I'm curious if anyone here knows when (if ever) does the day to day maintenance of the aircraft stop being the responsibility of Boeing?
Boeing is becoming more and more the example of why money saving decisions from the top down where extreme care and attention to detail is important. I'm just curious how much of that narrative is valid when there has to be some vendor responsibility also.
It stops before the aircraft has its first flight with passengers. Boeing paints it, the buyer receives the aircraft, does some checking (no idea how thorough) and then assumes responsibility for it, which includes maintenance.
Day–to–day maintenance is never the manufacturer’s responsibility. They merely produces instructions on how to best maintain the aircraft, and then it’s up to the airlines to actually follow those instructions (or hire out to a maintenance company that can). I think that there is some scope for the airline maintenance organization to use alternate methods in many cases, unless the instructions specifically rule them out.
I’m thinking of a case where the manufacturer recommended using a particular type of crane when partially removing an engine so that they could accomplish a specific type of inspection. Some airlines used the crane, but it was slow and difficult to do. Others just used a forklift to hold the engine up, which was quicker. Everything seemed fine right up until an engine fell off (that’s not very typical, I’d like to make that point). The NTSB investigation revealed that if you used a forklift then you risked twisting the engine out of alignment and cracking the engine mount that holds it to the wing. As a result, using the crane is now mandatory.
Am I being a bit naïve then to believe that maybe there is too much focus on the manufacturer being Boeing when maybe the focus should be on the people who expected to maintain the aircraft ?
The people in the know (NTSB, FAA) think about both the manufacturer and the maintainer (and the pilots and passengers, and the ATC and third parties and wildlife and everything else). It is just that with the recent door bolt problem it seems maintenance was not the problem.
It is because with airplanes like these maintenance is not a freeform, improvised activity. The manufacturer describes in exact detail what should be checked and when should be checked. (And also how should be checked and what should happen when things are wrong.)
With the bolts simply they were not on the required maintenance checks so early in the airplane's life. That is why people were not talking about the responsibility of maintenance. They are not there to make sure the manufacturer put the airplane together properly.
I don't know what were going on with this wheel. So maybe this is a totally different issue and maybe here the real culprit will be maintenance.
I'm curious, do they have people walk the runway and search for debris when something like this happens? Even relatively small [0] objects can be hazardous to aircraft.
15 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 47.4 ms ] threadWhen something shocking and unheard of occurs before your very eyes, that's what makes people say "I hate it when that happens".
This is one of those.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM
That's another one.
Boeing is becoming more and more the example of why money saving decisions from the top down where extreme care and attention to detail is important. I'm just curious how much of that narrative is valid when there has to be some vendor responsibility also.
I’m thinking of a case where the manufacturer recommended using a particular type of crane when partially removing an engine so that they could accomplish a specific type of inspection. Some airlines used the crane, but it was slow and difficult to do. Others just used a forklift to hold the engine up, which was quicker. Everything seemed fine right up until an engine fell off (that’s not very typical, I’d like to make that point). The NTSB investigation revealed that if you used a forklift then you risked twisting the engine out of alignment and cracking the engine mount that holds it to the wing. As a result, using the crane is now mandatory.
It is because with airplanes like these maintenance is not a freeform, improvised activity. The manufacturer describes in exact detail what should be checked and when should be checked. (And also how should be checked and what should happen when things are wrong.)
With the bolts simply they were not on the required maintenance checks so early in the airplane's life. That is why people were not talking about the responsibility of maintenance. They are not there to make sure the manufacturer put the airplane together properly.
I don't know what were going on with this wheel. So maybe this is a totally different issue and maybe here the real culprit will be maintenance.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590