Boeing and Airbus planes were constructed with 'fake' Chinese titanium that could cause their jets to break apart in mid-air, FAA fears

[Nan Yang]

Another version.

Quote.
The issue appears to date to 2019 when a Turkish material supplier, Turkish Aerospace Industries, purchased a batch of titanium from a supplier in China, according to the people familiar with the issue. The Turkish company then sold that titanium to several companies that make aircraft parts, and those parts made their way to Spirit, which used them in Boeing and Airbus planes.

 

[j_hungary]

Import a critical part from a new and unknown supplier from a foreign country but can't test it for full compliance? I would say the aircraft makers should go and make fast food instead of aircraft. If you can't test it, it is not compliant; it is as simple as that.

Again, you don't understand what I am saying.

Testings were usually done by the part manufacturer during certification, FAA lay out the following for testing procedure

Certification of Aircraft Components

Which FAR governs type certification of aircraft components? ANSWER: FAR Part 21 - Certification Procedures for Products and Parts - is the regulation

www.faa-aircraft-certification.com

Which FAR governs type certification of aircraft components?

ANSWER: FAR Part 21 - Certification Procedures for Products and Parts - is the regulation that governs the production of parts. There are six types of FAA approvals for a part to be eligible for installation on an "N" registered aircraft

1. A part produced under a Parts Manufacturing Approval (PMA)

2. A part produced under a Type Certificate (TC)

3. A part produced under a Production Certificate (PC)

4. A part produced under a Technical Standard Order (TSO)

5. A part produced under an Approved Production Inspection System (APIS)

6. A part produced under an EASA Production Organization Approval from a country that the U.S. has a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA) with Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness (IPA) in place for such parts.
Return to Aircraft Certification Questions.

Parts was not tested by aircraft manufacturer because they don't actually produce those part. The issue is, most of the fake parts make it into the market either by counterfeiting the certificate, or corruption during the certificate process. Problem is, most aircraft manufacturer also don't maintain their fleet (ie Boeing won't actually go fix Boeing aircraft) it was usually by regional hubs. And unless airworthiness certificate are in doubt (in this case the boeing directive) they don't usually do audit, because they can't as there are millions of parts changing hand in a week.

It's always depends on the manufacturer who make those part to make them to spec and pass the certification. Again, when some corruption going on, that is going to be affecting the entire industries.

 

[j_hungary]

Agreed

However, because we are discussing about billion-dollar industry with a high stakes game for human lives, shouldn't the company perform a random quality check after receiving new parts?

If they adhere to these protocols, it also implies that it is excessively dangerous for those who rely on these organizations in the event that certificate authorities make a mistake.

This is a case of a forged certificate! I find it incomprehensible that these kinds of businesses lack adequate procedures for verifying the certificate. It would be quite disappointing if they couldn't.

Just blaming on China - really not acceptable.

Well, depends on what ends these part getting into the production line.

I would say the ultimate blame laid on the parts manufacturer (whichever their countries was) and the certificate authority (whichever their countries was) most likely this is going to end up tearing down a few certificates' issuer.

On the other hand, I think we can't really blame the aircraft manufacturer when they are independent from those parts' supplier, and you know why they did that? So, the manufacturer cannot monopolise the parts market........The conundrum being, the people who use those parts (be it manufacturer or otherwise) cannot have association to those parts' supplier, and they can't check every one of those part that being delivered.

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

Well, depends on what ends these part getting into the production line.

I would say the ultimate blame laid on the parts manufacturer (whichever their countries was) and the certificate authority (whichever their countries was) most likely this is going to end up tearing down a few certificates' issuer.

On the other hand, I think we can't really blame the aircraft manufacturer when they are independent from those parts' supplier, and you know why they did that? So, the manufacturer cannot monopolise the parts market........The conundrum being, the people who use those parts (be it manufacturer or otherwise) cannot have association to those parts' supplier, and they can't check every one of those part that being delivered.

You are making very reasonable technical points.

Most people are unaware of how airliners and aeronautical parts supply chains work because they do not work in the aviation industry.

When traveling by plane, people who are similar to me consider the airline's reputation and the aircraft's specifications. If I take the Boeing 787 Max, it only means I am trusting the airplane manufacturer and airline.

its hard to believe that those parts were replaced by the airline's maintenance team since the planes were new.

When it comes to a new plane, if parts are replaced by the airline's maintenance team, it could be a matter of the airline's supply chain. Isn't manufacturing also responsible for maintaining the new planes? Even when I buy a car, - get 5 years of warranty, with parts being replaced by specialized service centers that tie-up with the manufacturer, for genuine parts supply,, We are talking about planes here........... if fake parts being installed in my car and an accident happens, should i blame the car manufacturer or service center?? Who is responsible? if i need to only blame the service center, why the hell buy the costly car from that car manufacturer?

