FAA audit rips Boeing

FAA audit rips Boeing

Findings detail production, design problems; company devises corrective strategy

Friday, August 11, 2000

By JAMES WALLACE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

A special audit by the Federal Aviation Administration of The Boeing Co.'s airplane production and design system identified more than 100 specific problems, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has learned.

The audit found that the production and quality-control woes that have plagued Boeing over the past year resulted from systemic breakdowns and were not just isolated instances.

As a result of the many problems uncovered, the federal agency sent five separate letters of investigation to Boeing, an unprecedented action that sources said reflects the agency's concerns about the scope and seriousness of the findings.

Just last week, the FAA announced that it had proposed a record $1.24 million in civil penalties against Boeing for inadequate supplier oversight and for failing to quickly report cracked parts on two older jetliners. Those incidents occurred two to three years ago, and were unrelated to the special FAA audit.

Neither Boeing nor the FAA would comment yesterday on the specific findings of the special audit.

"Clearly, if the FAA had found anything where the flying public would be at risk, they and Boeing would have taken immediate action, and no such action was required," said Liz Otis, vice president of quality for Boeing's commercial airplane operations.

But in response to the audit, Boeing has crafted a sweeping corrective action plan that will be implemented in several stages, according to documents obtained by the P-I.

It is not yet clear if the special audit will result in additional proposed fines against Boeing.

The "special technical audit" was begun by a team of FAA inspectors in December to scrutinize Boeing's aircraft manufacturing processes after a string of highly publicized assembly-line mistakes.

It was completed earlier this year, but Boeing and the FAA have declined to disclose the findings, pending FAA approval of the company's plan to correct the problems identified during the audit.

That plan has undergone several revisions and is now being reviewed by FAA officials in Washington, D.C. A spokesman for the agency said yesterday it could be several weeks or longer before any findings of the audit are made public.

A total of 107 problems

The P-I, however, has obtained internal Boeing documents that outline the company's proposed corrective action plan. The documents also provide some detail of what the special audit found.

The audit documented 87 specific problems or "findings" with Boeing's production system, and 20 more problems with the company's engineering design work.

Findings included a range of problems from parts not conforming to specifications to workers not following approved procedures.

The documents do not go into detail about those 107 findings. But they include the following "executive summary" of the findings:

Insufficient processes.
Overly complex and incomplete processes.
Processes not followed.
Requirements not followed.
Inadequate manufacturing planning.
Inadequate inspections to assure conformity.
Personnel not knowledgeable of requirements.
Evidence of some non-compliances -- parts being released and delivered.
Evidence of some non-conforming parts released and delivered.

The audit triggered five letters of investigation to Boeing from the FAA, according to the documents.

An FAA letter of investigation is a formal notification of the findings of an audit and requires Boeing to investigate and take corrective action.

The FAA routinely conducts audits of Boeing's airplane production system, but it has never before issued multiple letters of investigation in response to a single audit. It did so this time to communicate to Boeing the agency's strong concerns about the scope of the findings, as well as to group the findings into categories, said a Boeing source with knowledge of the audit.

Those five letters, according to the documents, grouped the 87 production-related findings into the following broader categories:

Inadequate work instructions.
Personnel not complying with drawing/planning.
Insufficient inspections.
Personnel not aware of or able to access needed information.
Products not conforming to requirements.

Boeing's Otis said yesterday that the company has taken steps to correct problems found by the FAA audit.

Action plan in transition

"We took some very appropriate and immediate steps," she said, adding that Boeing is continuing to coordinate further corrective action with the FAA.

Otis would not comment on the action plan outlined in the documents obtained by the P-I, other than to say there have been significant changes to the proposed plan from an earlier draft. And there could be still more changes, she said.

The Boeing source who gave the documents to the P-I said the action plan outlined is the latest version submitted to the FAA for approval.

Among other things, the proposed plan would establish 10 "conformity" teams for each of Boeing's airplane programs -- the 737 and 757 programs in Renton and the 767, 777 and 747 programs in Everett.

Those teams, the documents say, would consist of a Boeing quality representative, a manufacturing engineer, a design engineer and a mechanic. The teams would make hundreds of checks and collect data for later analysis. That analysis will eventually result in what Boeing describes as "systemic process improvements."

Boeing has prepared a list of frequently asked questions and answers for members of those teams and others.

Q-and-A list for teams

In response to the question "What specifically is going on here?" Boeing wrote:

"Each program and several components organizations will have teams on the factory floor performing both a paper audit of our production system requirements and how they flow down from drawing to specifications to work instruction as well as a check of the completed job for how it conforms to those requirements. The teams will also be talking with the mechanic, the planner, the manufacturing engineer and the design engineer about how our system can be improved."

In response to another question, Boeing wrote: "The FAA helped us identify what systemic issues we have and need to improve."

When the special audit was announced in December, FAA senior manager John Hickey said the agency was taking action to determine the "root cause" of what had been a series of highly publicized production problems. "Over the last few months, we have seen episodes of breakdown, and we want to find the root cause of what happened in each of these cases," Hickey said then. "We want to find out whether these are isolated episodes or systemic in nature."

Those breakdowns included:

Improperly tightened bolts that hold the massive tail to the fuselage of the 767. The problem was caused by mechanics using improperly calibrated tools to tighten bolts.
Improper use of an adhesive that did not meet federal flammability standards. It was used on air ducts and on a part in the cockpit of all Boeing models but the 737.
Fuel tanks on new airplanes were improperly cleaned before they were loaded with fuel for the first time, which caused the paint to flake.

Mistakes continued to be found even after the audit was completed in February.

In April, Boeing reported that portions of 27 of its 747 jumbo jets were improperly fitted with rivets. That problem surfaced shortly after Boeing found that some nuts were not properly tightened on a key flight-control mechanism in the tail of the company's next-generation 737 jetliners, including some jets already in service. The loose nuts could result in a loss of control during landing or takeoff.

In addition to problems on its assembly lines, Boeing in recent months increased scrutiny of its suppliers after several embarrassing quality-control lapses resulted in defective parts being installed on its airplanes, from faulty fasteners to bad fuel-tank supports.

Asked yesterday if the FAA audit reflects systemic problems with Boeing's production and quality-control system, Otis said:

"We agree that our processes can be enhanced to be more effective and efficient, and we are working toward that in full coordination with the FAA. . . . But we continue to stand by the integrity of our quality system and believe the excellent safety record of our products clearly validates that.

"We have the best record in the industry, and it's the best record in any industry."

P-I reporter James Wallace can be reached at 206-448-8040 or jameswallace@seattle-pi.com