. The structures problems cropping up are completely similar to those which occurred in the past in metal structure.

I almost with this column didn't exist, as while it contains interesting information for the experienced engineer, it tends to inflame the Boeing haters to a froth.

We're blowing this out of proportion. One of these days, heaven forbid, a pigeon is going to take a dump on an unfinished/unpainted Boeing (or Airbus, when they again become fashionable) composite part - and there will be a monumentous post with expert feedback.

This wrinkle story happened ages ago and a solution has been developed. Just as well, as this is how they repair jets anyway. The only issue here is that Alenia didn't pick up the change, Boeing did. It's a quality lapse. It's also a learning curve at this early point in the program's history.

I think the real experts will say that composites are a great material; the awesome fan blades of the GE90 has been perfoming without incident for over a decade, Raytheon's Premier 1 is a two-piece work of art, as is the Cirrus SR22 , and composite parts have been flying on 737NG's, 777's, etc. for some time - unnoticed in their routine lightweight cycles.

I do think that both Boeing and Airbus FUBARed the process, but no other manufacturer is going to put a 500 seater or composite wing + body jet capable of flying out to 15000km any time soon. Nobody has previous built a 787.

I have been reading a lot of comments on here over the last couple days, I have to say that there is a good opinions. Problem is that the issues run deep and very high up, the plane is being built from the upper levels of management. And the almighty dollar and stock price is over shadowing problems within the build. The production problems stem from the integration of new production systems, and ways of thinking that do not either work, or should have not been implemented in the beginning of a program. The program is more worried about LEAN manufacturing, 5S, and the FOD program than they are about the actual build. I am not saying that these programs are not valid or do not need to be a part of the production of an aircraft, but they are to early, and strangling the program. Most of these should have been brought in slowly as the program matured.

There is third and fourth line management telling first line management how to build the 787 and it is simply not there job. Most if not all did not come from a production background, and those who did have either forgotten how to build an airplane, or are yes men/women to such an extreme that they are infective as management. To date not a single person that has had there hand in the downfall of the 787 has been fired, just moved to another program or promoted.

Finally I would like to bring to light Boeings newest way to save money, on June 5th of 09 Boeing put knife in the back of there backbone of there management team. They have introduced “Life Balance”, managers (first lines only) are expected to give the Boeing a one hour a day a for FREE, only aloud to work 200 hrs of overtime a year (anything beyond that you are expected to work for free). Now the 200 hrs a year would be GREAT!!! But the “expectation” of upper management is that all first lines are there 10 hrs a day and work every other weekend. If not you are docked at the end of the year on your review. What is next for the once great giant? An airplane 2 years behind, losing first lines on a daily basis, and production issues that have never been seen in any aircraft “Boeing” has built, thanks McDonnald Douglas…..

Bruce,

I asked this in one of Jon's other posts and nobody could/would answer it. Maybe you can here.

Since all these problems are typical for commercial aircraft programs, can you name me 5 (previously I had asked for 10) programs that had a 2 year delay before even achieving first flight? And of those 5 (assuming you can name 5), how many ended up being commercially successful?

Should you be able to do this, I shall openly join in on the "all is well and good with the 787" chorus.

For the record, I do believe this wrinkly skin issue to be a "typical" issue and only a minor (albeit expensive) problem.

For a word on Boeing and its concept of "scheduling", y'all might want to have read on the Ozzie point of view http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2009/08/15/boeing-claims-it-has-a-787-schedule/

Reality - I'm not sure you should connect the 2 year delay with these structural problems. Not really related. The two year delay is mostly due to fuselage sections unfinished by suppliers who couldn't comply with the ridiculous schedules Boeing set, just plain Boeing Corporate incompetence, and in part to the IAM strike. The structural problems are more typical of new airplane designs, and are nothing new, unfortunately.

The airplane will fly, and be successful in the end.

Someone just tell me....will this plane ever fly?

I work at one of the "suppliers" for the 787. I have also worked with Alenia on the Tanker and on the F-35. The incompetence of Alenia is very well known. It is amazing to me that Boeing would continue to use these guys as a supplier. As many previous posters have said, it all boils down to money. The Bean counters have run amok. They give zero credence to quality and the skills of longtime workers and engineers. That doesn’t count any more, Program decisions are strictly driven by cost. There is however no feedback as to real costs when these low bidders screw up. Boeing has completely lost its way!!
Regarding Alenia and the wrinkles, this problem occurred on ship 7 and up because of the weight redesign. The skin ramps were steeper due to a reduction in the basic skin thickness. The "Other” South Carolina supplier has seen these problems and fixed them via the MRB system from the onset.