Accidents occurred a long time ago, but officials haven't released reports yet? why?

 

[j_hungary]

You are making very reasonable technical points.

Most people are unaware of how airliners and aeronautical parts supply chains work because they do not work in the aviation industry.

When traveling by plane, people who are similar to me consider the airline's reputation and the aircraft's specifications. If I take the Boeing 787 Max, it only means I am trusting the airplane manufacturer and airline.

its hard to believe that those parts were replaced by the airline's maintenance team since the planes were new.

When it comes to a new plane, if parts are replaced by the airline's maintenance team, it could be a matter of the airline's supply chain. Isn't manufacturing also responsible for maintaining the new planes? Even when I buy a car, - get 5 years of warranty, with parts being replaced by specialized service centers that tie-up with the manufacturer, for genuine parts supply,, We are talking about planes here........... if fake parts being installed in my car and an accident happens, should i blame the car manufacturer or service center?? Who is responsible? if i need to only blame the service center, why the hell buy the costly car from that car manufacturer?

Accidents occurred a long time ago, but officials haven't released reports yet? why?

well, the problem is, you can't have the parts being made, then certified, then used by the same aircraft manufacturer otherwise you are going to be monopolising the market, that mean quality (which is quite ironic....) and control problem (say they can literally shut down and blackmail airline by stop producing the parts for them). They stop letting manufacturer do that since that DC-10 crashed IIRC back in 1954 because of parts being made and authorised by McDonnel that did went thru proper QA.

And no, new aircraft aren't usually maintained by Boeing or Airbus, first of all, aircraft is not like car, you don't do check regularly. And there are 4 different types of check (A, B, C, D)and they are performed by different location/company

A Check is the "regular check" that does between 400-600 flight hours of an aircraft, this was a day check so basically you do that in the hanger (Usually you timed it so you do it in the hanger you based)

B Check is the "intermediate check" usually do between 6 to 8 months or when the airframe runs into flight hours or stress cycle limit

C Check is the "MRO" check, stand for Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul check, usually happened in 2 to 3 years or specific flight hours/cycle, which basically the same as any rego/registration check with your car. It went into a maintenance hub and then they will do major overhaul with the airframe

D Check is the "Heavy Check" basically you do everything top to bottom, usually you do this when you have to transfer your aircraft title to another airline or country and then get another Airworthiness Certificate. This either a several year/flight hours event or you sold your aircraft overseas and they don't accept your AWC.

Checks and Maintenance are either done by contractor from the airport you based, or maintenance hub like the one my brother used to work before joining Boeing like this company

HAECO Americas

Aircraft Manufacturer do service aircraft, usually either they were directed y Aviation Authorities with a directive or they can't be put in the hub for whatever reason, but then it's very rare, usually that's a contractual work.

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

well, the problem is, you can't have the parts being made, then certified, then used by the same aircraft manufacturer otherwise you are going to be monopolising the market, that mean quality (which is quite ironic....) and control problem (say they can literally shut down and blackmail airline by stop producing the parts for them). They stop letting manufacturer do that since that DC-10 crashed IIRC back in 1954 because of parts being made and authorised by McDonnel that did went thru proper QA.

And no, new aircraft aren't usually maintained by Boeing or Airbus, first of all, aircraft is not like car, you don't do check regularly. And there are 4 different types of check (A, B, C, D)and they are performed by different location/company

A Check is the "regular check" that does between 400-600 flight hours of an aircraft, this was a day check so basically you do that in the hanger (Usually you timed it so you do it in the hanger you based)

B Check is the "intermediate check" usually do between 6 to 8 months or when the airframe runs into flight hours or stress cycle limit

C Check is the "MRO" check, stand for Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul check, usually happened in 2 to 3 years or specific flight hours/cycle, which basically the same as any rego/registration check with your car. It went into a maintenance hub and then they will do major overhaul with the airframe

D Check is the "Heavy Check" basically you do everything top to bottom, usually you do this when you have to transfer your aircraft title to another airline or country and then get another Airworthiness Certificate. This either a several year/flight hours event or you sold your aircraft overseas and they don't accept your AWC.

Checks and Maintenance are either done by contractor from the airport you based, or maintenance hub like the one my brother used to work before joining Boeing like this company

HAECO Americas

Aircraft Manufacturer do service aircraft, usually either they were directed y Aviation Authorities with a directive or they can't be put in the hub for whatever reason, but then it's very rare, usually that's a contractual work.

Thanks for the above valuable information.

Any idea? - I believe the parts were directly installed by Boeing and Airbus. Not the airlines on related to these incidents.

 

[j_hungary]

Thanks for the above valuable information.

Any idea? - I believe the parts were directly installed by Boeing and Airbus. Not the airlines on related to these incidents.

Not too familiar with the exact incident.

