I get that this was written to be like, “dish soap OMG!” But there is nothing in here explaining why that might be wrong or dangerous. Why not a sentence like, “instead X lubricant should have been used because Y according to Boeing”? Underground water and sewer pipes that fit together and continuously withstand a larger pressure differential than the aircraft portals in planes use “pipe soap” to help fit the bell and spigot together. If it’s wrong, tell us why! I thought the bolts were found to be the reason it failed anyway. Even if “Boeing assembly instructions thought to be insufficient by workers” is the main message, that doesn’t grab the clicks though, huh? I’m expecting too much from a business insider article I guess. [Inebriated internet grumbling]
Coupled with the fact that Boeing failed 33 of 89 audits during an examination conducted by the FAA, I think it’s pretty clear that whatever they’re doing is in fact wrong and dangerous. But hey if you want to get into a flying coffin, I ain’t gonna stop you.
A note for the liquid soap incident said the door seal fitting instructions were “vague and unclear on what specifications or actions are to be followed or recorded by the mechanic,'” per The Times.
This is the problem, not the use of the soap.
You know what, liquid Dawn soap seems to be a very good lubricant, that door slid right off.
It’s almost like making the line go up at all costs at an ever increasing rate isn’t the best way to run a company
At this point, you could tell me that bolts were turned on the 737 Max by tounge and I will believe you.
Depressing that the line workers had to improvise as Boeing production engineers are too few to handle the workload
At least it wasn’t an off brand right?
My favorite off-brand is Prawn Dish Soap. It has a strong smell.
If you’re not sure if this is bad or not, replace “Boeing” with “Comac”.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Federal Aviation Administration auditors saw mechanics for a Boeing supplier using liquid Dawn soap as a lubricant for fitting a door seal, The New York Times reported.
The regulator then observed mechanics at Spirit AeroSystems, which builds the fuselage of Boeing’s 737 Max, cleaning up using a wet cheesecloth, per The Times’ Mark Walker.
Global scrutiny is building on the quality of the 737 Max’s fuselage after a door plug on an Alaska Airlines flight blew out in January while the aircraft was still midair.
A note for the liquid soap incident said the door seal fitting instructions were “vague and unclear on what specifications or actions are to be followed or recorded by the mechanic,'” per The Times.
In response to The Times’ report, Boeing told Business Insider in a statement that it would “continue to implement immediate changes and develop a comprehensive action plan to strengthen safety and quality.”
The Times’ report comes after the FAA said in late February that it had found quality control issues at Boeing, and gave the aviation company 90 days to submit a plan for fixing these problems.
The original article contains 418 words, the summary contains 187 words. Saved 55%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