Regarding ridiculous schedules. Who was the idiot that decided to roll out this plane on 7/08/07? As one of these suppliers trying to meet this goal, we found it totally impossible to spool up our supplier base. This caused us to cut many corners with regard to levels of completeness and in turn created far more problems. When Boeing decided to complete these barrels in Everett, that’s when the real delays started. They were not prepared for this effort and by taking over the responsibility themselves; they caused the suppliers to stunt the learning curve.

I don't think the fuselage wrinkle thing slipped past Boeing QC, I think Alenia knew of the problem, and were hoping Boeing would buy it off, judging by their comments that they thought Boeing should relax the specs, which they admitted they couldn't meet.

Having analyzed side of body joints in the past, I haven't thought that problem insurmountable, nor do I think it is terribly serious, just a big screw up in the initial design and analysis by I think very inexperienced engineers and managers, fixable without too much effort, except for hiring really small people to do the work, lol. Later airplanes in the line will have the required modified designs, backed up by extensive testing. That part is normal, although you don't like to see it.

The brake situation is not one I'm familiar enough to comment on. Hard to find out just what might be wrong, and who missed what part, if any. Aren't the designs of the braking systems usually farmed out to the company supplying them?

There are always a flurry of small things popping up on every new airplane, some caused by errors in analyses, some caused by last minute changes (but those are also normal in a new program, nothing new there), some by contractors not being able perform as they contracted, some by material problems.

Although an F1 fan and familiar with their composite designs a little, what they design (at their design limits), build and test is not in the same universe, although really neat, as designing and laying up, or building, and testing an entire composite aircraft, even in sections. The turnaround time for an F1 structural change is nothing compared to changing the analysis and fabricated structure of a commercial aircraft of this size.

Finally, I agree with "quiet guy". Boeing Corporate ran amok with this program, with their ridiculous schedules and pipe dreams about how they didn't have to really engineer the program per past experience.

Notice how quite they've been. No mea culpas coming from them.

I don't worry about the 787, I worry about the future of Boeing if the corporate philosophy doesn't change. I want my retirement check to continue.

Those guys at Boeing are just becoming such complete pussies!!!!! Modeling, testing -- maybe it isn't strong enough? Yeah, they have such better modeling SW and testing methods than Airbus that all they find are more potential problems.

Just build the f'ers, put them up in the sky -- any real problems will show up. The tails fall off? Tell the pilots to take it easy with the tails. Back of the plane breaks off when it lands? Put First Class in the back to lower the weight load in the back. Some computer systems start screwing up -- just teach the pilots where the circuit breakers are.

Geez, they gotta get some carbon up in the air (pardon the expression). Get something up and flying already!!!!

It is possible...it is not possible...etc etc...

These are all surmises at best. It is not in Boeing's best interest to disclose any information about the testing process.

SomeoneinToulouse is just setting up some hypotheticals to explore possibilities...and to create the possibility that it is not impossible that there is a greater problem here than is being (notdisclosed) disclosed.

For someone familiar with logic...this creates nonlogical conclusions.

Ha -ha – these posts here are so damn amusing –it sure beats watching Faux News!

I can’t wait to come back to the next “breaking story!”

I did two of the PPV and FPQ audits of the 787 fuselage sections, on other parts on the planet. These problems were identified early-on, with all the partners.

I did spend a good nine months in Italy. Alenia initially shipped these stringers from Foggia to Gottaglie in refrigerated trucks. Then they “upgraded” to state-of-the-art stringer fabrication at home base.

The real problem: BCA is a decade behind their IDS counterparts, and far too arrogant to listen to them.

No lessons were learned with a 25-year development of the V-22? Well, few were talking or listening.

In theory, they cannot share lessons learned. BS - BCA has set their own course a decade behind. The clueless spec custodians (who rarely see sunlight) with a “no” wrinkle allowance should be spanked. Yet it would not do a thing to remedy the current set back.

Yet if you ever have the opportunity to see a one of these partner sites, whether it be in Nagoya, Wichita, Busan, Charleston or Gottaglie, it will blow you away! These are modern day marvels!

What really is yet to be determined: a one-piece Boeing barrel versus the Airbus approach. My 30 years tells me that Airbus made the right move - just a gut feel.

This current issue is all-about-nothing. Shear corporate willpower will fix it, granted it might take two years and a few tens-of-millions more – thus putting B & A on a level playing field for unbooked sales.

Today’s headline: Will Boeing delay the 787 Dreamliner another two years? Ha-ha!

Jerry1t replying to SomeoneinTalouse: Yes. In agreement with your response and point of view...that was my point also stated differently.

Without factual information, we do not know the scope of the problem and can only make guesses...which vary from optimistic to pessimistic.

Boeing is in the difficult possition of having its credibility questioned so it has refrained from stating more than it has to and we will all have to wait for its rescheduling and Company statement

I for one hope the wing fix is sufficient and the 787 will be prepared for flight in the near future.