But according to the original article. The parts in question were supplied by Spirit AeroSystems and according to their website, they manufactured wing component for Boeing 787 and 737 (not sure what they do with Airbus) Which mean the wing most likely was delivered as is to Boeing production line and they were installing them as a section to new 787 or 737 MAX.

That's what my takes on it, I can ask my brother who actually work for Boeing but not sure if he would tell me anything if there were any lawsuit against them

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

Not too familiar with the exact incident.

But according to the original article. The parts in question were supplied by Spirit AeroSystems and according to their website, they manufactured wing component for Boeing 787 and 737 (not sure what they do with Airbus) Which mean the wing most likely was delivered as is to Boeing production line and they were installing them as a section to new 787 or 737 MAX.

That's what my takes on it, I can ask my brother who actually work for Boeing but not sure if he would tell me anything if there were any lawsuit against them

Thanks.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

FAA: Some Airbus & Boeing Jets May Contain Counterfeit Titanium With Falsified Certification

The problem has been traced back to a Chinese supplier.

simpleflying.com

The problem has been traced back to a Chinese supplier that sold titanium to Turkish company Turkish Aerospace Industries in 2019. Documentation from this Chinese supplier claimed that the titanium had been sourced from another Chinese firm, Baoji Titanium Industry - however, Baoji Titanium has confirmed that it did not provide this batch of titanium "and has no business dealing with this company."

 

[Hack-Hook]

@Hamartia Antidote didn't the blown out door inspection showed Boeing forget to tighten half of the screws? I mean install them, how Chinese provider certificate could have fixed that

NTSB Report Confirms The Unraveling of Boeing: Missing Bolts and a Quality Control Crisis - View from the Wing

The Boeing 737 MAX 9 was temporarily grounded - and tremendous faith was lost in Boeing - after a the left mid exit door plug detached from Alaska Airlines aircraft N704AL while performing flight 1282 from Portland, Oregon to Ontario, California. The NTSB has now issued a report on what...

viewfromthewing.com

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/boeing-presses-suppliers-tightening-bolts-after-loose-parts-found-737-max-9-2024-01-23/

 

[JsCh]

If I buy or use something from a brand name, I expect that brand manufacturer to be responsible for the product quality either in part or in whole.

Nobody can go and check every little parts and process that goes into the product, after all, it is the producer that design and knows the details of the final products, and is responsible for the brand reputation.

Especially when if the product is critical for your life being, then standard and regulatory bodies should also be responsible to certify and double check quality control of that enterprise.

Only if the public held accountable those who we entrusted with our safety then we can truly trust.

If you let the product manufacturer shift the blame to somebody else, that shifting circle will never end.

 

[JaneBhiDoYaaron]

Agreed

However, because we are discussing about billion-dollar industry with a high stakes game for human lives, shouldn't the company perform a random quality check after receiving new parts?

If they adhere to these protocols, it also implies that it is excessively dangerous for those who rely on these organizations in the event that certificate authorities make a mistake.

This is a case of a forged certificate! I find it incomprehensible that these kinds of businesses lack adequate procedures for verifying the certificate. It would be quite disappointing if they couldn't.

Just blaming on China - really not acceptable.

They found out so there is some accountability and I understand what you are saying but western world is not used to cheating like this. Imagine if Japanese and German do car manipulation of data than what extent China would be cheating. As I said it is USA’s fault to put manufacturing of critical components in china’s hand.

 

[JaneBhiDoYaaron]

@Hamartia Antidote didn't the blown out door inspection showed Boeing forget to tighten half of the screws? I mean install them, how Chinese provider certificate could have fixed that

NTSB Report Confirms The Unraveling of Boeing: Missing Bolts and a Quality Control Crisis - View from the Wing

The Boeing 737 MAX 9 was temporarily grounded - and tremendous faith was lost in Boeing - after a the left mid exit door plug detached from Alaska Airlines aircraft N704AL while performing flight 1282 from Portland, Oregon to Ontario, California. The NTSB has now issued a report on what...

viewfromthewing.com

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/boeing-presses-suppliers-tightening-bolts-after-loose-parts-found-737-max-9-2024-01-23/

You are comparing apple and oranges. One is lapse in maintenance process and other is called fraud.

 

[Hack-Hook]

You are comparing apple and oranges. One is lapse in maintenance process and other is called fraud.

its only fraud if you prove the quality is subpar and evidence show the problem rise with lack of discipline in Boeing and I yet to see an investigation to show the problem lies with faulty equipment

 

[JaneBhiDoYaaron]

its only fraud if you prove the quality is subpar and evidence show the problem rise with lack of discipline in Boeing and I yet to see an investigation to show the problem lies with faulty equipment

Man dont know what to say if you cannot differentiate between fake certificates provided by chinese firm and door maintenance issue.