Boeing quality-control needs to improve: NASA OIG finds

I want to "like" this but it just makes me sad.
 
It’s not something easily fixed. The report says the root cause is that there aren’t enough trained and experienced workers. Knowing and understanding all the rules around aerospace production quality requirements isn’t something that can be fixed with a few classes. It takes years of work and seeing all the oddball things that happen in those years to recognize when something isn’t right or outside the norm and a potential quality issue. You can’t just go out and hire a bunch of new employees to fix the quality issues Boeing is seeing. About the only workable solution is to downsize some programs and move those with experience to the remaining programs. They won’t do that because much of their work is tied to already signed government contracts and shutting programs down means penalties and less money and profit. It’s a vicious cycle to the bottom and hard to get back to the top once you are already passed the top of the experienced worker bell curve.
 
The OIG's recommendations include developing a compliant quality management training program for Boeing and issuing financial penalties for Boeing's noncompliance with quality standards. A detailed cost overrun analysis on Boeing's EUS development contract is also suggested. NASA agreed with three of four recommendations, but did not agree to institute financial penalties for Boeing's noncompliance with quality-control standards.
Click to expand...
And that, right there, is why things have gotten as bad as they are and will continue to be bad -- and will likely get much worse. There is really only one way to get a contractor to change how things are done, and that is through financial pressure. If they can run six years late and nearly 3/4 of a billion dollars over budget without any financial penalty, that sends a clear message: "Do whatever you want; we'll keep paying you, and the more you screw up the more money you make and the more you extend your corporate empire."
 
The first time I found out the fact that "If planes needed to be in perfect condition to fly, more than half would be earth-bound" I was shocked and never looked at planes the same
 
Arrow67 said:
The first time I found out the fact that "If planes needed to be in perfect condition to fly, more than half would be earth-bound" I was shocked and never looked at planes the same
Click to expand...
The definition of "airworthy" is defined in Canadian law as this:

in respect of an aeronautical product, means in a fit and safe state for flight and in conformity with its type design.

The FAA's definition would be about the same. The definition can apply to many airplanes that are not perfect; fading paint, worn upholstery, tires or brakes worn nearly to limits, the engine worn enough that its compression is down but it still meets static RPM specs, and so on. It's safe.

Even new airplanes are sometimes not perfect. A colleague once found a new 172 with no nuts on its upper wing strut bolts. The bolt threads had torque-seal paint on them. Obviously, the inspector was nearly asleep or hung-over that day.
 
DaleB said:
There is really only one way to get a contractor to change how things are done, and that is through financial pressure.
Click to expand...
Conversely, applying financial pressure to a contractor also does not guarantee positive results.

To use the same company as an example, the Boeing Starliner contract with NASA is a fixed-price contract. From the start, whenever Boeing had a decision to make, there was strong pressure from corporate mgmt to choose the lower-cost option. The result was death by a thousand paper cuts. There may be no single decision that you can point to and say, "This is why Starliner has been a disaster." Instead, it's the cumulative effect of thousands of decisions, each of which might "make sense" (or at least not seem insane) individually, but when taken collectively...well, anyone who's been paying attention in space-related news media knows this vehicle has been nothing but trouble for years and years.

Figures thrown around in the press are that Boeing is $1.6B in the red on this program with no hope of ever turning a profit. The only reason they haven't just walked away is because of the devastating PR impact that would have.

Given how bad the PR is right now...maybe that choice not to just abandon Starliner should be thrown on to the heaping pile of all the other bad decisions...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top